Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack

Why does this article list the weapons used as "assault rifles"?

This is not consistent with Wikipedia's own definition of what an "assault rifle" is, since that article specifically states they are select-fire, not semi-automatic fire only, which the authorities have confirmed. Another case of letting media and authorities ignorant of facts define terminology. 74.215.151.212 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• In terms of USA technical jargon, the AR-15 is an 'assault weapon' but not an 'assault rifle'.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Background section needs work

The background section is grammatically poor, it could use some work. Currently it is:

While early reports in a mass shooting often suggest multiple perpetrators, in the US this is extremely rare. In 160 active shooter incidents studied by the FBI between 2000 and 2013, only two involved more than one shooter. Similarly, of the 28 deadliest shootings in US history also only two involved more then one shooter, including the 1999 Columbine High School shootings. According to law enforcement, mass shootings by lone gunmen are often premeditated but killings by multiple shooters can suggest a higher level of planning.[12]

The third sentence could particularly use a rewrite. It appears it is trying to put this in the context of Columbine, but it doesn't do a very good job of it with the meandering grammar. The third sentence is also somewhat redundant with the second, they could likely be combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.163.130 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think much of it should be removed. Its assuming things we don't know yet about the nature of the incident and then it moves into blatant speculation (a higher level of planning). This isn't background. Its analysis. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What don't we know? The CNN source is pretty clear, and there was more then one shooter. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't know anything about the "planning" of the incident (we specifically don't know if there was a "higher" of level of planning as the section formerly implied). We don't anything about the motives behind the incident. We don't have enough information to put this incident in the context of other "mass shooting" incidents and Wikipedia should not be engaged in original research trying to put the incident in historical context. Its best to wait for the facts to come in. There is no reason to rush to analysis. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

French translation

Hello everyone,

can you help me translate this page to the French Wikipedia please? …I am not very comfortable with English!!

Thanks you very much, --89.94.82.139 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@89.94.82.139: You can contact a user who speaks French from this category; Category:User fr-N. Ask at their talk page if they can help you translate. Someone else here may also be able to help you. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Seagull123: Okay, thx for your help! I will inform me over there!

Best regards, --89.94.82.139 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Si vous avez des questions spécifiques, je peux vous aider un peu. Conctactez-moi sur mon page de discussion. Falconus^{p t c} 22:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

J'ai un peu bossé sur la traduction, en piochant, mais les infos changent beaucoup... -- Le grand Célinien (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Lockdowns

from people in the area I'm getting "Loma Linda Univ Med Ctr on lock-down (and the other hospital which took some victims). All county buildings on lock-down. All 70 city schools on lock-down." Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Just heard on NBC4, confirming all schools have been evacuated (not lock-down) Velojareal (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspect name

apparently one of the suspects may be called Farooq Saeed. Shouldn't this be included? --Stefvh96 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.inquisitr.com/2605302/farooq-saeed-possible-san-bernardino-shooting-suspect-identified-by-news-outlets-police-manhunt-continues/

Sources stress this is unconfirmed, not worth including at this time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Firebrace (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Now confirmed by the LA Times [1] 75.17.127.1 (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And NBC News. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/authorities-respond-report-shooting-san-bernardino-california-n472976

The same article (NBC) also claims that the other man involved was his brother. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Street name mentioned in article may be incorrect

Park Circle Drive should be changed to Park Center Circle, assuming the street sign at the corner with Waterman Avenue is correct (from photo on Google Maps). Bunkyray5 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

First hand social media accounts? Any to include?

(I didn't create this topic; I'm just responding.) I searched #activeshooter on Twitter and it is pretty cluttered with commentary. I can't seem to find any useful first-person accounts other than that of the San Bernardino County Sherrif. Brainhelljr (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably should not be included unless the account is reported by a WP:RS who will (hopefully) do the necessary fact-checking. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Death/injury counts

Shouldn't non-victims (i.e. perpetrators) be included in the death/injury counts? Those counts don't say that they're specifically for victims. I believe it's standard to include anyone who was harmed as a result of the incident, including the people who caused the incident. The death count originally included one perpetrator, but it was later edited out with a comment instructing to exclude that person. —Zenexer [talk] 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it should be left out for now as it is just speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:203:3346:4830:8639:E946:7910 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a spot below where the 2 dead perpetrators are detailed, so listing above double counts. Unfortunately eventually a dead perp was listed at Boston_Marathon_bombing but only as part of a broken out list. At November 2015 Paris attacks perpetrators were eventually listed in deaths, but again carefully separated out. Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I took out the warning as no one on the talk page has explained why the note is required and why it exists. As far as I can tell, it was personal preference. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You should not have done that. That is only your personal preference. The way it was was unclear before I added the note. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yours is also personal preference. If it's unclear, then it needs to be said visibly, not in a comment. Comments like that are for hard policies, not preferences. —Zenexer [talk] 02:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Also your opinion. Removing the comment removes the opportunity for clarity in an article with lots of editors moving quickly. How is your removal of the hidden comment helpful? Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I replaced it with a visible note. However, I think the "confirmed victims" text does essentially the same thing. That combined with the comment should be sufficient. I was concerned about readers being unclear as to whether the count included casualties on both sides. Normally, casualties are listed without attribution to a particular side, the number includes both sides. Anyway, it's fine as it stands. —Zenexer [talk] 02:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: At least I did not reorder where which comment appeared.  ;). Goofing around aside, why should a note be placed on a page without any discussion on the talk page? Especially when it goes counter to how several articles are currently shown. Even the death of a member of the guilty party is still a death that occurred during the event. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Response and Location

Should read LAPD Counter-Terrorism Unit or Los Angeles Police Department Counter-Terrorism Unit. Unclear as it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.162.97 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

semi-auto weapon error

This article states that one of the gunman was armed with a semi-auto weapon, however the source link doesn't state that. I'm going to remove it. If anyone finds a link contains proof that a semi-auto weapon was used your welcome to edit it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At the 10:00 PM press conference, the police chief conformed "semi-automatic" weapons when asked. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Number of shooters

Looks like the law enforcement and the media are changing the number of shooters from three to two and saying that the third person detained was likely not associated with the incident. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

two dead at the SUV - a male and a female. Search continues for a 3rd. Now raiding an apartment. Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW NBC continues to say "one of the trio" and "one of the three shooters"...not suspects (they also just covered the conference with PD and FBI where the detainment was clarified. NYT states manhunt ended, however. Velojareal (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a live raid on CNN right now. Will see how this settles out. The police are being very good with sharing info in this one. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disgruntled employee

Since the section about suspects keeps going back and forth, I think there should be a section here to discuss whether it should be mentioned that one suspect is thought to be a disgruntled employee--108.85.149.233 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing good that can come out of rushing to give a motive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. As well, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Also, see WP:RSBREAKING. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I must agree, there hasn't been any concrete basis for this statement in any source I can see. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In the press conference, the police chief (or whoever he is) made it pretty clear that there's no evidence to support that yet; it's just a coincidental event that may or may not be relevant. —Zenexer [talk] 02:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree, speculation doesn't belong here. The NYT article referenced even puts a bold "?" after the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velojareal (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This is what TMZ is saying. A disgruntled guest at a holiday party for the San Bernardino Health Department, who returned with his armed "buddies". Not an RS source, obviously. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All of this was pointed out to the editor who inserted the content and was edit warring/reinserting it repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the Los Angeles Times: "A senior federal official who is monitoring the case said investigators believe one of the shooters left the party after getting into an argument and returned with one or two armed companions. Local officials at an evening news conference said it was not clear whether the people involved in the dispute were the same people involved in the shooting."[2] The first sentence does not say it was an employee, only someone possibly at the party, which the second sentence then says may be unrelated. Siberian Husky (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I will only say that it seems improbable that someone would leave a party after an argument (implying that as a motive) and return with AK-47s and IEDs and wearing tactical gear. I think this is one senior federal official who should be ignored for the time being. General Ization ^Talk 03:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have just heard on ABC's stream that one of the owners of the townhome they are searching is/was an employee, so if anyone can find a written source it may be appropriate to include that at this point, but avoiding speculatory statements would still be nice. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources (including LA Times) are saying that the townhome belongs to Saeed Farooq. They have put up other information saying that a Syed R. Farook worked as an environmental health specialist for San Bernardino County but they have not said that they are the same person and its better to be careful if they are not. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A very strange place to make a random target. Shooters must have a connection to this non-profit. Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

