Talk:Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:45, 8 December 2019 editMandruss (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users64,294 edits →Add names of victims who died: r← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:49, 8 December 2019 edit undoMandruss (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users64,294 edits →Add names of victims who died: oNext edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:
	::I have reverted your restore pending consensus to include the names, per standard Misplaced Pages procedure. You are entitled to the opinion that {{tq\|The names of the victims are sourced and relevant}}, but that opinion does not entitle you to bypass standard process. This principle has been upheld at one article after another, including trips to ANI. ―] ] 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)		::I have reverted your restore pending consensus to include the names, per standard Misplaced Pages procedure. You are entitled to the opinion that {{tq\|The names of the victims are sourced and relevant}}, but that opinion does not entitle you to bypass standard process. This principle has been upheld at one article after another, including trips to ANI. ―] ] 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
	:There is ], however, I feel like that's being abused sitewide to forced editors into protracted and lengthy discussions just to add something that is factual, relevant and reported in reliable sources. —] • ] • ] 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)		:There is ], however, I feel like that's being abused sitewide to forced editors into protracted and lengthy discussions just to add something that is factual, relevant and reported in reliable sources. —] • ] • ] 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Per ] and ], verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a '''very''' few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.{{pb}}Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has '''never''' been an accepted reason to include something in Misplaced Pages.{{pb}}For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at ]. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing {{endash}} ] {{endash}} and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years. It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―] ] 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:49, 8 December 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naval Air Station Pensacola shooting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Military history / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Saudi Arabia

	Saudi Arabia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Florida

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This really should be drafted first

I have no idea why we as an encyclopedia are rushing to put this out when we are not a newspaper. We go by notability standards and have WP:NOTNEWS for a reason. I see no harm in taking the time to draft the details before putting out info that can easily be fit into a summary section. The WP:ONUS is on those who have to prove notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This is easily notable enough for an article of its own. We have plenty of editors who are rapidly expanding & improving the article. Jim Michael (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: I suggest waiting two weeks to show that the media attention to the event was extremely short term, and then submitting the article to AfD. If "the community" feels that a few days of front page news coverage is sufficient for an article, so be it. Discussion on this page is somewhat pointless, as participation at this article will be heavily weighted on the side of editors who believe it should exist. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no way this will be deleted - this is a significant terrorist incident that has had widespread coverage in the English-speaking world. That has nothing to do with waiting for things to settle down a bit before editing, however.50.111.60.168 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The mainstream media coverage extends to many countries & the fact that the shooter was a foreign national with an apparent terrorist motive makes this far more notable than most mass shootings. Jim Michael (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this purely an act of terrorism? NO public mention - but it is possible this is purely a disgruntled frustrated student? What was his recent performance/ marks ? He was in training - with he potential end of training be a prestigious job. -- How does this end up with Country Sheriff involved instead of the bases Own police ? Wfoj3 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is showing up as being important. "U.S. defense secretary securing military bases after Florida shooting" Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This text contains a mistake that changes the meaning entirely

Quote: SITE Intelligence Group alleges that Alshamrani released a manifesto shortly before the shooting, and "attacked what it calls an American 'war of attrition' waged on Muslims around the world", citing the US drone war and the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, where a number of terrorism suspects face indefinite detention. / End quote

This is the mistake: "an American 'war of attrition' waged on Muslims around the world"

I have seen the screenshot of his deleted tweet, what he said was that HE (the attacker) was (part of a larger) war of attrition AGAINST the US since 9/11.

His quote from the screenshot: "for how long can the US survive this war of attrition?"

In other words, the US keeps attacking and killing THEM, yet they continue to strike back at the US without an end, hence "war of attrition".

I request someone more experienced change this. Thank you.

(Avicenna1985 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC))

Add names of victims who died

Someone deleted the names victims who died, saying that publishing the names requires agreement on TALK page. Can someone please show me the rules that say that's required. And can we agree that the names of those three (at least as of Dec 8th) should be published in the article, especially since at least one or two of them were active in getting aid and describing the scene to security forces. VanEman (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the names of the victims. The names of the victims are sourced and relevant. Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your restore pending consensus to include the names, per standard Misplaced Pages procedure. You are entitled to the opinion that The names of the victims are sourced and relevant, but that opinion does not entitle you to bypass standard process. This principle has been upheld at one article after another, including trips to ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There is WP:ONUS, however, I feel like that's being abused sitewide to forced editors into protracted and lengthy discussions just to add something that is factual, relevant and reported in reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Misplaced Pages.For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing – Misplaced Pages is not a democracy – and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years. It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories: