Talk:Fort Lauderdale airport shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the article for 1 day due to continued introduction of unsourced content. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please correct

The page is protected, so I couldn't correct a typo:

Instead of "subject," the word there should read "suspect" ("a suspect in custody"). Eldad (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Move

Discuss before moving, please. 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting is the closest event I can think of in terms of similarities. -- Veggies (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The page should be named as per the WP:COMMONNAME policy, and not with the overly formal full name of the airport. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's been enough time to set a WP:COMMONNAME, I remember that 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting was moved to "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" after a couple of days ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 20:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A quick perusal of news headlines shows that this is overwhelmingly referred to as happening at the "Fort Lauderdale airport," unless it is a very local publication in FL, and they use the full title. Keep it simple and common for now, which is the guidance of that policy. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I love how admins unilaterally decide what the common name is, rather than letting the, uh, community on Wikipedia decide by discussing it. Oh well. -- Veggies (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

allow me to edit Vaib1987 (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The above template is to request specific changes. See WP:PROTECT for more information on protected articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist Attack?

Way too early to categorize this event as a terrorist attack. There are no credible sources referring to it as one. I have removed the category tag. Eseress (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, we should wait for police officers to find out more details about what happened. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

There is no truth to the rumour that the shooter had tried to target Donald Trump. Indytd (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What nonsense. No source has stated that the gunman targeted Trump. Besides, we don't add rumors here anyway. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aurato (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

please change the beginning of the section of "suspects" due to the fact that they identified the perpetrator as esteban santiago. Markedroblox14 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Declined per WP:BLPCRIME. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Marking as answered. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017

The shooter has been identified to have flown in from Alaska, with a stopover in Minneapolis. S.jin (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017

Fort Lauderdale authorities identified the suspect as 26-year old Esteban Santiago. It was reported that Santiago flew into the airport from Anchorage, AK, and that he declared the firearm before he conducted the shooting. 71.178.195.128 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: See above talk section. Once charges are filed against suspect, his name will be included in the article as per the WP:WELLKNOWN exemption to WP:BLPCRIME.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2017

It should be noted that Governor Scott did not contact President Obama, and contacted President Elect Trump instead. He says he has a "personal relationship" with Trump and Pence, therefore reached out to them instead of the sitting president. 100.15.104.179 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Alaska

As a member of this WikiProject, I have added the WP:Alaska to this Talk Page. The suspect was an Alaska resident, and indeed had just left there hours before his alleged crimes. A significant portion of the investigation is occurring in Alaska. However, I rated its importance as "low", because the tragic events in Florida are unlikely to have significant impact here in Alaska. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks for everyones contributions!Juneau Mike (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ammunition

I don't want to suggest any original research in the article, but I thought that having ammunition in your luggage was illegal. (You can check a gun, if it is declared) Can someone with more knowledge on this issue please clarify? Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ammunition just has to be separate. It's perfectly fine to have a checked firearm (in a TSA approved locked container) and ammunition in a separate container. Ammunition is not particularly harmful outside a firearm. The article doesn't explicitly say it but the retrieval and loading all occurred outside the controlled areas so there was no TSA breach. --DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a Transportation Security Administration blog entry on the subject: http://blog.tsa.gov/2014/06/traveling-with-firearms-and-ammunition.html -- ToE 07:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ammunition is allowed in checked baggage. See [1]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarification. I appreciate it sincerely. I had purely anecdotal knowledge on the matter, and thought ammo was banned in checked luggage due to the danger of it exploding. I appreciate your responses, they have helped educate me on the matter. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Santiago

Can anyone find a picture we can use here? He is the lone suspect so I think it is ok to use it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to get one as long as there is no issue or guideline against doing that. If so, I would assume that would go in the suspect section.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done-Kiwipat (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

