Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack/Archive 5

Rifles illegally purchased
Its official - Marquez has been charged for illegal straw buying: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-man-charged-conspiring-provide-material-support-terrorism-and-being-straw

This completes the debate and demonstrates that the rifles were not purchased legally, as has been asserted in the article. I tried to adjust to show the charges filed in the main article but need someone more Wiki Savvy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.152.172 (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As of 10 December - the rifles are now being reported that they were not only illegally transferred but that they were a straw purchase by Marquez - which is illegal under Federal Law. I think the weapons section needs some substantial revision because it (falsely) claims all of the weapons were purchased legally and smacks of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.30.14 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the part we need to be careful of. If Marquez broke the law as a straw buyer, but the gun store didn't necessarily know that. They followed the law as far as proper checks, records etc. What the store did wasn't illegal. What Marquez did was illegal (if he made a straw purchase) . So if you're including it in the section about Marquez, that's one thing. If you're going to try to make it sound like the gun shop did something illegal, that's different. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? Objective3000 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, what source says the gun shop did anything illegal? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A straw purchase makes the buyer to break the law when they pass on the guns to third parties without a proper transfer, but the purchase of the guns was 100% legal. No need to change a anything in the text for now. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's an unlawful transaction. They were not legally purchased because the buyer committed a felony.  The next step is to determine complicity (no, they don't presume the gun dealer was unaware nor does the unawareness change the nature of the illegal purchase).  If you go to a bank and make a withdrawal - your actions are what make it a legal/illegal transaction.  The bank gives you money whether it was an armed robbery or an ATM withdrawal.  Their actions have no bearing on the legality of the transaction.  The ATF also tracks straw purchases so the dealer can expect a complete rectal exam ever 3-6 months for a few years.  Selling to a straw purchaser, regardless of "background check" is a red flag.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We also have to distinguish between illegal at the federal level and the state level. As I understand the definition of "straw purchase", the person to whom the firearms were transferred would have to be a convicted felon, or otherwise unable to purchase a firearm legally.  Farook was a U.S. citizen who, as far as we know was not prohibited by law from purchasing a firearm.  If this is true, then the illegality would have been at the state level because California requires paperwork to transfer ownership of firearms between individuals.  Farook may have had Marquez purchase them so as not to arouse suspicion, even though it would have been legal for him to purchase the firearms himself.  There is no federal law in play when firearms are transferred between individuals, provided neither of those individuals fall into the category of a firearms dealer, or are prohibited by law from possessing or owning firearms.  grifterlake (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Regardless of the status of the person, it is illegal to buy a gun for another person if the intent is to evade the background check.  Whether the person can lawfully possess it doesn't matter.  The dealer maintains a sworn statement that the person buying the gun is not a straw buyer.  Also, straw buyers have no way of knowing if a person will pass a NICS check and when NICS returns a "no-go" to deny the sale, the reason is not given.  If he did a straw purchase and got paid for it, he is facing both state and federal charges.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

NPR: "a law enforcement source and an intelligence source tell NPR that a dealer was not involved in transferring the assault-style rifles between Enrique Marquez and the shooters. And they say Marquez could be charged for an illegal transfer." Gotta love the "assault-style" subjective style assessment injected by NPR. Well, since the terrorists wore ski masks, will NPR be henceforth calling them "assault-style" ski masks next time they report on how's the snow in Vail this year? ....mmm... maybe the black Ford Expedition SUV is now being called "assault-style" by NPR? http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459053141/straw-buyers-of-guns-break-the-law-and-often-get-away-with-it XavierItzm (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If Marquez is charged, we shall know pretty quickly as it will be widely reported. Until then, this is WP:CHRYSTAL. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Two separate crimes. The transfer from the gun dealer to Marquez appears to be an illegal straw purchase.  The transfer from Marquez to the terrorists bypassed CA law which requires a dealer to broker the transaction and carry out checks,  They are separate crimes being investigated.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's illegal on Marquez's end unless it can be shown that the gun shop had reason to know. Otherwise, the shop followed the law and shouldn't be blamed. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true that it's likely the gun shop has all the paperwork meaning they registered the transfer from the manufacturer in their Acquisitions and Dispositions log book and they also have a completed form 4473 filled out by Marquez with a NICS approval. When the ATF said it was purchased "legally" on the day of the attack, that is all the information they would have had.  They called the manufacturer and asked where it was shipped, then called (or likely visited) the retail store which they can do at anytime with no notice.  Once they had a valid form 4473 and Marquez's name, a copy of his ID, and the NICS aprroval transaction ID code (if it was approved, approval is not required and "no response" sometime happens) they then have to investigate a lot more tediously to understand how it ended up in terrorist hands.  The gun store has an affirmative obligation to deny sales if they even suspect a straw purchase.  If Marquez even brought it up, they need to deny the sale (I've talked to ATF IOT specialists and this has happened right in front of them.)  How much the gun store knew about it will be key to their culpability.  Regardless, it is an illegal firearms transaction as the buyer provided materially false information on the 4473 (see question 11(a)) if he took money to buy a firearm with the understanding that the terrorist was worried about NICS.  I would not be surprised if ATF confiscates the amount paid in the sale and also does not return the firearm.  If the store isn't criminally culpable, they would likely need to sue Marquez to recover their loss.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree. What I'm cautioning is how we phrase it. If the store isn't charged, we have to presume they had no reason to suspect that there was a straw purchase. So if we talk about a purchase being illegal, it needs to be phrased in a way that doesn't make it look like the store did anything wrong (unless it is proven otherwise). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For purposes of understanding, I suggest, which is sort of the archetype of all "straw purchase" issues. The distinctions are remarkably vague - it's legal to buy someone a gun with "your" money but not "their" money, but shops were being sued, effectively, by an imperial city in a different state over (among other things) failing to ask enough questions to determine that, because that created a 'nuisance'.  The bottom line here is that you'll have to follow the sources carefully and avoid OR, because this is pretty much unlogicable. Wnt (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

La Stampa
The La Stampa "interview" with Farook's father has been discredited, and no other mainstream sources have picked up that story. I have removed it, per previous discussion Talk:2015_San_Bernardino_attack/Archive_3, and per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Please do not re-add until consensus emerge for inclusion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Assertions are not proof...nor are they actual documented sourced evidence. You did the same thing days ago, and I asked you in the edit comment to go to Talk and prove and explain, but you never did.  (Even now you're not really doing that, but still just asserting.)   The burden is on YOU to give "consensus" when doing a whole-sale deleting of a sourced paragraph.  La Stampa is not conclusively proven to be lying just because the father has convenient memory problems. The father says "he doesn't recall"...so La Stampa is definitely lying?   The father "can't recall" and could never himself lie about that, as Muslims never lie about things I guess.  (Like clock-boy's father, right?)  The father doesn't recall and his brain issues.  So HE'S "discredited", but not necessarily La Stampa.   You keep saying "the La Stampa interview with Farook's father has been discredited" without offering a real shred of actual feasible proof in reliable sources that no interview ever actually took place, etc.  Just because it "has not been picked up" since then does not necessarily conclusively prove that the story or matter there is so "dis-credited".    I did a Google search just now with the key words "la stampa farook father story discredited" and I came up (so far) with nothing of what you said, and all I found with "discredit" in some search pages are (for example) the words "Jeb Bush found his footing in trying to discredit Trump's qualifications for the White House" having nothing to do with discrediting the La Stampa story per se.   Where is it?


 * Again, if you're referring to Farook's father "not recalling" the interview, well that's said in the very paragraph itself, but that's not quite totally 100% for sure "discrediting" the interview, just because the father "doesn't recall" or may even be lying about things. (Like clock-boy's father has been proven to do, who are we kidding here?)  La Stampa is simply not definitively proven to be lying or "discredited" just because the father has convenient memory problems now. You need something more substantial than that, which is something noted in the paragraph itself anyway.  IF it has been truly (for real) "dis-credited", etc, then there's an argument that it should not be in the article.   But, again, all I've seen is you assert that, and ignoring the reliable source citations regarding it, and thereby, in effect, hiding or censoring some information that some readers may find interesting, pertinent, or relevant.   Where's the cited proof that that whole La Stampa article and situation is so thoroughly and truly de-bunked or "dis-credited"?  Besides the father's convenient selective amnesia?    La Stampa is probably not lying or making this up.  And the father (let's get real here) is probably lying or for whatever reason uh "not recalling".  The sources are there though.  La Stampa is a reliable source.  Farook's aging father, and his brain or memory issues, are not.  Frankly, it's doubtful that La Stampa invented this interview...and is lying about it.  Redzemp (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I could only find two reasonable sources:, . Both indicate that the father has no recollection of saying this or of even being interviewed. The suggestion that he is lying is uncalled for. As there is no supporting evidence to the paper's claim, this sounds very iffy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And the snide remarks above are not likely to convince. Objective3000 (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, what you're missing is that those sources are simply saying what the father is now saying about "not recalling".   The suggestion that La Stampa is definitely lying is uncalled for.   And it's very called for that the father could probably be lying, as in taqiyya.   (Look that up.)      And also, "not recall" is not the same necessarily as the father's saying "it definitely never happened, and La Stampa is lying".   Did the father say "that newspaper is lying"?   And even if he made that kind of statement, does that mean that ipso facto La Stampa is lying and this Muslim father (many Muslims lie as easy as breathing for the sake their religion, look up taqiyya, as Mohammad said it's ok to do that for the Islamic cause etc, PC police notwithstanding) is to be trusted?


 * But again, though, did the father say "it never happened" in those clear definitive words even?  But why do you discount La Stampa and believe this father so quickly, and then hastily (wrongly) say sweepingly "the story is so discredited"??   Discredited by whom exactly?   The father?   (He doesn't "recall" and his problems.  So HE'S "discredited", but not necessarily La Stampa.)   The father's feeble uncertain words of "I don't recall" or do you have something bigger and better like outside verification that "no interview ever took place" or maybe some internal memos saying that La Stampa decided to lie about an interview?  There's no valid reason to think for sure that La Stampa is lying, nor any solid proof of that.  Also, again, the paragraph itself, in the article, mentions the father's lack of recollection.   But again, you're dogmatically asserting that La Stampa is for sure lying.  How do you know that for sure?   Because of the father's convenient lack of memory?    That to you is sure definitive "discrediting" of the story?  Redzemp (talk)


