Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 4

ISIL inspired?
Recent disclosures by FBI investigation, shows that the terrorists were radicalized several years ago, even before ISIL was formed (April 2013). So, best it to stick with the sources and describe the attack as terrorism inspired by Islamic extremism. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 'The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999.' If the people they communicated with are now part of current day ISIL (or leading it), it seems like splitting hairs to not make specific reference to the group so long as backed by WP:RS. Velojareal (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean like my original wording you folks spent days reverting? What an original idea....now when will you come around to moving the article back to "attacks" like I had it?  Why is this like editing through a time machine?  Does it really take this long for you to catch up? Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr or Ms Virditas: As I have said many times, we follow the sources. There is no need to jump the gun. We improve and update the article as information emerges and is reported. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We've all been following the sources quite closely, especially in regards to proposing Islamic extremism in the first place (sourced repeatedly in previous threads that you denied) and in regards to changing the article title to "attacks" (sourced repeatedly in previous discussions and during the actual move per the edit summary). Btw, welcome to Wikipedia!  As a new user, you may not be aware of our gender template, which can determine the gender of any Wikipedia editor based on their self-reporting.  Again, welcome! Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is getting really boring. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a background section
It is all sufficiently covered under "Perps". It works much better with "Attack" being the first section. Bod (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed pending consensus. WWGB (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We certainly can consider using a background section in the future so as to smooth out and flatten the narrative, but this version of the background section doesn't work, so the removal is sound. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

See also September 11 attacks, where the background section is used effectively. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why the background isn't relevant. There have been reporters traipsing though the perps apartment trying to figure out the background. Such a section on an article is completely standard. -- Kendrick7talk 05:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the one that was recently added didn't work, and the current article would need restructuring. Please have at it.  You have my support. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully expect such things to evolve organically. But I promise to check back. -- Kendrick7talk 06:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between collaboratively evolving a section organically and crap. I have removed the crap. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sentence Makes No Sense
"the loans are originated were a third-party bank" Should that read "the loans originated with..." or "the loans were from..."?Jewlrzeye (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose moving the "mass shooting comparisons" in the lede
This sentence:


 * The attack was the second-deadliest mass shooting in California after the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, and the deadliest in the U.S. since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.[8][9]

Has reappeared in the lede. I was quite happy with it being a little factoid note and much preferred that to cluttering the lede with it because it has nowhere else to go. Start a new subsection otherwise where the methods and deadliness can be compared to other incidences... Bod (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't like these comparisons anywhere, but as long as they're everywhere, it'd be conspicuous to omit them somewhere. If you'd like to do the same for all the mass shooting articles, that's a wonderful idea, but otherwise, not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed them. Given this is a terrorist attack, comparing it to non-terrorist shooting body counts is misleading. I'm seeing stuff like "deadliest ISIL linked attack in the US" and "deadliest terror attack since 9/11" in the media. 19:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"comparing it to non-terrorist shooting body counts is misleading"

They were mass shootings. This is a mass shooting. The motive is not relevant. They're worth of comparisons to put it into context with other mass shootings in American history. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye. At least as worthy as the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Article name change probably warranted at this point
Since it's been confirmed that this was not just another mass shooting in America, but was more significantly and a bit more uniquely (in a way), "an act of terrorism", there's probably some reason to maybe change the name of the article at this point. Like "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" somewhere in the name of the article, perhaps, being more fitting and warranted. Any thoughts? This is being treated differently than any other "mass shooting" by major authorities in law enforcement. (And, by the way, the FBI only considers five of the shootings this past year in America as "mass shootings", NOT "355", as has been exaggerated by the media.)  Anyway, the point is that it's been discovered (and confirmed) that what happened in southern California could have easily and frighteningly been worse, with the arsenal that these two people had stocked up, and the plans they have been proven to have had. Name change of this article is probably in order. To make it clear that this is not just another "mass shooting". Because the present name of the article is giving that inaccurate impression, in a way. Give your opinions. Thank you. Redzemp (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with adding "terrorism" or "terrorist" to the article title. The Paris article is still at November 2015 Paris attacks. But, there's nothing wrong with opening a formal move proposal to gauge consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, RM is the way to go with this, imo. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Earlier today a drive-by editor moved this page to 2015 San Bernardino Terrorist Attack and I immediately moved it back. Any page move requires a thorough discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't even know that that happened.  He should not have done it that way.  Though I agree with that editor's sentiment, I don't agree with how he went about it, as that is in violation of WP protocol.  It's known that any move for name change (especially in high-profile articles like this) needs discussion on Talk first.  But the point though is that it proves that others feel that the current article name is too generic and vague, and not specific enough.  Redzemp (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely requires a move after ISIL connection, terrorism links, the discovery of bombs and bomb making equipment and radical Islamic connection makes it more in line with the other radical Islamic attacks such as the train attack, the paris attacks, the bombing of the Russian passenger jet, etc. Maybe "2015 War on Christmas parties"--DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I dont know that I agree. The article somewhat follows the prescident of the somewhat similar Foot Hood Shootings of 2009. (Title: 2009 Fort Hoot Shooting). The ISIL connection is still rather thin (per RS) at present and while they were making bombs, they don't seem to have been able to use bombs in the attack successfully. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree all you want. Within the last day, all RS have taken to calling it "attacks", and the shooting narrative has since been dropped.  I've changed the article title accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering the title was under discussion, with a recommendation for RM, and you knew that, I consider your move an act of disruption, on the same day as you threatened to report other editors to arb enforcement for disruption, their crime being what you considered excessive humor in a talk thread. But I'm staying off the revert button. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's recap for those who can't keep up: consensus to move to a new article title is established. Since there is only one option for a neutral title supported by naming convention and reliable sources ("2015 San Bernardino attacks"), I moved the article accordingly.  It was then absurdly reverted for no reason.  What exactly do we have to discuss when there is only one logical option for moving an article to a title supported by both our naming conventions and all of the current RS that have been published?  Are you unaware that RS are now calling this an attack and not a shooting? What exactly is it that you feel the need to discuss? Do you need personal attention of some kind? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Am RM discussion must take place before a title change. If you wish to advocate in favor of a name change, then you are welcome to initiate an RM.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule or requirement, and since consensus for a move has been established above and there is only one logical target for a new title based on naming conventions and RS, a request for move is unnecessary. Do you oppose a move to a title currently reflected by our best sources? Why?  Sources are no longer calling it a shooting, they have been calling it an attack for the last 12 hours.  Please get on board. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no current proposal and no consensus. There are rules and you need to follow them. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's clear consensus for a move, and there's no rule stipulating a formal move discussion. You're the one who needs to follow along. The majority of current sources refer to this topic as the "San Bernardino attacks". End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Prior discussion also puts the brake on inept editors who rename an article at "attacks" when there was only one attack. Avoids clumsiness. 124.169.4.54 (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Step right up and claim the "inept" description for your argument: the terrorists attacked the workplace and then attacked the police. Are you done? Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The situation and your options have been explained to you. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no "situation" and there is no rule requiring a RfM. As this thread shows, there is no good argument against a move and my move should not have been reverted.  Now, would you like to login using your primary account? Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The argument against your move was that you made no attempt to establish a consensus first. The reversion of your move and the discussion above involving multiple persons shows a need to establish consensus through an RfM. You are not going to convince those who disagree with you to change their opinions. Your only way forward is the RfM at this point. 75.17.124.228 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still primarily a shooting. "Shooting" is more precise than "attack". Why would we make it ambiguous?VR talk  05:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That's why I suggested either "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" as more apropos (to make it clear that this was not just another "mass shooting" per se), as the FBI and all federal, state, and city law enforcement are treating this differently...given real solid indisputable facts that have come up in the past couple of days.    Name change of this article is both warranted and due.   And please don't use "well Fort Hood is still called" blah blah blah...as that was never treated and viewed by the FBI quite like this.   And also, it's an appeal to "other stuff" too, but not even correctly anyway.   Name change of article is warranted now.   The wording is too vague and PC at this point, in my opinion.   It's like I said on the other section on this page dealing with "oh should we mention their religion?", that Political Correctness = suppression of facts.    Either in the body of the article itself, or in the actual article name itself.


 * And also please don't come up with this "well that professed Christian shot up Planned Parenthood", because guess what...I personally consider that an act of terrorism too.  Though that nut was no real follower of the teachings of Christ or the Apostles ("turn the other cheek" "put the sword away" "be peaceable towards all men" etc), I call the Planned Parenthood shooting and murders "terrorism" too.     But regardless, this event here in southern California, by those two Muslims and ISIS-sympathizers, is A) terrorism, no doubt, period, and B) should be called that somewhere in the actual name of the article, since both the FBI and even liberal media are treating this differently and discussing it a bit differently than any other "mass shooting" in the past years.   So let's not fight anymore about changing the name of this article, and see the honest point.   But consensus will decide, and it seems (at least) that consensus is pointing in the direction of more straightforward and clearer article name.  Redzemp (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ideally it should be "San Bernardino Terrorist Attack" but since the PC police does not even allow "Terrorist" on the "September 11 Attacks" wikipedia page, then a mushy-mealy "San Bernardino Attack" must suffice. XavierItzm (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * - see earlier discussions about "2015 San Bernardino terror attack" above - there is consensus not just here at this article, but across all shootings and attacks articles to not introduce "terrorist" into the title. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose changing the title - Even if terrorist-inspired, the perpetrators knew many of the victims and the events don't seem wildly different from other mass shootings in the US. "Shooting" is also more descriptive than "terrorist attack." For example, take the Boston Marathon Bombing article - widely considered a terrorist attack, but uses just the descriptive term "bombing" in the title. -KaJunl (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And as I said, that's why I suggested either "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting". "San Bernardino terrorist shooting". Regardless of whether the perps "knew some of the victims".    To say (sighs) that that makes this 'no different' than the other mass shootings is kind of silly.   It's being treated by EVERYONE (in law enforcement and even the liberal media) as different than any other mass shooting in recent history. In fact the lib media itself has called this "the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 911" etc.    Wikipedia, unfortunately, with this (and other articles), is not really reflecting that distinction in the article names.   But again, "San Bernardino terrorist shooting" is what I suggested, and what is logically factually more clear and apropos, in context.  Maybe we should all finally take a formal vote.  Redzemp (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Best wold be to start a section with Requested move. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So maybe we should start one. Redzemp (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What metrics do we use to differentiate "shooting" from "attack" or "massacre"? Meatsgains (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Precedent. There is a page on "September 11 Attacks," which were done by coreligionists of this more recent attack.  Analogous situations require analogous articles, don't you think? XavierItzm (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 San Bernardino terror attack
The FBI is now investigating the case as an act of terrorism. Therefore it should be moves to "2015 San Bernardino terror attack". -Metron (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. With 7 July 2005 London bombings and November 2015 Paris attacks, neither of them have "terror" in their titles. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Other examples of precedent include Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, Boston Marathon bombing, Oklahoma City bombing, and Centennial Olympic Park bombing. ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And some of those were actually reported as terrorism. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even September 11 attacks gets the terror treatment. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Investigating something as something doesn't mean it is that something. Just means that's the leading theory. "The officials said investigators were still looking into additional motives...". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Paris and the fidning of explosives and multiple shootings sites as well as the pledge to ISIL, it should be renamed "2015 San Bernardino attack". It doesn't need "terror" in the title but it's clearly more than a myopic "mass shooting."  It's beyond simply gun politics in the U.S.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well start an RM then. I think it's too large a question for a little talk page thread lost in a forest of talk page threads. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for an official report from the FBI or DHS. These could come 24 hours to a week later. If the FBI puts out a report declaring the attack terrorism then it will belong in the lead sentence, but there's no rush to do so with just news reports for now. See There is no deadline -- Callinus (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Should be San Bernardino Attack, just like the September 11 terror attack.  Same motivation, same attack on the homeland of the United States.  XavierItzm (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be 2015 San Bernardino attack. – Illegitimate Barrister, 22:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. 2015 San Bernardino attack or San Bernardino Attack. XavierItzm (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So...is it about time for the dreaded "See also" section?
Most other articles on similar subjects have one. And in many ways it makes sense to compile a list, but I know several people roll their eyes at the mention of a "See also" section. So instead of just creating the list it might be better to open it up for discussion, i.e. is it needed?, All ISIS terrorist attacks? Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, etc? grifterlake (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "See also" sections are generally not needed unless there is a good reason to point to outside articles. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought this issue to the talk page before users started adding links to unrelated articles. I propose we draft a See also section first before inclusion. For starters, I think we should include a list of terrorist attacks in the US. We just have to avoid the list from becoming overwhelmingly long as I'm sure it will start to become. Meatsgains (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is completely unnecessary. It is 2015 going on 2016.  The kind of see also section you are talking about, which was once popular circa 2003 in the early days, has all but been replaced by footer templates with the appropriate links. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What is completely unnecessary? Discussing or drafting a See also section? Meatsgains (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Drafting. What you are talking about has been replaced by footer templates.  See also sections are not needed unless there is a good reason.  Best practice is to merge relevant links into the body. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The page would benefit from having a see also section. By only incorporating relevant wikilinks into the body, we will overlook pages that would benefit from being included in the see also. Meatsgains (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The "benefit" you are describing is now served by footer templates. I think I already said this.  Some real old timers think it's still the early to mid 2000s, before footer templates supplanted this role.  Please find a single GA/FA article that uses see also sections like this.  You can't, because they've been deprecated in favor of links in the body and footer templates. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I tend to like them for some genres of articles because it provides a form of serendipity that in many ways has been lost in an age of electronic information. Back in the days when people flipped pages to find what they were looking for (back when people walked 20 miles to school, uphill and both ways), it was common to stumble on other information of interest that the person wasn't originally looking for. In this case, if someone was researching terrorist attacks in the United States, or ISIS they would have links to additional resources at a glance. It's one thing to provide links in the body of an article, but unless the Chattanooga incident and the Curtis Culwell Center attack are mentioned in the body of the article they wouldn't be seen. Footer templates are good, but they tend to be small and frequently look like clutter. But I knew there would be strong opinions on this, which is why it landed here first. grifterlake (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See for example: .  Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is already heavily wiki-linked, and well categorized, both of which are providing ample support for navigation (which is what a see also section is for), so there is no specific need for a see also section. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer See Also sections over those dreadful spam footers that have been plastered everywhere. But you don't create a See Also section just to create one - it's used as a spillover location for items that can't be linked in the text for some reason.  They can be contentious because they're used as a sort of minor OR - for example, if someone added Bonnie and Clyde someone else would be likely to disagree - but it can be useful, the POV of editors is really no more there than in the spam footers, and at least the connections are made *deliberately* rather than (as I've seen happen) the BLP of some relatively innocent person gets a bajillion hardcore terrorist links plastered all over the bottom without anyone even consciously thinking about it. Wnt (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Although there might be superficial similarities with Bonnie and Clyde, I think the motive really sets these cases apart. Bod (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I have just added this. Discuss? Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that those two incidents should be included in the "See also" section. But I still wonder what parameters should we use for what is included?  Should the Boston bombing also be included?  Just ISIS terrorism?  Just ISIS terrorism in the United States?  Any Islamic terrorism in the United States?  Like Wnt said, they can be contentious so before that happens maybe we should agree on the criteria for what is included.  Personally, I think that a "See also" section for this article should be limited to incidents in the United States.  I also think that it should include incidents that fall into the general category of Islamic terrorism, as it is now tending.  That would mean the Boston bombing should be included, but if several more ISIS attacks occur it might make more sense to limit it to ISIS attacks in the United States. grifterlake (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would much rather see a comprehensive background section which links to these incidents in the proper historical context, showing a pattern of Islamic terrorism and its connection to homegrown radicals, etc. See also sections are generally not built but arise out of what's left over. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Weapons section
The weapons section needs to be based on what sources say, and not in our interpretations of facts as we may know them. Please respect WP:V and avoid WP:SYNTH. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a need to make changes to the text, then use the sources included to improve the content, or provide alternative sources with other viewpoints. But changing the text without backing it up with sources is not the way to go about it, as the text will no longer be verifiable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's entirely too detailed. The whole explanation about "bullet button" and naming the gun store where a legal firearm transaction happened are examples of just putting in stuff because we know it. Neither item truly helps anyone understand the event, who did it or why they did it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the information to be very useful, in particular as the weapons were purchased legally in California. Readers would benefit from such context. But if you think it is too detailed, I have no problem with a good edit to make it shorter and simpler. But that is different from changing the text in a manner that is not verifiable with the sources provided. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK the whole point of any Wikipedia article is to put in stuff because you know it. Do you imagine there is some other? Wnt (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not to put in everything we know. Khloe Kardashian called Saint West "so cute and perfect" today. Reliable sources reported it. Do you honestly assert that we should put it in her bio? Blake Shelton bit Gwen Stefani's shoulder during a photo shoot . should we put that in his bio or hers? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You lost me there. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I said that we don't put in things simply because we know them. Wnt took issue with that and said "the whole point of any Wikipedia article is to put in stuff because you know it". I gave 2 examples of things that we know (and have RS's), but that don't belong on Wikipedia. That disproves the notion that we just put in stuff because we know it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that the weapons were legally purchased is very important. Modifications which made them not legal are important, but I have not as of yet seen RS that specifically discuss the modifications and what legal impact they had (plenty of speculative sources, but I don't think they meet RS). Where we can't source legality changes, I think the modifications don't provide a lot of value, but one or two sentences listing the modifications could be appropriate.  I don't think the store is important. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see those sort of people you mention as interesting. But if someone wants to read about them and make articles, they can.  Such details seem out of place in a biography because you expect a summary style, but if there are multiple sources there ought to be a way for someone who cares to integrate them into an article about whatever specific thing they were filming, etc.  In this case, though, we're not talking about one event in the life of a person, but a significant part of the investigation of a shooting, so I don't think the comparison is valid.  If this detail were as small as that other one you mention, we'd need a whole separate article about the purchase of the guns ... but there's not enough detail available to fill such a specialized article, so it belongs here instead. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with who you do or do not find interesting. Those people are already very notable and have their own articles. The point was about content. You made the claim that the whole point was to put in anything we know. No, it's not. We need to decide what is relevant. Yes, we make that judgement via consensus. The two examples I gave had many reliable sources, so your position that the number of sources has bearing on it. In the end, the name of the gun shop is not relevant. If we take it out or put it in, the depth of the article doesn't really change, which tells you it's trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the name of the store is trivial. Given that you seem to have expertise in this area,, what about making an attempt to improve the text? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources:, , , -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying they were legally purchased is fine. Talking about which store and speculating on the purchaser is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The name of the store and the other details are backed by high-quality sources (full articles in the NY Times, LA Times). It seems similar to other specific names we give in the article (a Ford Expedition, rather than just "an SUV"; MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, rather than "various news outlets"; WebBank.com, rather than "an online bank account"; iMilap.com rather than "an online dating site"; Islamic Center of Riverside, rathern than "a mosque in Riverside," etc., etc.). Neutralitytalk 18:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * again, just because we know it doesn't add to the article. Adding the name of the gun shop (which happens to be a non-notable business) doesn't help us understand anything and honestly casts them in a negative light. I really don't think adding Expedition helps or the name of the bank unless there is some specific reason for it. If the bank was breaking laws that helped them accomplish this, perhaps. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Notability" is the standard for whether something has its own article. The notability standard does not apply to content within an article. There are millions of articles out there which quite properly refer to people, places, things, events, and topics which do not merit their own article, but are a part of the story of some other person, place, thing, event, topic, etc.
 * The reason we include specifics is: to reflect the published sources; to create a complete narrative; and to avoid needless ambiguity.
 * As for lawbreaking/negative light - I don't see the relevance. The article does not assert (either explicitly or implicitly) that Ford Motor Company or the online bank or the gun shop broke any laws. A reader would have to read into it with their own opinions to generate that idea. Neutralitytalk 19:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the unnecessary explanation of what the notability standard, indicating that you missed the point entirely. The fact that a non-notable gun shop performed a legal transaction is not relevant here. If the duo stopped for coffee at Starbucks on the way, I'd also call that irrelevant trivia. So far, we don't see anyone blaming Ford or calling for an end to online banking. Including the name of the store isn't helpful at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be rude, please. As for "So far, we don't see anyone blaming Ford or calling for an end to online banking"&mdash;what does that have to do with anything? Neutralitytalk 20:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't rude. Giving an experienced a long explanation of the notability policy when it wasn't needed can also be viewed as condescending (ie rude) (and no, it wasn't needed because you failed to understand the difference between using the word notable and invoking the notability policy) Instead of explaining it to you, why don't you explain to me why it belongs. Just saying that someone might want to know it some day isn't really a reason. How does it enhance the understanding of the incident? Unlike Ford Expedition (which I don't think is relevant) where you can click the link and read about the SUV, there is nothing to learn about the gun shop beyond the name. No deeper study, just trivia. And, BTW, if you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who doesn't think it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

