Talk:Congressional baseball shooting/Archive 1

Title

Thanks for making this so quickly - it's a shooting, shouldn't it be called "shooting" and not "attack"? Thanks! —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN is already calling it an attack. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC))

@Wikimandia and Emigdioofmiami: - The title will almost certainly change. It may be too soon for a common name to have been established.

In the interim, it may be worth considering some other titles, as the current one seems little clunky. Perhaps "2017 Congressional Baseball shooting" or "Eugene Simpson stadium shooting"? NickCT (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say the 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting. That's what I looked for when I was trying to find the article earlier. Virginia attack is too generic. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No argument here go ahead and be WP:BOLD =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with "2017 Congressional Baseball shooting" for now... the current title ("June 2017 Virginia attack") is too generic. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely mention Baseball. Currently too vague, I agree. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for moving! Congressional Baseball Game is the very accurate name of the game so it works well —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems "baseball" should be in sentence case. The Congressional Baseball Game, as an event, has a well-established proper name, but this title only uses part of that name. "Congressional baseball" is certainly not a proper noun, and the usage of "Congressional Baseball" as a phrase that is easily recognized—by a random English reader from anywhere worldwide, stumbling across this article—as shorthand for "Congressional Baseball Game" is simply nonexistent (and doesn't follow any other grammatical or stylistic pattern). The shooting was not directly associated with the Congressional Baseball Game; if it were (or if we consider that to be the case), then the title should be "2017 Congressional Baseball Game shooting" (which seems clunky). The best option at this point seems to me to be "2017 Congressional baseball shooting": It was a shooting targeting members of Congress who were playing baseball. A better option might be "2017 Congressional shooting." Another might be to refer to the location, as with other shootings, rather than the nature of the activities taking place when the shooting occurred. If we really want to have the whole phrase capitalized, then the only option that makes sense, it seems, would be the very clunky "2017 Congressional Baseball Game practice shooting."Holy (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. "Baseball" should not be capitalized in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Title must be changed to "Shooting of Congressional Republicans" as this was an attack ON REPUBLICANS exclusively... not on Congress or Congressional Democrats. Title is misleading!24.184.227.85 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

First baseball shooting?

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.

---

As far as I can tell, it is. At least with victims. Can anyone say otherwise? If true, I think it should be mentioned, probably alongside the "first Congressman since..." bit in the lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Source? A source needs to have reported that in order for inclusion. John from Idegon (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. Without a source, it can just be removed by anyone who objects for any reason. But if it's unanimously considered true and noteworthy, nobody should object. At least in theory. In reality, yes, I can see someone deleting it purely for the lack of citation, even without contradiction or doubt of the claim. That's why I asked first. Maybe we can all agree. Stranger things happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

First find...prolly more.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

When I said shooting, I meant the intentional kind. But I didn't say so, so yeah, this technically sinks my battleship. Interesting read, though. Thanks for finding it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Those were shootings at professional games. I imagine the numbers go up for lower level games and practices. This game had an intentional shooting with a fatality.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Here's a link to an intentional shooting during an actual minor league game: [1] 73.81.113.41 (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Both fine stories. Thanks. Consider my battleship sunk and buried. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Proposing move to "Congressional Baseball shooting"

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. We already have a request for move discussion going on; we can discuss other options once that RM has finished. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 14:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Considering that this is the only shooting that has targeted a Congressional Baseball event, there's no need to put 2017 in the title because there's nothing to distinct itself from. "Congressional Baseball shooting" works fine on its own. --Dellavien (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• We normally follow the sources when naming it. The current name may change, but I recommend waiting a day or two so we can call it exactly what the sources are calling it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons I expressed above under "Title," whatever the title is, "baseball" should be lowercase, unless we use the full (proper name) expression "Congressional Baseball Game" as part of the title. Holy (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Congressional" should be lowercase too. Some headlines:

• "KING: Don't blame Sanders for congressional baseball shooting"
• "Gabby Giffords "heartbroken" over congressional baseball shooting"
• "Fmr. WMU student shot during congressional baseball game"
• "Democratic congressional baseball team sheltered for an hour after learning of shooting"

I've found a few sources which capitalize "Congressional" by itself, but I believe they're in the minority. ^Falling_Gravity 21:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposing move to: 2017 Congressional Baseball attack

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. We already have a request for move discussion going on; we can discuss other options once that RM has finished. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 14:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Now that it is clear that this was a politically-motivated attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move. "Shooting" is our usual word for the titles of such incidents. See 2011 Tucson shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Maybe I'm missing a subtlety here, but I'm not really understanding the distinction that we're trying to make in using the word "shooting" versus "attack". Aren't all shootings attacks? Agree with MelanieN. "Shooting" seems like the wording we usually use. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose categorically - Let's not rehash this every thirty minutes as the latest update comes out, and five discussion, ten moves, and two protections later we end up basically the same place we would have eventually ended up anyway. We can figure it out in a week and nobody is gonna be seriously injured. TimothyJosephWood 16:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Note that We have had a shifted from "shooting" or "stabbing" to "attack" when there is an ideological motive, as with the recent 2017 Portland train attack and 2017 Notre Dame attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Did that recent shift have any kind of Wikipedia-wide consensus? Personally I would have opposed it. But our longtime practice, and still the situation for most such articles, is "shooting". --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: - Does a "lone gunman" really an "attack" make? I say we wait a week then test to see what the common name is. NickCT (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Attack could be anything. Why not just call it by its name?
• The media will be calling it something soon in a unified fashion. Since we follow the sources, lets do just that and wait a day or two. And yes, MelanieN is right, most of these end up being called "shooting", because that is what the media uses. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – For the reasons I expressed above under "Title," whatever the title is, "baseball" should be lowercase, unless we use the full (proper name) expression "Congressional Baseball Game" as part of the title. (Sorry to repeat myself in multiple sections, but many will only read a particular section of the talk page for the issue they're concerned about.) Holy (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - current title with 'shooting' is fine and is more specific since it implies a gun attack... we could also call it an 'incident' but no need to argue over a distinction without a difference... title is close enough for now, and we should change it if sources start converging on a common title. I agree with Holy that we could probably have baseball be lower case if someone feels passionate about that. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support If the attack had been carried out with vehicles we wouldn't call it a 'driving.' (Would we?) Attack is the more appropriate, less politically charged term that should be used in my opinion. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

PS It just seems to me that the gun is not as significant as the attack. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose' Shooting is more correct. And stop removing my vote.
• Oppose If he'd gone to first base in a truck, shot his way to second, darted to third and rocketed home, that'd be a baseball attack. But just a gun just shoots. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current title is fine, and reflects sources (headline usually mention members of Congress + baseball practice + shooting). (We probably should drop the year from the title.) Neutrality^talk 05:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose See title and content similarities at 2011 Tucson shooting regarding another congressional assassination attempt. 12.197.49.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Drop the 2017 from title

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. We already have a request for move discussion going on; we can discuss other options once that RM has finished. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 14:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

I would suggest we drop the 2017 from the title. I just don't think you need it to ID the article. Shorter is better.Casprings (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverting. You should not make a suggestion like this and bam! implement it immediately before anyone has a chance to comment. Personally I oppose dropping the year, because including the year as the first thing in the title of an incident like this has been our standard practice. Articles already cited a little higher on this talk page, if you had given it a minute's thought: 2011 Tucson shooting, 2017 Portland train attack, 2017 Notre Dame attack. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think this is going more in the direction of Virginia Tech shooting or Columbine High School massacre in terms of WP:N. In other words, the year will be unneeded to identify the shooting, which is unlike the ones you listed of which I know no common knowledge of. As far as moving, I don't see the big deal. Just move it back, if you care. If no one does, it saves the discussion.Casprings (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

As commented just a few sections above this one, the ultimate title may wind up as something different - "Congressional baseball shooting" is a little odd - but as proposed above we need to let some time pass and see what title for this event sources eventually settle on. But whatever descriptive or geographical title it ultimately ends up with, IMO it should begin with "2017". BTW I did change the title slightly when I moved it back - I lowercased the word "baseball". --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

•  Denied It's nice to see the year. We did it at all other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs)
• Oppose the move. We have historically retained the year as the first "word" for most such articles. It's not usually necessary for disambiguation, but it provides important context. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - the year is only for disambiguation. If this hasn't happened before, there's no point in having the year in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Wait As I said above, in a couple of days, the sources will have given it a name, and that is what we will use as we always follow the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support now The other articles have "2017" because people make move requests too soon. We agree to wait, and before we're done waiting, some newer, more interesting shooting happens. Someone proposes dropping the year there, someone points to the others and someone says wait. And the beat goes on. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • InedibleHulk: Examples? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Manchester Arena bombing. Just rolls off the tongue. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

For Boston Marathon bombing, waiting actually worked. Good call, Dennis Brown! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Charleston church shooting too, it seems. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, the system's not terrible. But 2017 Louvre machete attack? 2017 Düsseldorf axe attack? 2017 Portland train attack? We're getting lopsided in useless detail lately, and it's turning into precedent. By 2018, it'll be set in stone. Unless we want to lose neat and tidy three-word descriptors forever, we must act now! Or soon, if now's no good. Soon enough, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

There is never a need to "act now!" when building an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are trailing sources, meaning our information is always behind the sources because we follow them. Zero urgency here. Even if another shooting happens, people will not abandon this article and the media will not forget this event. Wikipedia is founded on the principal of slow changes over time by multiple people. All encyclopedias are the same in this respect, it is part of being a 3rd party source for information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wait Time of event seems relevent. However, I suggest that "Congressional baseball shooting" should link to event. AuguMaugu (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposing move to "Attempted assassination of Stephen Scalise"

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.

---

This name would be consistent with articles like Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and many others. Lance386 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've seen no reports that anyone specific was targeted. This has all the indication of being a spree shooting. John from Idegon (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(EC) No, that would seem to imply Stephen Scalise was a specific target but AFAIK, we don't know that this is the case, it's possible the shooter had no specific person as a target and maybe didn't even recognise Stephen Scalise. Definitely no evidence is presented in the article for that. Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per John from Idegon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose unless clear evidence emerges that Scalise in particular was targeted (for example, if authorities find statements made by the shooter that if Scalise had been at a restaurant that morning, then the shooter would have gone to that restaurant and not have gone to the baseball practice, even if other GOP congressmen were at the practice). KConWiki (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the above. We have no evidence that he was specifically targeted; it was more likely that he was shot just because he was on second base and vulnerable. And we certainly shouldn't name this as if he was the only target, because four other people were shot. Reliable Sources are not calling this an attempted assassination, and until they do, we should not. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. I don't see any evidence Scalise was the target. He just happened to be there I think. In fact it's possible the shooter may not have realized Scalise would be there, since if he did his research, he would have known Congressmen don't have protection by the Capitol Police, except for Scalise and very few others. Scalise probably got hit simply bc he was on second base at the time. If the FBI discovers something different, we can change it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above, no indication that a particular member of Congress was targeted. Neutrality^talk 05:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The perpetrators Facebook is inundated with anti-Scalise rhetoric and threats.

• Actually they are anti-Trump and Republican Party threats, not just Scalise. Regardless, there were other targets present at the park; Scalise, unfortunately, just happened to be in a vulnerable position during the attack.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even if he hit his primary target, this was a mass shooting.--Froglich (talk) 06:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no indication (as of this moment) through vetted media that Scalise, who was playing 2nd base, would have been targeted unless the shooter actually knew what position he would be playing. Also, numerous other shots were fired at others and into the wild. 2nd base also happens to be right in the middle of the field.Xj14y (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Requested move 15 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. One at a time, please. We can discuss this once the other RM has finished up. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 14:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Congressional baseball shooting → 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting – It should be capitalized as it refers to Congressional Baseball, a proper noun, which is the reason they were there. They didn't just happen to be playing baseball or be at a baseball game, and nobody from Congress shot an actual baseball. It is further associated with the pronoun "Congressional Baseball" as it has already significantly increased interest in the Congressional Baseball Game, which is capitalized for the same reason (it's a specific event, not just Congressmen playing the sport). —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Support. The nominator makes sense. This is a shooting related to Congressional Baseball, not just a baseball-related shooting that happens to be Congressional. Alephb (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support That capital "B" is a capitol idea.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• I still stay wait. It hasn't been 24 hours. I don't argue against capitalization, but we've already seen several moves and in the end, it is the sources that determine the name, not our feelings. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Honestly, there are I count seven move discussions on this page presently. ...sigh... TimothyJosephWood 10:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The proper name is Congressional Baseball Game, in which Congressmen play a generic game of generic baseball. And the shooting was only at a practice, not the game proper. It's a bit ugly, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  "Congressional Baseball" is capitalized when it refers to the game, because, again, proper noun. Otherwise, we would have to spell it "2017 congressional baseball shooting" since "congressional" is not capitalized. (See every single article on this list: List of United States congressional districts.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Congressional Baseball" is not a thing - not a proper noun. "Congressional Baseball Game" is, but individual parts of it are not. Right now the title is linking two concepts - the shooting was related to Congress, and it was related to baseball. We could say "Congressional Baseball Game shooting", but that would imply that it took place at the Congressional Baseball Game, which it didn't. I should note that this article was originally titled 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting, with a capital B, and I lowercased it per my reasoning here and per several such suggestions on this page. In any case, please see the suggestion above about 2017 Alexandria shooting: the case is so new and in flux that a common name has not yet been established. Eventually a common name will emerge in the press; in the interim it is not productive to keep moving it around. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that Reliable Sources are not capitalizing it: [2] [3] --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Isn't this a little soon?

Shouldn't we at least wait a day until all of the details are in place before writing a whole article? I mean we don't even know the motivation behind the incident. PaulG524 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is tagged as a current event, which is appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, no, it's not. El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Motive, while important, seems unnecessary. Existence of the article provides a place for others to start adding information. BenjaminHare (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this seems very soon to think this will be anything other than one more "thoughts and prayers are with the victims yadda yadda let's play baseball tomorrow." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The motive is important. If we want to educate people on the matter, we need to know why the incident occurred, and what motivated it. The information for an ongoing event, such as this one may produce false information or misleading. PaulG524 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because we don't have the "why" (yet, anyway) that shouldn't be a reason to avoid article creation, given that we have the "who", "what", "where", "when", and "how". KConWiki (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

What does "died from his injuries" mean?

