Misplaced Pages

Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:32, 11 November 2018 editBus stop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,012 edits →Names of the dead← Previous edit Revision as of 20:46, 11 November 2018 edit undoBus stop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,012 editsm Reverted edits by Bus stop (talk) to last version by MandrussTag: RollbackNext edit →
Line 168: Line 168:
*:::::::::::::::::Jim Michael—in my conception of this article it is not primarily a memorial to the deceased. I think the primary focus of the article is a description of the incident, plus some related material. The lives of the deceased are extensive and have strong sentimental components. I think there is reader interest in the lives of the victims. There are no space constraints with this article at this point as it is still a relatively short article. Though the names of the victims are listed in many sources I think we should want to make this article as useful as possible by including a simple listing of the names and ages of the deceased. I don't think this is any big deal and I think it should be the rule and not the exception. And I think the onus is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased. ] (]) 18:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC) *:::::::::::::::::Jim Michael—in my conception of this article it is not primarily a memorial to the deceased. I think the primary focus of the article is a description of the incident, plus some related material. The lives of the deceased are extensive and have strong sentimental components. I think there is reader interest in the lives of the victims. There are no space constraints with this article at this point as it is still a relatively short article. Though the names of the victims are listed in many sources I think we should want to make this article as useful as possible by including a simple listing of the names and ages of the deceased. I don't think this is any big deal and I think it should be the rule and not the exception. And I think the onus is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased. ] (]) 18:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::{{tq|I think the onus is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased.}} No, it is not. ]: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I have to say it, you seem to have a fairly weak understanding of the relevant PAGs here{{emdash}}both letter and spirit. In place of that, you tend to make up your own, like the "what readers want" and the "strong sentimental components". And, per ], no editor is obligated to provide what you consider to be good reasons. It's really to see that if you turn it around; are you going to change your !vote if I don't think you have provided good reasons to include this content? I didn't think so. ―] ] 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC) *::::::::::::::::::{{tq|I think the onus is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased.}} No, it is not. ]: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I have to say it, you seem to have a fairly weak understanding of the relevant PAGs here{{emdash}}both letter and spirit. In place of that, you tend to make up your own, like the "what readers want" and the "strong sentimental components". And, per ], no editor is obligated to provide what you consider to be good reasons. It's really to see that if you turn it around; are you going to change your !vote if I don't think you have provided good reasons to include this content? I didn't think so. ―] ] 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::::We are having a dialogue. I am saying to you (and Jim Michael) that there are reasons for including the names and the ages of the victims. And I am giving reasons. I am using plain English. The ball is on your side of the court (and Jim Michael's side of the court.) Are there any reasons that we should omit the victims' names and ages? ] (]) 20:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
*I would '''support''' the inclusion in this article of a list of names and ages similar to what is found at ]. ] (]) 16:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC) *I would '''support''' the inclusion in this article of a list of names and ages similar to what is found at ]. ] (]) 16:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - The names and ages (only) of those killed most should definitely be included. It is clearly noteworthy content in relation to the subject, particularly when the names become widely published by most major metro newspapers in the U.S. and other national and international mainstream media outlets. Leaving the names of the deceased out would make the article incomplete; it would be a glaring omission. I believe if they weren't included many readers would ask themselves, "Where are the names of the people who were killed; how can that not be in here?!" So, as we have done with ], ], ], and numerous others, I feel we should list the names and ages only. ] (]) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC) * '''Support''' - The names and ages (only) of those killed most should definitely be included. It is clearly noteworthy content in relation to the subject, particularly when the names become widely published by most major metro newspapers in the U.S. and other national and international mainstream media outlets. Leaving the names of the deceased out would make the article incomplete; it would be a glaring omission. I believe if they weren't included many readers would ask themselves, "Where are the names of the people who were killed; how can that not be in here?!" So, as we have done with ], ], ], and numerous others, I feel we should list the names and ages only. ] (]) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:46, 11 November 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thousand Oaks shooting article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCalifornia: Southern California
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography
WikiProject iconThis 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
???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.
WikiProject iconDeath
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFirearms
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

Category: Disasters in nightclubs

Hello,

This category (Disasters in nightclubs) was recently removed from the article, should this category be added back into the article or should it stay removed?
Thank you, --Vwanweb (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A shooting is not a disaster. I suppose, if a building, or vessels or vehicles suffered major structural damage as a result of the attack, then it would have been pertinent to add that category. -Mardus /talk 13:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
According to wikipedia it is a Disaster. The paragraph Man-made disasters even says "War and deliberate attacks may also be put in this category. ". 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not structural collapse of any kind, or an event in which a vehicle or building is directly involved in the death of one or more persons. A disaster would be something like force majeure. -Mardus /talk 14:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is in Category:Attacks on nightclubs, which is a subcat of Category:Disasters in nightclubs. Jim Michael (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
That's more specific all right. -Mardus /talk 14:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Shooter description

Find it odd that I can not find a source that describes the shooter as other than a '29 year old male.' Not a single mention of race/ethnicity. I find this to be peculiar, has anyone else found any updated sources that describe the perpetrator? This one: https://www.foxnews.com/us/witnesses-describe-deadly-california-shooting seems to go out of its way to describe the shooter. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, to NOT describe the shooter I meant.- A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the age of the shooter? The article lists him as 28 and 29 and the sources for each support each age. It's a small difference, but it should probably be resolved and corrected. Danbert8 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

>>This was broadcast live on television ABC7 (channel 7) from 11:20pm non-stop til next morning. IMHO, if you want news as it is happening, you need to watch TV or go on twitter. SWP13 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Why hide terrorism?

Someone continues to remove link to Terrorism in the US despite there being THREE different 'anti gun' posts in the see also section. Any explanation for that? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

VERY Obvious whoever is doing it is an ANTI GUN crusader. Why so many ANTI GUN articles in the see also and NO LINK TO TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Terrorism is speculation, also opinions do not belong in Misplaced Pages articles IFixThings (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Terrorism is a SPECULATIVE as the SHOOTING PART! What is your agenda? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Stop accusing other editors of "hiding" terrorism or of having an agenda. We don't speculate terrorism into an article until it's established by the reliable sources. This shooting isn't even 24 hours old yet, so it will probably be awhile before those kinds of details are sorted out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Azure IFixThings (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas shooting

Why delete the DOCUMENTED LINK? It has been reported that some of the bar patrons present had survived the 2017 Las Vegas shooting concert shooting, it is not known whether any were injured in this incident.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As of now, with very little information confirmed, it is best not to add unsubstantiated claims like this one. Wait for more information to come in. In addition, refrain from writing phrases like, "it has been reported" and "according to ABC News." Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, and it is also not a place for your guesswork. KidAd (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
User:ACanadianToker, the Daily Mirror is not a WP:reliable source. If it gets mentions elsewhere then it can be included. At the moment, its just tabloid gossip. Gaia Octavia Agrippa 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
How about https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-bar-shooting-some-victims-survived-las-vegas-attack/1928082002/ ? GOOD ENOUGH? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I sure hope so! - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
But then again this is a CURRENT EVENT PAGE ANYWAY RIGHT? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC) ARe you the one who keeps deleting reference to terrorism in the see also section? 15:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing to say? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This still isn't a newspaper. Refrain from writing it like one. I will keep reverting your edits. KidAd (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages bullies are disgusting. Clearly the 2017 shooting had a great deal to do with this one. Why was I bullied by an admin? Why were my worthwhile additions needlessly deleted? There is clearly an agenda for many wikipedeans (not saying I'm innocent). For me to have been there, to know, and then to even go so far as to make the talk page article and then to be ignored and banned? Disgusting. This article is biased. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. Davidson, Tom (8 November 2018). "Country music fans inside Borderline 'were Las Vegas massacre survivors'". mirror.

Illegal magazine?

Latest reports note that Long had an illegal extended magazine in his gun. I think this should be mentioned when referencing the firearm used, as it allowed him to shoot more people. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

DONE (Did it myself). Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect BBC was confused over California "high capacity" law versus the meaning of "extended" magazine. Standard magazine for the .45 Glock pistol as designed is 13 rounds with the magazine even with the bottom of the grip. California law describes a magazine over ten rounds as "high capacity". Reduced capacity 10 round magazines are made for California sales of guns sold since the 10 round limit was imposed. The standard 13 round magazines would be illegal for new sales in California as "high capacity". Magazines legally sold and legally purchased before the ban were grandfathered. We are not being shown the actual weapon or magazine(s) used. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the ban went into effect on 1 Jan. 2000, when the alleged perp was 10 or 11 years old, probably not yet a resident of California, and definitely not the legal owner of a Glock which it would fit into, we might be able to disregard that last possibility. Whether he actually HAD a high capacity magazine remains to be seen, reports have been conflicting so far. 104.168.154.50 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-fatal injuries

Where are we getting the 25 from? The cited source says Between 10 and 12 people suffered injuries ... others with more minor wounds escaping, Is the 25 from 13 dead + 12 injured? I do realize that the source gets constantly updated. CNN says between 10 and 15. WikiVirusC 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We also need to clarify how many were actual gun shot victims... I am seeing reports that some of the injuries were due to people getting hurt while fleeing (escaping out a window and being cut by glass, for example). Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Does it matter how they were injured? The 2017 Las Vegas shooting lists "Non-fatal injuries: 851 (422 by gunfire). Gaia Octavia Agrippa 20:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I think so... accuracy is important. We don’t want to give the impression that more people were shot than actually were. According to the latest reports, there was only one non-fatal gun shot victim. All the other injuries were essentially accidents that occurred during the panic. Indirectly caused by the event, but not directly caused by Long himself. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Title

The title seems inadequate. Aren't there many "shootings in Thousand Oaks"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean WP:Notable shootings? Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

>>Yes. If you dig for info, you will find the lots of crimes in Ventura county, California. The officers who run into gun fire to save lives need to be appreciated...

I'm sure lots of crimes happen in Thousand Oaks, that's beside the point. None of those are blue wikilinks so my presumption is they are not notable. By the same token, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting was surely not the only shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, but it is the title of our article. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

News and sources

Hi Misplaced Pages's, Since this event takes place in southern California, please keep in mind of using local news sources. The links of inline citation/reference may break. See

Please note that newsreports outside of California are not first account. They are simply repeats what the local news and local reports.

I have added sources to External sources. Maybe someone can save the news to archive.org. SWP13 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Was gunman present at Vegas shooting or not?

Not sure how to read this sentence...

Is this "some people .. including the gunman, also escaped" ? Or should I read this like "some people who survived the .. (shooting that left 13 dead, including the gunman), also escaped" ?

If it is the latter and not former then it seems like Molina might've been clearer by using brackets instead of a comma. Not sure what grammar rules apply here. I'm thinking it is the latter since the gunman was among the 13 dead, but does anyone understand what I mean about the word grouping? Ash Carol (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The sentence was poorly written, but I think it merely means that the gunman was among the 13 dead. The text states that "some people who survived" were also present, yet the gunman did not survive. Regardless of interpretation, we should not rely on such ambiguous sources for claims likely to be contested. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Perpetrator information

The perpetrator section should have the latest and most widely accepted/released information about the perpetrator. If there needs to be a summary of the investigation and report history, a new section should be made similar to the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. Starting out this section with initial reports that may not be accurate is confusing when the correct details are listed further into the section. I attempted to remove the section and it was reverted, would it be better being moved into a new section?Danbert8 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I moved the info you tried to remove into the events section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Names of the dead

Per this discussion, there will need to be consensus on this talk page to include the names of the dead when they are known. Just sayin'. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

NOTMEMORIAL and BLPPRIVACY do not apply here. Without getting into the weeds, NOTMEMORIAL exists to prevent people from creating articles to honor the memories of non-notable people close to them, or inserting tributes to them into existing articles that the deceased have some connection to. The issue here, and in all similar articles, has nothing to do with trying to "to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others" who aren't notable. That provision addresses a purely personal agenda. Ours is about the business of editing a serious encylopedia article; it's solely about whether or not the names of those killed constitute noteworthy content in relation to the subject, in this case the Thousand Oaks shooting. And BLPPRIVACY is abundantly clear when it says, "Misplaced Pages includes full names...that have been widely published by reliable sources". (Other personal details such as dates of birth, email addresses, telephone numbers, etc., of course have no relevance for our purposes.) 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I support listing the victim names and ages. We have done so in many, many, many similar articles. Articles too numerous to mention. No reason to not include them here, also. I am referring to the deceased victims, only. Not the injured survivors. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. I ask myself how much real reader value there is in these names, and myself answers, "Not much". The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information in the article is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. Genders and ages can be summarized in prose and that would add to reader understanding.
    I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "eff no" to both questions. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. And "well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Misplaced Pages.
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL, a Misplaced Pages policy, states: "Misplaced Pages is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet requirements." Proponents of victims lists very often say this applies only to the subjects of bio articles. In years of discussions about victims lists, I've yet to see a halfway lucid—let alone convincing— argument for that distinction. To say only "Because that's what the rule says" is to ignore or be unaware of two facts: First, that that is not how Misplaced Pages works, that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording." And second, that the rule does not actually say that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The list of victims is completely unnecessary in an encyclopedia format. The only exception would be if any of the victims are notable on their own and widely reported as such. It doesn't really add any information to the reader unless the reader is familiar with the names. Danbert8 (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Notability is completely irrelevant; this issue is solely about the value (noteworthiness) of content. Where did you get the idea that the level of familiarity readers have with the names of victims, or anything else, should ever be a factor when deciding if information should be included in an article?? The subject here is the Thousand Oaks shooting and we are deciding if the names of the 12 killed are noteworthy content about that subject. As we do when we weigh the encylopedic value of any content for any article, we evaluate the coverage it has received in reliable sources and of course consider due weight and other factors. Whether our readers are "familiar with the names" is not one of those factors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose including the names of any of the victims. I've stated my reasons for excluding them in a discussion on Talk:Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Victims' names are on many articles about mass killings, but not on many others. There should be a clear ruling about the matter, so that we don't need discussions on many talk pages of mass killing articles about whether or not to include them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jim Michael: There have been multiple attempts to establish such a "clear ruling", the last one at WP:VPR in July (we didn't see you there). The current community consensus is that this needs case-by-case evaluation, and that even a "default" guideline would be bad. You and I disagree with that, but we're in the minority. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support including the names and brief info (age, occupation, where they are from, perhaps a couple of other details) about the victims. In these situations the stories of the victims become a significant and integral part of the entire event and they receive a significant amount of in-depth coverage. This already happened here, e.g. , , , , , just to give a few examples. We should not artificially leave out any significant aspects of the story, basically per WP:DUEWEIGHT reasons. Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    The stories of the victims typically become part of the story only in cases where the survivors/witnesses choose to talk to the media - and even then usually only briefly. Jim Michael (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    No, I don't think so. Usually both the media and the public are interested in who the victims were, to put a more human face of these kinds of stories and also to balance the coverage so it is not so that not just the perpetrator gets all the attention. Among the links I included above there are two stories BBC News, "Thousand Oaks: Who are the victims?" and NBC News "Victims of Thousand Oaks shooting were full of hope and heroism" that are about all of the victims, rather than about specific ones, and that were written because these media outlets wanted to write stories covering the victims and not because the family members of specific victims sought out such coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, it's more often the media seeking the survivors, witnesses & families of those killed rather than those people seeking media coverage. Nevertheless, I think we should not publicise or memorialise the victims. I also don't see what the reader is supposed to gain from seeing the names of those killed. The names mean nothing to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    The name "Ian David Long" also means "nothing" to 99% of readers. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    I mean the victims' names. No-one here is saying that we shouldn't include the killer's name. Jim Michael (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    But why shouldn't we omit the killer's name, Jim Michael ? I would like to hear you defend the inclusion of the killer's name. What would be your justification for including the killer's name? Bus stop (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    I will respond once and once only, as I know you to be an editor who believes a debate must continue until you're convinced, until the other position makes sense to you.
    1. The killer's name is reported in every RS article. The victims' names are reported in a relative few. 2. Unless specific individuals are targeted, the victims are completely random. 3. No Misplaced Pages article about a mass shooting in the history of Misplaced Pages has ever omitted the killer's name. To my knowledge the killer's name has never been seriously contested. This constitutes an extremely rare beast in Misplaced Pages editing: a unanimous de facto community consensus. 4. Whataboutism is rarely useful in a content discussion. The killer's name is not the topic here. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, and in addition to that, the killer is the central figure in a mass killing, so to not name him would be ridiculous. Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    OK, my thanks to Mandruss and Jim Michael for those responses. In the same vein of thinking, can I ask you why we include the proper name of the establishment at which this occurred? Does the article benefit from the inclusion of the information that the establishment is called the "Borderline Bar and Grill" and that it is located at "99 Rolling Oaks Dr"? You will see if you think about this that the reason we include this level of specificity is ultimately because the reader has an appetite for the facts. I believe all of your argumentation against the inclusion of the victim names boils down to the far simpler argument that you think you know what is best for the reader. My counterargument is equally simple: give the reader what they want. Of course they want to know the name of the establishment at which this occurred. Of course they want to know the name of the killer. They are reading the article because they want all the information presented to them. And of course we are not protecting anyone's privacy by noting a name and an age that is widely published. The reader wants a certain level of specificity of detail. The reader has an appetite for the real facts. It is tantamount to nannyism to think that we know what is best for the reader. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Your claims about what readers want are both unproven and unprovable. You can testify to what you want. You can say what the extremely few people in contact with you want (and we would have to take your word for it). You can even state a perception based on the minuscule sampling of public sentiment that you've seen on the internet. But none of that is very relevant to this discussion. I'll say what I and those around me want, which is equally irrelevant: We don't care about the names of the victims because the names don't mean anything to us. We knew none of those people, or any of their families or friends. (While some readers did, their numbers are vanishingly insignificant as a fraction of the reader population, and are therefore not a factor in content decisions.) This doesn't mean we don't care about the victims—we most certainly do care about the victims—rather, it means we don't care about the specific identification labels they were assigned at birth by tradition. You might as well list Social Security numbers, for all it would mean to us. And finally, I'm unaware of anything in Misplaced Pages pillars, policies, or guidelines about making content decisions based on our subjective and unprovable opinions of what readers want. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Vis-à-vis "subjective and unprovable opinions", Mandruss, how is it that you are knowledgeable of "the reader's understanding of the event"? Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    That's a part of PAGs somewhere (I can't put my finger on it at the moment but I'll spend the time to hunt it down if you disagree). It goes without saying that the PAG wants us to make an editorial value judgment there, or the PAG wouldn't exist. "What readers want" is not a part of PAGs, as I said, which is the crucial difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    The raison d'être of Misplaced Pages is to provide details. We only omit details when a good enough reason is given for omitting details. Our ultimate default position is for the inclusion of material. That is our reason for existence. Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    We only omit details when a good enough reason is given for omitting details. I think good enough reasons have been given for omitting these details (I get that you and others disagree). Which pretty much kills that as a meaningful argument in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    In keeping with the spirit of WP:MEMORIAL I would argue that we not include biographical-type information about each decedent, but I think the simple listing of names and ages makes the article more useful in several ways. Doing so provides a record in one place of this identifying information. And it also facilitates further research for readers interested in Googling further. A list of victim's names serves as a jumping off point for additional research. This is making the article more useful. I have not seen a good reason for omitting the simple notation of all names and ages of the deceased. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    In other words, you remain unconvinced. Me too. How did I know this would be the result of all this? Maybe because it invariably is? Thanks for the brain exercise, but fini, s'il vous plaît. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm a believer. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Good ear candy! ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'm sure that the vast majority of readers don't want to know the names of the victims, because they mean nothing to them. Jim Michael (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    If there were space constraints, Jim Michael, you would have a valid point. But the article is not overly long and thirteen names + ages takes up very little article space. The advantage of inclusion under such a circumstance is that it facilitates further research for the interested reader—the interested reader merely cuts and pastes one name at a time into Google. By including the names we enhance the usefulness of the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    You're saying that there are people who look for articles about mass killings by typing one or more names of the victims into a search engine, rather than entering its location and/or date and/or killer's name? Jim Michael (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Jim Michael—in my conception of this article it is not primarily a memorial to the deceased. I think the primary focus of the article is a description of the incident, plus some related material. The lives of the deceased are extensive and have strong sentimental components. I think there is reader interest in the lives of the victims. There are no space constraints with this article at this point as it is still a relatively short article. Though the names of the victims are listed in many sources I think we should want to make this article as useful as possible by including a simple listing of the names and ages of the deceased. I don't think this is any big deal and I think it should be the rule and not the exception. And I think the onus is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    I think the onus is on you to articulate some good reasons for omitting the names and ages of the deceased. No, it is not. WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I have to say it, you seem to have a fairly weak understanding of the relevant PAGs here—both letter and spirit. In place of that, you tend to make up your own, like the "what readers want" and the "strong sentimental components". And, per WP:SATISFY, no editor is obligated to provide what you consider to be good reasons. It's really to see that if you turn it around; are you going to change your !vote if I don't think you have provided good reasons to include this content? I didn't think so. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would support the inclusion in this article of a list of names and ages similar to what is found at Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The names and ages (only) of those killed most should definitely be included. It is clearly noteworthy content in relation to the subject, particularly when the names become widely published by most major metro newspapers in the U.S. and other national and international mainstream media outlets. Leaving the names of the deceased out would make the article incomplete; it would be a glaring omission. I believe if they weren't included many readers would ask themselves, "Where are the names of the people who were killed; how can that not be in here?!" So, as we have done with Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, and numerous others, I feel we should list the names and ages only. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • STRONG Support They had their lives taken, for no reason. I think the least we can do is cover their story at least as much as the perpetrator. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support We have an article because twelve people were murdered by a gunman. The identification of these victims are needed to describe the event in full; its impossible to have a complete victims section without actually having some information of the victims. In regards to WP:Notmemorial, the policy states that “Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. Misplaced Pages is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.” Basically, the policy requires that articles on deceased individuals meet notability requirement. Further, the history of the rule shows that it was originally meant to apply to articles. When the rule was initially proposed and worked out, editors were discussing article topics but not content within articles (search memorial to find the relevant sections). The earliest version of the rule indicates that it has its roots in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, when Misplaced Pages was flooded with articles on the victims- more evidence that the rule is addressed towards the creation of articles. Now, I think that the policy could be reasonably extrapolated to apply to overly flowery or poetic language within an article. However, neither the text or the originating history of the policy says anything about neutrally worded lists that merely ID the victims (and perhaps provide basic biographical information such as age). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the names of the dead does not add more to the article when compared to the right to privacy for them and their families. The article is fine without them. --Jayron32 05:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Privacy concerns obviously do not apply once the names are published by many or most major metro newspapers and other mainstream media outlets around the world. It then becomes clearly noteworthy content and we would be irresponsible not to include it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
You are aware that you don't actually convince anyone to change their vote by badgering them, and that you don't get extra points by responding to everyone that disagrees with you, right? You've made your opinion known, and your extra comments have added nothing to the discussion. --Jayron32 06:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on the definition of badgering and the value of my comments. I see that my responses to three of the six "oppose" editors (not "everyone") bothers you, but the purpose of a talk page is to have a discussion. Points and counterpoints are a part of the process, and I therefore welcome constructive feeback to mine. And your implication that other editors are close-minded and unwilling to consider other points of view is not helpful. Having said that, I never anticipated changing anyone's "vote"; subsequent participants in this discussion should be able to see other sides of a particular argument. I'm sorry that my two-sentence reply to you triggered such a defensive and condescending response. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Privacy concerns obviously do not apply once the names are published by many or most major metro newspapers and other mainstream media outlets around the world - That is not "obvious" at all. or we wouldn't have policies like WP:BLPNAME, which discusses whether certain names should be included in Misplaced Pages content even if they are published by many or most major metro newspapers and other mainstream media outlets around the world. You need to stop schooling experienced editors about the obviousness of your position. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
News articles will name all of the victims, but Misplaced Pages does not have to include them as they do not usually add significant encyclopedic value. As predicted, this debate has become bogged down in the usual mire over whether to include the names. The !vote is currently 6 oppose and 7 support, which I would say is no consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ 08:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mandruss, I suggest you re-read the policy you cited, WP:BLPNAME. The first of its two paragraphs makes clear that it only applies "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". The names of those killed in these mass shootings have been widely disseminated and have not been intentionally concealed. The second paragraph is not relevant to this issue since no one has ever considered listing the names of family members. As you have just proven, "experienced" editors are not immune from getting it wrong. As to expressing my positions, I will comment to whomever I choose, whenever I choose. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"... especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." These victims' names are not required for context, or even contribute to context. You could substitute 12 made-up names and the reader's understanding of the event would not change one iota.
"When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."
As to expressing my positions, I will comment to whomever I choose, whenever I choose. As will I. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Emphasis mine added per user comment below. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
First, if you're going to bold content ("other than news media") from a policy where it doesn't exist in the source, you need to acknowledge you did so. In any case, pivoting from the fact that you clearly got BLPNAME wrong only diminishes your argument. And one little problem with the over-dramatized quote you injected as a diversion: we're obviously looking at significantly more than "the brief appearance of names" with mass shootings like this one. But I anticipate you will try to spin that, too. I'm sure you would like it if we would simply ban the use of all the mainstream reliable news sources that exist about these mass shootings if they include the names and other detailed information about those killed, but that's not going to happen. I know you'd like others to see the false bolding and believe the policy says "Hey, you can't use reliable sources from news media for the names of victims!"), but fortunately editors are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. And, yes, of course you will continue commenting; but no one told you not to. You were the only one that did that. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Clarification added per your request (i.e. inflammatory ABF accusation). Lest things escalate even further, this will hopefully be my last interaction with you. I stand by the position articulated in my !vote, and you are free to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ian, you are correct that Misplaced Pages does not have to include the names of those killed, but the fact is that we do in many of the mass shooting articles. That's why we have these discussions, one-by-one. And we of course do not determine consensus after one day of discussion. Be patient. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
(The outcomes have depended solely on who showed up for the discussions, not on differing circumstances between random mass killings. At least I've never seen anybody cite circumstances particular to the event, the arguments are always general in nature, including in this discussion. But that's a different discussion.) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Spirit of Eagle's comments above. The argument that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a policy directing us to not include the names of victims in an article like this is a misapplication of the policy. The policy was intended to prevent editors from creating entire articles on non-notable dead persons to memorialize them. Two sentences long, the policy states "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability requirements. Misplaced Pages is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirement." Subjects of encyclopedia articles does not apply here as we're not creating individual stand-alone articles for each dead person. It does not bar providing readers a simple list of the names of victims in articles like mass casualty events or disasters, and the editors advocating for inclusion here are not friends or relatives of the dead who have come to Misplaced Pages to try to memorialize their loved ones. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose including the names of the dead. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial, and there is a consensus in cases like this to respect the family's privacy. Bradv 16:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 16:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

