Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 1

Wikinews Suggestion
I think this content would have a larger impact, at least while the event is currrent, on WikiNews.Michael Powerhouse (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make that suggestion there (it is a separate project). Our purpose here is to assemble what will eventually be an encyclopedic article on the incident.  General Ization   Talk   20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty much impossible until weeks, possibly months after the incident as recent sources are almost always wrong. Viriditas (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nay -- my experience writing about recent items on Wikipedia is that the first source is the best source. When you can sort sources in Google News and find the first one that mentions keywords about the fact you want to know about, that's the one that will do the best in-depth reporting.  There are a hundred hangers-on that take that and echo it, dropping and garbling facts here and there as they go along.  Even if the first source is a press release, the others are still copying that - you might then pick someone respectable-sounding to launder it, but that's all you're really doing.  So there's no point to waiting.  Even if something is later disproved, it's best just to update as you go along, preferably retaining mention and citation of the false reports since most people reading will be wondering what happened with them. Wnt (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's complete nonsense. As of 05:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC), this entire article is outdated and inaccurate, with the vast majority of reliable sources updated and current while Wikipedia is not.  As I said before, Wikipedia news stories are only useful and informative weeks and months after the incident in question, and the timestamp proves my point.  This is the worst source for breaking news. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be up-to-the-minute accurate. But news sites have plenty of old articles on their pages, so I don't think this is a standard they uphold themselves.  Only a new story is new, and Wikipedia's article is not a new story either.  The question is, is it better to have a somewhat old story (though sometimes people get on these things and bring them right up to date) or absolutely no story?  I think it's obvious that it's better to have the former.  Honestly, I think Wikipedia takes a lot of flack solely because it competes with for-profit operations that pay freelancers, and that has something to do with Wikinews' decline. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlikely.  Wikinews is a dead project run by one guy who deletes any and all attempts to write about news.  The WMF should permanently pull the plug on it and distance themselves as far as possible from it. Viriditas (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is wikipedia a breaking news page or an encyclopedia? It can't be both. -- JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 100% agree with the points by User:Wnt And a trout for the person who nominates this for AfD (cause that is going to happen. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that WMF should run, not walk, away from Wikinews. I just checked on this, did a search there for "San Bernardino", the first hit https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/California_wildfires_continue_blazing was updated 30 November 2015 and the search result begins with "California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency for San Bernardino County". Best not to associate with potential joke fodder. Kid Bugs (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrator mention on radio?
Of note, the police may have been talking about the contributions on the radio based on their contributions (albeit flipping the name), so it could be mentioned if anyone finds a source out there stating this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a current event and WP:BLP still applies, so we need to proceed with caution in mentioning names. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspect name
apparently one of the suspects may be called Farooq Saeed. Shouldn't this be included? --Stefvh96 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.inquisitr.com/2605302/farooq-saeed-possible-san-bernardino-shooting-suspect-identified-by-news-outlets-police-manhunt-continues/
 * Sources stress this is unconfirmed, not worth including at this time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Firebrace (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Now confirmed by the LA Times 75.17.127.1 (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And NBC News. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/authorities-respond-report-shooting-san-bernardino-california-n472976


 * The same article (NBC) also claims that the other man involved was his brother. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Suspects wearing GoPro cameras--does it go to motive?
The San Bernardino police announced that the suspects were wearing GoPro cameras during the attack: "POLICE: San Bernardino Killers Were Wearing GoPro Cameras During Massacre". This was several hours ago, so I am wondering why this fact hasn't been included in the article here. It also seems that the wearing of a GoPro camera does tend to point toward a motive. But given the way these things usually play out in terms of editing, I'm not going to add it until it has a chance to be considered here on the Talk page. grifterlake (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How does it point to a motive? It sounds to me like a copycat of Murder of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That source isn't a reliable source. I have not seen any other source mention GoPro cameras. So wait until a RS is found. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The San Bernardino Police Department isn't a reliable source? The article I reference also points to this article "Brussels Gunman Filmed Himself Carrying Out Shootings at Jewish Museum (Video)".  Combined with the level of planning necessary to carry out the San Bernardino attack it seems that it is a lot more than them staging a "copycat" attempt of the Murder of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, which I believed was filmed with a cell phone, and not a GoPro which is a camera whose design is more conducive to documenting planned actions, not just capturing action as is a cell phone.  In other words, if you have a GoPro you are intending to record video of something.  If you have a cell phone it could be for video recording, phone calls, changing the thermostat before you arrive home or playing Angry Birds. grifterlake (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The secondary source isn't reliable. If a legit paper covers the same police information, that'd be citable. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears this story started on Fox News. Breitbart and Bizpac appear earlier on Google News, but both took their story from here.  It's now on other sites like Daily Mail, which I view as something of a kindred spirit due to its everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to these things. :) Wnt (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you need to choose one of those, FOX is the safer bet. The Daily Mail and Breitbart exist only to be clicked. Though I can't find the word "GoPro" or "camera" in the FOX one. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Police Chief said Go Pros are false rumor this AM. Also said no body armour vests, they were wearing tactical style vests with lots of pockets. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this is screwy -- Google News had an excerpt from the Fox News article I linked, "dressed in body armor and wearing GoPro cameras, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, burst into the San Bernardino facility and shot up..." But no, it's not in the article now.  We'll have to keep an eye on this one over the next few hours. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Google keeps the bullshit in its cache well after the retractions. Sometimes for weeks. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Though in this case, the version we get from clicking "Cached" has also been fixed. Jihadwatch's copy still lies. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Response and Location
Should read LAPD Counter-Terrorism Unit or Los Angeles Police Department Counter-Terrorism Unit. Unclear as it currently is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.162.97 (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * . WWGB (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

French translation
Hello everyone,

can you help me translate this page to the French Wikipedia please? …I am not very comfortable with English!!

Thanks you very much, --89.94.82.139 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can contact a user who speaks French from this category; Category:User fr-N. Ask at their talk page if they can help you translate. Someone else here may also be able to help you. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thx for your help! I will inform me over there!
 * Best regards, --89.94.82.139 (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Si vous avez des questions spécifiques, je peux vous aider un peu. Conctactez-moi sur mon page de discussion. Falconus p t   c 22:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * J'ai un peu bossé sur la traduction, en piochant, mais les infos changent beaucoup... -- Le grand Célinien (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Number of shooters
Looks like the law enforcement and the media are changing the number of shooters from three to two and saying that the third person detained was likely not associated with the incident. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * two dead at the SUV - a male and a female. Search continues for a 3rd. Now raiding an apartment. Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW NBC continues to say "one of the trio" and "one of the three shooters"...not suspects (they also just covered the conference with PD and FBI where the detainment was clarified. NYT states manhunt ended, however. Velojareal (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a live raid on CNN right now. Will see how this settles out. The police are being very good with sharing info in this one. Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Lockdowns
from people in the area I'm getting "Loma Linda Univ Med Ctr on lock-down (and the other hospital which took some victims). All county buildings on lock-down. All 70 city schools on lock-down." Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just heard on NBC4, confirming all schools have been evacuated (not lock-down) Velojareal (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Street name mentioned in article may be incorrect
Park Circle Drive should be changed to Park Center Circle, assuming the street sign at the corner with Waterman Avenue is correct (from photo on Google Maps). Bunkyray5 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ALSO, San Bernardino Boulevard in the article is actually San Bernardino AVENUE. Should be changed...--158.61.0.239 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

First hand social media accounts? Any to include?
(I didn't create this topic; I'm just responding.) I searched #activeshooter on Twitter and it is pretty cluttered with commentary. I can't seem to find any useful first-person accounts other than that of the San Bernardino County Sherrif. Brainhelljr (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably should not be included unless the account is reported by a WP:RS who will (hopefully) do the necessary fact-checking. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
I suggest a copy-edit to remove repetition. Under 'Investigation#Weapons' replace

"In addition to the two firearms, the attackers left an "explosive device" at the scene (or three explosive devices all connected to one another) at the scene ..."

with

"In addition to the two firearms, the attackers left an "explosive device" (or three explosive devices all connected to one another) at the scene ..."

86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  D r e a m Focus  16:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Intro
In the opening paragraph, the article states that this is the second most deadliest attack after the 1984 attack. Why is it named the second when obviously there have been more attacks since 1984 each with more than 14 people killed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.8 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Such as? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You tell me. 101.178.163.8 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1992 Los Angeles riots killed 53. But that was more a series of things, lumped together. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the text again, in particular the words "in California's history". Then read the source cited and note that it supports that. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for pointing that this is California specific. 101.178.163.8 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015
1. Remove the template that precedes the infobox.

2. Change the template in the infobox to: 34.0755°N, -117.2777°W Giving: 34.0755°N, -117.2777°W

a. Eliminates the redundant and conflicting coordinates pair.

b. Reduces the coordinates precision to 4 decimal positions, per WP:COORDPREC.

c. Adds region and type.

d. The above coordinates are based on the assumption that all of the shooting (excluding the shootout) occurred at the building marked with "A" on File:2015_San_Bernardino_shooting_map_location_of_mass_shooting.png, which is currently included in the article (or, that the "A" represents the approximate center of the shooting activity). If this is incorrect, the coords would need to be tweaked (although 4 decimal positions should still work).

e. Separate coordinates could optionally be added for the shootout, either in the infobox or in the body, with display=inline. Those coordinates were provided as a footnote in the body at one point, but that was removed. In any case, the title coordinates should be those of the Inland Regional Center.

Thank you. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ - I am withdrawing this as an edit request, since I have decided to begin editing logged in again. I will do this edit using my account, . Thank you. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015
Please make two edits:

1 -- link this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting) to the following one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States

2 -- add to the category list for this article the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_murder_in_the_United_States):

Categories: 2015 in California2015 mass shootings in the United States2015 murders in the United StatesDeaths by firearm in CaliforniaHistory of San Bernardino, CaliforniaMass murder in 2015Massacres in the United States

Kgayle (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

✅ -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just beat me to it. xD Zell Faze (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Landlord inviting media into suspect's apartment. Suggestion
This spectacle is making some news. Would like to read about it in the article.VictoriaGraysonTalk 20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So, write it, then. You're just as capable as anyone else here.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Brown people and violence
I feel the need to remind people that just because one follows the Muslim faith does not mean their actions are "ISLAMOFASCIST!!!"

I have yet to believe that Wikipedia needs a new page immediately for any incident, but I am prepared to defend this page against the inevitable Islamophobic attacks that will come from the Wikipedia commenteratti in the coming days. HOT WUK (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You removed a link to muslim attitudes towards terrorism, which has been discussed in the news today in regards to this topic, particularly in their opposition to terrorism. Instead of taking this opportunity to merge the link into this article and cite the sources, you declared that any discussion about Muslim attitudes towards terrorism is "racist" and deleted the link. Are you aware that many Muslims in the US are against terrorist acts like this, and linking to and discussing this topic allows us to add their opinion to the reaction section? Did you intended to eliminate the voices of Muslims who oppose terrorism from this article? Because that's exactly what you've done.  Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree or disagree, but I wouldn't advise continuing with that much inability to assume good faith. Nothing good can come of that, for you, for anyone else, or for this article. Your statement reveals a battleground mindset right out of the gate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

ISIS link
News now coming out as the wife was linked to ISIS. "As the San Bernardino attack was happening, investigators believe the female shooter, Tashfeen Malik, posted on Facebook, pledging allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, three U.S. officials familiar with the investigation told CNN." http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html and: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html

Heyyouoverthere (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-shooting-isis-idUSKBN0TN1SR20151204#Igysi2zKe78St6w4.97

What this means is that she pledged allegiance to them. It does not necessarily mean that there was a direct connection. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think what is implied is that we're starting to see the motive. It's quite possible that radical Islam is responsible for Wednesday's massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelasowsk123 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think we can add the link, even if we include, ", and a link to ISIS." not necessarily that this was an ISIS attack. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It bothers me that this isn't confirmed, words being used include "think", and "suspect". I think it is a case of WP:DUCK, but shouldn't we wait until it is confirmed? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A setback for those who were censoring the article of any mention of such a motivation. Edison (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A setback? Officials have confirmed a link and we have the sources. It is a setback for the people who were strongly hoping that it wasn't terrorism. With the amount of evidence present previous to this news flash everything seemed to point to terrorism however. Ralphw (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is from Reuters: "They said the finding, if confirmed, could be a "game changer" in the investigation." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is very easy, and tempting to just throw what we think might be the motivation into the article and call it a day. I have been following the news media though, the workplace dispute angle is still being looked at as well. One commentator went on to say that the attack site was not political in nature, something a terrorist aims for. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, the realm of possibility is wider than "workplace dispute" or "Islamic terrorism". The mainstream has agreed to run with that "A or B" framework, but all note that these are only included in possible scenarios. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"workplace dispute." For the love of God, Malik posted to her Facebook professing her pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during the attack.

Here is your "link:" http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

If you think your shit has some greater significance by pledging allegiance to Baghdadi then good on you. Apparently this woman felt compelled to pledge allegiance to the caliph of ISIS during the attack.
 * It's true that evidences strongly suggest it was related to terrorism. However, the authorities still haven't confirmed whether the attack has been motivated by the ISIS as it was reported that a victim may possibly have had a heated discussion about Islam with the male perpetrator. -- Chamith  (talk)  17:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that the perpetrator was angered that one of the victims had called Islam a violent religion. Apparently the perpetrator disagreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelasowsk123 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Chamith, the FBI is reporting it now, Friday, Dec 4. I think you should look up WP:DENIAL at this point. As Stuart Smalley used to say, "Denial isn't just the name of a river in Egypt." Profhum (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea why you suggested something like that. I was just merely pointing out what I knew at that point. To add, I didn't deny that ISIS is behind the attack. I simply indicated that it wasn't confirmed by the authorities at the time I was commenting. -- Chamith   (talk)  05:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Chamith, I've re-read your comments and I was unfair. I apologize. Profhum (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates
There is no street called San Bernardino Boulevard. The correct name of the street is San Bernardino Avenue.

East San Bernardino Boulevard 34.0775°N 117.2484°W Final shootout with police — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbeatchemist (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've confirmed this and made the change.

Reference showing "avenue": --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 

Death/injury counts
Shouldn't non-victims (i.e. perpetrators) be included in the death/injury counts? Those counts don't say that they're specifically for victims. I believe it's standard to include anyone who was harmed as a result of the incident, including the people who caused the incident. The death count originally included one perpetrator, but it was later edited out with a comment instructing to exclude that person. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it should be left out for now as it is just speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:203:3346:4830:8639:E946:7910 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a spot below where the 2 dead perpetrators are detailed, so listing above double counts. Unfortunately eventually a dead perp was listed at Boston_Marathon_bombing but only as part of a broken out list. At November 2015 Paris attacks perpetrators were eventually listed in deaths, but again carefully separated out. Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I took out the warning as no one on the talk page has explained why the note is required and why it exists. As far as I can tell, it was personal preference.  --Super Goku V (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You should not have done that. That is only your personal preference. The way it was was unclear before I added the note. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yours is also personal preference. If it's unclear, then it needs to be said visibly, not in a comment.  Comments like that are for hard policies, not preferences. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 02:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Also your opinion. Removing the comment removes the opportunity for clarity in an article with lots of editors moving quickly. How is your removal of the hidden comment helpful? Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I replaced it with a visible note. However, I think the "confirmed victims" text does essentially the same thing.  That combined with the comment should be sufficient.  I was concerned about readers being unclear as to whether the count included casualties on both sides.  Normally, casualties are listed without attribution to a particular side, the number includes both sides.  Anyway, it's fine as it stands.  —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 02:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At least I did not reorder where which comment appeared. ;). Goofing around aside, why should a note be placed on a page without any discussion on the talk page?  Especially when it goes counter to how several articles are currently shown.  Even the death of a member of the guilty party is still a death that occurred during the event.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disgruntled employee
Since the section about suspects keeps going back and forth, I think there should be a section here to discuss whether it should be mentioned that one suspect is thought to be a disgruntled employee--108.85.149.233 (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing good that can come out of rushing to give a motive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and  WP:NOTNEWS.  As well, there is WP:NODEADLINE.  Also, see WP:RSBREAKING. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I must agree, there hasn't been any concrete basis for this statement in any source I can see. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In the press conference, the police chief (or whoever he is) made it pretty clear that there's no evidence to support that yet; it's just a coincidental event that may or may not be relevant. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 02:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree, speculation doesn't belong here. The NYT article referenced even puts a bold "?" after the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velojareal (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is what TMZ is saying. A disgruntled guest at a holiday party for the San Bernardino Health Department, who returned with his armed "buddies". Not an RS source, obviously.  Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All of this was pointed out to the editor who inserted the content and was edit warring/reinserting it repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the Los Angeles Times: "A senior federal official who is monitoring the case said investigators believe one of the shooters left the party after getting into an argument and returned with one or two armed companions. Local officials at an evening news conference said it was not clear whether the people involved in the dispute were the same people involved in the shooting." The first sentence does not say it was an employee, only someone possibly at the party, which the second sentence then says may be unrelated. Siberian Husky (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I will only say that it seems improbable that someone would leave a party after an argument (implying that as a motive) and return with AK-47s and IEDs and wearing tactical gear. I think this is one senior federal official who should be ignored for the time being.  General Ization   Talk   03:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have just heard on ABC's stream that one of the owners of the townhome they are searching is/was an employee, so if anyone can find a written source it may be appropriate to include that at this point, but avoiding speculatory statements would still be nice. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources (including LA Times) are saying that the townhome belongs to Saeed Farooq. They have put up other information saying that a Syed R. Farook worked as an environmental health specialist for San Bernardino County but they have not said that they are the same person and its better to be careful if they are not. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A very strange place to make a random target. Shooters must have a connection to this non-profit. Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From the various reports I've seen, it sounds like nobody has any idea how the name should be spelled. It's possible that different family members spell that surname differently.  Typically the first name would be "Syed" or "Sayed", but there are a lot of other spellings in reports that I've never seen before.  It's a relatively common first name, and I'm sure I've heard the last name before.  It's hard to say whether the varying reports are actually confusing multiple people, but my guess is reporters are just being careless.  Makes it hard for us to get our facts straight.  It has been loosely confirmed that they found the house(s) by following the trail left by the disgruntled employee, who appears to be named some variation of Syed Farooq.  One report said he's an accountant of sorts who helps with taxes at the IRC.  It's all very vague right now, though. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 04:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a distinction between what we know and what we can prove with sources. We knew for example about Saeed Farooq hours before it could go in the article. These are the rules.


 * LA Times is now reporting that the Saeed Farooq who lived at the townhome was a food inspector in the public health department. It also claims that a Christmas party was being held in the conference room where the mass shooting happened. . 75.17.127.1 (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Brother-in-law (married to sister) of suspect in news conference. The venue was rented for the party to the Health department, so the Inland Regional Center was not really the target. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015
please change {{cite web|url=first=Joseph|last=Ax|first2=Dan|last2=Levine to {{cite web|first=Joseph|last=Ax|first2=Dan|last2=Levine

which fixes the citation error. 98.230.192.179 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * {{done}} — ATinySliver / {{sup|ATalkPage}} &#128406; 00:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015
Change Daesh to ISIS.

Doublehunks (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

✅ Kept Daesh, as it another name by which the organization is known by, and added ISIS in parentheses. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism??
There has been as of yet no concrete connection to this atrocity to Islamist terrorism, other than the fact that the implicated perpetrators are brown. Why do we put any goddamn links or subjects connecting this 'postal' attack to Islam? I will remove and revert any edits to the contrary. 1RR be damned, this is about truth, honesty, and verifiability. HOT WUK (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can add your comments to this already existing section. Talk:Terrorism Ralphw (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored to suit your political or religious preferences. But thus far the FBI has not said it was a terrorism incident.There is always the fact that if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, law enforcement and mainstream media may investigate the possibility of it being a duck, and it is appropriate for us to note such an investigation. Edison (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Threatening to edit war and disrupt an article is blockable. BTW, your attitude has blinded you to your actions.  By removing the voice of Muslims who oppose terrorism, you have reinforced the stereotypes you claim to be preventing. Muslims can and do criticize other Muslims and are allowed to do so in Western society.  I'm sorry that your cultural values conflict with ours. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

SUV photo
The article includes this photo of a black 2007-2008 Ford Expedition Limited EL (extended length). Since the perps had just rented the vehicle, it's unlikely it was anywhere near that old, rental companies don't keep vehicles that long. Do we have any indication it was an extended length model? If not, I don't think this photo earns its keep. We are also linking to the Ford Expedition article and that is sufficient. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  09:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree. There is no value in a generic picture of an SUV being in the article. That is what links to the vehicle article are for. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support removal of value-less image and replacement with another image of actual value. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The typical reader would be well aware of what a black SUV looks like. WWGB (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If we could get a photo of the shoot up SUV that would add value... but the generic photo is pointless. Black SUVs are found all over the world. I wonder if they will get the damage deposit back on the rental? Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can think of a couple of reasons why they won't, just off the top of my head. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Brand identity of semi-automatic weapons used?
Is it either 1) necessary or 2) prudent to use the brand identity of the weapons used as if that contributes some way to the discussion or information provided? If we are not interested that a hacker used an Apple computer or a hit-and-run drunk driver used a Tesla car why does it matter the brand of firearm? This is close to a tactic discussed by an antigun group in our local media of using branding to frame their agenda, lawsuits against specific companies or mass media slandering of the company for example. Even IF that is not the case it seems out of place when viewing other wiki articles dealing with news sources unless the community is interested in identifying Apple, car companies, knife companies ect. Also the term AR-15 is not literally correct as AR stands for Armalite Rifle which is not the brand of either of these Semi-Automatic Rifles, AR-15 styled, but I know that point is going no where fast in the wiki community.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, at this point in the article, there is no reason to break it down that much. We don't need to know if they drank Coke or Pepsi and we don't need to know what brand of firearm they used. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You (IP user) seem to be making two points. On the one hand, you make the point that the brand of the weapons is not important.  On the other hand, using the term "AR-15" misidentifies the brand.  I see your point that the brand may not be relevant, but I'm not sure how to reconcile that with the problem of misidentifying the brand.  If we want to make sure that readers are not misled to think that these were Armalite brand rifles, then I think it's important to mention what brand they were. --Nowa (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We report what the high-quality sources have reported; the New York Times has a whole interactive feature on the type of weapons used in this incident and others. Specificity and precision are important; we, as an encyclopedia, do not withhold such information from our articles merely because you may not like it. As to the comment above suggesting that the type of weapons is trivial and similar to whether "they drank Coke or Pepsi": that is absurd. Neutralitytalk 16:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I didn't realize this was a mirror site for the NYT. IF that level of detail really fulfilled the wiki community project goals I'm sure you will be glad to head the team going back and fixing all previous articles and being sure to update bio pages to reflect what brand of suits politicians wore and what brand sneakers athletes were wearing when they attended a significant event...not sure who is being absurd here.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically, it would be "two .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines." If we wanted to be very specific, we could add "NATO STANAG compatible detachable magazines."  I haven't seen any details on the capacity of the magazines (California law limits magazines to 10 rounds but they weren't particularly law abiding).  --DHeyward (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed I did throw that last point in rather than adding new topic, however it does not change the point as perhaps the best recourse would be to simple do what was done with the pistols and use Semi-Automatic Rifle as it is the most appropriate term. The AR-15 is a trademark term of Colt, and the brands of the rifles are as meaningless as the brand of car, caliber of pistols, or brand of rifles used by police.  Additionally there is the muck created by the fact that special interest groups have a propaganda plan of trying to tie companies to these horrible atrocities to further their own antigun political agendas.  Wiki wide this has been avoided for the most part, but not here.159.118.212.107 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it offputting to remove specific information about the firearms used, as it does provide insight into the events that unfolded. It is not "POV" to put the brand and make of the rifles and handguns, as it reflects the offensive capabilities of the assailants, and that is directly relevant to the article and the topic. Comparing it to Coke/Pepsi, Apple/Microsoft, suits/sneakers is a completely off base analogy. The phantom bugaboo of gun policy implications or stigmatizing a particular gun manufacturer should not be an issue, as these are the cold hard facts of the case. I find people use WP:NOTCENSORED way too much in Wikipedia talk page discussions, but in this case it's apt. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Afraid I can't see how using AR-15, an incorrect and trademarked name not used in this attack, or even M&P15 is more informative to the reader than simply '.223 Semi-Automatic Rifle' which is EXACTLY all that matters to determining the armament used. Also, this usage is not in standard with other articles of such events where brand name of things used is not important.  Does it matter the police ALSO used M&P15?  or they drove a Tahoe?159.118.212.107 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The AR-15 is a banned weapon by name in California. The weapons they used were not AR-15s. Using the term "AR-15" simply causes more confusion for readers. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are legal ways in which an ar-15 can be owned in california as discussed in AR-15s in California, i'm not saying it was an ar-15, i am just pointing out that it could have been. The shooter sould have bought to weapon online or from another state.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The only legal way is to have owned it before 2000 and have registered it with the state. The wiki page you pointed to doesn't say it, but in-state transfers of an AR-15 to civilians are impossible. If you had one before 2000, you can keep it but it can't be sold or transferred in state. You can also modify the gun extensively to keep it. But the modifications required mean you end up with something that really isn't an AR-15 anymore. Buying one "online" isn't realistic. Buying one in another state is possible, but rather pointless. The only thing illegal in California is the "name" AR-15. You can easily buy a rifle that is mostly identical to an AR-15 with a different name with no problems at all. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My preference would be "AR-15 variant". That provides relevant information about the basic capability of the weapon, without the specific brand and model names. Few readers know the differences between AR-15 variants, and few of those care in the context of a story like this one. That stuff matters to people who enjoy memorizing gun trivia related to mass murders, a miniscule fraction of Wikipedia readers. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)




 * That sounds fine to me. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I perceive a rough consensus for "AR-15 variant", about as clear as we'll get short of RfC, given the current state of this page. I'll take the liberty of extending that to "9mm pistol" as well. Unless there is significant opposition before then, I'll change the infobox accordingly at about this time tomorrow. I'll leave the body text alone for now and that can be hashed out separately if desired. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * made this edit, apparently not seeing this. It probably won't be the last before I implement this consensus (which won't include any mention of specific models in the infobox) in about 23 hours. That's ok, what happens to the infobox between now and then doesn't matter much. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry hadn't read this. I just thought the infobox was sloppy and had too much text. It currently has ".223 AR-15 type rifles" in the infobox - the fact that they were modified to change from the legal California ones is complex - perhaps moreso than can be covered in just the infobox.


 * The specific manufacturer and make is relevant to the exact legality of the guns in California. -- Callinus (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me how your comments affect the current plan, if at all. I think "AR-15 variant" is less ambiguous than "AR-15 type". Since that's the consensus, I'll go with that unless you disagree. And I'll remove the makes froom the infobox, again unless you disagree. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * go ahead - that's fine. The weapon makes shouldn't be in the infobox, if someone re-adds them then remember that MOS:INFOBOX says they're only for summary information, not exhaustive detail. Cheers. -- Callinus (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm moving on, so I'll leave it to you or someone else to make this change on schedule as described. Enjoy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course we should include any and all data we have on the guns, including brand name and a link to the manufacturer's site if they have a picture and pricing information! This case is, among other things, at the eye of a hurricane over gun control.  How can we reasonably inform readers on gun control issues if they don't know what guns were at the origin of the recent controversy?  Also, some readers will be thinking of preparing themselves to counter terrorist attacks, and they too need to know what they are up against, what to look for.  ISIS has their own channels of communication, their own face to face meetings and training camps in faraway lands ... our job is to help the rest of the world catch up. Wnt (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does this article list the weapons used as "assault rifles"?
This is not consistent with Wikipedia's own definition of what an "assault rifle" is, since that article specifically states they are select-fire, not semi-automatic fire only, which the authorities have confirmed. Another case of letting media and authorities ignorant of facts define terminology. 74.215.151.212 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In terms of USA technical jargon, the AR-15 is an 'assault weapon' but not an 'assault rifle'.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

in terms of us jargon it's neither.

The weapon is a semi-automatic rifle. "Assault Weapon" is a political term with no clear definition or meaning. Besides, if it was bought in California, it could not have been an "Assault Weapon" regardless, as California law explicitly bans the weapons that fall under their definition of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simple359 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a semi-automatic rifle, not an "Assault Rifle" or "Assault Weapon" as per Wikipedia's own definitions. --2001:420:2100:2320:DC6D:A871:168F:7BBF (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Changed in infobox; already been changed in text. --Thnidu (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. According to Wikipedia, the AR-15 was banned under US federal law labeling it an 'assault weapon'. Also according to Wikipedia, the state of California also specifically labels the AR-15 as an assault weapon.--98.122.20.56 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Some AR-15s are assault weapons and some are not. The legal definition of an assault weapon is based on a gun having a particular combination of cosmetic features. For example, a collapsible stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, pistol grip/etc. Even when assault weapons were "banned", it was still possible to purchase AR-15 style weapons. In addition, California banned certain guns by brand name. But (again) the same guns could still be sold under different names as long as they did not match the banned combinations of cosmetic features. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't we compromise and just call them AR-15 pattern rifles? The prefix 'assault' is clearly wrong and this is much more descriptive.68.198.173.235 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * further down on the talk page, there is a discussion where a rough consensus was reached to use the term "AR-15 variant". I think that most of the issues around assault rifles have by now been dealt with in other sections of the "talk" page. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Background section needs work
The background section is grammatically poor, it could use some work. Currently it is:
 * While early reports in a mass shooting often suggest multiple perpetrators, in the US this is extremely rare. In 160 active shooter incidents studied by the FBI between 2000 and 2013, only two involved more than one shooter. Similarly, of the 28 deadliest shootings in US history also only two involved more then one shooter, including the 1999 Columbine High School shootings. According to law enforcement, mass shootings by lone gunmen are often premeditated but killings by multiple shooters can suggest a higher level of planning.[12]

The third sentence could particularly use a rewrite. It appears it is trying to put this in the context of Columbine, but it doesn't do a very good job of it with the meandering grammar. The third sentence is also somewhat redundant with the second, they could likely be combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.163.130 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think much of it should be removed. Its assuming things we don't know yet about the nature of the incident and then it moves into blatant speculation (a higher level of planning). This isn't background. Its analysis. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What don't we know? The CNN source is pretty clear, and there was more then one shooter. Legacypac (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't know anything about the "planning" of the incident (we specifically don't know if there was a "higher" of level of planning as the section formerly implied). We don't anything about the motives behind the incident. We don't have enough information to put this incident in the context of other "mass shooting" incidents and Wikipedia should not be engaged in original research trying to put the incident in historical context. Its best to wait for the facts to come in. There is no reason to rush to analysis. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll
I suggest adding a section called "Suspects" and say:

Law enforcement authorities identified one of the suspects in the shooting as an employee of San Bernardino County Public Health Department.

Support

 * We can add the dude's name later. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:BLP and other comments here and in edit summaries, we should be very careful to get this right.  WP:NODEADLINE also applies.  General Ization   Talk   04:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * While WP:BLP applies, the name of one the suspects has been reported already in reliable sources such as LA Times and the Wall Street Journal. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though the person with that name has been reported as a suspect, not as a "perpetrator". We should not make that determination before investigators do.  General Ization   Talk   04:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The section is named "Suspects". I will remove name from the infobox. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the infobox also supports a susperps parameter that will display as "Suspects" or something to that effect.  General Ization  Talk   04:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Holiday party
Can this term be clarified for non-Americans please. I've never heard it before, and have no idea what it is. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It was basically a party. Firebrace (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * O we can therefore remove the word 'holiday'..? It seems rather specific to me, otherwise editors would simply have used one word: party. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The reference calls it a "Christmas party" so that's what we should use.  D r e a m Focus  09:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if you want to imply that the shooting is worse because it happened at Christmas... Firebrace (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really, if the source calls it a Christmas party, you say it is. If they say it was a graduation party, you say it is. If they say it's a wedding...etc &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Let us please try to focus here on actually helping the OP understand this aspect of US culture. In the month of December we have parties that are special to this time of year. These parties are often institutional; almost every business, office, organization etc tends to feel some urge, desire, or obligation to hold some such gathering. Although these "holiday parties" may in some cases be labelled "Christmas party", or somewhat falsely explicitly *not* called "Christmas" due to a perceived obligation to appear secular, they actually on the whole represent a confluence of many cultural threads: Christmas, New Year's, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, winter solstice, the coming of winter, etc. "Holiday Party" is an unofficial generic term that includes all such gatherings, which may or may not end up feeling festive and party-like. Most movies set in the US around this time of year will include portrayals of such parties. Compared to other kinds of parties, these holiday parties tend to be more put on by larger groups and official organizations of various sorts, rather than at a more personal-intimate level among families and friends.

A main "holiday party" at this time of year may or may not be supposed to officially include a celebration of the New Year. There are specific parties right around the end of the year, particularly the evening of the last day. The previous-earlier general holiday parties tend to be official-institutional, quite distinct from real personal-family-friend Christmas etc celebrations. New Year's Eve parties tend to be less planned, less official, more personal-intimate, although in some cases they can certainly be quite large, planned, expensive etc.

Is there a good WP article about this?-71.174.188.32 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did they have Christmas decorations? Did they give Christmas gifts?  Anyway, doesn't matter, if sources call it a Christmas party, that's what we should call it.   D r e a m Focus  15:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As a county employee myself, I can assure you they do not call it a Christmas paty, the County would call it a HOLIDAY Party. or Holiday Potluck. --158.61.0.239 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Dream Focus if the source refers to the party as a Christmas party, then the employees were clearly celebrating a Christmas party not any holiday which includes any holiday celebrated in the month of December. It would be more appropriate to refer to it as a Christmas party. Ralphw (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is way, way meandering - c'mon, people, the personal anecdotes are wholly irrelevant. We must look to what the sources say:

The sources use the following descriptors:


 * "Authorities identify couple who they believe killed 14 at San Bernardino holiday party" (LA Times)
 * "The shooters ... opened the doors at a holiday party and started shooting ... opened fire on a holiday banquet for county employees" (also LA Times)
 * "An annual holiday party (NYT)
 * "a holiday banquet" (Chicago Tribune)
 * "an office Christmas party" (Guardian)

So it seems that all different phrase have been used, but that in U.S. sources, "holiday party" or "holiday banquet" is most common. We should thus use that phrase. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is not about the "war on Christmas". Let's move on, shall we? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never forget! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The chicagotribune also says "All in a room with a Christmas tree and decorations on every table." Anyway, you are just cherry picking.  I Google news search for "San Bernardino" "christmas party" "shooter"  and it gets 21,500 results.  Plenty of news sources use either one.  The fact they had a Christmas tree in the room, would indicate its a Christmas party.   D r e a m Focus  03:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Holiday parties frequently feature Christmas trees. That doesn't make them Chistmas parties. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Any government institution or company in the US would refer to their Christmas party as "holiday" party. Why does Wikipedia need to spell it out a Christmas? Everyone knows what holidays are around this time of the year. 204.124.67.250 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what the office called it. It was their event, they named it. If the media wants to get it wrong or change the wording so the meaning is clearer to their readers, that's their business. If we feel that the meaning isn't clear to all our readers, then we can offer a clarification or article link, but we don't get to change the name of the event to suit us. For example, we wouldn't call a Quinceañera a 15th birthday party or a Cotillion ball in hopes of making it clearer, we'd call it what the hosts called it and then offer links or explanations as needed. So... what did the hosts call their event? Rklawton (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with "holiday party." In my experience, unless it's at a Christian non-profit or something, usually they call these "holiday parties" formally. But then in casual speech, people may refer to it as a "Christmas party." People often use the terms interchangeably, but then the official name is more often "holiday party." I'm in the Northeast though with a decent sized Jewish population so may be different in California. But there's a guy above who says he works for the county and it'd be called a "holiday party" so that seems reasonable. -KaJunl (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Redundant

 * Isn't this edit redundant? Perhaps we need to better organize the events and outcomes?  —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 02:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While the Background/Precedent section is interesting, does it really belong in an encyclopedic article of this nature? It could be seen as a bias or an attempt to seed an opinion.  Additionally, it isn't directly relevant to the article. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 02:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit is fine, from what I can see. It's in the lede and the lede is a summary of what's in the body of the article.  -- WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, didn't notice that. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 03:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A key reason this event deserves an article is that it is unusual - shootings are not notable, but multiple shooter mass shooting in the US is worth an article. Hence the background info. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, and I'd say that's enough justification to leave it. Still seems a little out-of-place from the perspective of a reader, though. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 03:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why I put it as Precedent at the bottom rather then Background at the beginning. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

consistency
The article now refers to the two people as "suspects", "Suspected Perpetrators" and "Perpetrators". The problem is mostly in the info box. They should be identified by one term uniformly through the article. And "suspect" is not the same as "Suspected Perpetrator". 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain the distinction in your mind between "suspect" and "suspected perpetrator". I think they are synonymous.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   05:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "The distinction between suspect and perpetrator recognizes that the suspect is not known to have committed the offense, while the perpetrator—who may not yet have been suspected of the crime, and is thus not necessarily a suspect—is the one who actually did. The suspect may be a different person from the perpetrator, or there may have been no actual crime, which would mean there is no perpetrator." The combination of the two words creates an inference that a person is absolutely known to have carried out a particular action. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with all but your last sentence. I disagree that "suspected perpetrator" creates any inference other than that they are suspected of having perpetrated a crime, which is for me identical to the meaning of "suspect." A person who is an "unsuspected perpetrator" is likewise not a suspect. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   05:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All I can tell you is that there is a long history as to why they do not mean the same thing and the confusion created by combining the two is one of the reasons that the term "person of interest" came into use. Its generally the case that "perpetrator" with any qualifiers is only used when the suspect is absolutely known to have committed a particular offensive. "suspect" without qualifiers is the far more neutral term. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * CNN is saying they don't know who was killed, there is great confusion in the sources still. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, CNN has just (at 21:06 PST) sent an email update that states "The sources could not say for certain that [Farook] was in the SUV, if he was a shooter, or whether he is one of the dead. The sources did say that Farook is known to be a U.S. citizen." We should review our copy to state only that Farook is a suspect, but not that he was in the SUV or was killed, since apparently that is unclear. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   05:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And have reviewed; our statements are fine at this time, but we should be alert to edit-creep that makes assertions about Farook not apparently yet supported by our sources. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   05:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

semi-auto weapon error
This article states that one of the gunman was armed with a semi-auto weapon, however the source link doesn't state that. I'm going to remove it. If anyone finds a link contains proof that a semi-auto weapon was used your welcome to edit it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At the 10:00 PM press conference, the police chief conformed "semi-automatic" weapons when asked. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

reactions section
The section, as currently written, is extremely questionable. The lengthy quotations from one person and what reads like political advocacy seem inappropriate. It would seem better, if this is necessary at all, to include multiple reactions and to summarize them rather than directly quoting at length. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this section is necessary, or at least is not appropriate when we don't even know the names (let alone history/motive/etc) of the shooters. Without commenting upon the content of the reactions, they seem poorly timed, imho Velojareal (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I've removed the "front-runners" thing. I'll give you that the quotations are too long, but as far as I can tell a "Reactions" section is pretty standard for tragedies such as this. I suppose I could see how it might be 'too early', but I mean there are already reactions. Thx, Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Reactions are certainly acceptable. I don't think its too early. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say these "2016 Candidates" are irrelevant to the article. They are not representatives of this region or from California. And it is still almost a year until the election.2601:150:8200:BA3C:3940:EA4D:484E:3809 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not too early? lol...we don't even know who they were, let alone why the did it. I digress. Velojareal (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world, I would agree. To digress, I think creating these breaking news articles on Wikipedia is itself a very bad idea. I wish there was a waiting period (lets say 24 hours) before articles like this could be created. But there isn't and we have to make the best of what in my opinion is a bad situation where Wikipedia turns into a cross-media clearing house for confirmed facts on breaking stories. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of demagoguery is provably false. No one in california can walk into a gun store and buy an assault rifle with a detachable magazine (the law requires that a tool be required to remove it - not detachable). In addition, the maximum capacity of a magazine is 10. It's very likely the gun acquisitions and its components violated the law just as it did in paris and just like the bombs in the Boston marathon were illegal. --DHeyward (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I'm sure you're correct, I don't think it'd be appropriate to opine on reactions listed in the article, unless citing someone who is expressing such an opinion outside of wikipedia. I included the candidates because I figured that if the reactions of the president are relevant, then the reactions of the people running to replace him might be too, but of course I could be wrong in that reasoning. Again, apologies if my additions were too tabloid-y regarding this section. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the reports of pipe bombs are true, that is not something you whip up on the spur of the moment. That implies a planned attack, not a response to a slight at a party. --67.235.68.199 (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Obama's suggestion that the no-fly list should apply to gun purchases is (in my opinion) a very ill-considered opinion that will likely be backtracked on in the near future. If a law as he is suggesting were created, a presidential administration would have an almost arbitrary power to deny gun ownership to just about any individual with little justification, no notification of individuals and limited opportunities to appeal the decision. The no-fly is already flawed enough without extending it further. It would also very likely be unconstitutional. 75.17.127.1 (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Obama's statement needs to be cut down considerably. He's president but his comments on this are really not as weighty as those of the state's governor. Brown's comments need to go before Obama's and Obama's don't need to be in a separate paragraph, especially if cut down (as they should be). Comments from the candidates are also unnecessary. If we keep the reactions section, it really should be a sub-section, possibly within an "Aftermath" section. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 03:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So is the consensus to remove the 'candidates' part, or at least limit it to a footnote or something? Also, I already shortened Obama's part quite a bit, so if theres more you think we can omit, feel free to do so, I guess I've been looking at it too long/Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove Impossible to cover all candidates, shouldn't be the main focus of the article, detracts from the issue at hand. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 04:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's removed, and I reorganized the order of Gov. Brown and Pres. Obama. Once there is a full fledged Aftermath section we can merge this into it//Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need this section at all. Right now it contains nothing of value other than that Brown cancelled that event. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * These sections are always only tangentially connected, and the discussion over which pointless reactions to include is always contentious. As always, I'm for burning the whole thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

10:07 News Conference
Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From police spokesperson: 14 dead, updated 17 wounded, conditions unknown.  SUV chased. 27-28 officers in gun battle at SUV. 2 suspects deceased in/at SUV.  Syed Farook. (male, I missed age, but stated)  US born.  Tashfeen Malik, 28, female. Unknown what her nationality or origin is at this time. They were married or engaged, or girl/boyfriend, not clear yet.
 * Christmas party or gathering he was part of event, attended same event last year. He is an environmental specialist in Public Health department. He was at party, left angry. Police were following up when they encountered him near townhome. No info on criminal records.
 * Info was there were upward of three shooters. Now comfortable two shooters deceased. Not 3 shooters.
 * 3 main Scenes - Inland, townhome was A residence for him, his office secured, street shootout scene.
 * There were explosive devices at scenes, just cleared, allowing for processing of scenes to start. Pipe bomb like device, not specific info yet.
 * Not ruled out terrorism. Motive unclear. Understand people concerned about further threats.
 * Sheriffs department, state and feds all involved.
 * One officer wounded, resting in hospital, non-life threatening injuries. (gunshoot according to earlier sources, not stated in this news conf).
 * there are other addresses associated with suspects, not clear the townhouse was primary residence yet.


 * What i heard in watching live stream of the press conference was this that differs slightly from above: Deceased man in SUV is Syed Rizwan [NOT Raheel as elsewhere reported] Farook, age 28, US born, employed by county. Deceased woman in SUV is Tashfeen Malik, age 27, place of birth unknown. After the shooting, because he had left the party, police went to Redlands to interview Farook. He and Malik took off in the SUV, which led to the gun battle in which they died. They may be "boyfriend and girlfriend." There may only be 2 suspects, not 3 as previously reported. The 3rd person, who was detained and is still in custody, was not named.75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * According to sources, they are husband and wife, and she appears to have lived in Saudi Arabia. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How about providing a few of the sources instead of saying "according to sources" like you are some kind of authority. Firebrace (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You're either joking or incapable of reading. This has been in all the major headlines for the last three hours or so. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Then why even mention it here? Firebrace (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously?  Did you read the comment I was replying to or do you just comment without reading?  The previous comment claimed they were boyfriend and girlfriend.  I replied to correct that claim. Why am I having this meta discussion? Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest new section: "Motives"
Islam, beard, trip to Saudi Arabia all are connected to the same issue: the motive for the attack.

Some criticize the backdoor approach people have taken, inserting these things as random biographical detail; obviously it's not really random, the sources are interested in this because they mostly assume it was some kind of terrorist attack.

Therefore the best way to introduce this section is to have a separate section "Motives", cite the sources that say that the motives are still unclear, but then cite their predominant theories, the first and foremost of which is an Islamist motive. That way we can put all this data in one place as a clear argument, while simultaneously recognizing the limits of that argument in an honest way. Wnt (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speculating on the shooters' motives violates WP:SPECULATION. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is pure speculation. Motives are yet unknown. WP:NOTDEADLINE and note that this is still a WP:BLP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See for example: -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * History is always speculative. BLPs are full of best guesses.  The courts being what they are, I think most criminal-case BLPs remain uncertain forever.  Our position should be to fairly review the relevant data, without attempting to suppress things that responsible news agencies feel comfortable printing. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline, surely information will emerge in the next few hours or days. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's too soon for such a section. If the motive is established, then there could be a "Motive" section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is too recent to speculate anything. Plus, it falls under BLP policy. Maybe this person was not Muslim terrorist, but just a disgruntled employee. epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something: why does this fall under WP:BLP when the perpitrators are most certainly not among the living having been killed by the police (from the article lead: "... the two perpetrators—Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik—were killed by police ...")? 86.145.215.191 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It also covers people who have recently died. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:Biographies of living persons. For discussion of Relevant policies, please see that section below. -- ToE 16:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Father's health
I added from the Guardian reference that there was trouble in the suspect's family, namely his father's mental state which was resulting in violence to himself and other people. Domestic abuse is often a factor in the shaping of minds of people who do heinous crimes, and this transcends racial and cultural origin, for example the case of Dylann Roof

This information has been removed on account of WP:BLP. I am just another editor in this big sea, and I respect the rules on edit warring, so I am bringing up a discussion. Whether you agree or disagree with including this information is fine by me. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should briefly mention what has been publicly reported in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 20:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait 24 hours. If it's relevant to other issues, the media will discuss it in more sources. The Saudi embassy has only just confirmed they went to Saudi Arabia for nine days in 2014, there may be other details coming out. It's too early to say whether the father has any relevance whatsoever. (Reuters) -- Callinus (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, info is emerging fast and there is no rush to get this right. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The suspect's father is not a notable person on their own, and the claims related to his mental state were made by his wife in the context of her filing for a legal separation, when many outlandish claims are likely to be made. At this point, there is no reason to believe that the suspect's father has connection to this act, and thus it is inappropriate for any claims about him to be included in the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

NBC Nightly News, (Lester Holt)
With the ongoing "revealings" of actual events of the San Bernardino shooting(2Dec2015), NBC Nightly News, Lester Holt ended his 1/2 hour Thursday (3 Dec 2015) report with a retelling of a hospital victim. He had talked to her mother(?), then visited the shooting victim (the daughter) at her hospital bed (and with NO cameras, and recording, stated by Lester Holt); the daughter said: (retold by Lester Holt), that one of the 2 shooters said, quote: "thank you, finally". Mmcannis (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What? (Which is to say, said to whom?  When?  In what context?  Otherwise, this is all but useless.)  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no sign of a citable source in Google News for those three words being uttered by anyone in the context of this incident, so even if Lester Holt said it on the air, we can't say it here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   02:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Co-ordinates
Why was there a separate section on co-ordinates? They were already in the title and the infobox, and this section adds nothing to the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That caught my eye, too. It's a footnote, used in the body, containing a different coords pair for the shootout. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Coordinates are given in the infobox for the location of the incident and then a reference to the street where the final shootout occurred. Bod (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The heading could be Notes instead of Coordinates. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But you currently have a big red cite error at the bottom of the article. You need to re-add the reflist template or remove the footnote, and I'm for the former. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ...or you can just remove it, since it's redundant to the topmost coordinate. epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Full disclosure
After editing logged out for several weeks, I am returning to my registered account. I have been advised to state that I have been posting on this page logged out, as 72.198.26.61. I have no current plans to edit logged out again. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  05:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

International terrorism connection:
San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said.

It appears that Farook was radicalized, which contributed to his motive, though other things -- like workplace grievances -- may have also played a role, other law enforcement sources said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds premature. The source says it "appears" he was radicalized. This isn't confirmation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

CNN just re-wrote that entire section. This is breaking news, so I think we should wait a bit. I want to know which officials this refers to. And if this is true, then we'll get more details in the coming hours. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Workplace violence and Islamic terrorism don't usually go together, so we need to wait for better confirmation of motive and the radicalization angle. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This falls under WP:RUMOUR. ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What is emerging is a combination of both. But we shall wait until the investigation declares a motive -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no qualms about identifying the motive on the Colorado Springs shooting page and it is called terrorism when no one investigating it has identified a clear motive for Robert Dear. Yet editors of this page are bending over backwards to coddle these Muslim terrorists.  Wikipediqa isn't biased, my arse.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.117.35 (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The motive on that page is set to "unknown". ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian (a British broadsheet) has just published that Syed had contacts with people under watch from the FBI. I'm not sure if per WP:BLP this should be included unless it is confirmed as a motive, as we could be ascribing motive by association. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The page about Dear also quotes politicians who have described his actions as terrorism. Would it be deemed acceptable to include quotes from politicians who have called this a terrorist attack? 173.75.117.35 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Politically motivated mass shootings are only terrorism if they're non-white & Muslim, right?
 * Don't be silly whoever you are. See Timothy McVeigh Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The word terrorism occurs 6 times in the article and counter-terrorism occurs twice. A work related dispute would be far-fetched since prior preparation was involved. Can the motive remain unknown this long? His motivation may not have been based on religion, but the actions of the perpetrators can certainly be qualified as terrorism at this point. Ralphw (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Shooter's hobbies and education
The Washington Post is reporting that "[the shooter]enjoyed working on vintage and modern cars, and [enjoyed] eating out sometimes" and that he would "just hang out in back yard doing target pratice [sic] with younger sister and friends.” It also states that "he graduated from California State University, San Bernardino with a degree in environmental health in 2009". ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you are still at 3RR for editing out the subject's religion 6 times it is surprising to see you posting information not directly related to the attack. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus not to include the shooter's religion. Please stop putting that information in.  If the shooter's religious beliefs are up for debate on whether they should be included or not, then all of his personal preferences should be given equal weight in the debate.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Inability to assess consensus is obvious, as is inability to follow other guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Davis, there is no such consensus, and this thread serves as good evidence for your POV pushing and probable future topic ban per DS. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Viriditas that your claim of such a consensus is clearly false. Mainstream media all include it in coverage of the event. You do not own the article, and Wikipedia is not censored. Edison (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Search of Townhouse Section
The sentence "The townhouse was under surveillance when the perpetrators left in the SUV" is confusing, because it's not clear that the surveillance only started after the main shooting event. Also, the source is a frequently updated page, so the update that includes the source info is getting hard to find. EvidenceFairy (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand what happened from reading news reports... after the shooting someone at the Inland event said something like "this guy left, and then came back wearing a mask and shooting people. Witnesses talk about a black SUV with the shooters. With this lead the police headed to the townhome, and started to watch it (maybe while getting a warrant and/or bomb unit). The police spot the black SUV pulling up, and Malik spots the police and flees, with cops giving chase. The SUV drives about 2/3rds of the way back toward the Inland Regional Center before a gun battle breaks out. I've not seen any info on where the shooters went between the IRC and the townhouse, but quite a bit of time elapsed between the shooting and the car chase. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I raised this issue is because existing wording leaves open the possibility that surveillance occurred before the main shooting event, which implies law enforcement saw the home's occupant(s) as possible future offenders, which would change the conversation about possible motive significantly. There is currently no evidence for this.  EvidenceFairy (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I remember seeing it, after the SUV left the shooting, the police got a tip that let them figure out what apartment to visit. It may have come from one of the shooter's surviving ex-co-workers.  Apparently even though he was wearing a mask, someone recognized his voice.  It's late here so I can't dig up the links right now but maybe this can help find stuff. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Shooter's Faith
Several editors insist that the man's faith has nothing to do with the crime, yet they support including other biographical details. According to some sources his faith is central to the story, and this question is being debated in the real world.  Like most of the people who have commented on the topic, I believe it is appropriate to present the fact he was a Muslim neutrally alongside other biographical info. Excluding this fact, while including details about where he grew up, went to school, worked and even his brother's navy service, is very POV. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse. He was what he was. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mosque leader commenting on his faith and evidence of travel for religious reasons.
 * "Farook is said to have been a devout Muslim, but reportedly stopped attending his local mosque two years ago. Colleagues told the Los Angeles Times he rarely talked about religion at work."
 * Since there's probably a terrorism component, it's likely appropriate. Another argument in favor of it is WP:Not censored. The only counter-argument would be WP:BLP. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure BLP, but being Muslim is not negative, and there is no one disputing he is Muslim. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Was the Iranian victim Muslim as well or another shooting victim? Just now, in a new article, it says Farook shot a member of his own congregation at the party, or at least I thought I read that. She's Christian.  I don't know what I was reading, but it was wrong. And then we've got loads of new material for a reaction section, talking about how the mainstream Muslim community stands with the victims and against violence. So all of these arguments against avoiding discussing Muslims are terribly misguided and frankly embarrassing. American Muslims agree that Islam has a problem with extremism and they want to confront it head on by standing against it.  It's time to start talking more about Muslims in the article, not less. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. People want to know who did these crimes.  They want to know about them.  Including a dozen details about the perpetrators, while excluding their religion, is astounding and serves only to make Wikipedia look ridiculous... literally, as in "worthy of ridicule" ridiculous, and at this point, deserving of ridicule.  Is there any mainstream media source covering this shooting which has not mentioned their religion at all?  Any?  Bueller?  Marteau (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Right now we've got a lot of trivial biographical details in the article. In the worst case, religion would be just one more trivial detail. However, given his reported links to known Muslim terrorists, his faith appears to be highly relevant and so should be included along with information about these links. Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with including mention of his religion. I'm very new to this editing thing - how do we get his religion included in the article? EvidenceFairy (talk) 04:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Example CTV article "married on Aug. 16, 2014, in nearby Riverside County, according to their marriage license. Both listed their religion as Muslim" "Farook was a devout Muslim who prayed every day and recently memorized the Qur'an, according to brothers Nizaam and Rahemaan Ali, who attended Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah mosque in San Bernardino with Farook." "Rahemaan Ali said he last saw Farook three weeks ago, when he abruptly stopped going to the mosque." "A profile on a matchmaking website for South Asians that matched Farook's name, California hometown, county health job and Muslim faith..." "Two weeks ago, Farook and one of the co-workers he killed, ...Nicholas Thalasinos, had a heated conversation about Islam,.. Stephens said she happened to call Thalasinos while he was talking with Farook at work. She said Thalasinos told her Farook "doesn't agree that Islam is not a peaceful religion."  Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Their name and their origin from Pakistan can guide an educated reader. The   Aven gers  06:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The man was born in the United States. Talking about his family origin in Pakistan would seem to provide little to the educated reader. His wife was born in Pakistan and a US resident so discussion of her origin in Pakistan might be acceptable. 75.17.126.209 (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mater where he was born, nearly all Pakistani Americans have family, relatives and friends in Pakistan. Many of them often travel to Pakistan, which is infested with anti-American extremists. This is vital information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really agreeing with you, but HE traveled to Pakistan and married a Pakistani. It's pretty relevant, and anyway Wikipedia commonly notes the family origin of people. Nothing wrong with being Pakistani origin. Legacypac (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox images
Speaking of images not earning their keep... The article currently provides four (4) maps for two locations, in addition to the coordinates for the same two locations. Via those coordinates with a couple of clicks, you get tons more functionality than you get with either of the maps in the infobox. Why do we provide those coordinates and then bend over backwards to save the reader from using them? I think at least the two infobox maps should go, if not the other two as well. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  11:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

PoI Box (Locations)
I have removed three locations that were listed in the PoI box because they are not directly relevant to the shooting: Farook's graduate school, undergraduate college, and high school. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Marriage
The article currently quotes a coworker suggesting he travelled to Saudi Arabia to meet and marry his wife in spring. Since there's no mentiom of what spring, the assumption would be it was last spring. There are two problems with this. One is that the current version of the source to support this claim doesn't say anything about spring just "recently", which is a bit more ambigious. Two is if he met his wife for the first time in spring it's fairly unlikely a 6 month year old daughteris his (technically you could come up with a weird scenarion). A comment above in the mentions another source saying the marriage happened 2 years ago, which makes more sense. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Best is to wait until more information emerges. There is no deadline and this is still a WP:BLP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for what? The info is still in the article although it now says spring of 2014 which is a bit better since it doens't imply it's unlikely they're both the parents of the daughter. A source has been added which does say spring, but it doesn't say 2014. Further it did and does say he met her via the internet. I didn't mention this earlier, but I'm mentioning this now because this source claims he met her in 2013 when he went on the Hajj (which in recent years, including 2013, wasn't during the morthern hemisphere spring). It doesn't say he married her in 2013, actually it says she came over to the US via fiancee visa (but not when) which would seem to imply they weren't married when she came over, although it's still possible they married in Saudi Arabia and also possible they had an unrecognised marriage in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. While I sometimes advocate just leaving info which someone is going to fight over rather than getting in to unnecessary debates over something which will probably be clear in a few days or less, that doesn't apply here for various reasons. In particular, I don't see how just leaving possibly incorrect information (which at the time, seemed to imply the the couples weren't both the parents of the daughter) is helpful from a BLP standpoint. Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I inserted the co-worker comment about him going to Saudi Arabia and bringing her back in spring. The co-worker did not specify which spring. Further, they could have met and married there several years ago, even conceived a child, before she came to the US. Info is coming in still, so just report the pieces and it will all come together. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if it just says spring, the assumption would be it's the most recent spring, that's the whole problem. And the current version says spring of 2014, but this isn't supported by the source used (which was added after my first comment as the older source didn't seem to mention the spring btu when I checked it). Also it's impossible for her to have met and married several years ago if he first met her in spring of 2015, which the comment and our article implied, that was the whole point. (Technically it's possible they could have had a child via weird scenarios without having met.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

CNN now has it: "Farook, 28, and Malik, 27, were married for two years. He met Malik online and met her in person when he went to Saudi Arabia to perform the Hajj pilgrimage in 2013. She later came to the U.S. on a fiance visa and became a legal permanent resident."

Also "He shares the same name as his brother and father. It's important to note Farook's middle name -- Rizwan. His father also is named Syed Farook, as is his older brother. Like him, they have different middle names." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

How did the couple meet?
Different sources are making different claims about how the couple met. suggests they met during the Hajj in 2013. suggests they first met online. Any clarity on who is right? Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Logically - both. First online, then in person, and engaged/married in 2013 in Saudi Arabia. They got married officially in Riverside Cali after she arrived in the US on a F visa. Naturally as a Muslim, he did hajji while in KSA to meet the future wife. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason why that's more logical than the alternatives. For example, it's claimed he performed the Hajj in 2013 (which would be in October). But it's also claimed he travelled to marry her in spring of an unspecified year and she joined him in July 2014. Spring must be northern hemisphere spring, since no southern hemisphere countries were involved so it can't be during the Hajj. So it's easily possible he met her in Saudi Arabia in 2013, and they relationship continued online after he left. Clearly if both sources are claiming their relation began in different ways (and they are), one of them is partially wrong. This is why we should go by sources, not what's "logical". BTW to be clear, you can't just randomly perform the Hajj because you happen to be in Saudi Arabia. Potentially he could have planned to perform the Hajj and simultaneously met someone he met online, but it would require planning probably a few months in advance (I presume it's easier to perform the Hajj for American citizens, for a number of countries with predominantly Muslim populations there's generally a wait list of several years) and probably careful working of schedules as I don't think Hajj pilgrims have much opportunity for independent exploration and they also can't hang around after the Hajj. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

CNN article linking:
CNN is reporting that their hard drive is missing and that two damaged cell phones have been found. How do I link to specific CNN articles on this topic? The url is just this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Which is the same, and changes all the time reflecting the newest information. I want to link just the story about the hard drives. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Save it to archive.org. That will time stamp it.  Then link to the archive.org version.--Nowa (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators
Not wanting to edit-war, the third person, detained after seen fleeing from the SUV shootout, isn't stated to be a suspect and as such certainly shouldn't be a "Perpetrator", right? The police didn't even say "person of interest", news agencies all say "person". “A third person was seen leaving the area. He was detained. We do not know the extent of his involvement; it’s possible he was not.”. What evidence is there of the detained person having "committed an illegal, criminal, or evil act"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velojareal (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted the Twitter account (who tweeted that, exactly?) says "person of interest", the Chief did not during the interview covered in the NYT live page. Velojareal (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard the news specifically say "The police are not ready to call this person (the one they detained) a suspect" Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference? All quotes I've found say person. This is an obviously rapidly changing current event...but still need RS Velojareal (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to me, I'm afraid it was just the ABC news stream, I was just recalling that as support for abstaining from calling the individual in detention a suspect. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I misread your comment, apologies (and bed time) Velojareal (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Originally, that said "1 still at large", or something along those lines. Following the press conference, I changed it to "1 detained" because the existing statement was inaccurate, but I didn't want to remove the information.  Based on what I heard during the press conference, it was very clear that they were unwilling to label the person even as a suspect at the time--they were merely a person of interest.  I don't know if that's changed; there's speculation that it has based on the recent raid, but that shouldn't be taken into account because it's just speculation.  tl;dr: I have no objection to this being altered, but it should probably be noted somewhere conspicuous that there is one person currently detained. —Zenexer &#91;talk&#93; 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Right after the shootings, an eye witness was on TV stating that she clearly saw THREE shooters, all dressed in black, with long weapons. How many witnesses initially said there were three rather than two shooters? Was there any security video showing the number of shooters? Are there any witnesses who said there were two at the initial shooting? Edison (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Victim's picture
I don't object putting the picture of the perpetrator, but would we care to put the pictures of a few victims.

Wikipedians will also behave like the media, where victims will be forgotten, and huge coverage would be given to the shooter, increasing his notability for a standalone article. We have to watch the biopics of the killers in prime time news, (how the shooter's family will say my son is innocent, where they grew up, his love life, his Facebook page). -- The   Aven gers  03:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, victims have more rights to anonymity than the perpetrators (or even suspects). I think that should be respected here as well. If consent from the family is given or possibly even if photo is from a public obituary I'd say it may be included. Velojareal (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL site and so articles have usually not listed the names of the victims and should not have their pictures. For example Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting does not have a full list of victims and does not have pictures of any of them. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability matters in most cases. Before making insensitive comments, just think if Wikipedia is not memorial, then Wikipedia is also not FBI most wanted list or police record book, where mug shots of criminals would be posted. maybe the shooter get extra coverage, but that doesn't mean the victims get zero coverage. every victim may not get media attention, but some victims are selected and highlighted by media. The killer is dead, why his picture is shown as memorial. The   Aven gers  17:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Duration of Shootout
The duration of the shootout is listed as being under a minute which is wildly inaccurate. The shooting lasted at least 3 minutes. There is video and audio out there to corroborate this because this did take place in a residential area. Please fix this because it is completely inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbeatchemist (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Description of weapon
One editor, User:Faceless Enemy, keeps editing the article to remove the term "assault rifle" (saying that the use of the term is "wrong"). Another editor and I have restored this language, but I wanted to flag the issue here.

We have to follow the sources here, which describe the long guns used as assault rifles:


 * NY Times: both of them were dressed in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles, officials said.
 * NY Times again: armed with .223-caliber assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns
 * NBC News: were carrying two .223-caliber assault rifles and two semi-automatic handguns
 * Associated Press: Federal authorities say that the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the San Bernardino massacre were all purchased legally in the United States

So the bottom line is that we must conform to the sources and refrain from making up our own descriptors. Neutralitytalk 17:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * if the sources are demonstrably wrong, then we should not follow them. See WP:FALSE. And please note the difference between my two edits. "Semi-automatic rifle" is the correct term, as in my first edit, which I believe at least two other editors also agreed with; see the discussion at the top of the page. After this was reverted, I tried to find a compromise by just going with the broader term "rifle" (my second edit). At the very least Wikipedia should try to avoid publishing false informationand stick with "rifle". I'll bet that we will eventually go to " semi-automatic rifle" anyway, though I'm done with actually editing this article for the day. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The weapon was a AR-15 which is categorized under Category:Assault rifles, and the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 banned Colt AR-15 rifles by name in the State of California. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Faceless Enemy: A weapon can be both a semi-automatic rifle and a assault rifle (as Cwobeel pointed out in his edit summary).  We must go with the description of all the reliable sources (AP, NY Times, NBC News, etc., reporting what the authorities have actually said). Neutralitytalk 18:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please point out which part of federal or California gun law defines a select-fire weapon as an "assault weapon", because I'm at a loss. The article CWobeel linked clearly says "semi-automatic".  Regardless, "semi-automatic rifle" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive terms. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in common parlance, they aren't. See Encyclopædia Britannica: "In those countries where assault rifles can be purchased in the civilian market, their sale is subject to various restrictions, such as the elimination of automatic action." See also sense 2 of the definition of "Assault rifle" in Dictionary.com based on Random House Dictionary: a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire. Neutralitytalk 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That material is both dated and false. The weapons in question are not "modified to allow only semiautomatic fire". The weapons (like the civilian AR-15) are designed only for semiautomatic fire. The trigger group is totally different than a military AR-15. Britannica is talking about guns that were available decades ago in the US. These sources are talking as if it were still 1978. Before laws and regulations were changed in the 1980s, the military and civilian versions of the weapons were close. However, the ATF disallowed such weapons decades ago.12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Assault rifle" is a real military term so I do not understand the issue. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Assault rifles by definition are fully-automatic or select fire. An AR-15 is cosmetically the same as an M-16.  It is functionally the same as a Ruger Mini-14 or any other semi-automatic rifle.  The reason why there are always legal variants of weapons made despite "bans" is because the the things that make them look scary are cosmetic.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Assault rifle", "assault weapon", and " semi-automatic rifle" are 3 distinct terms with varying degrees of overlap. It would be correct to describe the rifles used in this attack as "semi-automatic rifles" or "assault weapons under California law", but it is just plain wrong to call them " assault rifles". Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Attempting not to describe these weapons with the word "assault" prefixed is splitting hairs based on differing legal technicalities. The desire to avoid the word "assault" could be an attempt to avoid injecting that loaded term (and therefore the gun-control debate) into the content of this article, although a conscious effort to remove the word "assault" could in itself be seen as taking sides in that debate. Regardless, the term "semi-automatic rifle" is far too broad and could accurately describe, for example, a hunting rifle with a four-cartridge magazine that never could have possibly been used to effectively commit this kind of attack. Instead, if this would satisfy both sides, I would propose describing these weapons as "AR-15-family .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles," which is an accurate, specific description without using any loaded terms. Everyone (I think) knows what an AR-15 is for—not hunting. Darkest Tree  Talk  18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, lots of people hunt with AR-15 or other variants. It's a small round for game, though and considered cruel as it isn't as lethal.  Variants such as the AR-10 are used for deer all the time.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guess I could have put it better. Not saying one can't hunt with an AR variant, but that they are designed for tactical applications first and foremost, regardless of the individual variant and the measures taken to make it civilian-legal. Darkest Tree   Talk  18:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The civilian available semiautomatic versions of things like the AR-15 are not designed for tactical applications. They are guns designed to cosmetically resemble tactical weapons. But they are really just semiautomatic rifles dressed up to look like something they are not. Back in the 1970s, the civilian AR-15 was very close the military AR-15. But there were a whole bunch of laws passed and regulations put in place decades ago (like the 1980s) to eliminate that situation. The civilian AR-15s today are deliberately designed to be different guns than the military version. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Darkest tree, You can google "AR-15 Varmint" and see lots of efforts of design for hunting, not 'tactical applications first and foremost' as you put it. Also mentioned at Varmint Rifle. Velojareal (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Forget the gun control debate for now; semi-automatic rifles are not assault rifles, by the very definition of "assault rifle". They could be "rifles defined as assault weapons by the state of California", but they aren't "assault rifles". I would be fine with the "AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle" description you proposed above. It would at least be accurate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't "AR" refer to "assault rifle"? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No; it's from ARmalite (the original company); please see the AR-15 page for more information. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem of inconsistent/changing language in the broader culture. Traditionally the term "assault rifle" refers to weapons capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull. In contrast, the term "assault weapon" means a semi-automatic weapon (one shot per trigger pull) with specific features. By these definitions the two terms are mutually exclusive, as Faceless Enemy mentions above. However, because many assault weapons are rifles, some people (probably those unfamiliar with the traditional definition of "assault rifle") have started referring to rifles that are classified as assault weapons as "assault rifles". So the term now has two mutually exclusive uses. In such a situation, we will have better clarity if we avoid the term. --RL0919 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The section mentions that the weapons were purchased legally but then goes on to say the ATF is tracing the serial numbers. The ATF cannot know if they were purchased legally or not unless they have already completed the trace. All they could possibly know without a trace is that the manufacturer shipped them to a distributor and they weren't reported stolen. --DHeyward (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I think it's more accurate to mention the firearms were initially or originally purchased legally. There is no information yet as to how the killers retrieved those firearms, and no indication of the legality of the killers acquisition of them.  Mottfan (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've communicated with the New York Times on several occasions about their incorrect use of "assault rifle". They hold that an "assault weapon" which is a "rifle" is an "assault rifle". You can point out the legal and military definitions of assault rifle all you like and they just don't care. But the term "assault rifle" should only properly used to describe fully automatic weapons. In other words, Wikipedia should be guided by correct definitions rather than the low editorial standards of many journalists.12.12.144.130 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Time discrepancy
The article states the shooting occurred at 10:59 am (PST), but the article was created at 10:44 am, with references to articles from Reuters and KTVU stating that 20 people have been wounded by that time, so the shooting or at least related events must have occurred before then? Tom W (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Check your calculations, please. When the article was created, it was 11:44 am PST. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   14:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're correct. Tom W (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Slight disambiguation
Should the info about the Hajj be under the male shooter's header or the female shooter's header. Based on the reports, it seems as if the female shooter, expressed an fudementalist religious point of view, while no information exists, as of yet, connecting the male shooter to the activities of any religious fudementalist organization or ideology. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Motive section should be restored to page
The motive section should go back on the page. Motive is the central topic of public discussion and concern, it is what determines the nature of public policy and public opinion responses to mass shootings, and, most importantly, it is one of the things that readers come to Wikipedia expecting to find. We do ourselves no favors by hiding this information inside the "investigation section". It needs to be a separately headed subsection of "Investigation."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What information? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever turns up, on this as on every mass shooting: racism, workplace stress, membership in a White supremacist group, anger management issues, Islamism, anti-abortion, hatred of Islam, anti-Semitism, Uighur sovereignty.  Whatever the motives are, they it need to be highlighted.   c.f. 2015 Chattanooga shootings.  Even if motives are muddy and certainly if there is more than one (e.g, racism plus personal resentment) we need to discuss them in a place on the page that shows up in the page index as a subhead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Whatever turns up" seems much too ill-defined to warrant a (sub)header like "Motive". Far more suited to "Investigation", which entails turning stuff up. When one of these whatevers is determined (by investigators, not writers) to be a motive rather than a red herring, that'll be the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Israeli Mossad doesn't want the true motive known. Plausible deniability, you see. 173.75.117.35 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see lots of things. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Investigation section is pretty small so I didn't see the point of a sub heading for just motive. It's only a few lines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One purpose of having subheads is to make information easy to find. When the section was removed, I though it had disappeared and went to check edits for a large deletion.  A subhead on motive is functional.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If there were more content under motive, a section header would be justified. But as it is, its too small to warrant one *at the moment*. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Year in article title
Is this a new style guide change that we must include the year in the articles of the form "<Location> Shooting"? Or was there another year in which there was a historically significant shooting in San Berandino? patsw (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC) In a city this size there are likely a few shootings a year. Best leave it alone. Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some bank robbers shot down a San Bernardino County Sheriff's helicopter with a machine gun on a truck in 1980, then vanished into the woods, (perhaps) never to be seen again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thirty-five years later, a helicopter shot a burglar in a car, possibly in revenge. "This is the seventh shooting of its kind since 2001 in Apple Valley." InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost every city of a certain size will have more than one shooting in a year. That is not disputed. The question is whether there's a reason to add "2015" to some or all articles with a title of the form "<Location> Shooting"? Is there a Wikipedia Crystal Ball to predict a 2016 San Bernardino Shooting but not a 2016 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Why is the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article not titled 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? patsw (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because there have been other shootings in San Bernardino, but not at Sandy Hook Elementary. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a 1992 courthouse shooting, too. No respect for San Bernardino County authority, some people. This guy's family watched him get shot on live TV in 1999, thanks to helicopters. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A 2003 man (allegedly) shot himself dead right in the sheriff's headquarters, soon after he shot a deputy. But he did not shoot the sheriff. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Three years later, a deputy shot an ironically unarmed war veteran. First time San Bernardino had ever pressed charges against a cop for shooting someone. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One year later, you can probably guess how that turned out. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State support by the perp belongs in lede

 * The fact that she was an avowed supporter of ISIS should be mentioned in the lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The info discussing connections to religious fundementalists/conservatives is under the male shooter's section (which have yet to be proven), while her section doesnt say anything about her religious or political beliefs (which are now being widely reported).  ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with first point. Declaring alegiance to ISIS leader is key development. Doesn't have to be today. But the ISIS tie-in whether a direct one or tangental, by the female perp should be in article intro. 10stone5 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)