re the bullet button, the legal answer is not straight forward. The mag button may or may not make the gun illegal, depending on other criteria. on a "featureless" gun, the magnet is legal. On an "evil-features" gun, the magnet is illegal. I believe the guns in questions are "evil features" guns (pistol grip, adjustable stock), but I don't think we have sourcing, and we Im quite sure we don't have sourcing doing the appropriate level of analysis to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Is anyone aware of any sources authoritatively saying that these particular guns, as configured, were illegal and why so? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I listed some sources above. Not sure if that is enough, but that is what sources are reporting so far. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They are in the ballpark, but not quite imo. For example, the closest one (WSJ) quotes the ATF commenting about California legality. IMO, that is insufficient. Normally, we would be stuck in permanent limbo (since the perps are dead), but since they have the purchaser as a separate guy who could be charged with something, I bet some of this comes out eventually in a more formal setting. I'd probalby be ok putting in some of the sourced speculation, but we should WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it, not WP:WikiVoice, and make sure we indicate that these are merely opinions (although perhaps informed opinions) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Would you make the edit? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole "bullet button" thing was ridiculously over-detailed. The core points in the sources is that in California, a tool is required to remove the magazine.  A "bullet button" serves that purpose as a "bullet" is considered a tool and is written into the law.  They removed the bullet button and replaced it with something that doesn't require a tool (i.e. not a "bullet button" or affixed a tool to the button that defeated the need for the tool).  That's an illegal modification (or if not illegal, shows how silly the requirement is - but the article isn't the place to explore it).  I don't believe any modification is needed to use magazines with more than 10 rounds so I am not sure why we say only the DPMS used them.  Both were capable.  It's a felony to possess them in California but they work just fine and it would be odd to only have one magazine.  The gun has no idea how many rounds are in the magazine.  We need to drop the "bullet button" discussion because it's really unclear and there's been so much nonsense about it and what it does that it should be pared back to a "tool was required to remove the magazine and they defeated that device."  How they defeated it is not really important just as how they tried to make it full-auto is not important, just that it's illegal to modify the receiver for an auto-sear (and it failed).  The other thing that is unknown is how the weapons were transferred from the original purchaser to the terrorists.  Please note that for very little money, they could have machined their own AR15 and not bought it.  Another shooter did just that a few years ago.  The lower receiver, which the ATF considers the "firearm" has the least wear and is therefore the part what gets a serial number since it never needs to be replaced (unlike the bolt, barrel, upper receiver, etc, that wear out).  It's the easiest major part to fabricate and is made out of a number of materials including plastic or in this case, aluminum.  We need not overcomplicate its function.  The engineering and science for these firearms is over 100 years old. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you know about the subject. But our readers may not be that lucky. I see no issue in describing the modifications as amply covered in reliable sources. This is a pedia, after all. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If they accurately covered them and we accurately covered the coverering press, it would be fine. But we don't.  Pare it back to taht which is correct and sourced.  Sourced and incorrect is not okay.  Competence is required and when journalists and politicians use terms like "multi-automatics" and say the "bullet button makes it fully automatic", those sources are no longer reliable and we need to cut it back to bare facts which is those "rifles had a feature that prevented the magazine from being removed without a tool.  The terrorists physically disabled those features."  I have yet to read an accurate account of the "bullet button" and its defeat in the press.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Check our sources - some blame the "bullet button" itself. Others note that the "bullet button" was defeated in some fashion.  The "bullet button" is not illegal and was present on both firearms when they were sold.  There's a mishmash of special interests blaming various features related to detachable/non-detachable magazines.  The WSJ source, for example, talks about a modification to the DPMS that allows "high-capacity magazines" and it's an obvious misquote where they meant to say "detachable high-capacity magazines" (i.e. the removal of the bullet button or it's defeat).  The Huffington Post misses the entire point by omitting all the tampering and blames teh bullet button directly.  Again, they are wrong.   We don't have to publish incorrect material simply because a source makes a mistake.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have to believe you? Who are you? What are your credentials? Are you a published expert? Now, seriously: That is what we have WP:V to guide us. What you know or don't know, true, or false, is inconsequential for the purpose of Wikipedia. Go write a blog or something, but not here. Sorry. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically what you are saying is that The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times are wrong, and you are right. Gimme a flipping break. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From my reading, he is, though I agree we probably don't have sourcing for it, and its probalby not important enough to have that level of detail anyway. But yes, the bullet button is not illegal. It is in fact what makes the gun legal to begin with in california. Circumventing the bullet button makes the gun illegal (assuming evil features like a pistol grip) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am OK with the current version as edited by DHeyward. I just added "bullet button" as a wiki-link, because for the neophyte a "tool" is something completely different than what this is. You can even use a pen to release the magazine. I also added a short sentence to explain what is the purpose of the device. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, the previous text did not say that the bullet button was illegal, but that the circumvention of the bullet button is what made it illegal. - Cwobeel   (talk)  03:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:1RR? We have an article on "bullet button", so why not to link it with a reference to it? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Require a tool to remove it". Think of the reader! What tool? A screwdriver? pliers? a special tool? This is a disservice to the pedia and to our readers. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I violate it? I don't see diffs of a second revert. The use of "bullet button" in the article is misleading as the sources conflate "bullet button" loop-hole with bullet button defeat devices. Competence is required to know what each is talking about. Bullet buttons are used for compliance but it is one of many compliant solutions. It's easier to describe what law the terrorists broke rather than conflate multiple issus. The huffington post article is an awful source. The law allows any tool, that isn't the hand, including bullets or a pen.  HuffPo considers that a "loophole" but that's not the loophole the terrorists are accused of exploiting.  Rather they are accused of removing all tools.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did violate it, but I don't care. Can you at least add that the issue is related to the slowing the speed of reloading? Both riffles had the bullet button installed (and disabled), so why not to mention it? A "tool" is too generic for the neophyte, and it is misleading. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. FYI, you can go to amazon and search for "magnet bullet button."  That device is placed over the bullet button and because part of the magazine release is steel, it adheres to the bullet button.  The bullet button is like the recessed reset button on a phone.  The defeat device, which is separate, brings the reset out to the finger.  It's like a pen or paper clip or whatever else allows you to reset your phone.  It's much quicker to reset but it's the the defeat device, not the shrouded reset pin, that makes it fast.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, I am aware of the device, there are some videos online that demonstrate it. I still think that referring in the article as a "tool" would be misleading to our readers unless we explain what that is. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

