Talk:2019 El Paso Walmart shooting

Manifesto

Hello, The 4 page summary/justification was on the article as a reference. Why was it removed? Willbb234 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you give a link to the reference in question? puggo (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bug2266 "The Inconvenient Truth" (PDF). 8chan. Retrieved 3 August 2019.. Just realised its a primary source, so don't worry. Willbb234 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234 No deal, there's no sources mentioning this so we can't even use it as an external document to look at. puggo (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Recommend hasty removal of manifesto since it advocates violence. Also, it is unconfirmed. JimsMaher (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:DISC? If that was the motivation of the shooter, then it should be included. Willbb234 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"If that was the motivation of the shooter" You answered that question yourself. We're not the ones to determine whether this is indeed the motivation. We'll put this up when the suspect and motives are confirmed by the police. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed in any way? JimsMaher (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

According to CNN, an online posting is being investigated by law enforcement but they have not confirmed that it was written by the suspect. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Until that key detail's established, nothing about this belongs in the article, for any reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

It definitely should not be reported as fact right now, but why should the article not mention that it is being investigated? Alex of Canada (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Most news sources, including NYT [1], WaPo[2], etc, are reporting that a manifesto is being investigated in relation to the shooting. This info should certainly be mentioned in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You tell a lot of people some detail or another is under investigation, a good chunk leave convinced there must be something to it. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. In general, a huge amount of policework is chasing leads to nowhere, rather than somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:28, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

It's an exact rerun of what happened with the alleged Christchurch shooter's manifesto. As discussed there, it may well have been written by the attacker, but various problems occur with reliable sourcing and legal issues by saying this. 8chan was also the main original source of the Christchurch material. History repeating itself here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Did the manifesto praise Trump?

Our article writs The document additionally praises Donald Trump. Source is [3] The New Daily, an online Australian newspaper. I read the manifesto, it doesn't appear to do that. It says: My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. Are there other sources reporting that the manifesto praised Trump? This [4] WaPo source does not mention it (if it were really there, surely WaPo would have picked up on such a big issue). starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto does not explicitly support Trump. I believe this should be speedily removed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Damn you, Australian disinformation bots! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

Da. I mean, G'day comrade! -- MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Weapon

The weapon was apparently an AK-47 style according to a video here--> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/el-paso-walmart-shooting-today-police-confirm-active-shooter-cielo-vista-mall-today-2019-08-03-live-updates/, but it keeps getting reverted. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not yet fully confirmed. https://time.com/5643110/el-paso-texas-mall-shooting/Lxxl (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

EDG 543, which video? The embedded video is live transmission. If you are identifying the gun from video of the shooter, that is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Also if a Twitter user says it that is an unreliable source. Wait till a source says it clearly. Just wait and be cautious in general. Don't rush to add information. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It was an AK-47 based on images from the security video and his manifesto. Specifically a WASR-10 Romanian AK-47. Also reference from New York Mag and NY Post http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/everything-we-know-about-the-el-paso-walmart-shooting.html47.184.228.187 (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)jeff

Should we name the suspect in this article?

Before contributing to this section, it may be helpful to familiarise yourself with WP:BLPCRIME

Wikipedia must comply with US laws and must avoid defaming people. Therefore it is critically important that we consider whether to name the suspects. WP:BLPCRIME states as follows:

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

So naming the suspect is prohibited, but we should seriously consider not naming the suspect. So off to you fellow editors. Consider away. Thanks in advance for your contributions:

With mass shooting suspects, resistance is futile. Name away, but wait for the court to decide the truth of the charge before echoing it in Wikipedia's voice. Uncharged detainees should not be named. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, August 3, 2019 (UTC)

He's being named by multiple major news outlets. Any presumption of privacy, at least with regards to his name and age, is gone. I think the current wording ("CNN cites federal sources that the suspect is [name]") is fine. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. We should always interpret and enforce WP:BLPCRIME strictly. In this case, from what I can gather, the suspect has been detained but not charged with any crimes (yet), which makes the case not to name him even stronger. TompaDompa (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There was (and still is) a discussion about this at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. The TL;DR for me is that the person named in media reports in connection with the El Paso shooting has not been charged and appeared in court yet. If and when he does, he can be named in the article here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In the case of the Christchurch shooting, New Zealand has laws against naming suspects. The US doesn't generally have such laws. If multiple sources are naming the suspect, I'm not sure why we shouldn't. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The susperp is named in media outlets around the world. The horse has bolted. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Even for vermin like this, we need to uphold correct standards. In this case it means that he's innocent until proven guilty. Newspapers may have different standards, but we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so we can afford to wait for a guilty verdict. Given that this person up till now was a complete nobody, I don't see the encyclopedic value of giving his name. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

status of mall

Like almost all mass shootings, this one also took place in a location where it was illegal for the victims to defend themselves.

This is relevant to this article, because the subject of gun control always comes up every time there is a mass shooting.

This shooting is another example of how gun-free zones are a magnet for mass shooters. Mass shooters almost always choose a location where their victims are not allowed to defend themselves.

This information should be included in the article.

"Yet another shooting at a gun-free zone: El Paso shooting at Cielo Vista Mall is apparently in a place that banned permitted concealed handguns" https://crimeresearch.org/2019/08/yet-another-shooting-at-a-gun-free-zone-el-paso-shooting-at-cielo-vista-mall-is-apparently-in-a-place-that-banned-permitted-concealed-handguns/

"we found that about 86 percent of mass public shootings took place in gun-free zones from 2009 to 2016" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1ae8e7fd114

Banana5742 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

While things like this will certainly wind up in an article like this, especially "near" elections, I'd like to remind anyone reading this that [redacted]. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, August 4, 2019 (UTC) Reminder that this is not a forum for discussion about the shooting, but rather about the article itself. Please take your conversation elsewhere if you want to delve further. As for the OP making the request, his account appears to be new and is making an edit request? If so, his source (crimeresearch) does not appear to be reputable or credible. Others here will determine what to do with OP's request. --AsianHippie (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Agree Talk pages are for discussing article content and this is veering off that path.Mozzie (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Collapsed discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is wrong as far as I can tell. The store was not a gun free zone but allowed open carry. Reason writes: "Texas is an open-carry state and Walmart allows customers to open-carry inside their stores in such states..." [5] --denny vrandečić (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Twitter account / Newsone

@Nice4What: Hey, sorry, I missed the note [6] in your edit summary before reverting. I did check WP:RS/N for NewsOne, and while it doesn't come up as unreliable, I can't find anything else to support its reliability either. It doesn't even have a WP article (News One is something else). While it may or may not be reliable, that article doesn't inspire much confidence. It seems to be mostly "here's what people are saying on Twitter". Per WP:NOTGOSSIP, that doesn't have a place here. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you, though it's worth mentioning the article does collect tweets from journalists verified on Twitter that connect the old account to the shooter. If more reliable sources come up, then we should readd the account. Until then, I suppose it makes more sense to not include this part. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. I agree this is worth including if it can be better sourced. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Right wing terrorism

Why doesn’t the article point out that this is right wing terrorism? Are we just trying to be politically correct here? 71.33.134.68 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: Find a reliable source that says its a right-wing terrorist attack and add it to the article. It's really that simple, but you might need to build a consensus for its inclusion if someone disputes it. No need to complain about "political correctness". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Wikipedia editors always defend the conservative PC line everytime there is a right wing terrorist attack. The editors refused to point out that Christchurch terrorist was a terrorist even after the PM of New Zealand pointes it out. The editors here are too afraid to offend the right wing trump supporter editors and not concerned enough with the objective facts of an event, even if they’re widely reported in the media. I’m tired of pro gun violence activists using platforms like Wikipedia to force their agenda on everyone. It’s time to end gun violence forever. #RepealThe2ndAmendment. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC) @71.33.134.68: Another editor removed your entire reply, so I'm re-adding it along with a collapse template per WP:FORUM. At the end of the day, we can only edit in what reliable sources are reporting. We can't call this right-wing terrorism if nobody else is calling it that. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC) I agree. Lately, most mass shootings in the US carried out by white men are because of white supremacy. What's so supreme about white people? Imperialism? Racism? Nevertheless, we have to wait until the FBI declare this a domestic terror attack (we all know Trump would never do, and I'm a Republican.) Emigdioofmiami (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

All we have to do is have reliable sources calling it terrorism. That’s all. This isn’t a place to push pro-right wing and pro-gun propaganda. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:TERRORISM: Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Additionally, there's a WP:BLPCRIME issue: terrorism is a type of crime (it has a legal definition, depending on jurisdiction), and nobody has been convicted of terrorist crimes (yet). Similarly, we can't call a killing a "murder" prior to a trial (if there is a trial), because the perpetrator could be convicted of a lesser crime such as manslaughter. TompaDompa (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting anti-gun violence comments

Why are all anti-gun violence comments being purged from this talk page? Is this conservapedia now? 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: The talk page is for discussing the contents of an article, not criticize Wikipedia as a whole. Where do you feel you're being censored? I saw that your earlier message was removed, so I readded it. If you want, I'd invite you to express your concerns on my talk page or yours as that's where the conversation better belongs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed the editor on their talkpage, pointing out WP:NOTFORUM. They're not listening, and are about to be blocked if they don't stick to specific discussions for article improvement. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am mad that my posts are being deleted. Thank you for re-adding them. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

While I've been re-adding your comments (with some collapses), please don't keep using this talk page as you've been doing. Please read WP:FORUM. I understand your frustration with how Wikipedia reports on shootings, but I hope you understand we are bound by using reliable sources and can't use our own interpretations. Acroterion has already attempted to help you on your talk page. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I have stated exactly that. Reliable sources are required. My problem is that despite the existence of reliable sources, the content is still be curated to promote a specific pro-gun ideology and consistently uses the language of the pro-gun movement. This is what I am complaining about. This article and others concerning other terrorist attacks are the same. And that is a shame. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: Please let me help you out. If you see any biased language in the article, please point it out as that would be against WP:NPOV. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The simple fact that this event is called “mass shooting” and not “terrorist attack” is evidence of bias. We must pick our words carefully and this is no exception. It’s no secret that there is a systemic hesitancy to label terror attacks committed by right wingers as terrorist attacks. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the terrorist was Muslim or black. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@71.33.134.68: I understand your frustration but please cite reliable sources that establish this event as a terrorist attack. Also, read MOS:TERRORIST first! I want to point out to you that an ongoing investigation surrounding domestic terrorism is included in the lede, so it's not like the article mentions nothing. And the event is without a doubt a mass shooting, something that people on either side agree with. I have to say if there is no biased language included, then I don't know what more I can tell you. Let me know if you need help with anything else but use my talk page instead to avoid more removed/collapsed comments. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Calling this “mass shooting” and not “terrorist attack” is evidence of bias. There would be no wait for reliable sources before calling it a terrorist attack if the shooter was a Muslim or was black. Pro-gun activists want it to be called “mass shooting”, even though it’s clearly and obviously a terrorist attack. 71.33.134.68 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC) @71.33.134.68: I'm collapsing your comments again. You seem to be picking a fight with how the media reports the attack. Read the message I left on your talk page. Don't continue misusing this article's talk page please. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't explain my self-redaction without an edit conflict. But for now, in short, I wasn't bullied into silence. Just realized I was technically promoting regular violence as a prevention. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Suspected motive

Would it not be fair to add "Anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican (suspected)" to the infobox under motive? I see under the lede that the manifesto is believed with "reasonable confidence" by police to be written by the suspect and also that he told investigators that he "wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible." I think that that would at least indicate that this motive is suspected. I'm not saying this is the established motive as the investigation is ongoing, I'm saying this motive is suspected. Bringing this here because I don't want to continue an edit war and it feels odd that the article is missing this. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Need a source saying such sentiment is suspected of motivating him to shoot these people before it's even arguably fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto which explains a motive has been linked to the suspect [7]. Also read this, which states:

While investigations are ongoing into a motive, the attack “has a nexus to a hate crime,” El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said. Authorities think the gunman posted a manifesto online listing “the Hispanic invasion of Texas” as one of several motivations for the massacre.

This wouldn't even be WP:OR to include a suspected motive, but rather WP:COMMONSENSE at this point. The manifesto has been described as listing motivations for the attack and now the manifesto has been linked to the suspect. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Also to add "Anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, racism (suspected)" as a potential full proposal. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You're getting closer with that "authorities think" line, but that's still them thinking he wrote the piece which mentioned a motive, not that he (as the alleged shooter, not the suspected author) acted upon the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:34, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

"Authorities think" updates to "Authorities confirm that the gunman posted a manifesto online listing 'the Hispanic invasion of Texas' as one of several motivations for the massacre." Then what? Is that not enough? Again, want to point towards WP:COMMONSENSE here cause this feels a bit ridiculous. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Is it not also ridiculous to equate "Hispanic invasion" with "Mexican immigration"? What about American Latinos who cross from Oklahoma? Are they invading Texas? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to he told investigators that he "wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible." 🙄 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

So perhaps regardless of their migrant status or race? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

I don't get what point you're trying to make. The manifesto has been described as anti-immigrant so the attack most certainly isn't regardless of their migrant status. Speculating is a bit off-topic too. Have you read the manifesto and its listed motives? Maybe then you could make more sense of this obvious suspected motive. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 04:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You're cobbling bits together to arrive at your own conclusion. In under a day. With the news as your only evidence. Police and prosecutors are trained and paid to establish motive, and they take months to build a case. Because it's complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

If "the news" is reliable, we're allowed to use it. We have no policy saying we have to wait months. That's why I'm stressing that we put a suspected motive, not an established motive that might be later determined by police/prosecutors. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You're combining two pieces of news, the manifesto and the interview, to make one hybrid claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Manifesto → Anti-immigrant. Interview → Anti-Mexican. Except now I believe that the interview may not suffice (will strike until more reliable sources report on this). I would still believe the manifesto which lists motivations could be used to fill in a suspected motivation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright. Imagine whatever you want. But don't hold other people's hunches to higher standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Donald Trump in the lead?

I'm not super comfortable with that meeting WP:DUE. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think it fails to meet WP:UNDUE? I'd like to comment that though the linked account was inactive for two years (which I would then question its inclusion), the manifesto does mention Trump. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at some of the coverage, I see this is getting a lot of play in the media and press. Under the circumstances I am OK with it for now. This can be revisited later if it looks like the degree of attention and coverage justifies it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The manifesto DOES mention Trump, but just insofar as the suspect anticipates media mentions of Trump and says that his attitudes pre-date Trump's election such that a connection to Trump is a reach that isn't supported by his circumstance.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Political affiliation fact check: Democrat. Prior to events of Patrick Crusius, shooter, was a registered Democrat, Online changes were made to his public profile after events occurred from Democrats to Republican https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/leftists-change-shooter-patrick-crusiuss-mylife-page-after-saturday-shooting-from-democrat-to-republican/ DavidGoliathMediaPRFirm (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 06:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for information on the suspect's political affiliation, the article already covers his support for Trump on a Twitter account active until 2017. Also, the website that your article covers, MyLife, is user-edited. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 06:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

We simply cannot take anything on MyLife as fact. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Number of people in the Walmart

The LA times is reporting that there were about 3,000 shoppers and 300 employees inside the Walmart at the time of the shooting, and we're repeating it here. This seems ridiculously high. A typical Walmart Supercenter is 180,000 sq ft. In an otherwise empty space of this size, 3,300 people who are evenly spread out in a hexagonal packing arrangement would be a little less than 4 feet apart. Closer to 3 when you consider that people have width, and even less once you account for shelves, racks, counters, etc. It seems extremely unlikely that there were this many people inside the Walmart, even if it were twice the average size. I'm guessing this was the number in the entire mall complex (still quite busy but within reason), but who knows. I've tagged it as dubious, hopefully this can be clarified. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. Remove, for now, I say. Willbb234 (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

USA Today attributes a guess of up to 3,100 (a hundred staff) to Sheriff Gomez, which is maximum capacity for that Walmart. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It seems high. Let's remove it for now. We can always add back an accurate number later on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

sources

some of the sources are dead links?

Which ones? It helps to specify--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:58CC:C983:EAB3:71FF (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove any political references

lets report facts...not opinion...the word 'reported' should be stricken and anything after. if the information is CONFIRMED post it HERE

if you want a BLOG for political rhetoric and speculation call it that...not HERE— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.108.68 (talk)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If you have specific concerns, please bring them up here, but this event is heavily intertwined with politics and independent sources report it as such. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Politics exist everywhere. Venting your frustration at the shooter's political beliefs being listed in this article (as reported by reliable sources) is a poor reflection on yourself. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing about reliable American sources for the next while, though, is they're more hellbent than ever on making voters believe things about certain potential future presidents (and associates). Some true, some "true" and some false. If we read something new, we should let it sink in for a day or two before running with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:31, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

The Great Replacement- Change it to 'white-nationalist conspiracy theory'

In the official article, it says that it is a white nationalist theory. So then, why are we using 'white supremacist' instead of what the designated page describes it as?

I only see the term white nationalist being used on the article at this moment. No mention of white supremacy. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: It's been changed now, sorry. Before it was called a white supremacist conspiracy theory.

Remember to sign your posts with '~~~~' Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I see now that it's been changed from "white nationalist" to "white supremacist", but I'd like to note that the article cited reads:

In that attack, the suspect published a manifesto online promoting a white supremacist theory called "the great replacement."

It's probably best to use that description. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• It was changed from "white nationalist" to "white supremacist" by User:QuestFour. — here -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2019

Sam hyde meme picture, please remove 71.204.179.216 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What it is exactly you are referring to? The picture of the alleged shooter? 331dot (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it is meant to be satire. The Sam Hyde meme is a running joke about a lone white gunman.[8] Presumably 71 wants a photo removed, but there isn't one of Patrick Crusius at the moment (and there shouldn't be either).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Referring to this diff. Willbb234 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Shooter?

Why is the perpetrator referred to as a "shooter" in this article? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper! 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, the article is not going to say "X did it" until a court says so. From past experience I know that not everyone likes this approach, but that is how things are done on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be addressing a different point to the one I'm making. I'm arguing against a specific word - 'shooter' - simply because it's the vernacular, verging on slang, and not suitable for an encyclopedia. 'Gunman' or 'assassin' would be better here. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Please offer any reliable sources you have that use that terminology to reference the alleged shooter. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post: "EL PASO — Officials continued searching Sunday for answers after a gunman killed 20 people and wounded dozens more at a shopping …". So you're saying that in Wikipedia articles we must slavishly follow every single word in references and there is no latitude for using alternative words meaning the same thing? Anyway, the vast majority of sources in this type of article will be newspapers, and newspapers typically use different styles and words to those used in an encyclopedia. They adopt the vernacular quite readily; and this is not normally suitable for an encyclopedia, except when providing a direct quote. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, but we need more than just one user's opinion on word choice. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully others will contribute here. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A "shooter" is one who shoots (in this case, people) or more specifically, engages in a shooting (what he did). "Gunman" is a passive term; anyone carrying a gun may be a gunman, whether or not they use it. At this stage, we cannot use any term that implies a judicial finding (murderer, etc.), so "shooter", as the active party in this event and the cause of it, makes perfect sense to me. General Ization ^Talk 21:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, perhaps. However, if you look up the Google definitions of 'shooter' and 'gunman' they don't seem to support this view. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster supports the General's comment about "gunman".[9] I don't know what a Google definition is; does Google have a dictionary now? American law enforcement prefers "shooter" – see Active shooter – which may explain why many American Wikipedia editors use it; whether that's a good reason is certainly open to debate. I would go with what a majority of reliable sources use, if that can be shown somewhat clearly, setting aside all other reasoning. And I don't care enough to research that myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also point out that given some recent excesses by advocates of GNL (which I support, don't get me wrong, but we recently had a debate about whether we should say at Apollo program that Kennedy challenged Congress to send a "man to the moon" or historically revise it to a "person to the moon"!), "gunman" is likely to provoke them. (Only half kidding.) General Ization ^Talk 22:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I like it. Yes, the PC zealots and the GNL dumbos would quite happily have us use 'gunperson'. 31.52.163.85 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

White Nationalism Motive

Shouldn't white nationalism as a motive be backed up by a reliable source? Lokii192 (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of "hold the front page" editing, and although it may turn out that the shooter was some sort of race-obsessed wack job, it is early days to say this for sure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think editors should more often simply admit that we don't know; it's better than spreading conjecture. Lokii192 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The politicized narrative based on info adjusted after the shooting.

Before the shooting the gunman had an online MyLife page that said he was a Democrat. It wasn't until a little after 4 PM, after the shootings, that the shooter's online presence was changed to Republican, Christian, NRA, and Q supporter. [10]

The name of Trump being spelled out with guns is also being attributed to the gunman although a reverse look up of the image shows it has been around for a long time.

This Wikipedia article is attempting to lay out a political narrative using this shooting as a tool of deception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c42:7a80:c901:3878:34ec:da0c:4d3b (talk) 2019-08-04T17:16:44 (UTC)

There is a Snopes article about the alleged shooter's Twitter account (since deleted) which confirms that he did not create the image with the word Trump spelled out with guns.[11] However, Snopes says that the alleged shooter's account did post a "like" of the image in February 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

Further above you'll see discussion about MyLife: suffice it to say, nothing from that site can be used here, as it is not reliable and is used edited (much like IMDB). Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is just a little embarrassing... MyLife is user-edited and thus unreliable (this was already discussed above). Also, though the picture of the guns spelling out "Trump" wasn't taken by the gunman, it was liked by a Twitter account associated with him. That Twitter account also had other pro-Trump content if I'm not mistaken. There's no "politicized narrative" being pushed here, it just seems you might be upset with the true views (as supported by reliable sources) held by the gunman. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(it just seems you might be upset with the true views) The same fake news that said the Garlic festival shooter was a white supremacist that turned out to be an Iranian pro-Islamist that Instagrammed anti-white posts? So this white supremacist used his real name on 4chan/8chan, a place where everyone's name is "anonymous" with a number. And it is conveniently gone and only thew gatekeeper fake news got to see it. I think it is a sad state of affairs when wikipedia plays along with the political propaganda to use shootings a tools and weapons of deception. 2600:6C42:7A80:C901:3878:34EC:DA0C:4D3B (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)me

@2600:6C42:7A80:C901:3878:34EC:DA0C:4D3B:If you have a problem with "fake news", bring it up to the RS noticeboard. Also, the article for Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting goes in-depth about the doubts that it was a white supremacist attack. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "playing along with the political propaganda" but there is a need to be careful about using screenshots of Facebook accounts etc as a reliable source. Some MSM sources may do this, but there is a possibility of it turning out to be wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Twitter account that the alleged shooter liked is John doe @juhhhjgghk here. However, I couldn't find the specific tweet from February 2017.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd ignore the IP. At least until they can show mainstream claims that the Garlic festival shooter, whose profile said he was Italian and Iranian, was an Iranian pro-Islamist. --Doug Weller talk 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: These sorts of reports about Gilroy seem to all stem from this SF Chronicle article, which reads "Investigators who searched the Nevada home of the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter found [...] reading material on white supremacy and radical Islam, federal law enforcement sources said Tuesday." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mention of 2019 Dayton shooting

A shooting in Dayton Ohio took place less than 24 hours after the shooting in El Paso. Cincinnati resident (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I wondered whether the article should mention this, but there is no obvious link between the two shootings. It has set off the routine debate about gun ownership in the US. At the moment, it is only in the "See also" section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The article for the Dayton shooting mentions the El Paso shooting in the lead. At the very least, I’d suggest mentioning the Dayton shooting in the “Aftermath” section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not in the "aftermath"; that was not an aftermath to this incident. Personally I don't think it belongs in the "See also" section either. Right now we have the 2019 Daytona shooting, as well the Poway synagogue shooting for some reason, under “See also”. I oppose including those links. (I deleted once, but somebody restored.) IMO 1) they are not all that similar to this incident and 2) there are dozens of such shootings; are we going to “See also” link them all? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, the Poway synagogue shooting has been removed. That leaves us deciding whether to mention the Dayton shooting or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's close enough, timewise. Just See also, though. Not aftermath. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

The media are viewing them as inextricably linked, not only by temporal proximity but also because of the outcry from a variety of commentators, professional and political, who are mentioning both events in the same breath. I don't see it as constructive to try to ignore or discourage the inevitable linkage on the part of the average reader. General Ization ^Talk 22:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Given how close together they were, the Dayton shooting should at least be mentioned in the "See also" section (though I'd advocate mentioning it in the "Aftermath" b/c of how close together they were). The media's certainly linking them together, as is Wikipedia's main page. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Millions of unrelated things happened sooner after; aftermath needs some causation aspect. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

Already pipelinked in the Pope's reaction, does that make See also redundant? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

I removed it from See Also, because I just wrote it out at the Pope's reaction. starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

List of victim names

When the names are released, and even though they will have been, we must respect the WP:BLPPRIVACY of the victims and their families. This is also not a memorial. There is no need to list the victim's names and ages here. What we can do is describe them as a group ("The victims' ages ranged from xx to xx ...") and link to the articles that contain this information, so it is available to a reader who wants it. General Ization ^Talk 18:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoth WP:BLPPRIVACY: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". Traditionally, articles such as this do name the dead victims. It's rarer for living victims to be named, however. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I hope it won't come to the formula I had to apply to the Virginia Beach shooting (the same one that was brought to ARCA and was ruled in my favour) — but it looks like it might be the case here, too. El_C 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It just wouldn't be Wikipedia without an argument over whether to include a list of the victims' names. Not all articles do, there was a clear consensus not to do this at 2017 Las Vegas shooting where it would have been a long contextless list. Wikipedia articles are not news articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: What are you even talking about? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm talking about applying the same DS here as I did there. El_C 18:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I've yet to see anyone even include the victim names yet, so I fail to see the need to preemptively apply them. And you're ignoring precedent here, that 90% of articles include such lists and have for years... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Then, again, modify WP:VL accordingly and turn it into policy, if it is indeed that one-sided. I haven't applied the DS yet — that was the other article, where edit warring (in which you were involved) had to be stopped. El_C 18:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

To stop edit warring over this, we're going to go with the status quo ante for the duration of the discussion. That means that Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 El Paso shooting is now in effect. El_C 20:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

See discussion and !vote, below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I assure you that @El C has followed and will see the discussion and the vote. As the uninvolved admin who imposed the DS mentioned above, El C must remain uninvolved. General Ization ^Talk 17:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Include or exclude victim names

