Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting

ancestry

"Afghani" is not a descent or a an ethnicity, it is the name of the money currency in Afghanistan. "Afghan" is someone who is of afghan nationality. Afghanistan is composed of multiple ethnic groups so there is no such thing as being of "afghan" descent. It is unclear whether he is of pashtun,tajik, pamiri, nuristani, etc heritage. The the four aforementined ethnic groups are very similar, there arw still many more he could be of.There are also hints that his father may not actually be afghan

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-shooting-suspects-father-hosted-a-political-tv-show-and-even-tried-to-run-for-the-afghan-presidency/#

I say keep "Afghani descent" out of the article unless it's in a "personal life" or "early life" section, but keep the muslim part as that's relevant to the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckold12345 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ancestry 2

It is politically correct to say that someone is of "afghan descent." Afghan is a nationality, and Afghans come from different ethnic groups. It is unclear which he comes from. So again, putting that he is of "afghan descent" is unnecessary unless it's in a personal life or early life section as the rules state.

Name

The following discussion 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.

---

If this form is kept, it should at least be altered to "2016 Orlando shooting", as it was one incident of shooting, not a series.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I've changed it. StewdioMACK (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Given that the murder of Christina Grimmie also happened in Orlando this week, I'd suggest making the title "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" to be more specific. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd go further and put it as 2016 Pulse Nightclub Shooting, as either of those names are too generic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.94.139 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The name of the club is Pulse Orlando, so the article should be Pulse Orlando shooting. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 12:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"2016 Orlando shooting" isn't specific enough, and the gunman seems to have targeted the club. The official website of the club seems to be offline at the moment, but is on the Wayback Machine here and simply names the club as Pulse.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; we do have 2012 Aurora shooting, but unless it is changed to "Pulse Orlando," this seems like the best option. United States Man (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that Orlando isn't in the title. "2016 Pulse nightclub shooting" isn't very specific either. "2016 Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting" is a bit of a mouthful but might be better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I think "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" might be more fitting. Crumpled Fire (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the club's actually called Pulse Orlando or Orlando Pulse, that'd be perfect, by my eye. ("Pulse Orlando shooting", that is. No year or "nightclub".) InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I also like "Orlando nightclub" over "Pulse nightclub" or "Orlando Pulse nightclub". Should we move the article? United States Man (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Crumpled Fire (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Went ahead with that name change. United States Man (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We have now to his full name Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, his birthdate 16 November 1986 (source) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.141.24 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is already documented in the article. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Should it not be punctuated correctly? The title, that is. Asigkem (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose we change it to "2016 Orlando terror attack" or something that implies it was a terror attack as some sort of ISIL affiliate (I'd be more detailed but I'm actually posting this on break at work) has claimed responsibility and the FBI is investigating as well and they usually only get involved in shootings and whatnot when they suspect terrorism, as well as the fact that many media outlets are referring to it as a terror attack. NiklawskiMSTM traveled from the fourth dimension to deliver this text to you. Please thank him on his talk page. Or don't thank him. I'm Binary code, not a cop. 20:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Orlando nightclub attack would probably be a better name for the time being. It would be much more in-line with the naming of the 2015 San Bernardino attack. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note, though I applied move protection it was only to match edit protection - editorially I'm fine with both 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or 2016 Orlando nightclub attack. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:20, 13 June 2016 (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.

Reactions section

Delete the reactions section already?

This is always the second contentious issue in a mass shooting article, after the name. Everyone's going to say the same thing. We don't need to repeat the same thing, and we don't need to list everyone (or anyone) who says it. We don't need the section at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:24, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it can at least wait until things die down. United States Man (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A small but representative sample is OK. No doubt President Obama will have something to say. However, we don't need an exhaustive list with flag icons lighting up the page like a Christmas tree and people expressing their condolences, which has happened before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some guy is "leaving it up in case it turns out to be workplace violence." At least that's a new reason. Does it make sense to anyone? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:37, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

There is only one reaction, why delete? XavierItzm (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because one thing leads to another. People see shit in Google News, they see a Reaction section here, something clicks and the pile grows. We're powerless to stop it, really, but it's always nice to try. Since you're here, what does workplace violence have to do with anything? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

The San Bernardino terror attack was initially classified as a possible workplace violence incident: "It's also possible that this was was workplace related," Obama said" http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/politics/san-bernadino-shooting-political-reaction/

OK. So what does the San Bernardino shooting have to do with this? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Well, couldn't this Orlando situation be another workplace violence incident, like Fort Hood? Even the FBI for now only "suspects" a link to Islam in Orlando. By way of contrast, Fort Hood is officially classified as "workplace violence" (see wikipedia: " The Defense Department currently classifies Hasan's attack as an act of workplace violence" Better not jump to conclusions yet. XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the most confusing bit for me is how this reaction doesn't mention workplace violence, Islam, Fort Hood, San Bernardino or whatever. Just condolences and getting to the bottom of things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that this was "workplace"-related, and what little is known about Mateen strongly suggests otherwise. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You could say exactly the same about San Bernardino, yet the maximum political authority in the United States initially stated it could be workplace violence. You could also say the same about Fort Hood, yet until today it is officially classified as "workplace violence." So, this could eventually also be classified as "workplace violence," don't you think? Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My only problem is it getting cluttered with unnecessary junk. If we can keep that down, it will be good. United States Man (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We just got our first "thoughts and prayers" from an entirely uninvolved politician. I give it an hour before Trudeau shows up. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise, maybe it could be put in a collapsable section

Reactions 2

I would like to suggest that we limit reactions from politicians to the mayor, the governor, and the president, especially since it's an election season.- MrX 16:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See "Delete the reactions section already?" above. Agreed on not getting bogged down here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked the existing section.- MrX 16:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Individuals who don't have current jurisdiction over the incident do not need to be quoted. I'd be OK with legislators representing Orlando/Florida. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to include some notable reactions from major political figures internationally. This does not interfere with the election and is very common for such articles. AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Britain has its own problems. Reading that Cameron didn't like this teaches nobody anything useful. But yeah, if something actually notable is said, maybe.InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

"Don't quite see the connection with the EU referendum to be perfectly honest. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And I don't see the connection to this incident. His condolescences are appreciated, but (with all respect) he's just some guy from another country telling us what he thinks. There are a lot of those, and they don't add understanding to the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all that meant. That's his business, this is Orlando, Florida and Washington's. And this wasn't meant to sound anti-Francophone. Picked an arbitrary celebrity, then thought better of it after I saved. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely not include international reactions, which will be predictably trite and critical of US gun control. Just say no to soapboxing.- MrX 16:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I am outraged that we don't have a separate article with lost of nice colourful flags and the identical reactions on Twitter of the foreign secretaries of Seychelles, East Timor, Nauru and Suriname. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not start getting defensive about gun control, now. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Same with the governor of Idaho or the mayor of Miami or [insert famous actor here]... they're uninvolved bystanders, whose opinions are no more notable than mine. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we should have a laundry list of reactions (all essentially saying the same thing) from foreign officials around the world. I would be OK with a generic overview sentence, if desired ("Following the shooting, condolences were sent from many foreign heads of state and government around the world" + cites). Neutrality^talk 17:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's usually the compromise. Best to find a compilation article, rathen than clutter up the reference section. Something like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need a list of quotes, but we should add a summary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The international reactions section has been re-started now by several editors AusLondonder (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions again

The article is developing exactly the sort of flagcruft section that was warned against and consensus is against. Time for a prune, but I don't want to edit war.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mostly major countries like India, Brazil and the UK are listed along with the reaction of the first Muslim to be elected Mayor of London. That's not flagcruft. There may have been a weak consensus against before but new editors have added the material. Let them have a say here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have replaced the exhaustive list (which threatens to overwhelm the article as it grows and grows inexorably) with a two-sentence summary (diff). I think it is especially a bad idea to directly cite to Tweets. We should absolutely wait for the press to synthesize all this, rather than attempt to do it ourselves. Neutrality^talk 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I support your change, this is a much better approach. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pope

• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/12/pope-francis-condemns-massacre-at-florida-nightclub.html ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not really needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Really? The pope's reaction to an event is not worth mentioning? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we post this we might as well post all international responses, which were initially listed but later removed per consensus. So I'd only support adding Pope comments if other international reactions are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the Pope's reaction is not worth mentioning, any more than the Dalai Lama's is.- MrX 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pope is technically a head of state, so I'd say it's more worth mentioning as much as any other head of state. That's only if all international responses are re-added. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a brief paragraph summarizing reactions by notable individuals would be appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now comments by Lars Løkke Rasmussen have been added. I realize we don't need a list of people and their quotes, but this article should note that people around the world are responding to this incident. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that international statements are back in the article, I'd have no objection to adding the Pope's comments. Crumpled Fire (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Gun control reactions

There will likely be some notable reactions, but right now the only entry is a report that one lawmaker plans to introduce a bill that doesn't seem to be directly related to this subject or the perpetrator - should this be maintained? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

50 dead?

The following discussion 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.

---

Several outlets appear to be reporting 50 dead (USATODAY) - most are reporting 20; have any retractions of the 50 number been publised? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

None have been published yet, but all major media is now reporting 50. I expect sources to follow. United States Man (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

AP is reporting 50 casualties, including shooter, and 53 hospitalized in mass shooting at Orlando nightclub. Officials speaking at the recent press conference also seem to be going with the figure of 50 fatalities Ashenst8 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

People are conflating "casualties" with "dead." XavierItzm (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At this point, that is what I think as well. But, we have to go with the sources. They seem hell-bent on 50. United States Man (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too, when it was the The Washington Post, but then the British news (the good ones, not The Daily Mail) said it. I tried to revert myself, but United States Man beat me to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Early reports said "20", later reports say "50", probably because previously-injured people have since died and more deaths have been confirmed. It is common for death tolls to go up like this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The later point appears to be one of the key reasons, in particular it was suggested that need to check for any unexploded bombs or booby traps meant it was a while before it was possible to start even a proper basic examination of the scene. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The media can often get things wrong in these highly charged late breaking news situations but it seems this case they made the correct call as the figure has been out there for a while, but no one AFAIK has corrected it. Casualties generally includes more then the dead, but in this case it seems it was referring only to the dead. The media probably figured based on the fact that the 20 figure was referring to the number of dead not injured+dead and also that that the 50 figure wasn't including those hospitalised. (The later meant either casualties was referring to both people who were dead or injured (which given the length of time would surely mean these people's injuries weren't serious enough) but not injured people who had been hospitalised, a fairly weird combination. Or it was referring only to those dead.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2016 (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.

Infobox of perpetrator

The following discussion 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.

---

Do we need the infobox of the perpetrator in this article? I've seen some articles of shootings with and without one and it doesn't seem to fit correctly in right now. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It could wait, although Sandy Hook does have one. United States Man (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it, like the other terrorist attacks. XavierItzm (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've temporarily commented it out - it does appear to be OK for general inclusion, however with the article being short it appears very high on the page for most resolutions - development on the box data should continue. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep it, this is what we've always done, gives an overview of the terrorist without having to create a whole page about him that could be used to glorify him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThiefOfBagdad (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't an RFC vote, and not all terrorist attack pages have an infobox of its perpetrator(s). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree; let it stay but hide it for now. United States Man (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The initial inclusion was organic, so in WP:BRD I'm find with taking the bold stance in the hide, I was reverted no big deal: let's discuss further - though my main concern should go away soon as the article content continues to expand. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I "re-hid" it, and I think that is what is supported now. United States Man (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look kinda weird now that there isn't a lot of info on him. Let's make it appear once there's enough. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it will reappear later. This is only temporary. United States Man (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The general use should be OK, and comparing to say 2015 Chattanooga shootings - and once the page gets built out a bit more it should fit right in - this is the top ITN and a national news story now, so maintaining balance and accuracy is very important to our readers right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I expect within the day the content will grow to make this lay out better. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we get about 3 more paragraphs of text in the Incident, Investigation, and Victims sections this should be good to unhide in general. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the page seems to have grown enough for this to be balanced now, at most resolutions it is "beneath the fold". Thank you all above for working together on this. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why has the perpetrator page been removed? A lone wolf attacker causing the largest terror attack in US after 11 September attacks is important enough to have an article dedicated to him. isoham (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2016 (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.

Infobox image

Is it appropriate to use an image here? Other than the map, this would be the only article image. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suppose another imagine would be alright to use in the article (such as the club or crime scene evidence), however using a picture of the perpetrator would need discussion. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has added an image - I don't really have an opinion on to if it should be included or not right now though. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

That's always the third issue, after the name and the reactions. Shall we wait for investigators to determine motives for once, or continue to follow the catchy headlines, and display a gigantic terrorism infobox and tiny category listing? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Some caution needed. I always remember the media deciding initially that the 2011 Norway attacks were likely the work of Islamic extremists, but as we know now, a single white extremist was responsible. Details will emerge about the shooter, but sometimes a motive is harder to pin down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This could be workplace violence, exactly like the mass shooting in Fort Hood in 2009, or like San Bernardino, which was originally considered to possibly have been a workplace violence incident. Better not jump to conclusions. XavierItzm (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Perp's father now claiming it has "nothing to do with religion" and was prompted by the perp's reaction to seeing gay men kissing a few months earlier. More reason to exercise caution in regard to the motive. Crumpled Fire (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Devout Muslim" label, sourced Fox News, seems debatable too.--Dans (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be pretty politically incorrect to imply that a Quran-inspired attack had something to with Islam in the article, but that's the truth and we will have more sources on it soon as the police will release details. --Pudeo' 15:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's be careful here and not jump to conclusions. These things may seem "obvious" years after with the benefit of hindsight, but this is still very much a breaking news/developing story. I would shy away from ascribing motives as of now, short of a mention that various leads are being pursued. GAB^gab 15:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell what was going on inside the head of a mass shooter at the time, particularly if he died in the incident. We still don't really know why Adam Lanza carried out the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Mateen may have left behind some sort of manifesto explaining his actions, but if he hasn't, a certain amount of joining the dots will be needed to figure out why he did it. Tabloid sourcing should be avoided in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

One of Wiki's strengths in reporting is that we don't have to sell papers or collect hits today. We will all know so much more in a few hours, and infinitely more tomorrow. It's fine to wait. Profhum (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, terror isn't terrorism, and "terror attack" is merely a suggestive buzzword. Fools a lot of people. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

It's getting increasingly clear (CNN, Fox, and RT have said it) that this was an Islamic Terrorism incident. Additionally, there are chances this may be linked to ISIS. This should be put into infobox. isoham (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"there are chances this may be" doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we shall wait then until it is verified, which it obviously will. Since the reports now say that it wasn't just an Islamic Terrorism incident, but more specifically, an attack claimed by ISIS as well. isoham (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS. I'd consider that indicative of Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The boy who flew into the Bank of America building with a handwritten note pinned to himself shortly after 9/11, the note saying he pldged allegiance to Al Qaeda, wasn't literally a member. Lone wolves who pledge allegiance to a group to make a point may then be retroactively affiliated by the group to claim credit. It may well be terrorism, it may be homophobia, but none of that means ISIS is 'behind' this or that his motivations and affiliations are self-evident. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Photos of Pulse in parade

Photos here if anyone wants to migrate them If they think they are useful:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=pulse%20orlando&license=4%2C5%2C9%2C10

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the map in the infobox, but it is early days. A lot of the images on Flickr aren't well suited as an exterior of the nightclub itself would be best. If someone in Florida could take a photo of the club, that would be great.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Images now on commons here:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Thank you for uploading these images. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Location image

How about this File:1912 S Orange Ave 2.png ? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted on the file_talk: If this is not the correct license, this may not be usable. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A watermark has been removed from the image, which can lead to problems. It is a photo of 1912 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32806, which is the address of the club.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded the watermark version as well [1] if it is more appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki has become the newspaper of record

I realized, after the French terrorist attacks last year, that these days I had begun turning in frustration to the Wiki Talk page instead of to the New York Times. The media, both liberal and conservative, were all invested in one political position or another. Each article could have been titled, "See? I told you so!" and the facts selected were skewed to prove that. I got tired of wading through the Root Causes and turned here. I hope all you editors and writers can keep up those standards. Profhum (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. GAB^gab 16:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. OfficialNeon (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Gun used

the wikipedia page lists him using an "assault rifle", he used an AR-15, which is actually a semi-automatic rifle.

