Talk:Ohio State University attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possibility it was a mass stabbing

Hearing these reports, including the CBS one cited, this is starting to become increasingly likely in my opinion. Of course, nothing is confirmed, but can I hear anyone else's thoughts on it? Parsley Man (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone on IRC said that it is believed to be a duo, one with a machete and one with a firearm. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

On CNN they said the shots people heard were from the cops. They said it was a knife attack and possibly he tried to drive his truck into a building/crowd. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed what I said above here. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Seems like it was a mass stabbing all along. Parsley Man (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

See the twitter post. Moving it to more neutral title. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to start a move war. Do you have multiple references saying they came from the police? That's not according to the Dispatch article. "One person had a gun and another appeared to have a large knife." Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm listening to CNN reports right now. They're clarifying the gunshots came from responding police officers. Parsley Man (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If nothing is unusual about this crime, then it should be merged per WP:NOTNEWS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Gun was present as well as knife (two people). Unclear it gun was fired. [1] EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Article summarized

I have summarized the article here: List of attacks related to post-secondary schools#2010 – 2016. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait until more information comes in. Parsley Man (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no deadline. General Ization ^Talk 17:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll have you know that articles like the University of California, Merced stabbing attack, which had a lower amount of victims, was considered notable enough to stay. Certainly this can also be applicable. Parsley Man (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This was because the suspect was investigated for lone wolf terrorism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Patience. He'll be identified soon enough, and it will all come out. Profhum (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Two perpetrators?

Can someone provide a source behind that? Because I'm still listening to CNN, and everyone's pretty content that there are no attackers outside of the one reported dead. Parsley Man (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. General Ization ^Talk 17:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Cleveland.com EvergreenFir (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Could be the "initial report syndrome" at work. I suggest we wait until a police statement is released. Parsley Man (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Law enforcement sources said a car rammed Watts Hall about 9:40 a.m., and at least two people got out of the car." General Ization ^Talk 17:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Just saw the live press conference on CNN. They asserted there was only one suspect and they did not find any others during the sweep of the area. Parsley Man (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not exactly what they said. Let's wait for reliable coverage of the conference just concluded. General Ization ^Talk 18:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Parsley, it's a not a "conspiracy theory". It's what reliable sources report at this time. General Ization ^Talk 18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I'll play your game. Parsley Man (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, why argue? Wait. Profhum (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Now we can update the article. "Despite rumors of a second suspect, police and campus officials say there was one person involved in the attack." [2] I suggest that this be included in the article almost verbatim, still acknowledging the original reports. Parsley, please feel free to remove your (premature) edits declaring that there were two perpetrators. General Ization ^Talk 18:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up Daily Mail is saying that a black and a white person were arrested relating to the stabbing. It further states that later the police said they did not find any additional suspects. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3978944/Active-shooter-reported-Ohio-State-University.html#article-3978944) Seems to me the detained people were released later on as there might be not enough to connect them with the shooting and early reports of other suspects being arrested were based on their arrest. 117.199.90.175 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mail shouldn't be trusted if there is a better source. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested move title: 2016 Ohio State University attack

Resolved

Including the year seems useful, but more importantly calling it an attack seems more accurate because a car was part of the event, not just a knife. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. General Ization ^Talk 18:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this move and have marked this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator

Columbus station WBNS-TV is reporting on-air that car and home being searched by police belong to a 20-year-old Somali man named Mohammed Ali (spelling unconfirmed), based on the station running the plate on the car. The car is a grey or silver Honda Civic, apparently showing evidence of substantial collision damage. Not yet citable. General Ization ^Talk 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

CBSNews.com now reports the suspect was "a young man of Somali descent ... believed to be around 20 years old" (not identified). WBNS-TV reports the suspect's name vehicle is registered to a Mohammad Ali, but that has not yet been confirmed by other sources. General Ization ^Talk 18:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

CNBC says suspect if thought to be an Ohio State student in the U.S. as a legal refugee from Somalia.[3]E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspect named, more details: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/active-shooter-reported-ohio-state-university-campus-n689076. Fences&Windows 20:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd suggest we wait for other sources to confirm, since the name is at odds with previous reports (and we want to get it right). General Ization ^Talk 20:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WBNS-TV has removed the name quoted above from their Web site. (Striking reports above for clarity.) Owner of the vehicle may not be the decedent.General Ization ^Talk 20:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

CBSNews reports "A federal law enforcement official tells CBS News that the man shot and killed in the incident at Ohio State University has been identified as 18-year-old Abdul Ali Artan, a Somali refugee and student at Ohio State. Officials have not said when or where he entered the United States." General Ization ^Talk 20:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

When new facts added, new sources need to be added too

Many of the article's facts are not supported by the cited sources.

When refining facts, please also refine the cited source, and delete any deadwood sources, or move them to where they are still germane. (side ping to Parsley Man. Please add new citations as needed.

As an aside, please include Edit Summaries. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Helicopters photo

A very minor point, but do we know that both of the helicopters depicted in the photo are being operated by police agencies? I work not far from the scene, and I can tell you that the air was thick with copters, including those of local television stations. I'm not sure the photo really adds anything of value to the article anyway. The Lane Avenue garage is close to but was not the scene of the attack. General Ization ^Talk 21:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. I changed the caption to "Helicopters circling over the Lane Ave Garage". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but the helicopter closest to the photographer should be the Columbus police one (see closeup pic). The police helicopter was the one circling around the Lane Avenue Garage; the news helicopters were forced further out to give the crime scene space. Without absolute certainty though, I think leaving Another's caption is the best bet. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

New Category Category:Muslim Related Attacks Suggested

I tried to create this category and the edits were reverted as "vandalism". I think it would help categorize all these attacks to know what the actual count is of muslim related violentce. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Many issues... WP:OR and WP:DEFINE come to mind. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is "Muslim-related violence" that can be supported by WP:RS. Parsley Man (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"Abdul Razak Ali Artan (c. 1998 – November 28, 2016), was a Somali refugee and legal permanent resident of the United States who had been attending OSU at the time of the attack.[15][16][17] Artan, a Muslim, previously attended Columbus State Community College from the fall of 2014 to the summer of 2016, and graduated with an associate of arts degree, after which he transferred to OSU." You were saying? Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what kind of stigma and implications would come from a category like "Muslim Related Violence"? We already have specific, more straightforward categories like "Islamic terrorism". We don't need some broad category that'll take any article just because the person involved happens to be a Muslim. Parsley Man (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I just think it would be helpful to president elect Trump to have all these attacks listed in a category when he tries to get some answers from Wikipedia as to how many and from where, and to be honest, I think it would helpful for most of us in the US to know that. Just a suggestion. As for stigma issues, that should not be used to justify censorship ever. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Octoberwoodland: Okease see WP:DEFINING. Also suggesting a categories like this is rather arbitrary venturing into WP:OR. We do not (and should not) have Category:Men's violence, Category:Christian violence, Category:Hispanic violence, Category:Schizophrenic violence, Category:Rural violence, etc. Sorting events of violence by demographics is frequently POV, often contains OR, and likely not a defining characteristic. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

...I really doubt Trump is going to use Wikipedia as his reference... Parsley Man (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There's already categories for Islamic terrorism. Besides "Muslim Related Attacks" especially the Muslim related is very vague. Does it mean any attack by Muslims, even non-terror? Or attack on Muslims? Or specifically Islamic terrorism? It can be intrepetted in any way. The latter one as I already said has a category and a new unclear category simply with a name of a group with Related Attack next to it doesn't make sense. 117.199.90.175 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Removing Merge proposal

Boldly removing page merge tag; unwarranted WP:DISRUPT of breaking news articles. I suggest that someone should similarly close the AFD. We can revisit later. (revelation: I lean towards keeping articles on major violent attacks) Reason is, these are DISRUPTions of the process of building an article on a breaking news story, and make the page unfriendly to users turning to WP for a summary account of a current event. I am all about being user-friendly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith..... You should be careful when using WP:DISRUPT as it does not refer to disruption with readers, but to disruptive editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Although I do not know this editor, It is always WP:DISRUPTive to post an AFD on a developing news story getting major media attention. Because I often edit and create articles on attacks soon after they occur, I know that editors who feel strongly - despite longstanding consensus to keep - that attacks of this kind should not be on Wikipedia. Editors who feel this way often rapidly regularly take articles on attacks to AFD, this has the impact of making editors unwilling to help build the articles. I apologize for not being clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Its okay, but for the record I had nothing to do with the AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

True. I ought to have made that point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Propose adding 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing to See Also

• The 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack is the closest parallel I am aware of. It is a case in which a politcally motivated man target a group of pedestrians with a car ramming attack, then emerged from the car and began stabbing them. Editor removing it form list claims that comparison in inappropriate because this attack was not in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't see why not. XavierItzm (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Please continue this discussion above where it originated. Closing this. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lede should cite the claimants for responsibility

So, for instance, the Nice attack (same modus operandi as the Ohio State jihadi) does state on the lede that the Islamic State claimed responsibility. This article should do the same. Note that authorities having concluded the terrorist was following advice from one or more imams is entirely different. XavierItzm (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, until we have a reliable source that indicates otherwise. We also need to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are in no hurry to include information.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States

An editor (who I think should have known better, based on their edit count) has already attempted to add Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States. C'mon, folks. We know nothing about motive at this time, and not everyone who is Somali is an Islamic terrorist. General Ization ^Talk 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

We should wait for information about the motive whether it was Islmaist, the category should not be added because he is a Somali. 117.199.90.175 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to wait. The perpetrator is almost certain to have left some evidence as to what his motivation was and from than we can make a determination on whenever or not the Islamic terrorism category is valid or not.--67.68.21.181 (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Either way, we must be ready and prepared for the right-wingers and Islamophobes who'd prefer to jump the gun. Parsley Man (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Must also be ready for the deniers. People who deny reality, such as WP:RS that state the terrorist killed under the influence of Anwar-al-Alaki, the imam and islamic lecturer. XavierItzm (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The source you provided doesn't explicitly mention any of that. Please read WP:NPOV. Parsley Man (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ABC/Associated Press? Man, talk about issues with reality-based WP:RS!!!. Note: I am the one who added the ABC source. XavierItzm (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DailyBeast is still questionable to me (and others). Not a history or track record of reliability (like HuffPo). If the info is correct, either find it elsewhere or wait for a better source. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't care which source you're talking about; it does not explicitly state that this person was a terrorist who killed under the influence of a radical Muslim cleric like you're suggesting. Parsley Man (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I should really emphasize that I did not add Daily Beast nor reference it any point. I added ABC/Associated Press. XavierItzm (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. You still claimed that the "person was a terrorist who killed under the influence of a radical Muslim cleric". ABC/AP does not explicitly confirm that. Parsley Man (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The terrorist's post cited muslim cleric and islamic lecturer Anwar al-Awlaki (the US citizen targeted and killed in 2011 by a guided US drone strike without indictment, trial, jury, nor judge). But you might be right, the Ohio State terrorist may not have been influenced by the imam and may instead have been concerned about the islamic lecturer's constitutional due process rights. I yield the point. XavierItzm (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't what exactly that reference entailed. For all we know, he may have criticized al-Awlaki. But we cannot draw our own conclusions from this just because a certain person or religion was mentioned. That's definite WP:OR. Parsley Man (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You are correct! The terrorist may very well have been criticizing the imam and islamic lecturer on the post where he stated "[if] you want us Muslims to stop carrying [out] lone wolf attacks". We simply don't know at this point and must wait for the authorities to come to their conclusions. This is why I yielded the point! XavierItzm (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm unable to tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere... Parsley Man (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I can only assert that XavierItzm is not being blind. By Parsley's logic, if any suicide bomber were to cause a terrorist incident, and leaves no notes behind except for the writing that he was Muslim and hated America, it could not considered a case of Islamic terrorism. By Parsley's logic, the evidence is just not there.
Artan purportedly said "America! Stop interfering with other countries ... [if] you want us Muslims to stop carrying [out] lone wolf attacks." Reality denial is a temporary luxury, afforded by those who reality will soon come to deny. Good luck with it.
--Hyperforin (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly right Hyperforin. Another of the reality denier's bubbles just popped: Islamic State says Ohio State attacker was its ‘soldier,’ reports the Washington Post. XavierItzm (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, ISIL and similar terrorist groups make such claims this all the time. They want the attention. They had claimed it for the recent 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing too. Given the available evidence, I consider it a lone wolf attack, but Islamic terrorism nonetheless. --Hyperforin (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Having the claim is relevant now, just as every other small bit of information included in this article. We do need to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that we have no deadline to include or remove information. Follow the sources, and in due time, I'm sure all of this information will become clear and sort itself out.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no rush, and I can't imagine why there needs to be some sort of urgency when it comes to these matters. People do not need Wikipedia to make the conclusions for themselves. Parsley Man (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Just because it's said "Though the investigation is ongoing, police have not concretely ruled out terrorism as a motive", it doesn't mean police have immediately settled on that as a motive. It's original research to jump to conclusions when the investigation hasn't even been finished. Also, the Facebook post doesn't exactly declare any allegiance to any terrorist groups; it's just a complaint about America "interfering with other countries". Parsley Man (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

live in denial if you wan't and edit war. it's islamic terrorism. his language was clear. he was intent on doing violence as a scorned 'lone wolf' muslin. SWF88 (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You are dangerously close to violating WP:3RR. Please desist with the edits and discuss civilly here if you want to avoid a ban. Parsley Man (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It is always interesting when an editor recently banned several times for violating the RR rules quenches other's edits by raising the specter of violations of the RR rules. In any event, User:SWF88 is correct that the facts speak for themselves. XavierItzm (talk)

They don't say the investigation is ongoing for nothing, you know... Parsley Man (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The Investigation section already presents sufficient evidence of links to Islamic terrorism. It may not be enough evidence for a court of law, but it is plenty sufficient to add a See Also link. If for example the investigation finds that the evidence was fabricated, unlikely as that would be, the link can be removed. --Hyperforin (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The evidence presented thus far shows only that he was critical of what he saw as the treatment of Muslims by "America". It does not show that this was the motive for yesterday's events (a determination not yet made by authorities), or that he was an Islamic terrorist. I am critical of many things, and I suspect you are also, but that does not make us terrorists. At this point he is a reported Muslim who violently (and from what we know so far, uncharacteristically) attacked some people for currently unknown reasons and lost his life in the process. General Ization ^Talk 15:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Authorities believe Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who attacked pedestrians Monday at the Ohio State University, was inspired by terrorist propaganda from ISIS and deceased Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, two law enforcement sources said." http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/us/ohio-state-university-attack/index.html 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Breaking news from CNN that investigators think this was indeed ISIL inspired. Parsley Man has updated the article. See CNN article EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

While it is true that I and others have indeed been proven wrong, this does not mean we should definitely jump the gun when it comes to these kinds of things. There is no urgency. Parsley Man (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Jump the gun? From the looks of it, you've been proven wrong practically all the time. Basically, there have been a spate of Islamic terrorist attacks in the US in 2016. These aren't consistently categorized and listed in Wikipedia, probably thanks to you. If you have a conflict of interest, please declare it. --Hyperforin (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hyperforin: Two articles for you to read: Assume good faith and Civility. You're failing on both counts. General Ization ^Talk 02:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the articles that aren't categorized consistently, which ones are you referring to, exactly? ^Falling_Gravity 04:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's not like the world is going to end if we don't classify one or a few or a good number of certain attacks as Islamic terrorism. We can wait until WP:RS can definitely support these suspicions. Wikipedia has no deadline. And I really do not appreciate this personal attack of yours. Parsley Man (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Parsley Man that patient is needed for situations like this. The way this article was handled is the model for this type of event imho. The moment investigators said Islamist terrorism is a likely motive and an rs reported it, it was added to the article and related pages. But we need to wait for investigators, especially for news like this. I hope future articles go as smoothly as this one did, despite what I'll chalk up to personality clashes. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: 2016 Minnesota mall stabbing and 2016 Ohio machete attack are missing various categories of Islamic terrorism. The list at Lone wolf (terrorism)#2016 is missing inclusion of these attacks. University of California, Merced stabbing attack has one but is missing some categories of Islamic terrorism. 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting is missing categories of Islamic terrorism. --Hyperforin (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley: Seriously, you're repeatedly coming in the way of cataloging of numerous articles related to Islamic terrorism. At minimum, for the articles I noted above, there is sufficient evidence. I am still unclear about your agenda here. --Hyperforin (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That is because there has been no confirmation from investigators that the aforementioned examples are indeed terrorist attacks. Unless you can find a reliable source that says they have reached that conclusion and the investigation is finished, it would be original research to say they were examples of Islamic terrorism when that hasn't been conclusively proven yet. We can't just immediately classify incidents because the perpetrator is of a certain race or ethnicity. Parsley Man (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Where is it written that we need confirmation from investigators as opposed, say, to confirmation form multiple ]]WP:R]]? Do we have a policy or guideline stipulating this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:RSBREAKING comes pretty close. Especially in the early stages of the investigation, WP:RS always says "suspected terrorism". That does not mean "confirmed terrorism". If that kind of wording and narrative is kept up, I think it's pretty safe to assume investigators have not concretely figured it out yet. WP:OR also comes into play here. Parsley Man (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If RS say it's terrorism then it can go in the article. We go by RS not necessarily by truth. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I really doubt "suspected" is the same as "confirmed", especially given that an investigation is ongoing. Parsley Man (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man remember that not all governments are reliable on this. Do you trust China when official investigators there allege Uyghur terrorism?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. I don't gravitate to that field of articles. Parsley Man (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Concur with User:Sir Joseph, noting that Parsley Man fails to produce a specific policy, we do what we always do on WP, we rely on WP:RS and, in this case, we call it terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And what if RS says "suspected terrorism"? What do you make of that? Parsley Man (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • You know, if you're so concerned about people contesting this, you should take this issue to WP:VPP. Parsley Man (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"See also" links gone wild

