Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

The main article.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say "killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in a mass shooting" rather than a "terrorist attack" ? Usually when the general public reports these events, the first thing we are told is that it's a shooting. Then later on we learn the motive (discussed in the third paragraph), which would incorporate the "terrorist attack" part. Also, wouldn't it make sense to switch the placement of the second and third paragraph? The second one outlines the casualties and then randomly returns to the attack in the third one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.137.43 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right on this issue. It was primarily a mass shooting incident, and it was deemed a terrorist attack because of the rambling justification that Mateen gave over the phone during the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to add that it's the second deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman? Are there American mass shootings more deadly, that were carried out by multiple people or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey kl22 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

We've had this argument numerous times, because people say things like "What about the Wounded Knee Massacre?"[1] and similar events. In the cite given, journalists are asked not to use superlatives like "deadliest mass shooting" to describe the Las Vegas and Orlando shootings. There was a long discussion about this on the talk page after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. There is a distinction between acts by a lone madman and acts by groups of people with racist motives.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

April 2018

Re this edit: this isn't strictly true and relies on a WP:OR interpretation of the sourcing. It's true that evidence emerged in 2018 suggesting that Mateen may not have known or cared whether Pulse was a gay night club, and chosen it simply because it was the easiest place to attack on the night. As for whether he had "no idea" that Pulse was a gay nightclub, this is speculative and we will never know this for sure. The cell phone records don't prove this, but do suggest that he scouted various targets before choosing Pulse. The Vox source says "he allegedly had no idea Pulse was a gay club" which is broadly in line with what the defense asserted at the failed trial of Noor Salman. The Huffington Post article says "Everyone Got The Pulse Massacre Story Completely Wrong" which is maybe an exaggeration, but the trial of Noor Salman led to a significant rethink about why Omar Mateen did it, and a realization that many of the early media reports were inaccurate. Here's what I said on my talk page earlier:

"Template:Current says "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information." This is now very true of the Orlando nightclub shooting. Immediately after the shooting, the world's news media decided that Mateen was a closet gay, had used gay dating apps, been a regular at Pulse, chosen it because it was a gay nightclub, and his wife had known that he was planning the attack. By 2018, all of this had been either discredited or called into question. People may not realize this if they are still reading news reports from June 2016. I'm not entirely happy about saying that Mateen did not know that Pulse was a gay nightclub because this is speculative and trying to prove a negative. However, the 2018 evidence suggests that Pulse was chosen simply because it was the easiest available target at the time, not because it was a gay nightclub, or the patrons were Latinos. We wouldn't be having these discussions if he had attacked EVE Orlando; Mateen's cell phone records suggest that he had considered this as a possible target on the night. Sometimes, as with the Luby's shooting, the victims are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nobody knows exactly why George Hennard did it, but he was an angry wacko a lot like Omar Mateen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have rescued the valuable edit using your very own language. Thanks for providing the material to rescue it. XavierItzm (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• This [2] and many other sources suggest that Mateen had no intention of targeting people based on their sexuality. I don't remember where, but I read that some testimony suggests Mateen in all ernestness on ariving at Pulse asked "where are all the women?" This [3] is a good article by a thoughtful and insightful writer that points out why we should not make unsupported claims. There never has been evidence for Mateen having particular animus against his victims as anything other than residents of the United States, and Wikipedia should not perpetuate false claims of group victimhood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a risk here of going from one extreme to the other. One extreme is saying that Mateen definitely did know that Pulse was a gay nightclub, and the other extreme is saying that he definitely did not know. Neither of these positions is supported by the sourcing. Likewise, the sourcing does not prove as a fact that he rejected Disney World and EVE Orlando as targets because the security at these venues was too tight, although this is a possible explanation. The WP:LEAD and the article text now make clear that many of the initial media reports and assumptions about the motive have been called into question.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

He may not have planned to attack a gay club, but he was informed by a security guard that it was a gay club BEFORE he attacked. Why should the contested FBI's interpretation be placed in the lead? (why not put Obama's statement that it was a hate crime instead?). Neither one belong in the lead. It seems an attempt to cover up the fact that he was fully aware that Pulse was a gay club by the time of the shooting. Daveout (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Barack Obama's speech was made immediately after the shooting in June 2016.[4] He said "So whatever the motivations of the killer, whatever influences led him down the path of violence and terror, whatever propaganda he was consuming from ISIL and al Qaeda, this was an act of terrorism but it was also an act of hate. This was an attack on the LGBT community. Americans were targeted because we’re a country that has learned to welcome everyone, no matter who you are or who you love. And hatred towards people because of sexual orientation, regardless of where it comes from, is a betrayal of what’s best in us." This seemed to make sense at the time, and was echoed by mainstream media reports. But by the time of Noor Salman's trial in 2018, it had become clear that it was unlikely that Pulse was chosen because it was a gay nightclub. There is a big difference between the evidence in 2018 and the evidence in 2016, see Talk:Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Motive_again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"it had become clear that it was unlikely that Pulse was chosen because it was a gay nightclub". Why was it unlikely? Before deciding to attack Pulse (being fully aware that it was a gay culb), he had visited another nightclub and decided not to attack it. It is perfectly possible that he had chosen to attack Pulse precisely because it was a gay club. He may not have planned to attack a gay club AT FIRST, but we don't know why he chose Pulse (and it is perfectly possible that homophobia was THE decisive factor). But, so far, no one knows that for sure. It seems like you are conflating his initial intentions with his motives to attack Pulse. 1-It is possible that he did not know it was a gay club when he arrived there? Yes. 2-Not knowing that it was a gay club before getting there means that it was not a hate crime? NO. Daveout (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

We're never going to know what went through Mateen's head, but the FBI declined to classify the incident as a hate crime. Mateen made no attempt to search for gay nightclubs on his cell phone, and may have dropped the other potential targets because the security was too tight. I've tried to stick to the facts from the official investigation, so it is hard to say that it was a hate crime if the FBI didn't.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The FBI declined to classify the incident as a hate crime because they had no proof as to why he had chosen Pulse. If his decision was really made right before the shooting, the only existing proof was in his head. But, again, does this rule out the possibility of a hate crime? Definitely NO. Stating that he did not know it was a gay club when he got there while hiding that he was informed about it RIGHT BEFORE start shooting seems deceiving to me (it may be driven by political correctness or ideological bias) Daveout (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Motive again

Re this edit: We've had this debate before, and by the time of Noor Salman's trial, the FBI had backed away from the theory that Mateen had targeted Pulse specifically because it was a gay nightclub.[5][6] The WP:LEAD could make this clearer. The FBI declined to classify the incident as a hate crime, and not everyone was pleased about this.[7] However, there would need to be more specific evidence beyond the undoubted fact that Mateen was an angry and unstable person. The alternative explanation, which is supported by the cell phone evidence, is that he looked around for a location to attack; he searched for "downtown Orlando nightclubs" on Google at 1:30 AM, as well as Disneyworld and a school in Disney Springs at 10 PM. Mateen spent six minutes at Eve Orlando (a non gay nightclub) before driving away. He had also visited Disney Springs on the night in question after Googling it. At the trial of Noor Salman in 2018, prosecutors admitted "that there was no evidence to suggest that Mateen knew that Pulse was a gay club".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This far removed from the "developing story" situation, I think we'd be best to simply omit the dated speculation, not dredge it up just to deny it or keep it because it has tenure. Especially in the lead, we should focus on the things that do define and describe a subject, not what might have been once. It's like how we don't mention the Richard Gere thing at Richard Gere, despite people still remembering him for it and Vanity Fair still reminding people about it as recently as Valentine's Day 2017.

It was a fine guess for the time and the headlines it generated were likely lucrative, but the media circus has long since packed up and moved on to greener yellow journalism, like whether the President of the United States directly ordered one hundred Muslims be shot for obviously being Muslim, or just inspired it. Or likes it, or allows it or something topical.

Today, going on about it fuels the idea that violence against gay people is "naturally" caused by gayness or ant-gayness, until painstakingly proven otherwise or until a certain number of years have passed without any corroborating evidence turning up. Regardless of who's in the minority, it's precisely as stupid as focusing on how straight men use their penises after they've been killed by a guy who repeatedly and publicly declares he's terrorizing them because they're innocent civilians of a country that previously terrorized innocent civilians. It's arguably a more directly disturbing thing to ponder for most innocent American civilians than their opinion of butt sex is, but it's far more plain and simple. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It is important to remember that his own father said that Omar would get "very angry" by simply seeing gay people in public spaces. He also said that only god should judge the gays (thus implying that his son attempted to judge and punish the gays with his own hands). His father's statement, unlike that of his wife, seems to be quite reliable.

remember that when saying that Omar didn't particularly hate gays.

It is also important to remember that this event was very embarrassing for SJW's because it involved 2 minorities that are very important for them. So it should come as no surprise that far-left sympathizers will desperately attempt to dissociate Omar from homophobia accusations or even present him as a LGBTQI+ ally.

Daveout (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit removing "Names of the deceased"

This edit removed the "Names of the deceased" subsection. Let's discuss - keep? delete? etc. Shearonink (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles of mass-casualty attacks don't tend to mention victims' names, especially if the death toll is particularly high, so I say delete. Love of Corey (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

It has proved to be impossible to get a consensus on this issue in mass shooting articles despite numerous discussions. I've come down on the side of not giving a full list of names per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but others do like to have a full list. To avoid edit wars, this is an area where a talk page consensus should be obtained first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree as to getting consensus. I've come down on the side of including the names because the dead in and of themselves are a major part of the event and in the cases especially of mass shootings/massacres where the names are known and part of the history of the event I'm of the opinion that WP:MEMORIAL does not apply. My interpretation is that it is speaking to the making of completely memorial articles for individual people who are not notable as lone subjects because the policy pages states: "Subjects [emphasis mine] of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." The victims' are not the lone subjects of an article, they are part of the information in the article. But reasonable people disagree on the subject around here so it is taken on a case-by-case/article-by-article basis. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we need an actual policy for this, because from what I'm observing, including victims' names is becoming increasingly discouraged, especially in more recent articles of this nature. Love of Corey (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Including victims' names is becoming increasingly discouraged". That sounds...anecdotal. Usually these decisions are left up to editorial consensus at individual articles. If you think that Wikipedia needs to institute a change in overall WP:Policy to remove/delete/not allow any victims' names or lists of victims' names in articles then you'll probably have to start a blanket RfC I think at WP:RFC/All, be able to back up your thoughts on the issue with cites to policy/guidelines and you'll also have to be able to gain an editorial consensus for instituting the change. Shearonink (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"Orlando nightclub shooting" doesnt even touch on the event.

I haven't looked very hard to see if something is already posted to the subject, doesnt particularly matter because the most incredibly understated Wiki article title I've ever seen still is standing. Sure, a shooting took place. FORTY NINE PEOPLE WERE KILLED. This was a massacre. I've seen the resistance to calling it a terrorist attack. Sure. It was that, but god ffricken damnit a shooting takes place in my city a few times a week. No one has to die for that to be reported. Again - FORTY NINE PEOPLE LOST THEIR LIVES. This was a massacre.

Trumps recent rollback on protections for LGBTQ patient protections happening on this day, the anniversary of the "Pulse NIGHTCLUB SHOOTING" is a fucking joke. I'm personally offended at the lack of oversight in such an underwhelming article title.

49 people. Gays, allies, their parents. It wasn't just a shooting. It was murder. A mass murder. A massacre. Sure we can avoid calling it terrorism but dont try to water it down to a frickenshooting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elij justice (talk • contribs)

You need to find reliable sources calling it a massacre. Once you do, post them here and perhaps a change can be made. Otherwise, while I understand your passion, Wikipedia cannot make up its own labels. See WP:PROVEIT, WP:CITE, WP:OR. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reply is just as much infuriating as the title. Did you click the link to the wiki list of massacres in the us? Did you want me to list the link to massacres wiki provides? Both very much seem applicable to me.

Here’s the massacre link for wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre

The list of massacres in US history, which was in my original post, involve as little as 4 deaths. 4 deaths at Ohio Kent state university. Those were student deaths. I can link that too if you need.

