Talk:2019 El Paso Walmart shooting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

I don't think any of us are particularly concerned about appearing to be critical of 8chan at this point, and I'm not sure the CEO's claim is especially credible (or even important). General Ization ^Talk 19:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The owner's claim is published in a RS. Also, speak for yourself, but our opinions are not supposed to affect article content as it is in the voice of WP and should not be opionated. TeeVeeed (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't claim it wasn't published in an RS that the CEO made the claim (not that it is true), and my opinion has thus far not affected the article's content (other than being quite certain this claim had no business in the lede). It is still my opinion. I can assure you I am quite familiar with WP:VOICE. General Ization ^Talk 20:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please revert your edit immediately; you have now exceeded WP:3RR. General Ization ^Talk 20:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You will find the content you introduced as the last sentence in the first paragraph, not the first sentence, where it makes no sense since the manifesto has not even been discussed in the body of the article at that point. General Ization ^Talk 20:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh Okay I will fix but it should go before the accusation-thank you.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No, we should explain that there was a manifesto, and what it said, before we discuss a claim by a third party that they are not the one on whose site it was posted first. Consider the importance of the content to the subject of the article, please. General Ization ^Talk 20:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You have now removed my edit rather than reverting or undoing your own. Please see above. General Ization ^Talk 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, other editors have resolved the duplication. General Ization ^Talk 21:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay you asked me to undo/fix my undo based on the thing being there twice which I did. The whole 8chan thing is a side-event. but blaming the alleged manifesto on 8chan right out of the box is not correct. Also-I was mistaken earlier when you put in the edit summaries that info. was duplicated I made a mistake and thought that you meant in edit summaries, not in article-space.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)::

Now I remember why I like to stay away from breaking news articles here-Edit Conflicts!!. So the other editor who added "Instagram"---yes our reliable source ref does say that but I unfortunatetly watched the video and it was worded differently (more like the primary source in the CNET ref said that the shooter had an account on IS but further update from FBI to CNET article says that shooter has not posted to his IG in a year or more---so that is why I ommited saying "Instagram" The source has been updated two times already in their article, so I left IG out)TeeVeeed (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Deadliest mass shooting in US history where perpetrator survived?

Looking at the chart of deadliest mass shootings in American history, it appears that this is the one with the highest death toll (22) in which the perpetrator survived; it appears that all shootings with higher death tolls resulted in the death of the perpetrator. 1779Days (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Wait until (and if) a reliable source makes the same assertion. We can do nothing with your observation until then, because it is original research and synthesis. General Ization ^Talk 02:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It is true, because Stephen Paddock, Adam Lanza etc died during the incident.[1] However, no RS seems to have found this notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 7 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)

Be bold. If you have a reliable secondary source, just drop it in. Your fellow editors will be glad to refine it further.--Nowa (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Put it in the "Reactions:United States" section. The first paragraph is all about Trump's reaction. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what I did, but I'm sure refining is needed. I'm pretty sure I said something that isn't true just because I have to reword what is in the copyrighted article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we "don't name them"?

Currently, the suspect's name features pretty prominently in the opening section of this article, and even more conspicuously in the section "Suspect" (where it is at the very beginning of the section in bold). On the grounds of "Don't Name Them", should we reduce the prominence of the suspect's name here? I don't think that that would do any harm whatsoever to the informativeness of this article. Maybe we could replace the suspect's name with "the suspect" in the opening section, and in the section "Suspect", change "[Suspect name] was arrested ..." to "The suspect, [suspect name], was arrested ...". --Tanner Swett (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm opposed to this as nothing in US law would prevent the suspect from being named now that he has been formally charged and will face trial. The train has left the station and anonymity should only be considered for persons who have been arrested but not charged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion doesn't have anything to do with US law or giving the suspect anonymity. I'm just suggesting reducing the amount of prominence the suspect's name receives in the article. --Tanner Swett (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What is being suggested here is a rehash of damnatio memoriae. This has been suggested before but it runs into problems with WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia articles follow what reliable sources have said, eg here is a New York Times article that names Patrick Crusius as the suspect. Wikipedia articles do not hide or censor things that are in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tanner Swett: - we 100% need to name the suspect in this article per WP:NOTCENSORED. However, after we do name him once, we can simply refer to him as "him/he/suspect" unless this would cause confusion with another male person mentioned in the article. Perhaps you can take the other advice in that article Tell the real stories – the stories of the victims, the heroes and the communities who come together to help the families heal. starship.paint (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No change should be made regarding the name of the suspect. He is named but not excessively, with regular refernces to just 'the shooter' or 'the suspect'. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The relevant part of WP:NOT is not WP:NOTCENSORED, which deals with things that may be considered offensive (such as profanity, nudity, or pictures of Muhammad), but WP:NOTADVOCACY (this is more a case of wanting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). We are never obligated to include any information that is reported in WP:Reliable sources, but rather only do so if the information is deemed to improve the article. TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The suspect is named three times in the article: once in the lede, once in the infobox, and once under the heading "Suspect". This seems like due weight. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd simply like to state my unpopular opinion that most mass shooters are not driven even secondarily by a desire for fame. I don't think there is any reason not to take their various manifestos at their word. I don't think censoring the names of the perpetrators or victims helps, but it's not like it really serves the reader much, either, until years down the road when remembering the name may be a legitimate research interest. EllenCT (talk)

No, his name stays. This bizarre "Don't name the perpetrator" phenomena shouldn't apply to Wikipedia, which has the simple job of documenting notable events as balanced and neutrally from reliable sources as appropriate. I understand the whole moral argument about not giving contemporary murderers too much fame and notoriety to the point of overshadowing the victims, but editors deliberately ignoring/whitewashing documented basic information such as the perpetrator's name is more of a disservice to readers and attempting to do so only amounts to practically petty censorship to no real pay off or benefits to future readers. RopeTricks (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

does who he supported for president or what political party he was in matter?

The article now reads: According to Bellingcat, the suspect's Twitter account portrayed a "relatively normal Trump-supporting Republican" up to April 2017, when the account stopped posting.

I had previously removed this [2] with the edit summary (Mentioning he had an old twitter site and what political party he was in and what candidate he supported, not relevant here. He specifically said "My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president." See talk page discussions). So who believes it should be there? Did anyone read the source linked to? Whose personal opinion is that and why is it valid? Stating that a mass murdering lunatic is a normal Trump supporter seems rather bias. Dream Focus 22:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm not liking the blog being used in article as a RS. It has been mentioned above as well. Also seeing it used as WP:SYNTH too. TeeVeeed (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It's background information. It would matter when his views overlap with Trump's, which the manifesto essentially acknowledges. We can wait for better sources if you want. starship.paint (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But he clearly stated he had these views before Trump stated them and it had nothing to do with Trump. The fact that he, Trump, and many others before them called illegal immigrants "invaders" and other such similarities isn't really relevant since it had nothing to do with his actions. Dream Focus 03:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It has been added back in again by [3] by QuestFour. I previously posted on his talk page asking him to discuss it here, he has thus far not done so. Can someone remove it please? More opinions please, don't hesitate to say how you feel about this. Dream Focus 22:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: the Dayton shooter's political affiliation is stated in the shooting's article, why shouldn't we do the same here? There's two editors who agree with mentioning it and two that don't, thus there's no consensus yet. It shouldn't be removed until more editors weigh in and consensus is gained. QuestFour (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a totally different situation since there the person stated what they believed in. This is someone stating that their opinion that his old twitter account he hadn't used in two years showed he was a "relatively normal Trump-supporting Republican". Also do you think most Trump supporting Republicans are like that? Why would anyone consider that a reliable source used this way? Dream Focus 22:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of adding the shooters political affiliation since he himself indicates that his views aren't a result of Trumps' policies and that he harbored them before Trump was even president. It's irrelevant. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What is a "relatively normal Trump-supporting Republican"? Gerntrash (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently a crazed gunman in the eyes of this bias news source. I removed it three times already, so can't remove it again under the three revert rule. If there no consensus to have that in the article, someone please remove it already. Dream Focus 04:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's worth mentioning, at least briefly. Two things to consider: First, it shouldn't be solely attributed to Bellingcat when it's also covered by Heavy.com. Second, we might want to consider covering it briefly (ie. in a sentence or so) as part of a larger coverage of his radicalization via 8chan, which is something the sources devote far more attention to and is the context in which Bellingcat brings it up, ie. tracing his path from "normal Trump-supporting Republican" to "radicalized white nationalist gunman." --Aquillion (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that the article should mention he is/was a Trump supporter. It's the "relatively normal" part that is murky. Gerntrash (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The specialty news outlets so far presented aren't adequate to establish due WP:WEIGHT. What do the Washington Post, NYT, CNN, etc say about his politics? That's how we should be determining what is relevant enough to include in the background. VQuakr (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hospitalized Victims