 * First, nowhere did I say anything slightly like the paper is definitely, for-sure lying. I didn't even hint at that. Second, the use of the word taqiyya here indicates extreme bias. You should remove this as it is an embarrassment to WP. The fact that the best sources have ignored the story and there is no supporting evidence simply makes this iffy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you notice, I did not say that for sure the father is lying, but given the situation probably is, given shear logic and honest deduction...but not conclusively for sure.   But he may (for some weird reason) genuinely "not recall", as improbable as that is.   But how likely is it that he forgot an interview like that?   So if he doesn't recall that interview, and he's not lying, then what logical conclusion could be drawn and that you're obviously implying?   So that would mean (logically then) that the newspaper is lying about this, and inventing a fictional interview that never took place.   So I ask you, how likely is that?  Is La Stampa known for making up interviews that never happened? Redzemp (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for what you think are logical suppositions. And, I didn't "imply" anything. The fact that the best sources have ignored the story and there is no supporting evidence simply makes this iffy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. That's my position. Trying to debate what you think is my unstated opinion is pointless. Objective3000 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I too would like to know how the father has been discredited. The sources provided for that assertion say that "Other members of Farook’s family and CAIR" came out and said after the interview that He doesn’t recall saying that, which is not the same as a definitive statement saying - he didn't say that because he never spoke to them. And the content in question was reliably sourced to CNN and it was widely reported as well, including: USA Today and CBS News and ABC News.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we now have three sources (ABC, CNN, LA Times) that provide three different sources (family lawyer, acquaintance, CAIR) that say the father has no recollection of talking to the reporter. Still sounds iffy to me for an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * u|Cwobell removed the content with an edit summary that states: La Stampa interview was discredited. Father was deranged. And then argues above that Farook's father has been discredited, and no other mainstream sources have picked up that story. So the burden is on him to show that the story has been "discredited" and/or the "father was deranged", the concern about "mainstream sources" can be discounted because it was widely reported by English reliable sources.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  18:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the onus is not on him to show that the story has been "discredited" and/or the "father was deranged". It must be shown that this belongs in an encyclopedia. We are able to discuss the inclusion without looking only at one edit summary. Objective3000 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The content in question meets the criteria for inclusion: it's reliably sourced, verifiable, widely reported, notable and relevant. The only thing lacking is consensus for inclusion. Cwobell removed the content with an edit summary and argument that has been challenged and the onus is now on him to explain why it shouldn't be included, he says the story/father has been "discredited" - let's see proof of that assertion.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What we have is a dramatic statement by a father about the beliefs of his son. Only, the father will not corroborate the statement and no one else heard it. Further, there is only one source. All further mentions only state that 'La Stampa' reported this. That means they are not independent sources. Why would we add to an encyclopedia a father’s opinions of the beliefs of his son when the father refuses to corroborate that these are his opinions? Objective3000 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The father was not involved in family affairs as, according to reliable sources, he was an alcoholic and a bit "out there". We have an interview by La Stampa, which was not picked up on other sources besides making comments about the reliability of that interview. Per WP:BLP (which applies here) we need high quality sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We have high quality sources reporting on the La Stampa interview, we also have high quality sources reporting on a "spokesperson" who claims that the father doesn't recall saying that. I don't see any BLP concerns.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  21:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The only source we have that La Stampa held an interview is La Stampa. Even if they did, the Father was estranged from the famly and according to his wife threw his family out of his house years back and seems a poor source. Objective3000 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It is a very poor source for a BLP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources for the assertion that the La Stampa interview has been discredited? Please be specific about the BLP concern in the content that was removed:
 * In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa following the attack, Farook's father was reported as having said that his son shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi and ISIL, and had a fixation on Israel. He also recounted a time when he first saw Farook with a firearm: "I became angry. 'In 45 years in the United States,' I yelled, 'I have never had a weapon.' Farook responded by shrugging and saying 'Your loss.'.
 * Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In LA Times Farook's father told the Italian newspaper La Stampa that his son agreed with the ideology of Islamic State leaders and was "obsessed" with Israel. But a local activist, speaking alongside one of the family's attorneys, later backtracked and said the elder Farook did not recall the comments he made to the publication. We can restore the material with this caveat, but it seems unnecessary. We have much better sources than this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to identify the BLP violation in the text above (that I quoted) and you removed from the article for that reason? I also don't see any sources that you have provided that "discredit" the La Stampa interview. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Objective3000, you really should not have removed the paragraph again while it was all still under discussion, and doing a meat-puppet revert, that way. You should have waited until consensus (either way) was reached on here first, before reverting me, and removing the sourced paragraph again.  I never restored it (yet), as you notice, or reverted your revert, because of the 1 revert 24-hour rule, but the paragraph will go back in a day or two from now, if no real consensus is reached here against the paragraph's presence, because it was still in pending discussion here, and there was no solidly proved reason (as yet) for wholesale removal of a reliably-sourced paragraph.  La Stampa is NOT considered a discredited or unreliable source by Wikipedia, nor does La Stampa have any history of making up stories or inventing or distorting interviews, that we know about.   You should not have deleted again while pending discussion here, and no consensus was reached yet.  Regards. Redzemp (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your false accusation of meatpuppetry is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIV and way out of line. In a BLP, questionable text should be removed during discussion and only restored with consensus. The source, a long-estranged father who will not even corroborate that these are his beliefs, is ridiculous. This means that there are ZERO sources that these are his beliefs about his son. Objective3000 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, Objective3000, please simmer down...as I meant that in the broad sense (not necessarily the technical sense, but I apologize for the misunderstanding if that's the case)...of reverting FOR Cwobeel since he couldn't because of the 1 revert rule, and you did it when discussion was still obviously under way. And you're wrong in saying "ZERO sources that these are his beliefs about his son" as CBS NEWS (as one of a few reliable sources) is obviously not "zero sources".  Just because this father won't corroborate what was so obviously stated in an interview, as there's NO real reason to think that La Stampa is just making this interview up, does not mean there's no reason to believe it never happened, or that memory-challenged Farook the father never said those things.  As I and   Isaidnoway  said, you notice that the father never definitively denied the interview either...now did he?  And said "it never happened, La Stampa made that up".  Again, though, CBS News is a reliable source.   And the point AGAIN is regardless of what technical term you want to use or accept, you reverted for Cwobeel, when that was out of line when discussion was still here, and no consensus was yet reached either way.   I hope that clarifies more so what was meant.  Redzemp (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will ignore the "simmer down" insult. And, I reverted a change that was made during the discussion as the discussion was ongoing. Now, you wish to put into this article an inflammatory claim that the father says his son had certain extreme beliefs. Maybe the son did and maybe the son didn't. Only, the father, when asked, refused to corroborate the claim. That is, the SOLE source has not corroborated the claim. So, we have the sole source of an inflammatory claim that, when asked, did not agree that he said or believed it. So, we have NO source that this is his belief. How, for one second, can anyone imagine that this should be included in an encyclopedia? Objective3000 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits continue during discussion that are uncorroborated. Objective3000 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word Jihad
I am closing this discussion. The conversation here has wandered extremely far afield of discussions of article content, and has drifted (as the participants seem to acknowledge) into a generalized forum-style discussion about Islamic theology over six days. While very erudite, this is not particularly helpful to article content matters. If users want to discuss use of the term in this article (e.g., in the infobox or elsewhere), they are welcome to open a new section on this talk page below. Let's try to keep any new conversation focused. Neutralitytalk 05:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think care should be taken in the use of the word jihad, which basically means struggle. Certainly there are those that use the word to indicate religious struggle in various manners. But, the popular media has used it so often to indicate violence that I would guess this is the meaning that most people think of. Objective3000 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "[S]truggle" is a pretty sanitized definition of Jihad. There are numerous Hadith (the words and deed of Muhammad) that make the meaning very clear, and apply it to fighting: "...there is no migration after the Conquest of Mecca, but Jihad and good intention remain; and if one is called by the Muslim ruler for fighting, one should go forth immediately." The difference between the meanings is whether or not Jihad is taking place within the Ummah, in which case it tends to mean general struggle, or if Jihad is taking place in the world at large, in which case it is part of spreading Islam and tends to mean fighting. grifterlake (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See Jihad. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is clearly not a NPOV. Words mean what they mean. We cannot compare the old chapters of the Quran with the new chapters of the Bible, any more than we can do the opposite. The old books of the Bible call for total annihilation of nonbelievers. The new chapters of the Quran call for tolerance and respect Christ as a great prophet. Let not an encyclopedia promulgate misunderstanding. If we are to use inflammatory words against Muslim murderers, shouldn't we use the same words against those that bomb Planned Parenthood, or bombed Iraq, and assign that to their religion? Objective3000 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly: "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists", and specialists in the hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."And it is the Hadith, not the Quran that takes precedence in understanding how Islam is to be practiced. To Muslims, the Quran is the word of Allah, as transcribed to Muhammad.  The Hadith are the words and deeds of Muhammad, and serve as the example for all Muslims to follow in order to live according to the will of Allah.  In the same way that Christians look to Jesus as the example of how to live--exemplified by the question, "What Would Jesus Do?", the Hadith exemplifies the example of Muhammad for all Muslims to follow, i.e. "What Would Muhammad Do?" The difference is that the example of of how Jesus lived is valid across the ages; His actions and example then would be equally appropriate now, and all time in between.  Islam is in conflict when the same comparison is applied to it.  There are Muslims who do follow the example of Muhammad, as set forth in the Hadith, and they are the Muslims we see engaged in violent Jihad, perpetrating acts of terrorism, marrying child brides, etc.  There are also Muslims who don't interpret the Hadith the same way, but are in conflict, as well in that if they don't interpret the Hadith in the same way as their violent brethren they are rejecting Muhammad as the perfect example of how to live one's life.  That's why the word Jihad is appropriate to include as motive in the information box. grifterlake (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I worry about. You are saying that you aren't a true Muslim if you don't have a specific set of beliefs. You can find equally repugnant nonsense in the Bible. Indeed, Old Testament quotes are constantly used by Christians against homosexuals, and even mixing of races. That doesn't make all Christians bigots and racists. One billion Muslims certainly do not believe they must violently push Islam. In fact, the Quran says "You will have your religion and I shall have mine." The newer chapters in the Quran conflict with the older chapters. The same is true of the Bible. Jihad has different meanings to different people. Objective3000 (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your mistake is that you are focusing on the Quran, when the key to understanding how Islam is to be practiced is the Hadith. The Quran is a short book that can be read fairly quickly. The Hadith is comprised of many volumes, and encompasses tens of thousands of pages.  And yes, Christians do point to the Old Testament to support what they believe is right or wrong.  And yes, homosexuality has been and is still seen as a sinful behavior by both Christians and Jews.  But Christians point to Jesus as the example to show how one must live the most Godly life possible.  Muslims point to Muhammad as the example of how to live one's life as Godly as possible. There are four elements of Islam that can not be separated from the religion as a whole.  They are the Quran, the Hadith, the Ummah and Sharia law--the Word of Allah, the words and deeds of Muhammad, the Muslim community and the law which governs an Islamic environment.  Remove any of those four elements and you are no longer within the matrix of Islam.  The Quran will tell you what the law is, but the Hadith will tell you how to interpret and live out that law.  The Hadith, not the Quran provides guidance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad on how to treat members of the Muslim community (Ummah) and how to treat non-members.  And the Hadith, not the Quran will tell you how to interpret and apply Sharia law.  So yes, I stand by my statement that Muslims who don't follow the example of Muhammad, as set forth in the Hadith are in conflict with how Imams and Hadith scholars teach how Islam should be practiced. When you see suicide bombers and terrorists perpetrating violence, it is the Hadith from which they are taking their cue for action.  grifterlake (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As fascinating this discussion may be, this page is not a discussion forum. I fail to see how this discussion helps improve this article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of stuff that I can add, but I have to agree, this is not a forum to discuss endlessly these matters in this way, UNLESS there's some real way that it helps or corrects or improves or appropriately expands an article.  Though Objective3000 and Grifterlake keep going on about it.  But even so, I'll just say this for now, (though I could say much more on it), the fact is that the Koran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual or inner struggle.  It is also unclear why Mohammad and his Quran would use graphic language, such as smiting fingers and heads from the hands and necks of unbelievers if he were speaking merely of character development.   Hello, Objective3000, but I have to agree with Grifterlake, on this, having nothing to do with personal whims or feelings, but on the actual empirical texts and facts themselves.   The Koran has "jihad" as physical fighting, not just some "inner struggle" as some "moderate" (dishonest) Muslims are trying to convey, as being the "sole" meaning of "Jihad" in Islam (and of course the liberal lying media, on every turn, to white-wash what really goes on).    And no, the Koran does not call for tolerance of non-believers, but calls for their slaying "wherever you find them", and was only "tolerant" when Mohammad and his crew were in the MINORITY.  As soon as Muslims gain power and populace, they're no longer for "religious freedom" for others, conveniently.   Churches are banned in Saudi Arabia.  There's no freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, in predominantly Muslim countries.   Because Muslims are the majority obviously...like in Saudi Arabia, the Center of the Religion. Sorry for perpetuating the "forum", but trust me, there's LOTS more I wanted to say and to add, like the meaning of the word "Islam", that some Muslim apologists on the news lie about, and other things.  And there's a way this relates to the article, as far as what was in Forook's and Malik's mind, and what the media (regarding this and other things) is attempting to do and convey. Redzemp (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, the relevance to this article is the prevalence and misuse of the charged word jihad in this article. YES, you can find the word jihad used in conjunction with violence (and with non-violence). In the Bible, you can find the word purify in conjunction with violence and entire cities, women, children and oxen, slaughtered because they did not follow the right god. A biased image is being presented. Objective3000 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of Redzemp's absolute statements about all Muslim countries are flat-out wrong and belong nowhere near an encyclopedia. It is clear he has a strong negative bias related to this article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Objective3000, I don't recall using the word "all" anywhere, but as in real Muslim countries, the general situation is there...though someone may desperately bring up "Malaysia" which has been a matter of debate whether it's an actual "Islamic state" or really a secular state, that is just nominally Muslim. That's NOT the example to honestly go by, but Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, etc.   Where little to no religious freedom exists.   Facts can be stubborn and annoying, we know, but they remain fact.  The centers of the religion, mainly Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shiite) allow little to zero free religious exercise, in any true actual sense.  And also it is a fact that this is the general statistical trend, regarding other countries, generally speaking, that once Muslims gain numbers, power, and majority in a country, true "religious tolerance" (not just dhimmies), goes right out the window.   But even so, I was focusing more on "Saudi Arabia"...where, factually, churches are BANNED.   And so is any spreading of any faith of any other religion besides Islam.   Also, my main point in my comment was about the Koranic definition and indication of "Jihad"...as in Surah 4:95.   But regardless of my personal research and views, I try hard to not let "bias" get into actual articles of this "encyclopedia".   It's about NPOV and reliable sources.   And facts.  And coherence.  Period. This is a TALK page, not an actual official article page.   And also, it can be argued that you yourself have "bias" in favor of Islam and apologizing for it all the time, and also an anti-Bible bias.  So?   I don't say "should be nowhere near an encyclopedia" like you're doing though.  This is a discussion page.  But Cwobeel is right, this should not be turned into some blog or forum either.  Regards. Redzemp (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, you backed off from no freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly, in predominantly Muslim countries to Saudi Arabia. But, you are still cherry-picking phrases from the Quran to broad-brush a billion people. You can do the same with the Bible. As for me having a pro-Muslim bias, I'm Jewish. Objective3000 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I replaced the generic term jihad, with jihadism, which more accurately reflects the context and to differentiate from the spiritual aspects of jihad. Hope this can be a good compromise. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, it makes "this" article better because it more accurately reflects the true motive for the attack,, which has now been changed to "under investigation". That's inaccurate, and prior to that change the motive was poorly worded, i.e. "Homegrown Islamic extremism inspired by foreign terrorist groups".  The motive is Jihad, plain and simple.  There is no other way around it.  When a Muslim engages in these kind of acts it is to advance the cause of Islam.  Is all violence perpetrated by Muslims terrorism?  No.  But this incident is an example of Islamic terrorism, and one that accurately reflects what virtually all Hadith scholars call on Muslims to do.  The four inseparable elements of Islam I mentioned above all fit together to accurately explain the motive for this attack.  By not using them to accurately reflect the motive for the attack it does a disservice to readers, and is one of the reasons why Wikipedia has a poor reputation as a reliable source when it comes to articles that aren't about the hard sciences.  My intent is not to paint all Muslims one way or the other.  But your insistence on pointing to the Quran as the source for what Muslims should or shouldn't do and comparing it to various Scripture from the Old/New Testament.  It is the Hadith, collectively that lays out the day to day actions and example Muslims to which Muslims should adhere. grifterlake (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum for your anti-Muslim beliefs. Objective3000 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that this is not a forum for anti-Muslim beliefs (in your addressing of Grifterlake or of me), but the problem with you is that you don't see that you've also been using this as a forum (human nature is very amusing) for your PRO-MUSLIM positions, apologist rhetoric, (wheither you're "Jewish" or not, you're still being an apologist of sorts for Islam), and anti-Bible distortions or expressions.  In other words, frankly speaking, gotta say that you're being hypocritical, regarding "forum".  Because dish out, but can't take it, and double-standards, won't hold.   Because I only stated a provable fact (for example) that "Jihad" in the Koran was also (if not mainly) for physical warfare, and not just "inner struggle".  Again see Surah 4.95 and Hadith literature that prove the point.   You were watering down the "Jihad" meaning and issue, and then using the failed argument of "oh well the Bible has violence in it too"...disregarding covenants, and later Christ's words to "put the sword away" and "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies".  Stuff that Mohammad never said (nor practiced).   So yes "no forum" cuts both ways. You can't use this as a forum and then claim you're not, but just trying to improve the article, and then accuse others of just "forum"ing, and assume BAD FAITH, conveniently.    Foruming is being done from all sides then, in reaction, not just the sides you disagree with.   To put it all on just one side is an unfair biased and dishonest analysis then.    Meaning we should all stop this, if that's the case.  Thank you.  Redzemp (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't put any of my beliefs in on one side or the other, Objective3000. I have merely made an assertion, i.e. that the references to motive are poorly written and inaccurate.  I then supported that statement with what I believe to be factual information, i.e. that Muslims believe that the Quran is the Word of Allah, as given to Muhammad and the Hadith are the instructions that tell Muslims how to interpret the Quran and live their lives, as shown by the example of Muhammad.  You can take issue with the accuracy of my statements, but you have yet to do so and instead made a gratuitous claim that what I have written constitutes "anti-Muslim beliefs".  You might try actually checking out the Hadith article before making such claims. grifterlake (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You again state that all 1.5 billion Muslims believe the same thing. Do all Christians believe in every word of the Bible? Even the previous Pope said the Bible is apocryphal. Your bias is clearly affecting your edits. Objective3000 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm in the same camp as Redzemp here in that I don't recall using the word "all", or attaching a number of any value to the number of Muslims who "believe the same thing". In fact, I do recall saying that, "There are also Muslims who don't interpret the Hadith the same way, but are in conflict, as well in that if they don't interpret the Hadith in the same way as their violent brethren they are rejecting Muhammad as the perfect example of how to live one's life."  That seems to me to be a pretty clear statement that all Muslims *do not* believe the same thing.  You have a clear pattern here of misrepresenting what myself and others are saying; you avoid responding to the substance of what is said and instead are making gratuitous claims about bias in others.  And it all seems to revolve around the word "Jihad", which you apparently do not understand.  The thrust of my argument is that it is the Hadith, not the Quran that should be used to evaluate both the true meaning of the word "Jihad" and the actions of perpetrators of violence in the name of Islam.  So a good place to start for you would be to answer the question, am I correct or incorrect in making that statement?  I am either on target (pardon the pun) or not; there is no bias there.  And if I am correct, then the motive given for the attack should reflect the true reason why the attack was carried out. grifterlake (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In no way did I misrepresent you. You stated: what I believe to be factual information, i.e. that Muslims believe that the Quran is the Word of Allah, as given to Muhammad and the Hadith are the instructions that tell Muslims how to interpret the Quran and live their lives. You didn’t say some Muslims. You said this is what Muslims believe. This is like saying Christians believe that you must accept Christ as your savior. Only about 40% of Christians believe this. Or that the Bible is the actual written word of god. A similar percentage of Christians don’t believe this. You are claiming that you know for a fact the reason the attack was carried out because it was carried out by Muslims and that means there can only one reason. You are using this bias to slant how you think the article should be written. As for the meaning of jihad, I’ll go with the Islamic Supreme Council of America over your definition. Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think your lack of understanding has now become crystal clear. Belief that the Quran is the Word of Allah as given to Muhammad *is* the key tenant of Islam, just as acceptance of Christ as Messiah and savior is the core tenant of Christianity.  Those are kind of the defining elements of each religion.  If someone doesn't believe that for their respective religion they are either a heretic, or an "in name only" part of that religion.  They are certainly not a devout practitioner of that religion.  But for someone who would take the position of the Islamic Supreme Council of America over thousands of years of Islamic, Hadith scholars that isn't surprising.  It would be like taking the position of the Unity Church as the authority of what defines Christianity over the Catholic Church or other mainstream denomination.  As a personal matter it is no big deal.  But when that view is reflected in articles where Jihad is discussed it is a disservice to the readers of Wikipedia, as the articles that reflect such an ignorant position are not as accurate as they could be.  grifterlake (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Claiming that you speak for billions of people in multiple religions as if they must all share your particular concepts and definitions of their religion is rank bigotry. Politeness is not working. You should be topic-banned from any article related to religion. This is an encyclopedia. Provide reliable sources. Not your concept of the individual beliefs of billions of people. Objective3000 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Good grief, Objective3000! Specifically for your benefit I referenced an actual Wikipedia article: "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists", and specialists in the hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense.".  You trotted out the Islamic Supreme Council of America--whose article here, by the way doesn't even mention the word "Jihad" and whose mission is to "present Islam as a religion of moderation, tolerance, peace and justice", and not to function as an Islamic scholarly organization.  You are proving my point; if you are right, then my assertion that Wikipedia has a poor reputation for accuracy for articles not related to the hard sciences.  If I am right, then the word "Jihad" has a primarily military connotation.  But I'm in a good mood, so I'll bite at your bait.  If belief that the Quran is the Word of Allah, as given to Muhammad and the belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and savior for all are not the fundamental tenets of Islam and Christianity, respectively, then what are? grifterlake (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be closed and closed fast. If editors want to discuss the nuances of Islam, they can do it in their talk pages, and of they want to discuss the meaning of Jihad, there is a talk page for that. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

2 Questions
82.169.162.44 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) From a positive point of view I have some questions about this wikipedia page.

1) How can we have the picture from the passport on the wikipedia page, where does it come from? 2) How can we have the picture of the driver's license on the wikipedia page, where does it come from? 3) Can we have a section on expert video and photo analysis of the event? This is a sound research method to question the FBI event narrative. 4) Can we have a section on eyewitnesses? And if yes can we involve following sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHtYBUqnLuY http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/multiple-video-evidence-san-bernardino-false-flag-attack-01-plan-multiple-false-flags-justify-martial-law-arrest-truthers.html 5) Can we have a section about the psychology of how we perceive such an event? 6) Can we have a section about how Donald Trump uses this event in his policitical rhetoric?

Thanks for the answers and for making this a better encyclopedia article. Currently I would rate it a 5/10

82.169.162.44 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You can find details on the licensing for the passport and driver's license, on the file page (just click on the image and then click "Details"). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * YouTube and personal blogs and not considered Reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The most reliable thing about eyewitness accounts and initial news coverage of a chaotic event is that they are generally wrong in many important ways. And that's what the YouTube video you link to entirely bases its points on.  As Cwobeel says, please take a look at WP:RS for more info about what can be considered a reliable source.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal 19 December 2015
It has been proposed by that the page Enrique Marquez (US citizen) be merged here, with the reason "If the perps don't have their own articles a minor suspect, not notable aside from this event, doesn't need one either." Creating the merge proposal thread (step 1) on his behalf. Note that this is also being discussed at Articles for deletion/Enrique Marquez (accomplice). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He has been charged with immigration fraud and plotting an earlier proposed terrorist attack. There is more here then the proposed target covers. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Trivia. He's not for those things. All three of these people have likely been previously changed with things, like traffic tickets and whatever, but that doesn't somehow make them not within the scope of this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - My final decision will depend on the outcome of the AfD. Parsley Man (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as proponent, for the reason quoted above. The AfD is leaning toward simply deleting and redirecting Enrique Marquez (US citizen) to 2015 San Bernardino attack; the point of this proposal is that some of the content should be merged in first.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article has now been deleted. Parsley Man (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Marquez information in need of a secondary reference
The following information was not found in the reference. I moved it here pending finding a wp:rs to support its inclusion.--Nowa (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Marquez worked as a Wal-Mart security guard, and part-time at a bar where he checked IDs and helped get taxis for customers.ref name=SerranoChargedWith

This material seems excessive. It's enough to say it was a sham marriage. I left the reference in the article.--Nowa (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither friends interviewed by ABC News nor social media accounts refer to the marriage. Public records indicate that Chernykh shared an address with Oscar Romero, that the couple has a baby daughter and posed together in photos. Mention of Romero disappeared from Chernykh's social media page two months before her marriage, but on her Russian-language media accounts, Chernykh continued calling herself Maria Romero, even after her legal marriage to Marquez. Romero referred to her as his wife on social media. ABC News reported that after it contacted Chernykh, a social media page was taken down.

RFC Victim names
Should the article include the names and other biographical information of the victims (killed, or wounded)? 22:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC survey

 * do not include per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. All of these individuals are low profile, and likely to remain so. For those that remain alive, we are potentially exposing them to future risks, or at least unwanted attention. If some of them become higher profile as a result of this incident (multiple media interviews, becoming a spokesperson, etc) they can become an exception.This is almost to the point that it should be preemptively removed under WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE based on BLP policy and the numerous precedents, until there is a clear and substantial majority consensus here. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include the names, ages, and city of residence of the deceased victims, but exclude the list of the injured and other biographical details. This seems to be a rational middle ground, in my mind. Neutralitytalk 23:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include all of it, as it's proven already that both those killed and those seriously injured and shot are in all news reports, and emerging as notable, and definitely sourced. They were not just "injured" but were shot.   And operated on in hospitals.  Badly traumatized, both physically and psychologically.  And these people are important, to the whole event.  I was not the one who first put any victims' names section.  But since it was there, let's make it thorough and right.  Include the 14 dead, and the 21 seriously injured,...as they always are mentioned  all the time in news sources..."21 injured", and the names themselves as they emerge in reliable sources. Redzemp (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude all wounded, they are not notable and will recover in time. Wounded are generally not listed in other terrorism attack articles. Include only name and age of the deceased. WWGB (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * response comment: these people are important, to the whole event.  I was not the one who first put any victims' names section.  But since it was there, let's make it thorough and right.   Also, as to your remark that they "will recover in time".  A) even physically that's not necessarily always totally true, and B) psychologically NONE of them will completely recover, as they are PTSD traumatized here, forever.  I know the subject on that.  And as they were not just injured but were SHOT!  Include the 14 dead, and the 21 seriously injured, as they always are mentioned  all the time in news sources..."21 injured", and the names themselves as they emerge in reliable sources. Redzemp (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is exactly the problem. People are reacting in an emotional way to this, instead of a rational one. It's terribly unfortunate what happened to these people, but that doesn't mean we ignore wiki-policy. WP:NOTMEMORIAL was established for a reason. An encyclopaedia is not the place for these kinds of lists. These people are not notable, the event they were a part of was. - the WOLF  child  12:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Include - Just the names and ages of those killed only. Should be simple enough for a list. Besides, I doubt we'll be able to learn the names of all the wounded. Parsley Man (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude wounded, per Gaijin42. Also agree that it needs to be removed per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include only biographical information on those who were killed. Unless there has been significant coverage in reliable sources on the individuals who were injured (outside just a passing mention) I do not agree with adding their names to avoid WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Meatsgains (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include all of it. I basically agree with Redzemp that information on both killed and injured should be included.  But only on the condition that every bit of it is very reliably sourced. Richard27182 (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include - Granted this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I don't think we usually include list of victims on other similar massacre pages. Additionally, Gaijin42 is probably citing the most relevant policy here, which is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. NickCT (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a mirror of breaking news stories. The dead and wounded were in the news because of one event, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Only if they were independently notable, or if they somehow caused, mitigated or influenced the event should they be named in the event. Then an article might say "Jones taunted the couple about their religion leading them to abandon their plans to attack the military base, and instead to attack the luncheon. Smith then pulled his concealed revolver and wounded one of the shooters, causing them to leave the building. Brown followed the shooters and phoned in their license plate information, leading to their apprehension." We usually do not list memorial facts about each person who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and became a victim of a shooting, a plane crash, a flood, a bombing, or an earthquake. Edison (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include biographical information about those killed. We ought to realize they are the most important aspect of the shooting!  Reject all the patriarchical notions floating around this encyclopedia that murderers are active and exciting and victims are meaningless and boring.  The killers were the interchangeable mounts of demons, but the people killed define the character of the massacre, and create the pattern of expectations that those who survive them will carry out.  From this sad beginning will emerge top cops and Medal of Honor soldiers, priests and mystics, town ordinances for gun control and armed community watch groups, peace movements and calls for chivalrous military intervention.  These events are related to the dead as the size and shape of a nuclear crater is related to the position and construction of the bomb.  The killers contributed only the decision to set it off; they could not control what it was that they have set into motion.  We cannot go out ahead of the sources we use in projecting this awareness, but we should definitely not lag behind them.  (note: I'm reserving judgment about the wounded - I'm not sure how serious any threat to them might be, while the merit to including them is weaker.  UNLESS they figure directly in future news coverage, not just as names in a table, in which case we should cover them in prose specific to those events) Wnt (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include the names and ages of those killed per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, include the number of victims but with no names or ages. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not applicable to the listing of the killed/injured as they are not the Subjects of encyclopedia articles.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include all or most - Support inclusion of basic biographical information on those shot. Support summary information on the wounded in the attack, but would not oppose a listing of the wounded. Do oppose biographical info on wounded. Bod (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude wounded names per WP:BLPNAME, which counsels caution when identifying individuals discussed primarily as part of a single event. There are privacy concerns, and as a high-profile site, Wikipedia may bring them additional unwanted attention.  A count or other summary of the injured would be appropriate for inclusion though, and BLP policy does not address those killed. —Laoris (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * comment response: Laoris, while you make a decent point about "privacy", sorry, but it's somewhat negated (obviously, frankly) given the fact that those names are already revealed in reliable sources...already, and many of those people are themselves speaking about their experience to the media.   Which (to use the word, in effect) "waives" any "privacy" issues.   You're making it out that it would be only Wikipedia revealing their names or something, even though it was already done by RS and media reporters, many times with no objection by those people.   If the names were not in reliable sources, regarding this tragic event, then WP should not be including them.   Even outfits like CNN have made a big point (even somewhat neurotically at times I must admit) of NOT focusing more on the name of the perp(s), and more so on the victims, their names, their families, their stories, etc.   If CNN (and others) can do it, then WP is not violating (IMO) "privacy concerns". Redzemp (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but Wikipedia has generally pushed for some "BLP" standards that hinder the sort of museum-archive approach I might prefer to see. I think it should be a no-brainer to include those killed because death is a public event; but getting shot is more like a personal medical problem.  And as a medical problem ... it is measured in shades of gray.  I haven't looked up in this case, but someone 'wounded' can range from being in a persistent vegetative state to having a nasty graze that required some stitches before they went on their way, or being hit by shrapnel that had to be pulled out with a forceps.  The lack of a strong all-or-nothing boundary is what clinches leaving a plain list of wounded out, as I see it.  I can just picture where someone got shaken up and taken to the hospital over his objections and now everyone he knows is reading about the event and asking him OMG were you hit?  We probably don't want to be there.  However, when it comes to simply adding prose, adding eyewitness accounts, we certainly do want to name the wounded and describe them when they've gone to the press and told their stories.  But that's as a part of our reporting of the event, rather than as part of a list. Wnt (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Include the names of the deceased victims. It is spurious to cite WP:BLP... these victims are dead, i.e.. not living persons anymore.  Furthermore, the victims and basic biographic data are entirely relevant as they were the subjects of the attack, ie., the very immediate purpose of the terrorists.  The victim data throws light on the whys and wherefores of the attack. XavierItzm (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Limited include: Include only the name and age of the victims. No residences, no location of wounds, only name and age. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude WP:NOTMEMORIAL AIR corn (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include current practice is to only list victims if they have or likely to have a wikipedia article by being notable before the event. MilborneOne (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Our threshold for mentioning someone in an article should naturally be much lower than our threshold for writing a complete article just about them. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am only reflecting current practice in other accident and disaster articles and the "have or likely to have a wikipedia article" is a good measure of notablity, wikipedia is clearly not a place to list non-notable victims or we just turn the place into one big memorial website. A link to a reliable source with names is all that is required. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No Names unless quoting them. I prefer to see broad info like 12 worked for the county and ranged in age from 24-56 (Just made up numbers by me). We should not be naming large numbers of victims.  Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include User:MilborneOne is dead wrong. Current practice is to include names. Just look at all the 2015 mass shooting articles. Every single one of them includes the list of victims. WP:Memorial applies to creating articles for non-notable people for memorial purposes. It has nothing to do with lists. The individuals may not be notable individually, but the list of them is notable - and there's no reason to make an exception for this article. Rklawton (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly not dead-wrong I am just reflecting the level of inclusion in other accident and disaster articles, a long list of non-notable victims is clearly not wikipedias job as it is not really encyclopedic and to be honest does not add any value to the articles. Perhaps we are confusing an encyclopedia with a memorial site. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Include the names. They are WP:NOTABLE for inclusion due to coverage in multiple reliable news sources.  Moreover, it has become standard practice to indluce the names of those killed in terror attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the parallel conversation underway at Articles for deletion/Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include names of deceased per WP:NOTMEMORIAL (which was created with 9/11 in mind, so definitely applies to lists of victims in terrorist acts) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (since the deceased people have no notability on their own). The fact that newspaper may have included victim names is irrelevant per WP:NOTNEWS. About the wounded, WP:BLP concerns may additionally apply. LjL (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Include the names. They are WP:NOTABLE for inclusion due to WP:SIGCOV. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: that the names and, often, life stories of the victims have appeared in multiple, reliable news media. WP:MEMORIAL does not address this situation. This debate is not a matter of policy. There is no policy re: including names of victims of terrorism whose names and life stories have been widely published in significant, reliable media. What we have here is a difference of opinion. And the citation of different precedents: Names of the 9/11 dead were not listed on WP. Those of the dead in more recent terrorist attacks have routinely been listed on WP.  Since we have no applicable policy or rule, let's all stop citing policies that do not apply.  And, instead, treat this like any other aspect of the San Barnardino massacre story, to wit: as with other information (type of weapons, role of  Enrique Marquez) we include well-sourced victims names in the article simply because it is verifiable, and has had widespread and significant coverage in multiple reliable forms of media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With all the respect I can muster for the victims and their families, their life stories and personal details are not encyclopedic material. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I intended only to suggest that the sources covering victims' life-stories provides sufficient notability for including their names. We can blue-link any notable ones, of course.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove (do not include) as Wikipedia is not a memorial, not a collection of indiscriminate information, and furthermore, is an encylopaedia. These names are not significant from an encyclopaedic perspective, and to include them is to give WP:UNDUE weight to the part of this event that is least encyclopaedic, i.e. the deaths of non-notable individuals. Merely because their names are listed in news media does not make them notable from an encyclopaedic perspective. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The victims are the "least encyclopaedic" aspect of this attack?   Does anyone even remember the 1991 Toronto bomb plot? How about the 2014 Tours stabbing attack?  Probably not, because no one was died. WP:NOTPAPER.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The individual people that died are irrelevant and not encyclopaedic. They have no significance. The encyclopaedic aspect of this event is rooted in the political repercussions of it, alongside the motives and underlying causes of it. That people died renders it more significant than if they had not, but the individual people themselves are irrelevant, unless the people were independently notable prior to the attack. It does not make a difference who those non-notable people are, whether they were called "Jean DuBois" or "Marie Boulanger" or "John Smith" or "Sarah Baker". The significance does not lie with the non-notable people that died, but with the event itself. This may seem harsh, but an encylopaedia is not meant to be an emotional affair. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Include as something resembling what it is now: an overview of who was shot, and a list of the dead. (That said, I've moved one barely-qualifies-to-be-here sentence to the footnotes.) To argue that the victims are irrelevant is stunningly wrong: one, as I've argued before, when applying BLP the shooters are no more nor less notable than their victims, and to wash one clean from the article would require removing both; and two, had a pair of wannabe terrorists shot up an empty building, there might not even be an article—that we have 14 dead and 22 injured is the entire reason this is worthy. Frankly, this discussion shouldn't even be happening. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage 🖖 20:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to my comment, you've made an error. The victims are indeed irrelevant. Please explain why saying "sixteen dead and twenty-two injured" will not suffice in this case? What do these names add to the article from an encyclopaedic perspective? Nothing. Indeed, that these people died is relevant, but who they are is not. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment and Respond to RGloucesterSo now there is this, Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (2nd nomination). the 3rd AFD for that particular article, and a possible violation of WP:POINT.  I to a look at the article and it, not the article itself, but an old version, a list version deleted somewhat arbitrarily, made me rethink this discussion. Here and scroll down to the list of individual names: .  Seeing the names of individuals creates a very different understanding of an event than a statistical summary.  After seeing that list, I want to redouble my argument on behalf of creating and keeping such lists of slaughtered human beings.  Lists of individual people  Failing to list them as individuals, while describing the lives, motives, and circumstances of the killers at length - sometimes with empathy, but always as individual people with names, now seems to me to actively discount the loss produced by these attacks, to give WP:UNDUE weight to the perspective of killers and actually if inadvertently to tend towards producing the biased articles that we all strive to avoid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , if one were to equitably apply your argument to the article, that the attackers shot the people who died is relevant, but who they were is not. Every respect, your argument is totally, completely, utterly, horribly wrong. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 23:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. That's because it is essential to know who the attackers were if one wants to explain the motive behind the attack, as an encyclopaedic article demands. The lives of the people that died had no effect on the attack itself, unlike the lives of the attackers. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. We do not have a terrorist attack—and, therefore, an article—without its victims. That we have victims is the point. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 00:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is also incorrect. Would it be wrong to say that a suicide bomber that blows himself up without harming anyone (else) wasn't a terrorist attack? There may have been intended victims, and it probably would not be notable enough for an article, but it would still be an attack, eh? ansh 666 01:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, you can remove your tongue from your cheek now ... — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  &#128406; 01:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * except, of course, that you may need to refer to the attackers to say things about them individually. That's what names exist for in the first place. With the victims, there's generally nothing to say apart from the fact they died. So it's your rebuttal that's wrong (and your row of adjectives doesn't make it impressive). LjL (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, that in this AFD RFC we are discussing long-standing co-workers well-known to at least the male attacker. And, since this is an AFD RFC, and, therefore, about a specific case, your argument that "there's generally nothing to say apart from the fact they died," is not pertinent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What? This is NOT an WP:AfD discussion... ansh 666 02:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Se my just-added reply to RG. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 00:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Exclude all, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ansh 666 00:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I changed the header of this section so that it would not conflict with the previous #Survey for the move request. ansh 666 00:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Tally Include: 15 "Do Not": 5 Remove: 1 Exclude: 1 "Exclude Wounded": 4 Bod (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Please note that this tally was merely provided for convenience and does not imply that the RFC has ended before uninvolved closure or that it is a WP:VOTE. LjL (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do Not Include - as per that pesky little thing called wiki-policy. A simple table with a breakdown of deaths, injuries, genders and ages will suffice. Show me a complete list of every victim in every mass-death event from WWI & WWII to 9/11 to current events in Syria and Africa, and I might change my mind... - the WOLF  child  12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fact check In fact, no  wiki-policy on whether to include casualty lists exists, which is why we are currently having this RFC and 2 AFDs on this question.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reality-check - if you even bothered to actually read some of the comments, instead of just continuously drowning them out in your constant noise, you'd see that many people have cited multiple Wikipedia policies. - the WOLF  child  19:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is no clear wiki-policy on whether to include casualty lists. Merely custom (we did not used to), current practice (in recent years, articles on terror attacks consistently list casualties by name), and interpretation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when is wiki-policy subject to "interpretation"? I think wp:notamemorial, and the nearly dozen other relevant policies, are quite clear on this. No interpretation required. - the WOLF  child  00:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you are treating a small list of names as a MEMORIAL. The policy deals with the creation of articles explicitly for the purposes of memorializing the dead. This is one small part of a larger article. If the perps and their names have been made notable by killing, then the killed and their names should be made notable as well. Bod (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is not about article subjects, it is about content in general. It applies no matter how small a part of the article it is. ansh 666 00:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even so, there is interpretation of that policy for every user of this survey up until the point the policy is written with a mention of casualty lists taken from newspapers following tragic events like mass shootings and terrorist attacks. You can see the list as a memorial because the otherwise "regular" people have been named and made notable, or you can see it as simply wanting the article to be the most complete it can be, describing location, method, perps, and victims. If you feel the same quality of information can be delivered with a summary of those killed, then vote against. Bod (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you can recognize that WP:NOTMEMORIAL was written after, for and because of 9/11, in order to stop lists of its victims, and as such it indisputably applies to tragic events like mass shootings and terrorist attacks. LjL (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I keep thinking this policy is some gigantic, obscure, arcane jumble of technical words. It's not. Here it is:

Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.


 * Bod (talk) 2015-12-16T20:40:54‎

- If the perps and their names have been made notable by killing, then the killed and their names should be made notable as well. - That is your opinion, and it's an emotional one at that. It's not policy and has no place in an encyclopaedia. The event is notable. Someone committing mass-murder and mayhem makes them notable. Unfortunately, simply being the victim of a mass-casualty event does not make someone notable. There are multiple wiki-policies that are clear on this. - the WOLF  child  02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are free to have an opinion on the matter. You can interpret the generalized policies that exist. And if you have a specific policy addressing the naming of victims or casualties in an attack, do share with the rest of us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sources for this article are all news sources. Bod (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Numerous editors have now cited numerous policies, but you continually choose to ignore them. - the WOLF  child  08:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not include per WP:NLIST unless some blue-linked person has died in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not list names per WP:NOTMEMORIAL unless they are highly relevant to the story or otherwise have an article. Descriptions of victim demographics/profiles as already exist in the article are fine though.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that in this case the victims were not strangers, they were long-time office mates well known to the shooter.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Failing to see the relevance of that. ansh 666 21:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. - the WOLF  child  23:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It means they may have been killed in part for *who* they were in relation to the shooter. Not just where they happened to be when the building was targeted. Bod (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Marquez Criminal Case Documents (very rich!)
As the USA v. Marquez criminal case gets underway the court documents are very rich sources of information.

Notes for active researchers

Public access for US Court documents are $.10 per page. However if you use less than $15 worth in a quarter that usage is free. (Note - if you go over $15 in usage in a quarter you indeed will be billed for it all.)

There is no copyright on US Court Documents so, once retrieved, they may be freely shared and archived.

RECAP

Strongly suggest anyone doing doing US Court Research (i.e. willing to register for a retrieval account, willing to provide a credit card, etc.) install the RECAP browser extension (Chrome or FireFox) first. [RECAP]

This will quickly and painlessly give you:
 * 1) free access to any document any other PACER/RECAP user has already pulled.
 * 2) if you pull a document in your account (perhaps free as long as you are under $15/quarter) it will automatically archive that document and make it available to others for free. It goes to Internet Archive which is totally free.

RECAP is 100% legal, totally above board, and academic/research oriented. see Wikipedia's coverage of RECAP

AFTER you install RECAP, then sign up for a public access account at the US Court site [PACER] (Reminder $.10 page, but free if under $15 usage PER QUARTER)

Search by Case No. 5:15-mj-00498 then navigate to the Docket section to look for filed documents.

Free access, no account needed

This is NOT guaranteed to have all the USA v. Marquez criminal case documents, (only by registering at PACER above, can you be sure you have everything, up to the minute. This only has documents preserved to a free archive)

It does have the Complaint which is 37 pages of detailed FBI sworn information, directly relevant to Marquez and the entire event. [Complaint at archive.org] Document #1 contains the FBI affidavit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * These are primary sources, so we shall wait until secondary sources review and report on these documents. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, all that material is already been reported in 2dary sources, and included in the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * How much does every currently accessable page cost, bundled? $14.99? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a logistical problem here, which is that only non-experts have the unused free download quota ... but we have our natural peasant wariness to deal with. What's to stop someone from hacking into your account and downloading a hundred thousand pages?  Or for that matter, how easy is it to screw up and end up on the hook for a thousand page document yourself?  And at the opposite end of things ... why doesn't some enterprising Chinese saboteur just use some fake CC#s and download their entire database and put it on the web for free before the quarterly bill gets processed, making our help unnecessary?  Need some more confidence building here if you want to get us into this. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aaron Swartz famously attempted this. Not within Wikipedia's bailiwick, to say the least. Neutralitytalk 04:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint (by Joel T. Anderson, FBI Special Agent) has already been republished by the LA Times, among others. See http://documents.latimes.com/criminal-complaint-enrique-marquez/ Neutralitytalk 04:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment 1 above

Not sure if an affidavit filled out by an FBI officer, which is based on other primary documents (such as lab reports, chemical analysis, multiple written accounts by field officers, etc.) wouldn't be properly classified as a secondary document. Its obviously a compilation made up from other primary sources.

Note that the FBI affidavit, referred to above, speaks under full penalty of perjury on behalf of the entire FBI, and not just that one author's personal opinion. Such statements are carefully reviewed internally before being sent out the door. Likewise, lies and half truths to the U.S. Court system, by another branch of U.S. government would certainly run counter to all traditional notions of justice. Not asserting it never happens, but the reliability factor here is way above a highly regarded TV anchor or newspaper writer.

Even if the affidavit were deemed primary by consensus at Wikipedia, it would still be usable. Here is the policy (which is subsidiary to the better understood "No original research" policy) see wp:PRIMARY. ''Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ''

There is also a Wikipedia guideline (has less authority than a policy) wp:USINGPRIMARY which strives (and I would add largely fails) to delineate between primary and secondary sources, as uniquely seen by WikiPedia. (It notes: 'Wikipedia is not the real world...Wikipedia, like many institutions, has its own lexicon. Wikipedia does not use these terms exactly like academics use them.'' )

The guideline goes on to say: ''Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. However, there are limitations in what primary sources can be used for. ...You are allowed to use primary sources carefully. ...Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles...Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does.''

Conclusion: Sworn affidavits from the FBI filed at PACER have an extremely high degree of reliability, and are entirely permissible to draw from directly. There is no need for corroboration / publication by mainstream media to quote from these documents directly.

Comment 2 above

Would not agree that all detail in the FBI affidavit is reported faithfully in the current Wikipedia article. Of course how to carve down a 37 page affidavit to what's relevant to include in a Wikipedia article is a judgement call.

Comment 3 above

Every page (currently filed, there will be many more fillings as the case progresses) would cost under $5.00. However, for the moment (last time I checked), all pages currently filed are accessible free (see above, Internet Archive link).

Comment 4 above

Pretty sure RECAP has no knowledge of your login credentials at PACER. The software only becomes active as you search. Its open source, maintained by Princeton University. per Wikipedia: In 2009, the Los Angeles Times stated that RECAP cuts into PACER revenue about $10 million. At .10 per page that would mean about 700 million pages have been downloaded using RECAP since 2009 without any reports of credit card fraud. It's open source, so the best place to look for possible security issues is directly at at source code: [freelawproject]

Comment 5 above

Not recommending, or not recommending, using RECAP on, behalf of Wikipedia. Just providing references to it (as Wikipedia itself does). Had the US Court system desired and had been able to shut it down, that would have occurred long ago since its been active for more than six years, and it puts a 10 million dollar per year dent in the PACER revenues. I doubt Princeton University would risk a lawsuit on behalf of PACER were there any legal exposure.

Comment 6 above

See #1 above. The US Court documents as filed on PACER should be directly quotable per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm all for linking such material as a resource, but on the other hand we should be wary of treating it as a true news report. It does not have an independent editorial process - for example, you will never see an FBI affidavit that is an expose of shoddy work done at their lab.  And the material is not presented as impartial truth, but as an adversarial argument.  I call specific attention to point 4:  "This affidavit is intended to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested complaint and arrest warrant and does not purport to set forth all of my knowledge of or investigation into this matter.  Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all conversations and statements described in this affidavit are related in substance and in part only, and all dates and times referenced herein are approximate."  It's easy to just ignore such disclaimers, but it's saying you can't rely on it for solid unbiased facts, and we should remember that. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A link may be OK in the External links section, but what would not be OK is to use these primary sources as sources for direct commentary in the article's body. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's right. We should have a secondary source for commentary, but there's no reason not to cite the primary source as a normal reference, e.g. "According to the affidavit,[1] ..."  There are people who will make exactly the opposite distinction between external links and references.  I think of external links as a temporary dumping ground for good references that haven't been well integrated into the text; over time, they ought to get folded into the normal text, I'd say. Wnt (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that primary sources are rich in information, but there is danger of wp:undue if we rely on them for information for the article. Hence I encourage all editors to rely on wp:rs for article content.--Nowa (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

One other thing, though it may not yet apply here There is no copyright on US Court Documents so, once retrieved, they may be freely shared and archived. - while the documents the courts generate and the FBI, documents generated by lawyers that are not works of the government may very well be subject to copyright even though they are public documents. --DHeyward (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)



Searched Marquez case docket at: [Archive] (see above, can be out of date). Since no documents after 12/21/2015 I searched on PACER (Case No. 5:15-mj-00498). Again no documents on the docket past 12/21? Seems odd no documents were filed related to his reported plea of not guilty and demand for trial?

Also noted in the Order of Detention (refusing bail) by David T Bristow, US Magistrate Judge's findings as to danger from release on bail were:
 * ''nature of the underlying allegations in the complaint
 * ''gravity of the harm presented
 * ''specificity of the prior planning (site location, maximum victimization)
 * ''actions in procuring weapons and explosive powder under false pretenses
 * ''lack of conditions to mitigate danger

Not so sure the article's coverage U.S. Magistrate Judge David Bristow ordered Marquez held without bail, saying that Marquez would pose a danger to the community if released[142] (as reported by pe.com) was all that great at reporting what Bristow, in his own handwriting, actually expressed?

Terrorism or A workplace shooting.
I don't disagree with mentioning terrorism as one possibility that is being investigated, but I don't see proof it is not an ordinary workplace shooting. I am wondering if the article is assuming it is terrorism when it is not clear. "seriously injured in a terrorist attack " should read "seriously injured in a workplace shooting ". If they were not Muslims their attack would not be considered terrorism, just a workplace shooting. I am not arguing it is impossible but it is far from clear they shot up their co-works for reasons distinct from the other workplace shootings in America.Geo8rge (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? Because their motivations are pretty well established at this point... – Bardbom (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Use of Syrian Civil War sanctions disputed
This article has nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War, as such, I'm disputing the gratuitous use of the sanction on this page. -- Kendrick7talk 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Necessity of stating victims' genders
Is it really that necessary? I personally don't think so. The victims' names are all basic, and there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic value for revealing the genders. If people are confused, they can just look it up elsewhere. Parsley Man (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Parsley Man. I'm not saying that it's crucial to have it there, but there doesn't seem to be (on the other hand) a big necessary crucial reason to remove it either.  And first names don't always clearly reveal gender, and "other stuff" is whatever, as we know, and also some may want to know the different genders, as point of interest and knowledge and clarity.   I was not the original editor, by the way, that listed the sexes of the victims.  Someone else originally did that.    I'm just not really sure why it's that big of a problem to have it.    But I won't revert or deal with it again any time soon.   And I always respect consensus, by the way...whether I totally agree or not. Regards. Redzemp (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)




 * Agree that sex here is NOT relevant. Might argue that age is also NOT relevant either. Age/Sex/Race - might only be relevant if shooters targeted specific groups. No evidence the shooters were discriminating here. Targets seemed to be "any U.S. Citizen". Other terrorist plots revealed by Marquez corroborate that U.S. citizens "at random" were the targets, along with first responders.


 * Nicholas Thalasinos was, according to his wife of nine years, a "devout Messianic Jew", who was "very outspoken about ISIS and all of these radicalized Muslims”. Somehow this all got scrubbed from the article? Shooters were radicalized, targets appeared to be "any U.S. Citizen" with no discrimination based on age/sex/race. Yet conflict was seen here.


 * Age listings in the article is for what? To show respect for the dead? That is traditionally handled by an exact date of birth, which helps pin things down for ancestry research and other highly specific identification.


 * Hatred of Nicholas Thalasinos and/or his religious beliefs, as evidence by the arguments/disturbance earlier that day, MAY have served as the necessary and sufficient catalyst for this specific event, without which it may have not have occurred. The shooters were "radicalized" well ahead of this. Yet they remained "contained" until this specific event. Once flipped over into "go mode" they both gunned down fellow workers in cold blood, without an instant of hesitation or discrimination that anyone has yet to identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 January 2016


 * What in the world does Nicholas Thalasinos have to do with anything of this? Who is he, anyway? Parsley Man (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Who are you asking?   Me?   If so, why..Parsley Man? I didn't write all that.     The unidentified IP address wrote that stuff above.   You didn't address what I wrote above though.  Redzemp (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not you. I know you signed your piece. Parsley Man (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, but you still didn't answer my points or address anything. Instead you reverted again, without discussing, Parsley Man.    The gender thing was there from the beginning, so it should stay until and unless consensus is reached on "discussion" first.   Which you're not doing.    Again, you say I wrote my "piece", but you didn't address any of it.   So if you don't, expect to get reverted tomorrow sometime, and gender be restored.   Because...again...And first names don't always clearly reveal gender, and "other stuff" is whatever, as we know, and also some may want to know the different genders, as point of interest and knowledge and clarity.   I was not the original editor, by the way, that listed the sexes of the victims.  Someone else originally did that.    I'm just not really sure why it's that big of a problem to have it.   Redzemp (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Biographical Details about Victims Needed
Victims of a terror attack on U.S. soil merit their own article, or at least more detail than given here. First of all, murder is rare and is usually notable. Murder by terrorism is even rarer, and therefore even more notable. Extensive media coverage of murders and specifically terrorist murders establishes both points. Second, murder of one person - if covered in the media - generally entitles that person to specific mention of his life in the article about the murder [see: Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates, Murder_of_Lee_Rigby] and the same often applies if more than one person is murdered [see: Levi_Bellfield, Charlie_Hebdo_shooting, Virginia_Tech_shooting]. Many more examples can be brought. Third, some of the victims of the San Bernardino attack are more notable than others, quote from the article itself: "Three of the deceased victims—Isaac Amanios, Bennetta Betbadal and Tin Nguyen—had come to the United States to escape violence or persecution in their home countries". At the very least, these three should have an article about them. Fourth, the ethnicity of the victims is needed, because terrorist murders by Muslims against non Muslims are a hate crime. Summing up, I propose creating an article entitled "Victims of the 2015 San Bernardino attack" or at the very least, expanding the existing section to include professions and ethnicity. Yabti (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the fact that the victims in general are not notable. We already have a similar level of coverage on the victims as in the other mass death articles. Nothing of depth is written about them as individuals in reliable sources.  Yes, an article here or there names them or gives a bit of info. Compare that to the thousands and thousand of pages written about the event as a whole and then read WP:WEIGHT. If a different individual had died, or a different individual had survived, has no effect on the incident, except to the immediate friends and family of those involved. In cases where a single victim dies, their identity is usually much more germaine/important to the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Gaijin42's arguments and previous discussions (see archives). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How about adding professions and ethnicity? Look at the examples I brought. The victims at Virginia Tech were not notable either and their professions are all stated in the article. As for ethnicity, this was a serious hate crime, so ethnicity is very important. Yabti (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The attack was indiscriminate. Ethnicity of the victims was not a factor. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Category
Placing this in the category for ISIL attacks was reverted. Since upon editing this article there is a bold warning about reverting specifically stating "Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the sanctions regime as described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." If this attack has nothing to do with ISIL then the warning ought to be removed, if it does, the category should be restored. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

USA v. Marquez trial notes and dates
for notes on court document research see: these notes

Judge Jesus G. Bernal
 * 02/08/2016 Status Conference at 2:00 PM
 * 02/08/2016 Motion Hearing at 2:00 PM
 * 02/23/2016 at 9:00 AM Trial estimate: 12-14 days

Counts
 * 18:2339A(a) CONSPIRACY TO PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS
 * 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM
 * 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM (second offense)
 * 8:1325(c) MARRIAGE FRAUD
 * 18:1546(a) FRAUD AND MISUSE OF VISAS, PERMITS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Docket #:	5:15-cr-00093
 * PACER case #:	636885
 * Free Archive: [here] (see above note - not always perfectly up to date, use PACER to be sure)
 * Magistrate judge case number: 	5:15-mj-00498-DUTY
 * Note: Both of these are used and seem to be tied to the same PACER case# above:
 * 5:15-cr-00093-JGB
 * 5:15-cr-00093-JGB-1 (what is this?)