From the various reports I've seen, it sounds like nobody has any idea how the name should be spelled. It's possible that different family members spell that surname differently. Typically the first name would be "Syed" or "Sayed", but there are a lot of other spellings in reports that I've never seen before. It's a relatively common first name, and I'm sure I've heard the last name before. It's hard to say whether the varying reports are actually confusing multiple people, but my guess is reporters are just being careless. Makes it hard for us to get our facts straight. It has been loosely confirmed that they found the house(s) by following the trail left by the disgruntled employee, who appears to be named some variation of Syed Farooq. One report said he's an accountant of sorts who helps with taxes at the IRC. It's all very vague right now, though. —Zenexer [talk] 04:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a distinction between what we know and what we can prove with sources. We knew for example about Saeed Farooq hours before it could go in the article. These are the rules.

LA Times is now reporting that the Saeed Farooq who lived at the townhome was a food inspector in the public health department. It also claims that a Christmas party was being held in the conference room where the mass shooting happened. [3]. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Brother-in-law (married to sister) of suspect in news conference. The venue was rented for the party to the Health department, so the Inland Regional Center was not really the target. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Redundant

• Isn't this edit redundant? Perhaps we need to better organize the events and outcomes? —Zenexer [talk] 02:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• While the Background/Precedent section is interesting, does it really belong in an encyclopedic article of this nature? It could be seen as a bias or an attempt to seed an opinion. Additionally, it isn't directly relevant to the article. —Zenexer [talk] 02:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The edit is fine, from what I can see. It's in the lede and the lede is a summary of what's in the body of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point, didn't notice that. —Zenexer [talk] 03:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A key reason this event deserves an article is that it is unusual - shootings are not notable, but multiple shooter mass shooting in the US is worth an article. Hence the background info. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, and I'd say that's enough justification to leave it. Still seems a little out-of-place from the perspective of a reader, though. —Zenexer [talk] 03:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I put it as Precedent at the bottom rather then Background at the beginning. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators

Not wanting to edit-war, the third person, detained after seen fleeing from the SUV shootout, isn't stated to be a suspect and as such certainly shouldn't be a "Perpetrator", right? The police didn't even say "person of interest", news agencies all say "person". “A third person was seen leaving the area. He was detained. We do not know the extent of his involvement; it’s possible he was not.” [4]. What evidence is there of the detained person having "committed an illegal, criminal, or evil act"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velojareal (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Granted the Twitter account (who tweeted that, exactly?) says "person of interest", the Chief did not during the interview covered in the NYT live page. Velojareal (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I heard the news specifically say "The police are not ready to call this person (the one they detained) a suspect" Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference? All quotes I've found say person. This is an obviously rapidly changing current event...but still need RS Velojareal (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, I'm afraid it was just the ABC news stream, I was just recalling that as support for abstaining from calling the individual in detention a suspect. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I misread your comment, apologies (and bed time) Velojareal (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Originally, that said "1 still at large", or something along those lines. Following the press conference, I changed it to "1 detained" because the existing statement was inaccurate, but I didn't want to remove the information. Based on what I heard during the press conference, it was very clear that they were unwilling to label the person even as a suspect at the time--they were merely a person of interest. I don't know if that's changed; there's speculation that it has based on the recent raid, but that shouldn't be taken into account because it's just speculation. tl;dr: I have no objection to this being altered, but it should probably be noted somewhere conspicuous that there is one person currently detained. —Zenexer [talk] 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

reactions section

The section, as currently written, is extremely questionable. The lengthy quotations from one person and what reads like political advocacy seem inappropriate. It would seem better, if this is necessary at all, to include multiple reactions and to summarize them rather than directly quoting at length. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this section is necessary, or at least is not appropriate when we don't even know the names (let alone history/motive/etc) of the shooters. Without commenting upon the content of the reactions, they seem poorly timed, imho Velojareal (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I've removed the "front-runners" thing. I'll give you that the quotations are too long, but as far as I can tell a "Reactions" section is pretty standard for tragedies such as this. I suppose I could see how it might be 'too early', but I mean there are already reactions. Thx, Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Reactions are certainly acceptable. I don't think its too early. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say these "2016 Candidates" are irrelevent to the article. They are not representatives of this region or from California. And it is still almost a year until the election.2601:150:8200:BA3C:3940:EA4D:484E:3809 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not too early? lol...we don't even know who they were, let alone why the did it. I digress. Velojareal (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In a perfect world, I would agree. To digress, I think creating these breaking news articles on Wikipedia is itself a very bad idea. I wish there was a waiting period (lets say 24 hours) before articles like this could be created. But there isn't and we have to make the best of what in my opinion is a bad situation where Wikipedia turns into a cross-media clearing house for confirmed facts on breaking stories. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of demagoguery is provably false. No one in california can walk into a gun store and buy an assault rifle with a detachable magazine (the law requires that a tool be required to remove it - not detachable). In addition, the maximum capacity of a magazine is 10. It's very likely the gun acquisitions and its components violated the law just as it did in paris and just like the bombs in the Boston marathon were illegal. --DHeyward (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm sure you're correct, I don't think it'd be appropriate to opine on reactions listed in the article, unless citing someone who is expressing such an opinion outside of wikipedia. I included the candidates because I figured that if the reactions of the president are relevant, then the reactions of the people running to replace him might be too, but of course I could be wrong in that reasoning. Again, apologies if my additions were too tabloid-y regarding this section. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If the reports of pipe bombs are true, that is not something you whip up on the spur of the moment. That implies a planned attack, not a response to a slight at a party. --67.235.68.199 (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Obama's suggestion that the no-fly list should apply to gun purchases is (in my opinion) a very ill-considered opinion that will likely be backtracked on in the near future. If a law as he is suggesting were created, a presidential administration would have an almost arbitrary power to deny gun ownership to just about any individual with little justification, no notification of individuals and limited opportunities to appeal the decision. The no-fly is already flawed enough without extending it further. It would also very likely be unconstitutional. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Obama's statement needs to be cut down considerably. He's president but his comments on this are really not as weighty as those of the state's governor. Brown's comments need to go before Obama's and Obama's don't need to be in a separate paragraph, especially if cut down (as they should be). Comments from the candidates are also unnecessary. If we keep the reactions section, it really should be a sub-section, possibly within an "Aftermath" section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So is the consensus to remove the 'candidates' part, or at least limit it to a footnote or something? Also, I already shortened Obama's part quite a bit, so if theres more you think we can omit, feel free to do so, I guess I've been looking at it too long/Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove Impossible to cover all candidates, shouldn't be the main focus of the article, detracts from the issue at hand. —Zenexer [talk] 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's removed, and I reorganized the order of Gov. Brown and Pres. Obama. Once there is a full fledged Aftermath section we can merge this into it//Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need this section at all. Right now it contains nothing of value other than that Brown cancelled that event. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

I suggest adding a section called "Suspects" and say:

Law enforcement authorities identified one of the suspects in the shooting as an employee of San Bernardino County Public Health Department.

Support

• We can add the dude's name later. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:BLP and other comments here and in edit summaries, we should be very careful to get this right. WP:NODEADLINE also applies. General Ization ^Talk 04:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• While WP:BLP applies, the name of one the suspects has been reported already in reliable sources such as LA Times and the Wall Street Journal. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, though the person with that name has been reported as a suspect, not as a "perpetrator". We should not make that determination before investigators do. General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The section is named "Suspects". I will remove name from the infobox. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the infobox also supports a susperps parameter that will display as "Suspects" or something to that effect. General Ization ^Talk 04:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Devout Muslim edit

This edit is a BLP violation, cherry picked content and UNDUE. I have removed it.