It's now being reported that all the hospitalized victims refused to meet with Trump when he came to visit them (though 2 who had been released did meet him). This, along with the fact that O'Rourke did not want him to come, seems worth mentioning, considering that the article already mentions protests by non-victims in response to his visit. 206.45.7.58 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Reactions

@Bathtub Barracuda: Please explain why you think we need separate sections, most of which, as of now, contain a single sentence, for every country other than the US and Mexico in which a reaction occurred. In most cases, the Reactions section ends up being pared back significantly very shortly after an event of this type, and I don't agree that it should become even more bloated by creating multiple sections where one "International" section will do. Also, as I noted, the Vatican is not located in Latin America. General Ization ^Talk 04:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Reactions" section is now as long if not longer than the text about the shooting. This is a common problem caused by WP:RECENTISM when too many reactions by foreign leaders are listed. This needs to be pruned back to a more realistic length. France's reaction is particularly non-notable, it is routine stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Ian, perhaps we should merge this section and the one just above? General Ization ^Talk 04:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

done.----♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The action in on itself has attracted international reactions and as such these should be documented and exposed, length of section is irrelevant as an argument and the inclusion of each country simply fits the already established format initiated by the US and Mexico. Either reformat or desist, but don't delete sourced information. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Sourced content is regularly removed when it becomes WP:UNDUE relative to the subject of the article and the content's importance to an understanding of the subject. This is called editorial oversight. This is not a newspaper. Also see WP:10YT. General Ization ^Talk 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a classic mistake to include a laundry list of reactions by foreign leaders. The article now has major problems in this area. "It's sourced information" is irrelevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As for "the already established format initiated by the US and Mexico", these are the two countries most directly affected by this event, and their reactions will of course receive more extensive treatment than that from places far removed, where the reactions are often pro forma. General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Information I've included is concise and, aside from the French inclusion, quite relevant. If other parts of the article have problems regarding length and poor redaction, then improve those sections. Don't worsen the quality of the article as an information source. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, what I'm hearing is a lot of WP:IDHT. You have two experienced editors telling you Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for this type of content, based on (sadly enough) nearly 30 years of experience between us. Do you really want to pursue this, or will you take the time to read the guidance we have shared with you? General Ization ^Talk 04:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ad verecundiam doesn't intimidate me, but I find disappointing the lack of bravado or intent into bettering the first part of the "Reactions" section and instead gatekeeping new additions which are subjectively more representative of how a "reaction" section should look for an event that has attracted international attention. The US and Mexico parts are the real offenders of all guidelines you kindly suggested and with which I am familiar. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you just said (after ad verecundiam, I understood that perfectly). Could you answer my question, please? General Ization ^Talk 04:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The plethora of recentist inclusions are already within the "US" and "Mexico" which consitutes 70% of the section's length. If you two are genuinelly interested in the quality of the article, then focuss on those parts, or dismiss altoghether the "Reactions" section. Travel warnings are state issued documents, and are quite relevant.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I think I've got it. So you think we should remove reactions in the US and Mexico in favor of more reactions from Europe and Asia, when the event occurred in the US and the individuals killed were US and Mexican citizens, the latter apparently targeted by the shooter. Did I get that right? General Ization ^Talk 04:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Not more relevant by nature, but equally relevant and more representative of the magnitude of reach.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about that. Are you surprised that this event made news around the world? Do you think we need to prove that somehow? Because we don't, and there is no need to include the "magnitude" of international responses in this article. Let's take it as a given that it is a momentous event, especially for the citizens of the US and Mexico. General Ization ^Talk 05:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC) General Ization ^Talk 05:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to prove anything, we have to inform. Look, we both have our own perception of what constitutes the philosophy, deontology and aim of redaction. But the fact of the matter is that the reactions part was just a display of political swaying. At least the information I've provided is more WP:NEUTRAL and likely less transient than what Beto O'Rourke twitted about Donald Trump.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The international section should be no bigger than it is: the UN Secretary General, the Pope, and the travel warnings from two countries.-- MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There is now WP:IDHT because it has been pointed out that the article is about the shooting, not peripheral topics like foreign leaders' reactions to it and travel warnings. Do you really want the article overloaded with this stuff?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Because 10 different paragraphs on how the season's flavor tries to politicize this event are the standard of quality we should aim towards?Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ianmacm. However, I think the UN statement is notable enough to mention. QuestFour (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So is the Japan travel warning. I would agree that perhaps the Emmanuel Macron inclusion is intranscendental and transient, but it doesn't differentiate from the other reactions already provided. The Pope Francis i didn't include myself but seems relevant enough as well.Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bathtub Barracuda will be detained for a time and unable to respond further here in the interim. General Ization ^Talk 05:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The notice by the Japanese Consulate was in response to the Dayton Shooting and is more appropriate on that page.--Nowa (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