We really need to discuss how much to let the "See also" section grow. It's one thing to add situations at other US universities or incidents with folks of Somali descent. But the addition of 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack seems out of bounds. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume you meant the See also section and have retitled this Talk section accordingly. General Ization ^Talk 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching that. Changed! -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed it for now with an edit summary urging anyone who disagrees to take it to the talk page first. Parsley Man (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Parsely Man: to revert his edit in compliance with instructions given to him at ANI. Let's let other editors weigh in on this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I added it because the modus operandi was identical. Perp first rams group of pedestrians with car, then jumps out of the car and begins stabbing random people. It's a pretty unusual combo. I see no reason to limit See also to links to U.S. Note how widely this is being compared in major media to the 2016 Nice attack, which was not in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Nice attack was mentioned by Daily Beast/Newsweek, and there are no other prominent mentions. So does not appear to be "widely" compared to that. This section should not link to any and all articles with similar tactics, or it would be a very long list -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I read the comparison in the Washington Post and heard it on NPR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fuzheado, Do you know of another attack in which perp deliberately rammed a car into a group pf pedestrians, then got out of the car and commenced stabbing them?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This combo is an ISIS suggested tactic for lone wolfs to use any weapons at hand. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ABC states: "The attack comes as the ISIS terror group has been urging its followers in recent weeks to copy the vehicle attack that took place in Nice, France, when 84 people were killed by a terrorist driving a semi-truck through a Bastille Day celebration." Will add link back. XavierItzm (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Please do not. It does not say this was an act of terrorism or was even inspired by ISIL. It presents a loose connection, but does not assert it. WP:OR. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not see a problem with the "see also," which is simply links to similar events. Fox News has stated: "One source told Fox News that Artan's use of a car in the attack recalls a recent article in ISIS’s propaganda magazine Rumiyah, which included a blanket call to followers to mirror July’s mass casualty attack in Nice, France" . Will keep link. XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed so, but the "see also" section links to articles of similar attacks that occurred here in the U.S., which I think is a perfectly acceptable inclusion criteria. The Nice attack, on the other hand, sticks out like a sore thumb. Not to mention different vehicles were used and the targeted location was vastly different as well. Parsley Man (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If it sticks our not in your head is not very relevant, is it, now? We have a WP:RS directly making a comparison to the Nice attack, as called out by the Islamic State for fellow travelers to implement. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"If it sticks our not in your head is not very relevant, is it, now?" What?... Parsley Man (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor Parsley Man wrote "sticks out like a sore thumb" at 23:56, 28 November 2016. XavierItzm (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, apparently, but I'm not sure what you meant by the quoted statement. Parsley Man (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• 2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack should be added to See also section. Because attacker rams car into crowd (without noticing the bollards,) then gets out of car and begins stabbing people. A pattern that is rare, possibly unique to these 2 attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • At this point, you're probably going to need a WP:RS that details a comparison between these two incidents. Because if it's included in the "See also" section, it could require an unnecessarily lengthy summary as to why it's being included and it'd be better to write it in prose in the main body. Parsley Man (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Why? The Alon Shvut attack was someone driving into a crowd and then stabbing people. That is a perfect "See Also" candidate. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. Parsley Man (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The see also section really needs to be slimmed down. I think we need to pick the most relevantly similar attacks and include those only.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I made this page that is a test page for a list of knife attacks. If you would all be so kind as to visit it, make adjustments, give comments, etc on this, we may be able to reduce the see also length by including all of these attacks, especially if they are becoming more and more common.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Perp's pre-attack Facebook Post

Seeking a WP:RS full text version of Artan's Facebook post. The various media versions, and selective snippets presently in article give a limited, not to say bowdlerized version of the full statement. Jake Tapper is said ot have posted the full version. We need find that or another reliable source so that the bits can be put in order and in full sentences. OUr users would probably like us to have the full text. It's not long.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I did find a WP:RS on the full text post and it might already be on the article, but I've already lost its location. You can search around for it, but I need to go do something IRL. Hope this helps! Parsley Man (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it as per WP:BOLD. It is terrorist propaganda, plain and simple, and it has no place on Wikipedia. You could start an RfC if you want.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be in the article. Artan posted that statement online minutes before carrying out the attack. Those are his words and they relate to this event. Bus stop (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, sources vary on how to word the statement. I think a full text presentation is best at this point. Parsley Man (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see widespread consensus. I for one am very uncomfortable with it for the aforementioned reason.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20 's personal feelings are no reason for censoring out of wikipedia the FB posts. Multiple WP:RS have included the text and it should remain in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a link to an article detailing the full post on the "External links" section. Parsley Man (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal tells us, "Ms. Byers [Angela Byers, Special Agent in Charge at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Cincinnati field office] said officials are determining the authenticity of Facebook posts Mr. Artan may have made regarding his anger over perceived mistreatment of Muslims, and they are analyzing electronic devices found in a search of his home." (Korn, Melissa (November 20, 2016). "Ohio State Attacker May Have Been Inspired by ISIS". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 1, 2016.).Zigzig20s (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Parsley Man (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Including year in the title

Following the brief renaming of the University of California, Merced stabbing attack article to include the year, I'm afraid I'm going to have to question this article's title as well. We have many, many articles like Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech shooting, Northern Illinois University shooting, Umpqua Community College shooting, etc., etc., which obviously do not include the year. In fact, the only school attack article I can think of that has the year included is none other than this one. And I don't see why the year is necessary unless there's already another article about a past attack on OSU (aside from an article on a single-fatality shooting that wound up being deleted).

