Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wounded Knee

With all due respect, I doubt this should be labeled here as the deadliest shooting in the US. The Wounded Knee Massacre was far deadlier, see this link among others. Let's please change this. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think most understand it to be non-military, but maybe the article needs to say that. United States Man (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, mass shooting does not refer to battles where both group snare shooting at each other. American Revolution, Civil War or 1812 encounters could eclipse Wounded Knee if you go that route. Ranze (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The same thing I was thinking. I thought it was common sense to know that this wasn't military, but I guess not. I'm on the fence on if this should have some kind of note saying that this is the largest non-military shooting. United States Man (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wounded Knee Massacre was not a battle and any attempt to claim otherwise is ignorant and extremely disrespectful. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not a battle, but still a military conflict during a "conflict/war." That disqualifies it from "mass shooting" territory. United States Man (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ranze & United States Man - Consensus rules but I am not sure many/most sources have stated the Wounded Knee Massacre happened during wartime and was an armed conflict. Just from these comments, I think you can see people might disagree with your assessment of Wounded Knee as a military action. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources out there calling it the deadliest/worst in modern U.S. history. A lot forego the distinction, too. This article said "modern" earlier today. You'd think Fort Pillow sounds a nicer place than Bloody Island, but they were both pretty bad. What seems to set this apart (aside from recentism and racism) is the single gunman. Wouldn't hurt to clarify that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that must be added. After reading Sandy Hook talk page discussions, that seems to be the best qualifier. Events like Wounded Knee were mass shootings, regardless of the larger conflict, I find it very disrespectful to ignore that. Right now as it is, it's plain and simple misinformation. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, but it'll almost certainly be broken again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've seen many reliable sources describing this mass-murder by using the qualifier "in modern US/American history". I think a sentence to that effect was in the lede earlier today. Owing to the fast-moving nature of this news, I think describing this mass-murder as "worst in modern American history" is in-order, because the descriptor is what many reliable sources are using. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

War-time or peace-time and military conflict or mass-shooting aside, I do agree that including "modern" here would be a good idea. United States Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See also Baker–Fancher party incident on, ironically, September 11, 1857, when at least 120 civilians were murdered without it being part of a war. One mass shooting, multiple shooters: Mormons and supposedly Santa Clara Indians killed people in a wagon train in Utah Territory, which was not a state,but was territory of the United States.Edison (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we please change this on the Current Events page for today's date too? Thank you. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, "modern" raises the question: what do you mean by "modern"? Modern history starts in the early 16th century.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad you mentioned that, I was actually wondering the same thing myself. "Modern" can be pretty vague if you think about it. I really just don't know what to do, so maybe someone else can figure it out. United States Man (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Instead of "modern" - "since the previous larger event" or "since the beginning of the republic". 178.232.232.150 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'Modern' may probably mean starting from the 20th century, or since the time the United States became whole. -Mardus /talk 07:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wounded Knee Massacre occurred in 1890. The republic was well established; the United States were "whole". It was almost the 20th century. What people really mean is contemporary history, but that's equally hard to define. The dividing line is arbitrary, and the statistic is rendered meaningless. Perhaps it would be better not to say it at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on contemporary history. Slightly disagree on whole, since there was plenty of activity right after WWII. The cutoff time for modern could be the interwar period or the start of WWII. And the reasons for disagreeing with whole: Philippines became independent in 1946. The Constitution of Puerto Rico was approved and ratified in 1952. Alaska became an organized territory on May 11, 1912. It was admitted as the 49th state of the U.S. on January 3, 1959; Hawaii was converted from territory to state on August 21, 1959. But after that, the U.S. territory was set. If we exclude all the former, then after WWII, it was the smaller islands, like Guam, that saw lots of activity. -Mardus /talk 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadliest single gunman shooting, the "Wounded Knee Massacre" was not a single gunman shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:85E7:10C4:9714:BE82 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Should Ali Muhammad Brown be included in See Also?

An Ali Muhammad Brown reference may be relevant, as he was an Islamist extremist and American citizen who targeted, and shot and killed, two gay men (as well as two straight men) in a series of shootings in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.16.117.174 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pulse (nightclub)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should we make the Pulse (nightclub) article a redirect to this article? It doesn't seem necessary as a lone article. (Not an RFC, mere discussion). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Subjects that are notable only for one incident are typically redirected to an article about that incident. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge the individual article is less than three sentences and is not independently notable. It can be easily merged into this article and in my opinion it should be merged. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Article says it's undergoing a major restructuring. Should at least wait until that is completed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep, especially while under construction. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is not an RFC. And it seems better as a redirect as stated by Jason. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the proper way to debate a merge. There are procedures for contested merges, or AfD. I should add that the article has three separate events (this, a prior shooting, and the club's inception) and some sources for each, so I'm content to leave it stand. It may be one of the more weakly justified articles, but maybe not - the media can be expected to pour a spotlight on this club now, and whatever their motivation, all that is the kind of data we need to source an article properly, which is the only thing we should ask for in order to keep it. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep separate. Especially, if the nightclub has seen previous history with shootings. -Mardus /talk 06:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Marking this discussion as closed. Editors can discuss at Talk:Pulse (nightclub) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse (nightclub). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

tourists and foreign nationals on vacation visiting Orlando

Do we know just yet how many victims of other countries were murdered, by this hate filled follower of Islam ?

I heard there were three Mexican nationals executed by this Islamist. Were there any victims from Spain or South or Central American Countries who happened to be vacationing in North America too? Orlando is a big tourist stop, globally as well as with North Americans because of the theme parks and climate, and location close to the Space Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.219.127 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ancestry

"Afghani" is not a descent or a an ethnicity, it is the name of the money currency in Afghanistan. "Afghan" is someone who is of afghan nationality. Afghanistan is composed of multiple ethnic groups so there is no such thing as being of "afghan" descent. It is unclear whether he is of pashtun,tajik, pamiri, nuristani, etc heritage. The the four aforementined ethnic groups are very similar, there arw still many more he could be of.There are also hints that his father may not actually be afghan

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/#

I say keep "Afghani descent" out of the article unless it's in a "personal life" or "early life" section, but keep the muslim part as that's relevant to the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckold12345 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Afghani can be kept for accuracy. More precise ethnicity can be inserted in the later sections. Muslim is relevant, but what is the evidence this head an islamic motivation? --197.228.0.8 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pledging allegiance to ISIS indicates that this was Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ancestry 2

It is politically correct to say that someone is of "afghan descent." Afghan is a nationality, and Afghans come from different ethnic groups. It is unclear which he comes from. So again, putting that he is of "afghan descent" is unnecessary unless it's in a personal life or early life section as the rules state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckold12345 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Far too politically correct

What the majority of people use is the correct term. Because it is our term and not theirs. English is not a scientific language based on total accuracy, many words are formed through 'incorrect terms'. And also, the "Afghani" people do not call themselves "Afgahani" or "Afghan" or "Afghan decent", because English is not their native language, so it is irrelevant what English term is applied to them. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another thing to note, "Afghani" is not derogatory. It is simply the term most English speakers and Americans use. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While I've seen Afghani used to denote ethnicity, Afghan seems more common. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither are incorrect, but Afghani is probably used more than Afghan among the people. Bear in mind the majority of Americans are not in a college environment. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Victims

I realize the article is new but, the amount of victims killed and wounded should be uniform throughout the article. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is: 50 dead (49 civilians plus the shooter), 53 wounded (52 civilians plus a police officer). 87.114.160.161 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, latest news reports appear to be saying that the figure of 50 includes the shooter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the shooter is a victim as well.- MrX 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep he's dead, but past precedent at Wikipedia articles is to make clear if the figure includes the perpetrator, eg Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

50 dead is fine but we should not say 50 victims. Shooter is not a victim. Ranze (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does it say At Least 50 people killed? Is there a potential for other deaths or is it just Fluff words added? DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How come there is so much emphasis placed on Pulse being a homosexual nightclub? This was an attack on Americans - ISIS hates us all. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

Worse than 9/11? Seriously? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"since" --RaphaelQS (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the sentence says. It is the worst SINCE 9/11, meaning that it is not worse than 9/11 but is the worst one since then, i.e. prior "attacks" after 9/11 involved less than 49 victims compared to the 49 victims of the Orlando attack but not worse than the 2996 victims of 9/11. Flipper9 (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadliest, technically. There've been worse, to some families. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI of related AfD - Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

As it is relevant to this article, I'm letting folks know that I nominated Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and comment if you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary Discussion

I believe the final sentence of the summary is out of place.

Mateen had made 2 trips to Saudi Arabia for Umrah in the preceeding years.

This fits better under the "perpetrator" section as it has no direct involvement with the actions that happened at the nightclub. While it loosely fits where it is at now, it reads poorly. (a.k.a. sounds bad when you read in your head)192.91.173.36 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: It is actually already there. I recommend deleting the summary section sentence.192.31.106.35 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Removed from lead, ref moved to the statement in the section on Mateen. General Ization ^Talk 21:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed statement from Daily Beast

I have removed this: "Conversely, a former high school friend and coworker said that despite reports of Mateen's homophobia, he had no obvious conflicts with him and other coworkers who were also gay." This is an anecdotal report from Daily Beast and it is not necessary to tell the other side of the argument with someone's recollections. Roches (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a reliable source & shouldn't be removed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Police officer: In uniform or "plainclothed"; seperate paycheck from the nightclub

Should the article say if the police officer was uniformed or "plainclothed"? "Working extra duty", is that a euphemism for working as a security guard, and receiving a paycheck from the nightclub? 178.232.232.150 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, "extra duty" means a business pays the local police to assign an officer to their location or event. Will depend on local practice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Several sources say the officer was uniformed but off-duty, which implies that he was being paid directly by the club for his presence. Sources include the BBC. Opus131 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Merely a gay friendly nightclub

Are there any references from experts in the field, explaining why this is not merely a gay friendly nightclub, rather than a gay nightclub? Are all the "gay claims" leaning on the club's opinion on its website? What about the massacre at the Paris concert - was that a 5 percent gay concert venue ( and 95 percent other)? If everybody else jumps from the "mountain of encyclopediocity", what would you ... 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If one was married and had children in college, (and was a guest) and then died at the nightclub - would that under any circumstance mean that the person was gay? 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The media immediately described it as a "gay nightclub", with the club's own website being the major factor. It will be interesting to learn how many of the victims were gay men, as they may not all have been.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If a massacre occurs at a Christian church, and some of the patrons are non-Christians, that doesn't mean it isn't a Christian church. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Did the club have an ordinary business license or did it have a gay bar- or whatever business license? In many countries a Christian church will have to file as such, for tax purposes - but probably not so in Saudi Arabia. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any difference between an "ordinary" bar license and a gay bar license. What matters to us is that virtually all primary and secondary sources refer to Pulse as a gay bar or gay nightclub. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The list of victims already suggests that a fair number of the victims may not have been gay men. However, the Pulse website describes itself as "Orlando's premier gay night club" and this is probably why it was chosen as a target. There must be plenty of other night clubs in Orlando.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps gay friendly would be the most encyclopedic term. First and foremost this is an encyclopedia; if notable opinions from experts are lacking - in regard to the difference between "gay-friendly bar" and "gay bar", then wikipedia can decide to say "gay friendly bar/nightclub, often called 'gay bar/nightclub' in folksy parlance". There are plenty references to the folksy parlance (or the media). Are there enough references to support that the bar/nightclub is in fact "gay friendly"? 46.212.238.28 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The white-washing of the anti-gay hate crime nature of this attack continues. This is a gay nightclub. Not "gay friendly". Of course, straight people are admitted as well (often with gay friends). Sources have described this as a gay nightclub and overwhelmingly recognise the anti-gay hate crime nature of this incident. We should as well. AusLondonder (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources indicate that it's a gay nightclub, not a gay friendly nightclub, though I'm not sure what the difference would be. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is a gay nightclub, how is that relevant? This was an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil. Simply calling it a nightclub ought to suffice.108.38.35.162 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur with User:AusLondonder (at 18:17). The fact that it's a gay nightclub, is enough to suggest the attacker's motive that early into the aftermath of the event, without rushing to judgement. -Mardus /talk 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The site of the attack had a very distinctive function as a gathering place for the LGBT community in Orlando. Calling it just a "nightclub" would be whitewashing of the first order. Whether or not this function was a prime motivation for the attacker remains to be seen, but I can see no point in describing the site as something other than what it was. General Ization ^Talk 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox

Do you agree? --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Most certainly. General Ization ^Talk 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. - MrX 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - motive should remain empty until it becomes clear. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, motive is traditionally the most difficult aspect of any mass shooting. It is rarely as clear cut as the media would have you believe in the first 48 hours after the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The perpetrator's self-declared motive is not necessarily the correct one. The motive must be stated by reliable law enforcement sources close to the investigation. Otherwise it is only acceptable to state motives under consideration, and not in the infobox. Roches (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep motive empty (until after very reliable information crops up), because if the parameter value were not empty, then someone would eagerly tack on their own interpretation per original research. -Mardus /talk 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They are being less cautious over at Omar Mateen, both about motive and other things, (I fixed the most obvious). Kudos to those advocating restraint here. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yea, well, I was busy here today :/ -Mardus /talk 01:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Wait until the FBI confirms. Neutrality^talk 17:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1. Hell, +2. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Jkeec regarding this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Jujutsuan who just added content there. Seems decently sourced but there's discussion about it on here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Added comment to the infobox. TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history"

The lead states "deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history." I'm not sure why a link to the history of the United States is relevant but, more importantly, I don't see why the use of "modern." The term "mass shooting" as used here is restricted to one (or at most a few) perpetrators, and I can't find any evidence of a more deadly mass shooting in US history, period. There may have been events termed massacres that caused more deaths, but that is a different act of violence where one group attacks another group. The use of "modern" leads to the question "when in pre-modern US history did a deadlier mass shooting happen?" Roches (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I had earlier supported "modern," but now it just seems to be the wrong way to go with this. I think we should just go back to "deadliest mass shooting" with the understanding that attacks/events involving Indians, military, and numerous shooters are not included. United States Man (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's really hard to say, since mass shootings weren't exactly one of the main topics covered in the news during the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s. Parsley Man (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This topic was already discussed fairly extensively above; There have been a number of massacres with higher casualties. For a better overview, I recommend looking at the previous discussion, under a similar header to this. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, many people have been killed in shootings in the USA in the past, but they weren't carried out by deranged individuals with a semi-automatic weapon that occurred within a few minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The part is question has been changed by me to say this:

The attack is the deadliest terrorism-related mass shooting in United States history,[14] the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history,[15] and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

How is that? Better? Worse? Could probably be better, but the "modern" is gone. United States Man (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's better. The discussion above was about "one of the deadliest" and was resolved with "modern." On List of rampage killers, only the 2011 Norway attacks has a greater number of fatalities than this shooting. As far as I can see, all the Massacres committed by the United States, such as the Wounded Knee massacre, were very different events than what is now called a "mass shooting". The massacres with greater than 50 people killed occurred during wartime and/or with armed persons among the victims; they were not surprise attacks on random victims by one or a few people. Roches (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [Clarification: 'with greater than 50 people killed'.]

This Smithsonian article about Howard Unruh is worth a look. The "Walk of Death" in 1949 is generally considered to be the first modern mass shooting by a deranged individual in the USA. This type of incident is not the same as Wounded Knee. There is a clear psychological profile of a person who does something like this, and Mateen already seems to fit in with it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this is different from the Wounded Knee massacre doesn't resolve the issue. The Wounded Knee massacre was still a mass shooting, i.e., the shooting of a large number of people. There is nothing in the text that explains or qualifies that this concerns a lone gunman, a "rampage killer" etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at definitions for "mass shooting"? The definitions vary, but in the broadest sense, it's an event where a mass of people are shot. By that definition, Wounded Knee is definitely more deadly. Similarly the Orlando event can be defined as a massacre by many definitions. I've edited the lead to be more clear about a single gunman, which leaves no ambiguity here. More discussion is yet needed. I should note a few reliable sources, such as RT, do consider Wounded Knee a more deadly mass shooting. Misinformation by the media to sensationalize topics is far too common. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, this paints an interesting picture. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You've fixed the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I have been hearing about this guy being an Islamic leader in Orlando and saying some controversial things about homosexuality shortly before the shooting. If sources cover this would it be notable to include?