BLPCRIME Applies

We generally do not name suspects who have not been convicted of crimes. See also this concurrent discussion Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident, another high profile criminal incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I have removed the suspect's name within the infobox, too. I'm not sure if this is what you wanted, but they should probably be removed from the article per the consensus that you mentioned here. Aurato (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I already removed the name from the Suspect section. But I'm not watching this article that closely so it may have been reinserted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I know that, I'm just saying that you didn't remove it from the infobox, but you did remove it from the suspect section. I just didn't know whether or not the suspect's name should also be removed from the infobox, too; but it looks like that issue has (temporary) been resolved. Aurato (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing name but we should mention Bill Nelson has identified him. His comment is notable and has been mentioned by many sources. I have removed the name of the gunman and only mentioned that he was identified by Nelson and was 26 years old. I hope that is acceptable. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: Sorry about reverting your edit, I had thought that you didn't remove the suspect's name yet, and to answer your question, yes, the edit is acceptable in my book... Aurato (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing the suspect's name until he is charged with a crime. Our best practice is to proceed cautiously, reflect solidly reported information only rather than rumor and uncertainty, and avoid including speculation (even if cited).

I do wish to correct an error: it is not the case that Wikipedia "generally does not name suspects who have not been convicted of crimes." WP:BLPCRIME's main point is that we should avoid needlessly impairing the privacy of private figures, that we should be especially careful not to imply guilt before that has been judicially determined, and that we should "seriously consider" whether naming an unconvicted person is necessary. But BLPCRIME has never been construed to mean that all unconvicted persons can never be named in any context. When reliable sources note that a person has been charged or otherwise formally accused, we can and do frequently note this. Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and others, for example, had articles long before their convictions. Neutrality^talk 22:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I noted in the other discussion linked above that if someone's name is being splashed all over reliable sources that not naming them becomes somewhat silly. If/when someone is indicted, I think that is a good point where their name can be put in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The indictment (or the information, or the criminal complaint — all various means of making a formal criminal charge) seems to be a sensible threshold point. Neutrality^talk 22:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A named person was taken into custody. This is sufficient sourcing to say that a person was taken into custody. We don't wait for indictments or convictions to state facts. No reason not to state who was taken into custody. The Orlando shooting never had an arrest or indictment but it would have been silly to omit the name of the person shot dead by police. He is named by all major and reputable sources an it is just as valid as listing "handgun" and "shooting." --DHeyward (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPCRIME says we can not name this person in the article until there is an indictment or charges are filed. Once one of those things happen, the well known nature of this person does in fact exempt him from the WP:BLPCRIME policy. The BLP portion of BLPCRIME stands for "Biography of a Living Person", a man who was shot dead by the policy does not fall under this policy.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The violations are sayin the "gunman" is a 26 year old alaskan veteran. That is not known. What is known is that Esteban Santiago was taken into custody. All the personal details that are being attributed to "gunman" are the violation, not saying that Santiago was taken into custody. Replace "gunman" with Santiago for all the identifying description. It stands BLP on it's head to describe Santiago to a tee while calling him the gunman. --DHeyward (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this information should not be in the article until charges are filed against Santiago or a grand jury indicts him.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I commented out the more probable violations. They can easily be re-added after charges are filed.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

?? WELLKNOWN applies and Federal law enforcement is the source. Google is your friend. we can name him. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Charges have not been filed. Please read the policy.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I know the poly very well and one thing we absolutely DO NOT DO is use court filings for content. We use reliable, third party sources. Esteban Santiago is WP:WELLKNOWN with hundreds of 3rd party sources naming him as the person in custody. Google is your friend. Explain why yo don't think WELLKNOWN applies. Note, the Orlando shooter was never arrested or indicted. We reported his name and bckground when it became WELLKNOWN in reliable sources. --DHeyward (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Ok, I read the policy. It repeatedly refers to conviction as the bar to clear, never saying anything about "charges filed". What version of the policy are you reading? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Please read my past comment in this thread. I have specifically said he meets WELLKNOW multiple time. The policy states that the name can be mentioned if they are well known after charges have been filed! Otherwise there needs to be a conviction.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 05:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Where does it say anything to the effect that "the name can be mentioned if they are well known after charges have been filed"? Copy-and-paste from the policy, please, as I don't see anything resembling that. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have misread something. I apologize, I screwed that up. Proceed...  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 05:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I opposed naming the individual when reliable sources were only attributing his id to a single U.S. senator. Now, however, even The New York Times is stating his name in their own voice, as are many other reliable sources. As you agree, he passes WELLKNOWN if one reads farther than the words "public figure" and doesn't assume a definition of that term (as I did the last time this came up). That exempts him from BLPCRIME, and his name can and should be included, as it currently is. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. It's a bit absurd to not include his name when something is this widely reported, and there is no doubt as to the identity of the person who has been arrested. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting lede

The lede is too long and not even written in a proper manner. Some details are way too unnecessary I think, and it sometimes seem to be grammatically incorrect. If anyone can rewrite it properly, adding only the most important and notable details of the incident, I will be highly obliged. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll have a look and post my progress here.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2

Thanks, MordeKyle.

I got an edit conflict, but my response is: The lede is not long for the length of the article, but if you would like to edit it, please do so. No one owns the article or the edits that they make to it.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Example:

On January 6th, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport in Broward County, Florida, United States. The attack occurred near the baggage claim in one of the airport's terminals. Five people were killed, six others were taken to the hospital, and a there was a multitude of other injured people. A suspect was taken into custody after surrendering to responding police officers.

What about this? It cuts a lot of the fluff out, especially since we do not have a convicted killer. The lack of conviction, and the innocent until proven guilty nature, make the lede a bad place for suspect info.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, there are some mistakes with it. But I'll make some changes myself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: I made a couple minor tweaks to the wording of the lede you introduced. Saying 30 to 40 looks rather bad in my opinion. If we are using an estimate, which I imagine we probably shouldn't, I think we should stick to one number.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed the lede myself based on your version, though made some changes of my own. If you think you can make it better, please do make those changes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: I feel like it's really uneccessary to have the time of the attack in the lede, seeing as it is right in the opening sentence of the body of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary, and maybe this is just too detailed?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it added greater specificity to the event, however, I can see that most other attack articles just rely on the date in the lead. Time removed. WWGB (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Gun probably misidentified as a Glock 9mm, it is most likely a Walther PPS M1.

The story reads that the FBI identified the pistol used as a Glock 9mm, according to NBC news. This is probably in error as the several photos show of the pistol at the crime scene DO NOT match the configuration of any Glock type. Upon further inspection of the photos it appears to probably be a Walther PPS M1. The critical areas leading to this conclusion are the trigger guard shape and the shape of the frame and slide. One other pistol make that is possible is Steyr S A1 but the Walther PPS is more likely based on the photo characteristics. This pistol is a single stack magazine configuration holding between 6 to 8 rounds depending on caliber 9mm or .40 S&W. News services are very bad at best at firearms identification/information. The subject did buy Glock pistols in the past and this could have led to the conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.139.3 (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the few sources that mention Glock were from Jan 6 (primarily NBC). All the ones from January 7 on now say Walther, and the photos show it is clearly NOT a Glock of any sort. This has been reflected in the text of the article. We cannot put the exact model in until a reliable source identifies it. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Laptop that stopped the gunman's bullet

We have a conflict over this passage about a laptop that stopped a gunman's bullet. WWGB has removed this twice, even though it is clearly related to the shooting. Seeking opinions on whether it is "notable."

One 37-year-old traveler from Atlanta, Georgia, found that an aluminum Apple MacBook Pro computer helped stop one of the 9mm rounds fired by the gunman from penetrating his backpack. [2]

Google News search for "fort lauderdale backpack" [3] shows lots of results from prominent sources. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In response, I think this is covered by WP:NOTNEWS, as the matter does not seem to have "enduring notability"; many newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Many passengers would have avoided being shot for various reasons: a visit to the bathroom, a stop for coffee. We don't need to include reasons why someone was NOT shot, and we certainly don't need to provide free publicity for Apple. WWGB (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is kept, I think it should be shortened. I don't think the brand and model of laptop is particularly significant. Nor the age or hometown of the traveler. Neutrality^talk 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Glock or Walther or both?

Some editor removed the mention of the Glock from the infobox as well as the article while before that another one added both Glock and Walther to the infobox as the weapon. Now the suspect Santiago states it was a Walther, while a source has FBI confirming it was a Glock. I'm inclined to go with the investigators but I don't want an edit war over it. How should we proceed on this? It'll be better to have a consensus. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter? What is wrong with "handgun"? WWGB (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am ok with that but we'll need a consensus. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Judicial Watch finds link to radical Islamic terrorism

I'm not sure if judicial watch qualifies as a source and I have not verified any of this information with any other sources but I thought it would be appropriate to leave it here in the talk page so those more knowledgeable about wiki policies can review it and use it appropriately. This is the link to the judicial watch article: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/airport-shooter-converted-islam-identified-aashiq-hammad-years-joining-army/ Cloaked Dagger (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I already added its claim, but its claims are very shoddy. Even I managed to point out a few mistakes of it without having much knowledge of technological information. FBI have however stated that they gound no such evidence had become a radicalized terrorist. Judicial watch cannot be qualified as reliable or non-neutral as it seems to cling on to one side of the story for political purposes. The article is not for claim of any website regardless of who it is. Details of investigatiors are used here. However using a neutral reliable source Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article125781844.html) which reported of all claims, I have mentioned the claims of Judicial Watch and other such conservative websites as well as FBI stating they found no evidence for these claims. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the information should be added until it's reported by more sources, per WP:UNDUE. WP is supposed to follow the news, not lead it (cannot remember the guideline for that, though, but could find it if needed).—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:NOTNEWS is probably what you're thinking of. As for the link to radical islam, at best this is WP:TOOSOON, but most likely it is WP:UNDUE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've actually already added it since it was included in a source and investigators analyzed whether it was true or not. They didn't find any evidence and I added that as well as other major investigation details. Only neutral reliable sources covering all possible sides should be used which Miami Herald was and I used the source. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph. First of all, the section is about investigations surrounding the incident, not what source that does not meet WP:RS is saying about the guy. Second, just because a WP:RS does report on something, with no apparent proof of anything, doesn't mean we have to, or should, include it. Even if NBC was reporting something, it doesn't mean it isn't WP:OR or that it isn't WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTNEWS and we have no WP:DEADLINE to include something. Especially in cases such as this, we have to abide closely to WP:BLP and [[WP::BLPCRIME]].  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't fit the rules for addition of material, then I it cannot be added. I guess there's no real opposition to what you're saying and I agree the article is for investigative details made by law enfoecement and federal investigators. We should wait until it can fulfill all Wikipedia rules for addition. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have removed some paras which only were report by a very few respurces and cannot be added per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't fulfill WP:BLP as well as WP:NOTABILITY. Nor they benefitted the article in real. If there's something else that doesn't fit the rules or doesn't really contribute to the article, please feel free to remove it. I hope the article seems ok now. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Names of victims

Why are their names being identified? Although they're not going to be victimzed for sure, but they aren't notable neither there names make any impact on the incident. If there was a person who is known for being notable on his own, then that could be included. But I don't see why their names are being included. Not being offensive but Wikipedia isn't a memorial. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They should not be included per WP:VICTIM.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are precedents for this action, such as listing all 49 people who died in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or the thirteen people who were injured in the 2016 Ohio State University attack. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is true. Though I would hardly call two articles a precedents.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@JayCoop: I have done a little digging, and I am by no means an expert on Wikipedia policy, but I have found a couple things. Firstly, WP:VICTIM falls under WP:PERSON, which is about notability. The issue really comes to WP:BLP. Naming the deceased victims doesn't really seem to be a problem. WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems to suggest we should not include living victims of crimes, as would common sense.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM.—CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the list from 2016 Ohio State University attack and made a note on the accompanying talk page.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I will also like to point out that it's highly inappropriate to detail the destinations of these victims. The notability of victims isn't affected by it, nor it contributes anything to the article. Why was it added in the first place anyway? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Two photos?

Why do we have two photos of the suspect in close proximity? Surely one photo in the Suspect section is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems that the only one that is needed is the one in the suspect section.—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It's weird, I don't see that anyone added the image. I added an "image" parameter to the infobox with no value and the image went away.—CaroleHenson (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)