Docket #:	5:15-mj-00498
 * Seems closed as of 12/30 but contains relevant documents
 * PACER case #:	636012
 * Free Archive: [here] (see above note - not always perfectly up to date, use PACER to be sure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Refactor "news heap" to encyclopedia article
Enough time has passed to "pull back" and take a top down look at the entire article. In particular how space is devoted to each topic, and overall organization and balance. Somehow it seems to be "off center" of where a good encyclopedia article on this event would be.

First a look at the stats, all the "hot" interest is long gone:


 * Dec 2015, page views about 40k/day with peak at >200k/day [Dec States]


 * Jan 2016, page views about 200/day [Jan Stats]

Early on, coverage of every instance of significant "breaking news", was of primary concern. And, those were shoe-horned in quickly and sequentially. The early "news", which was generated rapidly received zealous and broad coverage. Yet in hindsight much of what was "sensational" up front fades to nearly insignificant in the context of a much more calm and reasoned whole article. Yet the "remnants" of the "early-on" archaic content seems to linger with too much coverage.

For instance, early-on there was a huge bias towards not labeling it a terrorist event, not showing any potential tie to radical groups, asserting "it'll never happen again, it's an isolated incident, a one shot deal". The attitude of the editing crowd was to label it as somehow a spontaneously arising mental illness, or a simple case of irrational hot-headed workplace rivalry gone bad. Yet the preponderance of the evidence, revealed slowly and later on, as the formerly Monet style mosaic came into greater actual focus, shows a much more learned account of what actually happened and why. Early editors promising to "go back later" when adequate evidence was finally in have long since lost any continuing interest, and vanished from participating. So, very little wholesale refactoring thus far.

For instance, now that much more is known:
 * No coverage of ideology differences and intense hatred between shooters (hunters), and the victims (hunted)?
 * No coverage of what were (and are) considered key targets for this type of terrorism, and its key goals/objectives?
 * The shooters were found directly aligned (pledged allegiance to) a specific radical group, yet there is no coverage of how that radical group recruited them to their ideology? Or, succinctly what that ideology is? For instance if a co-worker was clearly Muslim, would they have been gunned down with the rest, or spared? What is the ideology and objective?
 * Coverage of how individuals who have an allegiance to these radical groups (actively promoting the random killing of U.S. citizens) are detected, and denied entry to the U.S.? How border integrity specifically failed here? What was learned? Changes that are to be considered and implemented?
 * Coverage of how individuals who are already in the U.S., become loyal to foreign radical groups are detected and subsequently deported? Or how that system has major gaps, flaws, exploits, etc.?
 * No coverage of the actual tipping point here? Given prior radicalization, why this particular event, this particular group, at this particular time? Why shoot a group of co workers (with some "interpersonal connection") vs. some other ("nameless/faceless") targets?
 * Shooters child is voluntarily abandoned? Is that part of the ideology, a necessary sacrifice? Psych coverage? What does it take to do that?
 * Very poor cross referencing to relevant other articles on Wikipedia which cover the radical groups activities, cults, radicalization process, law, customs and border protection, effectiveness of Homeland Security, etc.
 * Very scant coverage of true analytical experts, including FBI investigation, affidavit, etc. Who are the experts? Why no coverage? Psychologists, terrorist experts, Islamic experts, security experts, hate experts, psychopathology experts, sociopath experts, international experts, etc.
 * Follow the money. Radical groups funding, terrorism economics. Finding, promoting and controlling low cost terrorism participants? Specifics here.
 * Radical groups vs. cults - what it takes to convert or raise humans to be killers?
 * Very scant coverage of this incident in the context of others similar to it. Database links? Seems very U.S. / parochial. No coverage of how the U.S. works with allies on terrorism. What the allies do to counter terrorism? Different approaches?
 * Most content is built off "sound bytes" and a few sentences reproduced from major media. There is likely increasing "academic" coverage of the event with more thoughtful and thorough analysis.
 * Some of the best quality encyclopedic content will emerge into the public domain through the USA vs. Marquez case, yet this entire section is buried and not well organized in advance to facilitate its eventual "fleshing out". Some thoughstarters:
 * Legal back grounding
 * Marquez heritage, personality, family life, social connections, etc. How was he recruited?
 * The counts, and based on other cases, whats required for a conviction
 * Legal strategy of each side
 * Motion strategy and results
 * Examination and vetting of the evidence
 * Testimony extracts
 * Verdict & sentence

So, perhaps time for a "top down" realignment and tune up. These things are best done with some crowd wisdom and consensus. So, what content and coverage needs adjusting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is missing the FBI Cessna surveillance planes

 * 1) http://flightradar24.com for tail number, date/time stamp, and geospacial track (or photo of that, see below)
 * 2) FAA for tail number to registered owner http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnum_inquiry.aspx
 * 3) AP has listed the d/b/a registrations used by FBI (per a federal budget document from 2010 - at least 115 planes, including 90 Cessnas). FBI is d/b/a: FVX RESEARCH, KLJ AVIATION, KQM AVIATION, LCB LEASING, NBR AVIATION, NBY PRODUCTIONS, NG RESEARCH, NORTHWEST AIRCRAFT LEASING CORP, OBR LEASING, OTV LEASING, PSL SURVEYS, PXW SERVICES, RKT PRODUCTIONS, WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT LEASING CORP.

Article is missing the two FBI surveillance planes.

Dec 2

https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/672179495995076608/photo/1

N404KR OBR Leasing CESSNA 182T (FBI)

Article http://www.newsgrio.com/articles/167329-homeland-security-deployed-a-spy-plane-above-san-bernardino-after-shooting.html

N497PC Platus PC-12/45  US Dept of Homeland Security

(article has this one listed)

Dec 3

Article http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/05/fbi-activity-san-bernardino-attack/

N657TP PXW Services Cesna 182 (FBI)

Dec 4

Article http://theaviationist.com/2015/12/05/fbi-activity-san-bernardino-attack/

N404KR OBR Leasing CESSNA 182T (FBI) (same as Dec 2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Largest act of terrorism since 9/11"
The reasons this statement is clearly incorrect are not very difficult to understand, and it wouldn't take me very long to elaborate on other problems with the source as well.

It's beyond obvious this is an issue of re-branding the word "terrorists" post-9/11 to exclusively refer to Muslisms. Just six years before that, however, the Oklahoma City bombings were only called an act of domestic terrorism, and Timothy McVeigh, someone who also acted alone and advanced his own political agenda, a terrorist. An act of terrorism is defined adequately in its own Wikipedia article:


 * Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political or religious aim.

It doesn't matter that US federal officials never referred to Seung-Hui Cho as a terrorist in the media, because Wikipedia is impartial and the avoidance of this term was questioned in its own time by international observers based on this warranted suspicion. That the article sourced is exclusively about Muslims is the perfect indictment of any counter-argument that this isn't the case. That's verification both independent of the source previously linked and clearly written in opposition to that opinion piece's stance to indicate that terrorism was a uniquely "Muslim" problem.

Because there's nothing intrinsically Islamic about terrorism at large, the premise of that article is false, and citing it to source the claim that this was the "biggest act of terrorism in the US since 9/11" was both deliberately misleading and transparent. If you contend otherwise, feel free to talk with me here, or open an issue in Arbitration. Thanks. Hexagon70 (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute......did you just come in here and declare that this has to go your way or go to "arbitration"? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No. I said this: "If you contend otherwise, feel free to talk with me here." Hexagon70 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Followed by "or open an issue in Arbitration". Maybe you don't know how the process works, but we're not even at the DR level yet, let alone start talking about Arbcom. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * But even if officials did not say the Virginia Tech shooting wasn't an act of terrorism, it still wasn't an act of terrorism, though, because there was simply no political motivation driving the attacks. After-action reports found that Cho suffered from severe mental illness, but no indication that his actions were driven by any political causes, real or imagined. Parsley Man (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that there is no anti-Muslim sentiment being expressed by labeling these events as terrorist attacks. There are a number of other events that are labeled as terrorist attacks even though the perpetrators aren't Muslim. Just like you said, Oklahoma City bombing is a prime example of that. There are also a number of more recent acts of terrorism that have been perpetrated by non-Muslims that have articles of their own here on Wikipedia. I really don't know where you're getting the contrary from. Parsley Man (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Which "contrary" (preferably quoting literally from his statement)? thanks.  Layzeeboi (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The implication that there's an underlying anti-Muslim rhetoric in the "controversial" edit. Parsley Man (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Break out legal battle in section "phone encryption" to a separate article
In view of the broad scope of possible implications of a legal precedent that would be established if the DoJ's action against Apple is successful, I propose that at some point this legal battle will need its own article. Layzeeboi (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. As this develops, more info will come out and this subject will require its own article. Parsley Man (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, now I notice that, rather than a separate article, it might well appear here. Layzeeboi (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd support a fork. I've added split to the section.BlueStove (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem unmanageably large to me. I'd leave it there, but try to keep it relatively short and let the more specific details stay at Apple_Inc._litigation as mentioned. LjL (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly support a new article. Both sides are dug in for a long fight that will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The issues go far beyond both the San Bernardino attack and Apple's business interests, and the story has generated lots of press, so a separate article on the case is inevitable. Might as well start it now and make it easier for editors to contribute. I would suggest FBI v. Apple as a title for now until the case gets a formal legal name.--agr (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, we shouldn't be too hasty in our descision here, as this event is still playing out. Maybe we should wait until Apple is forced to unlock it. Just a thought.TJH2018 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support a FBI v. Apple article until a better title better title arises. The case has far reaching implications beyond the San Bernardino attack and is notable in its own right.BlueStove (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now done that, starting by copying the section from this article. The subject more than meets notability requirements for a separate article. People here can decide how much to trim the section in this article.--agr (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. I've added a split from here for future attribution.BlueStove (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Radical Islamist
Apparently some editors are not required to explain their reverting of other editors. They also have their talk page locked so only committed editors can post there to ask for an explanation. I can only imagine some find the accurate term offensive for some emotional reasons. A long time ago in place far away people forgot this was a encyclopedia where facts are to reign and Political correctness should be shoved up their fat arse. But I digress in to potty humor. Radical Islamist is an article on wikipedia. It describes the terrorists as they claimed to be doing this for Islam and thus are radical. Nothing complicated, just the facts mammy.172.58.137.140 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see with pleasure that you've eventually found this talk page, the one actually relevant to the article, even though personal talk pages of editors who may have contributed to this article were protected. Cheers, now you know where to discuss article issues. LjL (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Radical Islamist is NOT an article on Wikipedia. It's a redirect to a disambiguation page. Liz  Read! <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct. I previewed and saw it linked. I should of followed the link. It also could be an article but a subsection under Islamic fundamentalism would suffice. I see you still have not explained your rational even though you managed to make it here but still failed to address the issue at hand. I cannot figure that out as you seem intelligent and look rather like a librarian on your talk page. As Conan O'Brian] would say to Martha Stewart Rrrr!!! 172.56.12.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You guys manage to have this anti-WP:AGF conversation without stating what change is being discuss. I see IP 172.56.12.251 tried to put in and link Radical Islamist in the first sentence with this edit. I have added Islamic terrorism to the See also section as it is not linked anywhere in the article. Would that suffice? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Potentially superseded statement
"Perpetrators Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik left their six-month-old daughter with Farook's mother at their Redlands home the morning of the attack, saying they were going to a doctor's appointment." is the first sentence of the text of the article as it stands right now. It is also proof of the bias of editor "Neutrality", who has obliterated my edits, using the following pretext:

