Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Discretionary Sanctions

• I've removed the discretionary sanctions notice from the top of the talk page. A recent discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard found that this article does not fall under the scope of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Mike V • Talk 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Mike V Almost assuredly this article would still be subject to discretionary sanctions via WP:ARBAPDS and/or WP:ARBGC, though perhaps not subject to the 1RR restriction for the middle eastern topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is (supposed to be) about a mass shooting, not gun control or politics. Besides, most everyone is editing in good faith, so there should be no need for any such measures. - MrX 19:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MrX, as the article subject is not about gun control or political parties/people. We don't have discretionary topics on similar topics such as the Columbine High School Shooting. Mike V • Talk 20:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a note to add: neither of those cases use the "broadly construed" language for the discretionary sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mike V. This article clearly falls under BLP discretionary sanctions because so many living and recently dead people are involved in the article (including family and friends of the living and recently deceased). {{discretionary sanctions|topic=blp}} would be the appropriate template for this type of article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

While discretionary sanctions might be permitted under that rationale, I don't think it's necessary to apply them to this article right now. Overall, recent editing has been quite cordial and there have been very little disputes over content. Discretionary sanctions should be used to curtail active disruption and not as a preemptive measure. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mike V. I do not follow your logic. The DSs are already in place for BLPs. The thin banner is merely a subtle reminder for those editors that are unaware of it. These banners are to avoid problems, not create them. I feel it is best to avoid problems by following procedures that are in place rather than putting out fires after the fact. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 16:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the logic is really simple: Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not look for ways to punish people. In my opinion, best practice is to model the behavior you wish others to emulate. The editing and discussion on this article have been remarkably positive, considering the nature of the subject.- MrX 16:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions are authorized by the arbitration committee for specific topics. However, that does not mean that sanctions are in effect for all articles under that topic. That would require an uninvolved admin to place specific restrictions on this article. (e.g. limit of 1 revert per 24 hours per editor) The banner merely serves as a warning to editors that sanctions can be applied to the article or the editors if needed. Currently, there is minimal disruption so I don't think the situation warrants a warning to users about the possibility of sanctions. It's typically only placed on articles that are experiencing active disruption and where a warning is necessary. Mike V • Talk 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've removed the DS notice before, I agree with Mike's removal now. It helps to prevent silly "gotcha!" games. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the editing of this article has been sensible so discretionary sanctions are not needed anyway. The link to ISIL is at best tenuous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

49 or 50

The intro says 49 people were killed. But the Casualties section, says 50. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

50 includes the shooter, I've made this clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing a catagory

Someone has put in the catagorys "Citation overkill from June 2016". It looks like vandalism and I can't seem to remove it myself. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, a puzzle, as it isn't in the categories of the HTML. Can anyone fix and explain this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find it either. It isn't anywhere in the article that I can see. United States Man (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Somebody put a template:citekill next to some cites. It links to an essay that does not represent broad consensus so I removed it.- MrX 18:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The article is rather bloated, but we don't need a tag to tell us that. That's just more stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Are we consensual enough on the motive yet?

There's a note in the motive field of the infobox pointing to a discussion way back in Archive 2. Things are much clearer now, per the 911 transcripts. Time to add? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Given the ongoing RfCs and mudslinging over them, I would say not. The infobox permits only simple statements about the motive and there may have been a range of motives for the Orlando shooting. Also, Florida police may take months to conclude an official investigation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What "range of motives" are you talking about? He declared his allegiance to ISIS and expressed his hatred of homosexuals. What other motives can there be? Avangion (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Those two are in the range. He also allegedly expressed hatred of Hispanics, Jews, blacks and women. Also in the range (but the last three don't fit the plot, so mostly ignored). The anti-bombing is still the only one he explicitly explained to police, hostages and his Facebook friends. I guess that makes it in the range to people who'd rather not trust a terrorist. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

He may have other motives, but what he know now for sure is what he said at the scene: the attack was in the name of ISIL, and as you said in retaliation for the bombing. Wikipedia could be always be modified in the future if a thorough investigation produces some hard evidence that his attack was for another reason. Avangion (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're waiting for Florida to finish, should the note say that, rather than point to an old semi-hidden discussion that says we're waiting for clarity, reliable reports and the FBI? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

And if we're not waiting for Florida, this would be a good place to reestablish what we are waiting for, and point the updated note. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, and I think Ianmacm's points are spot on.- MrX 19:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've gone with this, then. Fair enough? Also, does a Wikilink in a hidden note make sense to the right software? It doesn't to mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

No, nothing works inside a hidden comment. Come to think of it, no links work in the editor, which is the only place you can see hidden comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but technology surprises me sometimes. Unlinked, if only to save four bytes. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Claim that an ongoing FBI investigation has reached a conclusion

The sentence that states, "Initial reports said he may have been a patron of the nightclub and used gay dating websites and apps, but a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation found no credible evidence to substantiate these claims." wrongly indicates that the FBI investigation has reached a conclusion. Furthermore, the sentence is unsourced. Pooua (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is cited later on in the article per WP:LEADCITE. The FBI has moved away from the theory that Mateen was homosexual, but it is still early days and a full report may take months.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Quit glorifying the shooter!

My God Why do you have paragraph after paragraph about the shooter and only list names and ages of victims. That's fucked up! Why don't we get as much information about the beautiful lives lost and honor THEM? For the Perpetrator, it should just read something like: " a 27 year-old individual who was Enamored with a terrorist group. Period. Don't even list his name. Kirstalie2 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerned about this "glorification" of the shooter? Take the issue to WP:VPP. Parsley Man (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Kirstalie2 the short answer is simply that is how the event is being reported, with lots and lots of details all about the perpetrator and very little about the victims except as a group. If the majority of sources reported on each of the victims in detail instead the article would reflect that. Computationsaysno (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And it's being reported like that because the shooter is always the one who causes the shooting, making him far more central to the event. Hypothetically replace a group of people in the wrong place at the wrong time with another random bunch, and the story will stay more or less the same. Replace the shooter with a random guy, and the shooting won't happen at all, or at least differently. It's just about who did the thing, not who's fucked up and who's beautiful (everyone's a bit of both, I think). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that the shooter is not particularly protected by any expectation of privacy, while the victims and especially their families do retain the right to that expectation. We do not generally report details concerning victims of crime (even if they appear in reliable sources) unless they are notable for some other reason and are thus high-profile. General Ization ^Talk 04:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a pretty standard objection which gets raised at some point. There is clear evidence that some mass shooters do it for the fame and notoriety that it will bring, and sadly their actions will always be notable. However, when it comes to damnatio memoriae, Wikipedia is bound by WP:NOTCENSORED, which says "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal or inclusion of content." Long obituaries of the victims are not within the scope of the article, and there would be some privacy concerns for the relatives of the victims if the article did this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a sad, sad world we live in... Parsley Man (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

On the bright side, the dead don't live here, so don't know we think they're notorious. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

Get as Much Information about each victim

For each victim there needs to be a paragraph about who they were, what they did in life, what their dreams were, etc. Honor THRM not the perpetrator of this crime.  Kirstalie2 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you can take those concerns to WP:VPP. Parsley Man (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

And WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The media tends not to dig too deeply into random victims' pasts. The government and police might, but don't tell the media. The public typically just hears kind words from their friends and family, if anything. If we even could scrounge enough together for a paragraph each, those paragraphs would lean toward flattery.

You'll virtually never read about their drug use, browsing habits, criminal records, fondness of slurs, rocky relationships or other such "honourable" or "glorious" dirty laundry, so we can never write a fair summary of who they actually were. And if we somehow did, you know enough people would want the shameful bits deleted. Not worth the digging. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to "scrounge." Even the most cursory browser search will yield multiple websites providing a name, picture, and brief paragraph's worth of information on each of the 49 victims, like this one. The slightest effort suffices. Just saying. Antinoos69 (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

You've made a slight effort, now people who want to read kind words from friends and family can check the talk page and click the link. That does suffice.

Oddly enough, the article currently has 49 paragraphs, or 50 if you count the list. Seems undue weight, doubling up with how the sweet guy had three chihuahuas, the one who always smiled was learning English and the good person and good brother worked at a marketing firm. Might be better to keep these in a "Friends and family" subsection of Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

And those desperate to sate their unquenchable thirst for the tabloid dirt on minority victims of a mass shooting can … well, do whatever it is that you spend your time doing. In any case, having to hunt through mounds of soon-to-be-archived talk pages hardly seems to suffice. Just saying. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The "check the talk page and click the link" thing did strike me as a little odd, especially coming from an astute editor like the Hulk. My take is that "people who want to read kind words from friends and family" can use Google search. Wikipedia is not the go-to for any kind of information one might want. We also don't test consumer products or compete with the Yellow Pages. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not thirsty for dirt or pleasantries. Their names and ages quench me just fine. Just saying only talking about how wonderful they all were for 49 paragraphs wouldn't present a neutral point of view.

If the talk page seems too tucked away and you don't want to add these to the reactions, maybe put that list in "External links"? Or use it to summarize in "List of (the) dead" that all have been described as kind, loving and full of joy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

You mischaracterize the list, which includes the all-so-important photos, as well as the occupations, significant others, educational pursuits, and other info on various victims. Perhaps you couldn't care less about any of it, but I can personally assure you that others care a great deal. Such lists put out by respected media follow standard conventions for reporting on victims. Your biases, purely ideological or otherwise, are blinding you to such realities, as they are to the fact that I had already added a link to the "External links" section long before you posted your comment. Antinoos69 (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The last three are arguably useful, but copyrighted photos are out of the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

Latin Night in the lead again

I removed the content "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night..." from the lead because it seemed to me that the previous discussion showed no consensus for including such irrelevant detail. Antinoos69 reverted my edit with an edit summary "There was clearly a majority for inclusion." Can someone please point to the discussion where there was a clear majority for inclusion, or better yet a consensus for inclusion? It seems to be that mentioning that Pulse was hosting Lating night is as noteworthy as saying they were having a dollar drink special. I have no objection to saying that most of the victims were Hispanic, provided that it's done in the second paragraph.- MrX 14:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, my recollection was that identifying victim's ethnicity was chosen in preference to the roundabout 'Latino night', rather than as well as it. Pincrete (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

One must note that the entire sentence regarding the matter was deleted, not just a portion regarding one aspect. The now archived discussion had three in favor of inclusion, two against, and one "ambivalent" but against mention in the first sentence. As we're not discussing the first sentence, that makes for a clear majority for inclusion. Not only did the "Latin night" vs. "ethnicity" idea have no consensus, but it makes no sense. It would make it sound like the shooter was going around making sure to kill only the Hispanics/Latinos/-as, sorting them out from the crowd. The context of Latino Night is needed. Also, one might point out that failing to mention this matter regarding an oppressed and frequently "erased" group only serves to perpetuate that erasure. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between "Latino Night" (ethnicity) and "Latin Night" (music), the club was not hosting a Latin persons only night but its music was Latin, thus "Latin Night" is more appropriate; which is the reason why I changed it a few days ago. – jona ✉ 15:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor detail, since I don't think it is lead-worthy, but I believe they called it 'latino night', yes they just meant by that 'latino' entertainment. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we all agree that there is currently no reason to think that he targetted 'latinos', either in choosing the night or while choosing who to kill, and we should avoid implying that he did. … … My logic is simple, the kind of entertainment offered is incidental, the result of that, (many Hispanic killed) is not. Pincrete (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is no evidence that the shooter targeted Hispanic people, or that he went to Pulse because it was Latin night, then it is merely an aside that isn't worthy of the lead. I disagree that "Latin night" adds necessary context. - MrX 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

First, there is certainly evidence that Puerto Ricans /Latinos were targeted—flimsy and dubious evidence, but evidence nonetheless (i.e., the Puerto Rican, HIV business). Second, there can be no doubt that "Latin Night" adds necessary context. It goes to why there were so many Latino/-a/Hispanic deaths and survivors. In fact, the media has pretty consistently made reference to the fact for the same purpose. Without such context, the reader would be left to conclude that there were so many Latino/-a/Hispanic deaths and survivors because the shooter was specifically looking for Latinos/-as/Hispanics in the crowd, a sort of speculation you and others seem to wish to avoid. Third, you miss the most important point, minority erasure. It is well established that when minorities' minority status isn't explicitly mentioned it is effectively erased. This erasure is particularly galling, insensitive, and downright offensive in light of the heinous subject of this article. Just yesterday I came across an account of the atrocity by a gay Puerto Rican man, for whom and for whose community both the LGBT and ethnic statuses of the victims and survivors were very acutely and uniquely felt, with serious ramifications and implications specific to his community. It does him and others similarly situated a great disservice to whitewash (pun definitely intended) this event and pretend that his experience is somehow not "worthy of the lead." Antinoos69 (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

flimsy and dubious evidence = no evidence. It may later come to light that latinos were targetted, at present there is no reason to think that 'latino-phobia' was an issue. We are not here to right-great-wrongs as regards homo/latino-phobia, nor to decide which is worse, nor which this was. No one here opposes including early on the fact that the majority of victims were Hispanic. That is a significant feature of this event, but I cannot see how the kind of music offered is anything other than incidental and distracting. Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Flimsy and dubious evidence = flimsy and dubious evidence. No evidence = no evidence. The simple fact is that flimsy and dubious evidence =/= no evidence. Flimsy and dubious evidence has been cited in support of many a once-widely-accepted "fact," including in science. And your "right-great-wrongs" isn't merely grammatically off the mark. We certainly are here, as we are everywhere, to avoid committing "great wrongs" ourselves. Minority erasure is certainly a great wrong. Your "which is worse" nonsense has nothing to do with my comment. Finally, I cannot begin to fathom your bizarre fixation on "music." The point of including "Latin Night" regards the demographics of the patrons and victims, a point I explained twice previously. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Antinoos69: I'm sure you know that Wikipedia is not a place to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You may consider it an injustice not to prominently highlight that the nightclub was hosting a Latin night, but it's simply not noteworthy.  The fact that most of the slain were Hispanic is somewhat noteworthy, but I question whether is needs to be mentioned in the lead. I'm not aware that any reliable sources have concluded that Mateen specifically targeted Hispanic people. Although, I can somewhat accept that adding "Latin night" does keep the reader from jumping to the conclusion that the shooting targeted Hispanics, it also supports not including such information in the lead, exactly because it doesn't answer the question of motive. In fact, it would mislead our readers by highlighting something that is merely background information.- MrX 22:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You're exhibiting an extraordinary and baffling inability to understand me. Wikipedia certainly is a place, like every other place, to avoid committing wrongs ourselves. The injustice I refer to, as I strongly suspect your less rhetorical self fully realizes, is minority erasure, not omitting reference to Latin Night. The reference to Latin Night goes to the otherwise puzzling demographics of the victims, as I'm confident you also know. It would certainly do readers a disservice not to provide important and widely reported background on those demographics, as it would to facilitate their participation in minority erasure, a subject starting to crop up in some media. To repeat, you miss the most important point, minority erasure. It is well established that when minorities' minority status isn't explicitly mentioned it is effectively erased. This erasure is particularly galling, insensitive, and downright offensive in light of the heinous subject of this article. Just yesterday I came across an account of the atrocity by a gay Puerto Rican man, for whom and for whose community both the LGBT and ethnic statuses of the victims and survivors were very acutely and uniquely felt, with serious ramifications and implications specific to his community. It does him and others similarly situated a great disservice to whitewash (pun definitely intended) this event and pretend that his experience is somehow not "worthy of the lead." Antinoos69 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I understood you the first time you wrote all that. Why repeat it? Wikipedia does not have any policies or guidelines for "minority erasure". It's offensive to me to see this article used as a platform for promoting social/political change or fixing various injustices. We are supposed to distill an informative article from the many available source and present it dispassionately, without burdening the lead with intricate details. 28.4% of Orlando residents are Hispanic. There's nothing unusual or noteworthy about people who share a culture congregating at a place of entertainment. From Orlando, Florida: "Orlando has the largest population of Puerto Ricans in Florida and their cultural impact on Central Florida is similar to that of the large Cuban population in South Florida." - MrX 16:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've become well aware of your problems with minorities, I assure you. This is certainly no place for your fringe hangups, so drop it. According to you, "28.4% of Orlando residents are Hispanic," whereas, according to this article, "[o]ver 90% of victims were of Hispanic background." I'm sure even you will realize this is a huge discrepancy that must be addressed, including in the lead. Really, do you even bother reading what you write and write about? The media has frequently mentioned Latin Night in the context of the demographic makeup of the victims. So should we. Get over it. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict. Antinoos69, there is no extraordinary and baffling inability to understand you, it's just that you are wrong. If the victims were principally Welsh sheep farmers, French teenagers, Lithuanian rugby players or Kansas basketball supporters, regardless of whether any of these groups were or were not 'erased' or otherwise marginalised groups, then identifying who they were would be lead worthy. Otherwise we wait for significant secondary sources to draw attention to any marginalisation and write it up in proportion to the coverage, not decide for ourselves what ought to be highlighted. WP:NPOV always cuts two ways. Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You're babbling, not to mention incorrect. The media has frequently mentioned Latin Night in the context of the demographic makeup of the victims. So should we. The media has frequently mentioned the Hispanic and Puerto Rican background of the victims. So should we. (How else would we even know this stuff?) Failing to do so is an egregious case of minority erasure. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead says at this moment "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night and most of the victims were of Hispanic descent." Can we phrase it so mentioning it was Latin night is an afterthought? Like "Most of the victims were of Hispanic descent due to it being Latin night at the club." Would that work better for people? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Richard-of-Earth's reordering would be preferable to present text, I still don't see the need to mention 'latin night', but agree that it marginally diminishes the risk of 'jumping to the wrong conclusion' about motive. That the vast majority of victims were from a specific group, is very noteworthy, even if it is incidental to motive and should be kept in the lead IMO. Pincrete (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "...due to it being Latin night at the club" is not good writing. Readers who desire to know why so many Hispanic people were killed can simply continue reading the body of the article.- MrX 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not good obfuscation, either. People tend to to better remember the first and last things they read. If you want to make something an afterthought, bury it about 70% deep (roughly where the whole sentence is now, paragraph-wise). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Antinoos69: to the extent that context matters and we want to avoid minority erasure, but I believe that the evidence is not necessarily flimsy, because of the outcome. The current wording, "Pulse was hosting a Latin Night and most of the victims were of Hispanic descent," is factually accurate, and I think that the type of event and the demographic of the victims are material to describing these important aspects of the attack in the lead. maslowsneeds🌈 14:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is questioning the factual accuracy of the sentence. I don't think it is one of our goals to "avoid minority erasure", per WP:NPOV and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there is a policy-based reason for mentioning Latin night in the lead, I have yet to see it.- MrX 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to look at how Wikipedia treated the German bakery bombing as a guidepost for perhaps how this article should be written. Although the circumstances are different, it is compelling that in describing the 2010 bombing in Pune, India, the backdrop of the attack was described in the lead. Although that attack nominally took place at a bakery, the demographic of those, who frequented the bakery, was sufficiently described, including the kinds of patrons for whom the establishment was popular at the time of the attack, as well as the demographic surrounding the bakery. (We don't even describe the demographic surounding the Pulse night club in the lead of the subject article.) The description of the demographic goes to important aspects of the attack : Who died, a., and who died as a consequence of the timing of the attack, b. For the bakery bombing article, this information appears in the lead, either offering a precedent or at least a strong suggestion about perhaps how similar information regarding the Pulse night club shooting should/could be treated. maslowsneeds🌈 16:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly is one of our goals here, as it is everywhere, to avoid minority erasure, just as avoiding lies, bias, bigotry, bad logic, and a very long list of other things are all among our goals both here and everywhere. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. There's a difference between not doing it and actively going out of one's way to spotlight it everywhere, as a countermeasure. First thing's fine (even good), second thing is what led Mateen to choose gay Latino victims over the undefined majority, I figure. Played the political insecurity of the climate right along with the physical insecurity of the club, and now he's forever linked to Stonewall (and not forgotten in Hispanic American history, either). Perhaps everyone should avoid training angry people to observe patterns, even without the guns. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

It's precisely the "[f]irst thing" that I'm trying to make sure gets done here, obviously. As for your too predictably reactionary babble, I'm not the least bit interested. I would suggest, though, that you drop it. This certainly isn't the place for it, if any exists at all, and your sources only support my position here. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

General Observation: There is clearly only less support for removing the disputed material now than there was before in the archived discussion. I would suggest it is time for people to move on to other things. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there is clearly no consensus either way with comments roughly evenly split. What we need are more outside participants to comment. I think an RfC with a two part question would help clarify consensus.- MrX 11:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest notion how you can make such an obviously erroneous assertion with a straight face, so to speak. In any case, I believe the RfC should be providing you with much needed clarification on the matter. Clearly, as matters now stand, the material would be staying. Antinoos69 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Latin night should certainly be in the lead and coupled with that %90 of the victims were of Hispanic descent. If there is anyone who doubts these are salient points needs only to read accounts of the vigils and memorials that touch on both the LGBT and Hispanic aspects and trying to incorporate both into being sensitive to the situation. We wouldn't know any of this if the sources didn't report it. Computationsaysno (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no major objection to mentioning Latin night, though I think it largely incidental. I strongly support including that victims were predominantly Hispanic, we might add the male predominance also if known. Present wording though is not great. Hope we can settle this based on sensible/sensitive implementation of policies as other arguments are both invalid and counter-productive. Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

→ RfC started here.- MrX 14:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• • • FYI This issue has been resolved with the already archived RFC. Computationsaysno (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Monuments to victims

http://www.advocate.com/pride/2016/7/03/puerto-ricos-first-lgbt-monument-honors-orlando-victims

In July, the first LGBT monument, dedicated to the 23 Puerto Rican victims of the Orlando massacre was unveiled in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

---

MiriamMBG — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiriamMBG (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Tribute songs, are they needed?

There is bound to quite a few coming still, I've heard of many already. Should we ask that they be sent to Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting instead? Computationsaysno (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

IThey belong in the reactions article.- MrX 14:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent change to the lead

I am opening this section so that Avangion can discuss their proposed change to the lead. The lead has been pretty stable for a while. I don't think the changes improve the lead or accurately summarize the rest of the article.- MrX 19:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am no longer supporting my change in the lead sentence. However I am for including the lone wolf reference in the introduction, which I have done in a recent edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avangion (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't the CIA talking about wolves, it was Spencer Ackerman, a writer for The Guardian. Brennan just described what Ackerman (and others) would call a lone wolf. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact: This was my own damn fault. Those "finger quotes" misled me. Sorry to pass the confusion on. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

If it actually is well-attributed instead of something I fucked up, let's see an actual quoted sentence, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Given the sensitivity of this issue, a phrase like "lone wolf terrorist attack" needs solid sourcing. Mateen acted on his own, nobody is really denying this now, but there is still the problem of describing the actions of a mentally unstable person as a terrorist attack, hence the ongoing RfC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you calling him mentally unstable? That is a quote from a family member and not from a doctor. If you want a very high standard for describing something as a lone wolf terrorist attack, you should also have that same standard for calling someone mentally unstable. Avangion (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Hillary and Trump campaigns have called it an act of terror, and Obama described as an act of terror and hate. I think it's uncontroversial to call it a terrorist attack. Avangion (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Also, it's distracting to have it in the first sentence, and really doesn't tell readers anything that the lead already does by referring to the (singular) shooter.- MrX 19:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Lone wolf terror attack refers to the fact that it was done completely separate from ISIS (no logistical support, no notification, etc.) but in the name of ISIS. ISIS took credit for the attack. Naming it a lone wolf says all of these things in just two words. Avangion (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It was seven words. And nobody important said them. Claiming Jeh Johnson did took thirteen words. The CIA bit is eighteen words, saving us a whopping two. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

If my suggested phrasing were used in the lead sentence, readers would have all that information in the first sentence. That was my point. My including it elsewhere in the article was my attempt at a good faith compromise. Avangion (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It was definitely worth a shot. The few who only read the first sentence would have learned more. The many who can handle a whole lead wouldn't know the CIA vouched for this fact, or even investigated it, though (redundant). I'm all for reducing wordiness, but not if it costs information. The phrase itself carries extra weight in connotation, and whether it invokes contempt or admiration depends on the reader's tendency to boo Gmork or cheer Stark. Aside from guns and men, perhaps nothing is more polarizing than wolves. We can't avoid plain talk of the first two, but we should avoid clichés and idioms (and maybe minimize links to substandard articles). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Aye. There's a Jeh Johnson attribution now, gleaned from the wholly hypothetical "When you're dealing with home-grown, bound extremism, the so-called lone wolf, lone actor, it is the case that almost always somebody close to that person saw the signs, somebody close to that person was aware of the gun purchase, saw suspicious behavior which is why our efforts to build bridges to various communities around this country are so important." It's closer, but still not close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Having waded through an enormous amount of RSS on Mateen, I'm persuaded that his attack had nothing to do with Ramadan, but a lot to do with his conflicts over his own bisexuality. This sort of self-hatred isn't unusual. He was also clearly mentally unstable, violent from a very young age, a wife beater, his behavior absent from any neurlogical mediation. I would hope the Wikipedia article could define this aspect of his behavior. Activist (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

If and when reliable sources are able to confirm his alleged bi- or homo-sexuality then we can cover that aspect more than is already indulged. Computationsaysno (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

His first wife said he was and that Mateen's father called him "gay." A gay classmate from the college where he was taking correctional officer courses and was escorted from the campus said their conversations led him to believe he was. Many of the patrons of the Pulse said he often spent time there and tried to hook up with others on gay apps. One ventured that he believed Mateen's recent anger may have stemmed from him believing he might have been exposed to HIV by a lover named "Miguel." Since he was married twice and fathered a son, that would seem to indicate that "bisexuality" is an appropriate descriptor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred Activist (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot of presumed and alleged ideas presented as facts. We also have the experts of the investigating that there is zero indication he was gay or had a gay life at all. So we still need very good sources to change what we already have. Computationsaysno (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Good article?

I see an "outdated" tag and a couple "citation needed" tags throughout the article, but apart from these issues, I wonder if this article might be close to meeting Good article criteria? At this point the article seems stable enough to address specific problems. Are any editors interested in nominating? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I would give it a few weeks (or even months) to settle down. There is still potential for RfCs and talk page bust ups at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

too many quotes in footnotes

Please remove most of them, if not all. Computationsaysno (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

For what reason?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

There are also just too many footnotes. Nothing remaining should be as controversial or uncertain as it was when it got here, and I'd bet at least some of those live blogs are long-dead. Any single fact with two citations should lose the excess. I'd do it, but it's boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus, mainly I was offended we were including the killers rantings when we had already covered them in the prose. It's also hard to edit around them when they look just like prose copy.

@InedibleHulk, I'm fine with extra footnotes but will remove superfluous quotes when I run into them. Some might be needed - I agree it's probably boring to do it. However I can do a few minutes every day if research is needed. I love replacing citation needed tags with a good source! Computationsaysno (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

My personal rule-of-thumb on cites is no more than three consecutive, although less important facts need fewer cites. I see four cases over three if I'm not mistaken. I'd do it, but it's boring (and often difficult to make sure everything remains sourced). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If these are the "rantings" you mean, I'd rather you didn't delete them. Wasn't happy with seeing them removed from the body, either. They explain why he did it (or at least why he thought he did it). By mentioning the bombing next to the part about ISIS in the lead, it sort of looks like he was pissed about America killing militants instead of innocents. Same deal with just leaving the "you will see attacks from the Islamic State" conclusion in the body, without noting why. Seems like an intentional attempt to shift the blame to the boogeyman, and completely absolve America. That's not a neutral point of view. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I'd suggest a separate section if you see a significant NPOV problem, for possibly higher visibility. This heading won't attract much attention. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Computationsaysno knows it's here. He's the only person I was trying to address. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. I disagree and have removed the terrorist rantings agin. They glorify his mission without actually adding any understanding that the text of the article explained rather well. I also anticipate new sources will delve into the motive and we can use them as well. Computationsaysno (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Computationsaysno: I disagree and have removed the terrorist rantings agin. Then you are edit warring in violation of Wikipedia policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring doesn't bother me, only minimizing the killer's stated motive while emphasizing the old hate crime guess. If this was because he hated gays, he'd have said something to that effect instead or also, and we'd have heard it by now. Time to quit reaching for that rainbow connection already. Sometimes gays are just normal unlucky people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

First, multiple sources have addressed the shooter's hatred of LGBTs. Second, whether or not the shooter mentioned his homophobia during the actual shooting is utterly irrelevant to whether the venue was chosen for homophobic reasons. Third, and most importantly, trying to shape the article according to your personal speculations constitutes what Wiki calls "original research." Expert consensus remains that the shooting was both a terrorist attack and a hate crime. If and when that changes, then and only then may your personal proclivities be reflected in the article. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources inferred that hatred from a couple of second-hand recollections from months before, one offered under pressure to explain how it wasn't an Islamic thing. Unless I'm wrong (and this article's missing something), none of them recall him mentioning hating or wanting to harm specific gays, gays in general or his own gay self. If something like that does come up, I could see how treating homophobia like a motive makes sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, July 11, 2016 (UTC)  

Is that the stench of more OR? When you become a recognized expert on terrorism or crime investigation, then you may pour forth your unfettered speculations into innumerable interviews, reports, articles, and books—maybe Wiki editors would cite a few of them for this article. Until then, we stick to the mainstream sources and experts. And I'll just assume you have since recognized the highly … problematic nature of your use of sentences like, "Time to quit reaching for that rainbow connection already," especially with regard to this article, of all things. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC) Oh, and, as things now stand, it seems highly unlikely that the shooter was gay. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see speculation? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, July 12, 2016 (UTC)

In your comments regarding these specific matters, which are comprised of speculation and OR. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That's about as vague as the first two times you said it. If it's important they don't shape the article, it's important to know what they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

• The quotes are helpful and informative and should be kept. No policy based reason for removing them has been offered.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

On the removal of link to 2016 Ramadan attacks

Link to 2016 Ramadan attacks is sourced to this [1] article in today's New York Times. This [2] article in today's Daily Beast. I assume that editors removing the link have been celebrating the Fourth of July (instead of, you know, crouching over an iPad reading the paper). To be clear: the assertion is not that ISIS ordered the Orlando attack, it is simply an assertion that as with the 2015 Ramadan attacks, jihadist propaganda media urge attacks during Ramadan, and the assertion by reliable journalists that the Orlando attack fits the pattern of an uptick in Islamist-inspired attacks during Ramadan. Please do not remove this link again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That it occurred during Ramadan does not mean it occurred because it was Ramadan. There needs to be an explicit link between the holiday and the motivation/reason for the attack. Otherwise it becomes an indiscriminate list of all attacks during Ramadan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I provided 2 RS making the link explicit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast is QUESTIONABLE afaik. The NYTimes pieces doesn't say it happened because of Ramadan, just that it happened during Ramadan. It implies a link, but nothing more. "Some drew links between those forces and Omar Mateen, the Orlando gunman." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: There are sources, such as this one on CNN, but it dates from the day after the shooting and things have moved on since then. Authorities no longer believe that this attack had anything to do with ISIL, and if you look closely at the CNN source it does not claim that Mateen was motivated by Ramadan. The CNN source is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, where if event B followed event A, there was a link between the two. This is another red herring. An attack during Ramadan is not necessarily a Ramadan attack. This is an example of Correlation does not imply causation or cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All that the two sources mentioned say is that the attacks occurred during Ramadan. Neither say that Mateen was directly motivated by Ramadan and since he is dead we are never going to know anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• The fact remains that multiple major media sources are describing the Orlando attack as one of a number of jihadist attacks that appear to be or may have been inspired by Ramadan-related jihad propaganda. We need to include this in the article. We do not need to judge whether it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or a legitimate connection. We need to link to 2016 Ramadan attacks, either in the see also section or with a statement in the body of the article to the effect that many analysts regard it as possibly inspired by jihad propaganda urging attacks during Ramadan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The September 11 attacks did not occur during Ramadan, or the 7 July 2005 London bombing, or the Charlie Hebdo or Paris or Brussels attacks. The media hasn't said that Omar Mateen's actions were linked to Ramadan. This is a cherry picking fallacy. Time for some basic training in cause and effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I await a policy-based justification for your repeated removal of the link to 2016 Ramadan attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You created 2016 Ramadan attacks earlier today, and as I said at Talk:2016 Ramadan attacks, "This entire article is based on a misunderstanding of Correlation does not imply causation. No serious academic journal would publish this article because it is an indiscriminate list of events that occurred during Ramadan."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm neutral (and open to being convinced one way or the other) on whether this should be included as a see also link on this article, but the Orlando shooting does not belong on 2016 Ramadan attacks for reasons already explained above.- MrX 20:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If this isn't worthy of that, that isn't worthy of this. Relevance is a two-way street. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.- MrX 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's just my judgment, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

• 2016 Ramadan attacks is a heap of WP:OR that could easily create a misleading impression. When you look at the small print, the sourcing is saying only that the attacks occurred during Ramadan, not that they were caused by Ramadan. By this logic, we could add the 9/11 attacks to the article List of attacks that did not occur during Ramadan.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
• More support for considering this a Ramadan attack, and including in article here: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Says it's the second attack during Ramadan tied to ISIS, not the second anything tied to Ramadan. And then it talks about Ramadan and Adnani's call (which also has next to nothing to do with Ramadan) but doesn't tie this to that, either, except by paragraph proximity. That doesn't count for much. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Agree. So far this is OR to the best if my understanding. Tempted to AFD the Ramadan list article to be honest. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You'd get my vote. Shit happens every month, every year, every century. This particular shit is already covered in List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Sad to say, but barely a week goes by nowadays without violence by people who have been taught that killing civilians will make Allah so proud of them. Since this has been become a 52 week a year sport with no break, listing attacks that occurred during Ramadan is fallacious unless strong RS is available that the attackers were actually motivated by the fact that the calendar on the wall said "Ramadan". The article in question has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Ramadan attacks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Barely a day for American men committing mass shootings too. Sad. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And American mothers with their unlicensed butcher knives. Still in second (Google still asks did I mean "woman murdered"), but fairly common. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

One of the attackers in the 2016 Gulshan attack said "See you all in heaven".[4] They really do believe that they are going to heaven after doing things like this. It cannot be stressed often enough that ordinary Muslims are just as sick and tired of this type of behavior as everyone else. The problem for Wikipedia is how to get across the message that this type of act is inspired by misuse of Islam for political ends, and to avoid falling into the "all Muslims are terrorists" trap.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep saying stuff like that, I guess? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

Same could be said of all religious-based killing and hate. Computationsaysno (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Would the editors here care to comment on the part of the NY Times article from E.M.Gregory's link [5] that said,

"Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims dedicated to fasting and prayer, has historically been a time when both Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State have escalated attacks."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob K31416, for that ray of evidence-based, policy-based, sourced argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said in the deletion discussion: "Then that should be something that can be noted in the Ramadan article, not demonstrated with this article. There is a "crime rates" section. We could merge all the necessary information there. Or we could probably start a brand-new section describing an apparent link to Ramadan and Islamic terrorism. My point is, we don't need a redundant article(s) like this one whose purpose is already technically fulfilled by the List of Islamist terrorist attacks article and sub-articles." Parsley Man (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't stand out as a particularly busy month in List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Not to me, anyway. I might be missing something, or that list might. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, July 4, 2016 (UTC)

• Except, Hulk, your mere, unsupported, non-policy-based opinion has no weight. Opinions like that of Fawaz Gerges published in the International Business Times are what counts in deciding what goes on the page. He says: "Al-Qaida, its various affiliates and now ISIS use Ramadan as a... marker to inspire and motivate their followers and supporters worldwide." [6].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about historic escalation. The list supported that not apparently existing. Motivation and inspiration are another ball of wax. Gerges' opinion on that is probably sound. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, July 5, 2016 (UTC)

Some people are WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode. ISIL and similar groups are always calling for violence during Ramadan, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Orlando shooting or any other attack was linked to the call. There is an attempt to use the sourcing to imply that there is a link, but that isn't what the sourcing says.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

From a NY Times article,[7]

"As the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan approached, jihadist propagandists told their followers that it was a good time to kill people.

