Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting

This really should be drafted first

I have no idea why we as an encyclopedia are rushing to put this out when we are not a newspaper. We go by notability standards and have WP:NOTNEWS for a reason. I see no harm in taking the time to draft the details before putting out info that can easily be fit into a summary section. The WP:ONUS is on those who have to prove notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This is easily notable enough for an article of its own. We have plenty of editors who are rapidly expanding & improving the article. Jim Michael (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I suggest waiting two weeks to show that the media attention to the event was extremely short term, and then submitting the article to AfD. If "the community" feels that a few days of front page news coverage is sufficient for an article, so be it. Discussion on this page is somewhat pointless, as participation at this article will be heavily weighted on the side of editors who believe it should exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no way this will be deleted - this is a significant terrorist incident that has had widespread coverage in the English-speaking world. That has nothing to do with waiting for things to settle down a bit before editing, however.50.111.60.168 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The mainstream media coverage extends to many countries & the fact that the shooter was a foreign national with an apparent terrorist motive makes this far more notable than most mass shootings. Jim Michael (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this purely an act of terrorism? NO public mention - but it is possible this is purely a disgruntled frustrated student? What was his recent performance/ marks ? He was in training - with he potential end of training be a prestigious job. -- How does this end up with Country Sheriff involved instead of the bases Own police ? Wfoj3 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is showing up as being important. "U.S. defense secretary securing military bases after Florida shooting" Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This text contains a mistake that changes the meaning entirely

Quote: SITE Intelligence Group alleges that Alshamrani released a manifesto shortly before the shooting, and "attacked what it calls an American 'war of attrition' waged on Muslims around the world", citing the US drone war and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, where a number of terrorism suspects face indefinite detention. / End quote

This is the mistake: "an American 'war of attrition' waged on Muslims around the world"

I have seen the screenshot of his deleted tweet, what he said was that HE (the attacker) was (part of a larger) war of attrition AGAINST the US since 9/11.

His quote from the screenshot: "for how long can the US survive this war of attrition?"

In other words, the US keeps attacking and killing THEM, yet they continue to strike back at the US without an end, hence "war of attrition".

I request someone more experienced change this. Thank you.

(Avicenna1985 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC))

Add names of victims who died

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.

---

Uninvolved close has been requested at WP:ANRFC.[1] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone deleted the names victims who died, saying that publishing the names requires agreement on TALK page. Can someone please show me the rules that say that's required. And can we agree that the names of those three (at least as of Dec 8th) should be published in the article, especially since at least one or two of them were active in getting aid and describing the scene to security forces. VanEman (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the names of the victims. The names of the victims are sourced and relevant. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your restore pending consensus to include the names, per standard Wikipedia procedure. You are entitled to the opinion that The names of the victims are sourced and relevant, but that opinion does not entitle you to bypass standard process. This principle has been upheld at one article after another, including trips to ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

You say there's a "standard procedure" and you have failed to quote it. You're not "entitled" to impose your way on others. You have failed to point out a clear policy that says "Victims names will not be included, though verified, unless the talk page agrees." Precedent does not make something a rule. And most Wikipedians don't write lots of articles about events with lots of victims, so what you may think is "common knowledge" isn't common to others at all. VanEman (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The principle was re-affirmed today, for about the thousandth time by, oh, about a dozen experienced editors including admins, by an admin at her user talk page, here. If you need more than that, go ask the community (I suggest WP:VPP); if they support you I'll be more than happy to concede with a profuse apology to you and everyone who wants it, and forever keep my trap shut about it. Barring that, disputed content stays out pending consensus to include it, and that's not "my way" but Wikipedia's "way". Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@VanEman: The "standard procedure" is affirmed at Wikipedia:Village pump_(policy)/Archive 138#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and victim lists in tragedy articles which provides for "consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis". WWGB (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet I doubt any of the editors who said "case by case" meant endless debate just because a handful of editors have made it their mission on Wikipedia to omit victim names. As @Bus stop: mentioned, it's usually an uninvolved editor who adds the names to these articles, but it's the same disruptive editors who will turn it into a months long RFC to stonewall the issue. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@WWGB:: the "policy" is that each of these situations should be handled on a "case by case" basis. It does not say that there is a policy that it MUST be agreed to in advance before any names are published. Case by case means someone can put them in and maybe there will be no objections at all. Done! Maybe someone will put them in and someone else will revert and politely, instead of arrograntly, request discussion and consensus on the TALK page. Better yet, someone will right away go to the TALK page and say, "Hey, folks, from the previous experience among those of us who have written about tragedies before, it's helpful to decide here on talk page whether we'll add names of victims or not." But there is no policy other than "case by case." VanEman (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And despite all of that, 90% of articles include a victim list. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if true, that has exactly nothing to do with standard process, and as I just said This principle has been upheld at one article after another, including trips to ANI. I see you have re-reverted so it appears likely we will have to go through that once again. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There is WP:ONUS, however, I feel like that's being abused sitewide to force editors into protracted and lengthy discussions just to add something that is factual, relevant and reported in reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.
  Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.
  For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing – Wikipedia is not a democracy – and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[2] It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Jesus Christ, it gets so tiring watching you assholes immediately start voting because you can't be bothered to make a cogent, relevant case for why they should be omitted that's not effectively WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Re "assholes", please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks. WWGB (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—you say "Further, there are arguable privacy concerns." What are the "privacy concerns"? How are there privacy concerns when this information is widely reported in the media? Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You asked the same question at Talk:Saugus High School shooting. My answer is unchanged, but I will copy it here for the benefit of others.

I expounded at some length in one of the many previous discussions. I haven't been able to find that since, and I doubt I could be that eloquent again, but it had to do with the increasing societal desire to be as anonymous as possible, even in death, and that the families' privacy should be considered as well. I have not claimed any solid policy basis for this – even though I believe the spirit of it can be seen in some policies such as WP:BLPNAME – but these discussions would be a small fraction of their size if everybody limited themselves to solid policy basis. I won't be debating this point at length as if there is one correct answer; you and others are free to agree or disagree as you see fit.

―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support including the names. Their names are not trivia and have been widely reported in the media.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whilst neither a formal RfC nor an !vote at the moment, I am against the inclusion of victim names as they do not assist the typical reader's understanding of the event. WP:NOTEVERYTHING that is reported in the media needs to be included in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support including the names of the victims who have died. They are now widely published and are the center of some news stories. VanEman (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Bus stop and Locke Cole: Stop restoring disputed content. You know the rules. Make your case here. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  @MelanieN: Thank you for making your bias known and singling out the editors who added it in, while ignoring the editors who edit warred to remove it. I know the rules, they're over here, and I only reverted one time... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't accusing you of edit warring. I was accusing you of ignoring the BRD and consensus required rules. The people who were re-adding it were following the usual rule: when controversial material is added to an article and is challenged, it should not be re-added until consensus is reached. As for my bias, I guess that was why I closed the Saugus article as "include". -- MelanieN (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  What we are addressing here would not fall neatly under the heading of "BRD", MelanieN. That should be obvious. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  Unless BRD was recently switched to Bold, Revert, Disrupt, I think I'm understanding the process more than the administrators here. Nothing at the RFC being referenced to support this sham said that discussions would immediately turn to !votes, or that lengthy RFCs would be necessary. I don't really even consider the results of that RFC binding on what we're doing here as the overall result was no consensus (and certainly the results there don't trump WP:NPOV or WP:POINT). NPOV is non-negotiable and frankly trumps this entire discussion. It's even clear that a consensus cannot override NPOV. And yet I'm seeing administrators (and uninvolved 3rd party closers) ignore the issue and letting the encyclopedia suffer for it. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  I will not spend my time and discussion space re-debating the same old arguments that have been debated a dozen times, always in a repetitive and circular fashion, at previous articles. That – not stating a complete, concise, and clear argument one time – is what is disruptive. I could recite the Support arguments in my sleep and I find them unpersuasive. If you don't like the !vote format, I could remove the bullet and the bolded word "Oppose", and that would change nothing. No, I won't be re-discussing the content issue much further here, and you can rant and rave all you like about that.