PROGRESS. The !votes at present are 8–8, which looks like no consensus to add names. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – I also support listing the victims' names and ages. As others have said, we have done this in numerous similar articles, and I think the reader has the right to know. I am referring of course to just the deceased victims. Thanks.Grammarian3.14159265359 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Grammarian3.14159265359
  • Support: inclusion for reasond I have stated previously in these kind of articles. Particularly I don't see any reason not to include policy wise. WikiVirusC 17:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

POV Tag on article

I am placing a POV view tag on the article page. I believe that the link between the 2017 Las Vegas shooting has been intentionally minimized by biased 'contributors.' I will not be making any more edits to the article, but will happily discuss this issue here on the talk page. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This should be DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE! It is innapropriate to merely remove a tag and ignore this issue. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
ACanadianToker, I've re-added the link as I think it's related. It's mentioned within the body of the article, and there are multiple reliable sources making the connection. That said, you need to calm down and discuss things rationally. Bradv 20:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I was admin banned from even discussing anything. I am calm, that is why I put that tag on the article. The link between the two is extensive and not adequately covered by the article as it currently stands. I apprec. you discussing it here though. Hoping others might have a chance to chime in. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
ACanadianToker, why don't you take a look at the edit before reverting it? Bradv 20:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
My issue is not with whether it is in the 'see also section' my issue is that this article minimizes a clear and important link to another event. Hoping OTHERS might be able to chime in, with time, thus the TAG. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

PS@BradV: not making any judgment on the edit you're referring to. The POV needs to stay though, IMO, because we need to allow time and others to discuss this. The link between the two is important and extensive. I am very frustrated, that despite making cited edits, I was simply ADMIN Banned for a differing viewpoint, precluding me from even editing the talk page. I believe that POV tag needs to stay, to allow others to share their input. CHeers, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

For reference, this content removal is an example of what I perceive to be biased minimizing of a serious and legitimate link btween the two events: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Thousand_Oaks_shooting&diff=868075479&oldid=868075328 - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
ACanadianToker, your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is going to continue to cause trouble. Yelling in edit summaries and screaming about admin abuse aren't going to help anyone to see your point. Bradv 20:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, you're probably right. HOwever the POV tag says, explicity, that it is not supposed to be removed if people don't know what the issue is and until consensus has been reached on the talk page. It is WRONG to simply delete the POV tag and IGNORE the talk page discussion. I have a serious grievance with the POV of this article, and am going so far as to refrain from editing the article beyond adding the POV tag.
I hope that, with time, others, who are less involved in this, may see the tag and share THEIR opinion so we may all mutually reach a consensus as to how detailed to detail the clear and obvious link between this incident and the 2017 Las Vegas incident. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I am disgusted that other editors would rather start the process of finding an admin to ban me on my talk page, or simply removing the POV tag, and CHOOSE TO IGNORE the discussion we could have here on the talk page. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
ACanadianToker, that edit you linked isn't a violation of WP:NPOV though, it's removal of sourced content without a valid explanation. The POV tag does not apply. Bradv 21:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I removed the Vegas Shooting from See Also section, because it already is wiki-linked in the article. See WP:SEEALSO. Based on the log you were banned for violating WP:3R, not for having different viewpoint. Regardless, as sources have stated, a large group of friends that live in this area and regularly visit this bar attended the concert last year in Vegas. Aside from that group of friends that were quoted in article, they said more patrons of the bar attended that concern. The fact that was a country music concert, and this is a country music bar, they are neighboring states, all of this sort of lines up with what you expect. There is a definite link in that regards, of course. The link isn't "important or extensive" in relation to the shooting itself UNLESS the shooting was motivated in some way by that link. Otherwise the link needs to be mentioned, but doesn't need to be the focus of the article. WikiVirusC 21:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree it should not be the focus of the article. I do not believe that the current amount of coverage for the link between the two shootings is sufficient, especially considering the fact that much more news coverage has talked about the link, especially the families of the victims. I am hoping others might be able to chime in. thank you, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
NB I am not putting that POV tag in response to any one edit. My perception: article 'as a whole' minimizes the link between the two events. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Well looks like someone just went ahead and deleted the POV tag without any further discussion. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
ACanadianToker, what would you like to discuss? Be specific. If you have sourced material that you would like to include, mention it here and gather consensus. This simply isn't what the {{pov}} tag is for. Bradv 04:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, as I mention above I feel the link between the two incidents has been needlessly minimized. I advocate for a full section of article detailing the link between the 2017 incident and this one, especially considering recent media reports that specify this location as being a place of refuge for upwards of 60 local residents who were present int he 2017 incident. Many first hand accounts given to media were from survivors of the 2017 incident. For reasons unbenowest to me some feel that mention of the 2017 las vegas shooting should be minimized.
To Writ: a full section detailing the link between this event and the 2017 incident. I am hoping that others may be able to chime in with time though. Cheers, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I notice that the POV tag has been removed, again. The onyl mention of the 2017 incident is one sentence. This is Bias. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a misuse of the article-level tag as I understand it. Any link between the two events is a relatively small part of the story, your unsubstantiated accusations of editor bias notwithstanding. Advocate for content changes all you want, but lay off the tag please. Further unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith will not help your argument and may result in a block. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of social media during shooting

It should be included that Long posted to his instagram/fb during the shooting (approx. 4 minutes after he opened fire and fatally shot the security guard @ 11:20pm). Here is a link to an article which details what he actually posted, once at 11:24pm and then again at 11:27pm in which he details possible 'motive', as well as his state of mind during the shooting which is extremely rare. It is even more interesting due to the fact that he committed suicide meaning that this gives the greatest and latest insight into his mindset, considering an interrogation is no longer possible.

  1. REDIRECT ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudgsk (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Vester Flanagan did something similar during the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. The posts by Long are so bizarre that they don't really explain why he did it, but they give a valuable insight into his state of mind.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Definitely article-worthy if posted during the event. I would be less sure about SM posts prior to the event, unless they conveyed a coherent motive. But these guys are rarely coherent in the time leading up to the event. They tend to rant about all kinds of things, and some people think they see motive in their random rants. We never need additional "evidence" of the mental state of somebody who murders a random bunch of innocent people who they don't even know, and the "motive" is usually: They've finally been driven bat-shit crazy by their inability to cope with the bat-shit crazy world we live in. "Motive" requires the ability to think rationally. Two exceptions come to mind: Ted Kaczynski and Elliot Rodger.
But much of that is WP:FORUM. Back to Misplaced Pages editing. If there is some degree of agreement among reliable sources about motive, we should report it. Otherwise we should stay out of the motive business here, beyond saying that motive is unclear.
Are the two posts in the linked article the only two during the shooting that have been reported? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Facts Missing (The escape, possession, flag lowered)

Hi all, The following items are missing from this article.

  • Sgt Ron Helus - He was the first law enforcement officer who engaged the shooter. Many consider him a hero.
  • Matt Wennerstrom - He took a barstool and smashed a window. He helped people escape out of the building and saved more than 30 people.

See https://abc7.com/hero-saves-as-many-as-30-during-thousand-oaks-shooting-/4645524/

  • Possession of Sgt Ron Helus - The possession was held on Nov 8, 2018 where the body of Sgt Ron Helus was transferred via motorcade from Los Robles Hospital to Ventura County Medical Examiner's office. Thousands of people stopped along the freeway and along the street.

See http://nixle.us/alert/6912870/ , https://abc13.com/thousand-oaks-shooting-remembering-sgt-ron-helus/4645691/ , https://ktla.com/2018/11/08/procession-for-sergeant-killed-in-thousand-oaks-mass-shooting-to-take-place-at-10-a-m/

  • Whitehouse flag lowered at half-staff.

See https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-calls-mass-shooting-club-thousand-oaks/story?id=59053547 These are facts which should be included. So please help. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories: