Misplaced Pages

Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bus stop (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 10 November 2018 (→Names of the dead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:56, 10 November 2018 by Bus stop (talk | contribs) (→Names of the dead)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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)
  • 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)
I think the point that was being made is that by your argument we could omit the name of the perpetrator as well. Can you tell me what justification there is for including the name of the perpetrator? Other than of course the fact that the reader desires such specificity? Or as another example—why are we naming the "Borderline Bar and Grill" or that it is located at "99 Rolling Oaks Dr"? The answer to all these questions is that a reader has an appetite for specific facts. Your argument—correct me if I am wrong—is that we can decide for the reader the level of specificity of information that is best for their needs—despite the fact that numerous sources identify the victims by name and age. Can you tell me why even the minimal victim representation by name and age is found to be objectionable to you? Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 10 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)

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)

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)
Categories: