Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting

Terrorism or Mass Shooting?

The Sikh temple shooting was the act of a person with a radical ideology asserting the racial superiority of Europeans. That man had a xenophobic attitude toward Indian people and took their lives because of that attitude. This is no shooting; this is terrorism. Wikipedia itself defines it as "the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion." What part of that definition does not accurately describe what happened at the Sikh temple?Ibnsina786 (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The part where reliable sources call it a mass shooting, not terrorism. As such, while it certainly meets the definition of terrorism, calling it that is synthesis, which is against Wikipedia policy. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The police chief was right that Wade Page's exact motive died with him. Although Page was known to have links to far right organizations, it has been suggested that financial problems and losing his job were also factors.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Change it to a shooting of people in a Church, by a black Muslim supremicist with a tattoo of the Iraqi invasion. Haha. Terrorism is applied eaisly to some things but not others. Yeah we don't know his motive officially, just like we didin't so many others, but if an ISIS member blew up a school well I could probably be safe in guessing it was motivated by extremist views of Islam. Just like a white supremicist, with a tattoo of the 9/11 attacks happens to attack brown skinned people with turbans, often mistaken for the radical muslim sects that did 9/11. Well lets just be honest, regardless of his motivation he went to a temple of people who weren't doing anything and shot at civilians. Women, Children, and men. Similar to some middle eastern children where the same thing happened. Regardless of wether it is a mass shooting or terrorist attack. It is the same in violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It appears that consensus has shown the current title to be sufficiently clear. A different title, such as Wisconsin Sikh temple massacre might have had success--clearly this was a massacre, and a terrible shooting that remains inexplicable. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting → Wisconsin Sikh Massacre – 7 people were killed (and others injured), contradicting the article which previously stated six people died. The title implies that the Sikh temple itself was shot, and that people didn't die. Other articles (ex. the listing of massacres on Wikipedia) clearly identify this as a massacre. I think the current title is trying to minimize the incident and should be changed. 209.153.242.10 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, see Talk:Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting#Requested_move above. Consensus formed around this article name, and it is more descriptive than the proposed name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I believe that people generally understand that an article title with a location followed by "shooting" implies that people were shot. bd2412 T 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I disagree with the above two points for the following reasons:

• 1. Comparable events have been classified as massacres on Wikipedia, such as the Capitol Hill massacre (6 dead), Brown's Chicken massacre (7 dead), Bat Mitzvah massacre (4 dead), Loughinisland massacre (6 dead), the racist Greensboro massacre Greensboro massacre (5 dead), etc. I believe the current title is politically biased and downplays the severity of the event. It is not "more descriptive than the proposed name." On the contrary: calling the article "Wisconsin Sikh massacre" (or something similar) is more descriptive because it tells you that people died. Simply indicating that it's a shooting does not necessarily mean that people died, while a massacre clearly indicates that people died.

• 2. A "shooting" implies that people may or may not have died (ie. you can be shot and not die). A massacre indicates that people died, which is what happened (7 people died). Again, this downplays the severity of the incident.

• 3. Concerning the point "I believe.... that an article with a location followed by "shooting" implies that people were shot." The problem is that the name of the Sikh temple is the "Sikh Temple of Wisconsin" not "Wisconsin Sikh temple," which makes the naming of this article ambiguous and bizarre. If Christians were massacred in a church, the church would be named (ex. Saint James Church massacre, 11 dead). The article title makes the location and victims faceless, while other massacre articles rightly name the victims and the location where those people died.

• 4. I'm a bit concerned about the double standard used in editing this article, and if not resolved, will flag it for POV bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.56.145 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum to above: most major news outlets label this a massacre:
• ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779
• CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/opinion/kaleka-sikh-father-killed/
• Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/10/thousands-to-honor-victims-sikh-temple-shooting-massacre-in-wisconsin/
• CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sikh-son-first-saw-father-at-dads-wis-funeral-after-massacre/
• CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/thousands-mourn-sikh-victims-of-wisconsin-massacre-1.1172377
• etc.

• Another interesting point, according to ABC/Daily Beast/CBS/etc the act HAS been labelled an act of domestic terrorism:
• ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779
• The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/05/wisconsin-shooting-7-dead-at-sikh-temple.html
• CBS: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/06/prayer-vigils-for-sikh-temple-victims-to-be-held-in-chicago-area/

• Given that there are (1) ample verifiable references that indicate this is a massacre, and (2) that similar events on Wikipedia have been described as a massacre, and (3) police HAVE labelled this an incident of domestic terrorism (making the above point about "synthesis" irrelevant) this article should be renamed to the "Wisconsin Sikh Massacre" or a similar title. It should also be edited to indicate that this is considered an act of domestic terrorism by law enforcement officials. Whether or not editors believe it is an act of terrorism is another issue (which is actually an example of "synthesis"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.56.145 (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title is, if anything, more ambiguous than the current one. Is a Sikh massacre one in which Sikhs are the victims or the perpetrators? Is this a massacre involving Wisconsin Sikhs (perhaps traveling somewhere), or was it in Wisconsin? No, the current title is preferable. I'm not necessarily objecting to calling the event a massacre, however, with a title such as Wisconsin Sikh temple massacre. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image of Wade Michael Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Terrorist"

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