United States

I made an edit trimming this part of the reaction section, which was later reverted with a request to discuss it here. My edit also contained a grammar fix or two, removed some proseline, and combined the different paragraphs about gun control into one. Those things should be uncontroversial. On to the trimming:

• In general, it's better to paraphrase than to have the section filled to the brim with quotation marks (some of which could definitely be considered MOS:SCAREQUOTES). Excessive quotation marks impede readability by breaking up the text and look unprofessional (not to mention ugly – visual appeal is a consideration that should not be overlooked).
• We don't need to quote Trump as saying the attack was cowardly or hateful, nor that he offers support or thoughts and prayers. These are completely unremarkable things for him to say regarding an event such as this. The things he said about racism, bigotry, and white supremacy are less unremarkable, which is why I didn't remove that part.
• Similarly, other people expressing grief or condemnation need not be quoted. Again, completely unremarkable. It's enough to mention that they made statements (or even to leave it out altogether).
• Dan Patrick's views on the role of religion don't seem terribly relevant here. I don't particularly think his views on the role of video games is all that relevant either, but at least he's not the only politician to make that argument and he did refer to the manifesto to (kind of) back it up.
• The WP:WikiVoice rebuttal about video games at the end of the paragraph makes it look like we only include Patrick and McCarthy saying this in order to tell the reader that they are wrong, which runs counter to WP:NPOV (Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.).
• Walmart's statement is very run-of-the-mill, and constitutes a single-sentence paragraph.

Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Cited Buzzfeed News in the text for the rebuttal to Patrick. starship.paint (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• You shouldn't remove the quotes of what the president and Texas governor said. Dream Focus 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I have trimmed/paraphrased the governor's quote and eliminated Kevin McCarthy, who does not have a close enough connection to this situation to merit citing. I see that someone has trimmed Cruz's and O'Rourke's relevant quotes to a simple "issued statements", which is worse than useless; they are close to this situation and I will add a paraphrase for them. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Please change "Police believe that the suspect published a white nationalist, anti-immigrant manifesto on social media immediately before the attack"

"Police believe that the suspect published a white nationalist, anti-immigrant manifesto on social media immediately before the attack" is in correct. They said they are aware but can not confirm that the shooter did post the manifesto online. They also said the FBI is investigating the link which 8chan owner said that he provided them with evidence that the shooter did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N0tl0c (talk • contribs)

I would like to help you but it is properly sourced from a Wikipedia:Reliable source. If you find a reliable source to the contrary, please feel free to edit it in. ~mitch~ (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism

@MelanieN: does not including "he" in the quote of the last sentence in the aftermath section qualifies as WP:PLAG or WP:CV? QuestFour (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We should not include anything in quotes, because that makes it look like we are quoting him - which we are not; nobody has attributed those specific words to him, only that he was trying to shoot "Mexicans". I have rephrased it and gotten rid of the quotes. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

QuestFour, your edit changed the meaning completely, by making it seem the police were saying it, when it was his own confession. MelanieN's solution is satisfactory.