the confusion likely arises from police reporting it was an "AR-15-type assault rifle"

real assault rifles in the USA are banned seeing as they're automatic.

sources:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-orlando-police-report-controlled-explosion-39789724

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-about-20-dead-in-domestic-terror-incident-at-gay-club/?utm_term=.ea8dbd03fd50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatesdigimon (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems to come from a police tweet "@ChiefJohnMina Suspect had handgun and AR15 type rifle." Not quite so clear cut, but it's interesting that Adam Lanza also used an AR-15 at Sandy Hook, which he was able to fire once every two seconds for the duration of the shooting as a semi-automatic rifle.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does the page show the coordinates 81.376815°W, where they should be -81.376815°W? I can't get it fixed because when you try to edit the page it does say -81.376815°W! OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be 81.376815°W? Wouldn't -81.376815°W be equivalent 81.376815°E? Florida is obviously west of the prime meridian. D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the underlying (source) text has a negative sign while what the reader sees does not. That may make sense (I'm admitting complete ignorance here); if it doesn't, the place to discuss is Template talk:Coord. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"W" and "-" are interchangeable; just as "S" and "-" are - however they are contradictory if used together. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@John Broughton: Did that. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The source of the revision at the time of your original post [2] does not say -81.376815°W. It says {{coord|28.519364|-81.376815|region:US-FL_type:event|display=inline,title}}. Negative degrees are rarely used for human readers and should never be combined with N/E/S/W as far as I know, so the template correctly writes it as 81.376815°W. A positive number 81.376815 would have been written as 81.376815°E. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

{{archive top}

Mini request for "External links" section: change "Official website" to "Official website of Pulse" or "of Pulse Orlando". Elsewise it looks like there is already an official site related to the shooting. 87.114.160.161 (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done. Already done just before your request was made. Crumpled Fire (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (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.

Terrorist attack in lead:

A sentence was changed from:

It is the deadliest mass shooting in American history (surpassing the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007) and the largest act of terrorism since the September 11 attacks in 2001.[7][5][6][8]

To this:

The incident is the deadliest mass shooting in United States history.[7][4][6][8]

There are multiple sources attesting that it is a terrorist attack, and that it is bigger than the 9-11 attacks. Officials are treating the investigation as a case of domestic terorrism. How many sources are needed? We can quibble over what might be the exact motives, but it's pretty obviously a terrorist attack. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's too speculative and we don't know what was going on in the gunman's head. Investigators are looking into a possible Islamic extremist motive but it is early days yet. See the "Terrorism" section above. WP:TERRORIST discourages splashing this term around without clear cut sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Support keeping the mention of a terrorist attack in the lede. It is clearly a defining part of this incident and easily source-able. AusLondonder (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Law enforcement officials are treating the case as an act of domestic terrorism" is in the opening paragraph and accurately describes the situation at the moment. Saying "it is terrorism" is WP:OR because it isn't clearly supported by the sourcing given.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

How is it Original Research to cite new articles calling it a terror attack? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This seems inevitable, albeit too early. Just remember to use sources that call it an act of terrorism, rather than an act of terror. One is scary, the other is a tactic to coerce policy change. And if you're comparing it to 9/11, be sure the source does, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing comparisons to 9/11 in the articles cited. The comparison to an earlier incident that it surpasses is redundant: we just said it was the deadliest ever. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

From The Guardian: "Officials have described the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism, and said there are “suggestions” that the gunman “may have had leanings” toward a violent jihadist ideology."[3] This isn't the same as saying "it was terrorism". News media are free to speculate, they always do. A full official report will take months to compile. Let's steer clear of "Muslim-sounding name, I rest my case."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources comparing it to 9-11:

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is the deadliest single attack in the USA since 9/11, but it is also part of the long litany of mass shootings that have blighted Barack Obama's term as President. If it turns out that Mateen was able to buy a powerful gun and large quantities of ammunition despite concerns being raised about him by law enforcement, there will be more questions asked about gun laws in the USA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Only the Indian one calls it a terrorist attack. The others say terror, and one explicitly says the FBI is still determining if it was terrorism. So if you must, go with the Indian one. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is the source for the quote for deadliest attack since 9/11. XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a new CNN source: "A gay nightclub here was the scene early Sunday of the worst terror attack in U.S. history since 9/11." XavierItzm (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Attack" is cool by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

A newspaper journalist can make opinionated assertions, encyclopaedic editors can't. There are authorities whose competence it is within, after due investigation, to determine whether this was a terrorist incident: we can wait for them. This article could say that some reporters described it as terrorism, but that is only a reflection on the willingness of reporters to come to conclusions without evidence. Kevin McE (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Definition of terrorism in Patriot Act is that the intention fulfils one of three criteria:

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

no-one can yet pronounce on that. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

I'd like to add a link at the bottom to the Discrimination Portal, ( Portal:Discrimination ), as this attack was inarguably a hate crime.

Édouard (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done, because it implies clear knowledge of the motive, which is still unclear. Mateen may well have had some hatred of gays, or possibly some dispute with someone at the club. This needs time to settle down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Photo of damaged helmet & description

It's being stated elsewhere that the photo of the damaged helmet shows a bullet hole, but I believe that to be incorrect. The hole is too round and it's also positioned about dead-center in front. If you look at the other photos of SWAT team helmets, there is some type of hardware (comms or camera?) mounted in this exact spot. Likewise, the rest of the visible damage doesn't properly correlate with the location or angle of the hole.

Should commentary be added to address this? Drlegendre (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We don't add commentary that hasn't been published elsewhere. Also the photo has been deleted (probably a copyright violation), so this is no longer an issue. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pulse (nightclub)

Should we make the Pulse (nightclub) article a redirect to this article? It doesn't seem necessary as a lone article. (Not an RFC, mere discussion). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Subjects that are notable only for one incident are typically redirected to an article about that incident. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge the individual article is less than three sentences and is not independently notable. It can be easily merged into this article and in my opinion it should be merged. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Article says it's undergoing a major restructuring. Should at least wait until that is completed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep, especially while under construction. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is not an RFC. And it seems better as a redirect as stated by Jason. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the proper way to debate a merge. There are procedures for contested merges, or AfD. I should add that the article has three separate events (this, a prior shooting, and the club's inception) and some sources for each, so I'm content to leave it stand. It may be one of the more weakly justified articles, but maybe not - the media can be expected to pour a spotlight on this club now, and whatever their motivation, all that is the kind of data we need to source an article properly, which is the only thing we should ask for in order to keep it. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Photograph / mugshot

He has no criminal record? How does he have a "mugshot", then? Does anyone know? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That file is flagged for speedy deletion on commons: already - it may not be around much longer. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The photo is his driver's license photograph, apparently. I have changed the word "mugshot" (which connotes a booking photo) to the more generic "photograph." Neutrality^talk 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It has been reported that he was licensed to carry a firearm as a security guard. In most states, you will be fingerprinted and a 'mug shot' will be taken as part of the licensing procedure. This may be the source of the photo. Drlegendre (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen called 911 and pledged allegiance to ISIS, just before shooting....yet nowhere found in this article...

why is this very important fact (mentioned and confirmed on NBC news) not mentioned anywhere in the article? Mateen actually dialed and called 911, and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, etc, just before shooting. It's important, relevant, and informative crucial information, that thus far (for some reason) is nowhere in this WP article. Any thoughts? Redzemp (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen's mental health (which we don't know much about) is relevant in all of this. He may have been a Grade A crazy that ISIL would not have touched with a ten foot pole. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's been established that he made that 911 phone call pledging allegiance to ISIS. Including that fact, which is objectively established, and not mere speculation, makes no comment on his motivations and mental state. One could argue that all of ISIS is mentally ill. But such debates don't mean that their actions and words can't and shouldn't be included. Psalm84 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's in the Perpetrator section. Something a politician heard from someone or another. Reportedly could not confirm when it happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I found NBC ref, and put the info in, in "Incident" section. Redzemp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Are there any ISIS-related categories to add, or is more than pledging allegiance required to establish a connection with the terrorist group? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The NBC source actually says he pledged to the leader of ISIS (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi). What he pledged is anyone's guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post: "made a 911 call before the attack identifying himself and pledging allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, according to U.S. law enforcement officials" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/12/orlando-nightclub-shooting-about-20-dead-in-domestic-terror-incident-at-gay-club/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_orlando-banner%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f523e0cb044e XavierItzm (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The ISIS connection is being reported all over the media as fact, and given that there is a recorded phone call, that is hard evidence. It belongs in the article. It's not a question of "if," but "how." At this point, it's been established that he called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS, and the media commentators are saying this isn't clear if this means that he is a mere sympathizer, or if he coordinated with ISIS. A statement reflecting that should be in the article. That also obviously leaves open the question of his personal motives, saying nothing definitive about them. It is not speculating on his state of mind, but merely reporting on a significant, overt action he took himself. Psalm84 (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Muslim response

Found out about this today because my PVR of Face the Nation was replaced by news reports. After doctor discussing blood drives the president and senior imam of the Islamic Society of Central Florida named Muhammad Mustri came on to speak and urged people not to jump to conclusions. Has anyone else spoke on it?

