Talk:Pulse nightclub shooting

ancestry

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

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

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

Afghani can be kept for accuracy. More precise ethnicity can be inserted in the later sections. Muslim is relevant, but what is the evidence this head an islamic motivation? --197.228.0.8 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pledging allegiance to ISIS indicates that this was Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ancestry 2

It is politically correct to say that someone is of "afghan descent." Afghan is a nationality, and Afghans come from different ethnic groups. It is unclear which he comes from. So again, putting that he is of "afghan descent" is unnecessary unless it's in a personal life or early life section as the rules state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuckold12345 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Far too politically correct

What the majority of people use is the correct term. Because it is our term and not theirs. English is not a scientific language based on total accuracy, many words are formed through 'incorrect terms'. And also, the "Afghani" people do not call themselves "Afgahani" or "Afghan" or "Afghan decent", because English is not their native language, so it is irrelevant what English term is applied to them. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another thing to note, "Afghani" is not derogatory. It is simply the term most English speakers and Americans use. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While I've seen Afghani used to denote ethnicity, Afghan seems more common. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither are incorrect, but Afghani is probably used more than Afghan among the people. Bear in mind the majority of Americans are not in a college environment. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reactions section

Delete the reactions section already?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions again

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

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

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

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

Pope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe a section about an international response, including the Pope's, should be included. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Gun control reactions

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

Is it me ...

Or is this section bloatcrufty again? (No, I don't care that "bloatcrufty" is not a word. ) 🖖ATS / Talk 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not just you... wish we could get site-wide consensus about these sections... (preferably to do away with them) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume there will be a discussion about the appropriateness of Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, too. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think a summary of notable reactions is appropriate (like the current president, governor, and mayor), but YES it is getting "bloated" especially with non-notable reactions such as from current candidates for president, mayors of other cities, award ceremonies commenting on it, etc. Stuff like that would make more sense in the sub-article, though some people are bent on deleting that and putting all the bloat back in the main article. --Flipper9 (talk) 00:05, 14 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)

Agreed that Fox News may be debatable to some. What about of the terrorist's very own imam states that the murderer attended his mosque "three or four times per week"? Is Fox still debatable? XavierItzm (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather good arguments. -Mardus /talk 06:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ISIS probably wasn't directly involved & I'm not suggesting that ISIS should be called the perpetrator of this attack. However, the pledge indicates that this was Islamic terrorism. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus so far seems to be that his claim of allegiance with ISIS has not been substantiated. This being the case, I think it's wise to edit out things on the page that identify this as being an Islamic terrorist attack.

• "Mateen's parents, who are from Afghanistan, said he'd expressed outrage after seeing two men kiss in Miami, but they didn't consider him particularly religious and didn't know of any connection he had to ISIS."

• "But CNN's Salma Abdelaziz, who translated the message and closely monitors ISIS messaging, cautioned about taking the message at face value. She said the language is inconsistent with previous ISIS announcements and that the Arabic word for gay was used rather than an epithet normally used by ISIS. Also, there was no claim that the attack was directed, just an after-the-fact claim the gunman was an ISIS fighter, she said."

Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: I'm frankly disappointed by this morning's newspapers. They have taken a thinly sourced "pledge of allegiance" and inflated it into an IS attack. This contradicts the police lone wolf theory. The evidence now suggests that Omar Mateen was an extremist crank and loser like Wade Page in the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, who is not described as a "Christian terrorist".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly clear this is an act of Islamic Terrorism. We now have confirmation of his pledge of allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS have formally claimed responsibility (though I can't attest to whether or not they are telling the truth). Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As I've said, it's disappointing how the newspapers have handled this. The police are looking at the lone wolf theory, the same as Wade Page. No-one in Syria told Mateen to do this, it just looks better for the newspapers to scream "Islamic terror attack" on the front pages. They weren't screaming "Christian terror attack" after the Wisconsin Sikh temple attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur. -Mardus /talk 15:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are expecting to see an Islamic State paystub or an e-mail account in the name of the terrorist @islamicstate.gov before you deem this to have been a terror attack, then you have no idea how jihad terrorism works. XavierItzm (talk) 05:18, 14 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)

Why does it say At Least 50 people killed? Is there a potential for other deaths or is it just Fluff words added? DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How come there is so much emphasis placed on Pulse being a homosexual nightclub? This was an attack on Americans - ISIS hates us all. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:35, 13 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)

Stop trying to police wikipedia talk please.. there is no need to enforce strict policy on a talk page. Any information or questions are welcome here, regardless of strict absolute policy. Enforce policy when someone goes overboard. Thanks. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

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

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

• Homophobia has been corroborated by the perpetrator's former co-worker, who also added racism to the mix. This and the nature of the locale strongly suggest, that adding 'hate crime' is warranted. -Mardus /talk 06:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

would it be called a "hate crime" if it was a "straight" bar? 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless their straightness motivated the crime, no. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the patrons "gayness" motivated this crime. 108.38.35.162 (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct on that. 175.156.169.55 (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Only in summary form. I'd agree with summary form only as a list notable people making generic statements and not really pertinent to the article though listing a summary of some key statements later on might make sense such as "World leaders such as () and as far away as () gave their condolences."—--Flipper9 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. The summary form may be acceptable as displayable alongside international reactions. — With an addition, that Republican legislators and the presumptive Republican presidential candidate who reacted, were widely and strongly criticized:

• for having previously expressed sentiments against LGBT people and causes,
• for voting against legislation expanding LGBT rights, and
• for voting against more stringent regulations of firearms, including assault weapons.

-Mardus /talk 06:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Find the sources and feel free to throw them in. No one's opposed to that. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, in summary form I don't see why any particular public reaction should be censored from the article, as long as they are from prominent people and given in summary form. If not, why is the Tony awards ceremony given mention? They weren't directly involved, but I think we can all agree it would be the wrong move to take that down. Similarly, conservative media (and mainstream and liberal reactions to it) are buzzing with talk of political correctness etc. This should be mentioned. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of votes here are in favor of summaries, I'm going to reinstate my edit to mention conservative reactions until such a time as the consensus changes. It is not my intention to edit war, and I hope no one perceives it as such. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to introduce you to WP:BRD. - MrX 01:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you insist on having an attitude about it, what a good idea! From WP:BRD#Discuss:

"Carefully consider whether "policy", "consensus", or "procedure" are valid reasons for the revert: These sometimes get overused on consensus-based wikis"

Take a look at the votes here, and compare to the edit. Exactly one "No" vote, lots of "(Only) summary form" votes. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Current format as of June 13. This version provides a good split between a summary of reactions in the main article, and a second article contain a more detailed list of reactions. This version keeps the main article short, while still covering the full range of reactions. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: List of victims

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

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

• Allow for now. As noted in the other RfC, these things tend to trim themselves in time. Based on what I've seen, it will eventually become a summary paragraph with details of the most notable victims. (Full disclosure: I tend to argue for, anyway, based on the argument that these articles can too easily become shrines to the perpetrators.) 🖖ATS / Talk 21:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For clarity purposes, my !vote refers only to a listing of the dead. If an injured party were to have earned sufficient and encyclopedic notability, that person would get a passage, rather than a spot on a list of injured (that I would oppose). 🖖ATS / Talk 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - not unless any victims were notable in their own right. There looks to be about a hundred dead and injured, and how do we select which to list? All of them? This is going to be some time before a complete and accurate list is available. And what if we list someone as dead according to an early report, and they later pop up unharmed, having nipped out for a private party elsewhere? Or vie versa. We can have a seperate article with a list of victims later on. It will be a long list, sadly. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now. I'd have to say that maybe a separate article listing the dead might be better than listing them in the main article. (yes, yes I know the whole "wikipedia is not for lists" thing) I do think a simple list of the dead is an important part of the article itself, they are part of the event just as much as the name of the perpetrator and the name of the club are. You can then link to notable victims off that if they have their own wikipedia article about them. Just simply linking to the Orlando city website may end up losing the list of dead when it changes. --Flipper9 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow listing of dead. In previous such cases - alas, not this one! - my thought has been that the living are more numerous, so it costs more space to list them; also the BLP and privacy issues are considerably greater. For a living person to have been in a shooting (perhaps especially at a gay event) can be a matter of privacy, but for a person to have died in a place and time is purely a matter of public record. Also, with wounding there are degrees ranging from vegetative state to some cuts from broken glass - with death, there is no debating the severity. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• If It's Wiki's Policy Then Yes. All the victims' names are listed on the Virginia Tech shooting page, as well as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I would assume we'd do the same for the murdered here. As an encyclopedia it would seem logical that this sort of information would be presented. Xenomorph erotica (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

