Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting

Name

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)

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

50 dead?

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)

Infobox of perpetrator

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)

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)

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)

Reactions

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

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)

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."[2] 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:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

--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)

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)

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)

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."[6] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Motive?? Comment

Possibly something other than "radical islam". [7] 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)

L.A. pride festival

Resolved

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.109.184 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

List of victims

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)

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)

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)

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)