Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

New evidence

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

---

Can this Youtube video be provided as credible source?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExIhb5GEqWA

The shooter was an actor and was most likely gay. This shouldn't be labeled as an act of terrorism because we typically use that word for attacks which have been collaborated by foreign militant groups. This shooter was a totally gay american who probably claimed allegiance with ISIL out of anger or frustration. Anyone can do this, this is not a real foreign collaboration ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, here is a websource - http://news.sky.com/story/1712088/documentary-footage-shows-omar-mateen-in-2010

so can we put this up on the main article?

Something with the main article needs to be rewritten, because there is obviously contradictory evidence emerging. I would start by removing the word terrorism. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless the speculations that Mateen was gay are confirmed by officials involved with the investigation, we have to keep that material out because what you are suggesting is pretty speculative as well. Parsley Man (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "officials" have already declared this to be an act of terrorism. And the speculation is strong enough along with the new evidence at this point to know this incident was either a staged false-flag using special actors, or the shooter was indeed a regular homosexual American and not a terrorist. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

False flag? Please review WP:FRINGE. Speculation is best left to blogs, not Facebook. If information in reliable sources changes, the article will reflect that. Currently, they refer to it as a mass shooting and a terrorist attack. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well can you please explain why Youtube videos can or cannot be used as a credible source from the web? Visual information provides better evidence than many "credible" websorces which are typically operating under strict guidelines and can be biased for a host of reasons, including profit. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Depends on the video and the channel. Generally, Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources to WP:PRIMARY ones (which many videos are). Also, there are concerns about copyright violations of videos that are not authorized to be on Youtube or other similar sites. If, though, a verified or official Youtube Channel of a reliable source like this BBC channel is being cited, I see no issue with that. Another exception would be WP:ABOUTSELF sources, like some of the interviews used on Roosh V where he talks about himself in videos on Youtube. The link you give seem to be a copyright violation of Sky News and the commentary below the video is one person's opinion and not from a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, but I really do think Wikipedia needs to review its policy on reliable sources. A good example of this would be video game related journalism. Companies specifically pay to have biased favorable information spread across the web, and even have their own Wikipedia administrators which will cherry pick this biased information, source it, and ban you if you challenge it. Then ban any person who also agrees with you and make assumptions these other people are the banned person in question. And this is only one example of the ludicrous hypocrisy. Many other sources from the web need to be better looked at too. Lots of people here to believe they are factual and knowledgeable; and helping Wikipedia but do nothing to change these policies which really need updating and better guidelines. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss policy changes or Gamergate. Feel free to do that at the village pump. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but maybe you can do this. I am not a hardcore member with fruity colors in his name. You are perfectly proving my point. And my discussion is relevant because I am trying to push the sources I'm providing by challenging the rules. Please read WP:COMMONSENSE. You're fruity signature is very nice by the way, but are you more than just a colorful name? *sigh* so many editors here on Wikipedia who are just like you -__- ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Um... thanks? Despite the colors, I like raspberries and cherries. I'm not sure what you're asking, but if you're trying to get that youtube video included as a source, I am 100% against it. You might want to ask the reliable source noticeboard what they think if you want more opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A video can be used as a source by providing metadata ({{cite AV media}}), as long as there is not link to a copyvio-video on YouTube. Just skip the link. (Just as with a book and a plagirised scan of the book available online. Cite the book, not the link where it can be read). However, that does not make the video (news coverage?) a reliable source. The fact there is a copy on YouTube does not make it less or more reliable. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that perhaps you should go change the Wikipedia policy, since you seem to be a more 'serious' member with a fruity colored name and a large number of edits. Of course you probably don't actually care about factual information. What exactly do you mean by 100% against that youtube video as a source? Can you please explain the reason for why you are against something which provides clear factual evidence, and please also explain why you think I want or need your support? ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The video in question proves the shooter was an actor, because that documentary is a staged production, with film making credits and such. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to change Wikipedia policy regarding sources... and please stop with the odd mix of personal attacks/aspersions and vague compliments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So you are not going to give logic and reasoning behind why you are against this video? Ok but why do you think I am personally attacking you? Do you feel attacked? Are you perhaps being overtly sensitive? (Personal attack removed) ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)^{[Inappropriate under WP:TPG - Personal attack towards editor. (t) Josve05a (c) 23:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)]}

The video can't be used and your comments are becoming disruptive, bordering on overt trolling. Please stop it.- MrX 23:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONSENSE. The video does provide enough evidence as a staged film production, with a clear picture of the shooter, (same face, also pay attention to the crooked/broken nose, and exact same glasses), who is not a real security guard but an actor working a staged production. The purpose of this discussion is I am trying to find something relevant and interesting to include in the main article, and I would also like to know more about how the community reacts to valid sources, and what sources actually are valid. Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a place that promotes conspiracy theories as the truth. If you don't like it, then this is not the place for you. Parsley Man (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories? So you are pretending to be ignorant to the video of the shooter? You really don't believe it's him, or this is not a typical staged reality-documentary? You are really going to sit here and refute a clear picture and a valid weblink source? Ok, don't you think you are the one who is being disruptive now. or WP:PRETENDING TO BE IGNORANT ? ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not saying the video and the documentary aren't a thing. But to present it as proof that Mateen's just an actor and the whole shooting was staged just reeks of "conspiracy theory". And did you really cite a Wikipedia policy that doesn't even exist? Parsley Man (talk) 00:11, 16 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.