Even if this was either homophobia or mishomoy (whatever you call hatred instead of fear) has anyone commented on Islam and homosexuality in the media? Ranze (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Quote from father

As the only person available so far who can speak from first-hand knowledge of the perpetrator, his father's comments seem to me highly relevant to report. He says that it wasn't about religion, and whether you believe him or not, he's a character witness. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree.- MrX 17:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would think that only what the father actually witnessed then, his son's anger toward homosexual behavior, should be included. The father's speculation about it not having to do with religion should be omitted IMO, as it gives undue weight to this baseless claim. Crumpled Fire (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, baseless speculation contradicted by the shooter swearing allegiance to ISIL. Should be kept out. Father only supports a secondary motivation which explains why this was targeted over non-gay nightclub. Ranze (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, especially with the revelation that the shooter swore allegiance to ISIS, the father's contradictory quote should be removed. I will remove it and if any objections are made they can join discussion here. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove ALL of it, just the part about it not being religious. Father observing hatred to gay men is certainly relevant for inclusion. Ranze (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that's what I'd meant. I only removed that part. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. A man can like ISIS and hate gays at the same time. Perhaps he felt an affinity to ISIS because it famously hates gays. Plenty of people hate gays in a secular way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

But expressing allegiance to ISIS, an explicitly religious organization, is not secular. While his original motives may not have been entirely religiously-grounded, saying the attack had "nothing to do with religion" is false. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And who appointed you the judge of his motivations here? Our role is to report the facts, not just the ones that fit your version of the story. Cherry picking which part of his father's comments to report and which to suppress violates NPOV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIS is primarily an army. It uses religion for recruiting and propaganda. Its enemies play up the "no true Muslim" thing for counterpurposes. A little prayer never hurt winning a war (its goal, after all), but the brunt of the job is in the same sort of mundane earthly pleasures a "normal" army does. Digging holes, driving trucks, shooting guns, getting paid. Maybe he just thought ISIS could use a hand in demoralizing or antagonizing Americans, rather than anything about martyrdom or jihad. ISIS is definitely less secular than ISIS, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

We definitely should include this comment, because it was made and widely reported and relevant. How we interpret that comment... it's interesting. There are a number of articles out about the father now, and I suspect more are coming; there's a lot of bait in the water and the reporters aren't going to leave until every last scrap has been picked up, I hope. We just have to go one article at a time, writing down what we can support with the source in hand. Wnt (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Victims

I realize the article is new but, the amount of victims killed and wounded should be uniform throughout the article. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It is: 50 dead (49 civilians plus the shooter), 53 wounded (52 civilians plus a police officer). 87.114.160.161 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, latest news reports appear to be saying that the figure of 50 includes the shooter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the shooter is a victim as well.- MrX 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep he's dead, but past precedent at Wikipedia articles is to make clear if the figure includes the perpetrator, eg Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

50 dead is fine but we should not say 50 victims. Shooter is not a victim. Ranze (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Patrick

• http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

As of now there is no terrorism link, so why is the article in the terrorism category? IQ125 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Many sources refer to this event as an act of terrorism. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The shooter pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. If the Islamic State is not, by definition, associated to terrorism, what is? (Reuters) - Omar S. Mateen, the Florida resident suspected of killing 50 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, called 911 before the shooting and swore allegiance to Islamic State, NBC News said on Twitter.In a posting on its web site, MSNBC said Mateen swore allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. He didn't suddenly become a decent actress. Same backwards deal here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's terrorism. It's also widely being reported as such.- MrX 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because everything you read is true? Kevin McE (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

President Obama's comments were "We know enough to say this was an act of terror and an act of hate," he said. "The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror. We will go wherever the facts lead us ... What is clear is he was a person filled with hatred."[7] No problem with mentioning this as Obama's response, but the investigation will continue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This should be a clear-cut case. No idea why some editors are hell-bent on playing down the terrorist nature of this incident (as stated by government and reliable sources) AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some government and reliable sources. The jury is still very much out. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Can I help edit pages?

I promise, I wouldn't mess around, I will add latest info and add references links. Please see this, thanks. OfficialNeon (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Voting

OMAR MIR SEDDIQUE MATEEN was born 16 November 1986 and he lives (or lived) at 2513 S 17TH ST APT 107 in FORT PIERCE, St. Lucie County, Florida, U.S.A. His voter ID number is 114484524. He registered to vote 19 July 2006 and he is registered in the Florida Democratic Party. He is listed as Other (race).

Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_U9oyDDIIpgJ:flvoters.com/by_number/1144/84524_omar_mir_seddique_mateen.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.203.135.124 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is similar to WP:BLPPRIVACY although he is dead. It isn't all that relevant and would need to appear in secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should list a street address but mentioning he is from St Lucie would probably be okay, and that he is registers democrat. Ranze (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how being registered Democrat really matters. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not published source, so we can't use it at all. We also should avoid WP:PRIMARY sources in general.- MrX 18:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. Primary sources at not to be be avoided. It is completely acceptable to use them to support basic info. Secondary sources are only needed to state interpretations of that info. Primary supports "he was Democrat" but not something silly like "he did this because he was democrat". Ranze (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, carefully. A document of questionable provenance, posted to the cloud, cannot be used.- MrX 19:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I list an apparent direct link to the source below. However, it may qualify as a primary source for a BLP and still fail. But the data in it is really useful for getting started down the rabbit hole... Wnt (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: I would consider flvoters.com to be a reasonably reliable WP:TERTIARY source because I believe their data is gleaned directly from Florida voter records. The degree of detail that we should add to this article would then be a matter of editorial discretion. His address should not be listed, but his party affiliation may be a point of interest.- MrX 23:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: I am reluctant to call it tertiary or secondary because it doesn't correlate more than one source, i.e. the voter records. It's all a very automatic transcription. True, to introduce bad data from the voter registration you'd have to commit a serious crime, unlike with other forms of publication, but in terms of how sure you can be that the data is correct? I mean, it's not unheard of to move and forget to change your registration, for example. I'd like simply to acknowledge it as primary and include it anyway, being careful about interpretation, but that's kind of an IAR against BLP situation. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a non-primary (news) source that both he and Moner Mohammad Abu Salha lived in Fort Pierce, Florida in that article. I would welcome the added detail but I do recognize that Wikipedia shows some resistance to this level of detail. For what it's worth you can find out all kinds of computer generated shite about this unit at Zillow etc ... no idea if this is real or just a simulation though. [8][9][10] (third one is surprising - realtor.com makes it look like a standalone building, not an apartment, in a photo they provide) Note the original source is apparently [11] and they provide data for another person at this address, which I am afraid to try to share here but comes up readily from the street address via Google. Wnt (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC) With this kind of primary data you can keep digging and find non-reliable sources like [12] - we cannot use these, but they point in interesting directions - says the father was a candidate for president of Afghanistan and former director of the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce Inc; these will be interesting to check out and see if we can confirm! Wnt (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Note: the Afghan President thing is confusing - apparently, it may not be real according to the Washington Post, though he certainly represented himself as such in a long video episode. Him being a former director of the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce is traceable to www*corporationwiki*com/Florida/Fort-Pierce/mateen-siddique-P6268692.aspx (blacklisted here, I should add) which alas is several bricks shy of a load in terms of sourcing, yet really intriguing. Maybe the press will look up the records and give us something. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

I suggest adding the following in the 'reactions' section:

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick responded to the incident at 7 a.m. Sunday by by tweeting "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Galatians 6:7". Following strong criticism for the tweet his adviser Allen Blakemore said that it was an unfortunate coincidence and that 'the post was designed and scheduled last Thursday'. Shortly afterwards another post was tweeted from the account, from Psalm 37:39, "The Salvation of the righteous come from the Lord; He is their stronghold in time of trouble".

Reference for this information: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php

18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done. What a Texas lieutenant governor said is entirely irrelevant. Only reactions from Orlando/Florida and U.S. national officials are listed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Aside from what has already been said, there isn't even evidence that this was a "reaction" to the attacks. As you said, his advisor said it was an unfortunate coincidence. Crumpled Fire (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Time and chance happeneth to them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done This is politician's blather and the consensus is to keep the reactions to a minimum. Texas is not in Florida. Also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Not done non story. A politician's account sent out an automated tweet that was pre-selected with a stock bible verse - this is a non-issue and he deleted it.-- Callinus (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources discussed it, so it might be suitable for inclusion somewhere ... but not here. This is fundamentally a story about that governor and the unfortunate interpretations people put on his Twitter/Bible bot, and if it goes somewhere, it's in an article about him. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

1RR due to SCW&ISIL sanctions

Please note that this article is automatically placed under 1RR restriction due to the ISIL link to the event. Please avoid edit-warring and refer to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL for details.GreyShark (dibra) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be seeking a clarification from WP:AN Arbcom on this, as 1RR is an onerous requirement for an article about a recent event.19:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And very tenuously linked. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Not really needed at the moment. Normal good faith editing is required. Somebody seems overexcitable here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've requested clarification from the community at WP:AN.- MrX 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Victims section

The following discussion 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.

---

Sparse info. Can we expand this as thy identify them? Even before that have the police given a gender breakdown? I figured it was a male gay club so it would be mostly men but I remember reading w woman got shot in the arm so was curious of any of the fatalities were women and how many. Ranze (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (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.

Semi-Protected Edit Request on 12th June

Hello, I would like to add the following info:

The agency responsible of the news of the Islamic State, Amaq, claims a IS fighter carried out the shooting. In his earlier statement, President Obama said the US was still investigating any "sympathies" or "associations" the suspect may had had. It is still unclear if the killer had any direct links to the group, (ISIS)

Thank you.

OfficialNeon (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See also

Currently, the see also section displays the following three two links:

• History of violence against LGBT people in the United States
• List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2016
• Significant acts of violence against LGBT people (this link has since been removed)

There is some disagreement about whether or not Significant acts of violence against LGBT people should also be included. Thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Bringing your attention to this discussion in case you wish to add your two cents. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly seems like a relevant link to me.- MrX 18:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained it to you in summary. It's redundant to include broader topic if there's already a link to a more specific one (History of violence against LGBT people in the United States).--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your explanation. I just happen to disagree, hence why I am inviting others to discuss whether or not the link should be included. All three links seem relevant to me, but of course I will yield to consensus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems relevant. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing out what the sources state

Both sources CNN and ABC read that this is the deadliest "terror attack" since 9/11. Yet people keep citing only what they like, i.e., "attack", and removing what they don't like, i.e. "terror." Clearer cases of bias in editing are rarely seen. XavierItzm (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed "terrorist" once. That's a whole other ball of wax from terror, and wasn't supported by the source, aside from what it appeared like to Michael McCaul. If the source says terror attack with certainty, say terror attack or attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Note, President Obama said an "act of terror and an act of hate". Terror is warranted. -- Callinus (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted)

I have been hearing about this guy being an Islamic leader in Orlando and saying some controversial things about homosexuality shortly before the shooting. If sources cover this would it be notable to include?

Do we know the names of mosques that the shooter attended and if (Redacted) has any connection to them? Ranze (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is NOTAFORUM and it's inappropriate to make unsourced speculations about living people.- MrX 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You missed a spot redacting. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Got it. thanks.- MrX 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Not all deaths due to Mateen

I'm reading suggestions in some sources that the police response caused some deaths. The lead sentence may overstate the case. --Pete (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the cops caused any deaths, that'll be revealed during autopsies & will be reported. Then it can be added to the article. Until then, it'd just be speculation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw a report stating this. Trying to find it again in the flood. Good to see that we aren't claiming Mateef was killed by police. --Pete (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Images

The amount and layout of the images is getting messy per MOS:IMAGE. Do we really need all of them? I'm tempted to do some pruning.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As of this posting there are 3 images, which I don't think is all that excessive. However, perhaps a good idea would be to remove the generic picture of the nightclub in the infobox and replace it with the picture of the police arriving on scene? Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some images were removed in this edit, which was a good idea. They weren't really adding to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I added the image of Obama in the Oval Office. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Motive?? Comment

Possibly something other than "radical islam". [13] Eteethan(talk) 19:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Perp had bragged about ties to "terrorist organizations" since at least 2013, and was investigated by the FBI at that time. He also pledged allegiance to ISIS during the attack, and ISIS claimed responsibility for it. A month-old incident reported through hearsay from his father doesn't carry as much weight. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's too early to say. If past mass shootings in the USA are anything to go by, Mateen may have been a wack job who developed a fascination with radical Islam. This would create a quasi-Islamic motive rather than a clear cut one. The article already mentions his father's belief that religion was not the direct motive. The MSN article says "While no one may ever know what was truly going on in the head of the man who shot over 100 people at a gay Florida nightclub early Sunday, his family says he may have been motivated by pure hate against the LGBT community" which is one of the more sensible things said in the media today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I see that Islamic Terrorism has been added to the list of motives. The list now looks like Mass shooting, Mass murder, Islamic Terrorism, Hostage taking, Domestic terrorism, Hate crime. Mass murder, Domestic terrorism now look redundant due to Mass shooting, and Islamic Terrorism respectively, and should be removed. Further, Hate crime should mention Homophobia in parentheses. isoham (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, sources only supported him having homosexual men, not fearing them, do not abuse "phobia". Ranze (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

L.A. pride festival

Currently, the article says, "A man on his way to a pride festival in West Hollywood was arrested after tannerite, assault rifles and ammunition was found in his vehicle. There is no known connection between this incident and the attack in Orlando, though security at the festival will be increased." Is this appropriate? If there is no connection between these two incidents, I don't think the L.A. incident is worth mentioning. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it should be removed. Crumpled Fire (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Removed ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The same text now appears in the "Incident" section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have deleted the name of the killer's ex-wife, who had no connection to the actual events.

Per policy at, WP:BLP "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's action" and "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care".

μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Shooter Killed 50 Victims - Please Fix

The mayor of Orlando clearly stated on CNN that the 50 killed does not include the shooter. The mayor stated 2 victims were found dead outside the club, 39 victims were found dead inside the club and 9 victims died at the hospital. The mayor also stated that including the shooter there were 40 dead inside the club. Therefore, please fix this within the article, it includes the killer in the 50 dead total, when in actuality, he killed 50 people and including him, 51 people died. Thank you kindly.

Thank you for your feedback. OfficialNeon (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Facebook Safety Check

Not sure if useful, Facebook has activated their Safety Check program for this incident. <ref>{{cite web|title=Orlando nightclub shooting: Facebook activates Safety Check feature|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-nightclub-shooting-facebook-safety-check-the-pulse/|website=www.cbsnews.com}}</ref> — xaosflux ^Talk 20:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The article had mentioned this at one point. I think it is worth noting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It was in the reactions section. I think it's OK to mention it very briefly.- MrX 20:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've restored it to the article per the discussion here; I'm not sure whether this was taken out accidentally or purposefully, but it's certainly worthy of the one sentence. (It is quite rare for Facebook to active the feature, and its deployment in this case was noted by CBS News, Time, The Orlando Sentinel, and many others).Neutrality^talk 20:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We should be careful about balance here. Is Facebook's reaction more notable than the Pope's? Gh0d I hope not! Wnt (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

List of victims

The following discussion 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.