Thoughts on this? Parsley Man (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the title without the year would be rather vague. It would need to be something like, Ohio State University Knife Attack, or something similar. Maybe we should just leave it until we have more sourced information on the subject. If it is terrorism related, maybe that changes the title? I don't know, but I feel it is fine as it is at the moment.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"I think the title without the year would be rather vague." To be perfectly frank, I feel that that could be argued for all the other school attack articles as well, whether or not they're terrorism-related. Parsley Man (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with you. But just stating "Ohio State University Attack" could be in reference to anything, like some random assault that happened on campus or something. Where most other pages are like, "Virginia Tech Shooting" and "Columbine Massacre" which are titles that are absolutely unmistakable. The vagueness "attack" is the difference and in my opinion, the problem with removing the year.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: actually, pretty much all of these attacks with the same M.O., have the year in the title.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

As MordeKyle said, it is not unusual for large universities with lots of history to include the year. The 2006 UNC SUV attack is an example. Merced is an exception, but it's barely 10 years old (established 2005) so it does not have enough history for a year qualifier to make sense. An incident with a massive death toll (Virginia Tech's 33 killed) means it's significant enough on its own, without the year. We may want to revisit the naming consistency in the future, but for now it seems fine. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Perpetrator's age

He lived in a refugee camp in Pakistan from age 9 to age 16, moved to the US at 16, when he started college - graduating at 18? Why was he not in high school rather than college from 16 to 18? Did he graduate from high school by 16, whilst living in a refugee camp in Pakistan? Jim Michael (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

interesting. User:Jim Michael, there has been a series of migrants/refugees in Europe lying about their age (pretending to be young to get child refugee status) see Killing of Alexandra Mezher, I hope that you will keep an eye on this topic, although the graduation was from a junior college, he could have been a good student.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thousands of adults have claimed asylum in Europe falsely claiming to be under 18 in order to be classified as unaccompanied refugee minors. I don't know how common that is in the US. It's extremely unlikely that a kid in a refugee camp in Pakistan would have reached high school graduate level by 16. How did a 16-year-old start a college course? If the authorities believed he was 16, why wasn't he enrolled in high school? Do we have any evidence of his date of birth? Jim Michael (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We follow our sources, who report that he was or was believed to be 18 years of age. The sources for this are already cited in the article. General Ization ^Talk 13:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, in regard to your first question, he graduated from Columbus State with an Associate degree. In the US this is typically a two-year program. General Ization ^Talk 13:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The source says believed; it doesn't state it as fact. I know that it was a 2-year course, but is it normal to gain an associate degree at 18? Wouldn't a student typically have completed high school before starting a college course of any description? Jim Michael (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Other cited sources state 18 as his age. (Do you know how to view cited sources? Why should I need to point this out to you?) Since authorities believe his age to be 18, we should as well until and unless authorities determine otherwise and reliable sources report it. And we should not rely on our biases and assumptions about when and how someone should attend high school or graduate from college to deviate from our cited sources. General Ization ^Talk 15:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Jim, the Dual enrollment article says "In some cases, the student may even be able to attain an Associate of Arts or equivalent degree shortly before or after their high school graduation." This could be the case. But at 1:41 this video says "The suspect is reportedly 20 years old, born in Somalia, and a legal permanent resident of the US." Emily Goldstein (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The video on that link says he was 20, but the text of the article accompanying it says he was 18. Jim Michael (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So, how does an immigrant get away with faking his age? "investigators said official records conflicted on his actual age, and believed he may be older" (source: The NYT). Does not say much about the quality of the vetting process, at least not until the body bags start piling up. One wonders how many people in Homeland Security will get fired for this. In any event, the article already records one source questioning the age of the terrorist, so this probably addresses the OP's question. XavierItzm (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a similar issue with the 2016 Wurzburg train attack in July. The perp claimed to be a 17-year-old Afghan, but was probably a Pakistani adult. Does the US have the same policy as Europe does in this regard - believe him unless there's concrete proof that contradicts him? Jim Michael (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I can tell you if you are a legal immigrant from a Western country they demand multiple sources of evidence (all properly stamped, notarized, authenticated, and apostilled) regarding who you are, place of birth, etc. People arrive to US consulates abroad and to immigration offices in the U.S. with foot-high stacks of documents. Apparently not needed if you are a refugee from Somalia! (Wasn't there a deal where the U.S. was taking in people to live here permanently on the say-so of the United Nations?) In any event, looks like there is enough material to contribute to the Age fabrication page wiki, which may be more relevant than this here page. XavierItzm (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

How was he able to successfully claim asylum in the US? He'd moved with his family to Pakistan in 2007 and they'd lived there until 2014, so what well-founded fear of persecution did they have in Pakistan, a Muslim country that they'd chosen to live in for 7 years? Jim Michael (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of attack in History section at Ohio State University article

Please contribute to the following discussion: Talk:Ohio State University#Prominent inclusion of knife incident under "History". General Ization ^Talk 01:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

People demanding for gun control

This is probably going to sound very WP:POV, but I have found an article by The Federalist that reports on people still clamoring for gun control despite the more recent details being shed. I find it very interesting, and if a more reliable source covers on this, do you think we should put it in? Parsley Man (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No. While it may be interesting, it's irrelevant to this article since no gun was used. Our purpose here is not to provide interesting content but to inform readers concerning the subject of the article. There are other articles (e.g., Gun control, Public opinion on gun control in the United States) where it might be relevant to mention this. General Ization ^Talk 04:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, you and I and other editors who contributed to this article this morning can attest first-hand to the confusion that persisted about whether or not there was a shooting (or even a gun-equipped perpetrator) in this case – and we were pretty well plugged-in to media and other reports as they were issued. The Federalist is hardly being objective or fair to those they quote who were obviously reacting via social media to early reports of the incident that indicated that a mass shooting had occurred. General Ization ^Talk 05:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably worth a sentence or two in the Reactions section. Juno (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

To say what? That people who heard the early reports that it was a mass shooting called for gun control? Is that surprising, much less notable? General Ization ^Talk 05:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Surprising doesn't matter much, just whether or not it has enough coverage in Reliable Sources. Juno (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevance and notability do indeed matter, regardless of coverage. General Ization ^Talk 05:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It is very relevant (germane) that people called for gun control here and it is notable insofar as it was not a few who called for 2nd amendment restrictions. And since there are WP:RS on it, it would be quite germane to include. XavierItzm (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No, this should not be included. The Federalist piece basically amounts to an op-ed mocking someone's tweets reacting to erroneous early information about a "shooting." It should not be included unless there are any greater ramifications as expressed by an RS. -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

In response to that, I myself can easily admit that The Federalist is NOT WP:RS, and that we should wait if and when a more reliable source comes up for us to judge that. Parsley Man (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see Parsley Man and Fuzheado agree that the reason the calls for gun control should not be used is because they happen to not like the Federalist. Fine. So most certainly they will have no objections to the Columbus Dispatch: Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, tweeted that he was "deeply saddened by the senseless act of gun violence at Ohio State this morning. Praying for the injured and the entire Buckeye community." [...] Meanwhile, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued a simple statement after the attack: “Thank God he didn’t have a gun.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) Fuzheado | Talk 03:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

These are prominent people who have made these statements as a direct comment on the event of this article. That should show relevance. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's because The Federalist is NOT WP:RS. Parsley Man (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Mention of gun control has been very fleeting in the wake of this stabbing. There has been A LOT less mention of gun control after this incident than the vast majority of other incidents. The gun control talk, which is almost non existent, is very much irrelevant to this article.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Got deleted w/multiple WP:RS! So far we have @Juno , @Natureium , arguing that the calls for gun control should be included, plus @XavierItzm.
We then have @Zigzig20s who first said “I do think we could add that Kaine” but later said he does not care and opposed.
And of course we have @fuzheado who strongly opposed at first arguing that The Federalist is not a WP:RS as argument and but include if there "are any greater ramifications as expressed by an RS" and then when two WP:RS came out, did a 180 and said keeping the quotes is “off base”.
This leaves us with @E.M.Gregory, @mordekyle , @generalization and @parsley who have consistently opposed. XavierItzm (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

So that's 6 against, 3 support by my count. Until something comes up that really does make gun control an issue for this event (somehow), I guess we can call it a day on that. Parsley Man (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, have you ever read WP:NOT#DEM? XavierItzm (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Still concerned that people keep deleting the WP:RS on the subject.

And have you ever read WP:CONSENSUS? Parsley Man (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

As in WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." ??? - XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: The article remains in a WP:NOCONSENSUS state; per policy, the text and citations will have to go back. XavierItzm (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Tim Kaine's reaction

Would this edit detailing a tweet by Tim Kaine be notable enough to be included in the article? Or would it be one quote too many? I'm assuming this was added because Kaine mistook the attack as an act of gun violence. Parsley Man (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is undue. He lost. It makes sense to add reactions from the POTUS, the VPOTUS-elect, the POTUS-elect, but Kaine is essentially a non-entity at this point.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zigzig20s. This quote should be removed. There was no gun violence, the tweet was obviously made when ALL of the news outlets were reporting the stabbing as a shooting.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the WP:RS read, and I quote the WP:RS: Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, tweeted that he was "deeply saddened by the senseless act of gun violence at Ohio State this morning."' Your later bowdlerisation that the losing VP candidate was "saddened" is a highly selective misquotation of the key issue, which is that the guy blamed "gun violence" for the terrorist's act. Your opening up of this section when already consensus was reached above that calls for gun control have a place in the article should also be considered. XavierItzm (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't open it up because of the gun violence issue, I opened it up because of the WP:QUOTEFARM issue. Parsley Man (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I should add that there are now two WP:RS sources. Should these be censored out? XavierItzm (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I do think we could add that Kaine (and others?) blamed it on gun violence. It denotes a lack of acumen and a propensity for hysteria. But it needs to be separated from the official reactions from the POTUS, VPOTUS-elect and POTUS-elect (the people whose reactions really matter). So perhaps in another paragraph.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because a reliable source reported on something, does not mean it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. This quote has nothing to do with gun control. The man obviously tweeted out when all of the news agencies were reporting the incident as a shooting. You want to include this quote to create a story on here about gun control and that is a WP:OR issue.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't really care. I certainly don't think it's on the same level as the aforementioned triad. It may be due in Kaine's article.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

MordeKyle, several editors have agreed both here and in the pre-existing section about the same issue that yes, there is a place in the article for the issue. It was emphasized by the local Columbus newspaper, by the Washington Times, and by others. XavierItzm (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm:That's fine. The man made a tweet that did not directly call for gun control, and it is a direct violation WP:NOR as such that:

[Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Any sources that reach this same conclusion are obviously guilty of original research as well. Unless the man's tweet specifically said something about gun control. This being added is WP:UNDUE because he is just a senator, and is only being added to make a comment on gun control. Which, as stated above, is a violation of WP:NOR. Like User talk:Zigzig20s, this would only be due in Kaine's article, and I doubt it meets WP:N there. Stop with the WP:NPOV stuff already. If you want an idea of my personal views, see my user page and it should be obvious. Personal views should not be a motivation for edits.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm reading the previous section right now. It's actually three for, three against, so I wouldn't exactly call that a consensus. Parsley Man (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

MordeKyle, accusing multiple WP:RS of WP:NOR is quite a novel approach (you wrote: "Any sources that reach this same conclusion are obviously guilty of original research as well"). Please desist of the personal attacks. I am simply contributing material as I find it on WP:RS. In any event, as per Parsley's tally, at least half or more of the editors so far think this is valid content to include in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a tiebreaker came up somewhere else on the talk page, but from where I'm standing right now, a tie doesn't equate to consensus for or against. We need to continue the discussion on that content. Parsley Man (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Firstly, there are no personal attacks, you can go ahead and dial that mess back. Secondly, show me where in the man's tweet does it say anything about gun control. Your RS giving their opinion is not a fact, and it is irrelevant. Had the senator not said anything about gun violence, would you even be arguing to include his quote? I doubt it. Even if it wasn't in violation of WP:OR(which it is), it is still undue.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

MorderKyle, agree that this is a mess, fomented when an user improperly created this here section after a prior discussion had established that people's calls for gun control are a valid subject (there was no unanimity to include but also there was no unanimity to exclude). I suggest you go up to the section "14.- People demanding for gun control" and read the pro and the con arguments. Further to that, you cannot ignore that in this here redundant thread there have been opinions for and con. The point is that regardless of how one frames the issue, the issue is actually quite relevant. And this is why, since there are multiple WP:RS on the subject, two are cited in the article. The WP goes by what the WP:RS publish, not by one's feelings about the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: You don't understand that this is a separate issue from the inclusion of the gun control debate. As I have already said, he did not say anything about gun control. He said he was saddened by the gun violence, which was in fact being reported by all of the major news agencies. Then, some reliable sources inferred that he was talking about gun control. This is an opinion given by the writer of the RS. If the RS has a quote from Kaine saying that's what he was doing, then fine, include it. But you are only including this UNDUE information because you believe it is related to the gun control debate, which is in fact a violation of WP:NOR to do. If you find a RS that has a quote from Kaine that says that is what he was doing, or where they have some evidence of this being related to gun control, then by all means.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

XavierItzm, read my first post closely. I asked if Kaine's quote was "one quote too many". I also said this earlier: "I didn't open it up because of the gun violence issue, I opened it up because of the WP:QUOTEFARM issue." In other words, I was concerned if we were including too much quotes starting with Kaine. I would understand including the reactions of the mayor, governor, POTUS, POTUS-elect, and Vice-POTUS-elect, but in comparison to them, Kaine is the VP candidate of the presidential candidate who lost. Parsley Man (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Folks, keeping that Tim Kaine quote in the article is off base. A VP candidate's reaction based on erroneously early reporting is hardly noteworthy to put in there. It appears like a veiled attempt to embarrass someone or to mock gun control advocates. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, it all depends on the time that post was sent. Can we have a link to the actual Twitter post? There should be a time-stamp; that should tell us everything and finally settle this discussion. Parsley Man (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed Kaine's quote. It really doesn't matter when the tweet was made, we all know he was responding to the reports of gun violence. Fuzheado is spot on.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Endorse remove. I assume that many politicians condemned this attack; so did my Uncle Harry. Keep, the Governor, the President, the University President, but beyond that a condemnation would need to be notable in some way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: - Can you please stop re-inserting the Kaine quote? I find extremely annoying and borderline deceptive that you don't include the word "Kaine" in your edit summary at all. [4]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is no WP:CONS on deletion. Hence, the well-sourced quotes should stay until a consensus is reached.XavierItzm (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the default on "reactions" in these type of current events articles is that they should not be added unless there is a compelling reason to – significant voice, notable point, etc. So, it is incorrect to claim that the "quotes should stay" as a matter of procedure. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

And where is this so-called "default" policy you speak of? XavierItzm (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOCONSENSUS reads: "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." I will therefore add back the content. XavierItzm (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect, in that you fail to continue with the policy: "...for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter." Tim Kaine is a living person. QED, you cannot default to keep in this instance. Moving back to the status quo as established above. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where it reads "often results in"? Sure, it does, when the material could be considered libelous, etc. In this here case, the WP:RS are well-documented and there is no grounds for a libel claim, as Kaine did what the WP:RS report Kaine did. The text needs to be added back. XavierItzm (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Where is there evidence that Kaine intended to start a debate on gun control with his tweet? This is opinion generated by the RS and is therefor not appropriate for WP. This also fails WP:NRV. It is WP:UNDUE on this article. And the repetitive re-addition of this content, against consensus violates WP:BLP.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Motive

The motive of the attack was termed as "Islamic terrorism inspired by terrorist propaganda". However, the CNN source used for it never said any such confirmation has been made by the law agencies. It only states that it is a belief of investigators which was told to CNN by some sources. Not to mention, his earlier Facebook post in which made it look that the assault on Burmese Muslims and American involvement in Middle East might have been a motive, hasn't been ruled out. add a motive to the article, we should have a full beyond-the-doubt confirmation. But some editors didn't wait for it and pasted the first thing close to a motive they saw. This is a degradation of editorial standards. 45.248.180.9 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please understand the terms being used in context. It is clear from the source and as it is portrayed on Wikipedia that it is suspected not proven. I think most readers can understand this difference. If you feel the need to clarify, perhaps adding "allegedly" or "suspected" would be more useful than removing the information, which has a credible source. Furthermore, I'd appreciate if you would stop trolling others talk pages, mine included, for disagreeing with you. You've been asked to wait for a consensus before editing. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I already understand the terms. The motive is not confirmed in the source. It is you who needs to understand it. If you cannot, then I can make it clear. What the source meants that it is a "suspected motive" which the investigators think might be the one. Just like a prime accused suspect. What you added nack is therefore not what the source says. We need a confirmation here, nlt suspicions no matter how strong. The edit is therefore unsourced. The rules clearly state there unsourced material can be removed. I do not need your or anyone else's permission or consensus for it. 45.248.180.9 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not permission and no one implied you needed permission. Please see: WP:Consensus before continuing to edit this page. An alternate solution has been offered and you have refused to even give it thought. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: This IP user has been suspended for 48 hours due to edit warring and violation of WP:3RR. Just a suggestion, as a motive is not clearly defined by sources, addition of "Suspected" would probably be the best solution for Wikipedia, then clearly define what the sources are saying in a Motive section. Thanks for your contributions.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: I added suspected as I don't think that anyone takes issue with that since it's what the source says and I think that will alleviate any issues. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 20:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The black car in the image is Honda Civic

I noticed that the black car in the image is a Honda Civic. Is it the same one used by the attacker? 45.248.180.9 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No. The attacker's Civic was silver in color. Honda Civics are ubiquitous in central Ohio, as Honda has a facilities in Anna and Marysville, Ohio. General Ization ^Talk 01:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotal

I adjusted some value-laden remarks by a random OSU poster and a local social worker, as they are anecdotal and not directly related to the shooting. Per federal data, they also do not reflect the self-identification of most of the community [5], contra WP:TRIBE. Soupforone (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Placement

Right is the default file placement per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Soupforone (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie Clemons Thompson reaction

Why is this paragraph even in this article? It seems very WP:UNDUE to have this section in here. This really feels like another attempt at politicizing this article. I move for it's removal from the article.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Naming of living victims

I have removed the names of the living victims of this crime. WP:BLP, specifically WP:AVOIDVICTIM. It also seems to be of common sense not to list the names of private people, who are only notable because they are the victim of another's crime.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have questions about the widespread use of the noun "attack" to describe this event. These questions similarly concern other accounts of violence where the use of the word "attack" seems related to the country of origin or religion of the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators. I will therefore try to raise this concern elsewhere as well. (For this reason, please bear with me if you see this comment elsewhere and it seems repetitive.)

