Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120809235839/http://nation.time.com/2012/08/07/relatives-speak-of-those-killed-in-temple-shooting/ to http://nation.time.com/2012/08/07/relatives-speak-of-those-killed-in-temple-shooting/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Image of Wade Michael Page

The image (File:Wade michael page police handout.png) is used in the article's section about the perpetrator responsible for the shooting. This is not like other images of perpetrators getting deleted, right? When I was reading the article in the Show Preview page, I already understand that the perpetrator was part of the event. Also, I already understand the event without this non-free image by reading the whole article. I can grasp how disturbing the event was without the image of this person. Nevertheless, I suspect that some might disagree and say that the whole headshot appearance (i.e. the mugshot) effectively increases readers' understanding of the event well. But how? Pinging Medeis who uploaded the image. --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember the debate for this image, but what is relevant is the state's copyright. Some states copyright their mugshots, others don't. James Holmes (mass murderer) (Colorado Movie Shooter) picture was released to the press, and we did not delete it. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Medeis. I was asking whether you think removing would affect this article and the readers' understanding of the article subject, the shooting itself. The image is used in the non-biographical article, so I wonder how readers find the image of the person significant to the shooting. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

George Ho seems to have an ongoing crusade to remove perp photos from articles. As with other debates where this has happened, my view is that the photo is not absolutely necessary, but I'm not going to rush to delete it by using WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Umm... not exactly. Not all perp photos are non-free. An image of Omar Mateen is free to use because the Florida government made it public domain, so the "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" includes the image. On the other hand, I tried to insert the free image of Christina Grimmie's killer, but the consensus went against it. --George Ho (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The only issue for me is whether the image is free; otherwise it should be kept. A picture is worth a thousand words. The fact that an abstract 'understanding' is possible does not negate the illustrative value of the image. Think of the curious reader. Pardon my French, but are we going to tell him, "Eff you, use Google Image" when there's no reason we can't post it here? This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, not an expurgated reader's digest. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Either I can take this image to the FFD, or we can have a central discussion, i.e. RfC, about perp photos before doing the FFD. Pinging Medeis and Ianmacm about this. --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If you file an RfC, please ping me. At this point I think I have expressed myself fully. Thanks for notifying me in the first place. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I read sources saying that FBI handed out the photo. But then this sources credits the police department of Oak Creek, Wisconsin... or maybe it was that of Oak Creek, Colorado. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Your third source published in Denver has a second picture "credited" to Getty, but with no copyright given. This article on the abuse of NC mugshots by publishers who basically blackmail people whose photos have been published to remove them from their website says that NC mugshots are indeed in the public domain, but that people whose charges are dropped or who are found not guilty have been permanently stigmatized. In this case, even if we doubt the free status of the Colorado mugshot, the NC nugshot in your source is free, and their is no controversy over his guilt, and the dead have no reputational rights under common law. I would therefore have no objection to replacing the CO picture with the one from NC, assuming we are unsure of CO law regarding mugshots. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I'm not an expert on US copyright law, the default position on Wikipedia is to assume that police department mugshot photos taken in the US are copyrighted unless specifically stated otherwise. Useful source here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to be an expert to understand the basics, which I do know. You can read our copyright policy and our law articles. In general, federal documents are public domain, while copyright status of local documents varies state by state, or municipality. In NC, the article I linked to above, says lawmakers admit "They go out and publish your picture – which is public record and that's OK" but find it leads to abuses they want to correct: NC Mugshots. So, as I said, we can always use the NC mugshot instead of the CO one in this case, but there's no general reason we should not use a mugshot of a dead perpetrator in this article. μηδείς (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Medeis and Ianmacm, I have taken the image to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 19. Let's comment there. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: the image is deleted (well, it was deleted but then undeleted but then re-deleted) per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 19#File:Wade michael page police handout.png. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

"Terrorist"

Re this edit: if you look closely at the sourcing, what it says is that investigators were treating the attack as "a domestic terrorist-type incident" or similar wording, rather than saying "Wade Page was a terrorist". This runs into problems with WP:OR and WP:TERRORIST. The article already says "Oak Creek police chief John Edwards said his force treated the incident as a "domestic terrorism incident"". Page obviously had links to far right organizations, but as the police chief said, we will never know exactly what went on in his head. I put back the part about him being an army veteran because this is reliably sourced and relevant information. As for Category:United States Domestic Terrorists, this is a red link so there isn't a great deal of point in adding it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

a problem with the infobox

So, I don't know if the problem is with the size of my phone screen, but the text wrap isn't working correctly on my phone. The map size is a little too small for the infobox and this causes some the text below the map ("show map of") to be displayed on the left side of the map, and the rest of the text ("Wisconsin" and "show map of United States", "show both") . I tried fixing it but the preview doesn't work correctly in this case and I don't want to overwhelm someone's watchlist. TryKid (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot of how it appears on my phone. Sure enough, some of the text is on the left. Since I rarely look at or edit Wikipedia articles on a phone screen, it is hard to know what to suggest here. The formatting works OK on my laptop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2021

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting → Oak Creek gurdwara shooting – The current title is too vague and implies the shooting took place in a Sikh temple located somewhere in Wisconsin. "Oak Creek" is more specific, plus it aligns with other articles about mass shootings at places of worship, e.g. Charleston church shooting, Christchurch mosque shootings, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, etc. As for gurdwara, it's the official term used for Sikh temples, for those of you who don't know. Love of Corey (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm not a great fan of this proposed change. Unfortunately gurdwara is not a common English word, so it would be better to have something like "Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• SUpport per nom and consice—blindlynx (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as the headlines in the article's references show a clear preference for "Wisconsin" (35 mentions) over "Oak Creek" (14 mentions) and "Sikh temple" (35 mentions) over "gurdwara" (3 mentions, all by The Times of India). The full phrase "Oak Creek gurdwara shooting" does not appear in any headlines, whereas "Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting" appears 2 times, "Sikh temple shooting" appears 14 times, and "Wisconsin temple shooting" appears 9 times. Rublov (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The same thing with references applies to Sutherland Springs church shooting, yet here we are with that title. Love of Corey (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, "Oak Creek" at minimum. Using Wisconsin is much too vague. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Supportish - I agree with what everyone has said. However, I think the title should be changed. Oak Creek should be included. I would like gurudwara to be in it, but i think it might be stretching it for much of the anglophony. --awkwafaba (📥) 23:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, Google seems to show "Sikh temple" as much more common than "gurdwara" when searching this topic. 162 etc. (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That does not appear to be the case [1]—blindlynx (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)