Do we know the names of mosques that the shooter attended and if (Redacted) has any connection to them? Ranze (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is NOTAFORUM and it's inappropriate to make unsourced speculations about living people.- MrX 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You missed a spot redacting. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Got it. thanks.- MrX 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop trying to police wikipedia talk please.. there is no need to enforce strict policy on a talk page. Any information or questions are welcome here, regardless of strict absolute policy. Enforce policy when someone goes overboard. Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Father's TV show and president candidacy

It has been deleted, but I regard the perpetrator's father's announcment of his candidacy as President of Afghanistan and his own TV show as notable. --SI 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Better on Omar Mateen than here, imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It has not been shown that the father's interests or actions had any direct influence on the shooting. There is a separate article on the shooter at Omar Mateen. Background information about the father would be a better fit there. Note that many people announce they intend to run for President of the United States or other countries. The "TV show" seems to be a Youtube channel. Anyone can create their own Youtube channel. Thus, neither of those would be things that make a person noteworthy per how we use the word on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I see that Islamic Terrorism has been added to the list of motives. The list now looks like Mass shooting, Mass murder, Islamic Terrorism, Hostage taking, Domestic terrorism, Hate crime. Mass murder, Domestic terrorism now look redundant due to Mass shooting, and Islamic Terrorism respectively, and should be removed. Further, Hate crime should mention Homophobia in parentheses. isoham (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, sources only supported him having homosexual men, not fearing them, do not abuse "phobia". Ranze (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Homophobia has been corroborated by the perpetrator's former co-worker, who also added racism to the mix. This and the nature of the locale strongly suggest, that adding 'hate crime' is warranted. -Mardus /talk 06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

would it be called a "hate crime" if it was a "straight" bar? 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless their straightness motivated the crime, no. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the patrons "gayness" motivated this crime. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct on that. 175.156.169.55 (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism - A fact

The gunman pledged allegiance to ISIS. Regardless of whether or not he was in contact with the organisation, he is clearly sympathetic toward them and carried out the attack in the name of an Islamic organisation. This is clearly a terrorist attack, perpetrated by an islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes, of course it is. And it will be fought tooth and nail on here, so be prepared for frustration.  :-) 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are cases where people have joined radical Islamic organizations, spent months in training with them, and then done wicked things. This isn't one of them. The "pledge of allegiance" may have been due to mental instability, and the ISIL claim of responsibility is dubiously sourced. Like it or not, some people in the USA have easy access to semi-automatic weapons. Omar Mateen was one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mental instability doesn't preclude one from carrying out an act of Islamic terror. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On this issue, Ian, I totally disagree with you. Sorry. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't just keep using original research to make sources say something that they haven't said. Adding the word "clearly" to your arguments doesn't make such speculation factual.- MrX 14:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so? I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim and his history though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another source here: "Despite Mateen's 911 call expressing support for Islamic State, U.S. officials said on Sunday they had no conclusive evidence of any direct connection with foreign extremists. "So far as we know at this time, his first direct contact was a pledge of bayat (loyalty) he made during the massacre," said a U.S. counterterrorism official. "This guy appears to have been pretty screwed up without any help from anybody."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because a terrorist is a lone wolf, it doesn't preclude him from committing acts of Islamic terror. I don't understand how anyone can realistically claim there wasn't a religious motivation in here. It's sheer insanity. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

History is rife with people claiming a religious motivation for heinous acts when their true motivation was eventually shown to be something else (profit, accumulation of power, reinforcement of ego). Let's not take a murderer's word for what was his true motivation, barely 24 hours after the incident and before any investigation can establish his motive. General Ization ^Talk 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He had already been under investigation by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 as a potential Islamic Extremist with links to terrorists. This is clearly a persistent belief of his, and his Islamist leanings have seemingly showed up in his history. The fact he declared that he was carrying this out in allegiance it's Islamic State is evidence enough this was an attack committed by a radical Islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's important to stick to what the sources say. The attack has been described as domestic terrorism by Orlando Police and as an act of hate by President Obama. However, as WP:OR says, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Donald Trump has used the phrase "Islamic terrorism" [1] but law enforcement officials are wary of using this type of terminology without clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Obama didn't even call the San Bernadino attacks Islamic, so I'd take his assessment with a grain of salt. The sources say that he made a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They also state he was known to be a radical Islamist by his coworkers, and the FBI. He was also investigated for potential terror links. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Or an act by someone who thought it would be cool if he was perceived as an Islamic extremist rather than someone who was mentally ill or who simply wanted to experience the thrill of killing a large number of people. Once again, there is at this time no good reason to accept his word for his motivation. General Ization ^Talk 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI - "Daniel Gilroy, a former police officer, worked as a security officer with G4S Security at the PGA Village complex in Port St. Lucie. Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen worked the shift right after Gilroy at the complex's south gate. Gilroy described Mateen as a devout Muslim who brought a prayer mat to work and prayed several times a day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.15.191 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. And from that you want to describe his acts as Islamic terrorism? That (suggesting that if he prayed and went to Mosque, his violence must be evidence of Islamic terrorism) is precisely the problem. People who are devout, and people who go through the rituals that would make them appear to be devout, are entirely capable of doing things that are motivated by something other than their religion. General Ization ^Talk 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No - there were reports that he was "not religious" - as in, going thru the motions and believing in his version of Islam - which are now seen to be false. That he was an Islamist and this was Islamic terrorism is a given, but I am not going down that rathole with extreme leftist editors who deny that. The article will shape itself in the days and weeks to come. 68.19.0.83 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The terrorist's own imam disagrees with you. The terrorist attended his mosque "3 or 4 times a week." XavierItzm (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I must reiterate, that there's a difference in terminology (I'm not going to try to see if capitalisation is correct with some terms): "islamic terrorism" and "terrorist act" both suggest aiding and abetting by an islamist organisation; whereas "act of terror" suggests a lone-wolf action based on a different motive. -Mardus /talk 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They imply nothing of the sort. Any perceived implication is an issue on your part. Islamic terrorism is terrorism inspired by Islamist beliefs. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So much for "facts". Fact. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to venture a meta appeal to common sense here. I have 3 years and 24K edits, and I wouldn't presume to argue much with the agreed judgment of General Ization, MrX, and ianmacm, who have 27 years and 150K edits between them. I've had extensive exposure to two of them, and some to the third, and I think I can say that they pretty much know what they're doing. Hope this helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

AP now reporting Islamic motive

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b265896ee37e42039a859e38cf1a3afa/fbi-orlando-gunman-had-strong-indications-radicalization Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop putting a motive inside the "attack type" field of the infobox. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a type of attack. Perhaps it should not be REMOVED Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a motive. A type of attack is bombing, shooting, hostage taking... --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What does this source offer that is not already well known? was likely inspired by foreign terrorist organizations ? Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet more proof this is ISLAMIC in nature. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note, Comey said "There is confusion about his motives," in one press conference (businessinsider) The 911 call was described as "bizarre". Comey noted that ISIL is openly fighting Nusra.

Note that if a Sunni Muslim expresses support for Hezbollah (Shiite) then it may be an act of intimidation/boasting.

Note that there is no evidence of he received any weapons, funding or assistance from outside groups.

Maybe wait for Comey to say something clearer over the next 24 hours? -- Callinus (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My spider senses tell me this person was just another typical frustrated american who takes his liberty to gun people down. Yes, there are religious motives and he did seek guidance from ISIS but they seem more like convenient excuses in his particular situation. excuses which are compatible with his life. there is a very good chance this person has no official terrorist connections, and was just an average immigrant. typical frustrated american. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course "spider senses" are not a credible source (they are not meant to be) but this actually is the most likely scenario. It's very sad how so many frustrated Americans have nowhere to turn and nothing to do. So much is spent on punishment and imprisonment and police and hardly nothing is done about proper care and prevention.....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semantic but important point: it's Islamist terrorism, not Islamic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe eve there is a distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to be terribly rude, but thankfully your belief does not influence the definitions of the words. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism needs a move. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can be as rude as you wish, User: EvergreenFir, it does not offend me. But I am most likely right in this case, I really do believe this is domestic terrorism. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@....SandwitchHawk....: I was speaking to Darkside Of Aquarius regarding rudeness and the definition of Islamist vis-a-vis Islamic. No offense intended to you. @Mandruss: I ain't touching that one... I looked at the move log and that was enough to scare me away. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Twas a kind of sideways way of saying, "Current Wikipedia consensus disagrees with you." I'm sure you know that article titles rule on questions of naming, so we're stuck with Islamic whether we concur or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct on that point, Mandruss. 175.156.169.55 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

That's always the third issue, after the name and the reactions. Shall we wait for investigators to determine motives for once, or continue to follow the catchy headlines, and display a gigantic terrorism infobox and tiny category listing? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some caution needed. I always remember the media deciding initially that the 2011 Norway attacks were likely the work of Islamic extremists, but as we know now, a single white extremist was responsible. Details will emerge about the shooter, but sometimes a motive is harder to pin down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This could be workplace violence, exactly like the mass shooting in Fort Hood in 2009, or like San Bernardino, which was originally considered to possibly have been a workplace violence incident. Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Perp's father now claiming it has "nothing to do with religion" and was prompted by the perp's reaction to seeing gay men kissing a few months earlier. More reason to exercise caution in regard to the motive. Crumpled Fire (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Devout Muslim" label, sourced Fox News, seems debatable too.--Dans (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that Fox News may be debatable to some. What about of the terrorist's very own imam states that the murderer attended his mosque "three or four times per week"? Is Fox still debatable? XavierItzm (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be pretty politically incorrect to imply that a Quran-inspired attack had something to with Islam in the article, but that's the truth and we will have more sources on it soon as the police will release details. --Pudeo' 15:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's be careful here and not jump to conclusions. These things may seem "obvious" years after with the benefit of hindsight, but this is still very much a breaking news/developing story. I would shy away from ascribing motives as of now, short of a mention that various leads are being pursued. GAB^gab 15:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell what was going on inside the head of a mass shooter at the time, particularly if he died in the incident. We still don't really know why Adam Lanza carried out the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Mateen may have left behind some sort of manifesto explaining his actions, but if he hasn't, a certain amount of joining the dots will be needed to figure out why he did it. Tabloid sourcing should be avoided in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

One of Wiki's strengths in reporting is that we don't have to sell papers or collect hits today. We will all know so much more in a few hours, and infinitely more tomorrow. It's fine to wait. Profhum (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, terror isn't terrorism, and "terror attack" is merely a suggestive buzzword. Fools a lot of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's getting increasingly clear (CNN, Fox, and RT have said it) that this was an Islamic Terrorism incident. Additionally, there are chances this may be linked to ISIS. This should be put into infobox. isoham (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"there are chances this may be" doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we shall wait then until it is verified, which it obviously will. Since the reports now say that it wasn't just an Islamic Terrorism incident, but more specifically, an attack claimed by ISIS as well. isoham (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS. I'd consider that indicative of Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The boy who flew into the Bank of America building with a handwritten note pinned to himself shortly after 9/11, the note saying he pldged allegiance to Al Qaeda, wasn't literally a member. Lone wolves who pledge allegiance to a group to make a point may then be retroactively affiliated by the group to claim credit. It may well be terrorism, it may be homophobia, but none of that means ISIS is 'behind' this or that his motivations and affiliations are self-evident. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather good arguments. -Mardus /talk 06:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIS probably wasn't directly involved & I'm not suggesting that ISIS should be called the perpetrator of this attack. However, the pledge indicates that this was Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus so far seems to be that his claim of allegiance with ISIS has not been substantiated. This being the case, I think it's wise to edit out things on the page that identify this as being an Islamic terrorist attack.

• "Mateen's parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he'd expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami, but they didn't consider him particularly religious and didn't know of any connection he had to ISIS."

• "But CNN's Salma Abdelaziz, who translated the message and closely monitors ISIS messaging, cautioned about taking the message at face value. She said the language is inconsistent with previous ISIS announcements and that the Arabic word for gay was used rather than an epithet normally used by ISIS. Also, there was no claim that the attack was directed, just an after-the-fact claim the gunman was an ISIS fighter, she said."

Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm frankly disappointed by this morning's newspapers. They have taken a thinly sourced "pledge of allegiance" and inflated it into an IS attack. This contradicts the police lone wolf theory. The evidence now suggests that Omar Mateen was an extremist crank and loser like Wade Page in the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, who is not described as a "Christian terrorist".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear this is an act of Islamic Terrorism. We now have confirmation of his pledge of allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS have formally claimed responsibility (though I can't attest to whether or not they are telling the truth). Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, it's disappointing how the newspapers have handled this. The police are looking at the lone wolf theory, the same as Wade Page. No-one in Syria told Mateen to do this, it just looks better for the newspapers to scream "Islamic terror attack" on the front pages. They weren't screaming "Christian terror attack" after the Wisconsin Sikh temple attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur. -Mardus /talk 15:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are expecting to see an Islamic State paystub or an e-mail account in the name of the terrorist @islamicstate.gov before you deem this to have been a terror attack, then you have no idea how jihad terrorism works. XavierItzm (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Blood donation issue

As a side, should we include the controversy brought upon by the FDA donation guidelines as there are outrages that certain groups of potential donors (including gay/bisexual men) are prevented from donation? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do think this has some level of notability and could fit into the Aftermath section since blood donation is already mentioned. For me, including this is a toss up. Maybe others have opinions? United States Man (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure how notable this will end up being. It could raise an issue later on in the future, but I don't see how much of a concern it is now. And this is coming from the person who first introduced the material yesterday. Parsley Man (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any sources saying it impacted treatment. There are many restrictions. Agenda driven restrictions without impact to the event don't belong. (note: I am not able to donate due to the many restrictions but are not related to this.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point. The restrictions had nothing to do with this event and were already in place, so they really aren't that notable for this article. United States Man (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not regarding treatment - this is restriction on the part of donors, not the patients. I'm permanently deferred by the American Red Cross for unrelated reasons that are beyond my control, and I agree with the intent of the FDA guidelines; I raised this question because the aftermath of the shooting did bring this issue into light again. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a parallel issue being discussed, but it's not clear that they're directly related. Don't want to coatrack it. Might be something to include in the See Also section (Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy). At least for now. Maybe in the future the Red Cross will reference this event when they implement their screening changes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Woah, we have that page? I didn't realize we had that. Learn something new everyday... Thanks! - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Penwhale: For some reason, this just made my night! :D Glad I could help! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A Presidential candidate gave a whole speech on this issue

Which I believe is perfectly relevant, but User:Parsley Man disagrees, without bothering to move the content they keep removing to the talk page in violation of the spirit of WP:PRESERVE.[2] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I told you to go to this section of the talk page in one of my edit summaries. A number of other users already know what kind of material we're talking about. Parsley Man (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Parsley Man was correct in removing that part. If Trump's statement is included, statements from other candidates must be included, and that goes agains≠±t what we were trying to do with this section by keeping it short and trimmed down. United States Man (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PAPER, why exactly are you trying to keep things short and trimmed down?? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea, but look at that reactions branch article. That is usually what happens to the reaction sections on these sorts of articles. They become longer and longer, eventually getting to the point where the reaction of every little country on every continent is included. There has to be a cutoff point somewhere, and that happens to be on the shorter side of things. United States Man (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To put it in layman's terms, not doing so would result in a WP:QUOTEFARM. Parsley Man (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly short list; let me post it again from above:

It's a national election year, and as such certain local and national political reactions matter. Most importantly: the Orlando mayor, the Orlando national rep., whoever is running to be the next Orlando Rep, the Florida governor, anyone running to be the next governor, Florida U.S. senators, anyone running to be the next Florida senator, the President, and whoever is running to replace him. This should not be in the least controversial.