Your "plagiarism" objection doesn't hold water. When you put it in quotes, you are signaling that it is not your own words, ergo, you are not plagiarizing. (You are not pretending that someone else's work is your own.) There was even a RS showing it was the shooter who said it. There are also other factors involved, such as fair use and copyright.

Fair use allows attributed quoting and publication of copyrighted works, without permission, within certain size limitations. The amount that is covered varies enormously, from a phrase, a sentence, or even a whole article or complete document. Courts determine the quantity which violates fair use, depending on the need for the public to know. I suspect that "fair use" would cause Christopher Steele to lose any copyright violation case he were to file against BuzzFeed, if he were inclined to file such a suit. They published the complete(*) Trump–Russia dossier without his permission, a clear copyright violation. He was upset about that, but has not filed suit. A patriot like him is more interested in the public good than personal profit. In a separate defamation suit, the court sided with BuzzFeed on the grounds that their publication of the dossier was in the public interest.

(*) I say "complete," but there was much more which was part of Steele's research which is not part of the published dossier. Just check the page numbering; there is a whole lot "missing." I strongly suspect that the FBI has that research, and many people are probably nervous about that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I "removed" the "quotes" around "Mexicans". No need to attribute regular single words. Just seems "sarcastic" or like we're arbitrarily "highlighting" something. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I put the quotes ( edited(back in), it reads as an inline refrence now I hope. Suspect's words should be attributed so it does not sound like WP:VOICETeeVeeed (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've clarified how suspects don't lodge complaints against themselves. Pretty sure all parties involved know what a Mexican is, hence the reporter just writing it. Not jailhouse lingo or journalese. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with it now, but we still don't want to call targets/victims "Mexicans" in the voice of WP is my point. Whoever said it, we are not saying it-thanks.TeeVeeed (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Why not? Is it insulting to refer to Mexicans that way? Cops and press do it, as does this article elsewhere already. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Well for one thing it is kind of ambiguious and not setting it off as a quote will have editors going back and forth between "people with Mexican heritage", or "Mexican-Americans", or people from Mexico...". And we do not know what was meant there, so leaving it as a quote is clear. I just noticed that in the suspect's manifesto, the term "Hispanic" was used. That seems odd to me if he is going to use the random word "Mexicans" in a confession? But just leavimg it in a quote is safer all around here so that editors do not have to keep trying to change prferred or specific terms. TeeVeeed (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I think people who will wonder what he means by "Mexican" will also wonder what anyone means by it, and don't see how quotation marks make anything clearer. Either way, he says the word we say Garcia said he said. I think he would've said he was after Hispanics if he meant to (could've saved himself a long trip to the Mexican border, too). There's nothing "random" about a dude who just shot both sorts of Mexicans calling his targets Mexicans after calling himself the shooter. If someone fiddles with his words out of personal intuition, just revert them like you would any bit of original research messing with the verifiable cited truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed "primarily" from "trying", hope whoever imagined that adverb doesn't mind. Just begs the question of secondary targets. Democrats? Republicans? "Others"? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about the quotemarks in the Miranda sentence – I'm a bit confused – they are not present in the cited source, so we're quoting the source, not the perp. For all we know the word "Mexicans" could be a paraphrase by the reporters who wrote that piece. Since it's impossible to clarify who we're quoting in an acceptable way – I don't think we're going to insert "(the word used in the source)" – the quotemarks should be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The arrest warrant is clear, though not in that source (WaPo hosts a copy): "The defendant stated his target were 'Mexicans'." That's the detective quoting the defendant, Crusius. Some news reports swap the "were" for "(was)", but the grammar is still off. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll get to work finding that and adding it as a second citation. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done – [4] – I also substituted the WaPo piece for the AP piece, since it does use quotemarks. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Crusius confessed on the 3rd and the affidavit is from the 4th. The 9th is only when the news stories broke. Three times now, somebody's conflated it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And QuestFour reverts for four. Says it's sourced. WaPo clearly says filed "Sunday, the day after", and the affidavit doesn't stutter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Especially if you read it from your hips ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

With your hips, no lie. No Shakiring necessary for the Sunday bit, though, just make like a Guano Ape and open your eyes. QuestFour has apparently seen the light regarding that time of the month (or just doesn't want war), but is still insistent upon reiterating the targeting occured "during the attack". I can't dispute the truth of this matter, but it seems a little too obvious. Anybody care to clarify why extra bonus clarity matters? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Should other incidents at other Walmarts in the days after the incident be included in the Aftermath section?

In the current aftermath of the El Paso shooting the response of Walmart corporate and incidents that have occurred at surrounding stores are still being reported on. While the Aftermath includes the response of corporate and the attempt by a employee to create company change, should there be inclusion of the general amount of potential similar incidents or those attempting to copy/were inspired by the El Paso shooter. These incidents include

1. August 8 - In Springfield, Missouri a 20-year-old man was arrested after wearing body armor and carrying a loaded rifle into a Walmart and recorded himself in the store. He was arrested and charged with making a terrorist threat.

2. August 7 - In Federal Way, Washington a man made threats in a Walmart which caused an evacuation and lock down. It was later discovered that the man was carrying a BB gun and looking for BB gun ammunition, but allegedly made comments about "shooting up the store" while those around him did not know the weapon to be fake.

3. August 7 - An unidentified man walked into a Florida Walmart and asked a clerk "for anything that would kill 200 people", although the man left with those evacuating after the intercom was used to announce for all employees and customers to evacuate the store

These are just a few incidents that I was able to find, and do not include the other incidents of individuals being murdered in the parking lots of the stores or guns being drawn during check out line arguments (which have happened in the same time span). Should they be included in the Aftermath section as it shows either the hypervigiliance that many go into after a shooting (such as the mass evacuation of Times Square on August 7, 2019) or potential copycats/similarities? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I've reverted two of these because there seemed to be problems with WP:NOTNEWS. There need to be direct links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Some kind of causation seems likely. But I would omit unless RS discuss possible causation – with a certain weight, more than one sentence in one source – and I don't see that in the cited sources. Simply mentioning El Paso is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I lean towards Include this type of information. We don't have to give specifics, but it makes sense to indicate that this incident, like many high-profile acts of violence, have spawned copycats in the days after it. Gwenhope (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Time for a common name yet?

As some of you may be aware, article titles are typically based on a common name. Roughly zero reliable sources currently call it by our current title. Time (the popular magazine, not the bedrock of history) calls it the El Paso Walmart shooting and I agree, that's absolutely perfect in description, distinction and triangularity ("El Paso" counts as one point).

Aye? Nay? Too soon? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current title.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

When an event acquires an iconic name like Oklahoma City bombing, Boston Marathon bombing, or September 11 attacks, our article should use that name. Otherwise I'm not a fan of spending time trying to determine what string of words has a plurality in Google searches, even Google News searches. Readers searching for your suggested title will find it with its current title, as seen here. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad people can find it on Google. I was more concerned with the highly unusual title they see when they arrive, but not extremely worried. It's just a questionable choice and headlines made me question it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That's already a redirect so a search will bring them here. They may not even notice that the article here has a different title than the one they searched for. This title is in line with many other such articles here, but it could be reconsidered after a year or two if the common name has proven to be something else. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How about if a second candidate hasn't emerged by January 1, 2020? El Paso shooting is disqualified despite its recent popularity, for clear vagueness. Other than that, it seems the race has boiled down to one between hungry young Walmart (RS) and tired old 2019 (OR). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

House Republican Conference reaction: blame the left

The Tampa Bay Times reported that they obtained a constituent newsletter email from Congressman Gus Bilirakis including a section his spokesman attributes to the House Republican Conference, instructing Republicans to, "steer the conversation away from white nationalism to an argument that implies both sides are to blame," and states that they, "can’t excuse violence from the left such as the El Paso shooter, the recent Colorado shooters, the Congressional baseball shooter, Congresswoman Giffords' shooter and Antifa." It's appropriate to include this as a reaction, is it not? EllenCT (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems this is overall advice on the general media strategy for Republicans on any shooting that might make voting for the party seem like a bad idea. Had they not considered blaming their only competitors for society's problems before? If this letter is truly a reaction to this shooting, I think it belongs (should certainly be in its author's article ASAP). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