According to Farook's father, he was married, had a child and was a devout Muslim.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't object to the information. The source is reliable and the primary is the suspect's own father, so that's a fairly solid source. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the assertion about the degree of the suspect's Muslim faith, it expresses only the opinion and belief of the father. Let's wait on that until there is more to back it up. Some would argue that a devout Muslim would never engage in behavior like this (while others would claim it explains the behavior). General Ization ^Talk 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Risks WP:SYN to mention it in connection to this event, however. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes; to be clear, I was suggesting we not mention it. And without that nugget of info, the info that he allegedly was married and had a child is not remarkable (at this time). General Ization ^Talk 05:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the name of a second suspect was posted in Twitter and picked up by the Washington Times. This article falls under WP:BLP and we need much better sourcing than that. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Twitter post was by Rick Serrano of the LA Times, who was likely live tweeting from a briefing, but I agree we should wait until the Times actually publishes it. General Ization ^Talk 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

With Muslim spokespeople at the press conference, shown on live feed, obviously the authorities and the Muslims think this is relevant. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It may very well prove to be relevant, but it is not urgent that we include it here until the facts are more clear and better sources are available. General Ization ^Talk 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Names such as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik indicate they were Muslims of Pakistani background. If sources are found then we should add this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This source says he was Pakistani-American. [5]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sayed Farook's father described him as a devout muslim so that should be included in the article. This especially since members of the Farook family had a press conference making it a point to describe him as a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Only information directly related to shooting can be included. Unless you have a source stating that the shooter's religion had something to do with the shooting, that particular factoid is not notable. Stating that the shooter is a muslim without stating that particular fact's relevence to the shooting also violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like his trip to Saudi Arabia might be relevant. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Is a source reporting that the trip was relevant to the shooting? If not, such speculation violates WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Biographical information about a shooter is relevant. And since he and his wife are quite dead, BLP does not apply. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Only information about the shooting itself is relevant. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Its basic bio info, like his age and job and the relationship between the shooters. Nothing wrong with it. The Muslim part is in the middle of a three point sentence so its just two words, hardly undue. I restored the line.Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's very relevant at this point, considering he recently traveled to SA. According to our Wikipedia article on state-sponsored terrorism, "Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism" and "the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism". Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That is speculation and thus violates WP:SPECULATION. No source is reporting that his trip to Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas are you saying that, since he traveled to SA, that trip must have been Islamist terrorism-related? How does that not violate WP:SYNTH? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in fact a POV to not mention it. If he was strongly evangelical, atheist, or was strongly into a political movement it should be noted like anything else. He is being described by his father as being very devout, with strict adherence to prayer. If he was a minor part of his life then it would not be worth noting. . --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No sources are reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. Including the shooter's religion would be the same as including information about the shooter's taste in music or his favorite color. Unless it has something to do with the event of the shooting itself (which is the topic of this article), then it is not notable. This is not conservapedia. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Cwobeel and ParkH.Davis on this one, at least for the time being. Some reports have indicated that Farook had a beef with a co-worker; say, for example, if—and that's a big if—that beef was specific to Muslims or Islam and is reliably linked to the shooting—say, as a motive—it would most certainly be germane. To include this data now, without context, is potentially inflammatory. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the FBI brought in the Joint Terrorism task force and that Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia AND that his own family describes him as a devout Muslim; his religion is relevant to this article. The same way a person who shoots up an abortion clinics religious Christan beliefs is relevant to a story like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we also omit that the suspect "worked locally as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels" or should we only omit that the suspect was "very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim"? [6] Bus stop (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, with all respect. The former speaks to his presence; the latter speculates on a motive that cannot possibly, at least at this point, be synthesized. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 07:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The shooter worked for the organization throwing the holiday party which he attacked. Thus his employment status actually has something to do with the actual shooting itself. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So why do we display religion in the Bio info boxes of people from political figures Ben Carson, Stephen_Harper to terrorists Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ? Muslim leaders are all over this thing. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are biographical articles. The subject of this article is the event of the shooting, not of the life of the shooter. It violates WP:NPOV to state facts about the shooter which have nothing to do with the shooting and which promote a biased position against muslim people. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, the collaborative effort—theoretically, anyway—of thousands of active editors, many of whom—let's be honest—push an agenda. Not that you are; not that I am. Ideally, however, this fact would be mentioned only where germane, even for a person who self-identifies as whatever. Are you a Muslim? Irrelevant. Are you a Christian? Irrelevant. Are you an atheist? Irrelevant. Unless it is part of why you're relevant. Do you fund Islamist terrorism? Relevant. Did you build the biggest church in your community? Relevant. Did you file numerous cases against school districts to abolish prayer? Relevant. Ideally. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We just report the information from RS. Same as his name, age, relationship with the girl etc. No one here adding the info is saying his religion lead to the shooting, but scrubbing it out is POV by the editor removing it because that editor is saying it is not important. 08:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Unless a source says that it is relevent, then it is not relevent. This is not conservapedia and it clearly violates WP:NPOV to state the shooter's religion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, we're seeing different things (and, no, we don't "just report".) His name is germane; he's the suspected shooter. His age probably is not germane, but that's rarely contested. His relationship to the woman is germane; they were together when killed in the shootout, per police. His religion, or whether he even had one, is not germane unless it can be tied with some degree of certainty to the shooting itself—like his name and his apparent partner are. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Hussam Ayloush with the Council on American Islamic Relations said Farook was married for two years. He wouldn’t confirm whether Malik was the wife." Source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Other sources have since confirmed she was his wife. It's likely that the reason the above source couldn't confirm it is because they didn't know. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