That's not too hard. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a lot of people to cover. "Anyone running to be the next governor"? Are there any specifics, or is it supposed to be every single candidate in the election? Same with "anyone running to be the next Florida senator". Parsley Man (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny, the only person among those whose opinion who you keep removing is that of Donald Trump's. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Because Donald Trump is the only person who keeps getting added in by people! If it was just Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, you bet my ass I'd remove their statements as well! I don't appreciate what you're implying. Parsley Man (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I've noticed, Trump was the only candidate whose reaction was in there in the first place. So, that argument is invalid. United States Man (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:NPOV doesn't mean WP:NOPOV. His is a significant point of view, and should be represented in this article. Failure of other editors to add other points of view isn't incumbent on its inclusion -- Kendrick7^talk 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But I find it very confusing as to why a bunch of people feel more inclined to use Trump than, say, Clinton? Her gun control remarks have to be just as important as Trump's proposed policy of closing the U.S. borders to all Muslims, right? (Let it be known that this is in no way any indication of my support of Clinton.) Parsley Man (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And I in no way support Trump or Clinton, frankly, but come on, the GOP presidential candidate calling LGBT people just another American tribe, deserving of protection. This is historic stuff. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would hardly call anything said by Trump or Clinton or any other candidate "historic" so far... Parsley Man (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it doesn't really matter who adds what side. If there is one side and not the other, you have weight and POV issues. Feel free to add both sides if you wish. United States Man (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, WP:YESPOV doesn't work like that. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me. I have realized that I might interpret the POV differently than others, hence the reason we have this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Coverage by sources does not mean the event is notable. The press can't help themselves when it comes to covering Trump's inflammatory comments. Iff something more comes of the comments, then include. Otherwise, don't. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He's a candidate for President of the United States. What planet are you living on? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Preferably not this one. But again, condolences, platitudes, and Trumpisms are not inherently notable. WP:NOTNEWS (To clarify, I'm referring to notability in terms of "enduring notability". Trump's comments are remarkable, but not notable. Besides, nearly any head of state, the pope, and some government officials would be more notable in then a celebrity/presidential candidate). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. If something big comes from Trump's statements, it would be notable enough for the section, regardless of other candidates. I just don't feel, that with the statements themselves, we should have one side and not the other. United States Man (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel there is a whole pro-Trump sentiment behind all of this. Otherwise, comments from other candidates like Clinton would be added in as well. Parsley Man (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be perfectly fine with reactions from both sides being included. That would put an end to this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV, feel free to add Clinton's POV. Someone will add it even if you don't. Patience! :) -- Kendrick7^talk 05:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Only a couple major sides, don't think this will be a major issue. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump blathers on about every subject under the sun in order to get more free media time, please don't reward his childish behavior with more free ink to spout his positions which are often inaccurate and sometimes are plain lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:E4CA:8CBD:DC67:3366 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to mention Trump, it's important to say that his first reaction on Twitter was to claim that he had been congratulated over the killing of 49 LGBT people in Orlando — that their slaughter served some sort of personal vindication for him — and that he offered absolutely no consolation to the LGBT community for more than a day. Mention that, for proper context. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I am still very, very wary of the wisdom of inserting candidate-by-candidate political speeches on the page, although at the presidential-candidate level I see the argument. I have inserted some text, cited primarily to the New York Times and Washington Post, that (1) identifies the commonalities in statements by politicians of both parties; (2) identifies the key differences; and (3) gives a summary of both Clinton's speech and Trump's speech. Neutrality^talk 06:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Move

Names for these horrible things develop in the press organically. I think we should move this page to something without "2016", given it's never described that way and it's significant and unique enough not to warrant it. I'm seeing "Orlando massacre" and "Orlando nightclub massacre" a lot. So maybe we could put it to a vote?--Monochrome_Monitor 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, it isn't just a vote. Second, the other three move discussions on this page all either support leaving the title for now or have no consensus either way. Best to leave the subject alone for now. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with United States Man. It's best to leave the title as it is for now. Parsley Man (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree - give this move a moratorium of at least a week. Create all the plausible redirects you think are useful. A good indicator for a stable title would be one that multiple reliable sources adopt. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Including the year seems to be a Wikipedia convention. While it does not make sense today it will when you see the article title five or 20 years from now in categories. While an article could be started and worked out without the year, and then moved later people would complain "what was wrong with the old title?" Thus, it's better to have the year from the beginning. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: It may or may not seem a convention, depending on which slice of Wikipedia you've been exposed to. That's been discussed elsewhere on this page, and quite a few relatively recent (within 20 years) no-year examples have been shown. Enough of them that it can't rasonably be called a convention, imo. Per the slice of Wikipedia I've been exposed to, my perceived convention is to omit the year unless it's required for disambiguation. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I think that if we want to remove the year, we really ought to put Pulse onto the page name to make it specific. I wrote above in a separate section the first RM for my specific reasoning. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting my deletion of individuals at the shooting event mistaking the gunfire for music

I have reviewed both sources extensively and there is no witness statements verifying this claim. The only claim was that it sounds like fire crackers via “I thought it was firecrackers,” said Ray Rivera, 42, who was working at the club as a D.J. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment by witnesses has appeared in multiple sources I have read (as well as broadcast interviews I have heard), though I couldn't point out exactly which ones. General Ization ^Talk 02:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"McGill tells CBS News that his horrific night began when he and his roommates were getting their last drinks at Pulse’s bar. They suddenly heard three loud bangs, but he did not see any shooter and at first he thought it might be something to do with the club’s sound system." 212.56.125.112 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• Are you seriously referencing heavy.com? lol ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this in the article, and it's referenced. Almost every deadly incident at an entertainment venue includes numerous people on the scene mistaking the first signs of danger as part of the show. This happened as long ago as the Iroquois Theater Fire, at the Station Nightclub fire and in many other cases. But the 'not until the fifth pop' seems sufficient. Roches (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But the issue at hand is how rather few people who might have thought the shooting was related to fireworks or music, this is not the consensuses of the majority at the event or even a significant opinion which should be posted on the main wikipedia entry. This is why you need a better reference than something from heavy.com ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not only is Heavy.com not as reliable as nytimes.com where i got my information but "Something with the club's sound system" means a lot different than "music". Music needs removed. A qoute from Daily mail: "Speaking exclusively to Daily Mail Online, eyewitness David Ward, 50, described the scene ...Ward, a life settlements account manager, was woken around 2am by two shots. He recalled: 'I thought at the time they were maybe car backfires.'" so we have firecrackers and car backfires but not "music". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639727/He-going-ha-ha-ha-killed-Sole-survivor-30-trapped-Orlando-gay-club-bathroom-tells- Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Heavy sucks and The Daily Mail sucks. If we had to choose, I'd trust Heavy, but we don't. If you ever read something on either that isn't in a reliable source as well, it's probably not true. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE. someone posted this ref which states some individuals at the shooting event thought it was music from the telegraph so that ref works. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/we-thought-it-was-part-of-the-music-how-the-pulse-nightclub-mass/ Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2016

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → 2016 Orlando nightclub attack – Since this has been classified as a terrorist incident, it should be moved to attack via Wikipedia precedent on these kinds of things. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. Do research something before arriving on a conclusion. Also please see WP:OTHER, you cannot use other articles for justifying changes to another article. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - That does sound sensible. Parsley Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems prematureBrxBrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. the events are less than 24 hours old. Perhaps reconsider after a week or two when more information is available.Mozzie (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Also: I suspect the page title needs to lose the 2016 at some point, but that can also happen later.Mozzie (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral – Since this seems to have been labeled as domestic terrorism, a move to "attack" to be in line with others, notably San Bernardino, is in order. But I would prefer that it wait until details are ironed out. United States Man (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's wait a week and then evaluate what the sources say and what terms they use. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's both a shooting and an attack, but shooting is more precise.- MrX 01:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As per Neutrality, I would like to see what creditable sources call this event. However, the current title satisfies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per MrX. Doesn't matter much, but shooting seems clearer. "Attack" doesn't have to indicate terrorist attack... whatever that means. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Shooting is a misnomer by implying there was just one or very few victims. This was a terrorist attack. Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral It's a tossup between being WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT. Neither is particularly more compelling IMO. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - Alternatively, I propose "Orlando nightclub massacre." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 June 2016
• Strong support – per 2015 San Bernardino attack. Cut to the chase. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is first and foremost a mass shooting and Mateen may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It would be unencyclopaedic to use different name for similar things. 2015 San Bernardino attack, the Curtis Culwell Center attack, 2014 New York City hatchet attack, the September 11 attacks. All Islamist terror events in the U.S. homeland. XavierItzm (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was leaning toward weak oppose per NORUSH but, after reading all the above, I'm convinced it'll happen anyway. 🖖ATS / Talk 06:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Partial Support Alternatively '2016 Orlando Attack' or 'Orlando Nightclub Attack'. Tom W (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tomwood0: '2016 Orlando attack' would mean an attack on the whole city of Orlando, and 'Orlando Nightclub Attack' is not specfic enough (see below). -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There was another shooting associated with the same nightclub in 2013. -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be addressed by the fact that this article is called "2016 ... attack" Epson Salts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, premature rush to judgment. We don't have to get the title right within 24 hours of the event. Or 48, 72, 96, or 120. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also support "orlando nightclub massacre". It's being used quite a bit. These names for recent events develop organically and I believe this is it.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per 2015 San Bernardino attack. President Obama calls this one an "act of terror" - "attack" is warranted. -- Callinus (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. At the moment the only certainty is that this is a mass shooting from someone who may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings. The present name is clear and precise. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the casualties of the shooting is the highest (for a mass shooting as currently defined) in the history of the United States, overtaking (for lack of a better word) the previous second place, the Virginia Tech shooting. Ergo, precision should dictate here.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a fuckton of rumours going around but at the moment no one actually knows whether it was terrorism-related or not, That aside it being a big mass shooting in the history of the US I'd say "mass shooting" would be correct, –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While some sources have confirmed this to be a terrorist attack, i think an "attack" would require more physical support from the ISIL to truly be considered a terrorist attack such as supplying fire arms, explosives, intel ect. At this point in time it seems ISIL's involvement in this mass life completion event is minimal therefore we should stick with shooting. Attack to me is a broader term that is connotated with more humans being involved. This attack was just a single mentally disturbed recent divorceeBoilingorangejuice (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack type in Infobox - Please read