Currently the article says he "died from his own injuries" or "died from injuries" Did he die from gunfire wounds? Were these self inflicted? What sources say what kind of injuries he died from? Peace, MPS (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• [4] says it was due to an exchange of gunfire with U.S. Capitol Police. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Number of innocents wounded

From what I've seen, 4 innocents were non-fatally shot and wounded, while the attacker was the only one killed. So in the sidebar, it should be 4 non-fatally shot and not 5.

Mugshot

Note: The mug shot which has now been added twice is not properly licensed. Given the revision history on the file, it has been taken from Facebook, through Wired.com, and then to Commons. I have tagged it (twice now) for speedy deletion, and if anyone here is an admin on Com feel free to pop over and mop it up. Anyway, it should not be added to the article. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Background and shooting

The background section is not giving a background for the shooting. In fact, both sections tell the same story. It would be smarter to have a shooting section and doing the background for the shooting when we actually know anything about the background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I added more about the game. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism and Terrorists; Extreme not Radical

WP:NOTFORUM

I wonder how people define terrorism and terrorist. I would also wonder why we call extreme Muslim terrorists and terrorist groups 'radical' or 'Islamist'. Islam is the religion, Muslim is the believer. If the terrorist were Christian we would not say extremist Christianity, but rather extremist Christian, yes? Why do the words condemn the religion of Islam while treading softly on Christianity? Hodgkinson has all the makings of a domestic terrorist and from accounts and definitions of the word he is, but there seems to be some confusion about calling his kind terrorists versus attacker/assailant/shooter/loner/gunman. The disparity between the word choice would appear to be somewhat biased. And I state that the latter words are not precise enough to be accurate. Yes he had a gun, yes he shot the gun, he may very well have been a loner, he is an assailant and did attack, but the degree of the attack is understated with these words. The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorist as "one who entertains, professes to, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm." The words attacker, loner, gunman are not precise and can apply to many different scenarios, but terrorism and terrorist are, especially in this case, more precise. I could also see the term cultural terrorist as apropos, as Hodgkinson participated in and thereby promoted cultural terrorism. If there is a reason that terrorism and terrorist are found by some to be biased or opinion-based, I would much appreciate any comments or feedback. Merriam Webster is the standard for legal definitions and it defines terrorism as "the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion." I put the terms extreme and radical in the mix because of their very different meanings and connotations. Radical is not a neutral term. The Oxford English Dictionary defines radical as "going to the root or origin; touching or acting upon what is essential and fundamental". That seems to me to be quite a leap as to defining and deciding this person's essence and character. It seems more neutral to correct the terms to reflect an accurate, precise and objective characteristic that does not pretend to know this person's essence, something that can never really be neutrally or objectively defined or stated.The term radical is often associated with Jesus Christ as he advocated radical love.. This explanation offers a clear distinction between the two: "[Hannah Arendt] insisted that only good had any depth. Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet — and this is its horror! — it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world. Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil." . This is a controversial topic, but beyond my own opinion, it seems that it all boils down to a very simple point: there must be a first principle. For example: Either all life is precious (and therefore you unequivocally oppose the death penalty, despise war, and are for universal healthcare), or it's not. Either we forgive terrorists, or we don't. And we must never shy away from the hard truths we must face as a nation when we hear the government of our country founded upon the principle that all [humankind] is created equal calling one terrorist a fundamentalist and extremist and referring to the other terrorist by his name. References

Not A Terrorist Attack

 Requesting immediate archiving... As of now, there is no evidence of a motive nor any link to a terrorist group and no media is speculating on any connection to terrorism even though the possibility is obvious. If there was a category for incidents which look like but lack evidence to declare obvious terrorist attacks with a high powered rifle mass shooting, it would qualify. Usually in cases like this expect calls to delete the article as not notable or not news. Bachcell (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A member of Congress has been shot, what wouldn't be notable about that and it's after effects? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A congressman was shot. That makes it WP:NOTE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 12:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

He asked if republicans were on the field, sounds politically motivated based on that. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/14/rep-ron-desantis-shooting-man-asked-if-republicans/

It could be the case, but I would hold off until it is confirmed as the motive. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We don't know that is the shooter. He said he wasn't sure. They practice there and are known in the neighborhood bc people walking their dogs etc come to watch - it could be anyone just curious which team was practicing that day. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's relevant because multiple congressmen were shot. Terrorism or not, it involved high ranking government officials being shot in the United States. As notable as any article we have. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with others. This is hugely notable. 10-minute shootout with guy opening fire on 25 Congressman, third-ranked GOP guy shot. Very notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, this is a domestic terror attack. With reports coming out that the gunmen was asking whether people were Republicans or Democrats this seems very politically motivated. Gamermadness (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

