Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

This needs a reliable source, the motive is unclear at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

I am Alister Wm Macintyre. My Wikipedia account has expired.

Witness reports, in Aig-5 news media, said the shooter was clean shaven, bald head. This is at odds with the Sikh religion having long hair, for both men and women, beards for men.

Newspaper accounts Aug-6, such as http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sikh-temple-shooter-discharged-demoted-army-20120806,0,6159499.story https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/us/army-veteran-identified-as-suspect-in-wisconsin-shooting.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all say: Federal officials identified Wade Michael Page, age 40, as the slain attacker in a rampage that killed six people, plus himself, and left three others critically wounded at a house of worship in Oak Creek, Wi.

Those newspaper accounts, and others, such as http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2012/08/06/gunman-sikh-temple-attack-was-white-supremacist/ygMetwd9H1MkhsWUGsyXuJ/story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/us/army-veteran-identified-as-suspect-in-wisconsin-shooting.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Say the attacker is associated with white supremacist and neo-Nazi, but we have to be careful with the phraseology. He formed a band, and participated in a band, whose lyrics propose genocide. It is not yet clear to me, what all targets are involved in those lyrics. Is being the member of a band which sings about genocide, the same as being a person who preaches it?

There is enormous speculation that this attack falls into the category of people who hate Muslims, and attack other religions out of ignorance how to tell what religion someone is a part of. There should be separate Wikipedia articles on this topic. There was a similar phenomena in Nazi Germany where many Catholics were attacked because many Protestant Nazis could not distinguish between Jews and Catholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.152.239 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting would be a better name. Sikh temple massacre is odd.Regards, theTigerKing  20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreed!Regards, theTigerKing  15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Absolutely 100% notable --Activism1234 00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism

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

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

It's being investigated as domestic terrorism. It is premature to call it domestic terrorism. --Nrehnby (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim terrorist attack

WP:DENY

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) 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) Agreed. There is some evidence in South Asia, however. Not to completely dismise the guy, but there MAY be a possible link. It just has to be reported. My guess would be a traditional neo-nazi type hate group, however. Casprings (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Stop adding unsourced statements. If you don't someone might ban you. Will Maddickphit Esq (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Besides the fact it's unsourced, it's downright offensive and racist. --Activism1234 01:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Those were the only edits made by him, too. Will Maddickphit Esq (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I removed this section as needlessly inflammatory. Medeis (talk · contribs) restored it with the comment "talk is not censored". I beg to differ. Muslims are living people, and this section makes unfounded accusations about them. WP:BLP has strict guidelines that any personal attack on any page (including talk pages) can be removed. I won't edit war about this, but I suggest that someone remove this section so we can stop feeding the troll who added it. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC) If the troll comments more racist remarks, I'll report him. I wouldn't oppose someone reporting him as it is now, or warning him. I'll warn him myself actually, in case he does comment such remarks again. --Activism1234 01:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC) But on the side, I've seen admins close inflammatory and racist sections, so I think the same should be done here as well. --Activism1234 01:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Actually he's already been notified --Activism1234 01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Gurdwara article

I think this gurdwara may require its own article now. We do have a few articles on them, see List of gurdwaras in the United States, though most are redlinked, which is bad.(mercurywoodrose)99.101.139.124 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Media Response

WP:NOTAFORUM

The media approach and coverage of this shooting, i.e. limited/footnote articles seems in stark contrast to the recent Aurora shootings. I'm not sure whether it's the fact that the media considers the shootings are "old hat" since they've had a recent mass murder with a higher body count to salivate over, or if it's other stories, such as the Olympics taking precedence. The latter seems to be the case for the UK media, somewhat understandably, but what is the coverage like in the states? Was my first statement unfair? I'm struggling to find much information on the net. I hate to make a knee-jerk reaction but it seems that as it was group from a religious minority that were killed, the American media is simply not interested. As this is such a "new" story it'll will take some time to assemble a full picture of events. Therefore, in a few weeks/months time, I think commentary on the media response to two similar events would make a good encyclopedic entry, even if its not on this page. Any comments from others? (94.0.192.155 (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)) This has WP:NOTAFORUM issues, although it is fair to say that so far the media coverage has been low key compared to the Aurora shooting. CNN is currently headlining the Curiosity rover and Usain Bolt.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I think we can safely say the media response is not unlike missing white woman syndrome. And the issue is not limited to the USA. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I agree, all media organisations pick and choose what they think is important depending on their paymasters political stance, they should be thoroughly ashamed. They're all liars and hypocrites, some just more than others. I'm quite surprised to see it spread to Wikipedia though. The Batman shootings were headlined on Wikipedia front page for days on end, this story is buried in the current events page as a "shooting incident"(94.0.192.155 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC))