What’s the difference between this “shooting” and any other massacre on the list? Honest question. It’s going to be recognized in our history forever as a great loss of life. Not a shooting. Elij justice (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Citing the Massacre article is not good enough. Again, you need to find reliable sources that call it that, otherwise it serves as original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. El_C 02:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is called "Orlando nightclub massacre". Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Elij justice makes a valid point. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Elij justice Makes a valid point (2). Plenty of reliable sources refer to it as a massacre. Also, maybe it just my impression but... this article seems to downplay the homophobia factor for some reason. Omar's father and wife stated that Omar was very homophobic and would get very angry by simply seeing gay ppl on the streets. Daveout (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Google News. "orlando nightcllub massacre" - 3,460. "orlando nightclub shooting" - 14,700. (Both counts will vary slightly with time.) Competent Wikipedia editors never cherry-pick sources. Regardless, the method for proposing article title changes ("moves") is described at WP:RM, and this article will not be moved without a RM consensus to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Cherry picking sources isn't the same as denying the severity of the event by watering down the subject to a mere shooting. Any guy in his back yard can shoot a gun into the sky and it be reported as a shooting by his neighbors. All I want is an accurate description of the loss of innocent life by the use of an accurately disturbing word.

To add: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Wilkinsburg_mass_shooting

6 deaths including an unborn baby. The event is labeled as a mass shooting.

Is it the unborn baby that is required to push a title over the edge or are you that dependent on "news outlets" for your own headlines. If so your articles will never be respected in my eyes again and I'll take this to every social media outlet I can to share. The "good" the site does at supplying information doesnt mean dick if it requires citation from media conglomerates for change.

Again- Sorry not enough news outlets covered this event as a massacre, but dont try to deny you're not in a position to dig a little deeper and cite your own sites definitions on the matter. Elij justice (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Elij justice—please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:SIGNATURE Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I repeat: the method for proposing article title changes ("moves") is described at WP:RM, and this article will not be moved without a RM consensus to do so. You are wasting your time in this format. Worse, you are wasting mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss it seems a whole lot like if you didnt want to respond you could have left it up to anyone else.

The title "Orlando Nightclub shooting" doesn't at all encompass the severity of the situation. I don't care if I'm wasting your time. Go to bed. Go eat dinner. Get out of the way. I am sharing an opinion. A glaringly obvious downplaying of the events that occured 4 years ago might not offend you but it offends me. You may be comfortable downplaying my concerns, but this particular wiki will have a lot more searches in the coming days and it troubles me that YOU are taking the time to tell me that YOUR time is being wasted. I provided links to it being referred to as a massacre. Here are more:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/orlando-nightclub-massacre-39792892/image-39793034 https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/massacre-in-orlando-victims-of-pulse-nightclub-shooting-identified-1.2943094 https://www.fox29.com/news/we-will-not-let-hate-win-pulse-nightclub-mass-shooting-victims-remembered-4-years-later (Mass shooting, even better than Nightclub shooting) https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/systemic-violence-reflections-on-the-pulse-nightclub-massacre

And it being properly referred to as a terror attack: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/orlando-terror-attack

You need to accept that my angry gay ass might have a point. GOOGLE SEARCHING PULSE MASSACRE LEADS TO A WIKI PAGE DOWNPLAYING THE EVENT VIA THE TITLE(ORLANDO NIGHT CLUB SHOOTING.) THATS THE ISSUE.

My intention was to bring my concerns as a reader to light. Wish I was sorry for wasting your time, but I'm not. Find a new hobby. Adding in your comment about YOUR time being wasted really shines a light on how moderation works here. Pass the buck on to someone who doesn't have such a full plate.