Ok everyone... This is the deal. Attack type in this article's Infobox refers to the type of attack meaning the weapons used - guns. bombs. whatever... It does not refer to the motives or if the attack was some specific type of terrorism.
From Template:Infobox civilian attack:
type – The type of attack (e.g. Suicide bombings, Bioterrorism, etc.)
So. "Attack type" does not refer to motive or terrorism or delineating what type of crime this was.
Therefore, according to Template:Infobox civilian attack, which is itself one of the subsections of the Manual of Style. all the references to Murder/Terrorism/Crime that are now listed under "Attack type" do not belong in that section. They should be removed.
Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this especially since many of those topics either overlap or are not necessarily supported by current sources (especially all this debate about terrorism). For the time of this discussion I am going to remove them because they are against guidelines though if this discussion finds otherwise they may be readded. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree based on instinct. But Bioterrorism in the example only muddies the issue. Why didn't they say "biological agents" or something? Bioterrorism is a terrorist motive for the use of biological agents. So the letter of the doc doesn't help the case much. A better case, imo, is that the "Motive" field is a better place for those things.
And then only after motive has been more clearly established. As usual in these things, people need to s l o w ..... d o w n .
So, yes, I support removal of Domestic terrorism, Hate crime, and Islamic terrorism from Attack type at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. They should be removed.- MrX 22:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a comment stating as much to the infobox. Hasn't seemed to work, unfortunately. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed to change the example for type at Template talk:Infobox civilian attack#Bioterrorism as an example for the type field, per my comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Target of Attack in infobox?

Who (or what) should we list as the target(s) of the attack? LGBT community? Patrons? Pulse itself? I personally favor patrons of Pulse nightclub as not everyone there necessarily belongs LGBT, although the bouncer (one of the bouncers?) for Pulse did die in the shooting. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed it may be necessary to redefine the target group. Elsewhere I've seen the claim that Pulse is a homosexual club debated - it's not restricted access and anyone can visit. If true it's entirely possible that some, even most of the victims weren't homosexual. Again not claiming this is fact, merely pointing out we're still dealing with conflicting unproven claims.人族 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Pulse was an is a Gay nightclub. It's how they advertise themselves and what they were known as before the shooting. Any source debating this should probably be considered unreliable. In most cases, not all patrons at a gay nightclub or bar are going to be LGBT themselves, the precise number depending on various factors. Note as our article mentions, many gay nightclibs and bars do not restrict their clientale given the difficulty doing so and the in some cases (perhaps not so common in the US) they need to establish they have sufficient reason to do so (which may be possible) or risk being prosecuted or sued. This isn't actually that unusual, people at a church may not be Christian for example, and people at a women's college may not be female to give just two examples (and the later does generally involve explicit restrictions). In terms of the target issue, unless there is some sort of manifesto it may be difficult to know who the target was. However many sources seem to have come to the resonable conclusion that a gay nightclub was attacked because at least part of the motivation was to target LGBT people. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current

Template:Current Guidelines bullet 2:

As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.

While it's still very much top-of-the-front-page, after about 52 hours it is no longer "breaking", and the number of editors per day is not a hundred. I am removing the Current template message. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

Hi i was wondering if you can grant me some minor changes as the this page has some errors in it. they are as follows: -the cause of the attack was islamic terrorism NOT terrorism that section needs to be clear, islamic fundamentilism, islamist motives, and homophobia Sparticus107 (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've declined this edit request. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the cause, and the usage of the current wording is consistent with that of reliable sources and other Wikipedia articles on similar topics. Possible religious influences regarding the attack are already sufficiently addressed in the lead with mentions to ISIL.--Slon02 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done The consensus is to go easy on the motive until a more thorough investigation. The phrase "Islamic terrorism" was used by Donald Trump but hasn't been used by investigators. Omar Mateen fits the classic pattern of angry losers who commit mass shootings, and although he may well have wanted to do something like Bataclan in the USA, his overall personality and the comments of people who knew him suggest that he was an accident waiting to happen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, Islamism and homophobia and self-hatred and being a crazy person aren't contradictory. It may be an "all of the above" type thing in the end. There's no need to rush to judgement. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • All terrorism is not the same. Although "terrorism" is a word with a very broad definition, generally we use "terrorism" to describe things which meet a certain criteria. You can pull out favorable sources to your disruptive opinions all day, but so can I. The only difference is that I'm using common sense, and you are just trying to play games. There is a very good possibility this person had no calibration with militant foreign entities to classify this as a "terror attack". Simply claiming allegiance to ISIL isn't enough. Anyone can do this. This is not a real foreign collaboration with militant entities. Once again I am simply using common sense, no need to debate everything. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • you are just trying to play games - Let's nip that kind of talk in the bud, shall we? Please observe WP:AGF on this page. Things have been remarkably professional here, considering the subject matter, and let's keep it that way. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But he/she really does seem to be playing games, or arguing just for the sake of argument. Are we going to pretend people don't do this? Is there a WP:COMMON SENSE? ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there is a WP:COMMON SENSE but it's meant for people who invoke strict policy on top of what is actually right. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@SandwitchHawk: Are we going to pretend people don't do this? - Yes, that pretty well sums it up. Even if people are "playing games", which is a very subjective thing, it serves no purpose to accuse them of it, and it is in fact counterproductive. These things very easily spiral out of control, and then absolutely nothing is being accomplished except the creation of a lot of ill will between editors. Stay focused on policy and reasoning and don't make it about them. And they will be expected to treat you likewise. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@....SandwitchHawk....: (what an odd and cumbersome username.) Forgot to mention that it's ok to accuse people of things in a complaint at WP:ANI, and that includes "playing games" to the point of being disruptive. But this page is not the place to do that, and I'd suggest letting others handle any ANI complaints until one has a year or so of experience. It's a big and complex subject area, too much for an article talk discussion, but feel free to continue on my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the edit refusals above are wholly without merit. They rely on personal opinion. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. There are at least a dozen reliable sources already listed at the bottom of the article noting that the shooter himself, during the attack, declared allegiance to a known Islamic terrorist group. The investigators are merely trying to determine if it was ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed. Either way, we know from the best possible source, the perpetrator himself (as reported by reliable sources), that it's an Islamic terrorist attack. This must be reflected immediately in the article. There is no rational reason for delay. Dansan99 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason for delay is WP:CONSENSUS. Please see above talk sections . EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This must be reflected immediately in the article. - Can you explain why this must be done immediately? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be changed immediately because there is no reason not to. There is an overwhelming consensus of the reliable sources that the perpetrator claimed responsibility in the name of ISIS. The objections do not seem to be based on reliable sources, but personal opinion. Wikipedia goes with reliable sources, and they all point in one direction. Objections that do not rely on reliable sources should be discounted when trying to reach consensus.Dansan99 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is my two cents: Omar Mateen was a self-appointed jihadi warrior, but his underlying mental instabilty, anger and possible repressed gay feelings were also a factor. The problem with the infobox is that it permits only simple statements for the motive, and the real world is more complex than a Wikipedia infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^^ What he said. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

there is no reason not to except WP:CONSENSUS, as already stated. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." The "two cents" above, while interesting, are not based on reliable sources and are not published. It is clearly a personal opinion. The direction from WP:RS is clear. We have to go with published, reliable sources. Based on which published, reliable sources do we not have consensus? Dansan99 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please join existing consensus-seeking discussions rather than starting new and redundant ones, participate calmly and constructively like the rest of us, and cease making aggressive demands for content changes. Otherwise you will either be ignored or risk sanctions for disrupting Wikipedia decision-making process. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course my two cents is a personal opinion. However, the specific phrase "Islamic terrorism" was used by Donald Trump and not by any U.S. government agency so far.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dansan99: It's true that there are currently 43 somewhat-active threads here, and there is a lot of overlap. That's a good reason to sit back, get more familiar with the landscape, and watch where other editors who have been at the article for a couple of days are commenting. One place we're working on this consensus is #Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox. Another: #Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism?. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Title

Change the Title to "2016 Orlando nightclub massacre". The word "shooting" used to describe the incident is too broad and loose. "Massacre" seems more appropriate. --Alsamuef (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems likely that all of the people who died were shot, which isn't a great surprise given the ease with which powerful guns can be bought in the USA. There is also a rename proposal at Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Requested_move_13_June_2016.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people were shot. But that seems secondary to the fact that it was a massacre. Unless there is a reason why the means of the massacre is more important than the massacre itself, the title should be reworded to reflect its nature and significance. Shootings occur daily in the US, but that doesn't make them really significant. What makes this incident significant is that the outcome was a massacre, not just a shooting. Alsamuef (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's something of a grey area, as Wikipedia has Luby's shooting although it is often referred to as Luby's massacre in the media. Wikipedia does have Port Arthur massacre (Australia) as this is the WP:COMMONNAME of the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine shooting... I think "massacre" is a sensationalist word, and many articles use "shooting." A "massacre" evidently is a mass killing of a group of people by another group. The lists of massacres vs. lists of rampage killings state this distinction. Roches (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This incident actually caused a widespread reaction and interest precisely because it was a massacre, not because some tabloid is being sensationalist. The fact that other articles use the word shooting don't make the word "shooting" in the title of this entry the most suitable, only consistently less suitable. Alsamuef (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Shooting relates to how the mass killing was performed. The Waco siege is titled as such, with a redirect from Waco massacre. The massacre part would come in, if there were very different or multiple means used by the perpetrator to kill the poor people. -Mardus /talk 16:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A "Shooting" does not imply a massacre or killings in the first place. There was a hostage situation in this incident and yet nobody is referring to it as the "Orlando hostage situation" or whatever. Because that's not what made the incident notorious. Shootings by themselves are not notorious in the US, they occur almost daily. The precise way how the massacre was carried out is quite irrelevant to the definition of massacre. I would refer to the definitions found in reputable dictionaries instead of making up arbitrary definitions. Alsamuef (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggest we wait a week and then survey reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this is a terrorist attack. It was perpetrated by an individual who pledged allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS has claimed credit for his attack. If one commits an act and so plainly gives his motivation as he did in his 9-1-1 call and still cannot be called a terrorist, I don't know what is.   Spartan7W §   02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You're aware that we already call him a terrorist? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen celebrated as 9/11 occurred

Mateen celebrating as 9/11 occurred is a further indication that this was Islamic terrorism & not just a random nut job. It was almost certainly also a hate crime, but both elements should be noted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When a preponderance of reliable sources (or at the very least a preponderance of major mainstream news outlets, that's open to debate), explicitly call it Islamic terrorism, we can call it Islamic terrorism. Until then, we're in WP:NOR territory. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is quite the WP:RS here in Wikipedia except when people don't like what it says! Apparently in those cases, one should look into any "hedges" the Washington Post included in its articles, or wait for other sources! XavierItzm (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the Washington Post is a reliable source has nothing to do with whether people's recollections of a high school classmate and his behavior on a specific day are accurate 15 years later. Mandruss and I never questioned whether WP was reliably reporting what it was told. General Ization ^Talk 12:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions section

Delete the reactions section already?

This is always the second contentious issue in a mass shooting article, after the name. Everyone's going to say the same thing. We don't need to repeat the same thing, and we don't need to list everyone (or anyone) who says it. We don't need the section at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it can at least wait until things die down. United States Man (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A small but representative sample is OK. No doubt President Obama will have something to say. However, we don't need an exhaustive list with flag icons lighting up the page like a Christmas tree and people expressing their condolences, which has happened before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some guy is "leaving it up in case it turns out to be workplace violence." At least that's a new reason. Does it make sense to anyone? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is only one reaction, why delete? XavierItzm (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because one thing leads to another. People see shit in Google News, they see a Reaction section here, something clicks and the pile grows. We're powerless to stop it, really, but it's always nice to try. Since you're here, what does workplace violence have to do with anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The San Bernardino terror attack was initially classified as a possible workplace violence incident: "It's also possible that this was was workplace related," Obama said" http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/

OK. So what does the San Bernardino shooting have to do with this? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, couldn't this Orlando situation be another workplace violence incident, like Fort Hood? Even the FBI for now only "suspects" a link to Islam in Orlando. By way of contrast, Fort Hood is officially classified as "workplace violence" (see wikipedia: " The Defense Department currently classifies Hasan's attack as an act of workplace violence" Better not jump to conclusions yet. XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the most confusing bit for me is how this reaction doesn't mention workplace violence, Islam, Fort Hood, San Bernardino or whatever. Just condolences and getting to the bottom of things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that this was "workplace"-related, and what little is known about Mateen strongly suggests otherwise. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You could say exactly the same about San Bernardino, yet the maximum political authority in the United States initially stated it could be workplace violence. You could also say the same about Fort Hood, yet until today it is officially classified as "workplace violence." So, this could eventually also be classified as "workplace violence," don't you think? Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My only problem is it getting cluttered with unnecessary junk. If we can keep that down, it will be good. United States Man (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We just got our first "thoughts and prayers" from an entirely uninvolved politician. I give it an hour before Trudeau shows up. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise, maybe it could be put in a collapsable section

Reactions 2

I would like to suggest that we limit reactions from politicians to the mayor, the governor, and the president, especially since it's an election season.- MrX 16:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See "Delete the reactions section already?" above. Agreed on not getting bogged down here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the existing section.- MrX 16:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Individuals who don't have current jurisdiction over the incident do not need to be quoted. I'd be OK with legislators representing Orlando/Florida. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to include some notable reactions from major political figures internationally. This does not interfere with the election and is very common for such articles. AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Britain has its own problems. Reading that Cameron didn't like this teaches nobody anything useful. But yeah, if something actually notable is said, maybe.InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Don't quite see the connection with the EU referendum to be perfectly honest. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see the connection to this incident. His condolescences are appreciated, but (with all respect) he's just some guy from another country telling us what he thinks. There are a lot of those, and they don't add understanding to the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all that meant. That's his business, this is Orlando, Florida and Washington's. And this wasn't meant to sound anti-Francophone. Picked an arbitrary celebrity, then thought better of it after I saved. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely not include international reactions, which will be predictably trite and critical of US gun control. Just say no to soapboxing.- MrX 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am outraged that we don't have a separate article with lost of nice colourful flags and the identical reactions on Twitter of the foreign secretaries of Seychelles, East Timor, Nauru and Suriname. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not start getting defensive about gun control, now. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Same with the governor of Idaho or the mayor of Miami or [insert famous actor here]... they're uninvolved bystanders, whose opinions are no more notable than mine. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we should have a laundry list of reactions (all essentially saying the same thing) from foreign officials around the world. I would be OK with a generic overview sentence, if desired ("Following the shooting, condolences were sent from many foreign heads of state and government around the world" + cites). Neutrality^talk 17:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's usually the compromise. Best to find a compilation article, rathen than clutter up the reference section. Something like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need a list of quotes, but we should add a summary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The international reactions section has been re-started now by several editors AusLondonder (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions again

The article is developing exactly the sort of flagcruft section that was warned against and consensus is against. Time for a prune, but I don't want to edit war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mostly major countries like India, Brazil and the UK are listed along with the reaction of the first Muslim to be elected Mayor of London. That's not flagcruft. There may have been a weak consensus against before but new editors have added the material. Let them have a say here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the exhaustive list (which threatens to overwhelm the article as it grows and grows inexorably) with a two-sentence summary (diff). I think it is especially a bad idea to directly cite to Tweets. We should absolutely wait for the press to synthesize all this, rather than attempt to do it ourselves. Neutrality^talk 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I support your change, this is a much better approach. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pope

• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/12/pope-francis-condemns-massacre-at-florida-nightclub.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not really needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Really? The pope's reaction to an event is not worth mentioning? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we post this we might as well post all international responses, which were initially listed but later removed per consensus. So I'd only support adding Pope comments if other international reactions are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the Pope's reaction is not worth mentioning, any more than the Dalai Lama's is.- MrX 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pope is technically a head of state, so I'd say it's more worth mentioning as much as any other head of state. That's only if all international responses are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a brief paragraph summarizing reactions by notable individuals would be appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now comments by Lars Løkke Rasmussen have been added. I realize we don't need a list of people and their quotes, but this article should note that people around the world are responding to this incident. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that international statements are back in the article, I'd have no objection to adding the Pope's comments. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe a section about an international response, including the Pope's, should be included. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Gun control reactions

There will likely be some notable reactions, but right now the only entry is a report that one lawmaker plans to introduce a bill that doesn't seem to be directly related to this subject or the perpetrator - should this be maintained? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I say leave it out. Most of the gun control centred reactions are mere politicking. (ie. the charade in the US congress over the moment of silence for the victims). At the end of the day as soon as there is a shooting of strong national salience the gun-grabbers come out in full force. But at the end of the day they merely 'fetishize' firearms. Gun control stops as many murders as the law against murder. I don't think it is fruitful or informative to report on politicians using dead people to further their political agenda (whatever it may be). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

post script: I think there is an angle that is important though namely that the perp. was able to secure two firearms despite federally mandated background checks (incl. a waiting period) despite several inquiries by the FBI. That kind of information is important, just not the politicians' reactions.- A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it me ...

Or is this section bloatcrufty again? (No, I don't care that "bloatcrufty" is not a word. ) 🖖ATS / Talk 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not just you... wish we could get site-wide consensus about these sections... (preferably to do away with them) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume there will be a discussion about the appropriateness of Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a summary of notable reactions is appropriate (like the current president, governor, and mayor), but YES it is getting "bloated" especially with non-notable reactions such as from current candidates for president, mayors of other cities, award ceremonies commenting on it, etc. Stuff like that would make more sense in the sub-article, though some people are bent on deleting that and putting all the bloat back in the main article. --Flipper9 (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism?

The label Islamic Terrorism has been repeatedly added to the infobox as a description for the type of shooting. I'm not aware that investigators have arrived at such a conclusion. Most recently, Darkside Of Aquarius re-added it with this source: [3], which as far as I can tell, doesn't support such a determination at all.

I would like to get other editor's thoughts on whether we should label the shooting an "Islamic Terrorism" shooting, or not. Please indicate your support or opposition below.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

• every reputable news source is reporting that this attack has a clear Islamist motive, it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs)
• We have about as much reliable sources calling the motive "homophobia" or a "hate crime" as we do calling it Islamic terrorism. Either we should abstain from indicating any motive whatsoever until sources become more refined and explicitly clear, or Islamic terrorism should be included alongside homophobia/hate crime. So I support it, conditionally. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs). --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• He pledged allegiance to ISIS. He celebrated as 9/11 was happening. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And if true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• He pledged allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS has claimed credit for his attack. He was a Muslim, he was previously investigated for possible terrorist ties. By pledging allegiance, and by the group to whom allegiance was pledged claiming credit, it is an Islamic terrorist attack.   Spartan7W §   02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  ISIS can opportunistically claim credit since they feel that furthers their cause, but that doesn't mean they actually had anything to do with it before the fact. That's the question we should be asking. he was previously investigated for possible terrorist ties - Any found? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• I have not yet seen a reliable source that plainly makes such a claim. Several have speculated, but speculation is not fact.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I just made a post below at the same time as yours, saying pretty much the same thing. While he apparently made a phone call saying that he was in ISIS, there is no evidence that he actually was. His father claimed he was homophobic and not particularly religious, which doesn't fit the bill for ISIS members normally. Religious extremism means that they are very religious. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources do call him a "devout Muslim". Also, his father's claims that it "wasn't religious" can't really be taken seriously, especially now that he's released a video saying "God will punish those involved in homosexuality". — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also oppose, this is largely due to media hype. As I've said, the media was not plastering "Christian terrorism" over the front pages after the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Wade Page and Omar Mateen are both lone wolf extremists. The consensus is that the ISIL link is thin and dubious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

But the difference here is, Wade Page never claimed allegiance to a known (Christian) terrorist organization; Mateen did. Also, from what I've read it doesn't seem that Page's religious identity is even confirmed. Many white supremacists are now non-religious or have reverted to neo-European paganism and deride Christianity because of its Middle Eastern source. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, this CNN cite is instructive: "The man responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was described by an ex-wife as emotionally unstable, had been interviewed by the FBI over potential terror links and pledged allegiance to the ISIS during a 911 call, sources say. And a former co-worker of 29-year-old Omar Mateen, who authorities say killed 49 people in a massacre at an Orlando gay nightclub early Sunday, claimed he saw the attack coming. "He was an angry person, violent in nature, and a bigot to almost every class of person," said Dan Gilroy, who was a security guard alongside Mateen for about a year between 2014 and 2015, according to CNN affiliate WPTV-TV. Gilroy, a former police officer, said Mateen's behavior was so concerning that he quit working with him." This sounds more like George Hennard Mark Two, with a well known set of psychological traits for a mass shooter in the USA. However, the definition of a terrorist is always in the eye of the beholder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose using Islamic terrorism and Islamism/Islamist, because officials are making claims on condition of anonymity, the event was hailed by one or two IS-related organisations only after the fact, and a video of the perpetrator (per title above) suggests motivations based on strong homophobia. In the same vein, "act of terror" (used by officials) and "terrorist attack" (use avoided by officials) are two different beasts, because of the way the terrible event was organised. What gave the perpetrator the inspiration is not what aided and abetted his actions. -Mardus /talk 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Wait until a preponderance of major mainstream news outlets, at minimum, explicitly and without qualification call it Islamic terrorism (or use some clearly equivalent language). I'm not going to get specific as to what will constitute that preponderance for me, but we're not even close at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose using Islamic terrorism and Islamism/Islamist, I also removed 'perpetrated by ISIL' category. At present all sources are questioning whether any solid link exists to any organisation. When the dust is settled we can rethink. There is enough speculation flying around without WP contributing to it. Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I think that if somebody pledges allegiance to ISIS, it is safe to say there is An Islamist motive. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I pledge my allegiance to ISIS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI should at your door any time now. JOJ ^Hutton 14:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamist motive" is not the same thing as "Islamic Terrorist". We still need sources that plainly say he was an "Islamic terrorist" or that the attack was an "Islamic terrorist" attack. Anything else is WP:OR.- MrX 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so. I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

White washing trolls on anti-LGBT attack & photo for Muslim American reaction section

Is it possible to ban editing from those trying to white wash this? Here, this is a USA Today article interviewing the owner and others, who clearly states that not only is it a gay night club, but it is a place of the LGBT activist movement. Now give it up with the white washing. Anyone who wants to use this in the article, I think it would highly benefit it. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/12/pulse-more-than-just-another-gay-club/85785762/ On a side note, I think we should include a photo from a rally to include in the Muslim reaction section (I'm not clear on the fair use laws, but I can find photos to possibly use). There was a lot of unity support between the LGBT and Muslim communities. JanderVK (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What edit or edits are white washing? - MrX 15:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's our non-free content guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)