  As for your attempt to play NPOV as a trump card over consensus, let's see if an uninvolved closer agrees with you. If they don't, you can request a close review at WP:AN; if that also fails, you should drop that stick. I have seen that claim a number of times in other situations and I have never seen it succeed in practice, notwithstanding the sentence in the policy. That tells me the community doesn't interpret the sentence the way you do. And I won't be debating that point further here, either. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  Locke, what in the WORLD does NPOV have to do with this discussion? We include the names, or we don't; either option is neutral by any reasonable definition of the term. (BTW consider yourself fortunate that I am not here as an administrator. I would not have been as tolerant as El C after you started calling other users assholes.) -- MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  @MelanieN:NPOV tells us to not write an article in such a way that it gives more weight to a "side" or a point of view than to other points of view. Our articles should be proportional to what our reliable sources provide (again according to NPOV). When you omit even the basic detail of a name (nevermind the more detailed information, sometimes reaching full biography in volume, that our sources provide), you slant the article towards the perpetrator(s) and away from the victims. This violates NPOV and is unacceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of assassinations of prominent figures, the perpetrators of mass shootings usually receive more coverage than their victims; that's not slanting things in favour of them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Locke Cole, your conduct here has been below par. Please do better. El_C 05:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  I reverted one time and get called out in the middle of the !vote that spontaneously combusted above (even though editors on the "other side" reverted repeatedly), but I'm the one who is "below par"? Other than the asshole comment above, which should be unsurprising given the behavior of Mandruss on this page, I can't really think of anything I've done that warrants your comment. Mandruss may like certain parts of the "process" being abused here (namely forcing everyone into lengthy !votes) but that doesn't absolve him of following that process fully and actually discussing the issue prior to just !voting. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  Don't engage in personal attacks, full stop. I won't warn you about this again. El_C 17:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've said on the talk pages of many mass killing articles, knowing the victims' names is of no benefit to over 99% of readers, we don't have to copy the media & we shouldn't contribute to violating the privacy of the victims' families. Jim Michael (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a creative writing project. We do not choose to omit pertinent information on an editorial whim. Wikipedia conforms to the general outline of a subject that is provided to us by mainstream sources. Information is provided if that information is not indiscriminate. Information is provided if it falls squarely within the scope of the article. Information is provided if its inclusion helps to make our article a good reflection of the coverage provided by mainstream sources. We don't arbitrarily omit information on editorial whim. This isn't a creative writing project. We reflect sources. It doesn't matter if in your opinion "knowing the victims' names is of no benefit to over 99% of readers". When you write your own literary work you can omit victim names. And you will be perfectly justified in doing so based on creative license. But it is not how Wikipedia should be written. Concerning the alleged privacy concerns—they are baseless. We cannot be "violating the privacy of the victims' families" if multiple mainstream sources publish names, photos, and background information on the lives of the three people killed. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of creative writing. You've done that many times, including multiple times in your comment immediately above mine. Omitting the names of ordinary people who were unfortunate to have been killed in a mass shooting is not being creative. You can clearly see from how I write in both articles & on talk pages that I do so in a relevant, factual manner. Creativity doesn't come into it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support including the names. Bus stop explained it perfectly above, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the oppose votes, while perhaps good-intentioned, are based on subjective opinions that the information is not useful or inappropriate to include, rather than policy-based in any meaningful way. — Hunter Kahn 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