Elij justice (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elij justice: Calm down. What Mandruss is trying to say is that, if you really want to put forward the idea of renaming the article, there is a specific process that you should follow (including a specific place to propose and discuss this type of things). Which is: WP:RM. There you can present your arguments (which in my opinion are valid) and other users will say if they agree with you or not. Only after that consensus seeking process, the title of the article can be changed. Daveout (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We've had this type of debate before. Wikipedia article titles are designed to be as descriptive as possible, and since it was a mass shooting (not a bomb attack etc) it is described as a shooting. More people died in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting; the number of people who died isn't really an issue. Virtually all Wikipedia articles about mass shootings use the word "shooting" in the title. It's a Wikipedia writing style issue, and isn't driven by media reports. The Luby's shooting is often referred to as the Luby's massacre, but the Wikipedia article uses the term shooting. All that the word massacre does is to indicate that a large number of people died, and it isn't very descriptive beyond that.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Do you agree that discussion of this title is entirely pointless without RM? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is little point in stating a personal opinion about what the article title should be without a formal move request. WP:TITLE is the policy here. Some people have said "Why isn't the 2017 Las Vegas shooting called the 2017 Las Vegas massacre?" and the reason is WP:TITLE. Likewise the Virginia Tech shooting isn't called Virginia Tech massacre.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Thanks for the information about past discussions about this matter (I was unaware of those). I personally don't think that discussions like this are pointless. This type of initial discussions are useful for maturing ideas\arguments and gathering opinions before formally proposing a change of title. Based on them, ppl may even desist to put forward a renaming proposal, or present a more solid one. (beginners tend to be angry and frustrated bc they don't understand how things work around here, so we should always try to be patient and didactical). Daveout (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, provided nobody is under the impression that the article can be renamed based on this discussion. I've stated my position and I'll watch for any RM here. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. "Massacre" implies the deliberate slaughter of a large number of people. "Massacre" is definitely applicable here. The word "massacre" is supported in sources. And in this incident gay people were targeted and cornered in a confined space from which they could not escape. Gay people constitute a specific identity. The intention appears to be to inflict an inordinate amount of harm on gay people—that would appropriately be called a "massacre". I think Elij justice's indignation is well-placed. Elij justice is raising a constructive point. Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Orlando_nightclub_shooting/Archive_8#Motive_again and the article text. By the time of Noor Salman's trial in 2018, the FBI had largely rejected the theory that Pulse was targeted because it was a gay night club.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter what his motives were, this event could still be classified as a massacre even if homophobia wasn’t the attacker’s main motive (which is highly contested). But let’s not forget that (1) Mateen only attacked Pulse after being informed, by a security guard, that it was a gay club (he was fully aware that he was killing gay ppl by the time of the shooting). (2) Before choosing Pulse, he had visited Disney Springs (which had hosted a gay event one week prior). He decided not to attack Disney Springs for sOmE rEaSoN (maybe the targets he was looking for were no longer there. MAYBE). (3) His family said he was a homophobe. But of course, those are just cOiNciDeNcEs. Homophobia didn’t play a role in this whatsoever… Daveout (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Changing article to #2 on list of mass shooting events

Hey everyone. Because of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, I believe that this article is no longer appropriately titled as the "deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks in 2001". I also think we should take out that assumption from the Talk:Heading above. I'll make these changes soon if nobody objects. Hope you're doing well. Kobentori (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope, because none of the official investigations into the 2017 Las Vegas shooting classified it as a terrorist attack. The LVMPD ruled out a political or religious motive almost straight away. Paddock's motive remains something of a mystery, but he may have done it simply to create lasting notoriety for himself, like many mass shooters. The FBI did classify the Orlando nightclub shooting as a terrorist attack due to Mateen's phone rants during the incident. The FBI defines domestic terrorism as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature" [8] and Paddock doesn't fit the bill. Terrorism can't be added as a motive for the Las Vegas shooting, because it would be original research.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Damn. There's still no clear motive for Paddock here? Insane when you think about how advanced policing has been so far, especially in the States. To be honest, I thought that any act of mass shooting - take Columbine High School massacre or 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting for example, constituted an act of terrorism - as the act of mass violence itself, especially in such a regularly popular and non-violent area, induces terror. I guess it's more nuanced than that though. Here's a Time magazine article which concurs with your definition:

The definition of terrorism for law enforcement purposes is clear: It turns on the intent of the perpetrator, who must seek to coerce civilians or change government policy through life threatening actions.

Appreciate the input ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Kobentori (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MMetze713.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

Hi. Somebody has used on wp:fr this source https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-enduring-false-narrative-about from Glenn Greenwald. I see it is not used here. Can you comment to help me figure out if this is a reasonable opinion ? --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It was in the article until it got removed here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Motive

"Motive Unknown" Seriously? This shooting was motivated by pure hatred of us. Pure. Hatred. 2601:600:C580:AA00:502E:8227:53C1:3BE7 (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because it added homophobia as the motive. This was not supported by the investigation, as the article makes clear. I think it's clear enough by now that Mateen (in addition to being a rather unstable person) was influenced by Islamist extremist material that he had read online. However, the motive should come from the official investigation rather than news media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Killer