"This early statement was quickly superseded by subsequent investigation. We're WP:NOTNEWS."

to delete the following perfectly sourced sentence, which used to be part of the article months ago:

Previously, on December 3, the President had indicated "It is possible that this was terrorist-related, but we don’t know. It’s also possible that this was workplace-related."

Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Tone down the personal language, please. The fact is that not every single early statement needs to be recounted in this article. The sentence you insist on quoting was an early statement that essentially says "we don't know, we're continuing to investigate." That statement was very quickly superseded by the subsequent investigation. Including it is not very informative to the reader. This is very much a WP:NOTNEWS issue.
 * , can you weigh in here? Neutralitytalk 08:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's worth including early, superseded statements even if they're incorrect if and only if the statements themselves and/or their incorrectness had consequences of note. If, instead, the original statements were later corrected without leaving much in terms of consequences, there is little reason to include them.
 * Also, apologies for editing other people's stuff, but this section's heading was absurd. I've made it shorter and included the involved text as part of the body. LjL (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, this does not apply to "Initial news reports and witness accounts led to a search for up to three shooters, but police eventually determined that there were only two since only two firearms were used in the attack according to ballistics evidence." and so many other WP:NOTNEWS in the very same article. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The fact is that not every single early statement needs to be recounted in this article."


 * So your argument is that since other inappropriate stuff is found in the article, more of it should stay? That sounds like a poor argument, at least if we're actually trying to improve the encyclopedia. Are you? LjL (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, the third shooter theory, while made early on in the investigation, is actually a claim that's still being discussed with a lot of controversy hanging over it, and therefore, still relevant for the article. See this section and this section if you don't believe me. Second off, Obama's claim that the shooting might be "workplace-related" was discredited as soon as the motives of the shooters were revealed, and once that happened (days or even hours into the investigation, if I can recall), everyone dropped the whole workplace shooting angle. Aside from that, that whole claim was worded extremely hypothetically and early on in the investigation. It's info only quite a select few would care to know about. Parsley Man (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

More editing to overcome early spin?
Examine the evidence.

Dec 2

Date of the actual shooting. That same day CBS aired an interview with the president. This is important to get the context of what followed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLNnL7VlJDA The president plays up mass shootings, downplays terrorism and mostly advertises a need for gun control.

Dec 3 (prior to 11 AM)

President holds a meeting with his "national security team" (as reported by the official White House blog).

The "national security team" here most likely means:

National Security Council: chaired by the President. Includes: VP, Secretaries (State, Treasury, Defense), Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Advisory (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of National Intelligence), Invited Guests (President's Chief of Staff, Counsel, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy), and if relevant (AG, Director OMB).

Plus, in this case, Directors of: DHS, FBI, and NSA

Published later but referring to that meeting

Here is an article accusing substantial spin. By itself perhaps not "conclusive" but examine it in context of other trustworthy information, presented here. http://sofrep.com/45079/fbi-san-bernadino-investigation-stymied-by-politics/#ixzz3z2JoOJeI Article notes the event was considered a terrorist attack from the very outset, and the president was well aware of that. States the immediate NSC meeting at the White House and SIGINT aircraft launch are totally inconsistent with "mass shooting" or "workplace incident". Dec 3 11 AM EST

Shortly after the "national security team" meeting, the president issues a statement from from oval office.

Video: (scroll down) https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-san-bernardino transcript: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/03/statement-president-shooting-san-bernardino-california

...I just received a briefing from FBI Director Comey, as well as Attorney General Lynch (White House blog reported the meeting as considerably larger - "the national security team") We don't know why they did it...It is possible this is terrorist related but we don't know. Its also possible it was workplace related. [The second half was oriented entirely towards "mass shootings]...make it harder for individuals to get access to weapons."

Preparations for a press conference

Do you think after sitting in on that "national security team" meeting in the early AM, that James Comey might have had a chat with his man on the west coast, David Bowdich, FBI Assistant Director in Charge, to inform him how the President wanted things presented to the media? Would David in turn share that info with San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan? After all, they were both to stand side by side at the podium in just a couple of hours, in front of a huge swarm of news hungry media. Service oriented government employees tend to closely follow chain-of-command and direct orders.

Dec 3 12:42 EST

Police/FBI press conference 9:42 PT

The press conference was huge, covered by virtually all major media. Oddly, it was quite delayed in getting started. And, it absolutely "set the tone" for all the early media reporting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccMK5Q_RDIU

FBI: [very interested in an analysis of the digital media] we are trying to determine motive, we do not yet know the motive, we cannot rule anything out at this point. We are hoping that some of the digital media exploitation will help us and assist us in obtaining some of that. Again it would be irresponsible of me, it would be way too early for us to speculate on motive on why this occurred...if you look at the obvious amount of preplaning that went in, the amount of armaments that he had, the weapons and ammunition, there was obviously a mission here, we know that. We do not know why. We don't know if this was the intended target or something triggered him to do this immediately. We just don't know. And again that's going to take time to get that answer. We know there was some international travel. They came into the U.S. both he and, she was not his wife at the time, but she is now, they both came in to the U.S. in July of 2014. They have since had a baby together, he is a U.S. person. She is here on a K-1 visa. ...don't know all the countries he visited but Pakistan was one of them. She is here on a K-1 visa under a Pakistan passport. [Why was she involved?] we don't know enough...again it would be irresponsible and immature of me to call this terrorism. The FBI defines terrorism very specifically, and we are still, that is the big question for us, what is the motivation for this. First and foremost, the integrity of this investigation again, is paramount. Secondly, its ultimately to determine, the motive, and the inspiration for this attack...[relating to bombs] there is some level of sophistication, certainly, when you are tying them together, and you have, seemingly, a remote controlled car that is attached to the device. [Is there any evidence the design was based on Inspire magazine?] We knew that question would come up and we are looking in to it as we speak.

Dec 5

President convenes a meeting in the Situation Room to discuss the terrorist attack. An official photo is taken by White House photographer Pete Souza and posted to the White House blog. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-san-bernardino Use of the Situation Room is inconsistent with mass shootings/workplace incidents, especially several days after a shooting incident is totally over.

Conclusion

Based on the above trail of evidence it appears early information flow was indeed quite actively "shaped". (check historical versions of this article and the inflamed discussions about it in the talk archives. It remains quite colored by that early shaping.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of news consumers loose all interest quickly as the early sensationalism fades out just days after a major news event. Those consumers leave with the shaped presentation, as their perceived absolute reality.

Unlike TV news and newspapers however, an encyclopedia has the ability to go back and set the record straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.4.225 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sign your posts, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the point is... Also, yes, please sign your posts. Parsley Man (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP delete the signature with this edit. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I wonder why... Well, I restored the edit. Parsley Man (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

USA v. Marquez trial notes and dates
for notes on court document research see: these notes

Judge Jesus G. Bernal
 * 02/08/2016 Status Conference at 2:00 PM
 * 02/08/2016 Motion Hearing at 2:00 PM
 * 02/23/2016 at 9:00 AM Trial estimate: 12-14 days

Counts
 * 18:2339A(a) CONSPIRACY TO PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS
 * 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM
 * 18:922(a)(6) FALSE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF A FIREARM (second offense)
 * 8:1325(c) MARRIAGE FRAUD
 * 18:1546(a) FRAUD AND MISUSE OF VISAS, PERMITS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Docket #:	5:15-cr-00093
 * PACER case #:	636885
 * Free Archive: [here] (see above note - not always perfectly up to date, use PACER to be sure)
 * Magistrate judge case number: 	5:15-mj-00498-DUTY
 * Note: Both of these are used and seem to be tied to the same PACER case# above:
 * 5:15-cr-00093-JGB-
 * 5:15-cr-00093-JGB-1 (what is this?)

Docket #:	5:15-mj-00498
 * Seems closed as of 12/30 but contains relevant documents
 * PACER case #:	636012
 * Free Archive: [here] (see above note - not always perfectly up to date, use PACER to be sure)

Who ever wrote this, thanks. Winterysteppe (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Update: I popped into Pacer and downloaded the last two documents as of 6/6/2016. [accessible for free here]. Several prior documents were under Seal. Everything is moved back yet again but the trial should be very revealing. The government has produced discovery to the defense, including: over 8,500 documents including reports of investigation, evidence photographs, expert witness reports, search warrants and other legal process; and over 500 hours of audio-recorded witness interviews with law enforcement, including the draft transcripts of these interviews. I'm not a legal expert but its likely that a significant portion of those discovery documents will be introduced as evidence at trial. Once that evidence is admitted in court (the Defense will try to have it eliminated) it generally becomes fully accessible to the general public. [more here]. The major reason for the push back appears to have been the case is so unusual and so complex, due to the nature of the prosecution, that it is unreasonable to expect preparation for pre-trial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act
 * March 6, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. - STATUS CONFERENCE AND MOTIONS HEARING DATE
 * March 21, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. -TRIAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.28.218 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories need editing
All importance=low ?

Death Crime-related United States articles (Is it really an article about the United Sates?)

Terrorism Articles importance=unknown - isn't "importance" established at this point?

Terrorism



Add?

Category:Islamic terrorism (as old Marquez article was categorized)

Category:Islamic terrorism in the United States



Title?

2015 San Bernardino shooting and attempted bombing

Periodic reports of ongoing investigation
Investigating agencies note it's a priority to keep the surviving shooting victims and their family members updated on the investigation. Week of 1/18 they met with >100 people for an update and Q&A. In attendance were:

Bowdich (FBI)

Decker (U.S. Attorney)

Burguan (San Bernardino Police Chief)

McMahon (San Bernardino County Sheriff)

Any additional facts emerge at that meeting?

In the article motive is listed as under investigation. Are those agencies actively pondering and investigating motive at this point or is that considered established?