Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ISIL Sanctions notice
add Sanctions box to header
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ITN talk|2 December|2015}}
{{ITN talk|2 December|2015}}
{{Syrian Civil War sanctions}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blpo=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|blpo=yes|1=
{{WikiProject California |inland-empire=y |inland-empire-importance= |class=Start}}
{{WikiProject California |inland-empire=y |inland-empire-importance= |class=Start}}

Revision as of 17:31, 4 December 2015

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Why does this article list the weapons used as "assault rifles"?

This is not consistent with Wikipedia's own definition of what an "assault rifle" is, since that article specifically states they are select-fire, not semi-automatic fire only, which the authorities have confirmed. Another case of letting media and authorities ignorant of facts define terminology. 74.215.151.212 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in terms of us jargon it's neither.

The weapon is a semi-automatic rifle. "Assault Weapon" is a political term with no clear definition or meaning. Besides, if it was bought in California, it could not have been an "Assault Weapon" regardless, as California law explicitly bans the weapons that fall under their definition of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple359 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is a semi-automatic rifle, not an "Assault Rifle" or "Assault Weapon" as per Wikipedia's own definitions. --2001:420:2100:2320:DC6D:A871:168F:7BBF (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed in infobox; already been changed in text. --Thnidu (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. According to Wikipedia, the AR-15 was banned under US federal law labeling it an 'assault weapon'. Also according to Wikipedia, the state of California also specifically labels the AR-15 as an assault weapon.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Some AR-15s are assault weapons and some are not. The legal definition of an assault weapon is based on a gun having a particular combination of cosmetic features. For example, a collapsible stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, pistol grip/etc. Even when assault weapons were "banned", it was still possible to purchase AR-15 style weapons. In addition, California banned certain guns by brand name. But (again) the same guns could still be sold under different names as long as they did not match the banned combinations of cosmetic features. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background section needs work

The background section is grammatically poor, it could use some work. Currently it is:

While early reports in a mass shooting often suggest multiple perpetrators, in the US this is extremely rare. In 160 active shooter incidents studied by the FBI between 2000 and 2013, only two involved more than one shooter. Similarly, of the 28 deadliest shootings in US history also only two involved more then one shooter, including the 1999 Columbine High School shootings. According to law enforcement, mass shootings by lone gunmen are often premeditated but killings by multiple shooters can suggest a higher level of planning.[12]

The third sentence could particularly use a rewrite. It appears it is trying to put this in the context of Columbine, but it doesn't do a very good job of it with the meandering grammar. The third sentence is also somewhat redundant with the second, they could likely be combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.163.130 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of it should be removed. Its assuming things we don't know yet about the nature of the incident and then it moves into blatant speculation (a higher level of planning). This isn't background. Its analysis. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What don't we know? The CNN source is pretty clear, and there was more then one shooter. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know anything about the "planning" of the incident (we specifically don't know if there was a "higher" of level of planning as the section formerly implied). We don't anything about the motives behind the incident. We don't have enough information to put this incident in the context of other "mass shooting" incidents and Wikipedia should not be engaged in original research trying to put the incident in historical context. Its best to wait for the facts to come in. There is no reason to rush to analysis. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death/injury counts

Shouldn't non-victims (i.e. perpetrators) be included in the death/injury counts? Those counts don't say that they're specifically for victims. I believe it's standard to include anyone who was harmed as a result of the incident, including the people who caused the incident. The death count originally included one perpetrator, but it was later edited out with a comment instructing to exclude that person. —Zenexer [talk] 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be left out for now as it is just speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:203:3346:4830:8639:E946:7910 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a spot below where the 2 dead perpetrators are detailed, so listing above double counts. Unfortunately eventually a dead perp was listed at Boston_Marathon_bombing but only as part of a broken out list. At November 2015 Paris attacks perpetrators were eventually listed in deaths, but again carefully separated out. Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the warning as no one on the talk page has explained why the note is required and why it exists. As far as I can tell, it was personal preference. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have done that. That is only your personal preference. The way it was was unclear before I added the note. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is also personal preference. If it's unclear, then it needs to be said visibly, not in a comment. Comments like that are for hard policies, not preferences. —Zenexer [talk] 02:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also your opinion. Removing the comment removes the opportunity for clarity in an article with lots of editors moving quickly. How is your removal of the hidden comment helpful? Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a visible note. However, I think the "confirmed victims" text does essentially the same thing. That combined with the comment should be sufficient. I was concerned about readers being unclear as to whether the count included casualties on both sides. Normally, casualties are listed without attribution to a particular side, the number includes both sides. Anyway, it's fine as it stands. —Zenexer [talk] 02:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: At least I did not reorder where which comment appeared.  ;). Goofing around aside, why should a note be placed on a page without any discussion on the talk page? Especially when it goes counter to how several articles are currently shown. Even the death of a member of the guilty party is still a death that occurred during the event. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

semi-auto weapon error

This article states that one of the gunman was armed with a semi-auto weapon, however the source link doesn't state that. I'm going to remove it. If anyone finds a link contains proof that a semi-auto weapon was used your welcome to edit it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the 10:00 PM press conference, the police chief conformed "semi-automatic" weapons when asked. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disgruntled employee

Since the section about suspects keeps going back and forth, I think there should be a section here to discuss whether it should be mentioned that one suspect is thought to be a disgruntled employee--108.85.149.233 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing good that can come out of rushing to give a motive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. As well, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Also, see WP:RSBREAKING. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree, there hasn't been any concrete basis for this statement in any source I can see. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the press conference, the police chief (or whoever he is) made it pretty clear that there's no evidence to support that yet; it's just a coincidental event that may or may not be relevant. —Zenexer [talk] 02:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, speculation doesn't belong here. The NYT article referenced even puts a bold "?" after the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velojareal (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is what TMZ is saying. A disgruntled guest at a holiday party for the San Bernardino Health Department, who returned with his armed "buddies". Not an RS source, obviously. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All of this was pointed out to the editor who inserted the content and was edit warring/reinserting it repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Los Angeles Times: "A senior federal official who is monitoring the case said investigators believe one of the shooters left the party after getting into an argument and returned with one or two armed companions. Local officials at an evening news conference said it was not clear whether the people involved in the dispute were the same people involved in the shooting."[1] The first sentence does not say it was an employee, only someone possibly at the party, which the second sentence then says may be unrelated. Siberian Husky (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will only say that it seems improbable that someone would leave a party after an argument (implying that as a motive) and return with AK-47s and IEDs and wearing tactical gear. I think this is one senior federal official who should be ignored for the time being. General Ization Talk 03:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just heard on ABC's stream that one of the owners of the townhome they are searching is/was an employee, so if anyone can find a written source it may be appropriate to include that at this point, but avoiding speculatory statements would still be nice. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources (including LA Times) are saying that the townhome belongs to Saeed Farooq. They have put up other information saying that a Syed R. Farook worked as an environmental health specialist for San Bernardino County but they have not said that they are the same person and its better to be careful if they are not. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very strange place to make a random target. Shooters must have a connection to this non-profit. Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the various reports I've seen, it sounds like nobody has any idea how the name should be spelled. It's possible that different family members spell that surname differently. Typically the first name would be "Syed" or "Sayed", but there are a lot of other spellings in reports that I've never seen before. It's a relatively common first name, and I'm sure I've heard the last name before. It's hard to say whether the varying reports are actually confusing multiple people, but my guess is reporters are just being careless. Makes it hard for us to get our facts straight. It has been loosely confirmed that they found the house(s) by following the trail left by the disgruntled employee, who appears to be named some variation of Syed Farooq. One report said he's an accountant of sorts who helps with taxes at the IRC. It's all very vague right now, though. —Zenexer [talk] 04:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between what we know and what we can prove with sources. We knew for example about Saeed Farooq hours before it could go in the article. These are the rules.
LA Times is now reporting that the Saeed Farooq who lived at the townhome was a food inspector in the public health department. It also claims that a Christmas party was being held in the conference room where the mass shooting happened. [2]. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brother-in-law (married to sister) of suspect in news conference. The venue was rented for the party to the Health department, so the Inland Regional Center was not really the target. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant

The edit is fine, from what I can see. It's in the lede and the lede is a summary of what's in the body of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, didn't notice that. —Zenexer [talk] 03:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A key reason this event deserves an article is that it is unusual - shootings are not notable, but multiple shooter mass shooting in the US is worth an article. Hence the background info. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, and I'd say that's enough justification to leave it. Still seems a little out-of-place from the perspective of a reader, though. —Zenexer [talk] 03:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I put it as Precedent at the bottom rather then Background at the beginning. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrators

Not wanting to edit-war, the third person, detained after seen fleeing from the SUV shootout, isn't stated to be a suspect and as such certainly shouldn't be a "Perpetrator", right? The police didn't even say "person of interest", news agencies all say "person". “A third person was seen leaving the area. He was detained. We do not know the extent of his involvement; it’s possible he was not.” [3]. What evidence is there of the detained person having "committed an illegal, criminal, or evil act"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velojareal (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granted the Twitter account (who tweeted that, exactly?) says "person of interest", the Chief did not during the interview covered in the NYT live page. Velojareal (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heard the news specifically say "The police are not ready to call this person (the one they detained) a suspect" Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference? All quotes I've found say person. This is an obviously rapidly changing current event...but still need RS Velojareal (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to me, I'm afraid it was just the ABC news stream, I was just recalling that as support for abstaining from calling the individual in detention a suspect. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your comment, apologies (and bed time) Velojareal (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, that said "1 still at large", or something along those lines. Following the press conference, I changed it to "1 detained" because the existing statement was inaccurate, but I didn't want to remove the information. Based on what I heard during the press conference, it was very clear that they were unwilling to label the person even as a suspect at the time--they were merely a person of interest. I don't know if that's changed; there's speculation that it has based on the recent raid, but that shouldn't be taken into account because it's just speculation. tl;dr: I have no objection to this being altered, but it should probably be noted somewhere conspicuous that there is one person currently detained. —Zenexer [talk] 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right after the shootings, an eye witness was on TV stating that she clearly saw THREE shooters, all dressed in black, with long weapons. How many witnesses initially said there were three rather than two shooters? Was there any security video showing the number of shooters? Are there any witnesses who said there were two at the initial shooting? Edison (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reactions section

The section, as currently written, is extremely questionable. The lengthy quotations from one person and what reads like political advocacy seem inappropriate. It would seem better, if this is necessary at all, to include multiple reactions and to summarize them rather than directly quoting at length. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this section is necessary, or at least is not appropriate when we don't even know the names (let alone history/motive/etc) of the shooters. Without commenting upon the content of the reactions, they seem poorly timed, imho Velojareal (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've removed the "front-runners" thing. I'll give you that the quotations are too long, but as far as I can tell a "Reactions" section is pretty standard for tragedies such as this. I suppose I could see how it might be 'too early', but I mean there are already reactions. Thx, Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Reactions are certainly acceptable. I don't think its too early. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say these "2016 Candidates" are irrelevant to the article. They are not representatives of this region or from California. And it is still almost a year until the election.2601:150:8200:BA3C:3940:EA4D:484E:3809 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not too early? lol...we don't even know who they were, let alone why the did it. I digress. Velojareal (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, I would agree. To digress, I think creating these breaking news articles on Wikipedia is itself a very bad idea. I wish there was a waiting period (lets say 24 hours) before articles like this could be created. But there isn't and we have to make the best of what in my opinion is a bad situation where Wikipedia turns into a cross-media clearing house for confirmed facts on breaking stories. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of demagoguery is provably false. No one in california can walk into a gun store and buy an assault rifle with a detachable magazine (the law requires that a tool be required to remove it - not detachable). In addition, the maximum capacity of a magazine is 10. It's very likely the gun acquisitions and its components violated the law just as it did in paris and just like the bombs in the Boston marathon were illegal. --DHeyward (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm sure you're correct, I don't think it'd be appropriate to opine on reactions listed in the article, unless citing someone who is expressing such an opinion outside of wikipedia. I included the candidates because I figured that if the reactions of the president are relevant, then the reactions of the people running to replace him might be too, but of course I could be wrong in that reasoning. Again, apologies if my additions were too tabloid-y regarding this section. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the reports of pipe bombs are true, that is not something you whip up on the spur of the moment. That implies a planned attack, not a response to a slight at a party. --67.235.68.199 (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's suggestion that the no-fly list should apply to gun purchases is (in my opinion) a very ill-considered opinion that will likely be backtracked on in the near future. If a law as he is suggesting were created, a presidential administration would have an almost arbitrary power to deny gun ownership to just about any individual with little justification, no notification of individuals and limited opportunities to appeal the decision. The no-fly is already flawed enough without extending it further. It would also very likely be unconstitutional. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's statement needs to be cut down considerably. He's president but his comments on this are really not as weighty as those of the state's governor. Brown's comments need to go before Obama's and Obama's don't need to be in a separate paragraph, especially if cut down (as they should be). Comments from the candidates are also unnecessary. If we keep the reactions section, it really should be a sub-section, possibly within an "Aftermath" section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So is the consensus to remove the 'candidates' part, or at least limit it to a footnote or something? Also, I already shortened Obama's part quite a bit, so if theres more you think we can omit, feel free to do so, I guess I've been looking at it too long/Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Impossible to cover all candidates, shouldn't be the main focus of the article, detracts from the issue at hand. —Zenexer [talk] 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's removed, and I reorganized the order of Gov. Brown and Pres. Obama. Once there is a full fledged Aftermath section we can merge this into it//Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need this section at all. Right now it contains nothing of value other than that Brown cancelled that event. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sections are always only tangentially connected, and the discussion over which pointless reactions to include is always contentious. As always, I'm for burning the whole thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll

I suggest adding a section called "Suspects" and say:

Law enforcement authorities identified one of the suspects in the shooting as an employee of San Bernardino County Public Health Department.