---

Re this edit: I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm not sure if a list of all the victims is necessary. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I just re-included this as a statement rather than a list, but the reference goes to an external live list (see note below) — xaosflux ^Talk 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is a RS for victims: <ref>{{cite web|title=Victims|url=http://www.cityoforlando.net/blog/victims/|website=City of Orlando}}</ref> . It is being updated following notification of families. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

At least not at this point, and not without rock-solid sourcing. I do think an external link would be fine.- MrX 20:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would not put in a list of victims until there is a final list released by an official source (which could take a week or so). If we are to include a list, we should not do it piecemeal. Neutrality^talk 20:19, 12 June 2016 (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.

ISIL hasn't claimed shit

The actual quote is here. Even presuming that Amaq is legit and not something SITE whipped up, it doesn't say ISIS claimed responsibility. It just says someone told it that buddy was an IS fighter. This truth was removed as undue. But The Telegraph, which mischaracterizes the supposedly unreliable source remains. The Independent, based on the same, at least calls it "alleged" and notes "an official claim from ISIS has been disputed." But Wikipedia currently looks foolish for not following the original source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Mateen may have been a typical wack job who looked up a few radical Islamic websites and thought "Hey, I can do something like Bataclan." The media is going over the top with dubiously sourced speculation during the first 24 hours as usual.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Katz herself seems to think the media missed the point. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I realize that the claim is dubious. No objection adding "alleged" or "disputed", or removing it altogether.- MrX 20:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed the dubious claim and reworded it in a more WP:DUE manner. Hopefully this solves the problem. Parsley Man (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I see a "reportedly" has been tacked on. Not sure if that was the extent of your edit, or someone else's. But now that it's not tagged as dubious, I don't think "reportedly" gets across that nothing of the sort happened. Would it hurt to just say what Amaq said? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

I found a source that both quotes the anonymous Amaq message, and three anonymous American officials who say there's no evidence of a connection. That might clear things up. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

New death count

CNN reporting on TV that the new death count is 52. 2601:646:9901:AAE0:21C3:2D62:890F:E302 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Headline still reads "50 dead, 53 wounded." United States Man (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

WTLV reports 59, but quantifies that it's "according to Gina Duncan from Equality Florida." 🖖ATS / Talk 21:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Orlando Police Dept Twitter just tweeted "Pulse Shooting: The number of dead has NOT changed. It remains at 50. Please avoid erroneous reporting." --Flipper9 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming here to post that. Thanks! 🖖ATS / Talk 21:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?

RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved? - MrX 20:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This has happened many times, and after the initial fuss has died down, the exhaustive flagcruft lists are pruned back to a few notable examples in plain text sentences. This will happen here in due course.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm. Let it run its course, and it will be fixed later. I, for the record, am in support of keeping that section short. United States Man (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That isn't true. There have been many attempts to sneakily "prune" after the event, most have failed. Attempts to "prune" at the Paris or Brussells articles have failed. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only in summary form. I support only two or so sentences along the lines of my formulation here (the current status quo at the article):

Many people on social media and elsewhere expressed their shock at the events and extended their condolences to those affected, including presidential candidates, members of Congress and other U.S. political figures, foreign leaders, Pope Francis, and celebrities. [citations]

I do not support a list (with flags or otherwise), and I especially do not support direct citations to Tweets. Neutrality^talk 20:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This question is far too open-ended. I think, in accordance with long-standing precedent, the article should include some reactions from major/neighbouring world leaders such as the Prime Ministers of Canada, India and the United Kingdom and the President of Brazil for example. The reaction of the first Muslim Mayor of London would arguably be notable. Reactions of every senator or candidate is obviously not notable. The usual contentious problem of whether to include the reactions of minor countries may not be as present as there has been far fewer reactions than there was for the Paris attacks. I question why the reactions list was removed pending the outcome of this discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  The question is: what is encyclopedic, about a listing of predictable comments from uninvolved people? The answer is: WP:NOTAMEMORIAL and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. You might as well just copy-paste the same section from an article about a plane crash, and change "plane crash" to "night club shooting".- MrX 20:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• No If someone announces they've become directly involved somehow, beyond thinking and praying, sure. But nobody gains by hearing that so-and-so was as shocked and saddened as the next guy, except so-and-so. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, June 12, 2016 (UTC)
• Only in summation as per the others. Ian is correct, and many of us have seen exactly the same thing. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Where? AusLondonder (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking through my contribs trying to find it—it was a while ago, sorry. (Edit: I know it was terrorist-related, but I can't find it. You'll just have to take my word for it—or not. ) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only in summary form. I'd agree with summary form only as a list notable people making generic statements and not really pertinent to the article though listing a summary of some key statements later on might make sense such as "World leaders such as () and as far away as () gave their condolences."—--Flipper9 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Perpetator" is still a suspect

The article is treating Omar Mateen as he's been fully confirmed a perpetator. But the authorities are still treating him as a suspect even though he was at the nightclub and most likely is responsible. I don't think we should call him a "perpetator" when he's still being considered a suspect by the authorities. That is equal to making our own conclusions. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Several sources call him the perpetrator.- MrX 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Since he's dead he isn't going to sue for libel. There seems to be little doubt that Mateen was the shooter, although some sources are still using the word suspect, eg here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Many news sources will continue to use "suspect" out of respect for a perp's living family members. I speak from experience. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There are strong similarities here to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, where police caused two of the fatalities and all of the injuries. Probably premature to speculate that Mateen was the sole gunman, particularly as we also have reports that the police were firing. --Pete (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We haven't had any conspiracy theories yet. Where have all the tinfoil hat wearers gone today? Usually they would have turned up by now and said that it was all a false flag operation. It's too early to say whether police gunfire caused any of the deaths, and the media seems pretty sure that Mateen was the only shooter..--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We have to use common sense, not legalistic distinctions, because they don't prosecute the dead. There's never going to be a trial. If the cops say he was the perpetrator, well, you can think what you will, but if the reliable sources say he's the perpetrator, we take their word for it. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: List of victims

We have a list of victims of the mass shooting incident in Orlando, Florida, in the article. Shall we allow the list or remove it? --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of full lists of victims, but some people may insist on having one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow for now. As noted in the other RfC, these things tend to trim themselves in time. Based on what I've seen, it will eventually become a summary paragraph with details of the most notable victims. (Full disclosure: I tend to argue for, anyway, based on the argument that these articles can too easily become shrines to the perpetrators.) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - not unless any victims were notable in their own right. There looks to be about a hundred dead and injured, and how do we select which to list? All of them? This is going to be some time before a complete and accurate list is available. And what if we list someone as dead according to an early report, and they later pop up unharmed, having nipped out for a private party elsewhere? Or vie versa. We can have a seperate article with a list of victims later on. It will be a long list, sadly. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now. I'd have to say that maybe a separate article listing the dead might be better than listing them in the main article. (yes, yes I know the whole "wikipedia is not for lists" thing) I do think a simple list of the dead is an important part of the article itself, they are part of the event just as much as the name of the perpetrator and the name of the club are. You can then link to notable victims off that if they have their own wikipedia article about them. Just simply linking to the Orlando city website may end up losing the list of dead when it changes. --Flipper9 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow listing of dead. In previous such cases - alas, not this one! - my thought has been that the living are more numerous, so it costs more space to list them; also the BLP and privacy issues are considerably greater. For a living person to have been in a shooting (perhaps especially at a gay event) can be a matter of privacy, but for a person to have died in a place and time is purely a matter of public record. Also, with wounding there are degrees ranging from vegetative state to some cuts from broken glass - with death, there is no debating the severity. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• If It's Wiki's Policy Then Yes. All the victims' names are listed on the Virginia Tech shooting page, as well as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I would assume we'd do the same for the murdered here. As an encyclopedia it would seem logical that this sort of information would be presented. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xenomorph erotica: To be clear, you're talking about the dead victims only with that article. There are almost certainly going to be some truly heartbreaking, ghastly living casualties here, which we will want to discuss in prose; but we should be somewhat more cautious about dragging living people into this unless they have significant press coverage, which is to say, abandoning the formal requirement to fill out every single name for the wounded as a matter of format. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow for now – A am not the biggest fan of including a list of names, but at this point it seems like the best option. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now and if the article needs trimming later, or if we find notability of a murder victim here we can offload. I seriously object to "privacy" comments above, like going to a gay nightclub is shameful while going to a rock concert in Paris or taking a bus in London or attending a party in San Bernardino isn't. Shame on shaming. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bold

The last sentence of the introduction should be bold. Bold--150.216.64.124 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because ...? 🖖ATS / Talk 21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: – Hence, page protection. United States Man (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Cause of Death

The Cause of Death under the suspect's infobox says Suicide. Is this correct, because I had heard he was shot and killed by police.