Please remove the killers name to a footnote. It's disgusting and hurtful to the survivors, the families of those slaughtered and the community to see his name on the first line. Also don't include him in the total who died. He doesn't deserve inclusion. It's 49 died, plus the perpetrator 67.8.102.179 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@67.8.102.179 Wikipedia is not censored, so the name should stay - although I agree that we should say "x dead, plus perpetrators". Couruu (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Victims

Do we really need a bullet pointed list of all the victims? Considering IINFO (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), what value do their names add to the article? Couruu (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that the list is needed, for the reason that you've given. However, mass shooting articles often have long running talk page discussions about whether a full list of victims is needed, and although I've always come down against inclusion of names that are not independently notable, some people still want to have a full list. There was a RfC discussion at Talk:Orlando_nightclub_shooting/Archive_6#RfC:_List_of_victims in June 2016 that came down in favour of keeping the list, but it wasn't unanimous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ianmacm I wonder if it may be worth reopening an RfC on this, since it's an inconsistency I've seen across Wikipedia - my take is that such lists break IINFO, MEMORIAL and just don't read well. Perhaps now that the recentism has faded people's opinions may have changed. Couruu (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed as an overall issue at least twice at the Village pump.[9][10] There could be another RfC for this particular article, but it might not lead to the removal. The list shouldn't be removed without consensus to prevent edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I meant on this particular article. Couruu (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Motive

Re this edit: The problem with linking to violence against LGBT people in the United States is that it gives the impression that Mateen set out to kill LGBT people with an intentional motive of homophobia as a hate crime, which we now know is unlikely and not supported by the investigators. The context of the UpStairs Lounge arson attack in 1973 is also misleading, because the arsonist was never caught or prosecuted, and again the motive may not have been intentional homophobia. These incidents resulted in the deaths of many gay men, but the motive in both cases may not have been homophobia. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The shooting was the response of Abu Waheeb death 2405:3800:819:CA40:D8BF:3:708D:336C (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - One !vote for, one !vote neutral-but-leaning-move, and one !vote against. No new !votes cast for over a week so no point doing a re-list.

That leaves us looking at the arguments made. MountainDew20 cited WP:COMMONNAME and Google trends analysis comparing the present title and the proposed one, which is perfectly sound base for a proposed move when done properly. PARAKANYAA didn't cite any evidence or arguments - so it is hard to give what they said much weight - but did say they thought "Pulse" was more common.

ianmacm cited WP:TITLE and WP:GOOGLE, but did not state the relevance of these to the argument they were making beyond "Orlando" being more precise. We therefore have to read these to see what weight their argument should be given.

WP:GOOGLE literally tells us that "Google Trends can allow you to find which rendering of a word or name is most searched for", giving "tidal wave vs. Tsunami" as an example. It is therefore not obvious why you wouldn't do this to find out the more commonly used name.

Regarding the point about precision under WP:TITLE, WP:CRITERIA, which is part of WP:TITLE, could be interpreted so as to point to the shorter title, which in this case is "Pulse". PARAKANYAA also cast doubt on whether "Orlando" really was more precise than "Pulse". Therefore this point seems a wash.

As such, whilst numerically the result pointed to no consensus, weighting the arguments according to our policies and guidelines gives a consensus to move. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Orlando nightclub shooting → Pulse nightclub shooting – WP:COMMONNAME. On Google Trends, for example, when comparing the search terms “Pulse nightclub shooting” and “Orlando nightclub shooting”, the former has historically been used at a significantly higher rate than the latter, at points being used ten times as much. MountainDew20 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: WP:TITLE is the policy here, not what Google says, which can be misleading. Please don't base move requests on using WP:GOOGLE as the argument. The current title is ok.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there's a dire need to change the title but I do think the Pulse title is substantially more common and I don't see a reason not to use it. Also personally I marginally prefer it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Pulse nightclub shooting" is ok, but I still think that "Orlando nightclub shooting" is closer to WP:TITLE guidelines because it is more specific.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Are there a lot of Pulse nightclubs? There's a lot of nightclubs in Orlando. If anything I'd think it'd be the other way around. But yeah I have no complaint with either title PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

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