consistency

The article now refers to the two people as "suspects", "Suspected Perpetrators" and "Perpetrators". The problem is mostly in the info box. They should be identified by one term uniformly through the article. And "suspect" is not the same as "Suspected Perpetrator". 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please explain the distinction in your mind between "suspect" and "suspected perpetrator". I think they are synonymous. General Ization ^Talk 05:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"The distinction between suspect and perpetrator recognizes that the suspect is not known to have committed the offense, while the perpetrator—who may not yet have been suspected of the crime, and is thus not necessarily a suspect—is the one who actually did. The suspect may be a different person from the perpetrator, or there may have been no actual crime, which would mean there is no perpetrator." The combination of the two words creates an inference that a person is absolutely known to have carried out a particular action. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with all but your last sentence. I disagree that "suspected perpetrator" creates any inference other than that they are suspected of having perpetrated a crime, which is for me identical to the meaning of "suspect." A person who is an "unsuspected perpetrator" is likewise not a suspect. General Ization ^Talk 05:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that there is a long history as to why they do not mean the same thing and the confusion created by combining the two is one of the reasons that the term "person of interest" came into use. Its generally the case that "perpetrator" with any qualifiers is only used when the suspect is absolutely known to have committed a particular offensive. "suspect" without qualifiers is the far more neutral term. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

CNN is saying they don't know who was killed, there is great confusion in the sources still. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, CNN has just (at 21:06 PST) sent an email update that states "The sources could not say for certain that [Farook] was in the SUV, if he was a shooter, or whether he is one of the dead. The sources did say that Farook is known to be a U.S. citizen." We should review our copy to state only that Farook is a suspect, but not that he was in the SUV or was killed, since apparently that is unclear. General Ization ^Talk 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And have reviewed; our statements are fine at this time, but we should be alert to edit-creep that makes assertions about Farook not apparently yet supported by our sources. General Ization ^Talk 05:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

10:07 News Conference

• From police spokesperson: 14 dead, updated 17 wounded, conditions unknown. SUV chased. 27-28 officers in gun battle at SUV. 2 suspects deceased in/at SUV. Syed Farook. (male, I missed age, but stated) US born. Tashfeen Malik, 28, female. Unknown what her nationality or origin is at this time. They were married or engaged, or girl/boyfriend, not clear yet.
• Christmas party or gathering he was part of event, attended same event last year. He is an environmental specialist in Public Health department. He was at party, left angry. Police were following up when they encountered him near townhome. No info on criminal records.
• Info was there were upward of three shooters. Now comfortable two shooters deceased. Not 3 shooters.
• 3 main Scenes - Inland, townhome was A residence for him, his office secured, street shootout scene.
• There were explosive devices at scenes, just cleared, allowing for processing of scenes to start. Pipe bomb like device, not specific info yet.
• Not ruled out terrorism. Motive unclear. Understand people concerned about further threats.
• Sheriffs department, state and feds all involved.
• One officer wounded, resting in hospital, non-life threatening injuries. (gunshoot according to earlier sources, not stated in this news conf).
• there are other addresses associated with suspects, not clear the townhouse was primary residence yet.

Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What i heard in watching live stream of the press conference was this that differs slightly from above: Deceased man in SUV is Syed Rizwan [NOT Raheel as elsewhere reported] Farook, age 28, US born, employed by county. Deceased woman in SUV is Tashfeen Malik, age 27, place of birth unknown. After the shooting, because he had left the party, police went to Redlands to interview Farook. He and Malik took off in the SUV, which led to the gun battle in which they died. They may be "boyfriend and girlfriend." There may only be 2 suspects, not 3 as previously reported. The 3rd person, who was detained and is still in custody, was not named.75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

According to sources, they are husband and wife, and she appears to have lived in Saudi Arabia. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: How about providing a few of the sources instead of saying "according to sources" like you are some kind of authority. Firebrace (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You're either joking or incapable of reading. This has been in all the major headlines for the last three hours or so. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why even mention it here? Firebrace (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Did you read the comment I was replying to or do you just comment without reading? The previous comment claimed they were boyfriend and girlfriend. I replied to correct that claim. Why am I having this meta discussion? Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing bio details

User:Firebrace sees the suspect traveling to Saudi Arabia to marry the other suspect [7] and the man growing a beard [8] recently as irrelevant. I disagree. Everyone is digging into background, movements and state of mind and yet this editor is discarding sourced information - which is a POV act. Perhaps a better explanation? Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask people to explain why they removed content when you didn't explain why you added it. Firebrace (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Him traveling to Saudi Arabia and marrying someone from there is quite relevant. Read the Wikipedia article for that country. Search for the word "terrorism" to find the relevant parts. Is growing a beard part of his religion though? Does it symbolize anything? We should also mention he was very religious and of course mention his religion. Was his belief system influenced by Wahhabism? Dream Focus 09:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Him traveling to Saudi Arabia to meet the other gunman and marrying her is kind of relevant. Their relationship is central to the case. We can leave out speculation but we can state just the facts for the time being. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why growing a beard is unusual behavior? I mean, beards are very popular right now. Firebrace (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, you are bordering on trolling.[9] Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Beard issue

• Support If a coworker thought it was relevant enough to mention in sourced material, please stop removing it. I was surprised to see this in the history just by chance. Bod (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

'cos men with beards are very suspicious and may be terrorists! WWGB (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

He might have been asked a leading question. Firebrace (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have personal anecdotal evidence that security people are more wary of bearded men. Bod (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

See stereotyping. Firebrace (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - we have RS saying he had become more "devout" recently, this may be considered a piece of supporting evidence (see Beard#Islam, and/or Viriditas's link above). Or one might take it simply as a straightforward physical description. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to remove. We definitely should present information like this in such a way that it doesn't give it more value than it deserves and lead readers to a potentially false conclusion, but we also have to trust that they won't ascribe too much value to it on their own, and therefore censor it entirely in an attempt to avoid that. We're supposed to present it neutrally and let them do the rest. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Holiday party

Can this term be clarified for non-Americans please. I've never heard it before, and have no idea what it is. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It was basically a party. Firebrace (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

O we can therefore remove the word 'holiday'..? It seems rather specific to me, otherwise editors would simply have used one word: party. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The reference calls it a "Christmas party" so that's what we should use. Dream Focus 09:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to imply that the shooting is worse because it happened at Christmas... Firebrace (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not really, if the source calls it a Christmas party, you say it is. If they say it was a graduation party, you say it is. If they say it's a wedding...etc '''tAD''' (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Workplace shooting

Whether or not terrorism was involved, should this be called a workplace shooting in the infobox? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It will depend on the motive, once that's firmly established. The setting, I think, is less relevant. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning religion

Is there any point to mention the religion of the gunmen? It doesn't seem to be related to the shooting, so I would say that it only fuels the fire of right wing extremist. Vote to remove? 81.237.232.140 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)