The spokesman for the Islamic State said in late May that jihadists should “make it, with God’s permission, a month of pain for infidels everywhere.” Another extremist distributed a manual for using poisons, adding, in poor English: “Dont forget Ramadan is close, the month of victories.”

A bloody month it has been, with terrorist attacks killing and wounding hundreds of people in Orlando, Fla.; Istanbul; Dhaka, Bangladesh; and now Baghdad,..."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but since the CIA ruled out a link between Mateen and ISIL, and ISIL boasts about attacks that it had nothing to do with, there is a need to be cautious here. One of the things that the article does not need is a vague and speculative link to ISIL based on cherry picking which proves nothing. Even the New York Times does not seem to be immune from Correlation does not imply causation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• The New York Times article isn't much different from this Daily Mail article, which comes with a handy map implying that all of the attacks were linked, which is far from clear. It's unlikely that the Orlando shooting is part of ISIL's "four weeks of pain for infidels", but this hasn't stopped the media from saying it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Shiraz Maher of King's College London describes Mateen as a "lone wolf" who was "roused" by al-Adnani's "clarion call" to attack non-believer's during Ramadan.[8]. In an essay published by the BBC. There is ample sourcing to justify a carefully-worded linkage to 2016 Ramadan attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There simply isn't enough evidence from the investigation itself to say what caused the shooting for the time being, other than that Omar Mateen fancied himself as a Jihadi warrior after reading a few radical Islamic websites. I tend to ignore what media talking heads say about mass shootings in the immediate aftermath, because they are often space fillers for newspaper columns and 24 hour television channels. They are often not very informative or accurate and it is best to wait for the official investigation to conclude. The BBC article is a classic piece of media speculation. After Sandy Hook, the media talking heads had a field day speculating about the motive, but when the official report was published, it could not pin down a clear reason why Adam Lanza did it. Sometimes real life is less satisfying than an episode of Columbo.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Ian, we are not required to sit in judgment of the deepest motive of a culprit's heart; God has an exclusive on that. Here we not not aspire to absolute knowing, nor do we weigh an individual editor's judgement of which "talking heads" are worthy of our trust. What we do - and it is difficult but not impossible - is to summarize in an evenhanded way the best judgment of Reliable Sources. We all know that motives are often complex and multiple. We can state that simply and fairly by describing the several ideas about motivations in a case. But when, as here, a critical mass of sources agree on a motive - and especially when the direct testimony of the perp is among those sources - it belongs in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no rush and an official report is going to take months. This article will still be here in a year or two's time, by which time a lot of this month's media speculation may look dated. At best, the media has speculated a link to Ramadan without any firm evidence that there was.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

An update on this discussion, it appears the 2016 Ramadan attacks article was deleted, so we probably don't have to worry about this debate anymore. Parsley Man (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably. But we still must not trust our eyes alone. Where'd David Copperfield go, eh? Always be clicking! Or at least hovering. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Move protection

Due to multiple moves and reverts, move protection has been added. Please discussion on this talk page any changes to title. Any administrator is welcome to move through or remove the protection if a consensus is formed here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

That is probably a good idea for the time being. United States Man (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And any administrator is welcome to move through the Baron's contributions. I'm not saying he's definitely a single-purpose advocacy account, but I do suspect he's a hive of bees in a trenchcoat. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

Since everyone who died was killed with a gun, 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is better than 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. In any case, this is a high profile article and should not be renamed without a talk page consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Source, quotation, and plagiarism concerns

I have a few concerns regarding recent activity in the "Investigations" section. First, some of the articles cited mainly paraphrase rather than directly quote their sources, raising concerns about accuracy and reliability. Second, these article paraphrases are then quoted in our Wikipedia article, misattributed to "officials" and other journalistic sources. A workable solution in reasonable prose must be found. Third, some Wiki editors' paraphrases of cited sources straddle the line between paraphrase and plagiarism. Editors' words must be their own. Antinoos69 (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Ex-Marine who saved lives?

Why the article has no mention of 24year old Imran Yousuf, the ex-marine of Indian origin who saved many lives? There are many sources on it from Marine Corps Times[9], The Independent[10], The Washington Post[11], The Hindu[12] etc.Manjeet Kaur21 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

UpStairs Lounge arson attack

The article currently says that the shooting was "the deadliest incident of violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the history of the United States—surpassing the 1973 UpStairs Lounge arson attack." This has been discussed previously. The motive for the UpStairs Lounge attack was unclear, and if the fire was started by a disgruntled customer who was thrown out of the bar a few hours earlier, it wasn't necessarily a homophobic attack. The article should be careful not to give this impression.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No source for "Hate Crime"

There is no source for saying this is a hate crime, therefor it will be removed or needs to add "considered by some to be a hate crime". The FBI even came out saying there was no sign it was a hate crime. Please keep your political biased opinions off of wikipedia. Chase (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Re: [13], thank you. Now would you care to retract your WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:AGF failure? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: That was for the certain officer calling it a hate crime before an investigation happened.. There still needs to be a source, after an investigation, saying it was a hate crime. The is one showing there is no evidence there is one. Source. So calling it a hate crime would be inaccurate. We can list people calling it a hate crime in the response, because that is fact, but it hasn't been officially labeled as one. So, this would be misleading in the lead. Chase (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"FBI Special Agent Ron Hopper, who is in charge of the investigation, categorized the shooting as being both a hate crime and an act of terrorism."[14] It is important to source statements of this kind, which the article does. We'll never know what was going on in Mateen's head at the time of the attack, and a lot of it may not have made much sense anyway. However, it is reasonable to assume that he chose a gay nightclub because of some hatred of gays. If he had simply had wanted to rack up a high score, there would have been plenty of other clubs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: This is wikipedia, you can't assume things are fact. They need to be sourced. Chase (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comment below.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: You miss my point, which is that "Keep your political biased opinions off of wikipedia" is inappropriate under any circumstances. The fact that it's widespread doesn't make it any more appropriate, and adding "please" does not change anything. When POV-pushing does actually occur, there are right ways and wrong ways to address it, and statements like that are in the latter category. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND and give it some thought, maybe thinking twice before you make such a statement again. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Some are grossly misconstruing recent reporting on the motive(s). None of the reporting indicates any expert's actual opinion or conclusion on what the motives likely were. The reporting merely addresses the presence or absence of some very specific kinds of evidence, the presence or absence of which may well have little to do with anything. Wait until a final report is produced. And I suspect the historians will do as they please with it. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As I've said numerous times before, the media gave Adam Lanza a different motive for every day of the week, but by the time the official investigation was concluded eleven months later, investigators could not pin down a clear reason why he did it or chose the school as a target. We'll have to wait for the official report into Orlando, but I don't think that Ron Hopper's theory that a hate crime element was involved is wildly speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking convention for U.S. cities

Orlando, Florida or Orlando, Florida (for example)

The Wikipedia community may oppose a guideline that would put an end to the senseless back-and-forth editing in this area, but that doesn't mean we can't solve the problem at article level. This article is currently not even consistent on this point, the back-and-forth editing being very selective. I have my preference, but I'll gladly accept the opposite if it will put an end to this nonsense at one article. Going forward, I will probably do this at any article where I see any back-and-forth editing of this. I suggest others do that, too.

• One link, omit state name when omitted from target article title - One city, one link. The state is almost always linked in the first sentence of the city article, for the few readers who want to learn more about the state. Further, for any city name that requires disambiguation, the two-link form requires messy code like [[Saint Paul, Minnesota|Saint Paul]], [[Minnesota]]. Use target article title to determine whether to show the state name; if Wikipedia deems the state name unnecessary there, it should also be unnecessary in linking content. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Article is now at least consistent on this.[15] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• One link The city is the pertinent bit. Seeing these split in two anywhere makes me yell at the computer (it doesn't help). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:08, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Unattributed quote

Re: [16] [17], ping @Pincrete and Ionize Me:

I suspect Pincrete meant attribute, not credit. It's not clear here who we are quoting, and it closely follows a quote of the UNSC statement. It's essentially editorializing by the NYT writer, editorializing that doesn't add much to the article. It's at least problematic and we're better off without it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Confirm that what I meant was that we say textually whose description/quote this was (NYT's?), or we omit it. I was quite happy to leave the factual observation, though even that is borderline 'pointy'. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ionize Me self-reverted.[18] ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Broadway stars?

I think this new content about a benefit concert should be also sent to the reactions article. There have been dozens if not hundreds of benefits and many are also high-profile. Comments? Computationsaysno (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

AgreedPincrete (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC at SIG MCX

Talk:SIG MCX# RFC: Is the Orlando shooting relevant? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Victims list format

Restored from premature archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The RfC is closed to include the list of victims. However, no resolution on format, and I for one prefer the box format. As this is purely cosmetic/layout, I don't see a need for another RfC. Therefore, straw poll.

1 - Status quo plain text
2 - Collapsed box format - Layout would be slightly different from that example, as the Perpetrator section has been moved below the Aftermath section. If anyone objects to the box title as shown, I guess we could try to resolve that here, too.
[other] - Roll your own.