Should the article include a list of dead victims' names? El_C 23:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include – This issue arises every time that we have mass casualties: whether or not to list victim names. The consensus was that each article be decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no "blanket" conclusion that names are included or excluded. I believe that victim names should be included in this article. They are a pertinent part of the story / event. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude with the same reasoning from multiple other articles where we had this debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include of course, the vast majority of articles on mass shootings include a listing of the dead. When we only sensationalize the perpetrator, we provide undue weight on them over the victims of their crime. Articles must have a neutral point of view, and that includes providing information about the victims. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The alternative solution to the conundrum you describe would of course be not to sensationalize perpetrators. You seem to be arguing for a "two wrongs make a right" kind of solution. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I guess Wikipedia believes two wrongs make a right in general... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I don't see how WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV support your position that balancing excessive information about perpetrators with excessive information about victims is an appropriate course of action. It's a very counterintuitive argument to make, really, that making an article worse in the opposite way to the way it is already bad would somehow improve it. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
        • TompaDompa—the problem that those have that wish to see the victim names omitted is that no Wikipedia policy supports that. You are doing it on your own. Your impetus to omit victim names is a concoction that you are creating out of thin air. It has no basis in policy and it is at odds with standard practice. Bus stop (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I would refer you to WP:NOT: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I would even go so far as to say you're looking at the whole thing backwards. We don't need reasons to omit information; omitting information is the default. We need reasons to include information. See WP:VNOTSUFF: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include dead Mentioned in almost every lead sentence and headline, including our own, silly not to elaborate later. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Are you saying that the names of the victims are appearing in lead sentences and/or headlines? Can you offer an example? That is what we are discussing here, not numbers. General Ization ^Talk 19:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, their deaths lead. This begs the question of who they were. That is answered later/lower. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:44, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

And can be answered quite thoroughly by clicking a link in our article to review our sources; hardly a case of suppression. General Ization ^Talk 19:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"And can be answered quite thoroughly by clicking a link in our article to review our sources; hardly a case of suppression." You are not answering the question—why should our article omit the names of the victims? You are suggesting that there are workarounds. A "workaround" would be that a reader could click on a link to a source. But why shouldn't the names of the victims be included in the article? Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - 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 Wikipedia.
  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, and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years.[12] 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 ☎ 19:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  All dead have no human rights. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Then why are desecrating a corpse, theft from a body, and organ theft illegal? Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Offends the living. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Not quite what WP:BDP has to say about it, and the families of the dead certainly do. General Ization ^Talk 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, don't name relatives. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Non sequitur. I haven't voiced a human rights argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Said they hadn't waived privacy. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

• Include per User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include per Nice4What. The victim names are an important part of this event. Davey2116 (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude as the OP of this Talk section; while probably clear from my comments, adding for convenient !vote assessment. General Ization ^Talk 19:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per Mandruss Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. The names of people none of us had heard of before the shooting do not add anything to the readers' understanding of the topic, which is the shooting itself. Lists of victims further impede the readability of the article and detract from the visual appeal by taking up a large amount of visual space. I do not find the arguments for inclusion particularly persuasive; they tend to boil down to either (1) we usually include the names or (2) the names are reported by WP:Reliable sources. The first I consider irrelevant, because I think this is an instance where quality is more important than consistency. The second seems to me to be rooted in a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work; the fact that some piece of information can be found in reliable sources does not in and of itself constitute a reason to add it to Wikipedia, let alone any specific article (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful., and WP:VNOTSUFF: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.), or to put it another way: verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for being included. I think everyone understands this intuitively—the weather is mentioned in WP:Reliable sources every day, but I don't believe anybody thinks that that means that we should add each day's weather to Wikipedia—but some people fail to apply this in some instances.
  In the absence of good reasons to include the information, we should refrain from including it. The existence of reasons to exclude the information gives further weight to the case for not including the information.

  Describing the demographic characteristics of the victims as a group is of course a completely different story. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  The good reason is they are the "who". The story is about them. Same plain crucial goodness as when and where (about which we could also be purposely vague). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  That seems to me to be a reason to describe them as a group, not to list their names. TompaDompa (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Groups are too nebulous. Who were they all? Non-Canadian North Americans of mixed gender, 2 to 82? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  You won't learn that ("who" they all were) from their names and ages, and this article will not contain biographies of each and every victim. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)w

  Better than nothing, or even less. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Also: this is not a "story" (in the sense of a news story or a magazine article), and this article is not "about them", but about an event (a horrific one, but an event just the same). This is an encyclopedic article. The distinction is crucial. General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  What makes it horrific beside the characters, plot and setting? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  See above. Sorry if you don't think the article will fulfill your entertainment goals without names of the victims. General Ization ^Talk 23:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Story doesn't mean fun, or fake or scripted. I am not amused. Just trying to inform. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Then give meaningful information. Names are data, and this is not an almanac. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  What is precise Mountain Daylight Time doing here, then? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  False equivalence and whataboutism. You know better than that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  Bullshit. Stories have Five Ws. They all matter the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, August 4, 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. We disagree on the definition of "who" as it pertains to Wikipedia content. And we always will. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

―Mandruss ☎ 00:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We make a great team. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, August 4, 2019 (UTC) Yeah. Jane, you ignorant slut. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Classic Tony, ladies and gentlemen! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, August 4, 2019 (UTC) And now I finally have a code name for you, although you may not like its gender. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Get off the stage! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

• Include as victim names are on-topic for this article and no Wikipedia policy suggests that we should omit such information. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. The deceased were not notable in life. Their names will add nothing to readers' understanding of the event. Listing age/race/gender is sufficient to convey the impact of the crime. WWGB (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The deceased were not notable in life." Notability of decedents would be irrelevant to the question we are addressing. Names of decedents would be "content" in this article. WP:NNC: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude the names, but include information about the victims. The names of the victims do not add any useful information to the reader. Descriptions of the victims, however, would. How many children, how many old people, their races, occupations, these sorts of details tell the reader what was lost–the damage that was done–in El Paso, Texas on August 3, 2019. A list of names is empty trivia factoids; instead, tell the reader the important information. Per WP:SUMMARY. – Levivich 01:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know if you are aware of it, Levivich, but you haven't provided a reason that we should omit the victim names. You are saying that "[t]he names of the victims do not add any useful information to the reader". You certainly do not know that, as you are but one reader. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's engage in a hypothetical. What "useful information" do you, as another reader, expect to learn as a result of including the victims' names, other than their names, and how would the names be useful to you? General Ization ^Talk 01:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You are engaging in fiction-writing. The deliberate omission of material that is squarely on the topic of the article results in fiction. We aim for the whole picture. We're not interested in creative writing. Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - the who part of the five Ws in regard to the victims of this mass shooting is people in Walmart in El Paso. If there's proof that the shooter targeted a particular demographic there, we should add that as well. The names are meaningless to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• "The names are meaningless to over 99% of readers." You are only one reader. That's what I call extrapolation! Bus stop (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that the names are meaningless to over 99% of readers - they're people whom they've never previously heard of whose names are only in the media due to them having been unlucky enough to be victims of a mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh God, it's those two guys from the Virginia Beach massacre marathon! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - per Mandruss, TompaDompa and Levivich. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Some articles include victim names, and some don't. Recent school shooting articles do include victim names, while aircraft accident articles typically only include people who have Wikipedia articles and flight crew. Will this have implications for the victim lists in say Columbine, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, etc? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: The short answer is "no". As I stated above: This issue arises every time that we have mass casualties: whether or not to list victim names. The consensus was that each article be decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no "blanket" conclusion that names are included or excluded. So, by consensus, each article is decided independently. That's the consensus at this point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Include per Bus stop. Also, the dead are important subjects of this event, obviously, they were the most affected by the event. They should be given top billing along with the perpetrator. 20 is not a huge number of names. I'd like to see more detail (prose) beyond names, as long as the names, and the other details, are covered in reliable sources. starship.paint (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include Instead of doing a throughout description of the victims, consider adding the following image as a thumb to the article , its relevat to the readers and simple enough to not compromise privacies. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