How does the inclusion of the names (of people whom you had not heard of prior to this shooting) help you - or any other reader - to understand what happened? Jim Michael (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Well, the easy answer to this question is that it gives me more knowledge of the incident, which is the purpose of an encyclopedia entry. But the very fact that you are asking the question tells me you are missing the point. Your subjective opinion that this information doesn't contribute to my understanding is completely irrelevant. I could just as easily turn around and say "How does the fact that the FBI considers it a terror attack help you understand what happened?" or "How does the domestic/international response help you understand what happened?" or any number of similar questions. We base these articles on policies and guidelines, not your subjective opinion or mine. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The response by the authorities is clearly relevant to understanding it. Some names of strangers which you will quickly forget are not. Jim Michael (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you concerned with who "you will quickly forget"? Do we only include memorable information? We "quickly forget" a lot of things. That doesn't mean all those things don't warrant inclusion. The onus is on those opposing inclusion to say why this information should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 15:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Good-intentioned, yeah. Subjective? To some degree. But in the decision between include or exclude names there are a lot of policies, essays, and guidelines that our reasoning is based off of. And I'm consistently seeing the (minor but existent) issue of people who don't understand some of the fundamentals of wikipedia and consensus building. An issue that I personally believe to be major is some people start focusing arguments on other wikipedians. Like we've seen many times before we should Discuss the content, not the editors. Someone's actions have absolutely ZERO relevance in a discussion about the inclusion of the names of those found at a shooting. We aren't going to out anybody because of a strong opinion or actively editing in WP:GOODFAITH. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: I agree with others, this doesn't improve the reader's understanding of events. If a specific victim acted in a way that impacted the crime (say tackling the shooter and stopping the crime) then I would not oppose inclusion if our sources are doing the same. That would be my exception to a general rule to not list the names of victims. I do not see this as in conflict with NPOV. Refusing to include potential motives that have been widely discussed by other sources would be a NPOV issue. The list of victims isn't because it's specific exclusion doesn't radically alter the understanding of the topic. Another way to look at it, what if the specific listed names were wrong? How would that impact the reader's understanding? If RSs say the motive was terrorism but we say it was the result of a lovers quarrel then that mistake radically changes the understanding of the crime. If we say Austin Smith (argument sake "wrong name") instead of Matt Thompson (argument sake "correct name") would the difference matter to 99% of readers? I don't mean these examples to downplay the impact of this crime on real people, only to illustrate that some facts have far more impact on a reader's understanding of a crime vs others. A way to decide if the material is important is to ask, what if that fact was wrong, how would it affect the reader's understanding. Springee (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  Our sources provide significant coverage of the victims, excluding the names makes our articles imbalanced towards the perpetrator and the "reaction" to the event. This is the NPOV concern IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The names are not notable. Wikipedia typically doesn't include in lists the names of individuals without their own Wikipedia pages. The same standard can apply here. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 21:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Eyer: WP:MEMORIAL is clear that we don't make articles simply to memorialize people (even people notable for their involvement in an event like a mass shooting or some large scale accident for example). However, 90% of similar articles include a list of the victims (some even go further, listing the injured). These lists provide balance to the article, satisfying NPOV by not making articles about the event slanted towards the perpetrator. We have a responsibility to provide proportional coverage of these events for all sides/parties involved. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Since you keep citing that "90%" figure over and over at this and similar discussions, I guess I need to point out once again that your 90% number is based on a sampling of all such articles created here in the 18 years of Wikipedia's existence. However, a sampling of RECENT (within the past year) articles, reflective of how we do things nowadays, found that victims' names were included 45% of the time. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the 90% only refers to mass shootings in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a simple reason for that: victims aren't identified by sources pertaining to some parts of the world. This is an article pertaining to the United States. We are not an inventive project. Wikipedia is all about adherence to sources. Adherence to sources is important. We should be reflecting applicable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Excluding names of those killed isn't being inventive.

Adhering doesn't mean that inclusion of info in RS mandates inclusion in our articles. We should & do select what we include on the basis of importance, relevance etc. Jim Michael (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It is inventive on your part to deem these names dispensable if sources demonstrably consider inclusion of the names of the victims indispensable. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You're talking to me as though I'm the only person who wants the victims' names excluded.

Not all media sources include the names & unlike them we're not writing articles for profit. Jim Michael (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"You're talking to me as though I'm the only person who wants the victims' names excluded." You are saying "knowing the victims' names is of no benefit to over 99% of readers". That is inventiveness when it is contrary to most if not all sources. The New York Times is not a piddling entity—"Pensacola Victims: Three Hopeful Men at the Dawn of Naval Careers". Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion in RS doesn't mean that the victims' names are of use to many readers - few of whom will remember any of those names. Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If few will remember the names of the victims then I should think that would be a reason to include the victim names. Are we supposed to remember everything? That's one of the purposes of Wikipedia—to serve as a repository for relevant and verifiable information. As a reader I don't want a document that has been censored by an editor who has decided for me that I don't need this information. As a reader I want a full and accurate document. Please don't decide for me what I don't need to know. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Few readers remember the names of victims regardless of how many sources report them.

If omitting names is censorship, then it could be argued that omitting info about their lives is also censorship, which would lead to including mini biographies of them. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You are arguing to omit victim names. I am arguing to include victim names. Please stay on topic. This is in response to "If omitting names is censorship, then it could be argued that omitting info about their lives is also censorship, which would lead to including mini biographies of them." Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I say that partly because some editors want to include more than the names. Jim Michael (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN—may I respond to "However, a sampling of RECENT (within the past year) articles, reflective of how we do things nowadays, found that victims' names were included 45% of the time"? I believe this goes back to your observations at Talk:Saugus High School shooting in which you write "Summary: out of eleven articles, five include victims’ names." You initiated a section at "Saugus" titled Talk:Saugus High School shooting#Discussion: Victims' names and you concluded "Summary: out of eleven articles, five include victims’ names." I think that is misleading. As we know, one editor closed four of the RfCs that you examined and that editor closed all four of those RfCs in favor of omitting victim names. Is that really in the spirit of deciding on a "case-by-case basis"? To me it sounds more like an expression of one editor's opinion that victim names should be omitted. In my opinion one editor should not be closing four RfCs on this subject—all with the same outcome—to omit victim names. I have already pointed this out to you on the "Saugus" Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support including the names of the victims. Their names, pictures and stories are all over the media. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored. BobNesh (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Reliable sources are providing us with a general outline of what matters in addressing this topic. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support: The name of the page is Naval Air Station Pensacola ShootING not ShootER. The page is not just about the shooter, it is about the entire event. Perhaps someone should create a page ShootER if you don’t want all aspects depicted on this page. More importantly, it is UNCONSCIONABLE that some of you would write “The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers” and “The names are not notable”. The victims are the most important aspects of this event. As a former Naval Aircrewman who stood that watch, on that very quarterdeck where they were assaulted and bled out, your outlook saddens me. Precedent for thought: Fort Hood Shooting; ALL victims’ names are listed. I say we Honor the fallen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniformcharlie886 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Both 2009 Fort Hood shooting and 2014 Fort Hood shooting include the names of all the victims. It is ridiculous that this article, Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting, includes a photograph of the perpetrator (and his name) but some editors are arguing that the names of the victims should be omitted. (This is in response to Uniformcharlie886 pointing out above "Precedent for thought: Fort Hood Shooting; ALL victims’ names are listed.") Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you Bus stop Perhaps you too are a veteran. I get the impression that some others are not and don't care. MANY of my inclusions for the fallen have been undone and justified with nitpicky nonsense that perhaps makes them feel it gives them some kind of power. Let's see how this all turns out. Until then I honor Ensign Watson, PO3 Haitham and PO3 Walters. uniformcharlie886 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not a veteran, Uniformcharlie886, but I would be proud to be one. I feel that civilians should also be identified by name in most cases in which we write an article about such an incident, if sources prominently provide that information. Thank you for this edit, though it was reverted. It is not only an informative edit, providing the reader with much detailed information in links, but it also treats this material in a dignified manner. Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  Uniformcharlie886, your support is clearly based in emotion – I say we Honor the fallen. etc. – and that kind of argument has no place in these discussions. Your personal feelings about this shooting and its victims are completely irrelevant. I'm afraid !votes like this mean we will have to request an uninvolved closer before we allow the disputed content in based on numbers alone (Wikipedia is not a democracy), and a competent uninvolved closer will discount or dismiss this !vote and possibly others. I say this discussion has pretty much played out and I'm prepared to submit that closure request if others are. The Supports have a numerical lead at this time and this just might close in their favor despite emotion-based argument(s). But regardless, editors should not add names to this article without that closure. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Mandruss, you have not addressed the Fort Hood precedent. Please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniformcharlie886 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  Sure. I get that you and others feel that what other editors have done at Fort Hood should be carried forward to this article. I suppose you're free to give that as an argument and see what the closer thinks about it. But there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline to that effect, or any other demonstrable community consensus to that effect, so you can't assert it as some binding Wikipedia principle. I happen to disagree with it, and fairly strongly. I could speak at length about the underlying philosophy, but (please) suffice it to say (1) Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and (2) the Fort Hood article was created ten years ago. I'm not inclined to go challenge the Fort Hood article, for various reasons including respect for the editors at that article and limited time, but that doesn't mean I can't challenge the names here (despite the disruptively recurring uninformed claims that it does). I hope this is sufficient response to your question. Thank you for your service. I won't speak about my military service since it isn't relevant to this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  To the contrary, Mandruss, they effectively counter your argument when they write "The name of the page is Naval Air Station Pensacola ShootING not ShootER. The page is not just about the shooter, it is about the entire event. Perhaps someone should create a page ShootER if you don’t want all aspects depicted on this page."