IMHO notability is no longer a question, but the issue of whether it is a terror attack will be settled when the media (1) report the motivation of the shooter and (2) call it a terror attack. Right now the intro graf has thre refs that backstop the claim that "the motive is currently unknown" and I don't see any refs saying "this was a terror attack." Further, I think the current title is ok as it is, and if there is a media discussion of whether it is a terror attack or not, we can add a section called "Allegations of Terrorism" or something like that. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The evidence shows this is clearly a terrorist attack. The motive was clearly political ie. to harm the Republican Party. The article should reflect this reality and not only slap a terrorism tag when Muslims are involved.49.195.185.22 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not define what terrorism is. Leave this to law enforcement or other official parties and reference whatever label they use.  Honette 05:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism 76.232.218.208 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• We follow the sources. As far as I can see, the sources are clearly saying there is no known link to terrorism, as they define it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:TERRORIST: "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". For living perpetrators, journalists usually only call someone a terrorist if they have been convicted of violating terrorism statutes, until which they are an "alleged terrorist". Since there will be no charges brought, journalists will probably follow the lead of investigators. Ibadibam (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Not to get too far off topic, but "terrorism" is something that is done to cause terror, to cause panic among a large group of people. It is a psychological weapon. That doesn't seem to be the case here, where his goal seems to be to simply kill or injure people who had a different political philosophy, so I would be shocked if that is what the sources conclude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• If we follow the 'Sources'then it should be plain BY LAW in the United States this is an act of terror and will be defined as such because it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United States - Reference: U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads: "[T]he term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." Shahathens

What sources are directly calling this an act of terror (not WP:SYNTH definitions)? VOA News reports: FBI special agent in charge Tim Slater said it is "too early to say" whether Wednesday's shooting was an act of terrorism, or whether Scalise was targeted. I think we should wait to see what the FBI finds before making judgments. ^Falling_Gravity 07:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I often see this confusion about terrorism as a crime under US law - motive is not an element of a crime in US law, this is often confused for specific intent - since the suspect is dead, even if the FBI does say it was terrorism, it will never be anything more then an allegation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a terrorist attack? If so, why isn't the article referring to him as a terrorist? I wonder how people define terrorism and terrorist. Hodgkinson has all the makings of a domestic terrorist and from accounts and definitions of the word he is, but there seems to be some confusion about calling his kind terrorists versus attacker/assailant/shooter/loner/gunman and the latter words are not precise enough to be accurate. Yes he had a gun, yes he shot the gun, he may very well have been a loner, he is an assailant and did attack, but the degree of the attack is understated with these words and I think they should be changed. The disparity between the word choice would appear to be somewhat biased and I wonder if anyone would want to comment on changing it.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorist as "one who entertains, professes to, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm." The words attacker, loner, gunman are not precise and can apply to many different scenarios, but terrorism and terrorist are, especially in this case, more precise. I could also see the term cultural terrorist as apropos, as Hodgkinson participated in and thereby promoted cultural terrorism. If there is a reason that terrorism and terrorist are found by some to be biased or opinion-based, I would much appreciate any comments or feedback. Merriam Webster is the standard for legal definitions and it defines terrorism as "the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion."Katyamikhailovna (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

References

As a rule, we call it whatever the preponderance of reliable sources calls it. If you can demonstrate that this is the case (by providing such sources) then it may be appropriate to change the article. But it is not a decision we make based on the nature of a crime, it is an assessment based on the word choice in the available sources. See also our policies on original research. TimothyJosephWood 15:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better, so I will just Timothy is 100% correct here. We never insert out opinions, we only parrot the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, regardless of what the media reports say, I would oppose Wikipedia editors labelling an American who has never been tried and proven guilty a terrorist. Some media sources are already throwing around terms like "left wing terrorism" — but there is a tremendous amount of unsettled debate about this in both legal and other academic scholarship. This is one of those cases where Wikipedia should not document something controversial as it is unfolds in the media under WP:RECENT, where there are no authoritative sources (And news organizations are not authoritative sources for whether someone is guilty of a crime.) Wikipedia is not a newspaper. When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