Support

Oppose

Indeed, though the person with that name has been reported as a suspect, not as a "perpetrator". We should not make that determination before investigators do. General Ization Talk 04:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The section is named "Suspects". I will remove name from the infobox. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the infobox also supports a susperps parameter that will display as "Suspects" or something to that effect. General Ization Talk 04:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devout Muslim edit

This edit is a BLP violation, cherry picked content and UNDUE. I have removed it.

According to Farook's father, he was married, had a child and was a devout Muslim.[1]

References

  1. ^ Dillon, Nancy. "EXCLUSIVE: Father of San Bernardino shooting suspect Syed Farook says son worked as health tech inspecting restaurants, hotels". nydailynews.com. New York Daily News. Retrieved December 2, 2015.

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't object to the information. The source is reliable and the primary is the suspect's own father, so that's a fairly solid source. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the assertion about the degree of the suspect's Muslim faith, it expresses only the opinion and belief of the father. Let's wait on that until there is more to back it up. Some would argue that a devout Muslim would never engage in behavior like this (while others would claim it explains the behavior). General Ization Talk 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Risks WP:SYN to mention it in connection to this event, however. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; to be clear, I was suggesting we not mention it. And without that nugget of info, the info that he allegedly was married and had a child is not remarkable (at this time). General Ization Talk 05:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also the name of a second suspect was posted in Twitter and picked up by the Washington Times. This article falls under WP:BLP and we need much better sourcing than that. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter post was by Rick Serrano of the LA Times, who was likely live tweeting from a briefing, but I agree we should wait until the Times actually publishes it. General Ization Talk 05:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With Muslim spokespeople at the press conference, shown on live feed, obviously the authorities and the Muslims think this is relevant. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well prove to be relevant, but it is not urgent that we include it here until the facts are more clear and better sources are available. General Ization Talk 05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Names such as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik indicate they were Muslims of Pakistani background. If sources are found then we should add this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source says he was Pakistani-American. [4] See also [5]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Farook's father described him as a devout muslim so that should be included in the article. This especially since members of the Farook family had a press conference making it a point to describe him as a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only information directly related to shooting can be included. Unless you have a source stating that the shooter's religion had something to do with the shooting, that particular factoid is not notable. Stating that the shooter is a muslim without stating that particular fact's relevence to the shooting also violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like his trip to Saudi Arabia might be relevant. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is a source reporting that the trip was relevant to the shooting? If not, such speculation violates WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical information about a shooter is relevant. And since he and his wife are quite dead, BLP does not apply. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only information about the shooting itself is relevant. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its basic bio info, like his age and job and the relationship between the shooters. Nothing wrong with it. The Muslim part is in the middle of a three point sentence so its just two words, hardly undue. I restored the line.Legacypac (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's very relevant at this point, considering he recently traveled to SA. According to our Wikipedia article on state-sponsored terrorism, "Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism" and "the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism". Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is speculation and thus violates WP:SPECULATION. No source is reporting that his trip to Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas are you saying that, since he traveled to SA, that trip must have been Islamist terrorism-related? How does that not violate WP:SYNTH? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact a POV to not mention it. If he was strongly evangelical, atheist, or was strongly into a political movement it should be noted like anything else. He is being described by his father as being very devout, with strict adherence to prayer. If he was a minor part of his life then it would not be worth noting. . --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sources are reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. Including the shooter's religion would be the same as including information about the shooter's taste in music or his favorite color. Unless it has something to do with the event of the shooting itself (which is the topic of this article), then it is not notable. This is not conservapedia. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Cwobeel and ParkH.Davis on this one, at least for the time being. Some reports have indicated that Farook had a beef with a co-worker; say, for example, if—and that's a big if—that beef was specific to Muslims or Islam and is reliably linked to the shooting—say, as a motive—it would most certainly be germane. To include this data now, without context, is potentially inflammatory. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the FBI brought in the Joint Terrorism task force and that Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia AND that his own family describes him as a devout Muslim; his religion is relevant to this article. The same way a person who shoots up an abortion clinics religious Christan beliefs is relevant to a story like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68 (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also omit that the suspect "worked locally as a health technician inspecting restaurants and hotels" or should we only omit that the suspect was "very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim"? [6] Bus stop (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges, with all respect. The former speaks to his presence; the latter speculates on a motive that cannot possibly, at least at this point, be synthesized. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 07:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The shooter worked for the organization throwing the holiday party which he attacked. Thus his employment status actually has something to do with the actual shooting itself. No source is reporting that the shooter's religion had anything to do with the shooting. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we display religion in the Bio info boxes of people from political figures Ben Carson, Stephen_Harper to terrorists Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ? Muslim leaders are all over this thing. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are biographical articles. The subject of this article is the event of the shooting, not of the life of the shooter. It violates WP:NPOV to state facts about the shooter which have nothing to do with the shooting and which promote a biased position against muslim people. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, the collaborative effort—theoretically, anyway—of thousands of active editors, many of whom—let's be honest—push an agenda. Not that you are; not that I am. Ideally, however, this fact would be mentioned only where germane, even for a person who self-identifies as whatever. Are you a Muslim? Irrelevant. Are you a Christian? Irrelevant. Are you an atheist? Irrelevant. Unless it is part of why you're relevant. Do you fund Islamist terrorism? Relevant. Did you build the biggest church in your community? Relevant. Did you file numerous cases against school districts to abolish prayer? Relevant. Ideally. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 08:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We just report the information from RS. Same as his name, age, relationship with the girl etc. No one here adding the info is saying his religion lead to the shooting, but scrubbing it out is POV by the editor removing it because that editor is saying it is not important. 08:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
Unless a source says that it is relevent, then it is not relevent. This is not conservapedia and it clearly violates WP:NPOV to state the shooter's religion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, we're seeing different things (and, no, we don't "just report".) His name is germane; he's the suspected shooter. His age probably is not germane, but that's rarely contested. His relationship to the woman is germane; they were together when killed in the shootout, per police. His religion, or whether he even had one, is not germane unless it can be tied with some degree of certainty to the shooting itself—like his name and his apparent partner are. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hussam Ayloush with the Council on American Islamic Relations said Farook was married for two years. He wouldn’t confirm whether Malik was the wife." Source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources have since confirmed she was his wife. It's likely that the reason the above source couldn't confirm it is because they didn't know. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Please do not re-insert this material unless there is consensus for inclusion, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - there is consensus that his religion is important, look around this page. Also it was removed by an editor on his 6th RR removing the religion, so had he not edit warred it would still be there. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any emerging consensus for inclusion. We don't indicate the religion of Dylann Roof or Robert Lewis Dear because it was not relevant to their actions. If and when the religion of the perps in this incident becomes known as relevant, it can be added, but not before. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert of my adding it back after a now blocked editor removed it is edit warring. I template you for disruptive editing already. There are tons of sources discussing his religion. Reverse your revert now. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? There is a discussion here ongoing and no emerging consensus for inclusion. Please respect WP:DR and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and be aware that this article is under discretionary sanctions. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His religion is presented as a biographical and uncontroversial fact with other similar facts. Since you brought up discretionary sanctions... Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline. If this emerges as a crucial issue out of the investigation, it will be added and expanded. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, and it's your job to determine what "crucial issue" means? Not hardly. It is being widely reported by all the news organizations cited by this article, and there is a consensus to include his religion. It's not your sole decision to make. --Dan East (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, he was a Muslim? THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!!

(No, it doesn't really matter. It should really seriously be removed unless it's relevant here.) epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a clear consensus: For

  1. Cla68
  2. Legacypac
  3. Krzyhorse22
  4. Harizotoh9
  5. Viriditas
  6. 2605:E000:1217:C4FE:5839:694C:AD79:AB68
  7. Bus stop
  8. Dan East
  9. Dream Focus
  10. Bod
  11. Viriditas

Against

  1. Cwobeel
  2. General Ization
  3. ATinySliver
  4. epicgenius

Dan East (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a dog whistle when everyone can hear it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.195.122 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

consistency

The article now refers to the two people as "suspects", "Suspected Perpetrators" and "Perpetrators". The problem is mostly in the info box. They should be identified by one term uniformly through the article. And "suspect" is not the same as "Suspected Perpetrator". 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the distinction in your mind between "suspect" and "suspected perpetrator". I think they are synonymous. General Ization Talk 05:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The distinction between suspect and perpetrator recognizes that the suspect is not known to have committed the offense, while the perpetrator—who may not yet have been suspected of the crime, and is thus not necessarily a suspect—is the one who actually did. The suspect may be a different person from the perpetrator, or there may have been no actual crime, which would mean there is no perpetrator." The combination of the two words creates an inference that a person is absolutely known to have carried out a particular action. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with all but your last sentence. I disagree that "suspected perpetrator" creates any inference other than that they are suspected of having perpetrated a crime, which is for me identical to the meaning of "suspect." A person who is an "unsuspected perpetrator" is likewise not a suspect. General Ization Talk 05:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I can tell you is that there is a long history as to why they do not mean the same thing and the confusion created by combining the two is one of the reasons that the term "person of interest" came into use. Its generally the case that "perpetrator" with any qualifiers is only used when the suspect is absolutely known to have committed a particular offensive. "suspect" without qualifiers is the far more neutral term. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is saying they don't know who was killed, there is great confusion in the sources still. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, CNN has just (at 21:06 PST) sent an email update that states "The sources could not say for certain that [Farook] was in the SUV, if he was a shooter, or whether he is one of the dead. The sources did say that Farook is known to be a U.S. citizen." We should review our copy to state only that Farook is a suspect, but not that he was in the SUV or was killed, since apparently that is unclear. General Ization Talk 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And have reviewed; our statements are fine at this time, but we should be alert to edit-creep that makes assertions about Farook not apparently yet supported by our sources. General Ization Talk 05:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10:07 News Conference

  • From police spokesperson: 14 dead, updated 17 wounded, conditions unknown. SUV chased. 27-28 officers in gun battle at SUV. 2 suspects deceased in/at SUV. Syed Farook. (male, I missed age, but stated) US born. Tashfeen Malik, 28, female. Unknown what her nationality or origin is at this time. They were married or engaged, or girl/boyfriend, not clear yet.
  • Christmas party or gathering he was part of event, attended same event last year. He is an environmental specialist in Public Health department. He was at party, left angry. Police were following up when they encountered him near townhome. No info on criminal records.
  • Info was there were upward of three shooters. Now comfortable two shooters deceased. Not 3 shooters.
  • 3 main Scenes - Inland, townhome was A residence for him, his office secured, street shootout scene.
  • There were explosive devices at scenes, just cleared, allowing for processing of scenes to start. Pipe bomb like device, not specific info yet.
  • Not ruled out terrorism. Motive unclear. Understand people concerned about further threats.
  • Sheriffs department, state and feds all involved.
  • One officer wounded, resting in hospital, non-life threatening injuries. (gunshoot according to earlier sources, not stated in this news conf).
  • there are other addresses associated with suspects, not clear the townhouse was primary residence yet.

Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What i heard in watching live stream of the press conference was this that differs slightly from above: Deceased man in SUV is Syed Rizwan [NOT Raheel as elsewhere reported] Farook, age 28, US born, employed by county. Deceased woman in SUV is Tashfeen Malik, age 27, place of birth unknown. After the shooting, because he had left the party, police went to Redlands to interview Farook. He and Malik took off in the SUV, which led to the gun battle in which they died. They may be "boyfriend and girlfriend." There may only be 2 suspects, not 3 as previously reported. The 3rd person, who was detained and is still in custody, was not named.75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to sources, they are husband and wife, and she appears to have lived in Saudi Arabia. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: How about providing a few of the sources instead of saying "according to sources" like you are some kind of authority. Firebrace (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're either joking or incapable of reading. This has been in all the major headlines for the last three hours or so. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why even mention it here? Firebrace (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Did you read the comment I was replying to or do you just comment without reading? The previous comment claimed they were boyfriend and girlfriend. I replied to correct that claim. Why am I having this meta discussion? Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing bio details

User:Firebrace sees the suspect traveling to Saudi Arabia to marry the other suspect [7] and the man growing a beard [8] recently as irrelevant. I disagree. Everyone is digging into background, movements and state of mind and yet this editor is discarding sourced information - which is a POV act. Perhaps a better explanation? Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask people to explain why they removed content when you didn't explain why you added it. Firebrace (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Him traveling to Saudi Arabia and marrying someone from there is quite relevant. Read the Wikipedia article for that country. Search for the word "terrorism" to find the relevant parts. Is growing a beard part of his religion though? Does it symbolize anything? We should also mention he was very religious and of course mention his religion. Was his belief system influenced by Wahhabism? Dream Focus 09:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Him traveling to Saudi Arabia to meet the other gunman and marrying her is kind of relevant. Their relationship is central to the case. We can leave out speculation but we can state just the facts for the time being. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody explain why growing a beard is unusual behavior? I mean, beards are very popular right now. Firebrace (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not usual. It seems as if some editors are seeking to associate the shooters with terrorism. This violates WP:SPECULATION as no motive has been established. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you are bordering on trolling.[9] Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since lots of news outlets and the FBI are talking terrorism... And why is a 6RR editor still editing here? [10] Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Visa status of his wife are important as that determines whether simple possession of a firearm is legal. Pipe bombs, however are not legal. This incident is more akin to the Boston Marathon bombing. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beard issue

He might have been asked a leading question. Firebrace (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have personal anecdotal evidence that security people are more wary of bearded men. Bod (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See stereotyping. Firebrace (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - we have RS saying he had become more "devout" recently, this may be considered a piece of supporting evidence (see Beard#Islam, and/or Viriditas's link above). Or one might take it simply as a straightforward physical description. Either way, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to remove. We definitely should present information like this in such a way that it doesn't give it more value than it deserves and lead readers to a potentially false conclusion, but we also have to trust that they won't ascribe too much value to it on their own, and therefore censor it entirely in an attempt to avoid that. We're supposed to present it neutrally and let them do the rest. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support AdventurousSquirrel is right. I clicked his link and read that article, and this is relevant. He embraced this belief system, very devout, grew a beard because of it. Dream Focus 15:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Whether or not the shooters had beards or not and when they may have begun growing their beards is completely irrelevant to the shooting itself. It seems as if some editors here are actively seeking to promote an anti-muslim agenda on this page. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user edit warred 6X to remove this and other Muslim info. Not sure why they can still work on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if a tablemate noted it, it must be significant. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do not generally categorize people here by the quantity or quality of their facial hair, and I can see no real relevance to this article. Anyone who follows links to cited articles that include the subject's picture will be able to see that he grew a beard at some point and to draw their own conclusions (though I am not sure any conclusions should reasonably be drawn). General Ization Talk 22:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also fits the narrative of an allergy to skin care products or of a personal preference for facial hair. Also, allowing for your interpretation and with regard to your link, it does not say anything about a beard being a sign of radicalization. It suggests that a beard is a sign of a pious Muslim. If you are trying to imply that they are invariably one and the same, then you are engaging in advocating non-neutral editing and synthesis, as others have done before you. General Ization Talk 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also fits the narrative of "Bearskin", if you ignore the inconsistencies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter WHAT change it represents, it represents ONE such change and we currently have nothing. Bod (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SO FAR: 5 support, 4 oppose. Is there a policy for this? Bod (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is called "no consensus" and the status quo remains. WWGB (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and See - There's no rush here. Him growing a beard might be significant, it might not. We don't really know the motive yet. If the motive proves to be religious terrorism, it may be worth including; if not, it is an irrelevant detail. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This just in: his wife pledged allegiance to the self-proclaimed Calif Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and leader of ISIS and since both wife and husband committed the act together religious terrorism is confirmed. Adding the beard at this point just supports the motive. Ralphw (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday party

Can this term be clarified for non-Americans please. I've never heard it before, and have no idea what it is. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was basically a party. Firebrace (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O we can therefore remove the word 'holiday'..? It seems rather specific to me, otherwise editors would simply have used one word: party. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reference calls it a "Christmas party" so that's what we should use. Dream Focus 09:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you want to imply that the shooting is worse because it happened at Christmas... Firebrace (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, if the source calls it a Christmas party, you say it is. If they say it was a graduation party, you say it is. If they say it's a wedding...etc '''tAD''' (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us please try to focus here on actually helping the OP understand this aspect of US culture. In the month of December we have parties that are special to this time of year. These parties are often institutional; almost every business, office, organization etc tends to feel some urge, desire, or obligation to hold some such gathering. Although these "holiday parties" may in some cases be labelled "Christmas party", or somewhat falsely explicitly *not* called "Christmas" due to a perceived obligation to appear secular, they actually on the whole represent a confluence of many cultural threads: Christmas, New Year's, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, winter solstice, the coming of winter, etc. "Holiday Party" is an unofficial generic term that includes all such gatherings, which may or may not end up feeling festive and party-like. Most movies set in the US around this time of year will include portrayals of such parties. Compared to other kinds of parties, these holiday parties tend to be more put on by larger groups and official organizations of various sorts, rather than at a more personal-intimate level among families and friends.

A main "holiday party" at this time of year may or may not be supposed to officially include a celebration of the New Year. There are specific parties right around the end of the year, particularly the evening of the last day. The previous-earlier general holiday parties tend to be official-institutional, quite distinct from real personal-family-friend Christmas etc celebrations. New Year's Eve parties tend to be less planned, less official, more personal-intimate, although in some cases they can certainly be quite large, planned, expensive etc.

Is there a good WP article about this?-71.174.188.32 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did they have Christmas decorations? Did they give Christmas gifts? Anyway, doesn't matter, if sources call it a Christmas party, that's what we should call it. Dream Focus 15:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a county employee myself, I can assure you they do not call it a Christmas paty, the County would call it a HOLIDAY Party. or Holiday Potluck. --158.61.0.239 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Dream Focus if the source refers to the party as a Christmas party, then the employees were clearly celebrating a Christmas party not any holiday which includes any holiday celebrated in the month of December. It would be more appropriate to refer to it as a Christmas party. Ralphw (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is way, way meandering - c'mon, people, the personal anecdotes are wholly irrelevant. We must look to what the sources say:

The sources use the following descriptors:

  • "Authorities identify couple who they believe killed 14 at San Bernardino holiday party" (LA Times)
  • "The shooters ... opened the doors at a holiday party and started shooting ... opened fire on a holiday banquet for county employees" (also LA Times)
  • "An annual holiday party (NYT)
  • "a holiday banquet" (Chicago Tribune)
  • "an office Christmas party" (Guardian)

So it seems that all different phrase have been used, but that in U.S. sources, "holiday party" or "holiday banquet" is most common. We should thus use that phrase. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is not about the "war on Christmas". Let's move on, shall we? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never forget! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • The chicagotribune also says "All in a room with a Christmas tree and decorations on every table." Anyway, you are just cherry picking. I Google news search for "San Bernardino" "christmas party" "shooter" [11] and it gets 21,500 results. Plenty of news sources use either one. The fact they had a Christmas tree in the room, would indicate its a Christmas party. Dream Focus 03:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Holiday parties frequently feature Christmas trees. That doesn't make them Chistmas parties. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any government institution or company in the US would refer to their Christmas party as "holiday" party. Why does Wikipedia need to spell it out a Christmas? Everyone knows what holidays are around this time of the year. 204.124.67.250 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that matters is what the office called it. It was their event, they named it. If the media wants to get it wrong or change the wording so the meaning is clearer to their readers, that's their business. If we feel that the meaning isn't clear to all our readers, then we can offer a clarification or article link, but we don't get to change the name of the event to suit us. For example, we wouldn't call a Quinceañera a 15th birthday party or a Cotillion ball in hopes of making it clearer, we'd call it what the hosts called it and then offer links or explanations as needed. So... what did the hosts call their event? Rklawton (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Workplace shooting

Whether or not terrorism was involved, should this be called a workplace shooting in the infobox? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will depend on the motive, once that's firmly established. The setting, I think, is less relevant. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be "terrorism" and a work place shooting at the same time. It can be both and doesn't have to be one or the other. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be appropriate per 2009_Fort_Hood_shooting. Bod (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "Whether or not terrorism was involved." Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was his workplace. It was a shooting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't his workplace. It was a rented venue, which does differentiate it from most workplace violence attacks, as they usually happen at the location where the perceived slight took place. The 2009_Fort_Hood_shooting is the reverse. It was a terrorist attack that took place where the shooter was "employed", only because the military happened to be the target of jihad for this particular terrorist. grifterlake (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd considered showing up to office parties part of the job. Networking, schmoozing and whatnot. Though yeah, some might see them as a break. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
To me, "workplace shooting" strongly implies a whole different set of causalities and motives than an act of terrorism. Maybe I'm mistaken in this presumption? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may be possible that what you know is concordant with what you know. There was until now no source mentioning a manifesto issued by the shooters, so who knows ? (https://www.google.com/search?q=motivation+of+the+shooters) --Askedonty (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Workplace shooting" has just been restored per "they had a training event b4 the party, so were at work, see https://gma.yahoo.com/multiple-victims-san-bernardino-california-shooting-police-201637857--abc-news-topstories.html#". I've always considered a "workplace shooting" to be at the workplace, rather than, as Grifterlake notes, at a rented venue. Consider: your entire office rents a public park for a holiday party, where a mass shooting ensues. Is that a "workplace shooting"? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 11:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were the workers being paid at the time? Then it was a workplace shooting, regardless of the venue. WWGB (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "had been at a holiday party and training event for the San Bernardino Department of Public Health." One could assume they were being paid but, absent confirmation—which does not exist within the article—it is only an assumption. Still, let's assume for the moment that my hypothetical park event is paid; is that a workplace? To me, "workplace" means "place of work", as in the location at which an employee spends the expected majority of his/her work hours, and thereby excluding this rented venue. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 11:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. There are clear legal definitions of workplace, depending on jurisdiction. People can visit a variety of sites, which are all the workplace. In this case, staff were attending training and a banquet at a venue lawfully rented by their employer. It was their workplace, for the time being. This was a shooting in the workplace of one of the shooters, and the extent to which it was work-related has not yet been determined. EvidenceFairy (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not, then, require a reliable, secondary source to have classified this as a "workplace shooting" per the legal definition in place in San Bernardino, California? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 12:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning religion

Is there any point to mention the religion of the gunmen? It doesn't seem to be related to the shooting, so I would say that it only fuels the fire of right wing extremist. Vote to remove? 81.237.232.140 (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck getting that removed. Some editors even think his beard is notable! WWGB (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fucking fascists.. I mean, if he had grown a beard prior to the event it could be notable since it is a religious duty in islam, but we have no evidence of this, or that they were islamists, so it should all be removed. I guess this shows how racist Wikipedia is. 81.237.232.140 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go someplace else to troll. 98.67.0.97 (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim is not a race. 66.87.108.189 (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it turns out to be terrorism, the religion would have to be mentioned. If not, it wouldn't necessarily have to be mentioned. However, multiple reliable sources have reported it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no report of the "reasons" of the shooters, they could be religion inspired or laboral conflicts. Since its not a serious report of that, we should not discard that fact.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a mention of the suspects religion unless relevant to the incident. This is yes a BLP and under discretionary sanctions - Cwobeel (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course their religion is relevant. Even if they were not motivated by their religion, who they are frames the debate in our society, frames the discourse in the media and in society, and pretending it does not (or wishing it would not) is attempting to engineer the debate rather than face reality and understand that is for damn sure relevant. You know and I know that everyone wants to know what their religion is. Only on Wikipedia can we pretend that their religion is "irrelevant" in today's day and age. And who are we to say it is "irrelevant"? It's certainly relevant to any number of groups and organizations and advocates involved with the Muslim community, for they need to know what is happening in their world, how it will be discussed, and need to consider how these things need to be addressed. Pretending it is irrelevant is ludicrous, it his HIGHLY relevant. Marteau (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means the religion should be mentioned. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a political correctness exercise. The sources think it is relevant, ergo, it is relevant. It is not up to us to rewrite freaking history. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has noithing to do with PC. Same as we don't describe the religion of other mass shooters. If and when it is determined that his religion had anything to do with the motives, it can be added.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The shooters motives are not relevant. The fact of the matter is, I wanted to know their religion, I sure you wanted to know it, pretty much EVERYONE wanted to know it. Saying readers of our encyclopedia don't need to know this is somewhat outrageous. Major reliable sources are reporting it. For Wikipedia editors to repeatedly remove this information is ridiculous and can serve only to draw further attention to the dysfunctions of Wikipedia. When the book is written about the censorial, politically motivated actions of Wikipedia editors, this could well be part of the introduction. Marteau (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If his religion was Christian or Jewish, you will not be making that argument. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's because the sources wouldn't be making that argument, it is only to be expected. Indeed, we might not have had an article to argue about... Wnt (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN was discussing his religion at length last night. If he was a devote Jew or Christian and leaders of those faiths were actively speaking out about them, we would mention his faith as well. There is also the matter that Muslims are carrying out mass shootings & other terrorist attacks regularly (its been in the news). 17:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

CNN on screen- "Sources: Male Shooter apparently radicalized." and bomb left right out of Inspire Magazine. "We've moved past workplace violence" except "as a possible catalyst" Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their religions have nothing to do with the shooting itself (which is the subject of thise article). This is not conservapedia (in other words this is not the place to further your anti-muslim political agenda) and it clearly ciolates WP:NPOV to state the shooters' religions without providing a source which connects their religions to the shooting itself. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are their citizenships, education, marital status, and other things mentioned? None of those things is demonstrably relevant to the shooting. Religion is a basic fact about a person that is almost always included in Wikipedia biographical pages if known; it's part of the template for Infobox_person because it's regarded as a standard piece of biographical information, just like birth place, education, occupation, and marital status. It should be included when known, and in this case it is. Mrhsj (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the shooters were married, hence why their marital status is mentioned. Their educations are not mentioned. The shooters' religions had nothing to do with the shooting, hence why religion is not included. The subject of this article is the event of the shooting itself, it is not a biographical article. This isnot conservapedia, please stop pushing the anti-muslim agenda. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Farook graduated from California State University, San Bernardino with a degree in environmental health in 2009." How is that not a mention of education? As to "anti-muslim agenda", please Assume Good Faith. Mrhsj (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The shooters' religions had nothing to do with the shooting,

You don't know that. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know that, then their religion (at this time) is inconsequential for the article, same as with many other articles about mass shootings, in which the perps' religion is not mentioned. If later on it is found out that they are Jihadists, then we can explicitly refer to Islamic terrorism. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently mentions they were "radicalized" and in contact with international terrorists. What kind of radicalization or terrorists? Radical vegans? Now the case to mention his religion is stronger than before. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to not mention their religion. It has been mentioned in numerous RSs and they're being investigated for ties to Islamic extremism. Wikipedia is not censored, and there is no reason not to mention it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

The article currently quotes a coworker suggesting he travelled to Saudi Arabia to meet and marry his wife in spring. Since there's no mentiom of what spring, the assumption would be it was last spring. There are two problems with this. One is that the current version of the source to support this claim doesn't say anything about spring just "recently", which is a bit more ambigious. Two is if he met his wife for the first time in spring it's fairly unlikely a 6 month year old daughteris his (technically you could come up with a weird scenarion). A comment above in the #Devout Muslim edit mentions another source saying the marriage happened 2 years ago, which makes more sense. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best is to wait until more information emerges. There is no deadline and this is still a WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for what? The info is still in the article although it now says spring of 2014 which is a bit better since it doens't imply it's unlikely they're both the parents of the daughter. A source has been added which does say spring, but it doesn't say 2014. Further it did and does say he met her via the internet. I didn't mention this earlier, but I'm mentioning this now because this source [12] claims he met her in 2013 when he went on the Hajj (which in recent years, including 2013, wasn't during the morthern hemisphere spring). It doesn't say he married her in 2013, actually it says she came over to the US via fiancee visa (but not when) which would seem to imply they weren't married when she came over [13], although it's still possible they married in Saudi Arabia and also possible they had an unrecognised marriage in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. While I sometimes advocate just leaving info which someone is going to fight over rather than getting in to unnecessary debates over something which will probably be clear in a few days or less, that doesn't apply here for various reasons. In particular, I don't see how just leaving possibly incorrect information (which at the time, seemed to imply the the couples weren't both the parents of the daughter) is helpful from a BLP standpoint. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the co-worker comment about him going to Saudi Arabia and bringing her back in spring. The co-worker did not specify which spring. Further, they could have met and married there several years ago, even conceived a child, before she came to the US. Info is coming in still, so just report the pieces and it will all come together. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if it just says spring, the assumption would be it's the most recent spring, that's the whole problem. And the current version says spring of 2014, but this isn't supported by the source used (which was added after my first comment as the older source didn't seem to mention the spring btu when I checked it). Also it's impossible for her to have met and married several years ago if he first met her in spring of 2015, which the comment and our article implied, that was the whole point. (Technically it's possible they could have had a child via weird scenarios without having met.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN now has it: "Farook, 28, and Malik, 27, were married for two years. He met Malik online and met her in person when he went to Saudi Arabia to perform the Hajj pilgrimage in 2013. She later came to the U.S. on a fiance visa and became a legal permanent resident."

Also "He shares the same name as his brother and father. It's important to note Farook's middle name -- Rizwan. His father also is named Syed Farook, as is his older brother. Like him , they have different middle names." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest new section: "Motives"

Islam, beard, trip to Saudi Arabia all are connected to the same issue: the motive for the attack.

Some criticize the backdoor approach people have taken, inserting these things as random biographical detail; obviously it's not really random, the sources are interested in this because they mostly assume it was some kind of terrorist attack.

Therefore the best way to introduce this section is to have a separate section "Motives", cite the sources that say that the motives are still unclear, but then cite their predominant theories, the first and foremost of which is an Islamist motive. That way we can put all this data in one place as a clear argument, while simultaneously recognizing the limits of that argument in an honest way. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speculating on the shooters' motives violates WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is pure speculation. Motives are yet unknown. WP:NOTDEADLINE and note that this is still a WP:BLP. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See for example: [14] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
History is always speculative. BLPs are full of best guesses. The courts being what they are, I think most criminal-case BLPs remain uncertain forever. Our position should be to fairly review the relevant data, without attempting to suppress things that responsible news agencies feel comfortable printing. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline, surely information will emerge in the next few hours or days. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's too soon for such a section. If the motive is established, then there could be a "Motive" section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is too recent to speculate anything. Plus, it falls under BLP policy. Maybe this person was not Muslim terrorist, but just a disgruntled employee. epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something: why does this fall under WP:BLP when the perpitrators are most certainly not among the living having been killed by the police (from the article lead: "... the two perpetrators—Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik—were killed by police ...")? 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also covers people who have recently died. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead. For discussion of Relevant policies, please see that section below. -- ToE 16:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant policies

For those wondering why WP:BLP applies when Farook and Malik are dead, see WP:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead:

Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

So does the question becomes one of whether the mention of religion (as backed by Reliable Sources) in the "Suspects" section constitutes "contentious or questionable material"? I certainly see how building a "Motives" section with items which are suggestive of motives but independent of any motivations given in reliable sources is WP:SYNTH (at the very least), but I don't see a clear problem with including this widely reported information in §Suspects. Isn't the issue really WP:UNDUE, and should we be taking our "due weight" clues from our sources? -- ToE 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly contentious. It's certainly not questionable given the # of primary sources. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Policy means pretty much what they want it to mean. "Can extend" means "Must extend". "Six months to two years at the outside" means at least two years. Extensions that apply "particularly" to material with implications about the living apply to everything under penalty of ban. And "contentious or questionable" doesn't mean that external sources regard it as contentious - it means that some guy on Wikipedia says it is contentious. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International terrorism connection:

San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said. It appears that Farook was radicalized, which contributed to his motive, though other things -- like workplace grievances -- may have also played a role, other law enforcement sources said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds premature. The source says it "appears" he was radicalized. This isn't confirmation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN just re-wrote that entire section. This is breaking news, so I think we should wait a bit. I want to know which officials this refers to. And if this is true, then we'll get more details in the coming hours. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Workplace violence and Islamic terrorism don't usually go together, so we need to wait for better confirmation of motive and the radicalization angle. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under WP:RUMOUR. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is emerging is a combination of both. But we shall wait until the investigation declares a motive - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no qualms about identifying the motive on the Colorado Springs shooting page and it is called terrorism when no one investigating it has identified a clear motive for Robert Dear. Yet editors of this page are bending over backwards to coddle these Muslim terrorists. Wikipediqa isn't biased, my arse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.117.35 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The motive on that page is set to "unknown". ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian (a British broadsheet) [15] has just published that Syed had contacts with people under watch from the FBI. I'm not sure if per WP:BLP this should be included unless it is confirmed as a motive, as we could be ascribing motive by association. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page about Dear also quotes politicians who have described his actions as terrorism. Would it be deemed acceptable to include quotes from politicians who have called this a terrorist attack? 173.75.117.35 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Politically motivated mass shootings are only terrorism if they're non-white & Muslim, right?
Don't be silly whoever you are. See Timothy McVeigh Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word terrorism occurs 6 times in the article and counter-terrorism occurs twice. A work related dispute would be far-fetched since prior preparation was involved. Can the motive remain unknown this long? His motivation may not have been based on religion, but the actions of the perpetrators can certainly be qualified as terrorism at this point. Ralphw (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description of weapon

One editor, User:Faceless Enemy, keeps editing the article to remove the term "assault rifle" (saying that the use of the term is "wrong"). Another editor and I have restored this language, but I wanted to flag the issue here.

We have to follow the sources here, which describe the long guns used as assault rifles:

  • NY Times: both of them were dressed in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles, officials said.
  • NY Times again: armed with .223-caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns
  • NBC News: were carrying two .223-caliber assault rifles and two semi-automatic handguns
  • Associated Press: Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States

So the bottom line is that we must conform to the sources and refrain from making up our own descriptors. Neutralitytalk 17:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: if the sources are demonstrably wrong, then we should not follow them. See WP:FALSE. And please note the difference between my two edits. "Semi-automatic rifle" is the correct term, as in my first edit, which I believe at least two other editors also agreed with; see the discussion at the top of the page. After this was reverted, I tried to find a compromise by just going with the broader term "rifle" (my second edit). At the very least Wikipedia should try to avoid publishing false informationand stick with "rifle". I'll bet that we will eventually go to " semi-automatic rifle" anyway, though I'm done with actually editing this article for the day. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The weapon was a AR-15 which is categorized under Category:Assault rifles, and the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 banned Colt AR-15 rifles by name in the State of California. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Faceless Enemy: A weapon can be both a semi-automatic rifle and a assault rifle (as Cwobeel pointed out in his edit summary). We must go with the description of all the reliable sources (AP, NY Times, NBC News, etc., reporting what the authorities have actually said). Neutralitytalk 18:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out which part of federal or California gun law defines a select-fire weapon as an "assault weapon", because I'm at a loss. The article CWobeel linked clearly says "semi-automatic". Regardless, "semi-automatic rifle" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive terms. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not in common parlance, they aren't. See Encyclopædia Britannica: "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action." See also sense 2 of the definition of "Assault rifle" in Dictionary.com based on Random House Dictionary: a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire. Neutralitytalk 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That material is both dated and false. The weapons in question are not "modified to allow only semiautomatic fire". The weapons (like the civilian AR-15) are designed only for semiautomatic fire. The trigger group is totally different than a military AR-15. Britannica is talking about guns that were available decades ago in the US. These sources are talking as if it were still 1978. Before laws and regulations were changed in the 1980s, the military and civilian versions of the weapons were close. However, the ATF disallowed such weapons decades ago.12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


"Assault rifle" is a real military term so I do not understand the issue. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assault rifles by definition are fully-automatic or select fire. An AR-15 is cosmetically the same as an M-16. It is functionally the same as a Ruger Mini-14 or any other semi-automatic rifle. The reason why there are always legal variants of weapons made despite "bans" is because the the things that make them look scary are cosmetic. --DHeyward (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Assault rifle", "assault weapon", and " semi-automatic rifle" are 3 distinct terms with varying degrees of overlap. It would be correct to describe the rifles used in this attack as "semi-automatic rifles" or "assault weapons under California law", but it is just plain wrong to call them " assault rifles". Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Attempting not to describe these weapons with the word "assault" prefixed is splitting hairs based on differing legal technicalities. The desire to avoid the word "assault" could be an attempt to avoid injecting that loaded term (and therefore the gun-control debate) into the content of this article, although a conscious effort to remove the word "assault" could in itself be seen as taking sides in that debate. Regardless, the term "semi-automatic rifle" is far too broad and could accurately describe, for example, a hunting rifle with a four-cartridge magazine that never could have possibly been used to effectively commit this kind of attack. Instead, if this would satisfy both sides, I would propose describing these weapons as "AR-15-family .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles," which is an accurate, specific description without using any loaded terms. Everyone (I think) knows what an AR-15 is for—not hunting. Darkest Tree Talk 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, lots of people hunt with AR-15 or other variants. It's a small round for game, though and considered cruel as it isn't as lethal. Variants such as the AR-10 are used for deer all the time. --DHeyward (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, guess I could have put it better. Not saying one can't hunt with an AR variant, but that they are designed for tactical applications first and foremost, regardless of the individual variant and the measures taken to make it civilian-legal. Darkest Tree Talk 18:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The civilian available semiautomatic versions of things like the AR-15 are not designed for tactical applications. They are guns designed to cosmetically resemble tactical weapons. But they are really just semiautomatic rifles dressed up to look like something they are not. Back in the 1970s, the civilian AR-15 was very close the military AR-15. But there were a whole bunch of laws passed and regulations put in place decades ago (like the 1980s) to eliminate that situation. The civilian AR-15s today are deliberately designed to be different guns than the military version. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkest tree, You can google "AR-15 Varmint" and see lots of efforts of design for hunting, not 'tactical applications first and foremost' as you put it. Also mentioned at Varmint Rifle. Velojareal (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forget the gun control debate for now; semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles, by the very definition of "assault rifle". They could be "rifles defined as assault weapons by the state of California", but they aren't "assault rifles". I would be fine with the "AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle" description you proposed above. It would at least be accurate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "AR" refer to "assault rifle"? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; it's from ARmalite (the original company); please see the AR-15 page for more information. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem of inconsistent/changing language in the broader culture. Traditionally the term "assault rifle" refers to weapons capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull. In contrast, the term "assault weapon" means a semi-automatic weapon (one shot per trigger pull) with specific features. By these definitions the two terms are mutually exclusive, as Faceless Enemy mentions above. However, because many assault weapons are rifles, some people (probably those unfamiliar with the traditional definition of "assault rifle") have started referring to rifles that are classified as assault weapons as "assault rifles". So the term now has two mutually exclusive uses. In such a situation, we will have better clarity if we avoid the term. --RL0919 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section mentions taht the weapons were purchased legally but then goes on to say the ATF is tracing the serial numbers. The ATF cannot know if they were purchased legally or not unless they have already completed the trace. All they could possibly know without a trace is that the manufacturer shipped them to a distributor and they weren't reported stolen. --DHeyward (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've communicated with the New York Times on several occasions about their incorrect use of "assault rifle". They hold that an "assault weapon" which is a "rifle" is an "assault rifle". You can point out the legal and military definitions of assault rifle all you like and they just don't care. But the term "assault rifle" should only properly used to describe fully automatic weapons. In other words, Wikipedia should be guided by correct definitions rather than the low editorial standards of many journalists.12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter's hobbies and education

The Washington Post is reporting that "[the shooter]enjoyed working on vintage and modern cars, and [enjoyed] eating out sometimes" and that he would "just hang out in back yard doing target pratice [sic] with younger sister and friends.” It also states that "he graduated from California State University, San Bernardino with a degree in environmental health in 2009". [2] ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are still at 3RR for editing out the subject's religion 6 times it is surprising to see you posting information not directly related to the attack. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus not to include the shooter's religion. Please stop putting that information in. If the shooter's religious beliefs are up for debate on whether they should be included or not, then all of his personal preferences should be given equal weight in the debate. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inability to assess consensus is obvious, as is inability to follow other guidelines. [16] Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Davis, there is no such consensus, and this thread serves as good evidence for your POV pushing and probable future topic ban per DS. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/syed-farook-tashfeen-malik-mass-shooting-profile/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/03/they-were-a-couple-the-striking-difference-between-the-san-bernardino-suspects-and-other-mass-shooters/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_couplemorningmix-540a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
I agree with Viriditas that your claim of such a consensus is clearly false. Mainstream media all include it in coverage of the event. You do not own the article, and Wikipedia is not censored. Edison (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015

Please make two edits:

1 -- link this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting) to the following one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States

2 -- add to the category list for this article the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States):

Categories: 2015 in California2015 mass shootings in the United States2015 murders in the United StatesDeaths by firearm in CaliforniaHistory of San Bernardino, CaliforniaMass murder in 2015Massacres in the United States

Kgayle (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just beat me to it. xD Zell Faze (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction section

Re "reaction" section and this material - reaction sections are always kind of tough, especially on very recent events where a full perspective haven't emerged yet. I would agree that we don't want to overwhelm the article with trivial reactions (many "International reactions of" articles are plagued with long, repetitive lists).

Nevertheless, the political and media reactions to the shooting (whether we consider them appropriate, inappropriate, distasteful, whatever), are part of the story, and so we can't simply ignore them; rather, we should summarize them. My view is that the few sentences on it (see the diff above) are appropriate because they are in the summary style, are supported by multiple high-quality sources (Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN, etc.) and because they make up a small % of the article. Neutralitytalk 19:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-add the content in question until a consensus is reached via this thread. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't say Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws and Republicans sending "tweets of thoughts and prayers." Also not say "some". Mention an exact number and list what they all said. Democrats Name1 and Name2 called for stronger gun-control laws would be fine. As for who sent their "thoughts and prayers", that's meaningless nonsense that all candidates on any political party would do. Dream Focus 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't often hear it from the Libertarian Party. But yes, any of the two we typically cite in these sort of articles would. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
The Tea Party jumped in with "Dead Shooter ID'd: Devout Muslim Syed Farook" and "Before Shooting, Calif. Killer Talked On Phone With Terrifying Person… And Obama’s FBI Knew It".[17][18] --Marc Kupper|talk 21:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:summary style concerns the case where another article exists, cited as the main article for the section. It's not summary style if there isn't a page being summarized. Also, I reject the notion that whoever wants to delete something should be a "majority one one" until everyone agrees (which he never will). Wnt (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on both counts. Neutralitytalk 20:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the "Reactions" section was very much POV and agenda pushing. I have deleted it from the article. A quick check shows that the conservative response does not seem to be "tweets and prayers".

  • http://www.foxnews.com/
    • "REMEMBERING VICTIMS: Vigils, prayer sessions spring up following San Bernardino massacre"[19]
    • "Alveda King on rampage: 'We have to pray and get direction'"[20]
    • "Obama: Thoughts and prayers are with San Bernardino victims"[21]
    • No mention of the word "tweet" and so it does not seem to be a headline thought.
  • https://www.gop.com/platform/ - no mention of this incident
  • http://www.teaparty.org/
    • No mention of "pray" and the word "tweet" appears once and was by Guy Benson who is a conservative journalist and pundit.[22]

I'd summarize the conservative response as blaming Obama, radical Islam, liberals, immigrants, and leftist California. Here's the text I deleted in case someone someone wants to figure out how to make it WP:NPOV and to see if it gets consensus here.

Some 2016 presidential candidates reacted to the attack, with Democrats calling for stronger gun-control laws and Republicans sending "tweets of thoughts and prayers".[1][2] The latter reaction was critiqued by Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who wrote "Your 'thoughts' should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your 'prayers' should be for forgiveness if you do nothing—again".[3] The New York Daily News' front-page headline, "God isn't fixing this", was accompanied by "images of tweets from leading Republicans who shared their 'thoughts' and 'prayers' for the shooting victims".[3][4][5][relevant? – discuss]

--Marc Kupper|talk 01:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Natalie Andrews, Presidential Candidates React Quickly to San Bernardino Shooting, Wall Street Journal (December 2, 2015).
  2. ^ Adam Chandler, The Political Reactions to the San Bernardino Shooting: The tenor of the immediate responses to the mass shooting in California exemplified the partisan divide, The Atlantic (December 2, 2015 ).
  3. ^ a b Jeremy Diamond, Connecticut senator has had enough of 'thoughts' and 'prayers', CNN (December 3, 2015).
  4. ^ Colin Campbell (December 2, 2015). "Hard-hitting Daily News cover blasts Republicans for offering only 'prayers' after latest shooting". Business Insider. Retrieved December 3, 2015.
  5. ^ Marina Fang, New York Daily News Skewers Politicians Refusing to Act on Gun Violence: 'God Isn't Fixing This', Huffington Post (December 2, 2015).
Marc, with respect you are mistaken on all counts. The section is NPOV and there is a consensus for inclusion.
On the use of sources, I think you have it backwards on policy. The official party website ("gop.com") is not the exclusive source for the stance of the group or any individuals. In fact, it's often not the best source - the best source is usually a reliable, well-respected independent source (the AP, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, etc.). See WP:PRIMARY. It is these sources that can best summarize stance, and we usually cite to them. As to the tea party website, the same logic applies, except the tea party official website is doubly irrelevant, since our section never purported to sum up Tea Party views.
As to the rest of the section, every proposition is directly supported by a reliable, high-quality source (Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, CNN), and every opinion is framed in terms of the voice of the person expressing the opinion. No opinion is framed in Wikipedia's voice. Neutralitytalk 14:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Father's health

I added from the Guardian reference that there was trouble in the suspect's family, namely his father's mental state which was resulting in violence to himself and other people. Domestic abuse is often a factor in the shaping of minds of people who do heinous crimes, and this transcends racial and cultural origin, for example the case of Dylann Roof [23]

This information has been removed on account of WP:BLP. I am just another editor in this big sea, and I respect the rules on edit warring, so I am bringing up a discussion. Whether you agree or disagree with including this information is fine by me. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should briefly mention what has been publicly reported in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 20:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait 24 hours. If it's relevant to other issues, the media will discuss it in more sources. The Saudi embassy has only just confirmed they went to Saudi Arabia for nine days in 2014, there may be other details coming out. It's too early to say whether the father has any relevance whatsoever. (Reuters) -- Callinus (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suspect's father is not a notable person on their own, and the claims related to his mental state were made by his wife in the context of her filing for a legal separation, when many outlandish claims are likely to be made. At this point, there is no reason to believe that the suspect's father has connection to this act, and thus it is inappropriate for any claims about him to be included in the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward's edits - insertion of unsourced material, deletion of sourced material, etc.

DHeyward: this series of edits concerns me greatly:

  • You added "The shooters traveled internationally and were not on the no-fly list" without a source - do you have a reference for this? This seems like blatant original research/synthesis to me. The authorities have not said whether any of the suspects were or were not on the no-fly list.
  • You removed the well-sourced paragraph (citing to the Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Atlantic, etc.) on reactions from members of Congress, etc., writing that it was an "unrelated to the shooting" - which is simply not true, as all of the sources deal directly with the shooting and the response to it.

--Neutralitytalk 20:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored that paragraph and removed the unsourced sentence. We don't know whether they were on the no-fly list. On the other hand, sourced and relevant material was removed, as it was related and was not editorial (though I have doubts about the NY Daily News headline's relevance). epicgenius (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - much obliged. Neutralitytalk 20:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support keeping NY daily news headline mention as it received notability per se. --JumpLike23 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Callinus: How come you think this falls under WP:RECENTISM? This does read like the "Reactions of horror to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting" article to me, but it is too early to tell if WP:RECENTISM applies. epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sniping at people over tweets using the word "prayers" is petty in the extreme. Wikipedia articles on events like this should be written in past tense - if the event causes changes in gun control policy then that result should be discussed. But if it's only a bunch of Democrtic leaning "blog" sections on websites discussing tweets then it's insubstantial and fails RECENTISM. -- Callinus (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know whether this will lead to gun control discussions yet, though... epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's 2 editors who don't agree with this material's inclusion, I have tagged it with {{relevance-inline}}. epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political reactions - point scoring and recentism

Per WP:RECENTISM, only material that satisfies the 10 year test should be included. Wikipedia is written in past tense, designed to document what happened, not for hour by hour coverage of "blog" sections on news sites that give a blow-by-blow analysis of Democratic and Republican tweets.

I think that political reactions should be limited to a very few (eg the President and the Cal. governor).

Mentioning Democratic senators attacking Republican senators reads like trivial point scoring and petty politics.

The motive isn't yet fully documented by the FBI or other agencies, and there are still details around the motive that could break in the next 24 hours.

-- Callinus (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True... but what about public reactions? Popular reactions? Should we not include them as well? It depends on whether this is covered by the news a week from now. epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We simply cannot ignore the political and policy implications of the event, as reported by the reliable sources. For better or for worse, it has been publicly reported that, for example:
  • The tenor of the immediate responses to the mass shooting in California exemplified the partisan divide. (Atlantic)
  • The mass shootings from California to Paris stoked fierce debate Thursday between Republicans who maintained that the killings must intensify the focus of Congress and the nation on Islamist terrorism and Democrats who demanded an end to “thoughts and prayers” for victims and immediate action to control the sale of guns. The angry back-and-forth highlighted how violence at home and abroad, rather than uniting the country, is escalating the ideological fights over gun control, immigration, foreign policy and religion. (NYT)
Neither of these sources, nor many others, are "blog posts" - nor are they trivial. The long-term impact remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: this is part of the story, for better or for worse.
The issue is "blogs.wsj.com" -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that political reactions shouldn't dominate the article. But by my count, we have 3-4 sentences of congressional and media reaction, in the context of a much wider discussion. That is entirely appropriate. Neutralitytalk 20:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitively becoming part of the story, in particular as the guns and ammo were purchased legally, rendering moot arguments by gun ownership advocates that "bad guys" gets their guns illegally. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If concrete policy changes are proposed as a result of this shooting then the policy changes should be discussed - Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Gun Control includes five paragraphs - there is no coverage of inflammatory tweets, only legislative proposals, official actions by the President, or limited coverage of remarks - notably there's no inflammatory mockery of tweets.
The comments by Chris Murphy where he mocks the term "prayer" feel like an internet flame war, that doesn't meet the 10 year test. -- Callinus (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
#NoReactionsMatter InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

The presidential candidates reactions will only be relevant for a week or more, then forgotten. No one will care about this in even a years time when most of these people will have dropped out of the campaign.

Imagine if this shooting had taken place in 1980. Would anyone care about any of the random candidates in that year in 2015? Not at all. Unless it some major event that completely disrupted the campaign or something of that nature. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the candidates (much less the "random" candidates) are mentioned by name in this article. Rather, this is a broad overview, generalizing the split reactions by party. If this was some sort of blow-by-blow with quotations from a dozen of different members of Congress, a handful of different governors, etc., I would say it was excessive. But that is simply not the case. This is 3-5 sentences in a much larger article. We cannot have a complete article if we ignore the political reaction entirely, as you seem to advocate. Neutralitytalk 21:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It would be disingenuous to argue that these type of incidents do not have political connotations. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They have policy changes proposed (eg Newtown) but the reactions by low-level politicians mocking other low-level politicians is relatively mundane. I'm Australian - I know of all of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, and Jerry Brown. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut is a political nobody outside the U.S. - a senator I've never heard of mocking other people on Twitter is not particularly interesting outside the U.S. - especially to other Anglophone readers that know that Democrats and Republicans mock each other on Twitter all the time. -- Callinus (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A U.S. senator is not a "low-level" politician. More to the point, though, the subjective views of you and me on the level of "importance" of a given figure (or whether various readers may find him "particularly interesting") is irrelevant. The question is: do multiple high-quality, reliable sources make note of what the person said? Is the statement either part of, or an illustration) of part a wider debate of social importance that ties into the event? The answer is yes and yes. Neutralitytalk 21:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They also have vague, implicit connections to all sorts of fields. Religion, policing, sociology, business, entertainment. Giving undue weight to opinions of politicians (the most well-known liars, especially when speaking generally) is silly and undue. Ignore everyone equally, so long as it's just hot air. If one of these people actually do something in direct consequence, that'd be notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
In no way is 4-5 sentences in the context of an fairly large article "undue." Neutralitytalk 21:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is when the other guys get zero sentences. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
What "other guys"? Neutralitytalk 22:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These guys. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
And far less prominently, these guys. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
Most people would agree that policymakers (members of Congress, etc.) are more worthy of note than random celebrities. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to hear Google News tell it. About split. ABC treats them roughly equally. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
If you want to add more, go ahead and see if they stick. I have no objection in principle to the addition of (brief, properly-sourced) responses from the community; e.g., the prayer vigils scheduled (4,000 are expected to attend at San Manuel Stadium); Muslim communal leaders' condemnation of the attack (NBC News, LA Times); the mayor of San Bernadino's remarks (Press-Enterprise, NPR), etc. These would be sensible inclusions; Chrissy Teigen would not. Neutralitytalk 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently missed my "#NoReactionsMatter" and "ignore everyone equally" comments. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
I understand your opinion, and think it plain that this kind of blanket approach—"ignoring" all responses, rather than doing the hard work of including a sampling of significant responses and excluding the rest—has no basis in policy and will necessarily lead to an incomplete article. As Cwobeel said above, it would be disingenuous for us to ignore the reactions to the event. Neutralitytalk 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hard work sucks, don't get me wrong, but that's not the issue here. I just find none of them significant. They're all "the rest". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
The knee-jerk political cheap shots need to go as do the irrelevant "solutions" posturing like quotes about "no-fly list" people being added to NICS. It has nothing to do with the shooting. If we include the "no-fly list" comment, it's fair game to point out that they flew to/from Saudia Arabia without an issue (do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of why people with pipe bombs in their house aren't on the no-fly list). If we want to include background checks, it's fair game to point out that the women entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa [24] which expires 90 days after entry and she is a prohibited possessor that would have failed a background check to buy a gun. But all of it (including quotes by Obama and congress critters) should be dropped as unrelated. This event is akin to the Boston Bombing and the Paris shootings. The initial blow-up on gun control is too RECENTISM to include. Maybe we could rename it "The War on Christmas."--DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think people would indeed be interested in the political details, in much the same way they'd be interested if somebody had a fistfight on the deck of the Titanic while it was going down. We've just seen huge political capital, quite possibly the fall of the Fifth Republic, made out of a somewhat similar attack in France, and so there's no reason to assume there's no historical significance to this stuff. My suggestion is let's do the article split sooner rather than later, get a Political reactions to the 2015 San Bernadino shootings fired up, and start dumping most of the data there. The politicians are going to be pimping this thing for all it's worth for the next month... unless someone does something a lot bigger. Wnt (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or a lot more recently. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course activists and politicians are going to use this incident to try to score points for their social agendas, whether it be gun control, the danger of religious extremism, workplace violence, immigration reform, etc. Adding sourced content to the article documenting the bickering and point scoring between prominent political parties or leaders is fine, IMO. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will run the gamut. The republican response isn't "thoughts and prayers," it's more active anti-terrorism, opposition to middle eastern refugees, illegal immigration control and any number of things. That the shooter is a U.S. citizen will be as irrelevant to them as much as the fact that the shooter passed all gun background checks and isn't on the no-fly list. Listing every pet project doesn't change the basic narrative but just adds noise. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a political reaction to the political reaction. As such, it's inherently a political reaction the shooting. Not made by a politician, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
It's the cover of a Newspaper offering their opinion in response to tweets from candidates, it's not a political reaction by a politician and it doesn't belong there.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does The Daily News not offer political commentary anymore? You don't need to be a politician to make a political statement anymore than you need to be a chef to sell food. If the section is now only reserved for politicians, that's even more slanted than only allowing politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
I agree the headline related sentence does not belong. It is a headline, not the content of an article authored by a journalist, but that written by an editor to grab attention. Therefore I'd suspect it is meant to be sensationalist by nature. Velojareal (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every source here has a headline writer looking for clicks. Here's the content, if that helps. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the Daily News took a very strong editorial view favoring more gun control in that issue (not just the front page). Gun control is a highly divisive topic in US politics so that is certainly a political reaction on the Daily News's part. There is also significant secondary coverage of the Daily News cover,[25][26][27] secondary sourcing of course being the touchstone of notability on Wikipedia. So per NPOV, the Daily News cover should be documented as part of the media reaction to the shootings, and should be weighed into the article's presentation of the shooting itself (how much weight to assign is debatable of course). 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinates

Why was there a separate section on co-ordinates? They were already in the title and the infobox, and this section adds nothing to the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That caught my eye, too. It's a footnote, used in the body, containing a different coords pair for the shootout. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates are given in the infobox for the location of the incident and then a reference to the street where the final shootout occurred. Bod (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The heading could be Notes instead of Coordinates. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you currently have a big red cite error at the bottom of the article. You need to re-add the reflist template or remove the footnote, and I'm for the former. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...or you can just remove it, since it's redundant to the topmost coordinate. epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Nightly News, (Lester Holt)

With the ongoing "revealings" of actual events of the San Bernardino shooting(2Dec2015), NBC Nightly News, Lester Holt ended his 1/2 hour Thursday (3 Dec 2015) report with a retelling of a hospital victim. He had talked to her mother(?), then visited the shooting victim (the daughter) at her hospital bed (and with NO cameras, and recording, stated by Lester Holt); the daughter said: (retold by Lester Holt), that one of the 2 shooters said, quote: "thank you, finally". Mmcannis (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? (Which is to say, said to whom? When? In what context? Otherwise, this is all but useless.) General Ization Talk 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no sign of a citable source in Google News for those three words being uttered by anyone in the context of this incident, so even if Lester Holt said it on the air, we can't say it here. General Ization Talk 02:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victim's picture

I don't object putting the picture of the perpetrator, but would we care to put the pictures of a few victims.

Wikipedians will also behave like the media, where victims will be forgotten, and huge coverage would be given to the shooter, increasing his notability for a standalone article. We have to watch the biopics of the killers in prime time news, (how the shooter's family will say my son is innocent, where they grew up, his love life, his Facebook page). --The Avengers 03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, victims have more rights to anonymity than the perpetrators (or even suspects). I think that should be respected here as well. If consent from the family is given or possibly even if photo is from a public obituary I'd say it may be included. Velojareal (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL site and so articles have usually not listed the names of the victims and should not have their pictures. For example Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does not have a full list of victims and does not have pictures of any of them. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability matters in most cases. Before making insensitive comments, just think if Wikipedia is not memorial, then Wikipedia is also not FBI most wanted list or police record book, where mug shots of criminals would be posted. maybe the shooter get extra coverage, but that doesn't mean the victims get zero coverage. every victim may not get media attention, but some victims are selected and highlighted by media. The killer is dead, why his picture is shown as memorial. The Avengers 17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search of Townhouse Section

The sentence "The townhouse was under surveillance when the perpetrators left in the SUV" is confusing, because it's not clear that the surveillance only started after the main shooting event. Also, the source is a frequently updated page, so the update that includes the source info is getting hard to find. EvidenceFairy (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand what happened from reading news reports... after the shooting someone at the Inland event said something like "this guy left, and then came back wearing a mask and shooting people. Witnesses talk about a black SUV with the shooters. With this lead the police headed to the townhome, and started to watch it (maybe while getting a warrant and/or bomb unit). The police spot the black SUV pulling up, and Malik spots the police and flees, with cops giving chase. The SUV drives about 2/3rds of the way back toward the Inland Regional Center before a gun battle breaks out. I've not seen any info on where the shooters went between the IRC and the townhouse, but quite a bit of time elapsed between the shooting and the car chase. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I raised this issue is because existing wording leaves open the possibility that surveillance occurred before the main shooting event, which implies law enforcement saw the home's occupant(s) as possible future offenders, which would change the conversation about possible motive significantly. There is currently no evidence for this. EvidenceFairy (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way I remember seeing it, after the SUV left the shooting, the police got a tip that let them figure out what apartment to visit. It may have come from one of the shooter's surviving ex-co-workers. Apparently even though he was wearing a mask, someone recognized his voice. It's late here so I can't dig up the links right now but maybe this can help find stuff. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooter's Faith

Several editors insist that the man's faith has nothing to do with the crime, yet they support including other biographical details. According to some sources his faith is central to the story, and this question is being debated in the real world. [28]

  • Mosque leader commenting on his faith [29] and evidence of travel for religious reasons.
  • "Farook is said to have been a devout Muslim, but reportedly stopped attending his local mosque two years ago. Colleagues told the Los Angeles Times he rarely talked about religion at work." [30]

Like most of the people who have commented on the topic, I believe it is appropriate to present the fact he was a Muslim neutrally alongside other biographical info. Excluding this fact, while including details about where he grew up, went to school, worked and even his brother's navy service, is very POV. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse. He was what he was. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's probably a terrorism component, it's likely appropriate. Another argument in favor of it is WP:Not censored. The only counter-argument would be WP:BLP. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure BLP, but being Muslim is not negative, and there is no one disputing he is Muslim. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Iranian victim Muslim as well or another shooting victim? Just now, in a new article, it says Farook shot a member of his own congregation at the party, or at least I thought I read that.She's Christian. I don't know what I was reading, but it was wrong. And then we've got loads of new material for a reaction section, talking about how the mainstream Muslim community stands with the victims and against violence. So all of these arguments against avoiding discussing Muslims are terribly misguided and frankly embarrassing. American Muslims agree that Islam has a problem with extremism and they want to confront it head on by standing against it. It's time to start talking more about Muslims in the article, not less. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. People want to know who did these crimes. They want to know about them. Including a dozen details about the perpetrators, while excluding their religion, is astounding and serves only to make Wikipedia look ridiculous... literally, as in "worthy of ridicule" ridiculous, and at this point, deserving of ridicule. Is there any mainstream media source covering this shooting which has not mentioned their religion at all? Any? Bueller? Marteau (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now we've got a lot of trivial biographical details in the article. In the worst case, religion would be just one more trivial detail. However, given his reported links to known Muslim terrorists, his faith appears to be highly relevant and so should be included along with information about these links. Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with including mention of his religion. I'm very new to this editing thing - how do we get his religion included in the article? EvidenceFairy (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example CTV article [31] "married on Aug. 16, 2014, in nearby Riverside County, according to their marriage license. Both listed their religion as Muslim" "Farook was a devout Muslim who prayed every day and recently memorized the Qur'an, according to brothers Nizaam and Rahemaan Ali, who attended Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah mosque in San Bernardino with Farook." "Rahemaan Ali said he last saw Farook three weeks ago, when he abruptly stopped going to the mosque." "A profile on a matchmaking website for South Asians that matched Farook's name, California hometown, county health job and Muslim faith..." "Two weeks ago, Farook and one of the co-workers he killed, ...Nicholas Thalasinos, had a heated conversation about Islam,.. Stephens said she happened to call Thalasinos while he was talking with Farook at work. She said Thalasinos told her Farook "doesn't agree that Islam is not a peaceful religion." Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their name and their origin from Pakistan can guide an educated reader. The Avengers 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The man was born in the United States. Talking about his family origin in Pakistan would seem to provide little to the educated reader. His wife was born in Pakistan and a US resident so discussion of her origin in Pakistan might be acceptable. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mater where he was born, nearly all Pakistani Americans have family, relatives and friends in Pakistan. Many of them often travel to Pakistan, which is infested with anti-American extremists. This is vital information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really agreeing with you, but HE traveled to Pakistan and married a Pakistani. It's pretty relevant, and anyway Wikipedia commonly notes the family origin of people. Nothing wrong with being Pakistani origin. Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islam / Muslim

We've got a handful of people working very, very hard to keep the words "islam" and "muslim" out of this article, even though nearly every news story referenced contains those facts. Is there a barnstar for defending the islamic faith? --Dan East (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 04:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just mention it but don't focus on it. People want to know if he was Muslim. If he was Christian, it would say. To omit this is POV. Bod (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned quite appropriately, but User:Cwobeel is whitewashing the article of any mention of islam as fast as he can. It was said that the FBI are now investigating links to islamic extremists and he edited that out as well. He has also threatened me, and others, with discretionary sanctions for including that fact, and that was my one and only edit to this page was undoing the removal of a properly cited fact. --Dan East (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted Cwobeel's deletion of Islamic extremism from the lead. He claimed it was unsourced after someone removed the citation. I find that a bit disingenuous on his part. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel's conduct has been reported to WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor excluding widely reported undisputed religion of San Bernardino Shooter. As far as the article content goes, at present it has "Farook was a devout Muslim according to his father and coworkers." which seems fine. If we wanted to add more about that we could add that he went on hajj in 2013[32] which is when he met Malik and her family.[33] The article already has that he then went to Saudi Arabia in 2014 to marry Malik. At present we do not know if religion was why they carried out this attack. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure

After editing logged out for several weeks, I am returning to my registered account. I have been advised to state that I have been posting on this page logged out, as 72.198.26.61. I have no current plans to edit logged out again. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism??

This discussion is not productive. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been as of yet no concrete connection to this atrocity to Islamist terrorism, other than the fact that the implicated perpetrators are brown. Why do we put any goddamn links or subjects connecting this 'postal' attack to Islam? I will remove and revert any edits to the contrary. 1RR be damned, this is about truth, honesty, and verifiability. HOT WUK (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can add your comments to this already existing section. Talk:Terrorism Ralphw (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored to suit your political or religious preferences. But thus far the FBI has not said it was a terrorism incident.There is always the fact that if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, law enforcement and mainstream media may investigate the possibility of it being a duck, and it is appropriate for us to note such an investigation. Edison (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to edit war and disrupt an article is blockable. BTW, your attitude has blinded you to your actions. By removing the voice of Muslims who oppose terrorism, you have reinforced the stereotypes you claim to be preventing. Muslims can and do criticize other Muslims and are allowed to do so in Western society. I'm sorry that your cultural values conflict with ours. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brown people and violence

This discussion is not productive. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel the need to remind people that just because one follows the Muslim faith does not mean their actions are "ISLAMOFASCIST!!!"

I have yet to believe that Wikipedia needs a new page immediately for any incident, but I am prepared to defend this page against the inevitable Islamophobic attacks that will come from the Wikipedia commenteratti in the coming days. HOT WUK (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a link to muslim attitudes towards terrorism, which has been discussed in the news today in regards to this topic, particularly in their opposition to terrorism. Instead of taking this opportunity to merge the link into this article and cite the sources, you declared that any discussion about Muslim attitudes towards terrorism is "racist" and deleted the link. Are you aware that many Muslims in the US are against terrorist acts like this, and linking to and discussing this topic allows us to add their opinion to the reaction section? Did you intended to eliminate the voices of Muslims who oppose terrorism from this article? Because that's exactly what you've done. Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree or disagree, but I wouldn't advise continuing with that much inability to assume good faith. Nothing good can come of that, for you, for anyone else, or for this article. Your statement reveals a battleground mindset right out of the gate. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk Page cleanup

I archived stuff that was resolved in case anyone is missing something. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find my watch. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I misplaced my pony. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

assault rifles

The term "assault rifle" is back in the article. The weapons in question are semiautomatic rifles. They do not meet the formal definition of "assault rifle" in that they are not capable of firing multiple rounds on a single trigger pull. They are not "assault weapons" because "assault weapons" are banned in California and neither rifle met the legal definition in California (or federally) of an "assault weapon". They were (as well) reported to have been legally purchased in California which (again) makes them neither assault weapons nor assault rifles which are not legal for purchase in California. There are multiple reliable sources using the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" incorrectly (including the New York Times). But there is no obligation on the part of Wikipedia to reflect their mistakes or false information. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that non-American publications refer to them as assault weapons. Is the term accurate outside the US? Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The term originated in the US. The legal definitions of the term (assault weapon) also all originated in the US. Use of the term in many sources outside the US is simply derivative of the widespread use of the term in the US media and in US political debates. The US was somewhat unique in creating a whole series of laws (assault weapons laws) which ban guns based on cosmetic appearance or even product names rather than the actual firing capabilities of the weapons. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assault rifle begins, "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle ...". Unless we have information that the weapons were selective-fire (firing full automatic or capable of doing so), we should not use that term. I agree that many news sources don't know the technical definition (or care to), so the mere appearance of the term in a source is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do about this: there's apparently a conflict between common usage and specialist jargon. There are many search hits for "AR-15 assault rifle" including on gun enthusiast sites. I don't know anything about this stuff but always thought the term didn't entail automatic fire. Also the AR-15 article mentions that the AR-15 was subject to various laws regarding assault weapons. I'd go as far as to say that the assault rifle article should discuss these nuances if it doesn't already (I didn't check). 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assault rifle later states: "Semi-automatic-only rifles like variants of the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities." That's good enough for me. If that article is incorrect and needs work, it's outside the scope of our responsibility here. As of this moment, Wikipedia believes that a semi-automatic AR-15 variant is not an assault rifle. If that changes, this article can change with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole mini-industry that profits off providing misinformation to gun enthusiasts. Many of them do indeed think that they are buying "assault rifles". But its not so. In the 1970s, the military and civilian versions of the AR-15 were very close. But starting in the 1980s, while they still appeared the same, they became totally different guns inside. Civilian "assault weapons" are ordinary semi-automatic rifles dressed up to look like military equipment. But they are not the military equipment (the real assault rifles).
Bans on "assault weapons" are bans on guns with particular names or particular sets of cosmetic features. They are in reality bans on scary looking guns. And the reality of the law is that a gun can go from being an illegal "assault weapon" to being a legal semiautomatic rifle with sometimes very minor changes. You cannot buy an AR-15 in California because a gun named "AR-15" is banned. But you can buy something that looks almost exactly like a banned AR-15 that has a different name and tweaked set of cosmetic features. There have been problems for years with the terminology and the confusion it creates. But there are people on both sides of the gun issue who profit from creating confusion about these definitions. The gun control crowd is able to completely misrepresent the effectiveness of these bans and gun dealers have made a fortune off people thinking they are buying military rifles. I'm rather passionate about the issue because misuse of these terms has ruined public discussion of the real issues for years. This isn't really "specialist jargon". Its widespread public misinformation and misunderstanding. I realize that misuse of the terms is very popular, but correcting that misuse has to start somewhere. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another nit. The info box refers to the rifles as AR-15s. But they are technically not AR-15s because AR-15s are explicitly banned in California by law. The real names of the rifles should be exclusively used. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the NTC tracing back where the guns originated? Maybe not from CA, unless they finished that already. Didn't see any articles yet. Definitely agree that "AR-15" is almost never used correctly. Snd0 (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to [34] the pistols came from a store in Corona, CA; the rifles came from another store that wasn't identified. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to get this terminology right - accurately reflecting the thoughtful discussion here - among other reasons because this actually is a part of this article that has BLP implications, at least when we start reading about who sold them the "assualt rifles". Wnt (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of sources have addressed this with "assault-style rifles" (they are all rifles in this case, not carbines or sub-machine guns or personal-defense weapons (PDWs)). We should use "semi-automatic rifles." Background: The lower receiver (the part the the ATF considers a firearm because it receives the least wear and never needs to be replaced so the serial number goes on that part) is generally a mil-spec compliant variant if the lower receiver of an M-16 without the select fire hole drilled for the cam needed to make it select fire. That receiver can be made into rifles, pistols, carbines, etc, etc. The lower receiver is the only part considered a firearm and is usually made of aluminum. It has no moving parts itself but contains the trigger, hammer and safety. Since it was lawfully sold as a rifle in this case, it is not select fire and not an "assault rifle". It has a barrel length of at least 16 inches (the currently issued M-4 rifle in the U.S. Military is 14.5 inches and is considered a carbine). The .223 caliber is woefully under-powered/under-sized for hunting except squirrels and other small animals. Larger calibers in that platform are suitable for hunting and are used for it. (i.e. "it has only one purpose" is oft repeated but lacks proper understanding). In California, the law prohibits magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. It also prohibits any rifle that allows detachment of that magazine without a tool. Gun dealers (in any state) that sell rifles to residents of California are required to be licensed through the California's attorneys general office (in addition to ATF). --DHeyward (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're mixing up .22 Long Rifle ammunition (very cheap and common for plinking, small animals, target shooting, Olympic biathlon) versus the .223 Remington (aka 5.56x45mm NATO ammo used by the US military in M16/M4 rifles that is most certainly deadly). -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the rifles had been modified to take magazines with more than the 10 bullet California limit and one had been modified for fully automatic fire (though the mod might not have been fully successful)[35], [36]. It is pretty straightforward to do modifications of these weapons, so "they are not assault rifles because of the limited magazine and one shot per trigger pull" is bogus. The basic Californa-legal weapon plus some mail-order parts and you have an assault weapon. Its like the old days in farm states where at the insistence of the dairy industry margarine was sold as white grease in a plastic bag, along with a tube of food color the buyer could mix in to make it look like butter. Edison (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUV photo

The article includes this photo of a black 2007-2008 Ford Expedition Limited EL (extended length). Since the perps had just rented the vehicle, it's unlikely it was anywhere near that old, rental companies don't keep vehicles that long. Do we have any indication it was an extended length model? If not, I don't think this photo earns its keep. We are also linking to the Ford Expedition article and that is sufficient. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. There is no value in a generic picture of an SUV being in the article. That is what links to the vehicle article are for. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of value-less image and replacement with another image of actual value. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The typical reader would be well aware of what a black SUV looks like. WWGB (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we could get a photo of the shoot up SUV that would add value... but the generic photo is pointless. Black SUVs are found all over the world. I wonder if they will get the damage deposit back on the rental? Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a couple of reasons why they won't, just off the top of my head. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did the couple meet?

Different sources are making different claims about how the couple met. [37] suggests they met during the Hajj in 2013. [38] suggests they first met online. Any clarity on who is right? Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logically - both. First online, then in person, and engaged/married in 2013 in Saudi Arabia. They got married officially in Riverside Cali after she arrived in the US on a F visa. Naturally as a Muslim, he did hajji while in KSA to meet the future wife. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why that's more logical than the alternatives. For example, it's claimed he performed the Hajj in 2013 (which would be in October). But it's also claimed he travelled to marry her in spring of an unspecified year and she joined him in July 2014. Spring must be northern hemisphere spring, since no southern hemisphere countries were involved so it can't be during the Hajj. So it's easily possible he met her in Saudi Arabia in 2013, and they relationship continued online after he left. Clearly if both sources are claiming their relation began in different ways (and they are), one of them is partially wrong. This is why we should go by sources, not what's "logical".

BTW to be clear, you can't just randomly perform the Hajj because you happen to be in Saudi Arabia. Potentially he could have planned to perform the Hajj and simultaneously met someone he met online, but it would require planning probably a few months in advance (I presume it's easier to perform the Hajj for American citizens, for a number of countries with predominantly Muslim populations there's generally a wait list of several years) and probably careful working of schedules as I don't think Hajj pilgrims have much opportunity for independent exploration and they also can't hang around after the Hajj.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images

Speaking of images not earning their keep... The article currently provides four (4) maps for two locations, in addition to the coordinates for the same two locations. Via those coordinates with a couple of clicks, you get tons more functionality than you get with either of the maps in the infobox. Why do we provide those coordinates and then bend over backwards to save the reader from using them? I think at least the two infobox maps should go, if not the other two as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PoI Box (Locations)

I have removed three locations that were listed in the PoI box because they are not directly relevant to the shooting: Farook's graduate school, undergraduate college, and high school. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time discrepancy

The article states the shooting occurred at 10:59 am (PST), but the article was created at 10:44 am, with references to articles from Reuters and KTVU stating that 20 people have been wounded by that time, so the shooting or at least related events must have occurred before then?

Check your calculations, please. When the article was created, it was 11:44 am PST. General Ization Talk 14:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CNN article linking:

CNN is reporting that their hard drive is missing and that two damaged cell phones have been found. How do I link to specific CNN articles on this topic? The url is just this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Which is the same, and changes all the time reflecting the newest information. I want to link just the story about the hard drives. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save it to archive.org. That will time stamp it. Then link to the archive.org version.--Nowa (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News now coming out as the wife was linked to ISIS. "As the San Bernardino attack was happening, investigators believe the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, posted on Facebook, pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN." http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html and: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html

Heyyouoverthere (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-shooting-isis-idUSKBN0TN1SR20151204#Igysi2zKe78St6w4.97

What this means is that she pledged allegiance to them. It does not necessarily mean that there was a direct connection. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think what is implied is that we're starting to see the motive. It's quite possible that radical Islam is responsible for Wednesday's massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelasowsk123 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think we can add the link, even if we include, ", and a link to ISIS." not necessarily that this was an ISIS attack. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It bothers me that this isn't confirmed, words being used include "think", and "suspect". I think it is a case of WP:DUCK, but shouldn't we wait until it is confirmed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A setback for those who were censoring the article of any mention of such a motivation. Edison (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A setback? Officials have confirmed a link and we have the sources. It is a setback for the people who were strongly hoping that it wasn't terrorism. With the amount of evidence present previous to this news flash everything seemed to point to terrorism however. Ralphw (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Reuters: "They said the finding, if confirmed, could be a "game changer" in the investigation." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy, and tempting to just throw what we think might be the motivation into the article and call it a day. I have been following the news media though, the workplace dispute angle is still being looked at as well. One commentator went on to say that the attack site was not political in nature, something a terrorist aims for. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"workplace dispute." For the love of God, Malik posted to her Facebook professing her pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during the attack.

"link"? they were just feeling particularly murderous that day. Is everyone in the West as deluded as the perpetrators of this carnage? I can pledge allegiance to al-Baghdadi while taking a shit and would my shit then take on some greater significance?

Here is your "link:" http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

If you think your shit has some greater significance by pledging allegiance to Baghdadi then good on you. Apparently this woman felt compelled to pledge allegiance to the caliph of ISIS during the attack.

Brand identity of semi-automatic weapons used?

Is it either 1) necessary or 2) prudent to use the brand identity of the weapons used as if that contributes some way to the discussion or information provided? If we are not interested that a hacker used an Apple computer or a hit-and-run drunk driver used a Tesla car why does it matter the brand of firearm? This is close to a tactic discussed by an antigun group in our local media of using branding to frame their agenda, lawsuits against specific companies or mass media slandering of the company for example. Even IF that is not the case it seems out of place when viewing other wiki articles dealing with news sources unless the community is interested in identifying Apple, car companies, knife companies ect. Also the term AR-15 is not literally correct as AR stands for Armalite Rifle which is not the brand of either of these Semi-Automatic Rifles, AR-15 styled, but I know that point is going no where fast in the wiki community.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, at this point in the article, there is no reason to break it down that much. We don't need to know if they drank Coke or Pepsi and we don't need to know what brand of firearm they used. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You (IP user) seem to be making two points. On the one hand, you make the point that the brand of the weapons is not important. On the other hand, using the term "AR-15" misidentifies the brand. I see your point that the brand may not be relevant, but I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the problem of misidentifying the brand. If we want to make sure that readers are not misled to think that these were Armalite brand rifles, then I think it's important to mention what brand they were. --Nowa (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We report what the high-quality sources have reported; the New York Times has a whole interactive feature on the type of weapons used in this incident and others. Specificity and precision are important; we, as an encyclopedia, do not withhold such information from our articles merely because you may not like it. As to the comment above suggesting that the type of weapons is trivial and similar to whether "they drank Coke or Pepsi": that is absurd. Neutralitytalk 16:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I didn't realize this was a mirror site for the NYT. IF that level of detail really fulfilled the wiki community project goals I'm sure you will be glad to head the team going back and fixing all previous articles and being sure to update bio pages to reflect what brand of suits politicians wore and what brand sneakers athletes were wearing when they attended a significant event...not sure who is being absurd here.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it would be "two .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines." If we wanted to be very specific, we could add "NATO STANAG compatible detachable magazines." I haven't seen any details on the capacity of the magazines (California law limits magazines to 10 rounds but they weren't particularly law abiding). --DHeyward (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed I did throw that last point in rather than adding new topic, however it does not change the point as perhaps the best recourse would be to simple do what was done with the pistols and use Semi-Automatic Rifle as it is the most appropriate term. The AR-15 is a trademark term of Colt, and the brands of the rifles are as meaningless as the brand of car, caliber of pistols, or brand of rifles used by police. Additionally there is the muck created by the fact that special interest groups have a propaganda plan of trying to tie companies to these horrible atrocities to further their own antigun political agendas. Wiki wide this has been avoided for the most part, but not here.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it offputting to remove specific information about the firearms used, as it does provide insight into the events that unfolded. It is not "POV" to put the brand and make of the rifles and handguns, as it reflects the offensive capabilities of the assailants, and that is directly relevant to the article and the topic. Comparing it to Coke/Pepsi, Apple/Microsoft, suits/sneakers is a completely off base analogy. The phantom bugaboo of gun policy implications or stigmatizing a particular gun manufacturer should not be an issue, as these are the cold hard facts of the case. I find people use WP:NOTCENSORED way too much in Wikipedia talk page discussions, but in this case it's apt. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid I can't see how using AR-15, an incorrect and trademarked name not used in this attack, or even M&P15 is more informative to the reader than simply '.223 Semi-Automatic Rifle' which is EXACTLY all that matters to determining the armament used. Also, this usage is not in standard with other articles of such events where brand name of things used is not important. Does it matter the police ALSO used M&P15? or they drove a Tahoe?159.118.212.107 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Shooting"

This is being reported as a shooting, but this is a shooting and a failed bombing attempt. The bomb didn't go off and was destroyed by the bomb squad, so it's easy to forget about the bomb. As such, this should not be called a simply a "shooting". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be remembered that Columbine in CO was also a shooting and bombing with some of the bombs even detonating (not the largest ones though) however this event is largely identified as the 'Columbine Shootings' and not sure how changing that title would be productive. The failed bombing certainly deserves a place in the article however not sure the main title needs to reflect it.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of Shootout

The duration of the shootout is listed as being under a minute which is wildly inaccurate. The shooting lasted at least 3 minutes. There is video and audio out there to corroborate this because this did take place in a residential area. Please fix this because it is completely inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbeatchemist (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

There is no street called San Bernardino Boulevard. The correct name of the street is San Bernardino Avenue.

East San Bernardino Boulevard

34.0775°N 117.2484°W

Final shootout with police — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbeatchemist (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editors that don't edit war by deleting every hint of their religion, or scream WP:IDONTLIKEIT this is not a big surprise. Community Sanctions now apply, which means 1RR. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC) Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=693753477

Leave a Reply