  Mandruss—all you are doing is !voting. You do not seem to recognize your own obligation in this discussion. We don't omit basic material on a whim. The onus is on you to present a substantial reason this material should be omitted. The material we are addressing is prominently found in virtually all good quality sources that address this topic. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a discussion about victims' names, nothing else. Even if this closes in favor of inclusion of the names, that will not be a consensus for something like this. If that's added again, I will dispute it (ie BRD-revert it) unless somebody beats me to it. This is merely a point of order and I'm not going to debate that additional content here as it's a new and separate issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Withholding the names of the victims creates an incomplete depiction of the event and disrespects them. Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Question - Can someone explain the method of a neutral closer making a final decision? Perhaps direct me to where I can read the rules. Thank you. Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  1. Usually a request is submitted at WP:ANRFC, where it waits for a number of weeks due to the backlog. Editors who opt to do these closures choose a request from the list, not necessarily the oldest discussion. 2. The closer follows the instructions at Wikipedia:Closing discussions, which also includes instructions for challenging a closure. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - There's too much TALKING and not enough DOING going on here. Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Uniformcharlie886, there is not even talking. Mandruss writes "Further, there are arguable privacy concerns." If there are "arguable privacy concerns", why isn't Mandruss arguing that there are privacy concerns? That would be an important point to make. If I believed there to be privacy concerns in disclosing this information I would argue that the names and other information about the deceased should be omitted from the article. This is a crucial point. It should be discussed. Instead there is only a vague assertion that there may be privacy concerns. Here is my argument—not only are there no "privacy concerns"—because the identities of the deceased are carried in virtually every news source—but the information on the deceased is an integral part of the subject of the article. This information is not peripheral information. It has been construed as indiscriminate information. I would call that grasping at straws. We are discussing information that is squarely within the scope of the subject being addressed. Not indiscriminate at all. I believe the onus for omitting this information is on those arguing to keep it out of the article. Is there an argument being presented that there is any substantial reason that this information should be kept out? I will answer my own question even though many will disagree with me. No, there is no argument being presented as to why this information should be omitted. One editor has told us that we don't include the names of those killed in bombings in Afghanistan, most of whom are Afghanis. This is for the obvious reason that news reporting in that part of the world doesn't provide that information. But this article is about a part of the world, the United States, where information on the identities of the deceased—both civilian and military—is a basic component of reporting on these incidents. The argument to omit this information boils down to self-censorship. Anyone can join this discussion and I welcome replies to points I am trying to raise. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It seems there are two things to consider here that are really closely related, but might be better treated as separate things.
  The first thing is whether the names of the victims should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Wikipedia articles about subjects such as this are not intended memorialize or demonize any the individuals mentioned in the article; article content is really only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about them in a WP:NPOV manner that is not WP:UNDUE to the degree that it disrupts the balance of the article. This article is technically about an event (please don't interpret my referring to this tragedy as such as being a sign of disrespect towards any of the victims or their families) and it seems quite natural to want to add some content about those persons associated with it to the article. However, Wikipedia in WP:NOTNEWS and this article doesn't need to "cover" this event in the same way that a newspaper or other media outlet may decide to cover it. It's not the purpose of this article to make people remember who any of these individuals are (either in a positive or a negative way), but rather only to provide content deemed to be encyclopedically relevant to the general reader (not a certain group of readers) as discussed in reliable sources. The fact the the US media was widely reporting these names does seem to indicate there is encyclopedic value in mentioning them, but again the goals/motivations of the US media and Wikipedia are not necessarily one and the same and content (even verifiable content) should not simply be added because it was something covered by the US media for the reasons given in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There are BLP concerns per WP:BLP1E, etc. since BLP still technically applies to recently deceased individuals for a certain amount of time per WP:BDP and would certainly apply to any family members, etc., but I think that mentioning such people by name when their names are widely released sort of mitigates this concern. At the same time, the fact that media outlets around the world may not mention the names of such people with respect to similar events happening within their home countries in their coverage as the US media does is not really of concern to Wikipedia and isn't a reason in and of itself to not mention such names in this particular article. Trying to justify not including such names simply for that reason seems to be just as much of a WP:OTHERCONTENT type of argument as trying to argue that names should be added because the names of such persons are included in other similar articles. Simply because similar content has been added to other similar articles doesn't mean that it should've been added per WP:CONTENTAGE any more than similar content not added to similar articles means that it shouldn't be added here. Unless there is a particular community-wide consensus (i.e. policy or guideline) which applies to all articles of this type, it doesn't seem really useful to try and focus on what other articles are or aren't doing.
  If the consensus turns out to be to add the names, then the next question is how to best add them. In my opinion, this is not really a good way to do that. If any of these individuals are Wikipedia notable so that a stand-alone article can be written about them (not sure because of WP:BIO1E) then such content would probably fit well in such an article about the person as a whole. Trying to make that type of addition to this article seems pretty UNDO and moving really close to WP:NOTMEMORIAL even if where only discussing a sub-section of an article. These individuals can be referred to in prose within the context of this event, but trying to create mini-bios seems really to be the wrong way to go about trying to get content about them added to this article.
  If you scroll to the top of this talk page, you see that this article is covered under arbcom discretionary sanctions which means that extra care needs to be made when editing it. While I understand people have strong feelings about this subject and may be frustrated at the pace things seem to be moving, there's really WP:NODEADLINE and anything perceived as edit warring (no matter how right one may think they are) is likely going to lead to a quick by an administrator. Despite what some other's have posted, I think the ONUS is on those wanting to add this content to establish a consensus in favor of doing so, and not the other way around. While I may personally be leaning towards at least adding it in some form, some of the argument in favor of not including this information do have merit and should not be so quickly dismissed. Regardless, it will be the consensus reached here which determines whether what's the best thing to do for Wikipedia. Now, if there are concerns that this discussion has stagnated and that more input is desired, then perhaps asking at relevant WikiProjects or even starting a WP:RFC is a way to get more people involved in this. I found out about this discussion after seeing a post about it on another user's talk page and others might accidentally stumble upon it in a similar way, but it's OK to more directly seek input from others as long as it's done in a way that doesn't run afoul of WP:CANVASS. FWIW, a RFC which simply asks in a neutral manner "Should the names of the victims be mentioned in this article?" that is added to WP:CD might lead to a fairly strong consensus on the first question. Once that has been resolved, the second question can be discussed in more detail if the consensus is to add the names. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly—Wikipedia reflects sources, or at least Wikipedia should reflect sources. There have to be good reasons for not reflecting sources. You are saying "While I may personally be leaning towards at least adding it in some form, some of the argument in favor of not including this information do have merit and should not be so quickly dismissed." What "argument in favor of not including this information" has merit? Bus stop (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I posted quite a wall-of-text, and I thought I mentioned that but maybe I just thought I did. I would say that there is some merit in arguing WP:NOTEVERYTHING when it comes to whether this content should be added. Just because some particular content is mentioned/covered by reliable sources doesn't mean it should necessarily be mentioned/covered in a Wikipedia article about the same subject. Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect sources, but the content in those sources also needs to be deemed encyclopedically relevant to the general Wikipedia reader. I get that the "deemed" part is very subjective, but the same can pretty much be said about any type of Wikipedia content dispute and it's through discussion that hopefully a consensus that is best for Wikipedia, not one side or the other, can be reached. I apologize if that sounds like a contradiction or just plain nonsense, but I'm sure how to word it any better.

To me personally, it makes sense to mention the names of victims if (1) they were mentioned extensively in the reliable sources covering the shooting and (2) it can be done in the context of prose discussing the event itself. At the same time, I'm not sure if it's really necessary to go into too much detail about them (e.g. their hometowns, their military units and citations), particularly if they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were essentially just random victims. It only makes sense to add more detail about them as individuals if they were more deeply connected to the reasons why the event happened. I know that some might see that as some sort of disrespect towards the victims, but that's really not my intent at all. It does seems reasonable to me to want to add the names (and perhaps the ranks) of the victims to the already existing prose in the "Shooting" section of the article, but not so sure it's really appropriate to try and add tables with images of medals or awards the victims received as separate individual sections of the article. I don't have lots of familiarity editing these types of articles and maybe common practice with respect to them is different, but another thing that might be worth considering is whether its necessary to have separate "Victims" and the "Perpetrator" subsections at all and instead figure out whether it might be better overall to find a way to better incorporate their content into the article, perhaps by tweaking the "Investigation" section so that it can accommodate the content of both. Anyway, I was able to keep things a bit shorter this time around. Perhaps, I'll be able to really attain total brevity the more I post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly—there is no "merit in arguing WP:NOTEVERYTHING" as you assert that there is, not in relation to this question, anyway. Consider the following: could you go to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or Pittsburgh synagogue shooting and remove the victim names? The difference is that in the instance of newly-created articles, you are entertaining an idea in the abstract. But in the cases of "Stoneman Douglas" and "Pittsburgh synagogue" you would be addressing concrete embodiments of the same idea. "Reification" makes for a difference in how we handle this idea. Editors would not be inclined to entertain the same idea in its concrete manifestation as they would in its abstract manifestation. You are only entertaining the idea of WP:NOTEVERYTHING in relation to this question because it is being presented to you in the abstract.

You say "I know that some might see that as some sort of disrespect towards the victims". To me this has nothing whatsoever to do with respect or disrespect. Our job is to compile reliably sourced information that is relevant to a topic being addressed. The names of the victims fall within the scope of the article. That is the only reason they are included, if that information is prominently found in sources. We don't make editorial decisions based on factors that can't be supported by reliable sources, therefore we don't make distinctions between those that are "random" victims and those that are "targeted" victims.

As concerns "tables", "lists", and "prose"—for the purposes of including victims that are numerous and clearly not biographically notable, I favor "tables" and "lists" to "prose". Tables and lists can be supplemented by prose. And this is done at many articles, quite successfully, I think. It takes the eye a fraction of a second to glance between the two manners of presentation. Tables and lists have the virtue of compactness and orderliness; prose has the virtue of being able to present unique information that may be only applicable to one of the victims. Bus stop (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - To hell with the victims. They are clearly NOT part of this event. They are insignificant. Why should we care about mentioning them? MANY of you disgust me. And DON'T lecture me about proper or improper or inappropriate talk on this page. It is a TALK page. This is my talk. Sleep well tonight! Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Uniformcharlie886: I understand your frustration, and while my support is based on the neutrality of the article, I know your reasoning is far more personal. If there were some valid reasoning for excluding the names I could understand these discussions, but it still boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that's wrong to let editors exclude information that is as important as this from an article. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No for now.....give it time WP:BDP.--Moxy 🍁 16:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support of course, in case my comments above weren't clear. This would be like having an article about a sporting event and only letting one team be discussed. The fact that people can even think this is debatable is beyond me when NPOV is not negotiable. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI, I deleted John Fitzgerald Kennedy's name from the Lee Harvey Oswald's page. FYI, I deleted Abraham Lincoln's name from the John Wilkes Booth's page, and MANY, MANY others... per multiple arguments above, i.e., "The names (of the victims) are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers", "I am against the inclusion of victim names as they do not assist the typical reader's understanding of the event", etc. Uniformcharlie886 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Victims

I see that someone readded the victim names, but the sections weren’t formatted correctly. I’ve corrected this, but I’m thinking I should have reverted because there isn’t consensus yet. Don’t take my edit as support for adding this information. Feel free to revert my changes in removing the victim names if there is no consensus yet . —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 17:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Eyer—I have "readded the victim names" because there is an obvious consensus for this in the section titled Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting#Add names of victims who died. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There’s no closure yet, so I’ll revert. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 18:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There is and will be no "obvious consensus" unless and until an uninvolved closer assesses one in that discussion. Consensus is not merely about numbers, and none of us is in a position to objectively assess the merits of the arguments. That's why we have uninvolved closers. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

So actually we weren’t jumping to conclusions. Today they determined that the action was a terror attack Heldjohn (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2020 (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.

Terror Attack Listing

I’m new to Wikipedia but I find it grotesque to not label this what it is, it’s a terrorist attack that was perpetrated by a foreign national. This is borderline an act of war by Saudi Arabia however the FBI and congressional officials have reached consensus on it being an incident of terrorism. I like less than 10 miles from the area in which this attack took place. I live less than .5 of a mile from Baptist Hospital, the location of all the survivors. I cited my sources which are ample, yet someone keeps removing my updates to the page. The first time around was because of a lack of citations which was quickly fixed, the second time for vandalism. Heldjohn (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The FBI is investigating it as a terror attack, and we should say that in the article. I'll take a look and make sure that it does. But that's an operating presumption as they start their investigation. It is not the same as a pronouncement "this was terrorism". At some point we will know what the FBI conclude based on their investigation. For now, it is not a proven fact and should not be listed in Wikipedia's voice as a proven fact. Your closeness to the event, and the fact that you find it scary (as anyone would), is not evidence that it was in fact terrorism. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Given MelanieN’s response, why does the article infobox list Islamic terrorism as the motive? The prose states “The FBI is treating the case as a ‘presumed’ terrorism investigation and is currently searching for the motive behind the attack.” Shouldn’t the infobox not list a motive until the article can be updated to not say that the FBI is searching for a motive? (I have removed the text, but it has been readded.) —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eyer: I have removed it and added a hidden comment that the FBI specifically says they have not yet determined a motive. We are going to get a lot of this, I'm afraid: people jumping to conclusions without waiting for any investigation. Even some congressmen are doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious there has been a bias from the start by a number of editors to cover up every aspect of this event. Every discussion here has been from a concerted effort to suppress anything written about the event, first the article's existence, then listing any victims, and finally acknowledging it was a terrorist attack. It doesn't help the media seemed disinterested as well with little follow-up. Some obvious large questions like any legal follow-up in subsequent weeks/months or policy changes aren't even explored here. No mention of what happened to the other Saudi Arabian service members who may have potentially known in advance of the event. J1DW (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)