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

• Allow for now – A am not the biggest fan of including a list of names, but at this point it seems like the best option. United States Man (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow for now and if the article needs trimming later, or if we find notability of a murder victim here we can offload. I seriously object to "privacy" comments above, like going to a gay nightclub is shameful while going to a rock concert in Paris or taking a bus in London or attending a party in San Bernardino isn't. Shame on shaming. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment BLP policy applies to the recently dead. Should we be naming people that were at this nightclub? Also, at least one of the named victims, Kimberly Morris, was employed by the nightclub as a bouncer.^[1] Should be employees be separated out from guests? --Marc Kupper|talk 06:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - this is a clear violation of privacy rights, of the victims as well as of those they leave behind. We must not give lunatics the option to seek out these victims' families to be harassed for having and tolerating gay family members. Also, a list of names holds no encyclopedic information value. Exceptions would only be such victims, who are the subject of existing Wikipedia articles. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow and expand (for the time being), or eventually move into a new article. A published list of victims means that the victims' families have been contacted. Otherwise, the amount of data about the perpetrator is greater than information about the victims. That doesn't mean that information about the perpetrator (in an article about him) should in any way be reduced. -Mardus /talk 07:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per Cush. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No, not for terror attacks that are untargeted. the victims list in the Umpqua Community College shooting included non-religious people and a Jewish professor, showing that it was not targeted at Christians as some in the media were asserting. The victim list in that article made some sense. In this case, there's no indication that the victims were targeted in any way. Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the only purpose of a victims list is to show characteristics about the victims (eg whether they were targeted on the basis of religion, or whether they were known to the perpetrator) - not to create a memorial for them. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. The victims were targeted simply because they were people. At a well-known gay nightclub. The perpetrator did not go shoot up an empty building during the day when perhaps cleaning/maintenance was being done and a small number of people were present - he chose a month/time/day when a large number of people would be present so he could kill them. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No - The specific names and ages of the non-notable victims have very little encyclopedic value, and would tend to intrude on the privacy of the victim's families. Unlike newspapers and blogs, Wikipedia has a certain amount of permanence.- MrX 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per Cush and MrX. There would be no problem with summarising such info without using actual names.Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow it. "Per Cush" doesn't really convince me, and by that, I mean NOT AT ALL. These names are publicly viewable. We have lists of victims in articles like Columbine High School massacre and 2015 San Bernardino attack. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How does it contribute to understanding what happened to list the names? These are people, sure, who had names, friends, families, but we are specifically NOTMEMORIAL, which is the principal function of a names list. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be well-established to have a list of victims of mass shootings, see the articles on Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook. While some think that it's shameful to have been in a gay club, or be gay, that's homophobia and WP shouldn't countenance it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Because WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable here, so everything related to WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL --Norden1990 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to the subjects of Wikipedia article not to internal content. If the perpetrator of this mass-murder is notable (and for WP's purposes right now he is), then in my opinion the people that he killed, giving him that notability, should also be named. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I would also like to mention that WP:BALASPS applies in this case - "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject"[bolding mine]. To use the perpetrator's name extensively in the article without mentioning his victims' names appears to give the perpetrator undue weight. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per MrX and WP:5P1. Very little encyclopedic value. I see little rationale for listing the victims that is not emotion-based, "don't elevate the perp above the victims", or "well that's what we did in these other articles"—all extra-policy rationales. A quick visual scan for blue caps shows no policy links in Yes !votes. The list may not be precluded by the letter of NOTMEMORIAL, but I guess the spirit of a policy, added to 5P1, beats no policy at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. --John (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment. If 50 people hadn't died, then Mateen would have no notability. His act was notable, the deaths that occurred are what engender his notability, why aren't the names of his victims notable enough to be included within the article describing the event? In the spirit of WP:5P5, "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions". Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Allow almost all other US shooting pages list the victims, why should this page be any different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:85E7:10C4:9714:BE82 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. To the extent that this has been done elsewhere in the past see WP:OTHERSTUFF and I would suggest that unless the victims were WP:NOTABLE said lists should also be removed. I would also remind the closing Admin that WP:NOT is WP:POLICY and trumps guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• No I don't see a list of victims in any other disaster article with many deaths (plane crashes, 9/11, ect). While this event is terrible and sad and our prayers of course go out to the families of the victims, this is still a encyclopedia and this does not meet our guidelines (primarily WP:NOTMEMORIAL) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Most of the pages on mass shootings in the US do have the victims listed, you are correct that 9/11 and most plane crashes do not have the victims listed (and neither does the Oklahoma City Bombing page) but those have such a large number of causalities that it is not practical to list all of the victims, 50 victims does not seem like too many to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• No per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Individual victims should not be listed here unless there is something else worth noting about them. The perpetrator is a notable figure because of the act, not the individual victims. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow: A major reason for the notability are the deaths; Alternative: Add list of those killed to Wikidata, and reference in article. --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Allow: not only is inclusion of a list by name of confirmed fatalities consistent with similar articles (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech), it provides the reader with a valuable overview of ethnicity, gender, and victims' ages, information that is not otherwise easily paraphrased. Please also consider that many people are still scouring news sources for information about the welfare of people they know in the area, and this list is helpful. Lots of people turn to Wikipedia first. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with all of the above. We can have a generalized cite to a secondary source that briefly summarizes the differences in response between the parties (if there are indeed any, and if their are reliable secondary sources that discuss it). But we definetely shouldn't have candidate-by-candidate breakdowns. One editor keeps a quote or text re: Trump's statement, cited to his campaign website (a WP:PRIMARY source). The same editor misleadingly used that cite to support an assertion about the "Republican position"—which is of course inaccurate, as Trump does not speak for every Republican. I've removed it, but this needs more eyes on it. Neutrality^talk 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lots of Republicans have argued that Trump doesn't speak for any of them ... 🖖ATS / Talk 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump's reaction should be included, whether we like it or not. It has received too much media coverage for us to ignore it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lets wait a few days before doing that at leastBrxBrx (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? We have a "Reactions" section and the man likely to become the next POTUS reacted, with specific policy guidelines (temporary ban). Even The New York Times published an (anti-Trump) article about it. This should not be redacted from the article.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If we include Trump's reaction then we might as well also include Clinton's reaction, and maybe even Gary Johnson's reaction. Just so we know we have all bases covered. FallingGravity (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again Trump's reaction (especially regarding the American borders) has been included in the "Reactions" section, and people keep trying to emphasize it. Is it REALLY necessary? Parsley Man (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump is like catnip to the media. They'll cover him if he sneezed weird. As WP:NOTNEWS notes, just because it's reported on doesn't mean it's notable. I say exclude for now and only include if something more comes of it other than the typical media hype. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We have already discussed and arrived at consensus for leaving political commentary out. If someone want to revisit this, fine, but until a new consensus is reached, editors should not be adding such content.- MrX 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick7 is continuing to push for the inclusion of Trump's reaction, and has called every reversion attempt an act of "vandalism" despite my insistence for him to read this section. Parsley Man (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tried adding a different reaction than the one originally discussed here. But, man up. It's a national election year, and as such certain local and national political reactions matter. Most importantly: the Orlando mayor, the Orlando national rep., whoever is running to be the next Orlando Rep, the Florida governor, anyone running to be the next governor, Florida U.S. senators, anyone running to be the next Florida senator, the President, and whoever is running to replace him. This should not be in the least controversial. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting including the statements made by everyone you just listed? Parsley Man (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. How is that not common sense? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, we have a reactions article for that (though that may or may not be deleted down the road). Second off, I'm going to quote United States Man from down below: "If Trump's statement is included, statements from other candidates must be included, and that goes against what we were trying to do with this section by keeping it short and trimmed down." Parsley Man (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The AfD on the reactions article seems to be leaning delete but to keep the important ones in the article; thus, it might be circular logic. I agree with Kendrick7's point that since this is an election year in the US, at the minimum we should include reactions from that list of people somewhere - in the main article, if the reactions article is deleted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2016

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

• Oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. Do research something before arriving on a conclusion. Also please see WP:OTHER, you cannot use other articles for justifying changes to another article. 61.0.202.178 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - That does sound sensible. Parsley Man (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems prematureBrxBrx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. the events are less than 24 hours old. Perhaps reconsider after a week or two when more information is available.Mozzie (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Also: I suspect the page title needs to lose the 2016 at some point, but that can also happen later.Mozzie (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral – Since this seems to have been labeled as domestic terrorism, a move to "attack" to be in line with others, notably San Bernardino, is in order. But I would prefer that it wait until details are ironed out. United States Man (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let's wait a week and then evaluate what the sources say and what terms they use. Neutrality^talk 01:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's both a shooting and an attack, but shooting is more precise.- MrX 01:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As per Neutrality, I would like to see what creditable sources call this event. However, the current title satisfies Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining neutral point of view. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per MrX. Doesn't matter much, but shooting seems clearer. "Attack" doesn't have to indicate terrorist attack... whatever that means. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Shooting is a misnomer by implying there was just one or very few victims. This was a terrorist attack. Computationsaysno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral It's a tossup between being WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT. Neither is particularly more compelling IMO. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support - Alternatively, I propose "Orlando nightclub massacre." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard (talk • contribs) 02:15, 13 June 2016
• Strong support – per 2015 San Bernardino attack. Cut to the chase. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is first and foremost a mass shooting and Mateen may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It would be unencyclopaedic to use different name for similar things. 2015 San Bernardino attack, the Curtis Culwell Center attack, 2014 New York City hatchet attack, the September 11 attacks. All Islamist terror events in the U.S. homeland. XavierItzm (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I was leaning toward weak oppose per NORUSH but, after reading all the above, I'm convinced it'll happen anyway. 🖖ATS / Talk 06:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Partial Support Alternatively '2016 Orlando Attack' or 'Orlando Nightclub Attack'. Tom W (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tomwood0: '2016 Orlando attack' would mean an attack on the whole city of Orlando, and 'Orlando Nightclub Attack' is not specfic enough (see below). -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There was another shooting associated with the same nightclub in 2013. -Mardus /talk 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be addressed by the fact that this article is called "2016 ... attack" Epson Salts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, premature rush to judgment. We don't have to get the title right within 24 hours of the event. Or 48, 72, 96, or 120. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also support "orlando nightclub massacre". It's being used quite a bit. These names for recent events develop organically and I believe this is it.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per 2015 San Bernardino attack. President Obama calls this one an "act of terror" - "attack" is warranted. -- Callinus (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It hasn't been confirmed as a terrorist incident, it's still being investigated. At the moment the only certainty is that this is a mass shooting from someone who may simply have been a wack job with Islamic leanings. The present name is clear and precise. Pincrete (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the casualties of the shooting is the highest (for a mass shooting as currently defined) in the history of the United States, overtaking (for lack of a better word) the previous second place, the Virginia Tech shooting. Ergo, precision should dictate here.- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's a fuckton of rumours going around but at the moment no one actually knows whether it was terrorism-related or not, That aside it being a big mass shooting in the history of the US I'd say "mass shooting" would be correct, –Davey2010^Talk 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose While some sources have confirmed this to be a terrorist attack, i think an "attack" would require more physical support from the ISIL to truly be considered a terrorist attack such as supplying fire arms, explosives, intel ect. At this point in time it seems ISIL's involvement in this mass life completion event is minimal therefore we should stick with shooting. Attack to me is a broader term that is connotated with more humans being involved. This attack was just a single mentally disturbed recent divorceeBoilingorangejuice (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history"

The lead states "deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history." I'm not sure why a link to the history of the United States is relevant but, more importantly, I don't see why the use of "modern." The term "mass shooting" as used here is restricted to one (or at most a few) perpetrators, and I can't find any evidence of a more deadly mass shooting in US history, period. There may have been events termed massacres that caused more deaths, but that is a different act of violence where one group attacks another group. The use of "modern" leads to the question "when in pre-modern US history did a deadlier mass shooting happen?" Roches (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I had earlier supported "modern," but now it just seems to be the wrong way to go with this. I think we should just go back to "deadliest mass shooting" with the understanding that attacks/events involving Indians, military, and numerous shooters are not included. United States Man (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's really hard to say, since mass shootings weren't exactly one of the main topics covered in the news during the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s. Parsley Man (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This topic was already discussed fairly extensively above; There have been a number of massacres with higher casualties. For a better overview, I recommend looking at the previous discussion, under a similar header to this. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, many people have been killed in shootings in the USA in the past, but they weren't carried out by deranged individuals with a semi-automatic weapon that occurred within a few minutes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The part is question has been changed by me to say this:

The attack is the deadliest terrorism-related mass shooting in United States history,[14] the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history,[15] and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001.

How is that? Better? Worse? Could probably be better, but the "modern" is gone. United States Man (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's better. The discussion above was about "one of the deadliest" and was resolved with "modern." On List of rampage killers, only the 2011 Norway attacks has a greater number of fatalities than this shooting. As far as I can see, all the Massacres committed by the United States, such as the Wounded Knee massacre, were very different events than what is now called a "mass shooting". The massacres with greater than 50 people killed occurred during wartime and/or with armed persons among the victims; they were not surprise attacks on random victims by one or a few people. Roches (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) [Clarification: 'with greater than 50 people killed'.]

This Smithsonian article about Howard Unruh is worth a look. The "Walk of Death" in 1949 is generally considered to be the first modern mass shooting by a deranged individual in the USA. This type of incident is not the same as Wounded Knee. There is a clear psychological profile of a person who does something like this, and Mateen already seems to fit in with it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this is different from the Wounded Knee massacre doesn't resolve the issue. The Wounded Knee massacre was still a mass shooting, i.e., the shooting of a large number of people. There is nothing in the text that explains or qualifies that this concerns a lone gunman, a "rampage killer" etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at definitions for "mass shooting"? The definitions vary, but in the broadest sense, it's an event where a mass of people are shot. By that definition, Wounded Knee is definitely more deadly. Similarly the Orlando event can be defined as a massacre by many definitions. I've edited the lead to be more clear about a single gunman, which leaves no ambiguity here. More discussion is yet needed. I should note a few reliable sources, such as RT, do consider Wounded Knee a more deadly mass shooting. Misinformation by the media to sensationalize topics is far too common. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, this paints an interesting picture. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You've fixed the problem.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Title

Change the Title to "2016 Orlando nightclub massacre". The word "shooting" used to describe the incident is too broad and loose. "Massacre" seems more appropriate. --Alsamuef (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems likely that all of the people who died were shot, which isn't a great surprise given the ease with which powerful guns can be bought in the USA. There is also a rename proposal at Talk:2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Requested_move_13_June_2016.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people were shot. But that seems secondary to the fact that it was a massacre. Unless there is a reason why the means of the massacre is more important than the massacre itself, the title should be reworded to reflect its nature and significance. Shootings occur daily in the US, but that doesn't make them really significant. What makes this incident significant is that the outcome was a massacre, not just a shooting. Alsamuef (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's something of a grey area, as Wikipedia has Luby's shooting although it is often referred to as Luby's massacre in the media. Wikipedia does have Port Arthur massacre (Australia) as this is the WP:COMMONNAME of the incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And Virginia Tech shooting, Columbine shooting... I think "massacre" is a sensationalist word, and many articles use "shooting." A "massacre" evidently is a mass killing of a group of people by another group. The lists of massacres vs. lists of rampage killings state this distinction. Roches (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This incident actually caused a widespread reaction and interest precisely because it was a massacre, not because some tabloid is being sensationalist. The fact that other articles use the word shooting don't make the word "shooting" in the title of this entry the most suitable, only consistently less suitable. Alsamuef (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Shooting relates to how the mass killing was performed. The Waco siege is titled as such, with a redirect from Waco massacre. The massacre part would come in, if there were very different or multiple means used by the perpetrator to kill the poor people. -Mardus /talk 16:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A "Shooting" does not imply a massacre or killings in the first place. There was a hostage situation in this incident and yet nobody is referring to it as the "Orlando hostage situation" or whatever. Because that's not what made the incident notorious. Shootings by themselves are not notorious in the US, they occur almost daily. The precise way how the massacre was carried out is quite irrelevant to the definition of massacre. I would refer to the definitions found in reputable dictionaries instead of making up arbitrary definitions. Alsamuef (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggest we wait a week and then survey reliable sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this is a terrorist attack. It was perpetrated by an individual who pledged allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS has claimed credit for his attack. If one commits an act and so plainly gives his motivation as he did in his 9-1-1 call and still cannot be called a terrorist, I don't know what is.   Spartan7W §   02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed statement from Daily Beast

I have removed this: "Conversely, a former high school friend and coworker said that despite reports of Mateen's homophobia, he had no obvious conflicts with him and other coworkers who were also gay." This is an anecdotal report from Daily Beast and it is not necessary to tell the other side of the argument with someone's recollections. Roches (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a reliable source & shouldn't be removed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Police officer: In uniform or "plainclothed"; seperate paycheck from the nightclub

Should the article say if the police officer was uniformed or "plainclothed"? "Working extra duty", is that a euphemism for working as a security guard, and receiving a paycheck from the nightclub? 178.232.232.150 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, "extra duty" means a business pays the local police to assign an officer to their location or event. Will depend on local practice. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Several sources say the officer was uniformed but off-duty, which implies that he was being paid directly by the club for his presence. Sources include the BBC. Opus131 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Get rid of "2016" in the title

Years are usually only added when there might be some confusion to what attack is being reffered to, as usually the attack is something very general like the "Paris attack", which could refer to a lot of things. But what would "Orlando nightclub shooting" possible be confused with? Other articles like the Curtis Culwell Center attack and the Charleston church shooting obviously don't include the year in the title because it's very specific. So can we get rid of the "2016" in the already long specific title? ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much standard practice to have the year in the title as it adds clarity.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm... my initial reaction was similar to ianmacm's, but I'm questioning that. Do we really need that degree of disambiguation? 2016 Orlando shootings or Orlando nightclub shootings would work I guess. Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire isn't 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire after all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Add to that example Columbine High School massacre and Boston Marathon bombing. But then there's also 2012 Aurora shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering the examples so far, I would change 2012 Aurora shooting to Aurora theater shooting. So for me it looks like removing 2016 is OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, exactly. Nobody who's gotten to this page ever thought "Oh no, I was thinking of the 2014 Orlando nightclub shooting", because none of that exists on Wikipedia or real life. We shouldn't be overly specific on Wikipedia either. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed "2016" myself. True, there may have been no other prominent shootings at Orlando nightclubs, but "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" is still clearer and more precise than "Orlando nightclub shooting", as it removes any possible ambiguity. Furthermore, the "2016" part indicates that the event is significant among events that occurred during 2016 - without it, readers are left with a name that doesn't truly indicate the importance of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagree with It's pretty much standard practice, Ian. For just one example, Umpqua Community College shooting, and I've no doubt I could produce ten more recent ones if I had the time. As for clearer and more precise, sure, and it would also be clearer and more precise to say "2016 Orlando, Florida nightclub shooting", since we otherwise might give the impression we're talking about a night club named Orlando. WP:CONCISE should be our guide. If no disambiguation is needed, we don't disambiguate. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, The inclusion of 2016 in the title won't make anything clearer since there's nothing to clarify regarding the year. Unnecessary verbosity in the title. Alsamuef (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not verbosity in the least. "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" helps indicate the importance of the event - a title such as "Orlando nightclub shooting" doesn't indicate the importance of the event at all. A "shooting" could refer to the murder of a single person, for instance. So it's a poor title. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that it has zero support in the guidelines. We generally don't make 'em up as we go. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors are always expected to use common sense. In this case, I'm using my judgment, and it's telling me "2016" should not have been removed. Your reply is really not relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your reply is really not relevant. Ok, done talking to you. @Ianmacm:, I'd suggest we start RM now, as the quickest and most efficient path to resolution. Didn't notice that other RM in progress, buried deep in the TOC forest. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, You may have a good point re "shooting". "Massacre" may be better and is being used by major news sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• AFAIK, there was a similar, albeit much smaller shooting in or near the same place in 2013. -Mardus /talk 08:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I support this, having the 2016 in the title is like telling people that this is an event that this happens every year. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fussed on this and will support the consensus. However, please let's not have any more changes to the article title unless there is a clear consensus over a period of several days. There is already a formal discussion running on this and it should be allowed to run its course.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines are certainly relevant, Mandruss, but WP:CONCISE says, "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." "2016" is relevant information, and its inclusion in the article title does not make it unreasonably long. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the people searches for "Orlando nightclub shooting" not "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" but ok. Borikén (talk · ctb) 08:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

'Fully support' removal of redundant 2016 in title. Mootros (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support removing 2016 from the title as unneeded disambiguation.- MrX 10:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose If people had read Pulse (nightclub), they'd see there was apparently a "major" shooting at that nightclub in 2013. Of course, people are lined up to AfD that article, at which point you can go back to merging this without disambiguation because what could Wikipedia not know already? Wnt (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia article for the other shooting, and from the looks of it there never will be. It's so "major" the one citation for it is the online archive of a local hardcopy newspaper. We don't need to disambiguate from things not covered at Wikipedia, and we can do so if and when the need arises. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In this case I think the best move is to the title Orlando nightclub massacre, which follows in the footsteps of Columbine High School massacre, where far less people were killed. If anything qualifies as a massacre, it's this. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong support: Utterly redundant. There is no confusion as to which shooting. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose move to "Orlando nightclub shooting" due to concerns about 2013 shooting at same venue. Support move only to Orlando nightclub massacre. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move to "Orlando nightclub shooting" due to concerns about 2013 shooting at same venue. On the fence regarding: Support move only to Orlando nightclub massacre. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - In my experience we don't disambiguate unless disambiguation is needed, and we don't disambiguate from things that don't have Wikipedia articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep 2016 — The club was the scene of a shooting already in 2013 (article paywalled), so 2016 matters a lot. -Mardus /talk 16:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Would moving to Orlando nightclub massacre be acceptable to you? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, because most people are very prone to confuse the 2013 and 2016 events with both the "shooting" and "massacre" words, and they'd lean to mean this year's event than the one that happened in 2013. "2016" should be in the article name, whether or not the article about the 2013 shooting exists, as 2016 would inform people, that there was a shooting event x years before that one at exactly the same place (even if an article about it does not exist). -Mardus /talk 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Usually the "2016" would only need to be here if there was a prev article (2013 in this case) however there is no article and so there's no need to disambiguate - I don't mean this in a disrespectful way (and I apologize if it comes out that way) but yes the 2013 was obviously important etc etc however as it doesn't (and will unlikely to) have an article here it shouldn't have any relevance to the naming of this article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Unless we're going to move this page to include Pulse (the location's name) like some of the other notable mass shootings (Columbine, Virginia Tech etc...), I cannot support removing 2016 in the article title. Yes, there may have been a previous shooting at the same venue, but we currently don't have a page on that and therefore that isn't the major concern (and in fact if a move to Pulse nightclub shooting or something similar is made, we can incorporate the previous shooting into that article). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is the only one so far... Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment See also #Requested move 14 June 2016 below. General Ization ^Talk 01:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Like the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, just a little different. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Merely a gay friendly nightclub

Are there any references from experts in the field, explaining why this is not merely a gay friendly nightclub, rather than a gay nightclub? Are all the "gay claims" leaning on the club's opinion on its website? What about the massacre at the Paris concert - was that a 5 percent gay concert venue ( and 95 percent other)? If everybody else jumps from the "mountain of encyclopediocity", what would you ... 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If one was married and had children in college, (and was a guest) and then died at the nightclub - would that under any circumstance mean that the person was gay? 46.212.60.151 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The media immediately described it as a "gay nightclub", with the club's own website being the major factor. It will be interesting to learn how many of the victims were gay men, as they may not all have been.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If a massacre occurs at a Christian church, and some of the patrons are non-Christians, that doesn't mean it isn't a Christian church. Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Did the club have an ordinary business license or did it have a gay bar- or whatever business license? In many countries a Christian church will have to file as such, for tax purposes - but probably not so in Saudi Arabia. 46.212.60.151 (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any difference between an "ordinary" bar license and a gay bar license. What matters to us is that virtually all primary and secondary sources refer to Pulse as a gay bar or gay nightclub. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The list of victims already suggests that a fair number of the victims may not have been gay men. However, the Pulse website describes itself as "Orlando's premier gay night club" and this is probably why it was chosen as a target. There must be plenty of other night clubs in Orlando.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps gay friendly would be the most encyclopedic term. First and foremost this is an encyclopedia; if notable opinions from experts are lacking - in regard to the difference between "gay-friendly bar" and "gay bar", then wikipedia can decide to say "gay friendly bar/nightclub, often called 'gay bar/nightclub' in folksy parlance". There are plenty references to the folksy parlance (or the media). Are there enough references to support that the bar/nightclub is in fact "gay friendly"? 46.212.238.28 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The white-washing of the anti-gay hate crime nature of this attack continues. This is a gay nightclub. Not "gay friendly". Of course, straight people are admitted as well (often with gay friends). Sources have described this as a gay nightclub and overwhelmingly recognise the anti-gay hate crime nature of this incident. We should as well. AusLondonder (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources indicate that it's a gay nightclub, not a gay friendly nightclub, though I'm not sure what the difference would be. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is a gay nightclub, how is that relevant? This was an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil. Simply calling it a nightclub ought to suffice.108.38.35.162 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur with User:AusLondonder (at 18:17). The fact that it's a gay nightclub, is enough to suggest the attacker's motive that early into the aftermath of the event, without rushing to judgement. -Mardus /talk 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The site of the attack had a very distinctive function as a gathering place for the LGBT community in Orlando. Calling it just a "nightclub" would be whitewashing of the first order. Whether or not this function was a prime motivation for the attacker remains to be seen, but I can see no point in describing the site as something other than what it was. General Ization ^Talk 01:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Type of Shooting: Islamic Terrorism?

The label Islamic Terrorism has been repeatedly added to the infobox as a description for the type of shooting. I'm not aware that investigators have arrived at such a conclusion. Most recently, Darkside Of Aquarius re-added it with this source: [2], which as far as I can tell, doesn't support such a determination at all.

I would like to get other editor's thoughts on whether we should label the shooting an "Islamic Terrorism" shooting, or not. Please indicate your support or opposition below.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

• every reputable news source is reporting that this attack has a clear Islamist motive, it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs)
• We have about as much reliable sources calling the motive "homophobia" or a "hate crime" as we do calling it Islamic terrorism. Either we should abstain from indicating any motive whatsoever until sources become more refined and explicitly clear, or Islamic terrorism should be included alongside homophobia/hate crime. So I support it, conditionally. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Crumpled Fire (talk · contribs). --RaphaelQS (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• He pledged allegiance to ISIS. He celebrated as 9/11 was happening. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And if true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• He pledged allegiance to ISIS, and ISIS has claimed credit for his attack. He was a Muslim, he was previously investigated for possible terrorist ties. By pledging allegiance, and by the group to whom allegiance was pledged claiming credit, it is an Islamic terrorist attack.   Spartan7W §   02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  ISIS can opportunistically claim credit since they feel that furthers their cause, but that doesn't mean they actually had anything to do with it before the fact. That's the question we should be asking. he was previously investigated for possible terrorist ties - Any found? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• I have not yet seen a reliable source that plainly makes such a claim. Several have speculated, but speculation is not fact.- MrX 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I just made a post below at the same time as yours, saying pretty much the same thing. While he apparently made a phone call saying that he was in ISIS, there is no evidence that he actually was. His father claimed he was homophobic and not particularly religious, which doesn't fit the bill for ISIS members normally. Religious extremism means that they are very religious. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources do call him a "devout Muslim". Also, his father's claims that it "wasn't religious" can't really be taken seriously, especially now that he's released a video saying "God will punish those involved in homosexuality". — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Also oppose, this is largely due to media hype. As I've said, the media was not plastering "Christian terrorism" over the front pages after the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Wade Page and Omar Mateen are both lone wolf extremists. The consensus is that the ISIL link is thin and dubious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

But the difference here is, Wade Page never claimed allegiance to a known (Christian) terrorist organization; Mateen did. Also, from what I've read it doesn't seem that Page's religious identity is even confirmed. Many white supremacists are now non-religious or have reverted to neo-European paganism and deride Christianity because of its Middle Eastern source. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 13:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair point, this CNN cite is instructive: "The man responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was described by an ex-wife as emotionally unstable, had been interviewed by the FBI over potential terror links and pledged allegiance to the ISIS during a 911 call, sources say. And a former co-worker of 29-year-old Omar Mateen, who authorities say killed 49 people in a massacre at an Orlando gay nightclub early Sunday, claimed he saw the attack coming. "He was an angry person, violent in nature, and a bigot to almost every class of person," said Dan Gilroy, who was a security guard alongside Mateen for about a year between 2014 and 2015, according to CNN affiliate WPTV-TV. Gilroy, a former police officer, said Mateen's behavior was so concerning that he quit working with him." This sounds more like George Hennard Mark Two, with a well known set of psychological traits for a mass shooter in the USA. However, the definition of a terrorist is always in the eye of the beholder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose using Islamic terrorism and Islamism/Islamist, because officials are making claims on condition of anonymity, the event was hailed by one or two IS-related organisations only after the fact, and a video of the perpetrator (per title above) suggests motivations based on strong homophobia. In the same vein, "act of terror" (used by officials) and "terrorist attack" (use avoided by officials) are two different beasts, because of the way the terrible event was organised. What gave the perpetrator the inspiration is not what aided and abetted his actions. -Mardus /talk 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Wait until a preponderance of major mainstream news outlets, at minimum, explicitly and without qualification call it Islamic terrorism (or use some clearly equivalent language). I'm not going to get specific as to what will constitute that preponderance for me, but we're not even close at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I think that if somebody pledges allegiance to ISIS, it is safe to say there is An Islamist motive. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I pledge my allegiance to ISIS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The FBI should at your door any time now. JOJ ^Hutton 14:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Islamist motive" is not the same thing as "Islamic Terrorist". We still need sources that plainly say he was an "Islamic terrorist" or that the attack was an "Islamic terrorist" attack. Anything else is WP:OR.- MrX 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so. I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism - A fact

The gunman pledged allegiance to ISIS. Regardless of whether or not he was in contact with the organisation, he is clearly sympathetic toward them and carried out the attack in the name of an Islamic organisation. This is clearly a terrorist attack, perpetrated by an islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes, of course it is. And it will be fought tooth and nail on here, so be prepared for frustration.  :-) 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are cases where people have joined radical Islamic organizations, spent months in training with them, and then done wicked things. This isn't one of them. The "pledge of allegiance" may have been due to mental instability, and the ISIL claim of responsibility is dubiously sourced. Like it or not, some people in the USA have easy access to semi-automatic weapons. Omar Mateen was one of them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mental instability doesn't preclude one from carrying out an act of Islamic terror. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

On this issue, Ian, I totally disagree with you. Sorry. 98.67.15.191 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't just keep using original research to make sources say something that they haven't said. Adding the word "clearly" to your arguments doesn't make such speculation factual.- MrX 14:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, for example if an alcoholic blames his or her family for their condition, does it make it so? I'd wait for a more complete investigation before saying it was Islamic terrorism if it were up to me....Nothing wrong at this point with writing something about his claim and his history though in my eyes.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another source here: "Despite Mateen's 911 call expressing support for Islamic State, U.S. officials said on Sunday they had no conclusive evidence of any direct connection with foreign extremists. "So far as we know at this time, his first direct contact was a pledge of bayat (loyalty) he made during the massacre," said a U.S. counterterrorism official. "This guy appears to have been pretty screwed up without any help from anybody."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because a terrorist is a lone wolf, it doesn't preclude him from committing acts of Islamic terror. I don't understand how anyone can realistically claim there wasn't a religious motivation in here. It's sheer insanity. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

History is rife with people claiming a religious motivation for heinous acts when their true motivation was eventually shown to be something else (profit, accumulation of power, reinforcement of ego). Let's not take a murderer's word for what was his true motivation, barely 24 hours after the incident and before any investigation can establish his motive. General Ization ^Talk 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

He had already been under investigation by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 as a potential Islamic Extremist with links to terrorists. This is clearly a persistent belief of his, and his Islamist leanings have seemingly showed up in his history. The fact he declared that he was carrying this out in allegiance it's Islamic State is evidence enough this was an attack committed by a radical Islamist. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's important to stick to what the sources say. The attack has been described as domestic terrorism by Orlando Police and as an act of hate by President Obama. However, as WP:OR says, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Donald Trump has used the phrase "Islamic terrorism" [3] but law enforcement officials are wary of using this type of terminology without clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Obama didn't even call the San Bernadino attacks Islamic, so I'd take his assessment with a grain of salt. The sources say that he made a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. They also state he was known to be a radical Islamist by his coworkers, and the FBI. He was also investigated for potential terror links. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Or an act by someone who thought it would be cool if he was perceived as an Islamic extremist rather than someone who was mentally ill or who simply wanted to experience the thrill of killing a large number of people. Once again, there is at this time no good reason to accept his word for his motivation. General Ization ^Talk 15:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI - "Daniel Gilroy, a former police officer, worked as a security officer with G4S Security at the PGA Village complex in Port St. Lucie. Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen worked the shift right after Gilroy at the complex's south gate. Gilroy described Mateen as a devout Muslim who brought a prayer mat to work and prayed several times a day." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.15.191 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. And from that you want to describe his acts as Islamic terrorism? That (suggesting that if he prayed and went to Mosque, his violence must be evidence of Islamic terrorism) is precisely the problem. People who are devout, and people who go through the rituals that would make them appear to be devout, are entirely capable of doing things that are motivated by something other than their religion. General Ization ^Talk 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No - there were reports that he was "not religious" - as in, going thru the motions and believing in his version of Islam - which are now seen to be false. That he was an Islamist and this was Islamic terrorism is a given, but I am not going down that rathole with extreme leftist editors who deny that. The article will shape itself in the days and weeks to come. 68.19.0.83 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The terrorist's own imam disagrees with you. The terrorist attended his mosque "3 or 4 times a week." XavierItzm (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I must reiterate, that there's a difference in terminology (I'm not going to try to see if capitalisation is correct with some terms): "islamic terrorism" and "terrorist act" both suggest aiding and abetting by an islamist organisation; whereas "act of terror" suggests a lone-wolf action based on a different motive. -Mardus /talk 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They imply nothing of the sort. Any perceived implication is an issue on your part. Islamic terrorism is terrorism inspired by Islamist beliefs. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

So much for "facts". Fact. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to venture a meta appeal to common sense here. I have 3 years and 24K edits, and I wouldn't presume to argue much with the agreed judgment of General Ization, MrX, and ianmacm, who have 27 years and 150K edits between them. I've had extensive exposure to two of them, and some to the third, and I think I can say that they pretty much know what they're doing. Hope this helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for consensus about the motive before putting it on the infobox

Do you agree? --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Most certainly. General Ization ^Talk 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. - MrX 16:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - motive should remain empty until it becomes clear. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, motive is traditionally the most difficult aspect of any mass shooting. It is rarely as clear cut as the media would have you believe in the first 48 hours after the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The perpetrator's self-declared motive is not necessarily the correct one. The motive must be stated by reliable law enforcement sources close to the investigation. Otherwise it is only acceptable to state motives under consideration, and not in the infobox. Roches (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep motive empty (until after very reliable information crops up), because if the parameter value were not empty, then someone would eagerly tack on their own interpretation per original research. -Mardus /talk 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

They are being less cautious over at Omar Mateen, both about motive and other things, (I fixed the most obvious). Kudos to those advocating restraint here. Pincrete (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yea, well, I was busy here today :/ -Mardus /talk 01:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Wait until the FBI confirms. Neutrality^talk 17:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

+1. Hell, +2. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Jkeec regarding this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Jujutsuan who just added content there. Seems decently sourced but there's discussion about it on here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Added comment to the infobox. TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

AP now reporting Islamic motive

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b265896ee37e42039a859e38cf1a3afa/fbi-orlando-gunman-had-strong-indications-radicalization Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, stop putting a motive inside the "attack type" field of the infobox. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a type of attack. Perhaps it should not be REMOVED Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism is a motive. A type of attack is bombing, shooting, hostage taking... --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What does this source offer that is not already well known? was likely inspired by foreign terrorist organizations ? Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet more proof this is ISLAMIC in nature. Darkside Of Aquarius (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note, Comey said "There is confusion about his motives," in one press conference (businessinsider) The 911 call was described as "bizarre". Comey noted that ISIL is openly fighting Nusra.

Note that if a Sunni Muslim expresses support for Hezbollah (Shiite) then it may be an act of intimidation/boasting.

Note that there is no evidence of he received any weapons, funding or assistance from outside groups.

Maybe wait for Comey to say something clearer over the next 24 hours? -- Callinus (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My spider senses tell me this person was just another typical frustrated american who takes his liberty to gun people down. Yes, there are religious motives and he did seek guidance from ISIS but they seem more like convenient excuses in his particular situation. excuses which are compatible with his life. there is a very good chance this person has no official terrorist connections, and was just an average immigrant. typical frustrated american. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course "spider senses" are not a credible source (they are not meant to be) but this actually is the most likely scenario. It's very sad how so many frustrated Americans have nowhere to turn and nothing to do. So much is spent on punishment and imprisonment and police and hardly nothing is done about proper care and prevention.....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semantic but important point: it's Islamist terrorism, not Islamic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe eve there is a distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside Of Aquarius (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to be terribly rude, but thankfully your belief does not influence the definitions of the words. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism needs a move. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can be as rude as you wish, User: EvergreenFir, it does not offend me. But I am most likely right in this case, I really do believe this is domestic terrorism. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@....SandwitchHawk....: I was speaking to Darkside Of Aquarius regarding rudeness and the definition of Islamist vis-a-vis Islamic. No offense intended to you. @Mandruss: I ain't touching that one... I looked at the move log and that was enough to scare me away. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Twas a kind of sideways way of saying, "Current Wikipedia consensus disagrees with you." I'm sure you know that article titles rule on questions of naming, so we're stuck with Islamic whether we concur or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct on that point, Mandruss. 175.156.169.55 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI of related AfD - Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

As it is relevant to this article, I'm letting folks know that I nominated Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and comment if you wish. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

accurate count?

The following sections in the article give conflicting information.

"Once the officers got in, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside.[19][24]"

"At least 49 people were killed; approximately another 53 people were injured in the shooting, with many requiring surgery in local hospitals.[34]"

"Thirty-eight people and the perpetrator were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven people pronounced dead later at hospitals."

The first count, 39+2=41. The second states at least 49 were killed. The third, 38+1, indicates 39 dead at scene, plus 11 at hospital for 50. If you add the hospital total to the first count, 41+11=52. I know numbers are going to be off until all details are in, but we might want to add a note that counts are an estimate at this time, because I'm not certain which count here is right. Coolgamer (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The first is based on the Orlando Sentinel timeline cited at the second ref. The second and third are more or less in agreement, as the second excludes the perpetrator while the third includes the perpetrator among the dead. I'm in favor of removing the first, as only one ref among many makes that accounting (which is already discussed above at #Number of deaths). General Ization ^Talk 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this gets cleaned up. I'm here as I saw "Once the officers entered the building, they found thirty-nine people dead inside the club and another two people dead outside" and then "Thirty-eight civilians and the gunman were pronounced dead at the scene, while eleven civilians were pronounced dead later at hospitals". We don't know if the 41 total in the first sentence includes the gunman but it's different than 38+1. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary Discussion

I believe the final sentence of the summary is out of place.

Mateen had made 2 trips to Saudi Arabia for Umrah in the preceeding years.

This fits better under the "perpetrator" section as it has no direct involvement with the actions that happened at the nightclub. While it loosely fits where it is at now, it reads poorly. (a.k.a. sounds bad when you read in your head)192.91.173.36 (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: It is actually already there. I recommend deleting the summary section sentence.192.31.106.35 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Removed from lead, ref moved to the statement in the section on Mateen. General Ization ^Talk 21:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack type in Infobox - Please read

Ok everyone... This is the deal. Attack type in this article's Infobox refers to the type of attack meaning the weapons used - guns. bombs. whatever... It does not refer to the motives or if the attack was some specific type of terrorism.
From Template:Infobox civilian attack:
type – The type of attack (e.g. Suicide bombings, Bioterrorism, etc.)
So. "Attack type" does not refer to motive or terrorism or delineating what type of crime this was.
Therefore, according to Template:Infobox civilian attack, which is itself one of the subsections of the Manual of Style. all the references to Murder/Terrorism/Crime that are now listed under "Attack type" do not belong in that section. They should be removed.
Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this especially since many of those topics either overlap or are not necessarily supported by current sources (especially all this debate about terrorism). For the time of this discussion I am going to remove them because they are against guidelines though if this discussion finds otherwise they may be readded. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree based on instinct. But Bioterrorism in the example only muddies the issue. Why didn't they say "biological agents" or something? Bioterrorism is a terrorist motive for the use of biological agents. So the letter of the doc doesn't help the case much. A better case, imo, is that the "Motive" field is a better place for those things.
And then only after motive has been more clearly established. As usual in these things, people need to s l o w ..... d o w n .
So, yes, I support removal of Domestic terrorism, Hate crime, and Islamic terrorism from Attack type at this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. They should be removed.- MrX 22:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a comment stating as much to the infobox. Hasn't seemed to work, unfortunately. TompaDompa (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed to change the example for type at Template talk:Infobox civilian attack#Bioterrorism as an example for the type field, per my comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Turkish newspaper in Reactions section

There have been various version of the following added to the reactions section:

Yeni Akit, a Turkish newspaper close to the current Turkish government published a headline calling the victims as "deviant" or "perverted" which in turn was criticized by foreign media outlets.

The seems to violate WP:NOTNEWS to me. The reactions of one newspaper in Turkey is trivia and does not warrant their own mention (WP:WEIGHT), even if the reaction is counter to the norm. Unless this becomes bigger news, I don't see the need to include this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I agree. It's insignificant and forgettable. Let's leave it out.- MrX 22:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree as well. I almost pulled it out myself, so thanks for doing so.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Mateen celebrated as 9/11 occurred

Mateen celebrating as 9/11 occurred is a further indication that this was Islamic terrorism & not just a random nut job. It was almost certainly also a hate crime, but both elements should be noted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If true (and WP hedges its bets quite a lot, pointing out it's been a long time and people under these circumstances often "remember" things that never happened) that lack of empathy is just as likely evidence of latent mental illness as it is of any sort of religious radicalism. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

When a preponderance of reliable sources (or at the very least a preponderance of major mainstream news outlets, that's open to debate), explicitly call it Islamic terrorism, we can call it Islamic terrorism. Until then, we're in WP:NOR territory. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post is quite the WP:RS here in Wikipedia except when people don't like what it says! Apparently in those cases, one should look into any "hedges" the Washington Post included in its articles, or wait for other sources! XavierItzm (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Gawker article - alleged use of gay dating app by shooter