We need a definitive source, one way or another. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

News media seems agreed that he was shot and killed by police, but there has been confusion in this area in previous mass shootings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done and cited. If something changes, we can fix it. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Suicide isn't a cause of death, anyway, it's a manner of death. Gunshots are the cause, anyway you slice it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, June 12, 2016 (UTC)

'One of the deadliest' vs 'deadliest' mass shooting

Multiple reports including those listed as sources in this article are describing this as the deadliest mass shooting in US history. Front page of the NY Times literally says 'ATTACK IS WORST MASS SHOOTING IN U.S. HISTORY' Shouldn't the article make this clear rather than mincing words by saying 'one of the deadliest'> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sae123 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to the definition of a mass shooting. See Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for more detail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we not include something like 'the attack was widely reported' as being the worst mass shooting in US history". The attack breaking the 'record' (if we can call it that) is a large part of why it is receiving so much media attention, particularly outside of the US. Sae123 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a modern public mass shooting where an individual shooter had access to a gun with a rapid fire capability. Comparing it to racial massacres in the 19th century USA is not comparing like with like. People in the USA were killing each other with guns long before semi-automatic weapons were invented, but it is now possible for a deranged individual shooter to kill dozens of people in the space of a few minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

and your point is....? the fact remains that almost the entire Western media is (in my opinion correctly) reporting this as the deadliest mass shooting in US history and that is clearly significant enough to warrant inclusion.Sae123 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

NPR is calling it 'the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history' I agree with Sae123 that until someone publishes a statement to the contrary we should call this the deadliest. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also agree on this point. It has been widely stated and is worth inclusion. United States Man (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit like saying land speed records are unfair because people in the 19th century only had horses and carts. Well they had trains, but anyway.... 50 exceeds the previous highest number of people killed in a single shooting incident. Surely common sense applies here.Mozzie (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent History of Promoting Killing Gays in Orlando

If there is a large group of people who paid to have someone like this speak in Orlando... this attack was a long time coming. Most articles on tragedies cover the background preluding the calamity maybe we need a background section here too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwxqqAprQ Ssh83 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree on the background section, but until there's a link between the guy in the video and the perp, it's just speculation - we could just as well put Pat Robertson's video on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Carlos, the link is two-fold: The first is the fact that the shooter's religion is the same as the mosque where the video was made. The second is geographic, because both this mosque and the shooter are in the same region, i.e., east central Florida. - JGabbard (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please wikilink Moner Mohammad Abu Salha

I added a redlink for this article as I found the name, and then someone found a quote that incorporated it but didn't wikilink it, so I added it back, but User:ThiefOfBagdad took it out, [14] saying that the suicide bomber "didn't deserve an article". But this particular suicide bomber was the first American to die in Syria, and his current burst of coverage in relation to Mateen, in addition to publicity over his suicide video in 2014, makes him warrant a biographical article. So I've started it, and you don't have to suffer the horror of looking at a redlink if you use it. (I think redlinks are lovely myself; they invite growth) There's actually quite a bit out about him - I didn't even incorporate everything in the sources I linked, and there are more. So I'd like to get the link back and have some editors build on this article. Both Salha and Mateen lived in Fort Pierce, Florida, and the FBI investigated a connection in 2014 but couldn't find anything. Wnt (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Vigils

Might be worth noting the planning of vigils.

• Stonewall Inn, Manhattan: soure
• Portland, Oregon: source, source

etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL occur to me. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, too many - cities around the country appear to have these spinning up - if there were one at the shooting location (in the future) it may be notable. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Crystal? Events are already being held. I'm watching footage from Stonewall now. And re: NOTNEWS, seems something very general like, "Vigils were held in X city, Y city..." or "Vigils were held throughout the United States", etc. might be appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There are probably going to be a number of these, and listing them all really isn't a great idea. I think a brief sentence about an organized vigil in Orlando would be appropriate in the reactions section.- MrX 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Events already being held—if sufficiently notable for inclusion—would not fall under CRYSTAL; those being planned would. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think wp:recentism applies here. Would vigils be relevant in 10 years time?Mozzie (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"pledged allegiance"

We're told that the perp "swore allegiance" or "pledged allegiance" to someone or to ISIL more generally. Just a suggestion we keep an eye on this phrase. Maybe there will be a tape of the 911 call or the police will find a neutral way of reporting what was said. I'm just a tad suspicious of the phrasing, which sounds like someone's trying to make a point. I hope the authorities will provide a quote soon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Bmclaughlin9: So far as I know these loyalty oaths (Bay'at) have a very consistent format. I would not expect any surprises here. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I'm seeing a lot of reversions on the article. Four by User:Parsley Man and three by User:ATS. I note that this page is subject to 1RR, as per notice at top. Perhaps the perpetrators could still their trigger fingers a little? --Pete (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll need diffs, please, and an explanation of how anything I've done makes me a "perpetrator" of an "edit war". 🖖ATS / Talk 22:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In regards to what? Parsley Man (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Both of you, go here and do a page search on the phrase "Undid revision". I also direct you to WP:EW, which says, "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." (my italics). --Pete (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

These three edits constitute the entirety of my "undid"s—and each was correct as explained within its edit summary. Please refrain from bullshit warnings and assertions that anyone is a "perpetrator" of anything, or you may be the one facing sanctions. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether you regard your reversions as "correct" or not – and none of the three appear to be exempt – is beside the point. This article is subject to 1RR sanctions and you have breached the rule swiftly and repeatedly. I also direct you to WP:CIVIL. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of EW and 3RR is and has always been to prevent the back-and-forth that occurs in an actual edit war. Meantime, as someone who does not consider himself a "perpetrator" of anything, go read WP:CIVIL yourself. 🖖ATS / Talk 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You should direct any further comments to the report at WP:3RRN here. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@ATS: It's crazy, but read it from the horse's mouth: [15] It says one revert per editor per article per day. And you don't get dragged to the usual EW board over it, you can get dragged straight to WP:AE where damn near anything can happen (and often does). So you should be careful here. I actually myself have held off re-adding the link to Moner Mohammad Abu Salha that I described below, in case my adding the wikilink the second time would be counted as my revert ... which sucks, because it was taken out because 'we didn't need an article' and now it's a bluelink. But if people are going to be like this, I may get tempted to say adding a bluelink isn't really reverting taking out a redlink, hmmm.... Wnt (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The broad 1RR AE sanctions have been Special:Diff/725000760 removed, for now at least. That being said - not only is this on the top of the main page, and a top search hit; but also both an emotional topic and it does boarder on contentious topics -- so please edit respectfully. We should not be approaching 3RR with any regularity here - please continue to help shine a positive light Wikipedia's coverage of this area as new information becomes available. Thank you to all the editors who have developed this article over the course of the day so far - good job! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1 If your change is reverted, it'd be very, very good to discuss here instead of re-reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The police officer (and patrolcar) was deployed outside the club or ...

Should the article be more clear about where the first responding police officer was deployed to? Should the article be more clear about the police officer being stationed at one of Orlando's police stations, but deployed elsewhere? 178.232.222.245 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have some information we don't have. Can you provide a link to a source about what this deployment issue is? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Track record as security guard

Co-worker: Omar Mateen homophobic, 'unhinged' Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been incorporated. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wounded Knee

With all due respect, I doubt this should be labeled here as the deadliest shooting in the US. The Wounded Knee Massacre was far deadlier, see this link among others. Let's please change this. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think most understand it to be non-military, but maybe the article needs to say that. United States Man (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, mass shooting does not refer to battles where both group snare shooting at each other. American Revolution, Civil War or 1812 encounters could eclipse Wounded Knee if you go that route. Ranze (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The same thing I was thinking. I thought it was common sense to know that this wasn't military, but I guess not. I'm on the fence on if this should have some kind of note saying that this is the largest non-military shooting. United States Man (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wounded Knee Massacre was not a battle and any attempt to claim otherwise is ignorant and extremely disrespectful. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not a battle, but still a military conflict during a "conflict/war." That disqualifies it from "mass shooting" territory. United States Man (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ranze & United States Man - Consensus rules but I am not sure many/most sources have stated the Wounded Knee Massacre happened during wartime and was an armed conflict. Just from these comments, I think you can see people might disagree with your assessment of Wounded Knee as a military action. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources out there calling it the deadliest/worst in modern U.S. history. A lot forego the distinction, too. This article said "modern" earlier today. You'd think Fort Pillow sounds a nicer place than Bloody Island, but they were both pretty bad. What seems to set this apart (aside from recentism and racism) is the single gunman. Wouldn't hurt to clarify that. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that must be added. After reading Sandy Hook talk page discussions, that seems to be the best qualifier. Events like Wounded Knee were mass shootings, regardless of the larger conflict, I find it very disrespectful to ignore that. Right now as it is, it's plain and simple misinformation. 67.85.54.173 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, but it'll almost certainly be broken again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've seen many reliable sources describing this mass-murder by using the qualifier "in modern US/American history". I think a sentence to that effect was in the lede earlier today. Owing to the fast-moving nature of this news, I think describing this mass-murder as "worst in modern American history" is in-order, because the descriptor is what many reliable sources are using. Shearonink (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

War-time or peace-time and military conflict or mass-shooting aside, I do agree that including "modern" here would be a good idea. United States Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Related incidents

I think it would be a good idea to add two "related" incidents into this article. These include the shooting-suicide of a prominent singer in under 24 hours in the same city, and the discovery of another man with explosives who "wanted to harm the gay pride parade". These incidents may not be related, but the are similar, and should be included.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gay-pride-la-weapons-20160612-snap-story.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36507546

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beejsterb (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 June 2016

I'm not so sure that it would really be necessary to help the article at this point, but I would like to hear others' opinions on this matter. United States Man (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Those all seem too circumstantial at the moment. Parsley Man (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Parsley Man; there is little linkage between the events other than geography (in one case) and the sexual orientation of the victims/intended victims (in the other). Linking the articles would seem to be an attempt to suggest otherwise. General Ization ^Talk 00:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed one of these from the article earlier - unless a reputable source shows a topical link between these, I don't think this article is the place for those entries at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction

This is quite a bit of an WP:UNDUE issue where it's concerned. Is it really necessary? Parsley Man (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Dump it. Not helpful or necessary. United States Man (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. No candidate reaction should be necessary. Only the POTUS should count in this case! Keep the article neutralRhumidian (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above. This isn't the place for this.Mozzie (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::Well, after Democrats' reaction was added, it does seem necessary now for a WP:DUE standpoint. Parsley Man (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Never mind. Parsley Man (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The best thing would be to get rid of both sides and leave it to a few main statements. United States Man (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I also think we should remove the Bob Casey Jr statement. A lot of people are calling for gun control, so attributing it to one person is borderline promotional. I removed it once, but was reverted.- MrX 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The gun control aspect is definitely a notable aspect (as it always is in all of these cases), but the Casey statement can go. Parsley Man (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

29 March 2016

MrX edited my post above when I named this man, calling it speculation and BLP violation, which is inaccurate.

So I have chosen to name this section after the date he came to Orlando to speak. Will use his initials, FS.

Articles have already come out after this shooting making a connection to the Spring talking event and the parallels to this Summer violence:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/gays-must-die-says-muslim-at-orlando-mosque/

http://fusion.net/story/313063/orlando-terror-attack-muslim-lgbt/

This bears considering mention in the article as part of the response. Ranze (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

wnd.com is not a reliable source, and it predates the shooting anyway, so it can't be about it. I'm not sure if fusion.net is considered reliable, but I also don't see any definitive connection between the speech and the shooting. I would definitely want to see better and more sources before including anything about this in the article.- MrX 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

MrX is completely right. No reliable source has yet reported on this in connection with the shooting. (And no, "WorldNetDaily" is not a reliable source). Wait for a reliable source. And please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead section reversions

I made an edit to the lead section as per MOS:BOLD, from:

On June 12, 2016, a mass shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. At least 50 people, including the gunman, were killed and 53 people wounded.

to:

The Orlando nightclub shooting of June 12, 2016 was a mass shooting in which approximately 50 people were killed and 53 people wounded. The shooting occurred at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

However this has been reverted twice now by User:Parsley Man and User:Jujutsuan. Please note several points from the manual of style on lead sections:

• If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.
• Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
• If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.

I will not re-revert, but some change of this style should be made, and it needs to stop being reverted.Mozzie (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was more desirable not to have the title in the first sentence, but I guess not. I will put that back in. United States Man (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mozzie: thank you for bringing this to the talk page - further development may be warranted and this is the place to hash out stylistic changes. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: and @Jujutsuan: Do you have any insight in to making this lead as useful as possible? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no need for bold here, since the name is not a "formal or widely accepted name." It's just the name we've given it. Neutrality^talk 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, looking at MOS:BOLDTITLE, I came to the same conclusion that bolding isn't desirable. United States Man (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and way up at the top of this page, there is discussion on changing the title. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Parsley Man (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What about the other elements, that the title should be the subject of the sentence? (fyi: the subject comes before the verb.) As for a widely accepted name, I think the matter is grey. We can put the emphasis on most accepted or most widely accepted, or widely recognised. I favour the latter: any reasonable person would accept this name. It may change over time, for example if the article is moved, but it is more consistent with the general Style of Wikipedia.Mozzie (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2016

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → 2016 Orlando nightclub attack – Since this has been classified as a terrorist incident, it should be moved to attack via Wikipedia precedent on these kinds of things. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. Do research something before arriving on a conclusion. Also please see WP:OTHER, you cannot use other articles for justifying changes to another article. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - That does sound sensible. Parsley Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems prematureBrxBrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. the events are less than 24 hours old. Perhaps reconsider after a week or two when more information is available.Mozzie (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral – Since this seems to have been labeled as domestic terrorism, a move to "attack" to be in line with others, notably San Bernardino, is in order. But I would prefer that it wait until details are ironed out. United States Man (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's wait a week and then evaluate what the sources say and what terms they use. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please respond: "Motive" still not known

Nobody responded to my comment, please respond and discuss. Also stop editing my comments and don't move it. It's not allowed to edit other people's comments especially when they don't want it.

As I said earlier- The article mentions Islamic extremism as motive, but the actual motive hasn't been confirmed by authorities even though Mateen had pleadged to the ISIS. This act might simply be motivated by homophobia and we shouldn't simply label it as Islamic extremism especially since the real motive it isn't confirmed and just because it is homophobic doesn't mean it's automatically extremism. It could be both even. I don't see any of the sources saying that Islamic extremism as the motivation was confirmed, I suggest we avoid mentioning any motive until authorities confirm it. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

PERHAPS the deadliest terrorist attack.

I've met a few people today who don't seem to understand uncertainty. The Washington Post article footnoting the "deadliest terrorist attack" bit doesn't say it was. It says "the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning appears to represent the deadliest attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. It may also mark the doubling of the number of people killed in America by a terrorist motivated by Islamist ideology in the years since September 2001."

And then it flat-out says "The shooter's ties to terrorism are not yet fully established." I won't revert it anymore, but hope that the bold font sinks in and someone else either reflects the source or finds one that backs what they want to say. Wikipedia appears smarter that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

The CNN reference reports "the nation's worst terror attack since 9/11". If there is still ambiguity (or better yet if anyone can point to a specific contradictory article) then I'm fine for moving it back to the assumptive. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please can someone fix the death toll to the Proper number - Gunman killed 50, not 49

This Wikipedia page is the only source that states the gunman killed 49 people. This is incorrect, so please someone fix all the occurrences of this within the article to 50 killed by the gunman, which means 51 dead including the gunman. Here is a BBC news link which, clearly states the following, "Omar Mateen, 29, killed 50 people and wounded 53 at the Pulse club before being shot dead by police." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36513658

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

Remove "and/or homophobia" from deaths section of template and/or move it to the correct section, as it has nothing to do with how many people died in the shooting.

2602:306:C559:4C70:2592:7690:687C:2B39 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)