is this page under a 1rr restriction? Gaijin42 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. See the talk header. The GS is WP:GS/ISIL -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the source and type of weapons used in the 2015 Paris attacks is sorely missing. They have much stricter gun control laws yet full-auto AK-47's, grenades and suicide vests were used. No concern trolling about the state of France's gun control, though. The Charlie Hebdo attacks highlighted unarmed, and the dead, policeman charged with "protection." --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing bio details
User:Firebrace sees the suspect traveling to Saudi Arabia to marry the other suspect and the man growing a beard  recently as irrelevant. I disagree. Everyone is digging into background, movements and state of mind and yet this editor is discarding sourced information - which is a POV act. Perhaps a better explanation? Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't ask people to explain why they removed content when you didn't explain why you added it. Firebrace (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Him traveling to Saudi Arabia and marrying someone from there is quite relevant. Read the Wikipedia article for that country. Search for the word "terrorism" to find the relevant parts. Is growing a beard part of his religion though? Does it symbolize anything? We should also mention he was very religious and of course mention his religion. Was his belief system influenced by Wahhabism?  D r e a m Focus  09:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Him traveling to Saudi Arabia to meet the other gunman and marrying her is kind of relevant. Their relationship is central to the case. We can leave out speculation but we can state just the facts for the time being. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Can somebody explain why growing a beard is unusual behavior? I mean, beards are very popular right now. Firebrace (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not usual. It seems as if some editors are seeking to associate the shooters with terrorism.  This violates WP:SPECULATION as no motive has been established.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, you are bordering on trolling. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since lots of news outlets and the FBI are talking terrorism... And why is a 6RR editor still editing here? Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Visa status of his wife are important as that determines whether simple possession of a firearm is legal. Pipe bombs, however are not legal.  This incident is more akin to the Boston Marathon bombing.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Beard issue

 * Support If a coworker thought it was relevant enough to mention in sourced material, please stop removing it. I was surprised to see this in the history just by chance. Bod (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He might have been asked a leading question. Firebrace (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have personal anecdotal evidence that security people are more wary of bearded men. Bod (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See stereotyping. Firebrace (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose 'cos men with beards are not all suspicious or may be terrorists! WWGB (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - we have RS saying he had become more "devout" recently, this may be considered a piece of supporting evidence (see Beard, and/or Viriditas's link above). Or one might take it simply as a straightforward physical description.  Either way, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to remove.  We definitely should present information like this in such a way that it doesn't give it more value than it deserves and lead readers to a potentially false conclusion, but we also have to trust that they won't ascribe too much value to it on their own, and therefore censor it entirely in an attempt to avoid that.  We're supposed to present it neutrally and let them do the rest. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support AdventurousSquirrel is right. I clicked his link and read that article, and this is relevant.  He embraced this belief system, very devout, grew a beard because of it.   D r e a m Focus  15:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose Whether or not the shooters had beards or not and when they may have begun growing their beards is completely irrelevant to the shooting itself. It seems as if some editors here are actively seeking to promote an anti-muslim agenda on this page.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This user edit warred 6X to remove this and other Muslim info. Not sure why they can still work on this topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Only perpetuates the myth that bearded men are scary, Muslim or not. Fine for a sensationalist newspaper, not fine here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I added it because it was a recent change noted by a coworker that shared a table at the event with the shooter. Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if a tablemate noted it, it must be significant. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose We do not generally categorize people here by the quantity or quality of their facial hair, and I can see no real relevance to this article.  Anyone who follows links to cited articles that include the subject's picture will be able to see that he grew a beard at some point and to draw their own conclusions (though I am not sure any conclusions should reasonably be drawn).   General Ization   Talk   22:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I support mentioning the beard because it fits the narrative of someone who is becoming radicalized although the imam of his mosque said that he showed no sign of radicalization, the beard suggests otherwise see (Personal grooming in Islam). Ralphw (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It also fits the narrative of an allergy to skin care products or of a personal preference for facial hair. Also, allowing for your interpretation and with regard to your link, it does not say anything about a beard being a sign of radicalization.  It suggests that a beard is a sign of a pious Muslim.  If you are trying to imply that they are invariably one and the same, then you are engaging in advocating non-neutral editing and synthesis, as others have done before you.   General Ization   Talk   01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It also fits the narrative of "Bearskin", if you ignore the inconsistencies. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter WHAT change it represents, it represents ONE such change and we currently have nothing. Bod (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * SO FAR: 5 support, 4 oppose. Is there a policy for this? Bod (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is called "no consensus" and the status quo remains. WWGB (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get why no mention of Mister Beard is the status quo. We just got 2 more supports and 1 oppose. The issue was started because these biographical details were being removed. Bod (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait and See - There's no rush here. Him growing a beard might be significant, it might not. We don't really know the motive yet. If the motive proves to be religious terrorism, it may be worth including; if not, it is an irrelevant detail. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This just in: his wife pledged allegiance to the self-proclaimed Calif Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and leader of ISIS and since both wife and husband committed the act together religious terrorism is confirmed. Adding the beard at this point just supports the motive. Ralphw (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support mentioning beard as an indicator of his deepening commitment to Islam. WP:NOTCENSORED.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per E.M. Gregory. It's sourced, it's relevant to his evolving faith, and his faith is relevant to his motives. Besides, my beard is way cooler. Rklawton (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose with all possible strength. invokes NOTCENSORED, which does not apply; rather, SYNTH and UNDUE do. Any "indicator [that his beard was emblematic] of his deepening commitment to Islam" would have to be reliably sourced as such; otherwise, we’re making the assumption in Wikivoice (maybe it’s accurate ... or maybe he just liked his beard, or his wife did, or he’d gotten too lazy to shave, etc., ad nauseam).  piggybacked with, "it's relevant to his evolving faith, and his faith is relevant to his motives." We can't say that in Wikivoice either. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  🖖 04:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is or maybe it isn't relevant to his faith, but we should trust readers to understand this as well. As long as we keep it worded in such a way that reflects RS and doesn't give it more value than it deserves. As for my personal belief...I am not an expert on beards, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that this is not a stylish hipster beard. Nor was he too lazy to shave the mustache area (as, notably, is prescribed by Hadith no. 498 et al).  Frankly, it's pretty clear.  But no, I haven't seen it clearly stated in RS that his beard-growing was a clear indication of his devoutness, nor have I sought it out, nor could such a strongly worded statement feasibly exist in RS, unless Farook is on record saying it himself.  Which seems unlikely.  Inb4 Honest Abe, I would still say that that is exceptionally rare now, and the bushiness still sets it apart.  But again, all that was noted about the beard was his coworker's opinion that it was uncharacteristic behavior of Farook to grow it out; and this, I think, is not in dispute. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose For all of the reasons stated above.JanderVK (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivial. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Studies show that personal morality likely motivated attack
This could probably be cited in a discussion of their motivations. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree with much of what that essayist has to say about this subject, he does not seem to be particularly notable and I do not see anything separating him or his essay from the thousands of others out there who could also conceiveably be added to a "see also" section. With such a highly visible, discussed and contentious topic, the number of potential "see also"s for this article would be immense (along with the in-fighing which comes along with deciding which ones make the cut), and it would be best to limit them to the highly notable and to set a high bar for inclusion of such links... this one does not clear that bar in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that! Marteau (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't, because he meets and exceeds the guidelines for citing authoritative sources. He's known for his unique research, his notable popular book (Virtuous Violence), and he's widely quoted in news articles about terrorism. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rai's article is excellent, very well written and researched, and making insightful comments. But I am not sure how to include it here, as there are many opinions out there emerging in the aftermath of the shooting. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Many" opinions may be the understatement of teh year. We open the door to this one, people are going to want to use this article as a coat hanger for any number of other pieces.  Marteau (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't share your concern. If this source were to be used, it would support at best, one or two brief statements in an analysis section, noting that 1) relevant research in the field shows that violence used by terrorists like those in California is due to the personal morality of the perps, and 2) efforts to address this problem are so far misguided (for example, proposed mental health checks for gun buyers, which has no impact on personal morality).  In other words, data driven research in this area is out of step with evidence based policy making to prevent terrorism.  Obviously, such content would depend on additional sources. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI... Rai's original article on Quartz was picked up by Australia's SBS. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Rai's article may be better used at Terrorism, but I would not oppose a short mention here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an image in my head as to what a short mention would look like, but I think it's too early to add it. I'm thinking in another week or so we will have more to go on.  The investigation is changing rapidly according to the news. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problems; there is no deadline. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding your "many opinions" argument up above, I don't see how this opinion conflicts with or duplicates any other existing opinion so I'm not sure your objection is a good one. The author has been writing about terrorism for a while now and his opinion appears relevant and timely. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I said above that I am not opposed to include a summary of Rai's article, but other viewpoints may be required as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please discuss these viewpoints. I don't get this focus on many viewpoints regarding psychological motivation. So far, I see one. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

More on the author from CUP: "Tage Shakti Rai is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the Ford Center for Global Citizenship in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He is known for developing relationship regulation theory, which argues that morality cannot be understood independently of sociality, and that diversity in moral judgments and behaviors is driven by patterns in the social relationships within which they occur." Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Lake search date
Under the paragraph "Searches" the date for the search of Seccombe Lake Park is incorrect. It started Thursday December 10, not December 11th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8616850811486094a (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

✅ thanks for spotting that mistake. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wife
Media is reporting his wife went to Al-Huda Institute in Canada that has ties with Wahhabism. which is the same ideology of ISIL. Do editors belive it is relevant to this article? Misdemenor (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ¡Sí Señor! However, she attended the school in Pakistan, not Canada. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read the section on Malik, there is good material there about Al-Huda.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also being reported that she lied on her visa application about previous addresses. "Radicalized years ago" seems to be the common belief now with lots more radical contacts.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Multiple citations of Trump's proposal
I have, again, the multiple citations following the sentence on Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the US. Reason: abcnews/gma and gma.yahoo are essentially the same citation, and the latter includes the quote in print that we include within the citation. Haaretz and the NYT piece are specifically reaction/op-ed articles, which should only be used if in citation of the reactions themselves; to use them for the passage is improper and almost certainly a SYNTH vio. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage 🖖 01:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need the multiple cites. I accidentally reinserted them at some point - I think due to a copy-and-paste error. My goof - apologies. Regards, Neutralitytalk 02:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted—and please accept mine as well. I undoubtedly jumped too far toward "Wait, WTF?!" — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  &#128406; 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"Motive" in primary information box is poorly worded
The motive reads, "Homegrown Islamic extremism inspired by foreign terrorist groups". This is a description of the attack, not a motive. Motive would provide information as to why, not what. That wording more accurately reflects another aspect of the attack type. If they were inspired by ISIS and acting to advance the interests of ISIS the motive should indicate that they were attempting to support the goals of ISIS, or advancing the establishment of the Caliphate. grifterlake (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the motive "Jihad"? The terrorist "talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad" and "She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it." according to The NYT. XavierItzm (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The motive section is intended to match what the FBI director said at the December 9 hearing:
 * In his testimony Comey also said the couple who carried out last week’s attack was inspired by foreign terrorist groups. He described the couple as "homegrown violent extremists." "We’re working very hard to understand exactly their association and the source of their inspiration," Comey said.
 * Neutralitytalk 02:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Jihad would be a valid motive to list. But what Comey said doesn't contribute anything to motive.  It's descriptive of who and what the perpetrators were; we get insight into their lives and personal journeys to terrorism, but the text following "motive" doesn't state in any way why they perpetrated the act.  It's like putting "childhood spent in poverty" for the motive of a kidnapper who demands ransom. grifterlake (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The motive of terrorism is to terrorize. I'd argue that what we have there in the infobox is what is needed for now. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The *objective* of terrorism is to terrorize. Terrorism is a tactical behavior, but it's not the motivation.  The motivation is the *why* they engage in the behavior of terrorism.  If this were an article about a serial killer the motive might well be to terrorize, but Islamic terrorism is the behavior that serves the motive.  grifterlake (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Still agree. Motives are what drives someone to do something, not what that something itself is called. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

11-3 to move...CONSENSUS REACHED...what else is needed? More votes and more discussion
That section and matter has not been added to in a couple of days now, and it's 11-3 to change. Consensus is overwhelming, yet no change has taken place (yet), and frankly I'm a little weary of that stalling. It doesn't help that there's been a protection block to prevent "moving" by anything other than higher-end contributors, or Admins, or unless that block is removed. What else is needed at this point? Requested move 10 December 2015 - Survey. Check it out and read through it all, please. And place some votes, since it's still block-protected period for that. This is established (beyond dispute) that this shooting is UNLIKE the previous 20 in the USA, that the FBI recognizes as "mass shootings". But again, check out the section above by clicking right here, and see the voting and rationales and obvious editor-consensus to finally change the name of the article. Redzemp (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Typically, as the template says, move discussions are open for seven days, which is approximately the same length of time I move-protected the page for. This is not unusual on high profile pages with unfolding developments, disagreements, and ongoing discussions. I note before unprotection that the RM discussion above does not include the word terrorist, whereas this section's title does. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi uzzuuzz. I understand.  And yes I know that the RM discussion does not include the word "terrorist", but I said that it should be there in my vote and comment, etc, as the word "attack" alone (as has been noted by others) does not fully clearly describe or indicate the matter either.   So I was basically thinking that the RM discussion original proposal could be looked at as a broad suggestion, for a name change in general, and that discussion would be necessary...  But the point though again, is that it's clear that a big consensus for SOME kind of name change has been established.  And I've called for more votes. The matter seems to be arguably over-due...at this point.  Even though apparently the "seven day move-protection" is still in effect. Redzemp (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You see there's consensus and then there's consensus. I hear the calls for a move, but the problem with "SOME kind of move" is that it soon gets very messy. I am not a big bureaucrat, but I tend to think on this occasion that a little more processing might be useful. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that the requested move is to 2015 San Bernardino attack, (same as the November 2015 Paris attacks). -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Cwobeel, I know...and please read my first comment above (if you have not really done so already) carefully. And I also called for more votes on this, to build up consensus even more.        But my point about having it fuller as "terrorist attack" and not just "attack" is because "attack" is also kinda generic and unclear...and this definitely was a terrorist attack.    Every media outlet (mainstream and alternative and everywhere in between) and every reliable source on earth is calling this a "TERRORIST attack"...not just an "attack".   The Connecticut school shooting 3 years ago was an "attack" too...so?  (Even if it's called simply a "shooting".)   But not necessarily "terrorist" one though, in quite that sense.    So calling this article "2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack" is simply calling it what it actually is.   Calling the event what it reliably-sourced unquestionably is.  Clearly.   And your appeal to "other stuff" is just that.  The Paris attack should be changed to "terrorist" attack too.  So?  The naming and wording of that article is too broad and not totally clear either.   But at least the word "attack" in that article gives the impression of warfare and/or terrorism, and not just "shooting" as in mass shooting by someone with mental issues.   So yes, zzuuzz.  The name of this article should be changed already, or some time very soon, period, to REFLECT what it's being called by all reliable sources, plentifully and definitively, for a while now.   Thank you. Redzemp (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * After the protection expires in a few hours, it becomes a wiki again. Thank you for your patience. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down. There is a move proposal running, and WP:There is no deadline. LjL (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The recent Paris attacks were also a terrorist attack, but the article name is November 2015 Paris attacks. This is no different. -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * The guideline given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) &sect; Maintaining neutral point of view specifically suggests that it is unneeded to include the adjective "terrorist" in an article title. —Laoris (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Laoris and Cwobeel, what you don't understand or accept is that leaving the word "terrorist" OUT is NOT being "neutral"...but is cow-towing to political correctness, maybe Muslim sensibilities, or some liberals.    Every reliable source (I must repeat) calls it a "terrorist attack".   Left-wing, right-wing, and middle-of-the-road media outlets and outfits.  I submit to you (to repeat) that omitting the term "terrorist" in the article name, even though it's been universally called that by all RS, and has been established as that universally by all law enforcement, is itself POV...   So you have it backwards, to be frank.     And that's been the on-going problem with the debate on this talk page.   And again, your appeal to "other stuff" is WP NON-valid.    As Viriditas also has aptly and bluntly pointed out, on this matter.  Redzemp (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let the Requested Move run its course. That is why we have these processes in place. Happy editing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See also September 11 attacks, which was the most notable terrorist attack on US soil. Other stuff exists, sure, but there is a way in which these articles are named. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The summary at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says: "A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." (emphasis mine). So, while other stuff existing is not a justification, other stuff existing because, as previously mentioned, guidelines explicitly support it is a pretty strong argument. There is also the naming policy that states that "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects", and there is no need to add the qualifier "terrorist" to the "attacks" unless there's an identically-named attack that wasn't of a terrorist nature. Finally, as to consensus, it's heading towards moving the page to "... attack", not "... terrorist attack". LjL (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * well I appreciate you taking the time to consider that and what it all means, but frankly, your wanting to leave the word "terrorist" out of what is a terrorist attack has no real sound rationale...as "too long a name" doesn't apply, as it's just one extra word, and article names can be longer, and also "Paris" is arguably not fully thoroughly correctly named either. The facts are what should be considered, which you're not doing, and which you refuse to do...which are: was this case in southern California a "terrorist attack" or not?   And also has it been established as such by both law enforcement and reliable media sources?   Yes, yes, and yes.    So there's NO valid Wikipedia reason to dogmatically say "uh it's loaded, and should not be used in the article name". Redzemp (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have made your case quite clear already, and so have others, so let the proposed move run its course. There no need to keep repeating yourself endlessly. And as this is the only article you have edited, listening to the opinions of experienced editors may be a good idea. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, citing the exact guideline that very explicitly says "avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed" is having "no real rationale". You seem to be unaware that most discussions on Wikipedia are made based on our policies and guidelines. So perhaps stop with copy-pasting WP:TLDR into multiple talk page sections and start making policy-based reasonings. LjL (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:LjL, citing "exact guideline" that very explicitly says "usually not needed" says clearly "usually" which (last time I checked) is not absolute and does not mean "always not needed"...as far as the word "terrorist".  And it's just your opinion that it's an "unnecessary word".   I already (at risk of repeating myself like User:Cwobeel says) have given proof, points, and reasons why it is "necessary"...reliable media sources and the FBI are using "loaded" and "unnecessary" terms if that's the case?    Facts that you keep dodging, quite frankly.  Here again:  A) is this case a terrorist attack or not?   Yes.   Have all law enforcement agencies in the country named it as such, and call it such?  Yes.  Do all reliable media sources call it a "terrorist" attack, liberal media, conservative media, and more middle-road media? Yes.   Has this matter been solidly established (with facts and proof and details) as a "terrorist attack". Yes.    So this "not necessary" line is not sound, and frankly is ridiculous and doesn't hold, and your citation of WP guidelines, ironically, proves my point, in a way...because "usually" is not absolute.


 * And because what exactly so "unnecessary" about the word "terrorist" in this matter here? Your appeal to WP guidelines that DON'T REALLY support or confirm your position is just evading the question and point.   It says "usually" that word is not needed.   Why doesn't it say "always it's not needed" or "never needed"?     So you have to say "loaded".   So that means that the FBI, all police and sheriff's departments, and LITERALLY ALL media reporters and newspapers and newscasts are giving out a "loaded" and an "unnecessary" term.   Fail.    Again, your very citation says the word "usually" the word "terrorist" is not needed or whatever.   Does usually mean 100% "always"?   Of course not.  If the WP guideline citation you pulled out said "never use the word 'terrorist'" you might have a better case.  And a more valid argument.   But "usually" is not an absolute or dogmatic blanket forbidding.  And it's arguably "necessary" as that simply is what it is, as all (literally all) reliable sources have and do call it that, clearly.  Good day.  Redzemp (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you were making any policy-backed argument at all instead of SHOUTING section headers, copy-pasting your stance in multiple sections and making long-winded some reasoning that amounts to "guidelines don't matter because in this particular case WP:IDONTLIKEIT", you MIGHT have a better case. (The "usually" is there because guidelines aren't hard-and-fast rules, but unless you present a compelling reason why this particular "terrorist attack" is different from all the others, then the guideline is binding.) LjL (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The points and facts are what at issue, not minor matters. But you're still harping on petty things here, and not focusing more on the substance.   Also, there was no "copy-paste" in my last comment, by the way, and the occasional "all-caps" were not really for shouting, but for bigger emphasis, that simple italics don't always do.   Side-point.  But again, User:LjL, if the WP guideline citation you pulled out said "never use the word 'terrorist'" you might have a better case. And a more valid argument. But "usually" is not an absolute or dogmatic blanket forbidding. And it's arguably "necessary" as that simply is what it is, as all (literally all) reliable sources have and do call it that, clearly.  Regards. Redzemp (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And here you just copypasted verbatim a sentence you already said above. You're bordering on WP:DISRUPTIVE. I've just explained why the "usually" is there: make a compelling argument about why this event is exceptional compared to all other "terrorist attacks" that don't get to have the word "terrorist" in the title, and you'll have a decent reason to state that the guideline doesn't matter in this case. Otherwise, just drop this. LjL (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

- what do you expect from an SPA? - the WOLF  child  19:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles schools closing
I have removed the material related to today's school closing based on a bomb threat, as it is unrelated to this article. If a relation to this incident is reported, it can be added at that time. Ditto about the bomb hoax in NYC -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was initially going to do the same thing, but (as I added) the administrator who authorized the close directly cited the San Bernardino incident as a reason for it. I feel like it's reasonable to include. ansh 666 18:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The superintendent did say that this attack, and Paris, were factors. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I think it is a stretch. Feel free to revert if you think it is necessary. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted. I put it into the article because The Los Angeles Times (and, later, other news reports) attribute the school closures directly to jumpiness caused by San Bernardino.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This hoax threat has no enduring notability and doesn't belong in this article, WP is not a news outlet.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  23:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. Not all news "in the aftermath" are notable for inclusion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided, but this hoax might be worth including. It did result in the shutting down of one of the biggest school districts for a day. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent myself. It's definitely not standalone notable (related: Articles for deletion/2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure), and is really a small incident in the whole scheme of things (especially if it's really just an overreaction to a silly high schooler's prank), but that there was such a large reaction does seem to merit a small note somewhere. ansh 666 02:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2015 San Bernardino attack. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 San Bernardino shooting → 2015 San Bernardino attack – I think the name should officially be changed to 2015 San Bernardino attack since it was more than just a shooting. The word shooting is misleading at this point. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support - per above (as if it was not already obvious :)) House1090 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the current title is more precise and has been pretty stable. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This would fall in line with similar terrorist attack articles on this site. It was more than a simple shooting.-- JOJ Hutton  12:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reluctant and qualified Support - but I have had other ideas for the wording change.  Days ago (if you scroll up) I suggested either "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" as in "2015 San Bernardino terrorist shooting" (or "2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack" since a bomb was attempted to be detonated too, etc, in general) as more apropos (to make it clear that this was not just another "mass shooting" per se), as the FBI and all federal, state, and city law enforcement are treating this differently...as well as the liberal media itself, has been calling it that, and treating it as that, given real solid indisputable facts that have come up in the past couple of days.     Name change of this article is both warranted and due.   And please don't use "well Fort Hood is still called" blah blah blah...as that was never treated and viewed by the FBI quite like this.   And also, it's an appeal to "other stuff" too, but not even correctly anyway.   Name change of article is warranted now.   The wording is too vague and PC at this point, in my opinion.  But the word "terrorist" as in "terrorist attack" or "terrorist shooting" should be in the article name at this point.   Redzemp (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support per November 2015 Paris attacks. No bombs went off, but bombs were involved, and this should be distinguished from the "normal" mass shootings. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support 2015 San Bernardino attack. Because it was a terrorist attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The end result was that it was a mass shooting before it was a terrorist attack and all the people killed or injured were as a result of gunfire. Bod (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I could go either way on this, but I essentially agree with Bod, immediately above: shooting is more specific than the generic "attack" and all the victims were killed or injured as a result of gunfire. Compare with 1993 World Trade Center bombing - we use "bombing" rather than "attack" because it is more specific and is the common name. Neutralitytalk 03:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Event was much more than a random shooting or an episode of workplace violence. Perps planned this one out well in advance with pipe bombs.  I would rather see it called the 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack since it was one.   Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Parallel naming convention with Paris attack (although year may be unnecessary if it is no longer a 'shooting'). Velojareal (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to suggest the same thing. It's also a failed bombing attack. The article on Columbine is called Columbine High School massacre for similar reasons, instead of just calling it a shooting. I oppose calling it ""2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack" since "terrorist" is actually a very politicized and POV term, and very Western. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I will convert this section to a RfM. Viriditas (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Should be San Bernardino Attack, just like the September 11 terror attack wikipedia entry.   Same motivation, same attack on the homeland of the United States.  Also, despite early characterisations as "It's also possible that this was was workplace related," this was clearly a terrorist attack. XavierItzm (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - There have been many shootings in San Bernardino in 2015. I'd argue, therefore, that "attack" is more precise.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As an additional piece of evidence, there are far more Ghits for "San Bernardino attack" than for "San Bernardino shooting", for the dates ranging from the day of the incident to the present. The reverse is true (many times over) when the date filter is removed...As I said, "shootings" unrelated to this event are tragically common in San Bernardino.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Shooting" is a much better and more accurate descriptor than "attack". Attack is non-specific and could equally refer to gas attack, pressure cooker bomb attack or knife attack. All of the deaths and injuries were the result of gunfire, and the poorly-constructed bombs failed to detonate. In summary, "shooting" is more informative to readers about what happened. WWGB (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shooting is non-specific and could equally refer to one of the many shootings that routinely take place in cities such as Chicago or District of Columbia.  Anyone who seriously believes this was just another shooting should consider why is it that not every Chicago shooting gets its own Wikipedia entry.  Suggest follow the "September 11 Attacks" Wikipedia entry precedent.XavierItzm (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not specific enough. It's been determined to be a terrorist attack and that needs to be reflected in the article title.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the idea, oppose the specific proposal; nor am I fond of "terrorist" in the title given the wealth of reliable sources citing "ISIL-inspired" or its variants. My personal preference: San Bernardino terror attack. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage 🖖 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I believe that there is enough info for this to be called a "Terrorist Attack" or "Terror Attack" failing one of those titles "Mass Shooting" would be appropriate in my opinion.Schemel (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the original move proposal: 2015 San Bernardino shooting to 2015 San Bernardino attack same as November 2015 Paris attacks and September 11 attacks.. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral on moving, but oppose inclusion of the word "terrorist" or "terror", which is loaded and not done in other articles, where use of this terminology was discussed and mostly discouraged when unnecessary. LjL (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * response comment: your remarks farther down this page notwithstanding,...because again, the word "terrorist" is only "loaded" to PC-police and fact-deniers. Viriditas discussed this and pointed that out quite up-frontly already.   LjL, what you don't understand or accept is that leaving the word "terrorist" OUT is what's not being "neutral"...but is cow-towing to political correctness, maybe Muslim sensibilities, or some liberals.     Every reliable source (I must repeat) calls it a "terrorist attack".   Left-wing, right-wing, and middle-of-the-road media outlets and outfits.  I submit to you (to repeat) that omitting the term "terrorist" in the article name, even though it's been universally called that by all RS, and has been established as that universally by all law enforcement, is itself POV...   So you have it backwards, to be frank.     And that's been the on-going problem with the debate on this talk page.   And again, your appeal to "other stuff" is WP NON-valid.    As Viriditas also has aptly and bluntly pointed out, on this matter.  Redzemp (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to copy-paste stuff that you have already said down below (and which I have addressed) many more times? You really should remove the above duplicated comment from the survey here (or someone should). LjL (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LjL, it wasn't a total copy-paste, as there was other stuff said in the beginning of it, that you're ignoring and dodging, and instead harping on the "copy-paste" part of it after, which is not that big a deal to make that kind of fuss about, while ignoring the points of it, especially the beginning regarding your term "loaded" (which was NOT said by me in the other section).  Again, your remarks farther down this page notwithstanding,...because again, the word "terrorist" is only "loaded" to PC-police and fact-deniers.  Viriditas discussed this and pointed that out quite up-frontly already.  Your wanting to leave the word "terrorist" out of what is a terrorist attack has no real sound rationale...as "too long a name" doesn't apply, as it's just one extra word, and article names can be longer, and also "Paris" is arguably not fully thoroughly correctly named either.   The facts are what should be considered, which you're not doing, and which you refuse to do...which are: was this case in southern California a "terrorist attack" or not?   And also has it been established as such by both law enforcement and reliable media sources?   Yes, yes, and yes.    So there's NO valid Wikipedia reason to dogmatically say "uh it's loaded, and should not be used in the article name".   And "well Paris doesn't have it that way".  But certain types of PC gate-keepers tend to do that anyway.  Good evening.   Redzemp (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per precedents cited by Cwobeel and Harizotoh. ansh 666 01:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mass shooting or terrorist attack?

 * On December 2, 2015, fourteen people were killed and 21 injured in a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino...

Why is this described as a mass shooting and not a terrorist attack? Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Omaba has called it an act of terrorism, which is stated in the lede. It is both a mass shooting and a very possible act of terrorism, as it is being investigated by the FBI as a terrorist attack. I would not oppose changing the opening sentence to reflect these facts. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, I would like to hear from someone other than you, so please stop replying to my comments. Whenever I discuss an issue, you only respond with government stenography, and I'm tired of it.  We write Wikipedia articles based on what reliable sources say, not on political positions.  The NYT describes the incident as a massacre and a terrorist attack. the only reason this article is titled "shooting" and portrayed as a "mass shooting" is because it still reflects the older, outdated framing of the topic when little information was available a week ago, and because some political sources are attempting to deliberately skew this as a gun control issue for political reasons. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WTF? You are not to tell me what to respond to or not respond to. And your continuous ad hominems are getting tiring. I am editing this article and contributing substantially, so please stop with your accusations which have no merit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you can read, see my previous comment: I am not opposed to change the lead sentence to reflect what sources say. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, what you have been doing is removing content and whitewashing. "Substantially", true, just not contributing. You have been asked continuously by pretty much every other editor here to leave, there are official complaints filed against you, and your sidekicks won't even bother come to your defence anymore. Readers do not donate so that they can't actually read what the likes of you decide to leave out. People donate because they want all facts in one place. Facts like religion of shooters, level of devotedness... I hope you think about it, and not turn it into another "See WP:RandomAbbreviation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.181 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "A terrorist attack consisting of a mass shooting and unsuccessful bombings" Gaijin42 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gaijin42. That works. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it took place in multiple locations and was more than a mass shooting which should be only a part of the attack. The Islamic terrorists attacked the Christmas party with guns and explosives and then they attacked police in a running gunbattle that culminated in the terrorists being killed.  See the lead for Boston Marathon bombing.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a terror attack, with mass shooting, attempted bombing, and' a shutout with police. The Boston article says followed by subsequent related shootings. We can use the same device here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The shootout is already covered in the second paragraph of the lede. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little late to the conversation but San Bernardino shooting drums up ~10.8 million results while San Bernardino terrorist results in ~624k hits. Big difference. Is there an alternative term for "San Bernardino terrorist" we should search for to make a more accurate comparison? Meatsgains (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to do or prove with your search engine test, but that's not how it's done. Please have someone else explain the problem to you if you need help. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We are to describe the event how it is most commonly used in reliable sources. What do you mean that's not how its done?? Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, somehow I get the feeling that a Google search isn't something that can be described as "reliable sources". In conversations I don't remember anyone referring to this as a mass shooting, but as a terrorist attack.  Most of the news article I have read are also calling it a terrorist attack.  And you know the old saying, "If it lays eggs like a duck it gets a reprieve from being eaten as long as we are getting omelets." grifterlake (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, it was an evolving news story. Initial links to terrorism or 'attack' were weak at best, but everyone knew a shooting took place. It stands to reason the many more 'breaking news' search results would use 'shooting'. And I just searched for 'San Bernardino terrorist' in Google and got 99.4 million hits with only 94.7 million for 'San Bernardino shooting'. Velojareal (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The OP may also want to review Search engine test. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly page needs to be renamed. It is clearly a terrorist attack.  Both CNN and the New York Times have called it a massacre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - See previous extensive discussions at Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_shooting and Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_shooting where the consensus (and the accepted style) led to the page name sticking with "shootings" or "attacks." -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it not both a mass shooting and a terrorist attack? Why would these be mutually exclusive.  Indeed, that they occur together creates a synergy and better understanding of the particular event.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is both a mass shooting and a terrorist attack - the only remaining question is the degree of contact between the shooters and other radical Islamists. Just like 9/11 was both an airplane hijacking and a terrorist attack.  The lede should open very much the way the 9/11 lede opens:   a terrorist attack by.... E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mass shooting and terrorist attack. It can be both at the same time. It's just motivations. They do not differ that much in practice. In the same way it's a workplace shooting and a terrorist attack at the same time. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be reflected clearly in the name of the article. But it never is, for some reason.  Of course the suppressors and PC gate-keepers on Wikipedia will always keep out the word "terrorist" from the actual name,...in articles like this.  With lame and desperate excuses and non-WP valid cop-out reasons.  Such as "it's a loaded term" and "not necessary" and "too wordy" and "usually 'terrorist' is kept out of the name", etc.   If "terrorist" is a "loaded" term, then why does the body of the article say it clearly with no problem?   As well as all reliable sources.   "2015 San Bernardino attack" is NOT fully adequate either.   But given the PC enablers and the suppressors on Wikipedia, it's not likely that it'll be changed to something more accurate and clear. Redzemp (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the PC enablers and the suppressors on Wikipedia Oh please... WP:ADVOCACY and WP:BATTLE are not appreciated, but WP:DROPTHESTICK would be. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , It is covered now by the top of the infobox:
 * Cheers!  05:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers!  05:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers!  05:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Posting on social media
New report out today that - ''“So far, in this investigation we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period in time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble.”'' at WaPo and NBC News. The article currently says: Malik wrote openly on social media that she supported violent jihad and wanted to participate on it years before the attack.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Radical Islamic terrorist attack
Unfortunately there are thousands of shootings in the US daily. This was a radical Islamic terrorist attack and should be named as such. The white washing from the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut to the mass attack in San Bernardino are either: acts of war, or terrorist attacks. They cannot be acts of war without a state or country claiming them. There is no third choice unless the idea is to white wash history little different than the folks wanting the world to believe the holocaust never took place.

The idea that this is somehow NPOV and in good faith is beyond naïve and significantly nefarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your stament that "[t]he idea that this is somehow NPOV and in good faith is beyond naïve and significantly nefarious." The term "radical islamic terrorist" is not anywhere near NPOV.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what the user said, and you know that. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Cracked has a fine piece explaining how the labels don't make these different. Could be enlightening. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be labeled attack. The U.S. President has even referred to the incident as an 'attack'. – Illegitimate Barrister, 18:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Enrique Marquez
Needs expansion, now that details about him are coming out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the subsection is being expanded as more sources are coming out. Meatsgains (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is news. This is not encyclopedic. It is beyond the scope of the article (BLP?) to name and give details about this man in the investigation of the incident named in the article. Although, it is certainly within reason to describe the circumstances of the "neighbor". Bod (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Enrique Marquez. New article now that charges are going to be brought against him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

New info from the FBI about motives
New info:

The article needs to be refactored to accommodate the new material from the investigation, but we need to keep the chronology intact, including the the earlier "garbled" reporting -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree the "garble" needs to be kept. A neutral point of view does not mean a government point of view, especially when government monitoring of Muslims' social media posts was a significant focus in the Republican debate last night.  There's reason to be cautious someone might spin things (not saying they are, just, let's cover all reports). Wnt (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Liberal garble. Conservative garble. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This from NPR: Still No Evidence Linking San Bernardino Shooters To ISIS, FBI Says, and this from LA Times FBI chief: San Bernardino shooters did not publicly promote jihad on social media - The FBI is conducting the investigation, so this is not just an opinion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So an IP came along and changed the motive in the infobox to "Still Under Investigation" (since shortened to "Under investigation"), is that reasonable? ansh 666 09:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you may be misinterpreting/mis-emphasising the FBI's statement. There is no public postings (IE, we could not have used public social media to find these people ahead of time). But they certainly linked themselves to the movement privately. Crtainly at this time it appears that they were not part of an organized/controlled cell. But there is ample evidence to link them ideologically to the movement, which for our (wiki) purposes (motive, etc) is sufficient. Of course, the purported alias posting by Malik if authenticated would be a public posting, but perhaps one that could not have been used to pre-emptively identify them. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And they used social media to radicalize themselves with so called "poison on the internet." See NY Times.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

They also note plans of Jihad in 2012 with Marquez and before the two terrorists were married. They noted pledges to Jihad in electronic notes between them. Don't try to rewrite it as if there were no online pledges or electronic pledges when they are only talking about specific mediums of social media. This wasn't a spontaneous or unplanned act. --DHeyward (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone here arguing that this was spontaneous or unplanned. But certainly it was homegrown and inspired (rather than directed) by ISIS. We can't, and shouldn't extrapolate anything beyond what is known. These were two American citizens and the wife of one of them, colluding to commit an act of terrorism without any connection to international terror groups. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoegrown is out of date as it's clear the radicalization started before half the attackers were even in the U.S. The FBI notes that it was "poison on the internet" that radicalized them.  Sorry but the mixing old and new qutes to create a narrative that is no longer supported is too much synth.  See the New York Times article on the start of radicalization, the influence of the internet and the years of communication.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No point in discussing this until you self-revert, otherwise you will leave me no choice but to report at WP:AN -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

you just breached the 1RR restrictions on this article (see header). Please self-revert. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * yes, you did: revert 1, revert 2 . Please undo your last revert to remain compliant. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I also made the next edit. Consecutive edits reverse the revert and count as one.  I reworded your account to comply with the latest interpretation of NYT.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only you violated 1RR, you are now on your third revert . -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep using that word. This is what a revert diff looks like .  You cannot take a series of consecutive edits and cherry pick one.  Sorry.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Check WP:EW. I'm actually not that clear on WP:1RR myself (which is covered there) but from what I'm reading there it's actually "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material," and "per article," which is considerably more stringent than I thought.  (I'd actually imagined that unrelated reverts in different sections might be OK)  Unless you can cite something to support a different interpretation, I'd say you have to give way on this - last thing we need around here is more silly administrative drama. Wnt (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)