So, an IP editor added content related to this piece by Gawker ([4]). In sum, it alleges that Mateen was a regular at the club and used a gay dating app. I removed the IP's addition as it was loaded with OR as well, but wondering what to do about this source. Gawker, to me, is WP:QUESTIONABLE, but I'm curious what others think. If this gets picked up by other more reputable sources, seems like something we should include? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should be watching for other, more reliable sources, to expend some resources to verify this. It should stay out until they do (though I find the implication just as plausible as some others being proposed here). General Ization ^Talk 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Apps can't be gay? I'm gonna make the gayest Siri just for you, General Ization! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was the IP editor. I think usually Gawker would be questionable, but I think they have proven that their Gaydar is on fleek. This was best proven in the Peter Thiel V Gawker case. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinel ran a piece on this four regular customers at the Orlando gay nightclub where a gunman killed 49 people said Monday that they had seen the killer, Omar Mateen, there before. Nothing about the app though.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A story from WABC-TV mentions the app. APK whisper in my ear 23:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It has now been reported by the Los Angeles Times, which names the Pulse patron who recognized Mateen outside the club at about 1 a.m. from his Jack'd profile, having communicated with him through the gay dating app for about a year before the shooting. The Times quotes the witness who said that Mateen's Jack'd profile information, along with his own phone presumably containing those messages, has now been turned over to the FBI for analysis. Other Pulse patrons claim to have seen and conversed with the attacker during previous social visits to the nightclub; the Times says he had visited for a year, and Gawker dates his visits to the past three years. Obviously this a powerful developing angle, which I think should be included certainly as more information emerges. (See my Talk page.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It does seem strange to me that the person who communicated with Mateen would know that the profile information had been turned over to the FBI, but I guess there's a possibility. I don't think it should have been added to the article, because the relevance and veracity of a single source, when the source is Gawker, is probably not sufficient to maintain NPOV in the article. A person who uses a gay dating app is not necessarily gay, even if they send messages that suggest they are. Likewise, someone who visits a gay club isn't necessarily gay. Roches (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times quotes the witness, Kevin West, by name. He said he was in communication with Mateen online through "Jack'd" and, after the attack, contacted the FBI and turned over his own phone (this witness told MSNBC tonight that he had first communicated with Mateen more than a year ago, and again after Mateen renewed contact with him online through "Jack'd" three months ago). The Times is an RS source, and we are going only with what has been reported there; I agree, we are not yet able to draw conclusions about Mateen's sexuality, merely that he has been reported to have used gay chat and dating apps. A separate witness told MSNBC's Chris Hayes tonight, on camera, that he had seen Mateen's profile posted on Grindr, but quickly blocked him a year ago after concluding he was unstable. This witness also said another friend recognized Mateen through an Adam4Adam profile from the late 2000's, and was aware of two friends in communication with Mateen who had voluntarily turned over cellphones to the FBI.

Like you, I weigh on the side on caution and against drawing preliminary conclusions. I suspect this will all be reliably reported in the fullness of time. Please read the Los Angeles Times article, which confirms that Mateen's use of gay dating apps are part of the investigation: "Investigators are looking at reports that Mateen visited gay clubs and was using gay dating apps, a law enforcement official said. 'Watch that space,' the official said." Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2016

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting → Orlando massacre – The name '2016 Orlando nightclub shooting' is very long and cumbersome, and 'massacre' has fallen into widespread use both colloquially and with the media ~ Henry ^TALK 00:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. As per the discussion above, the most agreed-upon alt title without "2016" was Orlando nightclub massacre. If you change your choice to that, I will support. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 00:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose: Title is accurate and precise as is. It is soon to observe "widespread" use; if and only if sustained public discussion uses the term "massacre" would the move be appropriate. "2016" is essential for disambiguation, even though the event was notably worse than any other shooting. --Zfish118^⋉talk 03:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature 48 hours after the event. I'd wait at least a week (20th, say) before any more RMing, but we can spend that time developing clear consensus on questions not dependent on sources, such as year-or-no-year. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Father's TV show and president candidacy

It has been deleted, but I regard the perpetrator's father's announcment of his candidacy as President of Afghanistan and his own TV show as notable. --SI 00:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Better on Omar Mateen than here, imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It has not been shown that the father's interests or actions had any direct influence on the shooting. There is a separate article on the shooter at Omar Mateen. Background information about the father would be a better fit there. Note that many people announce they intend to run for President of the United States or other countries. The "TV show" seems to be a Youtube channel. Anyone can create their own Youtube channel. Thus, neither of those would be things that make a person noteworthy per how we use the word on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"...the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in U.S. history..."

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I so often am), but isn't this the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people in MODERN WORLD history (since, say, industrialization)? I have no way to explore/confirm this, but I've not yet read/heard anything that would contradict that, and if factual, it should be pointed out; I leave it to experts better qualified than I to check into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freonfreakone (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the mass collection, deportation, internment in concentration camps, and execution by gas and other means of people identified as LGBT by the Nazis is unlikely to be eclipsed by this incident as the deadliest incident of violence against LGBT people. General Ization ^Talk 00:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In any case, it's moot unless reliable sources make the statement you suggest. To date, they are describing it as the deadliest in U.S., not world, history. General Ization ^Talk 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Political commentary in spite of consensus not to include

A determined editor has re-added conservative political commentary, ignoring the rough consensus here: Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting#RfC: Should the article include statements from government officials, politicians, and others not directly involved?. - MrX 01:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The statements summarized with notable people (such as the president, governor of FL, and Mayor of Orlando) and LIMITED other references in very summarized form by a representative sample of notable people and related groups should be the only thing in the reaction section. There is a separate article for reactions, all of this extra stuff can be put in there if people are interested in reading about it. Besides, much of the prose seems to not have a neutral point of view. --Flipper9 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In my view, any summary should not include names or specific quotes. I agree that the newly added material is not a presented in a neutral way, nor is it representative of available source material.- MrX 01:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase, so long as it's accurate, and feel free to add the liberal side. But don't remove the conservative side just because no one's added the liberal side yet. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, there was no consensus not to include; there was consensus to include summaries, which the addition is. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that this section keeps getting reverted, placed back, reverted... a reversion war. Can it be stopped until we get a real consensus? Flipper9 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The same person has done it again, with an edit summary of "Half the political spectrum, voiced by prominent commentators, is not undue weight." Now, I really don't mind such material being added (I think it's a bit insightful), but there does seem to be a pro-conservative push for its inclusion, and the edit summary doesn't really prove how it's not undue. The only way I can see that material staying without actually violating WP:DUE is if we also have a liberal standpoint included as well. (But even then, that's pushing it.) Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the problems is that the RfC isn't about whether a large block of text outlining conservative reactions (to liberal reactions) should be included. FallingGravity (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well then, let us begin the debate. Should the section of conservative reactions be included? And if so, should it be accompanied by a section of liberal reactions so it won't violate WP:DUE? Parsley Man (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Leave out this new content, it belongs in the other article about the reactions, if anywhere. Keep the present section and reactions limited per above comments-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know, the section is actually already in the reactions article. Parsley Man (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was under the impression that yesterday we decided to limit the reaction section to key people and things. Now I see we are straying off. But, maybe this particular reaction will end up being notable. If that is so, I do agree that the Liberal spectrum/reaction should also be added. This section is still getting out of hand, despite past lessons and the best efforts of some users to keep it simple and to the point. United States Man (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Include, and include liberal reactions I'm not against adding the liberal side. Just against removing the conservative side under the guise of it being "fringe" or "undue weight". I'll say it again: half the political spectrum is not a fringe opinion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It sort of is, if most of the material in question just involves conservatives criticizing liberals and implying their partial responsibility in letting the attack happen. Parsley Man (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So if it's critical of liberals it's fringe? Non sequitur. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And if it's critical of conservatives, it's fringe too. Unless there is a clear indication of liability from liberals and/or conservatives, Democrats and/or Republicans, etc., etc., we must be neutral about this. Parsley Man (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. Criticism does NOT equal fringe theory by any sensible or policy-oriented definition. Documenting a reaction is not POV unless WP's voice endorses one view or the other. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, to me, it sounds like the material is endorsing that one view. Parsley Man (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Summarizing someone's statements isn't an endoresement. And the paragraph's been edited by another user anyway to make it even more NPOV. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Jujutsuan, it is certainly fringe. You inserted a YouTube clip to a fringe online commentator from a conspiracy-theory website. That is a paradigm case of fringe. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Summary Only This section should be brief, with only pertinent responses. re: SHORT. There is a whole other article where you can include all view points and flesh this sort of thing out. Including all of this detail, listing every single viewpoint in the main article introduces politics and non-neutral point of view. Flipper9 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Leaving aside the more general question of whether "political commentary should be included," I want to note that the specific text inserted by Jujutsuan is completely unacceptable. Direct links to YouTube commentary from marginal, fringe figures—like a link to a YouTube clip from someone named Paul Joseph Watson, who apparently is "editor-at-large of Infowars.com" (a conspiratorial, fringe website run by Alex Jones) is wildly unacceptable. To devote multiple sentences to this insignificant, obscure individual from a kook website is outrageous.

If someone wanted to put a few short sentences (cited to a reliable news (not editorial) secondary source like the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, etc.) about the spectrum of political reaction in the U.S., I would have no problem. But links to Twitter feeds, YouTube clips, marginal commentators is another matter altogether. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You say it like everything was from Watson and Watson alone (who by the way is not nuts like Alex Jones). Crowder, Hemingway, and the other guy (forget his name at the moment) are notable either by their publications (last two) or their simple prominence among conservatives (Crowder was CPAC speaker, fmr Fox contributor). I'd be fine with not mentioning them by name, too. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• This probably merits a paragraph. Crowder doesn't need to be mentioned by name. -- Callinus (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we can't even dispute the POV of this section as the tag keeps getting removed. Did we reach a consensus? Flipper9 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, we haven't reached consensus. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like we are going whole hog and including political reactions. How about including reactions by other third parties, prominent Democrats and Republicans not aligned with the presumptive nominees? To keep a NPOV, not that anyone seems to care about that anymore, we need to make this the biggest section of the whole article including debates over gun control, religion, etc. Flipper9 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Flipper9 (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting my deletion of individuals at the shooting event mistaking the gunfire for music