Race

May I ask what the shooter being a white male has anything to do with the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.207.123.207 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• It has been reported that he was a white supremacist - that section of the article should probably be expanded. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been reported, but WP:BLP applies to statements made about Wade Page, and this is too speculative at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The media now begins the inevitable trawl for the digital footprint of Wade Page, but the sourcing here is nowhere near WP:BLP standard at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The authorities reported that they are investigating this as related to white supremacy. I added just that specifically to the article (not that it had been tied to white supremacy or was being considered as such, just investigated.) I think the race of the shooter is perfectly relevant. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)

Why is BLP applicable here? Page is dead, isn't he, and therefore no longer a "living person"? -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BDP applies to Page himself, even if BLP proper doesn't apply here; noting things like race and racist views without proper citations (which we do have now) could have negative BLP consequences for friends/relatives, thus BDP. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bio of page

Regarding this:

He has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a singer in the "skinhead" band End Apathy. Wade is a native of Colorado. He entered the white power music scene in 2000, touring the country on a motorcycle attending concerts in Georgia, North Carolina, West Virginia and Colorado. He has been a member of hate rock bands Youngland (2001-2003), Celtic Warrior, Radikahl, Max Resist, Intimidation One, Aggressive Force and Blue Eyed Devils. He founded End Apathy in 2005, whose members included “Brent” on bass and “Ozzie” on drums; the men were former members of Definite Hate and another band, 13 Knots. The bands name, End Apathy, reflected Page's wish to "figure out how to end people’s apathetic ways" and start "moving forward. I was willing to point out some of my faults on how I was holding myself back," he said in an interview in 2010.

It was deleted as not conforming to BLP. I'm not sure what the issue here is, this is perfectly accurate and being reported all over the news. Southern Poverty Law Center is the leading anti-hate group in America and tracks all of these individuals, they are the most authoritative source available, other than perhaps the government. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It was also removed as WP:WEASEL. I see no weaseling except that "(source) says (content)." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center is not a secondary reliable source, that is the main concern.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is secondary, they are getting most of their information from a primary source, the interview given by Page in Label56. Or are you saying Southern Poverty is not "reliable"? Green Cardamom (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)In my opinion, everything except the origin of the band name definitely meets WP:V. BLP only says that things that aren't verifiably true should be removed. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't edit war if this is put back, but the media does tend to trawl up material that may have BLP issues in this type of situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Understand the concern. In this case we have a direct primary source interview given by Wade himself in 2010 to verify that this isn't just rumor or made up stuff. Of course we are relying on the highly reliable secondary source SPLC so it's not a primary source issue. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that SPLC is a leading organization in these topics and are reliable. --Activism1234 15:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually think the main concern should be being careful to avoid giving this undue weight, yah? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen enough coverage of this in mainstream news sources that are considered fairly reliable (such as AP News, for starters), I don't see a BLP concern here. Remember, the idea of BLP policy is to limit WM Foundation's liability for potential claims of defamation. If we're getting it from SPLC and AP (and citing them) and not from some tabloid or gossip column, it's fine. Due weight may be another issue, but it seems from the statements made by FBI and BATF officials to AP that this attack is officially considered to be racially motivated. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC is a credible source. However, SPLC is an organization with an agenda--fighting hate and bigotry and supporting the most vulnerable members of society (http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are). While that agenda is laudable, it also means they are not a neutral source when it comes to a putatively racism-driven shooting. The facts they present can be included in the article; the adjectives they use should not be: words like "frustrated", "hate rock band", the names of the various bands, and so on. Also note that the description of "End Apathy" says pretty much nothing directly; there is just an implication it is "apathy toward non-whites improving their standing" but since the wording doesn't say so it should not be included. I am against a wholesale revert of the piece; it should just be edited. Churn and change (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, like any NGO they have an agenda but that doesn't necessarily discredit them (although it does discredit some others), but the wording should be neutral, and RS media outlets should also be given preferrably. --Activism1234 18:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why would BLP concerns come into this at all? Page is deceased, isn't he? -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of overlap with statements involving living people or groups in the article. Page, though, is deceased.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP, despite its name, does apply to Page. See WP:BDP. Churn and change (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fact tags

Please stop adding fact tags. The article has suitably placed verifiable and trusted references. Please, stop putting them after every comma, semi colon or periods. Edits would be undone in the future, if they are placed without reading the references placed.Regards, theTigerKing  18:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There are currently two fact tags in the article. One is whether the Indian political party in question is in fact the largest Sikh political party (which is not answered in the wikilinked article). The other is the planned demonstration by that party, which ought to be easy enough to reference. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of lead section

The lead section should be expanded considering the length of the article.Regards, theTigerKing  18:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)