File:El Paso shooting victims.png

This is a clear COPYVIO. Each of the images is owned by a copyright holder. WWGB (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude – As in many of these discussions, those in favor of inclusion lob comments that claim the names "are pertinent" and "important" but fail to adequately explain why. Some also like to refer to established precedence in other articles, but Mandruss' comment above exposes flaws in this assertion. Listing the names does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of what happened, and until a convincing argument demonstrates otherwise, these comments will do little to sway the opposition. Pointing out that the perpetrator's name is mentioned doesn't help that argument either. Comparing the perpetrator's role to the victims' as if both were of the same logical equivalence is a form of false equivalence. One is voluntary, while the other is involuntary. Too much detail involving random victims can easily cross into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. That's a path best avoided. Inclusionists should instead focus on why the names hold encyclopedic relevance, backing claims with secondary, academic sources as opposed to breaking news stories. It's the best chance to advance a rather flawed (if not weak) position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Include - relative and sourceable information about the shooting, and does not go against any Wikipedia policy, which has been explained before. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Important (procedural) question about this discussion and !vote

Let's say that this discussion and !vote ends in "no consensus". (Which actually seems very likely.) What does that mean? That the names are included or excluded? If I recall correctly, a "no consensus" results means that the article stays as is, status quo, with no changes allowed. However, this discussion was brought before the list of names was ever released by reliable sources, etc. And before names were added to the article. In other words, it was "pre-emptive". (In other words, perhaps it was brought prematurely?) If that's the case, then victim names will never be allowed to be added, if a pre-emptive discussion is opened. (That is, if a discussion ensues before reliable sources publish victim lists and, therefore, before victim lists even get added to the article. Controversially or not.) If the end result of a "no consensus" discussion maintains the article at status quo, that seems like an unfair procedure. And a contravention to the "consensus" paradigm. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

See Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 El Paso shooting. I think it pretty clearly explains what will happen if there is no consensus. General Ization ^Talk 17:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. And, in fact, avoids / side-steps the over-arching question. That page talks about what happens if you make changes (add a list) before consensus is reached. I am talking about after consensus is reached (i.e., after the discussion closes); where said consensus is "no consensus". In that case, you have altogether ignored the thrust of my question. Which is an unfair process if pre-emptive discussions are held. And lists will never be allowed, as a result. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, let me try again. What happens to the DS currently applied to this article is generally up to the admin who imposed it, and/or others they may consult. As a courtesy to them, I will not attempt to answer for them. I will address, however, the question of whether the discussion was "pre-emptive". I posted the original comment in this section just after the list of victims was released in the Dayton event and just after I posted a very similar comment on that article's Talk page. The El Paso victims list was released and the first attempt to add it to this article occurred less than 90 minutes a little over two hours later. Both events were prior to the beginning of the structured RfC. So no, it wasn't pre-emptive; it was appropriate anticipation of a decision that would ultimately need to be made. Since you are the editor who began the structured RfC, you could have expressed any thought that it was pre-emptive when you did so. General Ization ^Talk 17:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, "no consensus" is not a consensus; it is the absence of consensus. General Ization ^Talk 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the point, entirely. And I am not going to argue with you. Also, what difference does it make if I bring up the topic now, or when I first started the RfC? No difference. "Gaming the system" will not work, in the long run. If that's the case, then these pre-emptive discussions will become "policy" de facto. And that is not how policy is created. Nor how consensus is reached. Particularly this one ("policy"), that has consistently held that there is no policy; and each article is determined, case-by-case. And, if my memory serves correctly, these discussions (this and the Dayton one) were certainly held before reliable sources started to post victim names. We can argue about what exact reliable sources released names at what exact date and time. But, when these discussions started -- I believe, by you -- those lists had not really been published yet (where I come from). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As I already explained (and as you can see for yourself if you care to), I posted my comment at Talk:2019 Dayton shooting (and here) after the first attempt was made to add a list of victims to the Dayton article. You're entitled to your opinions about discretionary sanctions otherwise, but those who must enforce them (or not) will need to comment on whether they are appropriate (or not), or whether my having raised the question was somehow inappropriate as a matter of policy (I don't think so). General Ization ^Talk 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You posted in the section above entitled "Talk:2019 El Paso shooting#List of victim names". You stated: "'When the victim names are released ...", we will need to respect privacy, etc. You posted that before any victim names were published by any reliable sources. Your exact quote: When the names are released, and even though they will have been, we must respect the WP:BLPPRIVACY of the victims and their families.. You used the "future" word "when names are released". And you even used "future perfect" tense (even though they will have been released). You posted all of that before -- and in anticipation of -- names being released. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you're under a mistaken impression, that the list would become status quo ante immediately upon being added. It is universally accepted that content must be in the article for some amount of time to acquire status quo ante status. Editors' opinions vary, but all will agree that it's a lot more than "immediately". The one time I've seen an admin get specific, it was NeilN who said about six weeks. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on WP:ONUS, which reads: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Not to be tautological, but if the result is no consensus to include a list of victim names, then a list of victim names will not be included. My suggestions, again, would be to turn to WP:VL and mold it into policy, one way or the other. It seems counterproductive to do this over and over again, from one mass shooting article to the next. El_C 18:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe you'll be around the next time this comes up at Village Pump, where the chorus of "needs to be evaluated case-by-case" has been deafening. Maybe your persuasive commentary will make a difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. So, why can't we frame the question as "no consensus to exclude the list"? It's all semantics. It can work both ways. My point is that if a pre-emptive argument is posted, it offers no chance of a list being added. Controversially or otherwise. In that case, why have any policies at all? The pre-emptive poster then decides for all. Actually, in spite of policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The principle is that controversial content should not be included without consensus. Not that controversial content should not be excluded without consensus. No, it's not "all semantics". ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I really don't get all this about "pre-emptive". There are two ways this can go down.

1. The names are published and somebody adds a list. The list is immediately challenged by reversion, and a consensus to include is required to re-add it. Or,
2. We have the discussion in anticipation of the publishing of the names, which we know will happen, and a consensus to include is required to add the list once they are published.

Exactly the same result, except that #2 may get the list into the article earlier in the case of a consensus to include, since we didn't wait to start the discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And when you get "split votes", you never get consensus. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to learn about consensus, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The Great Replacement, Manifesto

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. — [13]. Thoughts?

In the The Great Replacement article, it says that it is a white nationalist right-wing conspiracy theory.

User:QuestFour obviously disagrees. — [14]]. QuestFour's edit summary: ce, redundant.-- Tobby72 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump in the lede?

Want to bring this up. No comment on the matter as of now, but worried about a potential issue with WP:UNDUE. We include that the gunman has a Twitter account that followed/liked pro-Trump and alt-right content in the lede. However, that account was inactive since 2017. The manifesto does mention Trump (as I've mentioned before), but doesn't show any support or criticism in either way. The sentence in question is "Crusius was reported to be a follower of alt-right and pro-Donald Trump content on social media." Thoughts on its inclusion? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's important. Also a bit misleading and an outrage magnet. Just in the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

When you say "that account was inactive since 2017", do you mean that it hasn't been used to issue tweets since then? If so, we cannot infer from that whether Crusius did or did not continue to use the account to read the alt-right and pro-Trump content issued by the accounts he was seen to have followed, perhaps long after 2017. It just means he didn't have anything much to say. General Ization ^Talk 02:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he stopped tweeting or stopped liking tweets, but reliable sources indicate the account was inactive since 2017 (as read in the Bellingcat article, "His Twitter profile, left fallow since April 2017...") Even if he just read that sort of content, we have no way of knowing and maybe it best belongs in the body and not the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC); Edited 02:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use a phrasing different than "reported to be a follower", which (as commonly used) implies an affiliation beyond following a Twitterfeed. General Ization ^Talk 02:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, maybe different phrasing would be more accurate, but what I'm trying to discuss here is whether it's worth mentioning this defunct Twitter account in the lede. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Changed the sentence in the lede to "Crusius was reported to own a social media account that followed alt-right and pro-Donald Trump content; the account was inactive since April 2017." for now. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

He used it, Twitter owns it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's lede worthy. There's not enough connection (so he stopped posting in 2017, he didn't continue pro-Trump comments until the day of the shooting), his manifesto mentions but does not explicitly endorse Trump. starship.paint (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if he did endorse or like Trump, so did millions of people. Killing for or because of him would be noteworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, August 5, 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove it from the lede for now. Maybe it makes more sense to build a consensus about inclusion first rather than leave it. I believe the information about his Twitter account should stay in the body though. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you. I absolutely don't think we should mention in the lead that he is (or was) a Trump fan. That's almost a BLP violation - as if saying "Look, he did this because Trump inspired him!" - while that account has been dead for more than two years. We can keep the information in the article because it is sourced and there is room in the article for context. But it should be removed from the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• The fact he supported Trump, as 62,979,879 voters did when he got elected president, has nothing to do with him shooting up the place. No reason to drag that in here for some bias political reason. Dream Focus 12:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the fact he supported Trump should be in the lede. It's entirely relevant to his actions as a number of sourced citations can prove. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

He himself said the opposite: he said something along the lines of "I suppose people will blame Trump, but I had these beliefs before Trump came along." It's easy to assume there's a connection between Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric and this guy's actions, but that's original research unless supported by sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Want to link the "number of sources citations" that prove this connection? Interested to note that this IP editor called for the removal of the Dayton shooter's political leanings (which is only in the body of that article) but wants Trump up front on this article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you calling me a hypocrite or somethng? What's your point? Obviously someone supporting Trump is going to be an encouragement to commit violent acts, and there are plenty of places that can be cited following Wiki guidelines. The other shooting shouldn't include irrelevant political viewpoints (aka being a Democrat) that have no bearing on why someone commits violence. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with MelanieN that the purported manifesto states explicitly that the shooter does not rely on Trump as a chief influence. While we can argue back and forth as to what the analysts in reliable sources say about the truth of that statement, I can't find a reference to the shooter's statement itself about Trump in the article. I would be comfortable with the statement being added, and then reliable source discussion appending it. RandomGnome (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Walmart press releases

@Blumpf: Hi! I read this edit. Typically in plane crash articles I link the press releases by the airline company, which experienced the accident, as typically they are of interest to the public to a different level than a news article. In plane crash articles I link to the airline, the investigating authorities, and possibly the national press releases. Essentially primary source materials from the key players.

I linked to the Walmart press release for a similar reason, as they have the same role that an airline has (especially when the airline is not at fault). It is true that the tweet with the exact wording is linked from the article, but I feel the company response should also be a default external link for this kind of subject matter. While the link is there in the references section, it lacks prominence (it is one of many links), while in an EL section it's front and center. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: It's now the first reaction listed under "United States". And someone else tagged the tweet with "better source" so I replaced it with the walmart.com link.[15] Blumpf (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I'll add the tweet to the same citation as it is Walmart's official account WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Paul Joseph Watson and Stephen Crowder specifically

The account also followed and liked several notable right-wing Twitter users, including Paul Joseph Watson and Steven Crowder.[28] Unless someone can point to a RS which shows a direct link between the attack and following these users, I suggest removing their names and just sticking with notable or high-profile. If there is no relation between following these users and the attack, I see no reason to name them specifically over any other Twitter users he may or may not have followed, as it may imply they are somehow related to or influenced the shooting in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44f:9adb:1:cdfd:859:bd7e:c425 (talk • contribs)

You're reading too much into it. We do not claim Watson and Crowder are related to the attacks. By the way, these guys are notable - on Wikipedia that is. That's why they have articles here. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

My point was not to say the writer claimed any link, but that by including these two people specifically over any other people the shooter may have followed, a link can be implied. If there is indeed no relation between Watson, Crowder and the attack, then I see no reason to point them out specifically, that is all. I wasn't disputing the fact that they are high-profile either, which is why my suggestion would be just to change the sentence to "The account also followed and liked several notable right-wing Twitter users" and leave the source up for anyone who wants to read more about it, but I wouldn't do that personally without checking in here first. Including Watson and Crowder specifically over anyone else he may have followed adds nothing to this page other than singling them out for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a44f:9adb:1:cdfd:859:bd7e:c425 (talk • contribs)

I agree. There is no reason to slander people like that, indicating they are responsible for this, unless you have evidence they did specifically encourage such a thing. Dream Focus 12:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree there's no reason to have these names mentioned specifically over others the shooter followed. RopeTricks (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and I see their names have been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Is nobody going to check these incredible digits?"

I'm sorry as much as I agree 8chan is a hotspot for the mass murderers, this is an internal meme/joke on 4chan/8chan about the id number on the post and has nothing to do with death toll. References: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1080239-4chan https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/3i4k6f/can_someone_explain_all_these_4chan_terms_to_me/ --BerserkerBen (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to assume that, but that is your WP:OR. Our cited source acknowledges that possibility, but identifies another. Speculation by a cited, expert source ("Robert Evans has worked as a conflict journalist in Iraq and Ukraine and reported extensively on far-right extremist groups in the United States. He's particularly interested in the ways terrorist groups recruit, radicalize and communicate through the Internet.") has precedence over speculation by Wikipedia editors. General Ization ^Talk 15:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed that rather meaningless (or at least obscure) sentence, as well as some of the other comments attributed to anonymous 8Chan users. Robert Evans may or may not have some kind of expertise in the area, but that doesn't require us to report everything he says. And Bellingcat does not look like a reliable source; we require editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, but Bellingcat looks like it publishes the "findings of both professional and citizen journalist investigations" without such controls. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree with the removal, but accept it based on your concerns about Bellingcat, rather than based on another editor's assumptions about the intent of the comments which were in turn based on original research. General Ization ^Talk 16:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure fine its not my fault if journalist don't know enough abut chan culture and make conclusions of their own, their the journalist and its not my job to correct them, they should do that themselves.BerserkerBen (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Shooters Race Mentioned

So again the wiki editors cult made sure they identified the race of the shooter...but will remove any mention of race when it is NOT a White person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.62.50 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Whatever. The shooter's race is mentioned here, as it is relevant and widely-reported. If you have an issue with another article where it is also relevant and widely-reported but omitted, bring it up at that article's Talk page. This is not a forum for you to air your grievances about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editors. General Ization ^Talk 16:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be said that the shooting was committed by a white supremacist, and it was directed specifically at Mexicans. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That information is already in the article. "He told police he wanted to kill as many Mexicans as possible." He was sadly very successful at that. :-( As for calling him a white supremacist, we may ultimately wind up describing his motive as more anti-immigrant than racial. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Instead of giving it a name perhaps it would be better to just paraphrase or even quote his manifesto, regardless what you want to name the intential killing of hispanics because he fears they will vote democrat, his stated intent is more clear then any name. --BerserkerBen (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a white person is, because it is far from easy to define. The shooter may have had all sorts of wacky ideas about race, but short of carrying out a DNA test and looking at his ancestry, it is hard to say what a white person actually is.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Wording Change Regarding "Deadliest Mass Shooting"

The article says it *was* the deadliest mass shooting in the US in 2019; we're only a little over halfway through the year, I think it's premature to say this is as bad as it's going to get. Can someone rephrase to say something like "to date" or "as of the shooting" or some otherwise appropriate language?

--SkittishSloth (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Please change target from "Latino and Hispanic Americans" to "Latino and Hispanic people"

Mexican victims are not Americans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.246.163 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

At this time there is no reason to conclude that the shooter was targeting people of Mexican nationality, as opposed to people of Hispanic and Latino heritage generally, or that he believed he would find many non-US citizens at a Walmart in El Paso. According to the information published in reliable sources about his "manifesto", his primary motive involved concerns about Hispanic and Latino voters and their effect on the US vote, which implies that he was primarily targeting Hispanic and Latino Americans, not non-citizens. As our knowledge of the shooter's motives may change, so may the content of the target field in the infobox. General Ization ^Talk 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we should have anything in the "target" box. (I didn't even know we had such a box; what a horrible thing!) But if we put anything there it would not be Latino and Hispanic anything; it would be "Mexicans". That's not supposition; that's a literal quote, exactly what he told the police he was doing: trying to kill as many Mexicans as possible. And clearly that's why he drove to El Paso, hundreds of miles from his home: he knew that a Walmart in El Paso would be patronized by many Mexican citizens, as it was. Anyone from a border state like Texas would know that. In fact I am inclined to put "Mexicans" there right now, sourced, unless we decide not to have anything. It isn't often that a gunman tells us exactly who he was targeting. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think he meant people with Mexican nationality and/or citizens of Mexico, or was he using "Mexicans" as a pejorative term for Hispanic and Latino people who may now, or perhaps in the future, vote (which implies they are or would be US citizens)? (It may be a rhetorical question, as I'm not sure we can really know.) I'll take another look at his manifesto. General Ization ^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the fact that he deliberately drove to a border Walmart, hundreds of miles from his home, proves that he was looking for Mexican citizens. Look, I live in a border town myself - San Diego. If someone was looking to kill Mexican citizens specifically, I can tell you exactly which Walmart they would target. If they were after Mexican-Americans, particularly Mexican-American citizens able to vote (and yes, they might well refer to them as "Mexicans" too), they wouldn't go to the border. They would go to a part of town where Hispanic-Americans live - and I can pretty much tell you where that would be too. This guy chose a border Walmart because he knew there would be many Mexican citizens there. It's not our place to try to pretty up his language or interpret it. He said what he said and his actions show what he meant. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

All this being said, the |target= parameter is not really the place to write the why; we have the |motive= parameter for that. I changed it to be more in line with articles such as 7 July 2005 London bombings ("Public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in Central London"), Manchester Arena bombing ("Concert-goers"), and Orlando nightclub shooting ("Patrons of Pulse nightclub"). TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, so now it says "Walmart shoppers". That's accurate and uncontroversial so I'm OK with it. It adds nothing of value to the article, but neither do the other examples cited. I'm not sure what the parameter is even there for, but at least this is a good solution for what to put there. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the point of the parameter is to distinguish civilian targets from military ones, but I honestly don't know. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think "Walmart shoppers" isn't what's meant to be in the infobox. The victims weren't targeting for the reason that they were shopping at Walmart. I suggest we maybe blank that parameter until a consensus is reached? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:51, 5 August 2019 (para)

And now |target= contains yet another variation on the theme. General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Mugshot

Is the shooter's FBI mugshot in the public domain? See [16] it is in this news article. This reference is already present in the article, currently cited as <ref name=Mugshot/> starship.paint (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the FBI is a federal agency, I'd believe that the mugshot is in the public domain. Per this article: "All works made by federal agencies are automatically in the public domain, so if the mugshot was made by a federal agency like the FBI, it is certainly in the public domain." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The mugshot clearly appears to be a different person than Patrick Crusius:

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/article/2019/aug/05/did-media-change-identity-el-paso-shooter-nope/ 71.82.73.37 (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Assault weapon"

Re this edit: Due to 1RR I can't revert this, but I really dislike "assault weapon". As I said in this edit summary, it is a yukky vague term. It doesn't even specify what the weapon is. It was pretty obviously a semi-automatic firearm, so we might as well call a spade a spade. This has nothing to do with political debates, I just hate vague terminology.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Trump's visit and protests

Both of these should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but where?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

8chan claim regarding "first" posting of manifesto

There is no need to mention 8chan's claim that it was not the first to publish the manifesto in the lede when it is already discussed in the body, where the details of the manifesto are discussed. General Ization ^Talk 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well then maybe take it out of the lede? If the allegation is there the correction should be too.-ThanksTeeVeeed (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I was repeatedly trying to do so, as you repeatedly reverted to your content. That is done now. General Ization ^Talk 19:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD, and do not immediately and repeatedly revert to your preferred version, especially as you suggested it be discussed on the Talk page. As such discussions take place, the content prior to the disputed change is maintained. General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

All good in the lede now thanks!-The 8chan stuff may turn into the reaction section at some point, we don't want to pick a side or look like we are picking a side there by saying, "police say 8chan...".TeeVeeed (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)