Jump to content

Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lionheart Omega (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 6 August 2012 (→Muslim terrorist attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hate crime against Sikhs

Please add info about this being hate crime against sikhs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almightyvegeta (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a reliable source, the motive is unclear at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, for all we know right now, the gunman could have been a Sikh, we just can't speculate about it. Time will tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

I would suggest a better name is Sikh temple shooting. That seems to be the fact that stands out for the title. Casprings (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but sometimes it's better to at least say "where" the shooting happened. Sometimes, it's also good to use "when" it happened, particularly if it's happened before. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title is fully in line with similar articles, eg 2011 Tucson shooting and 2012 Aurora shooting. "Sikh temple shooting" is far too vague.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting would be a better name. Sikh temple massacre is odd.Regards, theTigerKing  20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I based it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre . The problem with "shooting" it doesn't indicate multiple death. I would suggest a compromise with "2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple massacre" However, I don't think you need 2012. A Sikh temple massacre doesn't happen every year. The last one I can think of was Operation Blue Star and that was a different type of event. Next, I don't think Wisconsin is really that important to be in the title. I really think simple is better. "Sikh temple massacre" Casprings (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting would be a better word. I understand the gravity of the event that comes with the usage of the word massacre. The word is generally used with the "mass sacrifice"[for a cause] (like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre). No one would have wanted to sacrifice the precious life in the shooting. The word shooting does indicate multiple causalities 2012 Aurora shootingRegards, theTigerKing  20:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting works for me. Can we exclude 2012 and Wisconsin. Just "Sikh temple shooting" Less is more and I don't think 2012 or Wisconsin add anything. Casprings (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we need a location and we probably need a year for reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is there going to some confusion with other shootings at other Sikh temples? Perhaps, "US Sikh temple shooting" The only other place I can think of as having violence in a Sikh temple is India. Casprings (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would one differentiate the article if shooting happens at some other temple in the future in US?Regards, theTigerKing  20:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles about shooting incidents usually include the year and the location in the title (2011 Seal Beach shooting is another example). Asking for a title that goes against this practice is likely to be reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard title naming process should be followed.Regards, theTigerKing  20:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the article and the shooting. Many do not. I doubt that is backed by a policy. WOuld 2012 Sikh temple shooting work? To me, that follows WP:Precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including the year seems to be common enough, unless it's a very well-known incident like Columbine. I'd lean towards something like "2012 Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting" or maybe just "2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting" or something of that sort. (Since there are other Oak Creeks that are as large, and adding the full town+state gets unwieldy.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to put a name, why not define it by the country. "2012 US Sikh temple shooting" Oak Creek does little to define it for people and most people will define it by the shooting that took place in the US involving Sikhs. Casprings (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's vague for no good reason. "Wisconsin" is common enough to be well-known, which is why I suggested it, though I think "Oak Creek" is probably better. We can obviously wikilink the town. I actually kind of like the current name (2012 Oak Creek shooting), but just adding in "Sikh temple" or "temple" might be good if people feel it needs to be expanded. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, with two hours of debating, we're nearly back to where we started. Why not let us focus on the events, improve the article, then worry about if it's a massacre or a shooting, if it's a US Sikh temple or an Oak Creek shooting? That's what WP:COMMONNAME is for. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's nothing wrong with having a discussion about it. It would be helpful to focus on the article though; much of it was a mess before some editing, despite being shorter than this talk page section is... In other words, it's fine to discuss...but since the name is accurate and so forth, then it's not THAT useful to quibble over at this point, especially right after the event. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree the title should be 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.1.206 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw in my own opinion, I think the current title is fine as a working title, but as the article expands, we should consider other possible titles too. I personally would support 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting or 2012 Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting, though the current one works. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. The temple was named Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, so I think it works.Casprings (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death tally

The number of confirmed deaths is not mentioned in the article at all, just in the info box. Shouldnt it be mentioned? 74.103.39.3 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but don't include the casualty of the perpetrator in the figures. Only innocent lives lost or injured needs to be mentionedRegards, theTigerKing  20:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV means that we should keep the perpetrator in the "people dead" group, but not in the "victims" group, I think. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name change for article

This wording for the name of the article is a bit awkward, and not very clear. It should be "Oak Creek Sihk Temple shooting" to make it clear that it was NOT just some random shooting that could have taken place in a random restaurant or movie theatre. But was specific to the Sikh religion and temple. Name change will be under way. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change it without consensus. A discussion is ongoing above. Current consensus is pointing towards 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)As you can see, there's a discussion to that effect above. Adding to that discussion rather than stating that a name change will be under way would be more helpful, as you're likely to just get people reverting you if you change it unilaterally while a discussion is in progress, probably ending up with the article move-protected. So I would suggest not causing all that hassle by just moving it without consensus above. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the process should be under way. I never actually said I would do anything. I'm not. But the whole thing is "under way". Consensus is building. The current name is simply not complete or clear, and I'm not the only one who thinks that on here, obviously. So then consensus will probably happen soon is the point. Don't misunderstood or assume what I meant. I did not say "I'm changing the name now". But the whole thing is in process, per the discussion here, from what I see. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You know what, I'm going to start a Requested Move on this so as to make sure that consensus is determined by an admin, not just us, OK? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current name is simply not complete or clear, and I'm not the only one who thinks that on here, obviously. So then consensus will probably happen soon is the point. Don't misunderstood or assume what I meant. I did not say "I'm changing the name now". I didn't say I would actually do anything. But the whole thing is in process, per the discussion here, from what I see. By the way, why is the "move" arrow option NOT visible on this article? As it is in other articles... Jots and graphs (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There seems to have been a move-war earlier because people couldn't decide where to put it, so it got move-protected. That's another reason I started the RM. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

2012 Oak Creek shooting → 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting – The current name is misleading. Consensus is generally strong that it should be moved, but in question is where it should be moved to. The above appears to have the most consensus, but on a potentially high-profile article I want to make sure consensus is clear before a move happens. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tag

Not sure why the notability tag was added, since it's being reported broadly and worldwide. But I'm going to challenge it here, not remove it (although anyone else can feel free to do so). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This event is being covered by worldwide media. I'd say it's certainly notable, and agree with both you and the other editor who did remove the superfluous tag. No reason for that tag to be on the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 00:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely 100% notable --Activism1234 00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic Terrorism

Several reliable sources are reporting that authorities are considering this Domestic Terrorism[1] [2]. Should the article refer to this? If so, how and where? Casprings (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article --Activism1234 00:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim terrorist attack

Why is there no mention in this article that this incident was a Muslim terrorist attack? The Muslims are targeting Sikhs just like they are targeting Jews.

Until we know from reliable sources that it was perpetrated by Muslims, that would violate WP:NPOV WP:OR among others. --Activism1234 00:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because evidence points in the other direction, and there is little history of Sikh-Muslim violence in the US. Go back to the Free Republic. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Pearce, Matt. "Gunman's tattoos lead officials to deem Sikh shooting terrorism". LA Times. Retrieved 6 August 2012.
  2. ^ [7 Dead in 'Domestic Terrorism' Shooting at Wisconsin Sikh Temple "7 Dead in 'Domestic Terrorism' Shooting at Wisconsin Sikh Temple"]. ABC News. Retrieved 6 August 2012. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting&oldid=505993551"