• 2 - Improved appearance. Little space used unless the reader wishes to see the list. I'm fine with the box title (I wrote it). ―Mandruss ☎ 10:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Plain text Consistent with the rest of the article, and fairly tidy. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, July 7, 2016 (UTC)

• #1 - Plain text - flows with the overall look of the rest of the page. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Notification of registered participants in the related RfC. Please !vote, or not. If you don't have an opinion, no need to say so. @George Ho, Ianmacm, ATS, Skyring, Flipper9, Wnt, Xenomorph erotica, United States Man, Carlossuarez46, Marc Kupper, Cush, Mardus, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Callinus, Shearonink, MrX, Pincrete, Epicgenius, Norden1990, John, Ad Orientem, EoRdE6, TornadoLGS, Vesuvius Dogg, Edison, WWGB, BrxBrx, Icarosaurvus, Ranze, EvergreenFir, Comatmebro, Penwhale, Aircorn, Meatsgains, Elmmapleoakpine, Nabla, AF4JM, InedibleHulk, DrkBlueXG, ArnoldReinhold, and Enderandpeter: ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support collapsed box format. Less obtrusive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1. Status Quo Plain Text if I had to choose because I don't like the idea of a collapsed box. I don't view recognizing the victims as intrusive. They are important. It's too fancy and I'm not convinced that it would make the page load any faster, I think browsers still cache collapse boxes. That said... with number 2 I do like the idea of displaying them in 2 longer columns rather than 4, and aligned right separate from the prose text. I think it makes it easier to read. So my ideal would be a compromise between the two. I agree with arranging alphaetically by default but I'm wondering if we could make some other kinds of criteria apparent. For example if people wanted to view these in order of their ages, or in order of alphabetized first names instead of last, by clicking on the column, that would be a useful option. That would only be possible with one name per row though, which isn't a bad idea. What if we had a very narrow column running the length of the article? That would give the most options (forename, surname, age would be the 3 column heads) for organizing them and interfere the least with the prose. A table like at List of WWE World Champions#Reigns is what I mean. It allows via click to sort ascending/descending via name, date, days held, etc. The same options for first/last/age are the most informative. I think that is done by using class="wikitable sortable" if we could incorporate it. Ranze (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support status quo with absofuckinglutely all possible strength. The list is such a tiny part of a now-very-large article, I fail to see why this is even a point of discussion. Trying my damnedest to not accuse anyone of bad faith, this has a "wipe them from the article without actually wiping them from the article" feel to it. —ATS  Talk 04:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A collapsed box is reasonable inasmuch as the names of the people who were killed is a detail that will not necessarily interest every reader. It means that the details are there available for those who specifically want them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Funny how taking a fraction of a second to scroll past what you don't want to read has suddenly become such a terrible burden ... —ATS 🖖 Talk 04:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Lean toward status quo - I originally had no preference because I thought the collapsed list would be easier for mobile users as longer lists can be cumbersome to navigate. However, it doesn't appear to be collapsed when viewed on the mobile format ([19]) which ruins the appeal for me. Unless that can be fixed (or is a fluke of my browser), I lean toward status quo. If the collapsed box is adopted I'd like to see the title of the box in its collapsed state be more descriptive. Something like "List of 49 victims". Something more than "killed". Sum up the content sufficiently so the reader could choose to expand the list or not. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Plain text per MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DONTHIDE. Specifically, article content should never be hidden. I thought there was a MOS thing that dealt with that articles get printed, bound into books, etc. and as part of that we don't want hidden content. I can't find that one at present. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• 1 - Status quo plain text - It seems less jarring to the flow of the article. I think the bullets should be removed though. They add nothing useful to the list.- MrX 12:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• 1 - Status quo - We need the list visible, not minimized. The list conveys a valuable demographic overview -- ages, sexes, ethnic origins -- not easily conveyed by paraphrase. It also demonstrates the scale of the attack, not reduced to a mere number. This is important. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• 2 - Looks more clean and concise. If a reader is interested in reading the list of names, they can expand the box. Meatsgains (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1. To be clear, the overall format on #2 isn't bad... when I leave scripts off, and the collapsing thing doesn't happen. But having it appear as a bar that someone is supposed to expand is not a good model for article content in general. If something's worth including, and the RFC decided it is, it's worth including in uncollapsed format. You could have made the text smaller like in #2 and I wouldn't have complained, but this was pushing it too far. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• (coming from voting against the inclusion of such a list) Plain text (i.e. not hidden). If it is important enough to include, then it is important enough to show. As a general note, collapsing is mostly a bad idea; do not collapse, split - 19:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• 2 - I'm not a great fan of listing all of the victims by name, but 2 is my preferred option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1: Status Quo Plain Text - I was honestly leaning towards two, initially, because it looked sleeker. However, the arguments presented above were strong enough to convince me that option one better suits the article. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• 2 or (other) small text. With most plane crashes there is a box listing nationality, but not names. I believe I recall that the names are important because of initial confusion in reports over whether the dead were targeted based on ethnicity. I would prefer small text to plain text when there are 49 names. -- Callinus (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps we should all be sure to include the number of which option we support at the beginning of our comment, to help whoever ultimately tallies these votes. (I noticed a similar request in a previous RfC, which prompted this suggestion on my part.) Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  The purpose of the numbers is to allow the option to be clearly, concisely, and cleanly specified in a consistent manner that makes counting easier. I've used this methodology in every RfC or straw poll I've created, showing the intent with my !vote which is obviously always first. I've noticed that, despite that, a majority of editors feel that the number alone would not be sufficient—that they need to either clarify what they mean by the number, or omit the number—thereby defeating its purpose and negating much of its benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1: Status Quo Plain Text. Per Wnt's cogent comment above. Shearonink (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• 1 - Per the above comments. Also, I personally find a collapsing box a bit bothersome, visually speaking, in regards to this specific article. Don't ask me how; it's more or less just a visceral reaction. Parsley Man (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• 2 — Collapsed and table (with victims' ages) on the weight of the rest of the article being extensive. Is this Request for Comment still open? -Mardus /talk 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• 2 — I don't have a problem with a collapsible table; I voted to keep at that RfC because it was so soon, but I am not the biggest fan of having a list of names pasted on an article (that goes for any situation). In my opinion, a collapsible table would be best. United States Man (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead material

Going to start this now, since this back-and-forth editing has dragged on for quite a bit for whatever reason (and apparently there is no specific discussion about it in the talk page). Is this material really necessary for the lead? Or should it be removed? I have no idea why this edit is controversial, but I say we discuss it so we can settle the matter once and for all. Parsley Man (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if either is necessary in the lead. The hate crime angle is soured to lead investigator Ron Hopper. This is being considered as a motive, but "considered to be a hate crime" is somewhat WP:WEASEL wording. As for the "deadliest attack" on LGBT people, this is probably true if it was a hate crime. However, it might be best to wait for the findings of the official investigation before saying this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There actually is a section on (some of) this, "No source for 'Hate Crime.'" This discussion belongs there. For the record, I adamantly oppose changing the lead. Antinoos69 (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I obviously think this material is important to the lead even if the rest of the article doesn't make it clear why it's that imperative for most readers. Until and unless officials can ascertain that it wasn't a hate crime then this remains one of the highest-profile hate crimes, especially against LGBT people who are historically underprotected by laws, including hate-crime legislation, and are the most-victimized by hate crimes in the US. The Upstairs Lounge attack adds minimal but relevant context. If anything a statement can be added that investigations are ongoing. Computationsaysno (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Computationsaysno: Until and unless officials can ascertain that it wasn't a hate crime - So it's a hate crime until proven otherwise? I think that's inconsistent with Wikipedia editing principles. the most-victimized by hate crimes in the US - See WP:GREATWRONGS. I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other, just pointing out a very flawed argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, see http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crimes-against-lgbt.html?_r=0

L.G.B.T. People Are More Likely to Be Targets of Hate Crimes Than Any Other Minority Group

By HAEYOUN PARK and IARYNA MYKHYALYSHYN JUNE 16, 2016

Even before the shooting rampage at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people were already the most likely targets of hate crimes in America, according to an analysis of data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.12.176 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That article doesn't really prove anything in regards to this specific shooting... Parsley Man (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It does show that mainstream media made the connection of major hate crimes against LGBT people including that the Pulse attack was one of many. Computationsaysno (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign office

Re: [20][21][22]

@Computationsaysno and Ionize Me: We don't form consensus via reverts and edit summaries. Don't confuse widespread abuse with best practice.

The source does not suggest that the location of the office is anything more than coincidence. The source has detected an intersection between two current event topics (Orlando shooting, Trump campaign) and deemed it worth a news article, but our inclusion criteria are different. If it's coincidence, it should be treated the same as a new McDonald's built next door; to wit: omit. To include the content without a sourced connection to the shooting is OR/SYNTH. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

From a different source: "Oliver said that the Republican Party had sent out an email looking for space for a campaign office, and the owner of the property, a GOP supporter, offered it. Oliver says the party accepted the offer, but didn’t know of the exact location until last week, when volunteers started setting up shop.

Randy Ross, an openly gay political activist and the chairman of Orange County for Trump, echoed Oliver’s comments, saying there was no intent to offend anyone, but rather to reach out to the community.

“It was an attack on the gay community. It was an attack on the Hispanic community. But moreover, it was an attack on Americans,” Ross said of the June 12 massacre at Pulse.

“Candidly, we see it as an opportunity,” he said of the office opening near Pulse. “We want to be able to embrace the tragedy that took place there, and if they want to come in or they want to use the restroom or want a refreshment we will provide that to them as well.”

http://www.metroweekly.com/2016/08/trump-campaign-office-sets-across-street-pulse/ Coincidence or not, it sounds like they have made it as connected to the shooting. Ionize Me (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Then, at minimum (1) explain the connection in our content, and (2) use that source, not the one that shows no connection. Then we have the WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS questions—one source, Metro Weekly, "a free weekly magazine for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community"—which I'll leave for other comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll ping MrX and Ianmacm because they have some involvement with this article and more experience in these areas. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a small controversy erupting because of this campaign office opening near Pulse. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. I guess I lean weakly toward including a brief mention of the mixed reactions.- MrX 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I now see the connection explanation, sort of, in the quote, "We want to be able to embrace the tragedy that took place there", not in the original content. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that there is a problem with WP:RECENTISM unless there is clear evidence of a link and long term notability. The sourcing here notes that the office is opposite Pulse, but doesn't make a big deal of it. I'm not really sure that it needs a mention because WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is also involved. The article could live without this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough discussion to remove pending consensus to include, per WP:ONUS, and I have done so. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

While I simply removed what I didn't see as fitting in as it was, I'm happy with it staying if it can be seen as more controversial or otherwise newsworthy. Computationsaysno (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Glock 17 image

Re: [28][29][30]

We already identify the Glock 17 as a "semi-automatic pistol". For any reader who cares exactly what a Glock 17 looks like, who needs to know the difference in appearance between this weapon and other modern semi-automatic handguns, that enlightenment is but a click away. We don't need this image. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The image should stay out. it doesn't add to the understanding of the subject.- MrX 02:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with me too. And, by the way, the image in question is of a 2nd-generation Glock 17, if its filename is to believed, but there have been at least four generations of that model. How do we know this is the actual weapon used in this shooting? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles about mass shootings do not contain images of the guns for the benefit of readers too lazy to click on the wikilink. Many of the people in Orlando appear to have been killed with the SIG Sauer semi-automatic rifle, so it is misleading to show this and not the Sig. Unless it is the actual gun used in the shooting, and a reader's understanding would be limited by not showing it, there is no need to go off to Commons and say "here is what a similar gun looks like."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ex-wives' names and BLPNAME

I'm renewing my concerns about WP:BLPNAME in this article. WP:BLPNAME says "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." This directs us to err on side of privacy when related people are not independently notable. No need to put spouses' names on here as they don't add to the reader's understanding of events. Mateen's first wife's name certainly should not be mentioned in the body of the article. Mateen's second wife's name should not be either, in my opinion. She's been part of the investigation (as would be expected) but she's not been charged with anything and is otherwise low-profile.

Find past discussions at Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting/Archive_5#Source_name_revert and Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting/Archive_6#Ex-wife.27s_name. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, although Marina Oswald Porter has never been as lucky and has her own article. The low profile nature of Omar Mateen's two wives means that it is not really necessary to name them, and they can be found in the external links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Marina was a larger part of a far larger story. Support removal, and probably would have boldly removed myself if I had noticed it. As EF said, err on the side of privacy for friends and relatives. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to look at sig dates. Looks like this was already resolved for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential lawsuit

Re this edit: it was reverted because it has an element of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:CRYSTAL. At the moment, Pulse has not been sued for negligence although some survivors have looked into the possibility. It is hard to see what Pulse could have done to prevent the shooting, and unusually for lawyers, there seems to be a realization that suing Pulse would be controversial and unlikely to be successful.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose tne content, mostly per CRYSTAL. Include something brief when there is a lawsuit. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Good article?

I raised the question before re: whether or not this article met Good article status, but was told it was too soon and that content was still changing too often to consider GA status. However, some time has passed, so I raise the question again: Do other editors think this article may meet criteria and is someone willing to take on the review process? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"hate crime/terrorist attack"

this was not a terrorist attack. it was a crime fueled with hate. the orlando shooting had nothing to do with acts of terrorism, terrorist organisations, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.242.198 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And you have independent reliable sources that state this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

Omar Mateen should be identified as a Muslim American in the first sentence of the article. The Orlando nightclub shooting was an organized plot by Muslim Americans to perpetrate genocide against the LGBTQ+ community. The article must state that most of those murdered were Puerto Rican Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.226.15 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As for it being a plot, this isn't supported by reliable sources at the moment. As for whether he specifically targeted Hispanics, this is unclear. He undoubtedly knew that Pulse was a gay nightclub, but whether he knew that it was hosting a Latin Night event is less clear. The lead says that most of the victims were Hispanic and Latino Americans, which is correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A "Note" used as a reference

In the third paragraph of the Progress section there is content: "In mid-July, law enforcement officials reported that the FBI—after conducting "interviews (a reference) and an examination of his computer and other electronic media"...". What is shown as "a reference" is a {{note}}, or "footnote" that states "Some to all of these interviews were with witnesses to the shooting". I am not sure the purpose of this, the use of it as a reference instead of an appendage note, or what "cited source" is referenced. The content is unsupported so raises flags concerning inclusion at all. The "note" is not a reference (citation) but "explanatory information". Otr500 (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Motive

The motive section does not make a lot of sense, it says a lot about his closeted gay life but then just disproves its self and then it only gives three sentences to the actual verified motive. Lice138 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

At least they're the last three. People tend to remember the last things they read or hear best. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, January 9, 2017 (UTC)

Honor Them With Action Fund

The Equality Florida (EF) campaign has ended and another campaign started in it's place, the Honor Them With Action Fund. EF hopes to establish anti-bullying and anti-discrimination laws in Florida and reform gun laws with the proceeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B5AB:1888:58DA:CAC0 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Court case against Noor Salman

A court case is ongoing against Noor Salman. It won't be appropriate to keep it under "Investigation" section as not everything falls under it. How to proceed? Should another section be created for her or should it be shifted to another section? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos of the aftermath of the shooting

There is a very good set of photographs in the Daily Mail today showing the aftermath of the shooting.[31] However, there is currently a request for comment on prohibiting the use of the Mail as a source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Obviously we can't use any of the photos. If the Mail is deemed acceptable, are you suggesting an entry in External links? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There's also a story in the Orlando Sentinel here but I thought that the Mail had better picture coverage. I'm primarily looking at the photos rather than the text in the Mail article. There would be WP:NFCC but the Mail article could be used as an external link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is better to wait until the Rfc concludes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The RfC has concluded, and predictably it did lead to a ban on the Daily Mail.[32]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

The auto-archiving hasn't worked on this page since September when the parameters were changed. The bot is supposed to archive threads with no replies that are 60 days old and there are threads from August of last year on here. I've adjusted them one last bit, let's see if this all works now - should know within a day. Shearonink (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it would have worked since September if it hadn't been set to 60 days on 20 Sep and then 6 months on 9 Oct. Leave it alone at 60d and it should work fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that is what happened but was;t quite sure - wikicode is not my strong suit. And it did work. Yay for Lowercase Sigmabot III. Shearonink (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

The very first sentence of this article violates the guidelines at WP:SLASH. As the article is semi-protected, I cannot correct this. Perhaps someone else would like to. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old security guard, killed 49 people and wounded 58 others in a terrorist attack/hate crime inside Pulse" isn't outright wrong but does go against the general rule not to uses slashes in this way. Suggestions welcome on a better alternative wording.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The reasons provided by policy for avoiding slashes don't really apply here. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course they do, and none of the exceptions listed apply. The current wording suggests that we are not sure or cannot decide what to describe the incident as, and of course we can do better than that. One could improve the sentence by omitting "/[[hate crime]]"; by replacing it with "and [[hate crime]]"; or replacing both parts with "[[mass shooting]]". Personally I would find the third option best. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It is the first time I have come across WP:SLASH. In reviewing the guideline, I think the current usage here is incorrect. The problem is not that we as wikipedians can't agree on the correct terminology, neither can reliable sources. The reason there is disagreement is because there is no universally accepted definition of a terrorist attack. My suggestion for adjusting the wording would be "...wounded 58 others in what has been described as both a terrorist attack and a hate crime inside...". --Jordan 1972 (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The slash is still there, several weeks later. The attack was many things. It was an act of mass murder, a hate crime, terrorism, homophobic, a mass shooting, a spree killing, etc etc. Use of different terms to describe it does not imply disagreement; they are not mutually exclusive. Conjoining a couple of arbitrarily chosen phrases with a slash is not helpful to readers and violates the very clear guideline. We can simply choose the term we think most clearly describes it in the lead section, and expand upon the details in the main text. To my mind, the following would be ideal:

"On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old security guard, killed 49 people and wounded 58 others in a mass shooting inside Pulse"

Other better wordings may be found, but the slash must go. Would someone please sort that out? 2.25.45.242 (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, left you a comment at User talk:2.25.45.242. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The current wording was arrived at after much acrimony on these talk pages. Check the extensive archives. The slash may be replaced with an and, but leaving out either term is likely to get things very heated on here, once again. I myself can guarantee that. Don't make any substantive changes here. It will destroy the peace. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the edited phone transcripts and resulting furor?

Perhaps I'm simply missing it, but I can't find any mention of the original releases of the phone call transcripts which were edited to exclude mentions of Islam. This is surely notable, and was a rather large news story at the time. 78.149.209.252 (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The FBI released the full transcript of the phone calls, but faced some criticism for initially removing parts where he pledged allegiance to ISIS. When the full transcript was released on Monday June 20, 2016, it had translated into English the the parts where he spoke in Arabic, rendering "Allah" as "God".[33] This didn't please everyone,[34] although the Wikipedia article Basmala quotes it in English as "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful". According to the NBC news story, "FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ron Hopper had said he didn't want to "give credence to to individuals who have done terrorist acts in the past." This isn't quite the same as saying that he removed references to Islam, but some people looked at it that way, and the FBI backtracked after 24 hours and released the full transcript.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Would you agree that this should be included in the article? 78.149.209.252 (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm 50:50 on this, as articles generally avoid discussing the media coverage unless it is necessary. The FBI's initial decision to remove parts of the transcript backfired and set off negative media coverage. It was a sort of Streisand effect, but it lasted only from Monday morning to Monday afternoon.[35]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the FBI discussion needs to be in the article, nor do I think the whole section titled "Release of transcripts and videos" really needs to be there either. If there is a real desire to include something of the FBI, a short simple sentence along the lines of "The FBI released edited transcripts on DATE; releasing full transcripts XX hours/days later." --Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a try to hide the Islamic motive

and present it as if the terrorist was 'gay? he was married twice (to two different women) and he had a child with one of them. The entire motive section should be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:214D:DDDC:5C9:5BBB:9E08 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Article Title

I think it might be better to have the title be "2016 Pulse nightclub shooting" or something to that effect. It's important to distinguish the club, and subsequently the queer community, as the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schroffb (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The current title is the result of a WP:CONSENSUS. Article titles usually contain the name of the location, eg San Ysidro McDonald's massacre. If it was just McDonald's or Pulse, it could have been anywhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammar error

"A recently discharged Marine veteran, Imran Yousuf, who was working as a bouncer immediately recognized the sounds as gunfire from a high-caliber gun, jumped over a locked door—behind which dozens of people were hidden and paralyzed by fear—and opened a latched door behind them that allowed about 70 people to escape." sounds wrong. I think it should be "who was working as a bouncer AND immediately recognized the sounds of gunfire, jumped over [...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:ED02:A200:D8CD:D9BD:4FCB:D4AD (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Listing Las Vegas

Re [36][37][38]

Can we get an explicit consensus on my reasoning here? Are we going to forever maintain all articles that were once at the top of some "deadliest" category to list all of those that succeeded them? Apparently that's the intention, judging from Virginia Tech shooting.[39] ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It's remarkable how the bar has been raised in the last few years. The article doesn't need a Billboard-style chart rundown, although it is worth mentioning that Orlando was the deadliest incident until Las Vegas. Perhaps not in the WP:LEAD though.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Once Las Vegas loses the title, I don't know how we could continue to mention only Las Vegas without falsely implying that it still holds the title. That will put this article into the same situation as VA Tech. I think it's sufficient to say it was the deadliest at the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Where do the 69 people shot by Anders Breivik fit in? This is only the US title, the worldwide one still belongs to Breivik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6085:1100:F8E4:2E5D:F51:2D4E (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's another story. Despite everything that has happened, a European still holds the all-time record. There are various articles such as List of rampage killers, but this article shouldn't get bogged down in long lists of comparisons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

"Once Las Vegas loses the title"? That sounds ominous and insightful. 47.137.183.192 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Page title

MrX reverted the 11 October move from 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting to Orlando nightclub shooting claiming that my reasoning (namely WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE) was faulty. I would appreciate a more detailed explanation as to why 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is preferred to Orlando nightclub shooting. Surtsicna (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The year makes it more precise, not less. Also, if I recall correctly, this was not the only shooting in in an Orlando nightclub. You should be able to find that discussion in the archives. You are welcome to do a WP:MOVEREQ to seek input from other editors.- MrX 14:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I support keeping the year in the title and it should not be changed without a consensus at a formal move request.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The year makes it more precise but less concise. Titles can also be too precise. WP:PRECISE says: "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." This is not to say that there were not other people named Mother Teresa.
I have not found anything about this in the archives. Could you direct me, please, MrX?
I have confirmed through Google that this was not the only shooting in an Orlando nightclub, yet Orlando nightclub shooting redirects here and no other shootings are mentioned. Is it because the other shootings were just news and not encyclopedically notable? Whatever the case, it should be noted that this was not even the only Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016. According to these search results, 2 people were killed and 10 injured in a shooting in an Orlando nightclub in February 2016. Then a man was shot outside a nightclub in Orlando in March 2016. I cannot find info on whether there were any Orlando nightclub shootings in 2016 after the one on 12 June, because all the results I get after that date are about the Pulse mass shooting.
This means either that the current title is not precise enough or that it is too precise, depending on whether we can agree that the Pulse mass shooting is the primary topic for Orlando nightclub shooting. What do you think? Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with "Pulse" is that it doesn't mean much per WP:COMMONNAME. It's true that the Pulse nightclub was targeted, but if you stopped a hundred people in the street at random and asked them what the Pulse mass shooting was, you might get some blank looks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. But the present title is also not in line with WP:COMMONNAME. "Orlando nightclub shooting" is 12 times more common than "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Needless to say, virtually all search results in both cases refer to this event (even though the phrase is not entirely unambigious in either case). That is why I suggest moving this to Orlando nightclub shooting, not Pulse mass shooting. Surtsicna (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not sure where in the archives the discussion took place. I vaguely remember that someone suggested a similar title and someone else mentioned that there was another (less notable) nightclub shooting in Orlando. - MrX 17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, MrX. But there wasn't just one other nightclub shooting in Orlando. There were at least two others in 2016 alone. If this shooting is the only encyclopedically notable one, then the title should be shortened. Either way "2016" does not really add anything but length. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, but you will probably have to do a move request to get more comments. WP:BOLD moves on article like this almost never stick.- MrX 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Advice taken! Looking forward to your input! Surtsicna (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 November 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: moved. A clear majority in support and I found their reasoning to be stronger, in terms of WP:AT. Perhaps there should be a centralised discussion about this issue though, it does seem that we are inconsistent in our application of this. Jenks24 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

---

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → Orlando nightclub shooting – Discussed above. The year does not add anything but length.

1. If we agree that the Pulse mass shooting is the only notable Orlando nightclub shooting, then this article should be moved to Orlando nightclub shooting per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. As these guidelines explain, titles can be too precise (e.g. Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, while Mother Teresa is precise enough).
2. It is true that there have been other nightclub shootings in Orlando but a) "2016" does not serve as disambiguation, because there were at least 2 such events in 2016, b) the subject of this article is clearly the primary topic of Orlando nightclub shooting, which consequently already redirects here.
3. Unsurprisingly, "Orlando nightclub shooting" is much more common than "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" (12 times more common, in fact).
4. If someone wishes to argue that the once deadliest mass shooting in the U.S. history is not the primary topic of Orlando nightclub shooting, she or he is welcome to propose an alternative. Bear in mind that "2016" is poor even as a disambiguator.
   

Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - There's no way those other 2016 Orlando nightclub shootings are the ones readers will be looking for on Wikipedia. The year is completely unnecessary in the title. HastyBriar321 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the year is standard format for events, removing it adds nothing to reader experience. Someone might well search 2016 Orlando shootings" without nightclub and the year tells them they've got near the right article, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The year is not standard format for events. I have no idea where this myth originated but I can tell it's being perpetuated (e.g. Grenfell Tower fire was once moved to 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, Unite the Right Rally was created under 2017 Unite the Right Rally, etc) despite being completely against the accepted guidelines. Will this lead us to 1940 Battle of France, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, 1878 Berlin congress, etc? Or are these not events? Removing the year adds much to user experience, actually, as it will no longer prompt users to look up other (implied but non-existent) mass shootings in Orlando nightclubs. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Agreed. HastyBriar321 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's because shootings occur so frequently that the year is helpful not being unique. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that "2016" is helpful for not providing enough precision or for providing too much precision or... both? Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support unless and until a future event creates a reasonable rationale for disambiguation. If a reader finds either Orlando shooting article, (1) the year is shown as the 4th word in the article text, and (2) if it's deemed appropriate, an {{About}} hatnote could be added to point to the other article. (BTW, I have a general aversion to assertions of "standards" that have not been subjected to community-level discussion. They generally cherry-pick the examples that support the assertion and dismiss the others as violations of the standard.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• NeutralSupport - I'm not sure it matters much either way, but Surtsicna has made some valid points. Perhaps now's a good time to leave 2016 in the past.- MrX 03:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm happy with the existing title.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The point of a move discussion is to present arguments, isn't it? As AusLondonder noted, your rationale is precisely the one to avoid. Can you tell us why you think 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is preferable to Orlando nightclub shooting? Above you brought up WP:COMMONNAME, which (along with 2 other guidelines) clearly favors the proposed title. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support On the basis of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy. Several oppose rationales above are classic examples of arguments to avoid. AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Having dates in articles for events helps quite common, probably because it prevents articles from seeming like generic coverage. For example, without the date, this article seems to be about the broad topic of shooting Orlando nightclubs rather than one specific incident. Would support Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting or Pulse nightclub shooting as at least the topic is narrowed to a single club. -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting argument, Netoholic. Does the article now seem like a generic coverage of shootings in Orlando nightclubs throughout 2016? There were at least three such events in 2016. Also, do you dispute that the phrase Orlando nightclub shooting means this particular event to an overwhelming majority of people? Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

    "overwhelming majority of people" Evidence for that? Or is this just hyperbole? I don't pretend to speak for any other people. To me, and supported by the news sources I've searched, Pulse nightclub shooting is the most concise, precise, and unambiguous name for the event. -- Netoholic @ 15:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

    • I asked about your opinion on whether we should treat the subject of this article as the primary topic for Orlando nightclub shooting. I agree with you that Pulse nightclub shooting would be a good title, certainly more concise and more precise than the present one. I also think, however, that the proposed title is more sensible than the present one, for reasons and data given above. Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Huge numbers of non-US readers (yes they do exist!), will remember no more than a shooting in a gay bar in the US, some will remember Florida, a smaller number Orlando. Just how many will remember the name of the bar in 10 years time? Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, I know I do exist! :) And just how many will remember the year? Are you arguing that more people will remember this by the year than by the place? You cannot possibly be. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per this and this and this and this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for giving us some examples showing that "the year" is not "standard format for events". Hopefully it will help stop spreading that misconception, if Wiki guidelines and decades of off-Wiki usage are not enough. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm tempted to close this as move as all the oppose !votes so far seem to be eligible for discarding under wp:closing. But I'm particularly interested in In ictu oculi's !vote... surely the resulting redirect would cope with those who know the year but not that it was a nightclub? And one oppose !vote gives no argument at all, so it's out. Not worth relisting IMO but it would be good to build a stronger consensus. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • On reflection and in view of subsequent !votes, my !vote is below. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support - "2016" would be appropriate for disambiguation purposes ... however no other shootings have taken place, The last shooting to take place was at a Factory last year .... so as such "2016" isn't needed and the Opposes without sounding disrespectful are crap and are on the verge of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Easy support. –Davey2010^Talk 20:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. The year version can remain as a redirect, in the unlikely event that someone searches for it under that exact title. For everyone else, the shorter version if perfectly fine and recognizable.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. There is no need to disambiguate by year. The resulting redirect will still be there for anyone who knows the year but not the place, an unlikely scenario in any case. (I again am tempted just to close as move, but perhaps it's better to let someone else do this as I've expressed a strong opinion above even without !voting.) Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Question for Andrewa and/or other administrators. Is there any way to have a broader discussion about the application of WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE? I am getting tired of requesting moves that really should not be controversial. I have basically copy-pasted the rationale from Talk:Manchester Arena bombing#Requested move 3 October 2017 to here and to Talk:2015 Thalys train attack#Requested move, getting vastly different results (from an unanymous support to stern if poorly argumented opposition). It should probably be settled (again?) on a larger scale. Surtsicna (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  @Andrewa: @Surtsicna: I have started a new discussion at WT:AT#Including years in titles of events concerning this question. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose What is this obsession with brevity over clarity? 'Orlando' is little known as a city (as opposed to a name) outside US, the year is a useful 'hint' to remind what/where the event occurred. Pincrete (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Article titles do not need any hints nor do they need to remind anyone about anything. Varna is little known outside Bulgaria, yet the Battle of Varna is not called 1444 Battle of Varna. Titles need only to identify the subject, and Orlando nightclub shooting does so fully. 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is absolutely no clearer than Orlando nightclub shooting because no such attack took place in any other year. We should not mislead the readers by implying otherwise. Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Most terror events use the date to help readers identify it. This has been standard practice for many years. Imagine all the names in Category:Islamic terrorist incidents in the 2010s stripped of the date -- it would be much more difficult to identify the events. It goes again WP:CONCISE which says balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area, the given year is a balance of brevity and identity. -- GreenC 19:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • As Mandruss said, the "standard practice" claim is generally meaningless. Rest assured that I can name many more unique events without the date. The years do not add anything to recognizability. People do not remember this as something that took place in 2016 rather than 2015. They do remember it as a shooting that took place in a nightclub in Orlando. It's natural and the data above confirms it. We are doing a disservice to the readers by suggesting that there was another such incident in an Orlando nightclub from which this one should be disambiguated, when there is not. Surtsicna (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't understand all of the opposition here in removing the year. The odds that another mass shooting will take place at an Orlando nightclub are extremely small, and if that did occur, we could simply add the year back to the title. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The opposition to the move is small but I agree with you, the arguments against it are... odd. Disambiguating this incident from a future Orlando nightclub shooting (as if expected) is distasteful if not outright morbid, and it begs the question whether Wikipedia knows something authorities don't. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 25 November 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017

there is a reference to the Los Angeles times that is missplelled "The Los Angeles Time". "The" could also be removed for style. 2605:E000:9143:7000:447A:E443:B2C2:4370 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The use of the word "terrorism" in reference to this attack

As it has been two years since the FBI launched its investigation into this incident and no evidence has linked Mateen to terrorist groups and his personal accounts of ties to various organizations are contrary to themselves, is it still correct to refer to these as terrorist attacks? With no reasonable foundation for the claim is it ethical to continue having this label attached to these murders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple Armadillo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the prevailing view is that the word "terrorism" does not require affiliation with an established terrorist group, any more than the word "crime" requires affiliation with an organized crime syndicate. That is, terrorism can be the act of a lone individual. This appears to be supported by dictionary definitions. See related RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Roger Jiménez

Edds might want to chip in here [40]Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"High caliber"

In the third paragraph under the "shooting" header the article states that an ex marine recognized the sounds of a "High caliber" weapon. The term is almost entirely bogus and particularly incorrect in this instance. The .223 or 5.56 cartridge used in this shooting is not a LARGE or high caliber round. This useless quote should be removed or explained within the article so as to not perpetuate additional moronic anti-gun rhetoric. GunSense101 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed to some degree, but this is what the source says: "You could just tell it was a high caliber," said Yousuf, a former sergeant who just left the Marine Corps last month." I'm not a great fan of terms like "high powered rifle" and "high capacity magazine" because they are too vague and need numbers to explain what they actually are. It's clear that the former marine recognized semi-automatic rifle fire as he would have known it immediately. The wording could be tweaked here to make clear that this is a direct quote of what the marine said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Then write it so as to reflect the fact that is was the OPION of one person. And no, 5.56 is NOT "high caliber." Those M-14 are sneering at the M-16's, but the M-1 Garands and BAR's in the back are about to kick BOTH of their asses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.7.66 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"It remains the deadliest U.S. mass shooting in which the perpetrator did not commit suicide"

Re this edit: it was removed because there is an element of WP:OR, and there is such a thing as suicide by cop. Omar Mateen may well have decided that he did not want to survive the incident and spend the rest of his life in a supermax prison, so he engaged the responding officers in a shootout that led to his death. Other mass shooters have also done this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Timeline details: Gruler reacted to Mateen shooting inside the club

It's been forever since I've worked on a Wikipedia page, so I don't remember the formatting (looks like permissions may have changed anyway), but the timeline on this article looks off. Yes, the linked newspaper reports say Detective Gruler confronted Mateen before he entered the club and started shooting patrons, but the more detailed reports from the Orlando Police Department and U.S. Department of Justice have Gruler responding to gunshots by moving toward the entrance of the nightclub and firing at Mateen (the latter apparently inside the club) from the parking lot. So the detailed reports appear to tell a much different story on the timeline. I'll leave it to the Wikipedia veterans to weed out the inaccuracies. Zebrafc (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Drop the false angles yet?

In light of more evidence that this wasn't about hate toward gays or Latinos and the old claims remaining as unsubstantiated as they were when we included them as possibilities, I suggest we update our lead section to omit the "hate crime" and "violence against LGBT people" parts. We should also remove the third paragraph about his own gayness and connection to ISIS, which is even less believable than it was while it was merely unfounded. Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

This is part of the evidence being presented at his wife's trial. It's interesting because it points away from the theory that he targeted Pulse because it was a gay nightclub. Mateen never said "I hate gays" etc during his ranting phone calls to the police, despite having ample opportunities to do so. Maybe he just wanted a body count, and Pulse was the easiest nightclub where he could gain access inside the building. We may never know, but I'm wary of creating interpretations of the motive on the basis of the current evidence. It's mainly citing this source, which leads to problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not just the current evidence painting a clearer picture, it's the old stuff continuing to be predominantly hearsay from nameless nobodies, most of which still has a disclaimer after it. I'm not asking to build a new theory from scratch, just finally remove the noise from the theory that was already loud and clear back in the day. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

Many of the initial media reports about Omar Mateen being a closet gay, using gay dating apps etc have been discredited. The evidence points towards Mateen wanting to create a body count in response to Western military interventions in the Middle East. This is the only motive that comes from his own lips. Now that Mateen is dead, we won't be hearing any more explanations from his own lips about why he did it, so the evidence at his wife's trial is based on interpretations of cell phone tracking data and Google searches, which suggest that he may have chosen Pulse late on in the day after researching other potential targets. This is interesting, but needs to be placed in context as it is based on a claim being made by the defense at his wife's trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. What sort of context do you propose putting it in? Surrounded by discredited suggestions about his hateful love life or something closer to the truth? For now, I've just rearranged the Motive section to put the truth first, and added a bit about this last-minute Googling revelation after the gay stuff. I initially had the truth at the bottom, because people remember the last thing they read, but now they can be reminded the anonymous or third-hand lies are probably lies after they learn the bit that's sure enough of itself to be legit public record.

Anyway, while combing the archives, I found this bit of yours about hindsight. Not relevant to motive, but might be interesting again now that you know Disney was targeted and the man's dad was one of those nameless nobody "law enforcement sources". Makes me wonder if we already attribute stuff to him here, and which is from someone else. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

This should be mentioned, giving the context that it was put forward as a theory by the defense at his wife's trial. The cell phone/Google evidence points away from the theory that Pulse was chosen because it was a gay nightclub, but we are never going to know for sure. It was reported back in June 2016 that he had scouted Disney World as a possible target [41] so the theory isn't entirely new. There may be more to emerge at his wife's trial about what investigators knew about Omar Mateen. He was probably on the radar for some of the things that he had said and done, but doesn't seem to have been a major concern, as with Lee Harvey Oswald before the assassination.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Disney World is news to me, so I still say a-ha. Not very important, being a hypothetical threat and all. (Possibly) more important that by the time Mateen was on the radar for things he said and did, he was already known as Agent Martin's CI's kid for seven years. I don't presume to know what the relationship between a teenager and his dad's secret boss is, but I'm pretty sure the latter knows the former exists, at least.

More on point, though, do you want to still call it a hate crime or not? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about this, because there is a lack of overwhelming evidence that Mateen targeted the club because it was a gay club. Despite the widespread media assumption that this was a hate crime, Pulse may simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. As I've said, we're never going to know for sure, but the article should give due weight to the theory that it was one of a number of places that he scouted as a potential target.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The last time you said we'll never know, you were still willing to hazard a guess. If you're worried about proving yourself wrong, don't be. You'd only be disagreeing with 2016 Ian. I disagree with 2016 Hulk on many things, and we're still friends. You'll be fine, too. If you need more time to settle down before picking a theory, I'll understand.

But I don't understand if you think there's already enough weight in the article about unchosen places, or should be more. I don't think I want it in the lead. Never really happened, beyond an idea. But I guess I could go for a few more sentences. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:37, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

The idea that this was a hate crime targeting gays is based mostly on media coverage in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. It was endorsed by the reactions of numerous politicians. I can foresee some people making a fuss if we said that it wasn't a hate crime, although the evidence as of 2018 has moved away from the theory that Pulse was targeted simply because it was a gay club.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to say it wasn't, we just need to not say it was. By my math, it was time to quit reaching for that rainbow connection already 624 days ago. Antinoos69 had a small fuss about that; but never really explained why. I wasn't alleging Muppetry then and still aren't today, to be clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

It's remarkable that the FBI admitted during the trial of Omar Mateen's wife that his father had been an informant between 2005 and 2016. This leads to questions about disclosure, but the judge ruled that it did not affect the trial. Nobody is seriously denying that Omar Mateen was the shooter in the nightclub, but what it does do is to raise questions about how much the FBI knew about his activities before the shooting. Since this is an ongoing trial, we may not have heard the last of this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the LGBT/Hispanic/etc. angle needs to be dropped from the shooting itself (as was fairly obvious from nearly the beginning) BUT there ought to be a section (probably near the bottom) comprehensively presenting the material and data about the media noise/LGBT outrage, etc. that arose in the wake of the shooting. Otherwise, important context about the aftermath and investigation gets memory holed/whitewashed. Just because hindsight is 20/20 does not mean the Wikipedia ought to sanitize events as they happened at the time. BTW, insofar as the murderer had no homophobic animus, and his target was chosen at random, the current lead reminds one of the old joke: «World Ends: Women, Children Hardest Hit». XavierItzm (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Aye, the investigation and portrayal of it is a story all its own and I don't suggest we hide the twists and turns. Only not immediately and definitively say a security guard killed people in a hate crime and maybe not call it the deadliest attack on LGBT people since anything. I say "maybe" for that, because targeted or not, it was still "on" them, though the other attacks in the pipelink seem more driven by anti-gay sentiment than anti-war. Given the (currently apparent) 3-0 consensus here and no recommendation of it in our consenses FAQ, I'll remove "and hate crime" from the first sentence once again. Maybe it'll stick without a fuss. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

Fuss made. Show me an academic consensus (such as among historians of some sort) that this was in no way a hate crime, and then we can talk. Otherwise, we keep it in, as it is in the article. Look, historical and psychological truth are not determined by legal proceedings. They are determined, in cases like this, by academia. And psychological truth and motivations are not necessarily conscious. These determinations cannot be made by Wikipedia editors, judges, or juries — the latter two being absurd. Until the academics reach a consensus, the articulated options must be presented. Antinoos69 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Mateen never once mentioned hating gays as the motive for the crime. During his phone calls to the police, he ranted about Western military intervention as the reason for the attack. The evidence suggests that he may have scouted several potential targets and chosen Pulse because it was the easiest one to attack on the night.[42] I'm not happy about saying that it was a hate crime in view of the limited evidence, but some people may object if the article says that it wasn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Antinoos69. Small world, isn't it? Given the wide agreement (in court and out) that he did it for the particular reasons he said he did, we don't need specific disproval of the early idea that he did it for reasons he didn't mention or desires he didn't know he had. It's just defeated by the prevalent theory, same as all other hypothetical explanations (jihad, roid rage, insanity, whatever). The onus isn't on Wikipedians to discredit rumour beyond a shadow of a doubt with scholarly agreement on its falsity, or to leave it in pending such. If WP:V worked backwards like that, we could call the Queen a reptilian or Elvis alive. Hell, we could call cats dogs. Nothing in their article says they aren't, and dog–cat relationship suggests links (if you ignore the evidence we do have for cats being cats). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

I think the closest thing we'll ever have to an expert consensus against a hate crime is this report from The Advocate. The defense wanted to forbid it, the prosecution never contemplated arguing it, the FBI declined to classify it, no witnesses mentioned it and the judge was fine with all of it. At no time was Salman (who said Mateen liked gays) ever charged by police or indicted by a jury with aiding or abetting it, despite that being a perfectly valid charge when reasonable evidence suggests it was or might have been committed. Is this enough, or do you still want to wait till psychologists and geneticists from the future can isolate and analyze repressed memory DNA from long-obscure killers' bone marrow? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, April 1, 2018 (UTC)

Biased source is biased; They are pushing an anti-gun agenda, and are MORE THAN HAPPY to throw gays under the bus to get their agenda. He traveled 3 hours over 200 miles to do this, and you REALLY think targeting gays WASN'T his agenda? "Where are all the women at?" only shows us he hated lesbians, or was confused about the lack of female patrons. Self-serving testimony by potential DEATH PENALTY (remember that, these people could have been facing the death penalty under FEDERAL, not state, law) defendants that he "liked gays" is certainly NOT reliable. Furthermore, if this was "simply a terror attack," then there were many more targets much closer, including a beach were he could have killed thousands (CERTAINLY hundreds) before anyone even truly realized there WAS an attack, nevermind stop it. If anything, the claims that his motives should be removed; Only a LIAR can pretend it was anything OTHER than an attack on gays. (And please, PLEASE, DO lecture ME about that matter; I was hired as in-house plainclothes ARMED security at a gay bar three days after this. The owner's orders were, "If someone comes in here to do a Pulse, kill him or die trying.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.7.66 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless they're pushing some wacky sort of anti-gun agenda that doesn't let gays be portrayed as theoretically preventable gunshot victims, your first sentence doesn't make a lick of sense. Your last sentence almost totally explains why you might be biased toward seeing potential threats to gay bars where others (who weren't literally primed and loaded for that particular scenario) see clearly-stated objections to named wars instead. Your middle sentence about self-serving testimony would be a fair point if Salman defended herself in a federal hate crime case, where a like or dislike of gays matters, but it helps nothing against the two charges she actually faced from prosecutors who agreed it was never about sex. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

Death count and injury count would not be possible to be so high without inadvertent "dumb" help from the first few escapees locking everyone else in

I saw news reports of the first few escapees then deciding to just lock everyone else in and they heard begging and banging on the door to be let out and then they heard gunfire and the banging stopped. It was not just a little banging, it was tons of people banging on the door to be let out but the first few escapees didn't want the chance of the gunman getting outside the nightclub;

It struck me as odd because a gunman trying to shoot 100's of people fleeing in 100 different directions across benches, cars, bushes, and fleeing into the city would be drastically harder to kill, as opposed to what he decided to do: kill everyone. 102 bodies, 49 ended up as dead, 53 on the floor that survived.

I haven't seen this angle talked about but it is a major WTF when I think about the decision making made by the first few escapees to lock everyone else inside.

From Omar Mateens perspective everyone was fleeing towards the doors and getting outside and presumably running away into the city where he would have no chance to kill them, and then all of a sudden, the doors get locked and he is now free to just casually walk around and kill every single person, which he did. 53 just happened to survive.

Can anyone help augment or expand on this angle? Surely trapping 100s of people in a 100ft x 100ft small club with 0 exits consigning them to their deaths doesnt seem like a call they have the authority to do, nor does it even make sense on a logistical level. It only served to help Omar Mateen kill everyone.

Rook2pawn (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rook2pawn: Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This page is not a place to discuss your unique theories concerning the death toll. If you have a suggestion for improving this article, with sources to cite for any content you propose to add, please present it here. General Ization ^Talk 10:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with General Ization - vague "news reports"?...Wikipedia needs actual sources. Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There is some sourcing here in the Daily Mail (yes, we know what some people think about this source). It is based on an interview that survivor Luis Burbano gave to Fox News, and there is a dispute over the sequence of events. Since it comes from reports in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, many of which have been shown to be inaccurate, it should be treated with caution unless more up to date reliable sourcing is available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

there seems to be a mistake here.

this article indicates that 1. The shooter had frequented the Pulse nighclub and 2. That he had only looked the club up in the phone book and that the shooting target was random. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.44.57 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Motive section shows how views have changed on this issue over time. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, various people claimed that Mateen had been a regular at the club and used gay dating apps. However, "Law enforcement sources said the FBI found no photographs, text messages, smartphone apps, pornography, or cell tower location data to suggest Mateen lived a gay life, closeted or otherwise." By the time of Noor Salman's trial in 2018, there were doubts about whether Pulse had been chosen because it was a gay nightclub, and cell phone evidence suggested that he may have chosen it because it was the easiest target on the night.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it necessary to add that some of the victims were not LGBT?

Obviously, most of the victims were LGBT people, but some weren't. For example, Amanda Alvear was non-LGBT, she just liked going to Pulse because her friend was gay, and she thought gay nightclubs were more fun/safe. Here is where I got that info. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/13/three-best-friends-went-to-pulse-one-left-alive/ There are some other victims who if I recall correctly, were also non-LGBT. So would this be necessary to add, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey kl22 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I recall that a mother died protecting her son who was gay, and a young heterosexual guy died but his girlfriend survived. It reflects the decency and inclusiveness of society in modern times. Just my own opinion, but maybe an added inclusion within an added 'notes' section as to this fact would be appropriate for Wikipedia?--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)