Talk:Washington Navy Yard

Navy Yard and Superfund

This article should be expanded to include a section on Navy Yard's history as a Superfund site (the District's only current Superfund site), the specific activities that led to it being listed on the NPL, the pollutants that exist at the site, the cleanup activities thus completed, and the future scheduled cleanup activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.91.18 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Shooting

I would like to suggest no speculation or unofficial info be put here, especially regarding victims. We want to be accurate and not guess or post other people's guess's... especially the media's. Kennvido (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not an RSS news feed, I suggest not putting any more than just the fact of the shooting, refraining from constantly updating it with police reports.71.81.66.132 (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, do we REALLY need to have the shooting in this article? I mean, if we're going to do that then we should mention every single shooting ever in the US and peg it to either a building, a street, or an area. Wikipedia is not an RSS feed, nor is it a news source. It's an encyclopedia. Do you really think Britannica has this in its entries? 151.207.250.61 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this should be covered. It is in the nation's capitol, the US Navy and many people are injured. I agree the speculation should not be published. Only officials info that can be cited. I am doing my best to monitor the article and will do everything 'in good faith'l. Kennvido (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It definitely belongs. Being widely reported on by news agencies. I think the placement in the article could be better, though. Shouldn't it go at the end of the history section? The Navy Yard has a long history predating the shooting ... --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's in a good place now.Kennvido (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does, 151.207. This isn't just any typical shooting, this is a MASS shooting. Maybe at the time you posted that, you heard that only one or two people were shot, but now the injury/death toll is at 12+. You tell me how often it is that somewhere in the US twelve people get shot in a single shooting attack, especially at a public place with many tourists and employees present. While it has been becoming more often, it is definitely not a typical act of inner city violence. However, the shooting really needs its own article, as with most mass shootings. Cyanidethistles (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"While it has been becoming more often...."

For the record, mass shootings are down in both numbers of incidents, and numbers of victims. You mean media coverage, and therefore a biased perception of increase, is increasing.108.48.224.118 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not really germane to the discussion here. Please keep focused on the issue at hand. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Correcting an incorrect assertion of fact someone else was using to advance relevance is germaine. Why had it been asserted in the first place? I am merely addressing the objective.108.48.224.118 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I misread the intentions of your statement. It was not clear to me we were discussing notability rationale specifically.Do you think this incident is not notable? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

which came first this article or http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq52-1.htm

Since many sections of the text appear close if not identical… dm (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The link does not work at this time. Probably that first. But should be provided a reference - NO problem with that to my level of KNowledge - as a MIL/ Government site information - openly provided to general public it is ok to quotes it. Wfoj3 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible Shooting 2015

Collating sources in open url citations at the moment. Update: Seems to be a scare rather than an incident, I'll leave the citations up for 24 hours then remove. Twobells^t@lk 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the officials from the press conference today, it was just a scare and that after an investigation, there was never a shooting. They said the worker did the right thing; "Saw something suspicious and alerted authorities" Only problem I have with the incident was that she was the only person that supposedly heard something that sounded like a gun shot. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@ThurstonHowell3rd: Agreed, that seems to be the prevailing facts, shall I delete or leave for historical purposes? Twobells^t@lk 10:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I would just leave on the talk page for historical references. Other wise we'll be adding updates every time someone pops a balloon or has a field day with bubble wrap in and around the Navy yard. And if you've ever read a security/duty log at a facility like this, you would spend the rest of your life writing it up for Wikipedia. ThurstonHowell3rd (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial reports

Twobells^t@lk 13:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

References