My apologies, but there are other websources which also provide evidence of his involvement with other staged productions. I would have to find them again. But really, the purpose of the discussion is to try and find something interesting to include in the main article, do you, or anyone else have any suggestions of what this may be give the sources I have provided? Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Other staged productions"? Mind clarifying what that means? Until then, it seems like whatever you're providing is either extremely speculative or plain-out WP:FRINGE. Parsley Man (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• "Other staged productions" means other films, or "professional" filming he has participated in. I'm sorry if this was not clear enough for you. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the close here. The video looks like it may be a great primary source. However, any statement about it - including that the man is Mateen, let alone anything about him - has to be backed up with secondary sources. That's straight WP:Primary - we can't use the source to push personal theories. But by all means do cite it if you have secondary sources to support citing it and to explain what it means. Wnt (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's alright, I don't mind the closure. But you're asking for secondary sources, and I think the two sources I provided are good enough. I also believe not everything on Wikipedia is backed up with primary and secondary sources this way, but I could be wrong. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because a person appeared within some asserted "documentary" doesn't mean that they are acting every day of their life or that their subsequent life is faked/part of some conspiracy theory. The video proves nothing about the perpetrator of the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting itself beyond the asserted fact that Mateen appeared within some film. Just because someone has appeared in a video or film does not mean that their subsequent acts away from the set are unreal...just ask Robert Blake or Michael Jace or Phil Spector. Better yet ask their victims...oh wait, we can't because they're actually dead. Shearonink (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You're not really paying attention to this discussion well, aren't you? I have already stated what exactly the video proves, and I do include some valid speculation, but the speculation is really not too wild or unrealistic, and the goal is to provide something useful or interesting added to the main article. Now how can we do this? Lets try being productive. Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Commenting on the proposed edit (at least I think that is what you are talking about here, surely you are not commenting on another editor) the video itself does not belong in this article as a source. It proves nothing regarding Mateen & the 2016 Orlando night club shooting. Wikipedia is not a place for unfounded speculation. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Still your speculations and your original research. We are not here to find the WP:Truth or Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or make the article "interesting". We are an encyclopedia. (Also, I dislike that we are still discussing this, despite the closure of this section already. Please ask an admin to uncloseit if you want to continue to discuss. Otherwise, it is a Wikipedia:Dead horse) (t) Josve05a (c) 01:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope, this is a discussion page my speculations are not out of place here. My speculations are in-line with potential breaking news related to this article, and at the very least tell other editors what they could possibly expect in regards to what's happening with this story, which is a type of preparation at the very least. And you also forgot to quote the "useful" bit along side the "interesting" remark I made about what to include with this article given the sources I have provided at this time. And Wikipedia does rely on factual information, are you looking for excuses to not provide factual information? Again, there are clear issues in regards to source policy, which you seem to be forgetting. Again, please read an understand WP:COMMONSENSE. Thank you. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Will only comment on the formalities from now on, and letting the dead horse die. This is a discussion page, not a forum. Your own research or speculations is indeed not relevant. And as for the "breaking news"-part, please read WP:NOTNEWS (t) Josve05a (c) 01:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There are many articles which don't have sufficient source and are technically speculation. I have seen real medical articles written this way. But it would be vandalism if someone were to take them all down, even though these articles violate all kinds of policy. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Stop quoting COMMONSENSE... we saw it the first time and it's just an essay. This is not a forum and not the place to discuss wikipedia generally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with EvergreenFir. Agree with Josve05a re dead-horse etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also. WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE, WP:NPA, and starting to WP:EXHAUST I will WP:AGF and rely on WP:CONSENSUS in this matter.Shearonink (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should just add a forum-tab next to the talk-tab for general discussions. But really, It's not a big deal, the sanctity of the talk page has not really been violated. Please stop trying to police the talk. Do this for the main article and not the talk page. Thanks ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Josve05a and ....SandwitchHawk....: I didn't find good secondaries last I searched, but now we're starting to get there: NY Post citing Sky News. I think it is now justifiable to include this with the Sky News source and original YouTube video. However, it's not clear that it should be included here, because it still is not directly tied to the shooting; it's only relevant to Mateen, who has his own article. So I'm taking it there only for now. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Change the title of the Article to "Pulse Night Club shooting Orlando 2016"

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

---

Change the title of the Article to "Pulse Night Club Shooting" form '2016 Orlando nightclub shooting'

The target of the attack was specifically the Pulse Night Club and not the wider city of Orlando.

Disney World was scouted but not selected as the target

The attacker made efforts to research targets --Jimmy Jim James Byrne (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article name should reflect the common name people use - see WP:COMMONNAME. The details can be provided in the article. No-one is calling this attack the "Pulse Night Club shooting Orlando 2016". The September 11 attacks were not an attack against everything and everyone on September 11 of every year, but that is still what they are called. Ground Zero | t 10:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

We're limiting title change discussions to one at a time, since multiple such discussions could very possibly yield conflicting results. The current one is at #Get rid of "2016" in the title. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This sort of goes against the naming practice at Wikipedia anyway. United States Man (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggest an uninvolved editor close this using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 16 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.

Tony Awards reaction

Is that aspect really necessary? I think we've covered all the bases with the Reactions section and we don't need anymore beyond that, lest we potentially break WP:DUE expectations. Parsley Man (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that the performance of "Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)" - one of the pieces from Hamilton performed at the Tony Awards - was modified to not use prop muskets. I added it in at one point (article on Playbill.com regarding this) since the sonnet recital info was already present; it was removed. I feel that the change to the Hamilton piece is more influential than the sonnet, but... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been tempted to remove it to be honest. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

So have I. It probably belongs in the reactions article.- MrX 12:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Rifle type

While many sources say "AR-15", I take it that's just journalists saying something vaguely close to the truth, and "Sig-Sauer MCX" (which is different though functionally similar) is the correct description? Anyway the citations currently given will have to be replaced by citations with the correct gun (there are many such citations available). Would it be worth saying "widely reported as an AR-15" or words to that effect? Evercat (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend towards specificity personally, but I am a little confused. I was under the impression that the MCX was merely an AR-15 variant. I think that if it is confirmed that it was an MCX it should be listed as such, especially if as a firearm it is differentiated from a 'typical' AR-15. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No way in hell is this an AR-15 variant. This guy concurs. And no, we don't say "widely reported as" when we know it was widely reported incorrectly. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Some sources are reporting that it was a Sig-Sauer MCX, but the ATF tweeted here "Guns traced in #Orlando shooting: .223 caliber AR type rifle and 9mm semiautomatic pistol. Similar to those pictured." This needs more clarity. I'm also getting confused as to whether "Sig-Sauer MCX" is correct without an on the record statement from the investigators.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Then, pending clarity, drop the model and just say Semi-automatic rifle. Or, my preference for this type of gun, Assault weapon. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The gun enthusiasts hate Assault weapon. They say that it is like describing a kitchen knife as an "assault knife". Assault weapon has been used mainly in the context of gun control debates in the USA and has become a politicized term. Semi-automatic rifle is my preferred term.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Wikipedia avoids terms because they are politicized, but either way is ok by me. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Any gun can be used for an assault, but a Glock pistol isn't typically described as an assault gun (guns don't kill, people do, as we are always being told by the gun lobby). The death toll in Orlando immediately suggested the use of a semi-automatic rifle, because a single 9mm round from a Glock wouldn't kill a person unless it hit vital organs. Semi-automatic rifles can often kill with a single shot. This has made them the focus of gun control debates as this type of .223 caliber weapon was designed primarily for military use.[1][2] The civilian versions cannot be fired continuously while the trigger is depressed, but they can kill dozens of people in the space of a few minutes in the wrong hands even in semi-automatic mode.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please quote the ATF directly ... I hate tweets, but if that's the source we got, that's the source we use. Any attempt to blur over or "enhance detail" out of their statement is only going to create more discord. Of course, as other experts weigh in in secondary sources, include them also. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

CBS says here "A law enforcement source said Mateen had recently legally purchased the two weapons used in the attack: a Glock 17 handgun purchased June 5, and a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle purchased on June 4. Investigators also found a .38-caliber weapon in his vehicle." This is an unnamed source, but CBS is reliable. I'm still a bit confused on how best to handle this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Contradictions are good! I don't know enough to say if the ATF and the unnamed source are irreconciliable, but if so, give both accounts and that way our readers will have as good a guess as anyone. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I Think Wnt hit the nail on the head. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should use the cbs article as a source and state the actual name of the gun. It is not an AR-15 but from what I understand we are supposed to present that name also. Since some sources say "AR-15 type" which is somewhat accurate. I think that should be the way it is worded. Jadeslair (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The model is not an essential piece of information here, except to gun trivia fanatics who are a tiny minority of our audience. We certainly aren't required to report a model because many sources do so; our inclusion criteria are different from those of our sources. What matters is the general characteristics and capability of the weapon. Was it a pistol or a long gun? Long gun. Was it a shotgun or a rifle? Rifle. Was it capable of semi-automatic fire? Yes. Was it capable of fully automatic fire? No. And so on.
The model is not so important that we need to spend article space saying, "Well some sources said it was model X, while others said model Y". If we can't be somewhat certain based on available sources, I think we should omit the model and show only type.
One problem with calling it semi-automatic rifle is that that article is full of photos of WWII-era and earlier rifles. I think that's highly misleading (and would be highly misleading even if we stated the model, unless we could link that to an article better representative of the actual gun, one with photo(s)). This is one reason I favor assault weapon over semi-automatic rifle. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand why the article Semi-automatic rifle is full of images of very old guns. Things have moved on since the days of this type of gun. Weapons of the AR-15 type are widely available on the gun market in the USA, and have been the defining feature of mass shootings in the modern era.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing the feeling is that the modern semi-automatics are covered well enough in Assault rifle and Assault weapon. No one considered this problem, that it makes the choice of links in infoboxes very problematic. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• The guns used in the shooting were purchased at the St. Lucie Shooting Center, which describes this type of gun as an assault rifle. The website says "St. Lucie Shooting Center carries Assault Rifles. Come in and see what is the perfect rifle for you." Which is exactly what Mateen did.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Ianmacm: After reading parts of both leads, it seems assault weapon and assault rifle, alone, are both too ambiguous for our needs. Now I'd suggest "Semi-automatic assault rifle" and omit the model. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering the political weight surrounding 'assault rifle' I think perhaps simply "semi-automatic rifle" would be most appropriate. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Or least unacceptable? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Evercat, ACanadianToker, Ianmacm, Wnt, and Jadeslair: - I don't see a consensus, and I'm not prepared to give up on reaching one. Shall we try a straw poll? Please read the discussion first.

• Semi-automatic assault rifle, no mention of model until and unless we have more reliable sourcing. Per my comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• This is over. The current text ("Officials said a .223 Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle and a Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol were recovered from Mateen's body...") cites three sources for the precise model, including a secondary source dedicated to the topic. [3] There is no conceivable reason why we would take out the precise gun used, as it is obviously a crucial detail of the shooting and also of the political response to it. Wnt (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  @Wnt: Ok, I wasn't aware that we had nailed down the model. I disagree that this is completely over, since we have no photo of an MCX to wikilink to, we are linking to an article with mostly WWII-era and earlier wooden rifles (including the first ones in the article), and that's entirely misleading in my opinion. If feel we should be linking to Semi-automatic assault rifle (two links), still not ideal but a significant improvement over Semi-automatic rifle. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't consider where the link should go, or even whether it should be called assault rifle versus assault weapon or whatever ... there are infinite shades of sophistry about all these gun terms that I'll never know. I just want to be clear it's important to say what it is, since we know. What that is is a whole other debate! Wnt (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

whole other debate It's looking like it will have to be, just to get enough participation to reach a consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• ".223 Sig Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle" It does not matter that the semi-automatic rifle needs to be updated, in fact by linking to it, it will likely be updated. You do not have to link to it either.Jadeslair (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation overkill for uncontested facts; use of Washington Times as a source

Re: this diff:

For the statement "His parents were Afghan," we have a citation to an extensive New York Times piece which clearly and directly states the proposition and does some original reporting on it (his father, etc.)

User:Redzemp has inserted and reinserted an additional cite to a Washington Times piece from June 12 (this cite). That piece links to and rehashes of a CBS News article. It supports the proposition in the article (i.e., that shooter's parents are Afghan) but only in passing, and is also rather more tentative ("was identified as..."), reflecting the fact that it was published before the NY Times pieces, as information was coming in.

This seems like pure citation overkill to me. I can conceive of no reason for us to have (1) a duplicate cite for which we already have a good cite; (2) for a totally uncontested fact; (3) to a source that merely refers to another source; (4) particularly when the duplicate source has a lower circulation and is generally less well-regarded. I'd welcome thoughts from others. Neutrality^talk 19:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't need additional sources added for uncontroversial information, and we should remove every occurrence of Washington Times as a source, because if something is noteworthy, there will almost always be a more reliable source for it.- MrX 19:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This citation is superfluous, but the Washington Times is a reliable source last I checked. Like all papers, the 1 thing not to do is to cite commentaries & op-eds. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it seems pretty superfluous. Unless it provides something about the specific topic that is not provided by the New York Times source, then I see no reason in including it. Parsley Man (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

hello. I saw what you did. Can you show me anywhere in Wikipedia policy and listings where The Washington Times is considered "low quality"? Simply because it leans right? Wikipedia is supposed to be the depository of only left-leaning and liberal sources? You kidding me??? Washington Times is "low quality" to YOU....for some reason, simply because you don't like the paper.

Also, "citation overkill" is NOT the reason you removed it. That's just a front reason, because other statements in the article have TONS of citations in a row, no problem. You, Neutrality, just don't like this particular source, for basically cop-out reasons. It's a right-leaning paper, and that's all there is to it. It's not about "original reporting". It's just right-leaning reporting that you have an issue with. (Who are we kidding here?) But if you're truly "neutral" (which you show you're not) you would have problems the New York Times and Washington Post, for their blatant biases the OTHER way. But bubbles people don't see. I can't stand the right-leaning New York Post, but I still put that source sometimes in articles, because it's still considered "reliable".

I see that you did the same, MrX, with "not desirable", which is a circular argument. Which proves that it has nothing really to do with "citation overkill"...as many other sentences have way more citations in a row after them, with no objection. But "not desirable" according to who exactly, liberal-leaning Wikipedians who simply don't like right-leaning newspapers? Where in WP official listings is The Washington Times labeled as "low quality" or "not desirable". Many people consider The New York Times and Washington Post "low quality" and very biased and deranged. Doesn't matter. Wikipedia considers them reliable, and so do I, and I use them all the time.

"But who is to measure what is "low" or "high"? Liberal Wikipedians who, in circular argument, simply SAY that to be the case? Many people consider the The Washington Post "low quality", but its a matter of taking the good with the bad. But again, maybe I'm missing something. Show me something solid and definitive in Wikipedia policy or lists, that specifically names The Washington Times as "a low quality source". I've yet to see that. So your removal, in NON-neutral and very POV fashion, of that reliable source (that you have personal problems with) was not Wikipedia-kosher or valid. Restored. (Or at least show genuine consensus in article talk page, regarding this specific source, and I abide by it, even if consensus is wrong or questionable.) So please don't be fooled by the front excuse, [User:Parsley Man|Parsley Man]] and Mr. That's just the convenient cop-out rationale, because many sentences in this article (and others) have multiple citations WAY MORE than this. It's the source itself that "Neutrality" has the real problem with, by his own admission...not "citation overkill". Regards. Redzemp (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay... Any credibility you had for this argument just got thrown out of the window with your first paragraph alone. "Simply because it leans right? Wikipedia is supposed to be the depository of only left-leaning and liberal sources? You kidding me??? Washington Times is "low quality" to YOU....for some reason, simply because you don't like the paper." What? I don't know where the heck THAT came from, but I doubt all of that is the case from where I'm standing... Parsley Man (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not directed to you, Parsley Man, but to "Neutrality". As that is what I wrote on his talk page, but just transferred basically here. It's directed really to "Neutrality" and MrX. Not sure why you would think that "throws my credibility out the window". It's true. He admits HE DOESN'T LIKE THE SOURCE. it's not really because of "citation overkill". That's just a convenient alibi to remove a right-leaning newspaper source. Also, I've generally agreed with YOUR edits, Parsley. So again, what I wrote there was not directed specifically to you, but to the other two contributors. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't care who it was directed to. The moment I see people make these kinds of "arguments" in defense of their positions, I stop listening to them. Call it something built up from other experiences in this talk page alone. As Neutrality says, you (and anyone else under that general sphere) would have to review Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you defend your position. Parsley Man (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Redzemp - take a moment to review Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. As I've said before, I object to citation overkill and I object to needless reliance on sources such as the Washington Times when sources of far higher quality and detail are readily available, and in fact already cited. Neutrality^talk 20:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

First, Neutrality, I'm going by your own words...of "low quality source". That really is your reason for removing. NOT logically "citation overkill" because (as I pointed out repeatedly and you ignore repeatedly) many other statements in this article (and others) have multiple citations in a row, way more than this, where no one bats an eye, and where you don't object to. So it's simply (logically deductively, assuming correct logical conclusions) you really just don't like this source. And I also asked you (and you ignored of course) to show me anything IN WIKIPEDIA POLICY ITSELF that excludes The Washington Times as being a reliable source for this or any other article on WP, or that it's "low quality". I have yet to see any specifics on that from you or anyone, just ASSERTIONS and circular arguments. There's no "assuming" there at all, just observation. From the facts. Redzemp (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Issues of source reliability belong more on WP:RSN than here. If we don't need the source and it's contested, then exclude it and resolve the discussion on RSN. There's been some past discussion of Washington Times in the past (1, 2, search here). A quick review of replies RSN seems to show that it's a QUESTIONABLE source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There may have been some question and discussion, (in circular and similar fashion), about this source in the past but so? No doubt since most Wikipedians are biased and left-leaning...what does that prove? But I looked at them, and it seems more discussion about opinion articles and interviews. There's nothing in WP listings that discounts the W Times as "unreliable"...like Gawker or something. The Unification Church is irrelevant in the matter. But what goes on here? They'll ignore the unreliability and nonsense with New York Times and Washington Post because of their "liberal" bias...but will jump on the biases of right-leaning papers, inconsistently. Many people don't trust the NY Times or W Post, but I still put them in, because taking the good with the bad, they're considered "reliable sources" anyway. My question is is there anything OFFICIAL by Wikipedia dismissing the Washington Times as a valid source, like WP dismisses TMZ? I don't see that anywhere. So again, the argument of "citation overkill" is silly, as it was only TWO citations, and hardly "overkill". And the W Times article is decent and reliable enough, and makes its points. No real solid reason to remove.... No "citation overkill" argument is sustained (when other sentences have way more citations in a row), and no official WP anything discounts W Times as "unreliable". I abide by consensus, though, even when totally wrong, biased, circular, suppressive, counter-factual, inconsistent, and questionable. That's part of WP policy too. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Redzemp, being accusatory is not helpful. Take a moment to read our civility policy, please. Here are the two simple facts (agreed upon by 3 editors, with disagreement expressed only by you): (1) we have a higher-quality cite already, from the New York Times; (2) the Washington Times cite adds no new information, nor gives additional support for any article text. The cite is unnecessary and unhelpful, and this is seems obvious to most of the editors here. Neutrality^talk 20:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Blunt frank talk is not necessarily "uncivil", Neutrality. And you keep ignoring the point again. It can't logically be "citation overkill" as the real reason, since many other sentences in this article have way more citations in a row than this, with no objection from anybody. So then the real reason (which you admit too) of "poor quality source" is based on what exactly? How precisely is The Washington Times "poor quality"? Please answer that question. What makes that so exactly? I'm waiting for a clear specific answer to that one. Not just a general circular argument and assertion. How exactly is W Times "poor quality"? Redzemp (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redzemp: I am MrX. Washington Times is not necessarily a source that can never be used, but it's one of the less desirable ones, much like The Daily Mail and portions of Huffington Post. Note also that we routinely use right-leaning sources like Fox News and The Weekly Standard. The question for you is: what is in the Washington Times that can't be found in sterling sources like the New York Times, Washington Post and Orlando Sentinel?- MrX 20:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