I have reviewed both sources extensively and there is no witness statements verifying this claim. The only claim was that it sounds like fire crackers via “I thought it was firecrackers,” said Ray Rivera, 42, who was working at the club as a D.J. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment by witnesses has appeared in multiple sources I have read (as well as broadcast interviews I have heard), though I couldn't point out exactly which ones. General Ization ^Talk 02:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"McGill tells CBS News that his horrific night began when he and his roommates were getting their last drinks at Pulse’s bar. They suddenly heard three loud bangs, but he did not see any shooter and at first he thought it might be something to do with the club’s sound system." 212.56.125.112 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• Are you seriously referencing heavy.com? lol ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this in the article, and it's referenced. Almost every deadly incident at an entertainment venue includes numerous people on the scene mistaking the first signs of danger as part of the show. This happened as long ago as the Iroquois Theater Fire, at the Station Nightclub fire and in many other cases. But the 'not until the fifth pop' seems sufficient. Roches (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But the issue at hand is how rather few people who might have thought the shooting was related to fireworks or music, this is not the consensuses of the majority at the event or even a significant opinion which should be posted on the main wikipedia entry. This is why you need a better reference than something from heavy.com ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not only is Heavy.com not as reliable as nytimes.com where i got my information but "Something with the club's sound system" means a lot different than "music". Music needs removed. A qoute from Daily mail: "Speaking exclusively to Daily Mail Online, eyewitness David Ward, 50, described the scene ...Ward, a life settlements account manager, was woken around 2am by two shots. He recalled: 'I thought at the time they were maybe car backfires.'" so we have firecrackers and car backfires but not "music". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639727/He-going-ha-ha-ha-killed-Sole-survivor-30-trapped-Orlando-gay-club-bathroom-tells- Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Heavy sucks and The Daily Mail sucks. If we had to choose, I'd trust Heavy, but we don't. If you ever read something on either that isn't in a reliable source as well, it's probably not true. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE. someone posted this ref which states some individuals at the shooting event thought it was music from the telegraph so that ref works. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/we-thought-it-was-part-of-the-music-how-the-pulse-nightclub-mass/ Boilingorangejuice (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Blood donation issue

As a side, should we include the controversy brought upon by the FDA donation guidelines as there are outrages that certain groups of potential donors (including gay/bisexual men) are prevented from donation? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I do think this has some level of notability and could fit into the Aftermath section since blood donation is already mentioned. For me, including this is a toss up. Maybe others have opinions? United States Man (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure how notable this will end up being. It could raise an issue later on in the future, but I don't see how much of a concern it is now. And this is coming from the person who first introduced the material yesterday. Parsley Man (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any sources saying it impacted treatment. There are many restrictions. Agenda driven restrictions without impact to the event don't belong. (note: I am not able to donate due to the many restrictions but are not related to this.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point. The restrictions had nothing to do with this event and were already in place, so they really aren't that notable for this article. United States Man (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not regarding treatment - this is restriction on the part of donors, not the patients. I'm permanently deferred by the American Red Cross for unrelated reasons that are beyond my control, and I agree with the intent of the FDA guidelines; I raised this question because the aftermath of the shooting did bring this issue into light again. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a parallel issue being discussed, but it's not clear that they're directly related. Don't want to coatrack it. Might be something to include in the See Also section (Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy). At least for now. Maybe in the future the Red Cross will reference this event when they implement their screening changes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Woah, we have that page? I didn't realize we had that. Learn something new everyday... Thanks! - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Penwhale: For some reason, this just made my night! :D Glad I could help! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Gunman a Closet Homosexual?

It's been reported that the gunman was a regular at Pulse, used a homosexual dating app, and his wife had her suspicions about him. Far too early to claim he was homosexual of course, but if true does this mean the attack is not a hate crime? Surely an attack by a homosexual on a homosexual club cannot be a hate crime right? The claims may of course prove to be false but figured I'd raise the issue since seeing it mentioned in the media. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Doubt this will make it into the article unless it becomes widely covered by reliable sources. At this point it looks a little like a big rumor. United States Man (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has been confirmed yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. This would also fall in line with my theory of this event being an act of pure domestic terrorism, with no real foreign influence other than what the shooter probably used as an excuse out of frustration or anger. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like a big rumor. Parsley Man (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it can still be considered a hate crime just like Homosexuals who oppose same sex marriage are still considered to be "Homophobes" by many (I personally never use that word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:DD72:AD54:36F2:F54 (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I say we wait until more sources cover it. LATimes is good, but at the moment it's unclear what it means, if anything. There's no deadline. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we may have more sources than just the LA Times at the Omar Mateen article. Parsley Man (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspected almost immediately that Omar Mateen might have been a closet homosexual or struggled with homosexual feelings. This is a lot like Howard Unruh. However, more sourcing is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also similar to the case of Salah Abdeslam and Prince Abdulaziz, but solely based on witness accounts. As for whether a hate crime can be committed against somebody's own demographic, the answer is yes! (cf. internalized homophobia, self-hating Jew, et al.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.9 (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The LA Times and Orlando Sentinel have reports from witnesses that were shown a driver's license photo of Mateen by police and they recognised him. This will be reported by police. -- Callinus (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A Presidential candidate gave a whole speech on this issue

Which I believe is perfectly relevant, but User:Parsley Man disagrees, without bothering to move the content they keep removing to the talk page in violation of the spirit of WP:PRESERVE.[5] -- Kendrick7^talk 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I told you to go to this section of the talk page in one of my edit summaries. A number of other users already know what kind of material we're talking about. Parsley Man (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe Parsley Man was correct in removing that part. If Trump's statement is included, statements from other candidates must be included, and that goes agains≠±t what we were trying to do with this section by keeping it short and trimmed down. United States Man (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PAPER, why exactly are you trying to keep things short and trimmed down?? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't my idea, but look at that reactions branch article. That is usually what happens to the reaction sections on these sorts of articles. They become longer and longer, eventually getting to the point where the reaction of every little country on every continent is included. There has to be a cutoff point somewhere, and that happens to be on the shorter side of things. United States Man (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To put it in layman's terms, not doing so would result in a WP:QUOTEFARM. Parsley Man (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly short list; let me post it again from above:

It's a national election year, and as such certain local and national political reactions matter. Most importantly: the Orlando mayor, the Orlando national rep., whoever is running to be the next Orlando Rep, the Florida governor, anyone running to be the next governor, Florida U.S. senators, anyone running to be the next Florida senator, the President, and whoever is running to replace him. This should not be in the least controversial.

That's not too hard. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a lot of people to cover. "Anyone running to be the next governor"? Are there any specifics, or is it supposed to be every single candidate in the election? Same with "anyone running to be the next Florida senator". Parsley Man (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Funny, the only person among those whose opinion who you keep removing is that of Donald Trump's. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Because Donald Trump is the only person who keeps getting added in by people! If it was just Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, you bet my ass I'd remove their statements as well! I don't appreciate what you're implying. Parsley Man (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I've noticed, Trump was the only candidate whose reaction was in there in the first place. So, that argument is invalid. United States Man (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:NPOV doesn't mean WP:NOPOV. His is a significant point of view, and should be represented in this article. Failure of other editors to add other points of view isn't incumbent on its inclusion -- Kendrick7^talk 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But I find it very confusing as to why a bunch of people feel more inclined to use Trump than, say, Clinton? Her gun control remarks have to be just as important as Trump's proposed policy of closing the U.S. borders to all Muslims, right? (Let it be known that this is in no way any indication of my support of Clinton.) Parsley Man (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And I in no way support Trump or Clinton, frankly, but come on, the GOP presidential candidate calling LGBT people just another American tribe, deserving of protection. This is historic stuff. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would hardly call anything said by Trump or Clinton or any other candidate "historic" so far... Parsley Man (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it doesn't really matter who adds what side. If there is one side and not the other, you have weight and POV issues. Feel free to add both sides if you wish. United States Man (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, WP:YESPOV doesn't work like that. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me. I have realized that I might interpret the POV differently than others, hence the reason we have this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Coverage by sources does not mean the event is notable. The press can't help themselves when it comes to covering Trump's inflammatory comments. Iff something more comes of the comments, then include. Otherwise, don't. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

He's a candidate for President of the United States. What planet are you living on? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Preferably not this one. But again, condolences, platitudes, and Trumpisms are not inherently notable. WP:NOTNEWS (To clarify, I'm referring to notability in terms of "enduring notability". Trump's comments are remarkable, but not notable. Besides, nearly any head of state, the pope, and some government officials would be more notable in then a celebrity/presidential candidate). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. If something big comes from Trump's statements, it would be notable enough for the section, regardless of other candidates. I just don't feel, that with the statements themselves, we should have one side and not the other. United States Man (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel there is a whole pro-Trump sentiment behind all of this. Otherwise, comments from other candidates like Clinton would be added in as well. Parsley Man (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be perfectly fine with reactions from both sides being included. That would put an end to this discussion. United States Man (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV, feel free to add Clinton's POV. Someone will add it even if you don't. Patience! :) -- Kendrick7^talk 05:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Only a couple major sides, don't think this will be a major issue. United States Man (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump blathers on about every subject under the sun in order to get more free media time, please don't reward his childish behavior with more free ink to spout his positions which are often inaccurate and sometimes are plain lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:E4CA:8CBD:DC67:3366 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to mention Trump, it's important to say that his first reaction on Twitter was to claim that he had been congratulated over the killing of 49 LGBT people in Orlando — that their slaughter served some sort of personal vindication for him — and that he offered absolutely no consolation to the LGBT community for more than a day. Mention that, for proper context. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I am still very, very wary of the wisdom of inserting candidate-by-candidate political speeches on the page, although at the presidential-candidate level I see the argument. I have inserted some text, cited primarily to the New York Times and Washington Post, that (1) identifies the commonalities in statements by politicians of both parties; (2) identifies the key differences; and (3) gives a summary of both Clinton's speech and Trump's speech. Neutrality^talk 06:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Move

Names for these horrible things develop in the press organically. I think we should move this page to something without "2016", given it's never described that way and it's significant and unique enough not to warrant it. I'm seeing "Orlando massacre" and "Orlando nightclub massacre" a lot. So maybe we could put it to a vote?--Monochrome_Monitor 03:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

First off, it isn't just a vote. Second, the other three move discussions on this page all either support leaving the title for now or have no consensus either way. Best to leave the subject alone for now. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with United States Man. It's best to leave the title as it is for now. Parsley Man (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree - give this move a moratorium of at least a week. Create all the plausible redirects you think are useful. A good indicator for a stable title would be one that multiple reliable sources adopt. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Including the year seems to be a Wikipedia convention. While it does not make sense today it will when you see the article title five or 20 years from now in categories. While an article could be started and worked out without the year, and then moved later people would complain "what was wrong with the old title?" Thus, it's better to have the year from the beginning. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: It may or may not seem a convention, depending on which slice of Wikipedia you've been exposed to. That's been discussed elsewhere on this page, and quite a few relatively recent (within 20 years) no-year examples have been shown. Enough of them that it can't rasonably be called a convention, imo. Per the slice of Wikipedia I've been exposed to, my perceived convention is to omit the year unless it's required for disambiguation. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I think that if we want to remove the year, we really ought to put Pulse onto the page name to make it specific. I wrote above in a separate section the first RM for my specific reasoning. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Label as mass shooting or terrorist attack?