On second look, his spokeswoman says whoever wrote this meant to type "Dayton shooter". If she's telling the truth, it's not a reaction to this one. If she's lying to win over a reporter who believes the El Paso bit is false (and he does), we'd still need another source calling her on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Secondary source on correspondence between manifesto and talking points

I am returning this section, formerly titled, "El Paso manifesto correspondence with Trump and alt-right talking points," from the archives because of the publication of this secondary source from the New York Times discussed below. EllenCT (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I feel like we should do something with the diagram in this tweet. Any objections to using it alone to say something like, e.g., "The manifesto includes passages corresponding directly to at least ten rhetorical talking points employed by Trump and the alt-right media," or should we wait for someone to write them all up? Or just source the ten sub-sources directly? EllenCT (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting diagram, but original research. We need to wait until a reliable secondary source picks it up.--Nowa (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like total nonsense. Was the president the first person to use the word "invasion" to refer to illegal immigration? Did no one else use it besides him? Dream Focus 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not, but most certainly repeatedly, recently, emphatically, and in nationally televised stump speeches, right? It's the quality, quantity, reach, and context of the correspondences which make this shocking. I'm sure we will see them in a nice secondary source soon enough. And I'd be surprised if they don't end up in the shooter's criminal case, too, although I'd say the prosecution is just as likely to bring them up as the defense, even in preliminaries, unless insanity is pleaded. EllenCT (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Peters, Jeremy W.; Grynbaum, Michael M.; Collins, Keith; Harris, Rich; Taylor, Rumsey (12 August 2019). "How the El Paso Killer Echoed the Incendiary Words of Conservative Media Stars". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 August 2019.</ref>

“ The portrayal of immigration as a menace has returned with force, a shift brought on not just by radio and TV hosts, but by Republican leaders in Congress and the president himself. This year Mr. Trump has used the terms “invasion” or “invaded” seven times on Twitter to describe the situation at the border, at one point referring to the approach of the migrants as “the attempted Invasion of Illegals.” At rallies, he has injected terms like “predator,” “killer,” and “animal” in his descriptions of immigrants.

The Trump-friendly media world — from outlets like Sinclair Broadcast Group and The Drudge Report to platforms like Breitbart News and Gateway Pundit — has used similar incendiary rhetoric. “The fact of the matter is that this is an attempted invasion of our country — period,” Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump campaign adviser, said last year in a commentary on migrants that aired on nearly 200 Sinclair television stations.

At the start of the El Paso suspect’s screed, he refers to the “great replacement,” a white supremacist conspiracy theory based on a French book that claims the migration of minority groups can lead to a “genocide” of white culture.

The El Paso suspect, who confessed to the mass shooting last week, claimed in the document he posted to be defending against a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” The words “invasion” and “invaders” appear six times in the text, a stark parallel to the language heard on conservative television and talk radio today....

”

The story goes on at great length on dozens of other correspondences among the El Paso, Christchurch, Pittsburgh synagogue, and Charlottesville demonstration screeds, surveying several diverse right-wing media outlets. EllenCT (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see anything unusual or noteworthy. Mass media has always popularized words and phrases, and Trump is the biggest celebrity the world has ever known (in terms of sheer coverage). He sure didn't invent the term "invader", but many hours and pages have been devoted to his usage of it, vastly multiplying the prevalence till it's quickly accepted as an all-around common term, like "pussy", "shithole", "huge", "covfefe" or "you're fired" (or "smackdown", "jabroni", "people's champion", "candy-ass" and "just bring it"). Even I, who generally like Mexicans and variety in writing, can't think of a better word to describe a foreigner who enters a state and changes the local environment, so don't blame this author or the press for being repetitive. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, the NYT didn't survey several diverse right-wing media outlets, it combed five years of transcripts from Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, all 24-hour TV channels in the exact same ratings battle, and all heavily reliant on echoing Trumpisms for the latter half. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Your personal disagreement with the NYT's reporting and interpretations doesn't really matter; it's still WP:DUE and worth mentioning, though possibly with an inline citation to make it clear who is making this analysis. If you think it's not unusual or noteworthy, and want that dismissal to be noted, you'd have to find a source actually criticizing the NYT's coverage - arguing against it here on talk is delving into WP:FORUM stuff. We don't decide what we think sources should or shouldn't say and exclude sources based on that, we cover what they do say. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm disagreeing with the proposed reflection of the source, due to what it says. It's not a right-wing, alt-right or Trump buzzword, it's on all three major American news channels, spiking last year. Source also says it's unclear whether the author even watched that stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

On a personal level, all I'm really saying is the mainstream idea of controversial Mexican immigrants as "invaders" is not new or worse than ever lately. My original research found many CNN stories running with it between 2006 and 2015, just online, that don't mention Trump, only the other presidents. If there was a better short word for "illegal/undocumented immigrant/immigration", we'd all have heard about it by now. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The term "invasion" is not synonymous with "illegal". The first has to do with mass and creates images of floods of people pouring over the border. "Illegal/undocumented immigrant/immigration" doesn't have to carry such connotations. Stephen Miller/Trump have chosen the word "invasion" to alarm Trump's base and demonize immigrants, including legal immigrants, unless they are Europeans of the "right color" and wealth. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course "invader" has an antagonistic tone. That's why anti-immigrant types prefer it and pro-immigrant types don't. But each type is for or against for an assortment of reasons, not just a swarm of Democrat bees versus a carpet of Republican ants, led by respective queens and signals.

I've not heard Trump or Miller warn about Mexicans forming voting blocs in Texas, nor advocate shooting a few to scare the rest away. And I've not heard Crusius call them rapists and murderers, nor express a preference for rich white Nordic invaders. Both working their crowds against a common enemy, but two clearly different crowds, agendas, platforms and paths to fame (not to mention one becoming old enough to kill and vote for his government while a black president was old news, and the other blooming in the sepia Cornwall summer of '64, a full year before Barry Mcguire even raised the age of majority issue, way before Alice Cooper and Skid Row "returned with a force").

In a perfect world without a dearth of viable synonyms, every subfaction of jealous paranoid patriot could use its own word, but in actual America, the scarcity is real and sharing is inevitable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not the diagram, which is original research by a nobody - and would be too much for the article in any case. The NYT article is suggestive, but it writes with such a broad brush - and mentions multiple other shootings in addition to this one - that I don't think it belongs here. Perhaps a summary sentence or two could be used at Racial views of Donald Trump. (What would be more instructive, but would probably be done only by an academic rather than a newspaper, would be a comparison of the use of words like "invasion" before and after 2015. In other words, is this new language in the era of Trump, or was it already an established theme of discourse on the subject?) -- MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There's also Immigration policy of Donald Trump, in case it turns out to be a matter of national security, finance or law that just naturally left an opening to call Orange Joe a racist (or man whose remarks on a non-border town "carry inherent racism", in this case) for the billionth time since The American Dream died (seriously, Trump announced his intent to nationalize the country again when Dusty Rhodes died on John Wayne's ghost's birthday, five days before explicitly declaring his primary problems with invading Mexicans to be crime, drugs and rape). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Newsweek reported on one of the authors singled out in the NYT piece, Todd Starnes, as having used the word "invasion" to describe Hispanic immigration in, "the Fox News corner of the world."

“ Starnes explained that The Times stated that the El Paso mass shooter echoed some of the words that Fox News personalities have used, and owned up to it.

"Specifically it's a word that I've been using for years now about what's happening at our border and I do believe that we have been invaded," Starnes said, "That we have been invaded by a horde, a rampaging horde, of illegal aliens...."

The radio host then said American families have been victims of crimes by illegal aliens, who are not all violent but "a good many are...."

Starnes went on to explain what his definition of an invasion is: "Well when you have one group of people, it doesn't matter if its 25 or if it's 25,000, but when you have one group of people crossing the border of another country without that country's permission, in my estimation that is in fact what we would call an invasion."

”

Other right-wing media figures who have responded to the Times piece include Rush Limbaugh, Ben Shapiro (on behalf of Tucker Carlson, apparently), Alex Marlow, Erick Erickson, Mark Simone, and Dom Giordano. I expect this to be something of an ongoing conversation, and reiterate my opinion that it would serve the reader to summarize it. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a serviceable summary. But these new sources only reinforce my view that this is more about dueling political news entities responding to each other's reactions to the shooting, shooter and document, less about those catalysts themselves. Would you mind summarizing in the Reaction section? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)