LOL... The fact that you call biased inconsistent jokes of newspapers like New York Times and Washington Post "sterling sources"...SAYS IT ALL, man. Uh, no they're not. MrX, come on. They're very imperfect and at times even sloppy. Just like the right-leaning New York Post (which I can't stand either). But I still use all of those sources, because NO source is totally perfect, and totally unbiased. And they're considered "reliable sources" by WP. So your circular assertion of "not desirable" and "poor quality" is EMPTY RHETORIC...because it still doesn't answer my specific question of HOW EXACTLY? It becomes apparent that anything right-leaning (to a lefty like you) is "poor quality" IPSO FACTO. (You put Fox News and Weekly Standard, both right-leaning) as "poor quality". See a pattern here, man? Wikipedia is not supposed to cater to editors politics and leanings, and circular beliefs and biases. There's NO real true solid valid reason to remove the source, period. Only "I don't like it because it's a right-leaning paper". Because it's proven that this "citation overkill" cop-out is just an inconsistent and a convenient alibi, since (I'll repeat) many other sentences in this article have many citations in a row with no problem. But they're all left-leaning etc, so they're ok? right. lol Yeah, alright. Again, I abide by consensus (no matter how obviously wrong and suppressive and biased it is), as per WP policy. good day..... Redzemp (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have NOT seen anyone saying they didn't like anything "because it's a right-leaning paper". Only because it's a "low-quality source". Why? I personally don't know (and care), but links to discussions were provided above by EvergreenFir for good reason, so I highly suggest you read them if you want to find out. Maybe you can find a hole in the arguments somewhere and use it to your advantage. But it would be very much appreciated if you are more patient and hold back on the accusations that Wikipedia and a majority of its users are left-leaning, because it doesn't help your argument at all (it instead tells people more and more about yourself as a person). Parsley Man (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I already read those links, Parsley Man, and they're mainly about opinion articles or interviews in the W Times, and is far from what I asked for, as far as an actual black list or any listing officially by WP that the W Times is somehow so "low"...like TMZ or something. Already addressed...and it proves nothing. Just that others have discussions about it, who are libbies too. And it doesn't matter if YOU think it "doesn't help my case" (in YOUR mind) that I point out that obvious proven fact, that WP contributors are mostly (not all, but mostly) left-leaning, and therefore can cause problems with bias and suppression. It is what it is....get off the high horse already...guy who says "F" on edit comments...yet thinks he can lecture others on civility. I don't have time or patience for that. Also, where in a comment on here I was basically being amiable and civil with you and you just spat on it and dissed it. So much for civility. 21:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redzemp: You might want to read a little more carefully before you comment. I said "we routinely use right-leaning sources like Fox News and The Weekly Standard." I did not say they were poor quality. Also, just so you know, The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper. Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. How many has the Washington Times won? I will also join in the chorus of other editor's requests that you be civil and please leave politics at the door.- MrX 21:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And who have been the ones awarding these "pulitzer" prizes, MrX? OTHER LIBERALS OR PEOPLE IN THE SAME COCOON. lol.... Please look up the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority", argumentum ad verecundiam, as well as appeal to majority. Argumentum ad populum. It doesn't matter how many awards some libby leaning rag wins BY PEOPLE FROM THEIR OWN CROWD. Again with the circular argument and cocoon of group think. What matters is the substance and proven problems and sloppiness with W Post and NY Times. They're a joke, as far as "neutrality" is the point. All you did was childishly cite "awards" instead of the actual substance in actual articles and stories. How can W Times win any awards when the ones doing the awarding are mostly left-leaning and HATE right-leaning news organizations...and always marginalize and dismiss (or down-play) them? The point is that fellow libs awarding things in a circular cocoon doesn't prove much... Redzemp (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm done talking to you. You have a wonderful day!- MrX 21:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice dodge. But the point remains. Citing "awards" when the ones doing the awarding are in the same ideological camp, and are mostly in the same bubble, means what really? Fellow libs awarding prizes to news organizations in a circular cocoon is not really all that impressive, but is superficial argumentum ad verecundiam. I try to go by merits and substance. And as I said, I cite all types of sources, whether I personally like them or not. And I don't lean right or left, but smack in the middle. (Also, I hate politics...it's dirty and corrupt.) Redzemp (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, let it be known that I am a little surprised by the classification of The Washington Times as a "low-quality source". I believe I've used it at least a couple times before when citing something and I've never run into any problems with it. I really don't follow Wikipedia discussions on what makes a source high-quality or low-quality, though, so I'll take the others' words for it. But I do hope something more concrete comes out of said quality, because this probably won't be the last time we talk about this ("low-quality" sounds a bit vague in terms of when we should use such sources). Quality of the source aside, I still concur that using the Washington Times source is superfluous, since it provides nothing new to the material cited and we already have another citation to support said material. Parsley Man (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the 1st time I've seen the Washington Times called a low-quality source. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's right, Parsley Man. It's not a "poor quality source". It's only that to ardent liberals or "regressives" who simply don't like right-leaning anything.... And think that "left-leaning" is just factual and objective. Which is a joke. But if you'll notice my citation edits in general, in this article, and articles in general...I PUT ANY AND ALL....from MSNBC to Fox...to CNN, to Washington Post, to NY Times, to USA Today, to Washington Post, to Washington Times. So? As long as the story is good and informative, and makes the point in the sentence or statement. I don't consider them ipso facto "poor quality" if I personally (note PERSONALLY) can't stand the NY Daily News or the W Post or the NY Times. I use all types of sources...as long as they're not black-listed and are RS.......no matter where they lean. Or even if I despise MSNBC, but the problem is that FOX is biased and annoying too. So? It's whatever. I try to be more in the middle... That's why I use all types of sources, as long as they're not banned from WP in some black list or something. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't adhere to your opinion. Also, you didn't address the last sentence of my paragraph. Parsley Man (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why the hostility from you with "I don't adhere to your opinion", Parsley Man , when you obviously do with the point of "Washington Times is not a poor quality source". I was being amiable with you and civil, AND YOU JUST SPAT ON IT, rudely...and very uncivilly. Plus what you said is simply not true. What's up??? You don't agree with that? What's with the attitude? Just cuz you're whining about my first comment on this matter, and over-reacting to it, therefore you'll childishly say you don't adhere to my opinion on a specific matter, even when you obviously do? THAT IN ITSELF IS UNCIVIL...and jerky. And I won't bother with you, Parsley, if you keep with that. I don't need that dishonesty and disrespect. Also, to your question of "superfluous", it's no more "superfluous" than the numerous citations in other sentences that are left alone...also, what you fail to understand is that ORIGINALLY, the W Times citation was the only one there for that particular sentence. I believe so. And the NY Times one was put in later, from what I remember.

But regardless of that, why call this "superfluous" but not the numerous other sentences with way more citations in a row after them...especially if you say that W Times is NOT a "poor quality source"? How bout you answering that? (And if you come at me with more rude jerky nonsense, I'll ignore you and not bother really. Be respectful and cool with me, and civil, and not so hypocritical and over-reactive about "civility", and I'll do the same with you. Otherwise please don't bother. Seriously. I had enough of you on this. I tried to be amiable and civil with you in my previous comment to you, AND YOU JUST SPAT ON IT like a rude jerk. Not cool, and not necessary. That was far from "civil". So spare me. Again, though..answer this: why call this "superfluous" but not the numerous other sentences with way more citations in a row after them...especially if you say that W Times is NOT a "poor quality source"? Redzemp (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

You're casting aspersions again. Please drop the stick and slowly back away from the bloody horse carcass. You made your point but are verging on WP:POINT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I was simply stating facts. That A) Washington Times is not a "poor quality" source...and B) I put in all types of sources in articles, no matter where they lean. What exaclty was the "aspersion" that I cast in the comment right above?? Funny how you keep saying what your'e saying without addressing or speaking to any specifics. But fall into the convenient "you're being uncivil"... Even though (again) I'm simply stating what I do and what others do. If it sounds negative and insulting, I CAN'T HELP THAT. It's just observation. Keep your lecturing to yourself, EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}}, cuz I'm getting a little tired of it. Because you're just self-righteously talking down, while dodging specifics, and not having a real conversation about the actual subject. I'll ignore you the next time you address me with more nonsense. Because then YOU are being uncivil, dismissive, and evasive. Yes "aspersions" that are simply factual observations. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your aspersions are that Wikipedia is left-leaning and therefore is biased because of it. Yes, we get it, you're right-leaning and you're not very happy with Wikipedia. Parsley Man (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And I'm supposed to take you (and people like you) seriously, when you said what you said? Did you miss the part, Parsley Man (the guy who says the "F" word!" on edit comments, against WP policy but then gets on a high horse about a blunt factual comment above?), where I clearly said that I'm in the MIDDLE!!!?? I don't like guns and I hate corporate greed and pollution, and I believe in a MUCH higher minimum wage. And I think that the NRA should be outlawed. Wow I sound like such a "right-leaner" there, don't I? lol... You don't know me...so don't assume. I'm somewhere in the middle. Righties DON'T LIKE ME on a lot of things. Also, did you miss the part where I said that I put all types of sources in articles, NO PROBLEM? A true "right-leaner" would not do that. Redzemp (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• An administrative comment (from a non-admin): Please keep an eye out for Wikipedia:EDITWAR, Wikipedia:3RR and the ArbCom sanctions against this article. Please disucss instead of reverting eachother. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Also, please try to follow WP:BRD. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically the article is under 1RR for the ISIL general sanctions... but we've been working well without having to resort to enforcing that. But a reminder of the general sanctions ... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. See the AN discussion that I started a few days ago.- MrX 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Found it! Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#GS.2FSCW.26ISIL_clarification_sought. Thanks for bringing this up! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm going to stop contributing to this discussion. This is clearly getting very toxic here. Parsley Man (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Washington Times which is a 34-year old institution with a daily circulation of almost 60,000. It is very regrettable that some have called it a "low-quality" source. Did not know Wikipedia held a "ranking" of news sources! XavierItzm (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My point exactly, XavierItzm. Redzemp (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Including two or three sources for a statement is fine. People who are unaccustomed to the look of footnotes will get over it - or maybe the high-paid WMF employees will think up some clever way to make footnotes less obtrusive, you never know. Meanwhile, keep the sources. That said, Washington Times is well known to be owned by the Moonies, and as such, people always have a certain suspicion of it. However, when you look at the ownership of a lot of media you realize you don't like what you see, so that's not a strong argument. Instead of looking for sources to strip out, look for sources to add; if we have genuinely redundant citations, sources that literally don't add anything to a story, we then can pick and choose at random or based on our prejudices -- however, having left- vs. right-wing perspectives will often make two sources not truly redundant! Wnt (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, while what you are saying may be good general advice, the argument above is about supporting that father and son were of Afghan descent. There is no point in multiple-reffing something like that, and it makes sense to use the most complete account. The whole above discussion is a bit pointless since WT just isn't needed here. Pincrete (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I do have to admit this Washington Times article seems minimally useful. But I don't want to concede it as being "overkill" to have multiple sources for an ethnicity. What I really want is a source that says where the family originally came from, and cross-references it to specific events in the war that ended up to them coming here. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The target of the attack

Why does the target simply state people who are patrons of the club, this is being treated as a homophobic hate crime and so it is more accurate to have LGBT people as the target. The shooter went to an LGBT nightclub, during gay pride month and demonstrated a hate for gay men kissing. Many media outlets, state leaders such as Barack Obama and non political figures have made speeches deploring the homophobic nature of the attack and there have been vigils held across cities like London with LGBT flags used. Social media was trending in American and Europe with LGBT support. The target and victims were LGBT people, it has been acknowledged as such and to not have that mentioned in target and replaced with simply 'patrons' avoids this reality and how it is being seen by officials and the public. Using 'Patrons of a club' would be like using 'people living in Poland' rather than listing Jews, homosexuals etc in the Holocaust. Here are examples: Vox, Barack Obama discussing the attack as a anti LGBT hate crime BBC, UK Home Secretary Theresa May "homophobic hatred" Guardian, Owen Jones "worst mass killing of LGBT people" Yes non LBGT people may also have been the victims or targets too. But the hate was not towards hetrosexuals, it was towards the LGBT community, they were the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erzan (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed in a previous discussion (scroll up), and the consensus is to not include that as a hate crime rn. BTW, comment is free, and the opinion of Theresa May are not considered reliable sources on deciding if it's a hate crime, unless Theresa May happens to be a US official weighing in on this matter.BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 05:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is very messy, I had a scroll up and could not find the discussion on the how the info box on the 'target' should be edited was discussed. What heading does it come under? Erzan (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Erzan: Motive is still unclear and current consensus is to wait until investigators state the motive more definitively. The info you mention is included in the article for the most part, but we're waiting until a clear motive is announced until we include it in the infobox. The top of the talk page now has a box with links to consensus and discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Okay, What is your view on the target? Because I find it rather extraordinary editors on Wikipedia are waiting for the FBI to finish their investigation to agree this is an attack against the LGBT people. Would this be the case if an Islamic terrorist went into a Church during a Christian holiday like Easter, killed the attendees and was reported to despise Christians. Just a thought. Erzan (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Erzan: hypotheticals are not covered by policy (although I'd imagine that even if some group such as Christians disproportionately suffered from a terrorist incident, the motivation would not be confirmed on WP at least until reputable sources in the field (aka the FBI, FSB or whatever relevant agency) makes a statement. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 17:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:@BrxBrx:I would suggest there is a difference between Christians being disportionately suffered from the US 9/11 terrorist attacks, which I guess they were. To a terrorist reported to state anti-Christian views, who goes into a Church during Easter and kills the Christian people inside. One was a byproduct of chance the other was a calculated decision to inflict terror on a certain group, in this scenario it was Christians.

References

Victim name order

What is this from? The police? Do the three columns reflect their presentation? Did they do it in order of ID ? Certainly does not appear to be by age or gender. I am going to count and replace "most" with exact number. Ranze (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

By convention, the list should be alphabetical (by last name). - MrX 12:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep! They're currently in alphabetical order by surname. See WP:SUR regarding the sorting of Spanish/Latinx surnames. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo of Pulse night club in the infobox

This is the correct building, but shows it painted white in 2006 and is now very old. The building currently looks like this. I would like to repeat the request for anyone who lives in Florida to take a photo of the building and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Flickr hasn't been much use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

perhaps in the interim a more appropriate image would be of the nightclub's logo or alternatively a free picture of a local (Orlando) memorial/vigil? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In-police-uniform work at the nightclub: who was supposed to pay; age and gender of the first officer

Are any sources clear about:

• The age and sex of the first police officer - are there references, and should that info be a part of the article? (I have heard that in Iran - not where I live - policemen on patrol have an upper age limit of 30 - and there is a rationale for that.)
  
• In the country where I live, it would be unheard of for a police officer to go from his/her 12 hour shift as a police officer, and after work appear in uniform for extra work at a shopping mall or outside a nightclub; and afterwards receiving a paycheck from a non-police employer. If the police officer was working in uniform on his/her day-off, and then paid by another employer, that would also be unheard of . Please help make clear what actually happened.
  
• Was the first mentioned officer deployed (outside (?) the club) by police authority, or was the officer only required to inform the police where he would be in uniform while collecting an extra paycheck from another employer? 46.212.240.240 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure none of the sources are clear on any of the above. Why do you ask? Parsley Man (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Why I am asking? Why do others ask questions on a discussion page aimed at improving text and references in an article? 46.212.240.240 (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Information is still a bit unclear about the officer. Not sure about sex/age. It's not uncommon for officers to work as security guards. Sometimes places hire police (in uniform, as police officers) to be guards at events (common at university events for example). Not sure if that was the case here. If they were in uniform, they were likely hired as police officers. It's not the same as being "on the beat" or on patrol though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Found a link: [4]. Might get better reply over on the WP:REFDESK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a common practice at clubs and events in Canada, where they are simply called "off-duty police officers". Their presence is required by law at large gatherings of people. They appear at the event armed and in uniform and the event organizer pays the police department. I've never heard any public criticism of the practice, although event organizers don't like to pay. When crowds are very large, like the Canadian National Exhibition there are police auxiliaries (not armed) in addition to regular police. This link at the Orange County Sheriff's Office discusses that agency's policies about off-duty officers. That is not the agency responsible for providing the officers at Pulse. Orlando Police Special Services has more information on off-duty rates. Roches (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Images with deletion requests

The following two images are currently being discussed on Wikimedia Commons regarding their copyright. Anyone with good knowledge of copyright laws and Commons policies are free to comment on the discussions.

• File:Eiffel Tower LGBT.jpg (located under #Reactions) is being discussed for deletion for two reasons. Firstly due to possible flickrwashing (license laundering) where one person steals an image and pretends it is their own on flickr). Secondly, due to France freedom of panorama laws, explicitly stating that the lighting on the tower may be copyrighted.
• File:Omar Mateen.jpg (located under #Perpetrator) is being discussed for deletion because the image is from a Florida driver's license. Opinions differ if that falls under public domain due to Florida copyright law.

Feel free to comment on these deletion requests - however, please note it is not a vote, but the venue to present the best legal arguments as to why they are ok or not. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a shame if they delete the Eiffel Tower one, but we have others we can replace it with at c:Category:Monuments_and_memorials_to_the_2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting and c:Category:Rallies_in_support_of_the_victims_of_the_2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting. I personally like File:Space Needle half-mast rainbow flag.jpg. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Who is Mina?

The Investigation section mentions someone named Mina with no context. Confusing.

Mina called the shooting an act of "lone wolf" domestic terrorism. Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said, "This is an incident, as I see it, that we certainly classify as domestic terror incident". When asked about Islam, FBI agent Ronald Hopper replied, "We do have suggestions that that individual might have leanings towards that, that particular ideology. But right now we can't say definitively, so we’re still running everything around."[3] Mina said Mateen was organized, well prepared, and not from the local area.[36] The FBI set up a hotline for callers with information on the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.213.246 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 June 2016

It's John W. Mina, City of Orlando Chief of Police. Reading through the whole article should make this clear, but maybe it does need some clarification.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional Point regarding Reactions section

Just want to point out that we should probably actually make a brief mention (a few sentences should be sufficient) with regards to Senator Murphy's filibuster (then followed by the {{further}} template). While it can be assumed why the filibuster took place, not everyone might get it right away. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, Wikipedia? Eighth-longest one gets an article? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support no more than one sentence, and preferably a just a few words ("gun control debate... and a filibuster by Senator Chris Murphy clearing the way to a vote").- MrX 11:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I would support a sentence or two on it. Neutrality^talk 15:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's particularly notable and it's not particularly related to this event. It's a gun control filibuster, not an Orlando Terrorist Attack filibuster. Article is getting too long already for everyone's personal reaction. Moments of prayer, flags lowered to half staff, etc, more closely connected yet not relevant. --DHeyward (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Should the reactions of major U.S. politicians be included in this article?

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

---

I would say yes. Others may disagree, but let's not be partisan about this matter. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This RfC exists solely for that exact question. Maybe you should contribute there, give your two cents. Parsley Man (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, OK, maybe until that RFC closes, you should abide by our WP:PRESERVE policy, rather than making things up as you go along? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

First appeal for you to soften your tone. It is not helping. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

"...the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history..."

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I so often am), but isn't this the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in MODERN WORLD history (since, say, industrialization)? I have no way to explore/confirm this, but I've not yet read/heard anything that would contradict that, and if factual, it should be pointed out; I leave it to experts better qualified than I to check into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freonfreakone (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the mass collection, deportation, internment in concentration camps, and execution by gas and other means of people identified as LGBT by the Nazis is unlikely to be eclipsed by this incident as the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people. General Ization ^Talk 00:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In any case, it's moot unless reliable sources make the statement you suggest. To date, they are describing it as the deadliest in U.S., not world, history. General Ization ^Talk 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it likely that 9/11, with 2,977 immediate deaths, killed more LGBT people than the 49 so far in this attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.76.185 (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't against them though, there has to be evidence of targeting, otherwise we go back to world war two and speculate what percentage of soldiers were gay or bi. "Bomb Girls" aside the American lesbians managed to escape comparatively unscathed from that conflict. Ranze (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. People are really confusing an attack on humans with an attack on certain group of humans. 9/11 was an attack against the USA and this mass shooting so far, appears to be a targeted attack against LGBT people. The 9/11 hijackers were not simply trying to kill LGBT people, they were trying to hit American targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erzan (talk • contribs) 08:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

However, the Nazis were specifically targeting LGBT people (among other groups) and they killed far more than 49. Still, it wasn't a single incident but a prolonged genocide over several years, and details about specific mass killings at the concentration camps are few and far between. At best, it's ambiguous. In any case, without a reliable source, we can't add it. Smartyllama (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added "the largest targeted mass killing of LGBT people in the western world since the Holocaust" (citing Owen Jones' comments on the matter), but it would be good if there are other, possibly more NPOV sources out there making this claim. Liborbital (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Goodness knows how many gay men IS has killed in Syria, although it may be more than 49. I was a bit wary of the Holocaust comparison because of Godwin's law, but this is undoubtedly the worst homophobic attack in a Western country in the modern era.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm wary of this too... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I discussed this further below, but please don't go comparing this with the Holocaust. It mocks both. As I said, if an attack killed 1000 people in Tel Aviv, it would not ever be called the worst act of violence against Jewish people since the Holocaust. I think the phrasing results from a misguided application of the common British expression "worst attack since the Second World War."Roches (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIL quotes and statements in the Reactions section

I feel these are just largely promoting more hate and it's mostly sourced to disreputable sources - an ISIL 'news' agency? Maybe this material should be reworked or removed. Computationsaysno (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the SITE Intelligence Group invented Amaq. I'd only included it because more reliable sources had mischaracterized it and Wikipedia relayed those. I don't see any promotion of hate in it, but I'd be OK with removing everything based on Amaq, purely for bullshit. Al-Bayan is legit, though, and I think it's worth a mention that ISIS at least acknowledged the shooting and shout-out, given the amount of talk about them elsewhere in the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Those Telegram fanboys can go. I'd added that because an earlier version mentioned ISIS itself was gloating on "a social media account", citing a New York Times live blog that had moved on to newer things (nobody should ever cite live blogs). I'd just found the closest thing in NYT to what we'd claimed, didn't personally find it notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's remove all the b.s. stuff and just keep what is worth it, even if it has to be moved somewhere else. Computationsaysno (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

you did it already Thank you! Computationsaysno (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Investigation missing newer material

I added an update tag to the Investigation section. There has been significant coverage of Mateen's wife's possible role and a pending grand jury investigation. There is information given to sources (from the FBI I think) that she went with him to purchase ammunition, helped scout the location, and was texting and trying to call him during the slaughter. Unfortunately I don't have time to properly write this material right now, but I did want to point out this gaping hole in the article with hope that someone might be able to help.- MrX 14:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Fox cites an (anonymous) FBI source for the bit about the possibly pending indictment, but the meat of the story is that the investigation continues. Until an actual indictment, the jury is literally still out on whether to even allege anything. I'd ignore "officials", "law enforcement sources" and completely unattributed speculation. Newswriters need new content or they don't get paid; we don't get paid regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, however if respected news agencies says FBI source, I think that has credibility.- MrX 15:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Do respected news agencies say people who are cooperating with federal investigators have "dropped out of sight" and are being "zeroed in/closed in on"? I don't have TV, but I'll bet the music on FNC is pretty damn convincing lately. That said, they're certainly rock solid next to The Daily Mail. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. My information about this comes from CNN. I haven't researched it much further than that.- MrX 15:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

They too "zero in". But also "pin her down". Classy touch. Anyway, I think the gist of anything useful we can glean from this is already in the Perpetrator section. Probably best to move that to Investigation, unless we're fine with calling her a perpetrator. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And I did. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction YET AGAIN

Looks like he's back in the Reactions section. Wasn't consensus reached already for this? Parsley Man (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There is now a list of consensuses near the top of the page. I don't see the word "Trump" in it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If so, then I'm caught in a time loop then, because I've discussed this too many times with so many people who are for or against it. Is Trump encompassed in the "government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved" RfC? Parsley Man (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You are caught in some kind of time loop, because just about every time I've added Trumps reaction, you've been there 30 seconds later to remove it, no matter the hour of the day, for days on end. It's very much like groundhog's day for me at least. See the section below if you want to generate consensus that the reactions of national politicians shouldn't be included in this article. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Well find that in the archives (they are only 3 pages) and if you perceive a consensus add it to the list. We can then accept that or revert per BRD, like anything else. Then we'll be seeking consensuses about whether consensuses were reached, which should be lots of fun for all. We shall call these "metaconsensuses", and we'll have a separate list for those. Last sentence satirical humor. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Going forward, it will work much better if it's added to the list at the time someone feels a consensus has been reached. Someone else may still disagree, but at least the question and arguments will be fresh in everyone's mind, and the main players in the discussion should still be around and somewhat focused on that issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: The section I was thinking of when I reverted was #Final sentence of Trump material where people seem to be indicating preference to delete all candidates. Up in the first RFC opinion leans toward summary only or only those directly involved. It was out of the reaction section for most of the day. Kendrick7 added it back in here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we need someone not INVOLVED to make a review of the current state of the various discussions and come to their own conclusion? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck finding somebody. That would be a very tough job, coming into all of these issues cold. Take the difficulty of closing just one discussion and multiply by that by x. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not American. I think the Trump responses belong in articles about his campaign, not here. If they are in here, it looks like Trump is trying to capitalized on the event for political reasons. If it's in campaign articles, Trump's statements are in the context of preventing terrorism and so can be discussed more fully.Roches (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

There are 143 days left in the campaign, but only (roughly) three days left in this story. Weather the storm, people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this discussion why there is a NPOV tag in the section? If so, I don't see how it applies if we omit all political candidate's reactions. - MrX 11:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Leave out his comments and any other presidential candidate's comments. It does not belong in the article. It's all political fluff that is best left to their own respective articles. DrkBlueXG (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead again

This passage in the lead: the largest mass killing of LGBT people in the Western world since the Holocaust is supported by these two references from The Telegraph and the The Guardian. Both sources make it clear that Owen Jones, (a columnist for The Guardian), is the one who said that. So should that statement be attributed to Jones or are we comfortable stating that in WP's voice.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that it is a verifiable fact, not an opinion or speculation, I don't think it requires inline attribution to anyone. General Ization ^Talk 20:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Attribution is not needed, but why do we even need this? How many different ways do we need to say that this was a really really bad event?- MrX 20:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with above, having both "deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history" and "the largest mass killing of LGBT people in the Western world since the Holocaust" is a bit superfluous. Zaostao (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like Jones knows a lot about the victims that no one else does. Being at the club and being LGBT are not the same thing. If we say something like that we should be prepared to say which victims were LGBT. I haven't seen that source. (there's the other issue that we don't actually know the motivation of the shooter - 90% of victims were Latino as well and he made racial remarks but I haven't heard that he made homophobic remarks - it's best at this point just to say what we know and that is Pulse is known as an LGBT nightclub and it was latino night). --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward raises good points. I'd prefer to stick with the more widespread and verifiable statement about US history. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Despite my earlier comment about the lack of need for attribution, I concur. General Ization ^Talk 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Also concur. Good reasoning. It's also not particularly useful information in my opinion, and seems a bit POVish. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Only if you don't count the patenting of nucleoside analogs and HIV sequences! Wnt (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I greatly prefer "U.S. history" and am firmly opposed to "since the Holocaust" and "Western world." The latter is only appropriate if there was a non-Western event on a greater scale. Was there?

Both papers making comparisons to the Holocaust are UK-based. It is acceptable to say that the London Underground bombings were the worst bomb attack in the UK "since the Second World War." But suppose a terror attack kills 1000 people in Tel Aviv -- you would never write "the largest mass killing of Jewish people since the Holocaust." About 45,000 LGBT people died in the Holocaust, a thousand times more than in Orlando. It needs to be "

U.S. history".Roches (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Be aware as well of the Happy Land fire in which 87 people, mostly Hondurans, were killed in an arson attack. The perpetrator was Cuban and the motive involved a ex-girlfriend. But the arson attack was intentional, so it arguably remains the worst mass killing of Latinos by a single perpetrator. Roches (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I found it hard to consider the Holocaust an incident. The killings happened in multiple places at multiple times, and while gays were sent to the camps for being gay, they were killed simply for being in the camps. In any one mass killing, it seems highly unlikely that gays were the majority. I'd feel better attributing this comparison to Jones. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a loose comparison at best. As I've already said, it's best to avoid dragging in Godwin's law if at all possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Aye. Even if every instance of evil in the world must be sucked into some dark central "worse than..." pit, the Nazis have largely been obsoleted by ISIS, and we already mention them. Few people left remember the actual Nazi experience, or even reading contemporary news of it. Not quite as hackneyed as the Devil, but getting there. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust comparison is back in again. Pinging Evolauxia and InedibleHulk. Seems many are against including it, so BRD and all. Frankly I think it should be excluded. It's one person's opinion and, as others have pointed out, dubious at best. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, dubious. I'd attributed it, rather than have Wikipedia claim it, but deletion is fine by me, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)