My concern is roughly as follows. First, calling such an incident an attack uses the register of war to characterize the event. (Consider for example the widespread use of the expression _armed attack_ in the UN Charter and in other instruments treating the laws of war.) This is a very specific move and seems to me to be one of consequence in our understanding of such an event. This is to say that the use of war as an animating backdrop into which to integrate our understanding of the event is a very specific choice, and by no means the only option at our disposal. Using the noun "attack" and the backdrop of war to characterize an individual event assimilates it to the plane of collective action. Assimilating an individual act to wider collective action is a very specific interpretive choice, and one that is not disinterested. For example, characterization of an event as a crime does not generally carry the suggestion of collective action. It might be objected that characterizing such an event as a crime is not apt because of the apparent political motivation of the violence considered. Options other than imposing a frame of either war or collective action onto our understand of an event are nonetheless available. Consider our understanding of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, for example. No one doubts the political motivation underlying either event, yet our understanding of neither of these events is animated by the suggestion of either war or collective action more generally. If it is wished to indicate a wider conspiracy underlying an individual event, such a conspiracy should be indicated explicitly, not by means of suggestion or innuendo. In a dispassionate account with ambitions of being held out as a reliable encyclopedia article, collective action should be demonstrated by the evidence provided. Collective action should not be an unsubstantiated, hollow spectre that looms over every corner of such an account.

Second, even in the case that collective action--specifically, war--is chosen and adopted as the animating register for the discussion of this event, "attack" is a particularly odd choice in characterizing it. To repeat what's already stated above, both war--and more generally, collective action--are specific interpretative choices for our understanding of this event, neither is obvious or necessary. If such an interpretative choice is adopted, such a choice should be explicit and, ideally, demonstrated by the evidence--deserving a discussion of its own. Now, in the case that collective action and war is chosen as a rubric in which to understand this event, "attack" carries an added suggestion. "Attack" suggests the initiation of hostilities. Once again the claim being made is not explicit, but is glossed over by means of suggestion and innuendo. Again, one suspects that the claim comes by way of suggestion and innuendo because it would collapse if it were made explicitly. The Pentagon and Whitehall began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003, Syria in September 2014, and Somalia since at least October 2016. French and affiliated NATO forces began their occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and of Libya in March 2011. (France has also announced a bombing campaign of the Sahel region in August 2014, that includes parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.) One is by no means obligated to understand an individual act of violence in the United States, UK, or France in the context of "war" that includes these military campaigns singularly or collectively; as already emphasized, taking such an act to be one of war is the result of a specific interpretive choice. However, in the case that this route is selected--and an act in the United States, Britain, or France is taken to be part of a war--it seems highly misleading to further portray such an act with an incipient or initiating flavor that "attack" suggests. This portrayal is again glossed over without discussion and seemingly counter to all evidence: if an individual event is understood as a collective action that is part of a wider war, using language that suggests or attributes an initiating character to such an event seems highly dubious when that event takes place 15+ years into the supposed war. Characterizing such an event as an attack seems to want it both ways: to push an account of the event as a collective action that is an act of war, and to at the same time avoid any discussion of that wider war ("attack" with its suggestion that t=0; as opposed to "response," usually reserved for justifications of the ensuring state-violence).

Use of the word "attack" to describe such an individual act thus seems to me highly incoherent. It is an interpretive choice that on the one hand suggests collective responsibility for an individual act of violence, and does so by means of innuendo rather than explicitly (for doing so explicitly would seem dubious in the absence of specific evidence that is often simply not there to be found). And on the other hand, substantive discussion of the wider war being suggested as the animating context in which the event occurs is avoided; "attack" carries with it the suggestion (again, pure innuendo unlikely to survive serious discussion) that the event has an initiating character, glossing over the possibility that such an event could be the response to something.

For these reasons, this word does not seem worthy to form the basis of a discussion which aims to be neutral or dispassionate. Rather it seems highly politicized, and on even a moment's inspection, a tendentious characterization that summarily assimilates an individual event to a collective act of war, while at the same time denying the continuity of the very war being supposed ("attack" bearing the suggestion that event initiates, rather than responds to anything). Moreover, one wonders if the term carries slanderous suggestions; the spectre of collective responsibility cast by the word seems particularly given to scapegoating. "Conspiracy theorist" is a term of derision often used to characterize the speculations of those that suppose collective action or a plot in the absence of good evidence. Well, in addition to its being unthinking newspeak--in its current, and now longstanding, uniform use--"attack" is nothing if not a term of the conspiracy theorist. Collective action is supposed in the absence of evidence. The fear-mongering of supposed collective action gives rise to the war-mongering of suggested collective responsibility.

The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alfred Nemours: Can you boil down this essay into a sentence or two about your concerns with the article? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing to me. Permit me to repeat what I've tried to indicate elsewhere. "Attack" has an established meaning in International Law. It invokes the register of war. It denotes collective action. It at the same embodies a claim about who is initiating such a war, suggesting collective responsibility. These are very specific interpretive choices, presented as if they amount to straight description. I would expect to find them in a Pentagon briefing that seeks to justify an ensuing military campaign. I am surprised to find them in an article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Without comment on the merits, thought I would point out that Alfred has posted this (all of it, verbatim) on the Talk page of seemingly every article documenting a recent event that includes "attack" as part of its title, not just here. General Ization ^Talk 19:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It would seem to me much more efficient and effective to have a discussion in one place on the use of the term "attack", rather than in 25+ places simultaneously. General Ization ^Talk 19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.