He was killed in a shoot out with police, and there were quite a few congressmen who were also witnesses, not to mention the other evidence. It can't be said he isn't 'guilty' with a straight face. Otherwise, I agree we can't be hasty with 'terrorist' but he clearly made a politically-motivated attack, on purpose. The definition of terrorism isn't as high a bar as some people think. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 16:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Expect a thread to be opened on this issue about once a week for the next year or so. If "terrorist" emerges as a clearly commonly used label, they'll be no shortage of people eager to tell us. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The definition of terrorism is extremely controversial. There aren't that many cases on this, and if it was as easy a question as you want it to be we would have had more cases over the last decade. We've had very few, most of them involving Islamic terrorism, or hate groups with a very long history of targeting civilians, and only in cases where they have targeted civilians, sometimes as a sentence enhancing provision. The broader aspects have not been tried in Court yet, as far as I know. What you are trying to push here is a broader definition of terrorism that isn't widely accepted yet and has no clear case law behind it. We don't even know what the DoJ would have charged him with had he surivived and we never will, so the FBI's speculating on this is next to worthless. Had he survived the DoJ would have had to evaluate, based on the evidence, what charges they felt would pass legal scrutiny, which is a high bar. The definition in 22 USC 38 has nothing to do with this because it applies only to things like Section 2656 "Terrorism related travel advisories" — if he were charged it would most likely be under Title 18—most likely, the charges wouldn't even be Federal, the beltway sniper was charged with terrorism, but he was charged under Virginia state law — in this case, there will never be a trial, so repeating what the media says here would be just regurgitating media coverage that migt not remain notable over time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything, just giving my opinion to an ongoing discussion. Being convicted under U.S. law is not the guidepost on whether someone is a terrorist, by the way. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

No, there are other definitions als- authorized agencies may determine that someone is associated with a FTO, for example, but that also has not happened here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I more meant that this is not a legal document and you do not need to prove that he violated the U.S. terrorism statute beyond a reasonable doubt. WP does not use legal definitions in most instances. But perhaps I am getting away from the point, whatever it used to be. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is rapidly getting into WP:FORUM territory. Since the sources aren't using the T word, we probably need to just leave it be until/unless they do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment...

I was very surprised that nothing on this page (until I edited it) included Hodgkinson's political activity. We can't use the excuse of "motive hasn't been confirmed yet", because this time last year we were inserting the obviously pertinent information that a far-right sympathiser had killed a left-wing politician in England (five months before his conviction and concerning a country with much stricter contempt of court laws). When somebody has shot a Republican, and then it's documented that he worked on a socialist's campaign, that's obviously relevant. If somebody had burned down a mosque and then we heard he worked for an anti-Islam speaker, we'd clearly mention that and I doubt people would say "too early to know, could just be random violence". Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF, here on the east coast of the USA it is almost 11:30am many of us are working and/or at school. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Anarcho-authoritarian, this is an unfair and unjustified complaint. As far as I can tell the user's name was released less than an hour before your addition to the article - and your post here. As soon as the user's name was released, the press was able to get to work, find his facebook page, find his rap sheet, etc., and publish it. But there is no way anyone on Wikipedia could have revealed all this before we knew who it was! --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW: your edit summary when you added the information was a cynical prediction that it would be removed immediately. Your post here seems to assume that everybody on Wikipedia knew this information all along, but suppressed it for political reasons. But the information is still in the article, and your complaint is unjustified for simple reasons of timing. Could I request you maybe set aside partisan assumptions in the future, and assume good faith about your fellow editors here? --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Naming the suspect

In the lede we are naming the suspect as the perpetrator - no attribution, no alleged, no hedging at all. We are treating his identity as the shooter as an established fact, because the police say so - no investigation, no report, nothing formal, just "this is who it was." Personally at this stage of a situation I prefer to say something like "a shooter identified as..." rather than just his name, stated in Wikipedia's voice, full stop. How do others interpret Wikipedia policy on this? --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There's no doubt he was the shooter. Several of his "targets" also identified him. He was found with the weapons on his person after he was (mortally) wounded by police. Your argument is a tempest in a teapot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.34.62 (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's an attempt to abide by the Wikipedia core policy of WP:Verifiability. I'm not doubting he is the person and will eventually be established as the person by some definitive reference, and then we can name him without any attribution. For now I'm not comfortable with saying so point blank, no source or attribution needed. Others? --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally disagree, and feel all points in this article have been satisfactorily sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.34.62 (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

We should definitely not name the suspect by now. That is against Wikipedia policy! And we should definitely only talk of a suspect and not a perpetrator.

I'm not objecting to naming the suspect. I just want some attribution, such as "identified as", rather than just flatly proclaiming it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about: "The gunman, identified as 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson, opened fire at a congressional baseball practice." --Politico --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. TimothyJosephWood 21:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I actually took him out of the lede (first sentence) a bit ago, since I think it's normal practice not to name people who are not already famous in the first sentence (same way in journalism). His name is in the second sentence now and I just changed it to "identified as." Of course he's dead now anyway, so BLP doesn't really apply, but does that look better? —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to "recently deceased" people too. Yes, I think that looks fine. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this is as close as you can get to definite guilt. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 17:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

1954 Capitol shooting

I just found an article entitled 1954 United States Capitol shooting incident. It might be of some use in the discussions on this talk page. Thank you for all you have done and are doing for Wikipedia. Eagle4000 (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. I added a link to this for the "See also" section. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Notice

Technically, this article should fall under post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions. This would mean 1RR restrictions, etc. I have (and am) asking that we do not place it under Arb protection for a week. The editors on this article have actually done a great job of communicating and cooperating. Thank you. As long as that continues, I will argue to delay putting this under Arb protection, although I can't stop another admin for doing so. Arb restriction would make the article much harder to edit with information changing so quickly and so many changes going on. I just want to wait a week if possible. With that in mind, I ask everyone to just continue the good work, keep cool, be patient and keep it clean under WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and by all means, do not edit war, not even 2RR or 3RR unless it is vandalism. I will continue to not edit the article itself, so I can stay uninvolved, should a problem crop up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not editing but you are throwing in your two cents (opinion) here and there. It would be best for you to only monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.43.196 (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Kudos

Just a word of encouragement. Considering the cesspool politics in the US is at the moment, y'all are doing a great job upholding NPOV and creating a good informative article in the toughest situation possible. Thanks especially to Dennis, Melanie, El Cid and any other Admins that are closely watching. Bang up job all! John from Idegon (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Links needed

For those of us outside the US, who may be unfamiliar with terms such as D—AZ, etc. This is Paul (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 23:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: the standard party/state abbreviations, such as "D-AZ" should all link to the pages for the individual state parties being referenced. KConWiki (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Request blue link add to Sanders quote

Can a blue link be added for Senator Sanders' quote to the article about his Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016? 2600:387:2:803:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Seems uncontroversial, though if anyone disagrees with me, feel free to revert. SkyWarrior 03:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Scalise in critical condition

CNN is reporting that the bullet did not exit Scalise's body and that his condition has worsened to critical. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• [5] is the reference, although not sure we need to update it as it goes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

As an overnight western hemisphere update, multiple outlets (CNN, AP, and more) are reporting that Scalise's injuries required multiple blood transfusions during and after initial surgery. He will require more procedures, as bones were damaged, along with internal organs. Latest info at 04:00 Eastern, 15 June 2017. I'm not sure how much this contributes to the article, but it does underscore the seriousness of his injuries, and the fluidity of the situation.

• [6]Xj14y (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

It is being reported and debated in the media that the intense negative media coverage of Trump & GOP may have radicalized him. I'm asking for a WP editor consensus as to if that debate should be included in the article. Cllgbksr (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I know some conservative pundits are pushing this talking point, but I don't see any statements from the police or FBI supporting this. I guess we could just wait and see what they find. ^Falling_Gravity 06:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• To the extent that he was reposting aggressive anti-Trump material on Facebook or similar, it is parallel to a white supremacist reposting that sort of material, or to a jihadi reposting ISIS propaganda, and we can follow reliable sources in discussing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• I was going to say that this is typically something that would be analysed by second sources more than police, particularly at this stage, since the police are going to look at the one event while journalists will consider the whole. I'm sure some conclusions (right or wrong) will be published shortly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's just conservative pundits, then it is not a debate, and if it's overtly politicized we try to keep it out of Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

New York Times revealed date & location of this private event in April.

See https://archive.fo/rcwTH#selection-1999.0-2007.36. Noteworthy? 178.191.95.102 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's noteworthy when a reliable source says it's noteworthy. It's also known that he was living at the YMCA right near the ballpark, so that may be how he found out about the practices... or any one of countless other ways. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, 178.191.95.102. I believe it might indeed turn out to be notweorthy, as it's a possible explanation for why the perpetrator ended up in northern Virginia a few months ago. I'm sure we will learn more in the coming days, and a link to that NYT article might end up in this article. Thanks again. Moncrief (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove the references in the summary

It's Wikipedia policy to remove all references from the summary. All the references should be in the main text. The summary should only sum up the article. I tried to include to include the references into the text and remove it from the summary, but a user undid it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure of policy, but most all articles I have seen have refs in the summary. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It isn't policy but when it comes to WP:GA or WP:FA status it is preferred. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

IMHO references in the intro graf are appropriate for emerging details of a rapidly developing event and/or for controversial points. Agree that in general refs should me minimized but not neccessarily eliminated. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

MPS makes a good point, as does Knowledgekid87. Right now, adding sources in the lede might end up preventing some arguments, and make editing a little easier. In the long run, we would want to migrate them to below the lede. No one should be forced to put them in the lede, but I wouldn't recommend removing them just for the sake of style at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox map

I appreciate there's a map in the infobox, but I don't think it offers much context. Just looks like a label to the side of a box (outline of Washington, D.C., but D.C. itself is not labeled). Is there a map that would show more context? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I changed it to a map of Alexandria, Virginia, and the United States. Hopefully, that's better. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk)

Eugene Simpson Stadium Park

class=notpageimage|

Eugene Simpson Stadium Park

@Kamalthebest and Another Believer: Is there a "DC area" location map that would make more sense to put before or instead of the Virginia map? As someone who has only visited rarely, I find the Virginia map to be meaningless. The District of Columbia map is too featureless to give meaningful context, but at least showed that the shooting was close to DC. The Alexandria map is good for the local context. The closest I have found for a "mid-level" map is File:Location map District of Columbia street.png which puts the dot very close to the edge of the map, but shows it in the Washington context (without the DC border shown strongly though). What do other non-locals think is helpful? --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with the map to the right, if others like it, too. I just didn't find the original one very helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove picture of attacker?

Reason for it being uploaded is "The person is dead. Free photographs of him are unlikely to exist as he was no public figure." That does not seem valid, and inclusion in the article does not add enough to risk copyright infringement. It's borderline that there should be a picture at all, anyway. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 15. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Polly is an ex-parrot. This is well-established usage, unless you wish to exhumate him? μηδείς (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding inclusion of the picture, I suggest you share your opinions there. But to make a point, having no alternative source is not a defense to copyright infringement. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Exhumate" is an ex-word. Survived by her daughter "exhume". I suppose she's an "ex"-word, too, but unlike poor Polly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Soo... There's this. As a whole I'm pretty sure we're well into public domain, since its a work of the US government, but I'm not entirely sure if that would still be the case if it were cropped down to just the picture. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It isn't a work of the federal government unless they took that photo, which I'm sure they didn't. They are arguably using it under Fair Use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Well... TimothyJosephWood 15:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking Commons:De_minimis: Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable. Where the purpose is to show the poster, and the image is part of the poster. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

And now we have two deletion discussions. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

All of this is a Catch 22. Personally, I think a photo of him is warranted, any photo that isn't prejudicial (ie: not a mugshot). I really don't care which as long as it is a clear shot of him. Personally, I think using one of his own selfies from Facebook would be the most appropriate and safest bets, since there isn't any commercial gain we could be infringing on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

...I was kindof trying to do an end-run and just auto-fail the whole discussion via NFCC1. The poster would both provide an image and have a broader over arching encyclopedic relevance to the investigation. The real issue isn't whether the image itself is PD, but whether the poster is, and whether the image is both vital to the presentation of the poster, and sufficiently incidental that it wouldn't qualify as a derivative work. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes to the lede

The article lede used to say "a man opened fire on several Republican members of Congress and their staffers". Earlier today somebody (not going to do the research, it's such a busy article) changed it to say "a politically left-leaning man attempted to assassinate several Republican members of Congress and their staffers". I reverted to the original lede; let's talk about it.

• "left leaning": His political activism has been widely discussed, but I don't think I have ever heard a reliable source describe it in these terms. And at least until the FBI weighs in on his motivation and Reliable Sources report it, I think it is wrong to include it in the lede. We do have a detailed section about his activism in the article text.

• Assassinate: We have already discussed the use of the word "assassinate," which is not being used by sources to describe this incident. I oppose using this word it and I felt we had consensus not to include it

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, those changes are not okay, feel free to change if you have a better idea, or I will try to think of something. Thanks for calling it to WP's collective attention! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 19:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• No brainer. That was a WP:NPOV and WP:OR edit by whoever did that. Good catch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I support removing assissination - I think his politics are pretty significant, but currently according to Politico it remains a mystery to investigators. However, he is dead and this article does not depend on the FBI. I think they're still looking into why he chose that particular day, but it sounds like it was opportunity. I won't hold my breath for the conclusion of their investigation, the last I heard from them was the link between "domestic violence and mass shootings." (Sometimes, before a mass shooting, many suspects have a coffee. But not all who have coffee, commit mass shootings. Still looking into it.) — anyway I don't think there's any need to overemphasize the FBI's statements and I don't expect they'll be too forthcoming in any case, but I think enough WP:RS] have covered his political views that it can be added to the lede. (Without the word assassinated). Maybe not the first sentence but somewhere in the lede. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Anders Breivik used to like coffee. Chuck Wendig was maybe joking about his plans the other day. The Geneva County massacre started in Coffee County. Killer cop Manuel Pardo drank Cuban coffee before Florida killed him. Thus today, Wikipedia remembers 31st President of Peru Manuel Pardo as "The Miami Mutilator". Even in the last good version, it says he was assassinated by gunshot. Doesn't say by whom, doesn't give a source. Strange how much less scrutiny a dead President gets than a wounded Whip sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)