I've noticed this little conflict going on in regards to the Current template, so I thought I'd address it here. Should we label this incident as a mass shooting in said template, or as a terrorist attack? Parsley Man (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass shooting is the easiest and most documented. When getting into terrorist attacks, it becomes 'What kind of terrorist attack?'. United States Man (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it not both? Neutrality^talk 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But there's been conflict over whether it should be referred to as one or the other in the Current template. Parsley Man (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We can use both terms in the template, if desired, correct? Both would be equally accurate, though one goes to "motivation" and the other to "means." Neutrality^talk 04:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Both would probably be more preferable. United States Man (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A "terrorist attack" generally refers to foreign calibration. We don't know if the shooter was directly working with anyone outside of the United States. We do know he claimed his allegiance to ISIL, but anyone can do this, regardless of their intentions or nationality, and it would not be considered an act of "terrorism" because there is no foreign connection. Whoever keeps changing these edits is being disruptive by adding the label of "terrorist attack" Technically all shootings are domestic terrorism, but we only apply the "terrorist" label to real foreign calibration. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the current wording of "terrorist attack committed in the form of a mass shooting" works well enough. I think it's acceptable to classify ISIL-inspired terrorist acts as "terrorism," even if they don't have actual ISIL organizational involvement, because the goal of both is ultimately the same.--Slon02 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Do you really believe that? I think you are purposely avoiding common sense just to be disruptive. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the person who keeps editing this one simple line which doesn't really need any further clarification, really wants ISIL to have the all time high score of American mass shootings. Perhaps it's better this event be kept as domestic, rather than giving the title of "worst american shooting" to a foreign group. Because they actually enjoy this title. At least keep it simple without the "terrorism" for now until we have better information. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't like calling it a terrorist attack without knowing a motive, but it's a losing battle. The rabble is strong. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

Worse than 9/11? Seriously? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"since" --RaphaelQS (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's what the sentence says. It is the worst SINCE 9/11, meaning that it is not worse than 9/11 but is the worst one since then, i.e. prior "attacks" after 9/11 involved less than 49 victims compared to the 49 victims of the Orlando attack but not worse than the 2996 victims of 9/11. Flipper9 (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadliest, technically. There've been worse, to some families. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

Hi i was wondering if you can grant me some minor changes as the this page has some errors in it. they are as follows: -the cause of the attack was islamic terrorism NOT terrorism that section needs to be clear, islamic fundamentilism, islamist motives, and homophobia Sparticus107 (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I've declined this edit request. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the cause, and the usage of the current wording is consistent with that of reliable sources and other Wikipedia articles on similar topics. Possible religious influences regarding the attack are already sufficiently addressed in the lead with mentions to ISIL.--Slon02 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done The consensus is to go easy on the motive until a more thorough investigation. The phrase "Islamic terrorism" was used by Donald Trump but hasn't been used by investigators. Omar Mateen fits the classic pattern of angry losers who commit mass shootings, and although he may well have wanted to do something like Bataclan in the USA, his overall personality and the comments of people who knew him suggest that he was an accident waiting to happen.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, Islamism and homophobia and self-hatred and being a crazy person aren't contradictory. It may be an "all of the above" type thing in the end. There's no need to rush to judgement. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • All terrorism is not the same. Although "terrorism" is a word with a very broad definition, generally we use "terrorism" to describe things which meet a certain criteria. You can pull out favorable sources to your disruptive opinions all day, but so can I. The only difference is that I'm using common sense, and you are just trying to play games. There is a very good possibility this person had no calibration with militant foreign entities to classify this as a "terror attack". Simply claiming allegiance to ISIL isn't enough. Anyone can do this. This is not a real foreign collaboration with militant entities. Once again I am simply using common sense, no need to debate everything. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • you are just trying to play games - Let's nip that kind of talk in the bud, shall we? Please observe WP:AGF on this page. Things have been remarkably professional here, considering the subject matter, and let's keep it that way. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

But he/she really does seem to be playing games, or arguing just for the sake of argument. Are we going to pretend people don't do this? Is there a WP:COMMON SENSE? ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, there is a WP:COMMON SENSE but it's meant for people who invoke strict policy on top of what is actually right. ....SandwitchHawk.... (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@SandwitchHawk: Are we going to pretend people don't do this? - Yes, that pretty well sums it up. Even if people are "playing games", which is a very subjective thing, it serves no purpose to accuse them of it, and it is in fact counterproductive. These things very easily spiral out of control, and then absolutely nothing is being accomplished except the creation of a lot of ill will between editors. Stay focused on policy and reasoning and don't make it about them. And they will be expected to treat you likewise. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@....SandwitchHawk....: (what an odd and cumbersome username.) Forgot to mention that it's ok to accuse people of things in a complaint at WP:ANI, and that includes "playing games" to the point of being disruptive. But this page is not the place to do that, and I'd suggest letting others handle any ANI complaints until one has a year or so of experience. It's a big and complex subject area, too much for an article talk discussion, but feel free to continue on my talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the edit refusals above are wholly without merit. They rely on personal opinion. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. There are at least a dozen reliable sources already listed at the bottom of the article noting that the shooter himself, during the attack, declared allegiance to a known Islamic terrorist group. The investigators are merely trying to determine if it was ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed. Either way, we know from the best possible source, the perpetrator himself (as reported by reliable sources), that it's an Islamic terrorist attack. This must be reflected immediately in the article. There is no rational reason for delay. Dansan99 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason for delay is WP:CONSENSUS. Please see above talk sections . EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This must be reflected immediately in the article. - Can you explain why this must be done immediately? ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be changed immediately because there is no reason not to. There is an overwhelming consensus of the reliable sources that the perpetrator claimed responsibility in the name of ISIS. The objections do not seem to be based on reliable sources, but personal opinion. Wikipedia goes with reliable sources, and they all point in one direction. Objections that do not rely on reliable sources should be discounted when trying to reach consensus.Dansan99 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is my two cents: Omar Mateen was a self-appointed jihadi warrior, but his underlying mental instabilty, anger and possible repressed gay feelings were also a factor. The problem with the infobox is that it permits only simple statements for the motive, and the real world is more complex than a Wikipedia infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^^ What he said. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

there is no reason not to except WP:CONSENSUS, as already stated. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." The "two cents" above, while interesting, are not based on reliable sources and are not published. It is clearly a personal opinion. The direction from WP:RS is clear. We have to go with published, reliable sources. Based on which published, reliable sources do we not have consensus? Dansan99 (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Target of Attack in infobox?

Who (or what) should we list as the target(s) of the attack? LGBT community? Patrons? Pulse itself? I personally favor patrons of Pulse nightclub as not everyone there necessarily belongs LGBT, although the bouncer (one of the bouncers?) for Pulse did die in the shooting. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed it may be necessary to redefine the target group. Elsewhere I've seen the claim that Pulse is a homosexual club debated - it's not restricted access and anyone can visit. If true it's entirely possible that some, even most of the victims weren't homosexual. Again not claiming this is fact, merely pointing out we're still dealing with conflicting unproven claims.人族 (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Pulse was an is a Gay nightclub. It's how they advertise themselves and what they were known as before the shooting. Any source debating this should probably be considered unreliable. In most cases, not all patrons at a gay nightclub or bar are going to be LGBT themselves, the precise number depending on various factors. Note as our article mentions, many gay nightclibs and bars do not restrict their clientale given the difficulty doing so and the in some cases (perhaps not so common in the US) they need to establish they have sufficient reason to do so (which may be possible) or risk being prosecuted or sued. This isn't actually that unusual, people at a church may not be Christian for example, and people at a women's college may not be female to give just two examples (and the later does generally involve explicit restrictions). In terms of the target issue, unless there is some sort of manifesto it may be difficult to know who the target was. However many sources seem to have come to the resonable conclusion that a gay nightclub was attacked because at least part of the motivation was to target LGBT people. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

UpStairs should not be removed from the WP:SEEALSO (UNLESS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

I fail to see how the fire at UpStairs is unrelated as both acts were acts of violence specifically targeting homosexual people so the link is relevant to this article. --1.52.121.50 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's related enough to warrant inclusion per WP:SEEALSO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The purists seem to have removed UpStairs Lounge arson attack because it was an arson attack rather than a shooting, and because nobody was ever brought to justice, making the motive unclear. It is back in the See also section at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reaction section becoming UNDUE

The reaction section is like kudzu vine... and it's become overgrown again. Visually, it's about 1/4 of the article. I fear I'm being too overzealous on this matter and will not edit the section tonight, but I'd like some discussion about what should be included per WP:WEIGHT. IMHO, the father's comments and the pope's comments can go. The former is tangential at this point (possibly relevant later as details emerge) and the latter is a standard condolence. Frankly I say nuke the political responses for now as NOTNEWS. I cannot imagine any being notable a month from now. And since there's no deadline, if they are notable, we can add them later (e.g., if any political action actually occurs like with Sandy Hook). Commentary by the NYTimes and WaPo about gun control and politics are really UNDUE and coatracking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI: The NYT and WaPo cites are all news reporting, not editorials or columns. I do agree that we need some sort of test so as to limit inexorable growth. A few useful bright-line rules for political reactions, off the top of my head, might be (1) "no pundits" (i.e., keep to elected officials); (2) stick to high-quality secondary sources (i.e., avoid citations to Twitter, YouTube, etc.), and (3) discuss matters in a general or overview format, except for relevant government officials (president, governor, mayor) and the two main presidential candidates (i.e., try to avoid a litany of every member of Congress). Neutrality^talk 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood, but just that they reported on it does not mean it has enduring notability. But I like what you suggest generally. Frankly, if in a week something's being covered by the news, I'd say include it then... it lasted through a news cycle. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As to the shooter's father, I think his sentence can go, or alternately, we could move it under "perpetrator" since his comments are mainly about his son. I do not object to including a single sentence on the pope, although perhaps instead we could just refer to "world religious leaders" + cite without specifically mentioning any particular one in text (the Dalai Lama led a prayer in Washington for the victims, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has a statement as well, so if we included a quote from one but not the others, I'm sure someone could object, and reasonably so). Neutrality^talk 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current

Template:Current Guidelines bullet 2:

As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news.

While it's still very much top-of-the-front-page, after about 52 hours it is no longer "breaking", and the number of editors per day is not a hundred. I am removing the Current template message. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)