Talk:2019 El Paso shooting/Archive 3

Please change target from "Latino and Hispanic Americans" to "Latino and Hispanic people"
Mexican victims are not Americans — Preceding unsigned comment added by  67.149.246.163 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At this time there is no reason to conclude that the shooter was targeting people of Mexican nationality, as opposed to people of Hispanic and Latino heritage generally, or that he believed he would find many non-US citizens at a Walmart in El Paso. According to the information published in reliable sources about his "manifesto", his primary motive involved concerns about Hispanic and Latino voters and their effect on the US vote, which implies that he was primarily targeting Hispanic and Latino Americans, not non-citizens.  As our knowledge of the shooter's motives may change, so may the content of the target field in the infobox.  General Ization  Talk  20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think we should have anything in the "target" box. (I didn't even know we had such a box; what a horrible thing!) But if we put anything there it would not be Latino and Hispanic anything; it would be "Mexicans". That's not supposition; that's a literal quote, exactly what he told the police he was doing: trying to kill as many Mexicans as possible. And clearly that's why he drove to El Paso, hundreds of miles from his home: he knew that a Walmart in El Paso would be patronized by many Mexican citizens, as it was. Anyone from a border state like Texas would know that. In fact I am inclined to put "Mexicans" there right now, sourced, unless we decide not to have anything. It isn't often that a gunman tells us exactly who he was targeting. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you really think he meant people with Mexican nationality and/or citizens of Mexico, or was he using "Mexicans" as a pejorative term for Hispanic and Latino people who may now, or perhaps in the future, vote (which implies they are or would be US citizens)?  (It may be a rhetorical question, as I'm not sure we can really know.)  I'll take another look at his manifesto.  General Ization  Talk  21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say the fact that he deliberately drove to a border Walmart, hundreds of miles from his home, proves that he was looking for Mexican citizens. Look, I live in a border town myself - San Diego. If someone was looking to kill Mexican citizens specifically, I can tell you exactly which Walmart they would target. If they were after Mexican-Americans, particularly Mexican-American citizens able to vote (and yes, they might well refer to them as "Mexicans" too), they wouldn't go to the border. They would go to a part of town where Hispanic-Americans live - and I can pretty much tell you where that would be too. This guy chose a border Walmart because he knew there would be many Mexican citizens there. It's not our place to try to pretty up his language or interpret it. He said what he said and his actions show what he meant. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

All this being said, the target parameter is not really the place to write the why; we have the motive parameter for that. to be more in line with articles such as 7 July 2005 London bombings ("Public aboard London Underground trains and a bus in Central London"), Manchester Arena bombing ("Concert-goers"), and Orlando nightclub shooting ("Patrons of Pulse nightclub"). TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so now it says "Walmart shoppers". That's accurate and uncontroversial so I'm OK with it. It adds nothing of value to the article, but neither do the other examples cited. I'm not sure what the parameter is even there for, but at least this is a good solution for what to put there. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the point of the parameter is to distinguish civilian targets from military ones, but I honestly don't know. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "Walmart shoppers" isn't what's meant to be in the infobox. The victims weren't targeting for the reason that they were shopping at Walmart. I suggest we maybe blank that parameter until a consensus is reached? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:51, 5 August 2019 (para)
 * And now target contains yet another variation on the theme.  General Ization Talk  01:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with blanking it while we discuss. I will do that and then comment here. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What do the sources say were his target? It's not up to us to speculate or analyze, but merely to summarize what the sources say.Nowa (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The gunman himself said his goal was to shoot as many Mexicans as possible. I haven't seen any source say, in its own voice, what the target was. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * what's there do discuss? "Hispanic and Latino Walmart customers" were the target per all the sources and the shooter himself. There's other things that may warrant a discussion, this is not one of them. QuestFour (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quest, would you mind moving your comment to the discussion poll immediately below? I disagree but I'll do it there. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought, see below. QuestFour (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What to put in the "Target" box
There has been controversy and edit warring about what to put in the “target” line of the infobox. I have blanked it pending agreement here. Suggestions that have been made include:
 * 1) Mexicans - This is what the gunman himself said he was targeting.
 * 2) Hispanic and Latino Americans
 * 3) Latino and Hispanic people
 * 4) Walmart shoppers customers - This is in line with what is done at other such articles where the “target” is listed as “Concert-goers”, “Patrons of Pulse nightclub’’, etc.
 * 5) Leave it blank

Discussion? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My own preference: #5, leave it blank. I don't think this box adds anything to the article, regardless of whether it is used to mean the gunman's motive (that's already in the infobox) or the people being shot at ("Walmart customers" adds nothing to our understanding of the incident). In fact I would support a move to remove this line from the infobox entirely, but that's a subject for another place. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say option 4. However, is "shoppers" or "customers" the correct term here? QuestFour (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, "customers" is better. "Shoppers" is PA announcement talk: "attention, Walmart shoppers!" 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is how various news outlets have described the target:--Nowa (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * “Chris Grant, who was wounded in the attack, said the shooter targeted people who appeared to be Hispanic, but let white and black shoppers out of the building. “
 * “In Connecticut, Karla Cornejo Villavicencio, 30, said she felt physically sick when she learned that the gunman in El Paso had seemed to have targeted Latinos.”
 * “Police believe the El Paso shooter targeted Latinos.”
 * “gunman allegedly targeted Hispanics and opened fire in a Walmart”
 * “the shooter may have targeted Mexican nationals”
 * “the attack Saturday that appeared to target Hispanics”


 * I'm the one who "Walmart customers", so obviously I support that option. I don't think it would be a big loss to leave it blank, however. The problem with the other ones is that the target parameter is not for why they were targeted (we have the motive for that), but how they were targeted, going by the use in other articles. TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything but option 4. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mexicans He said so, with no apparent reason to lie about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are references that he specifically targeted Mexicans.--Nowa (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If he walked in and started shooting at whatever was in front of him, it would have been hard to guarantee that all of the victims were Hispanic (they weren't as we know). So some caution is needed here. The motive may have been some wacky racial theory about Hispanics, but the target was the Walmart shoppers in the Supercenter.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with, I will go ahead and change back the target per the majority vote. QuestFour (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the discussion above is largely based on speculation, and we now have solid RS of the shooter's confessed intention to shoot "Mexicans", we should follow what RS say, not the speculations above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the reliable source? Can you please post links to one or more reliable sources here? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit, which was reverted even though properly sourced (a real No No), included two good refs, and there are others already used in the article which specifically mention that the shooter confessed that he intended to shoot "Mexicans". He also shot some others, but they were his main target. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, editing the article to your own version while discussion is underway (and is not going your way) is the real No No. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a bold edit and, because I got reverteed, later discovered this thread. We are supposed to seek to improve content, and that's what I did. It's not cool to make fun of good faith efforts. In fact it's pretty disgusting. Note I have not edit warred over this matter, unlike some here who have indeed edit warred to keep their "own version". Now let's just move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ BullRangifer, RS (very good ones I might add) have written the motive motives as "racially-driven" and "targeting Mexicans" as the main subject targets and it should have stayed edited as "Mexicans" ~mitch~ (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here are three more from the article:  -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he did say that - reported as that he wanted to shoot as many Mexicans as possible. The number of sources is not important and is not a factor in what we put there. We already describe his motive in the infobox so that's kind of duplicative. Most shooting articles list the group being fired at - concertgoers, bar patrons, etc. - in the target box. My own feeling is that the target box is worse than worthless, adds nothing to the article and is itself a "target" for edit warring, and I would prefer to leave it blank. Failing that, I prefer "Walmart customers".-- MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So we just ignore the sources for "target"? We're using the location as the "target". It could have happened at any other venue and the target would still be the same according to the shooter and RS. The "target" was "Mexicans". Refusing to follow RS isn't cool. This is OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can't we have both 1 (Mexicans) and 4 (Walmart customers)?  starship .paint  (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Something like "Mexicans in a Walmart" would be more accurate, but would still be OR. His target was declared, by himself, to be "Mexicans", not "Walmart customers". The shooting just happened to occur in a Walmart, but could have occurred anywhere else and the target would still have been "Mexicans". That this failure to follow RS still is unresolved is a travesty. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather remove the "target" box altogether than get involved in a long running argument over this. There is a degree of repetition anyway, as the infobox already says that the motive was "Anti-immigration, Hispanophobia", and it is obvious that the customers in Walmart were the chosen target.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We should state the obvious. "Mexicans; Walmart customers" should be found in the "Target" field. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Reckard's funeral
Margie Reckard’s funeral has drawn international attention after her husband invited anyone to attend because he had no other family. As a result, her funeral drew over 700 people and 900 flowers. It deserves inclusion in the article.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) NYT (US)
 * 2) BBC (UK)
 * 3) Guardian (UK)
 * 4) NZZ (Swiss)
 * 5) Speigel (German)
 * 6) Vatican News (Vatican City)


 * Are we going to report on the other 21 funerals? Fleeting mentions in the media does not equate with notability. WWGB (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , bringing up the other 21 funerals is irrelevant. Have they received the same coverage in reliable sources? If yes, include. If no, don’t include. You took all of 3 minutes to reply my comment, so it’s doubtful you read all 6 articles above. Perhaps that’s why you think her funeral was covered in fleeting mentions when it was actually the main topic of all 6 articles I provided above.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I support . 700 people attended, from all across the USA. People noticed from all around the world. The funeral was covered by multiple, reliable sources as mentioned above and in detail with not just a passing mention. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 16:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * P.S I also attempted to add information about the funeral, but was reverted by WWGB, just as Starship.paint was. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 16:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting repercussion, at least next to "Politician calls for change" or "Family and friends attend funeral". Definitely related to the shooting. Sourcing looks fine (but one or two citations only, please). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition to the above mentioned sources, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, SF Chronicle, Houston Chronicle and Time all have articles on this story. The 'Aftermath' section which has material on aide for funerals would be a good place to include it. IP75 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * CNN's piece (by Kaur and Vera) notes a packed house of 400, while about 700 waited outside. By my math, that's 7,400 people. Someone might want to doublecheck those numbers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * InedibleHulk, If you think 400 plus 700 gives 7,400, someone indeed might want to check your math. 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, just a double entendre. They can't all be filthy. Seriously though, anything beyond arithmetic from me is utter crap and should be deleted on sight. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By WP:10YT, I don't think it warrants inclusion in this article. Even if we do include it, we really shouldn't write more than one or at the most two sentences about it. This article is deep enough in WP:COATRACK territory as it is. TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is about the shooting; it's not a biography of the victims. There's no justification for including info about only one of the victims' funerals. No-one's suggesting that we should include details about the funerals of all the victims. Including this would not be justified even in the highly unlikely scenario that neither the victim nor her widower have any living relatives (the truth is much more likely to be that they were estranged from their families) & neither had any friends either. A funeral without family isn't rare, and publicity based on this one due to her having been one of the people killed at random by a stranger in a mass shooting doesn't make it encyclopedic. It adds no info that is useful to our readers who want to find out about this mass shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If the article is just ‘about the shooting’ and ‘It adds no info that is useful to our readers who want to find out about this mass shooting’, then why do we have an aftermath and reactions sections? The article is not just about the shooting, its about the events proceeding and succeeding the shooting. This funeral is a reaction to the shooting, just as Donald Trump’s speech was a reaction to the shooting. It is more than just a funeral of someone who was ‘killed at random by a stranger’, its an international reaction to the shooting, and thats why it should be included in the article. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye. The real mystery is why we include biographical information about where a random stranger went to high school over two years before getting international coverage for a completely unrelated event. Or why we include yet another rando's description of that uninvolved high school student's Twitter account over two years before posting on a whole other website. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * why do we have an aftermath and reactions sections? Because there is a systemic problem with Wikipedia editors adding way too much information simply because it is vaguely relevant and reliably sourced and a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the article. Let's not compound that problem. The real mystery is why we include biographical information about where a random stranger went to high school over two years before getting international coverage for a completely unrelated event. That's because there is a systemic problem with Wikipedia editors adding way too much information simply because it is vaguely relevant and reliably sourced and a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the article. Let's not compound that problem. Or why we include yet another rando's description of that uninvolved high school student's Twitter account over two years before posting on a whole other website. That's because there is a systemic problem with Wikipedia editors adding way too much information simply because it is vaguely relevant and reliably sourced and a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the article. Let's not compound that problem. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And let's not compound the systemic problem of editors wanting different improvements. If I say high school Twitter sourced to some dude on a website none of us probably read is excessive, agreeing with me will make everything easy. If Starship says relaying relevant information from a multitude of sources we do mostly read is an improvement, agreeing with him will make everything easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you define as ‘way too much information’ and ‘vaguely relevant’? Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 21:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you mean me by "you", things like where the shooter bought his gun or published his rationale are vaguely relevant, as are immediate consequences like dead people, trials and political reaction. Where anybody went to high school, and how classmates remember what they did there is way too much (except when what they did is shoot up the school). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - Reckard's funeral was directly caused by the shooting, that's the relevance. The justification for including her funeral is reliable source coverage above and beyond the other victim's funerals. It adds useful information to our readers who want to find out how people directly reacted to the shooting. Shall we remove information about the shooter's past or and his current prosecution as well? This isn't a biography of the shooter either, and apparently people just want to read about the mass shooting?  starship .paint  (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The funeral of one of the randomly killed victims in a mass shooting is not normally included in our articles about mass death events. Very few readers want to know the details of one victim's funeral - and the few who do can read about it on one of the media sites which are reporting on it. If it's directly related, then so are the funerals of all the other people who were killed in this mass shooting. This one gained more media coverage simply because the media love to sensationalise things, and decided to gain more readers by unquestioningly promoting the 'the victim & her widower have no living relatives so there'll be no-one at her funeral, how tragic' angle. If coverage of that one funeral of an ordinary person was reported by mainstream media sources outside the US as well as within it, that merely shows that multiple countries' media love to sensationalise things to gain readers. The media report many things about the personal lives of the victims, yet no-one here has argued for those details to be included. Jim Michael (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're hung up on the sensationalism. When removed, as it was in both attempts to include it here, the fact remains that this relevant and featured funeral objectively drew the largest crowd and widest assortment of flowers. If reading the facts make you ponder the intended emotional purpose, that's entirely on you. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well of course funerals of one particular person are not normally included,, because there usually isn't anything special. In this case, something was special (many strangers attending and sending flowers), thus it was reported. You're really taking an all-or-nothing approach here, arguing that since 21 other funerals are not covered, or all the personal lives are not covered, then one funeral can't be covered. That is a failure to evaluate the significance of Reckard's funeral on its own. Frankly, mass shootings themselves are sensationalized. I find it hard to believe you can speak for all of our readers on Wikipedia as to what they want. Shall I try that too? Very few readers care about what rifle was used. Very few readers care about whether people thought gunshots were fireworks. Very few readers care about whether the Border Patrol’s BORTAC unit responded. Very few readers care about the alleged manifesto's thoughts on environmental degradation. Very few readers care about the reactions of the owner of 8chan, Walmart, Veronica Escobar, Andrew Yang, Cloudflare, and Marcelo Ebrard regarding this incident. Very few readers care about how Uruguay and Japan reacted. See how this works?  starship .paint  (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anybody else, but I think all those details you listed could be trimmed as well. TompaDompa (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If some people at/near the scene initially dismissed the gunfire as something else, that could be relevant if it delayed the response. Stating the type of gun used is directly relevant to the shooting.
 * The only reason that many strangers attended this one funeral is because of a publicity stunt to encourage that, by saying (probably incorrectly as it's much more likely than not that at least one of the couple has at least one living relative whom they aren't in contact with) that neither the victim nor her widower have any living relatives. we have a higher standard than the media. Including the funeral of one victim isn't relevant or encyclopedic. It's like including details of one victim to sensationalise, such as saying that (s)he recently bought a house/married/became engaged/gave birth/recovered from a serious illness/started a new job/graduated etc. Or that (s)he was the sole carer of a seriously ill/disabled family member. Those sort of things (along with 'had the most attendees, flowers at their funeral' etc.) are things which the media love to sensationalise, but they're nowhere near important or relevant enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - the media didn't say that both the victim and the husband had no relatives. It was reported that the victim had sons from a previous marriage and from them, grandchildren. It was the husband who had no other relatives. In any case, our article does not discuss that. Our article also does not claim that her funeral had the most attendees, flowers at their funeral. It seems that your claim of sensationalism lacks merit.  starship  .paint  (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that the victim has children & grandchildren makes it even more ridiculous that this publicity stunt was created. At least some of them would have attended, so there would have been attendees even if the media hadn't sensationalised the funeral to gain more readers/viewers.
 * The number of attendees at the funeral, or how far away some of them live, was not part of the events of the shooting - nor could it have contributed to it or be relevant to proceedings against the suspect. It's mere publicity-seeking by the media - we shouldn't follow them and don't have to. Try imagining this scenario for the funeral of one of many victims of a bombing in Lebanon or Syria. Jim Michael (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If this funeral was conducted in Syria, had the same number of attendees, many from strangers, and received the same reliable source coverage, I would argue to include it. Simply WP:DUE. I can't see how simply reporting a fact that 700 people attended her funeral is a publicity stunt. Perhaps reporting 22 killed and 24 injured is also a publicity stunt?  starship .paint  (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Posing for photographs at a hospital, releasing those photographs through your office and holding a press conference afterward to get over how much the people you thumbs-upped with love and respect your office could only be more of a publicity stunt if you entered on a jetpack and your limousine exploded at the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Basco did all of those things, and has an office of his own which he uses to promote himself & his situation?! That's even worse than I thought. Jim Michael (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're joking or questioning or what, but I was talking about Trump. And I was talking about him because he got Wikipedia talking about him. If the article can go on about Trump, who has likely never been in any Walmart during his time in the country, it can talk about a woman who gave her life having to shop there for essentially the exact same public human knowledge reasons. Knowledge is a good thing, and you're going to realize this eventually, so why not just give up and join us in infecting the English-speaking planet with it? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the references you were making, but you having replied to a person who said that the media's reporting of the funeral in question was not a publicity stunt made me think you were probably talking about Basco. I wasn't certain, which is why I asked it as a question rather than a statement. I don't get into the sensational/sentimental aspect of media coverage & didn't know what Trump had done in response, other than speak against this attack & the one in Dayton. As President, his response is relevant.
 * She did not give her life; she did not sacrifice herself. She was an ordinary person who was unfortunate to be there at the same time as a mass killer. Giving more info about her than we do the other victims is unjustified. It's not useful or relevant knowledge to include extra info about her, let alone her funeral. Doing so merely amplifies and adds to the ridiculous publicity stunt by Basco & the media. We're an encyclopedia & we're better than to copy their sensationalised, sentimentalised non-news. Jim Michael (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dammit, Jim! Until you start taking the few minutes to read the articles you spend weeks wanting shaped to your general notions, you're never going to know what you're talking about. For now, I'll just say everyone shot in a location is shot for whatever reason they were there; Reckard choosing to shop at Walmart made her death by Crusius both possible and actual, no blame intended. Just the way things went, in hindsight. And nobody ever asked to copy the sensations or sentiment, just the facts. Every fact on Wikipedia is based on media publicity, even your favourites. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't remember everything I read, and I don't concentrate on the sentimental, sensational reporting. I'm interested in the relevant facts. Jim Michael (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the two-sentence version suggested above should be included in the article, with one or two citations. Not because we "should" or "shouldn't" include information on victims' funerals, not because of recentism or sensationalism, nothing at all to do with our opinions. It should be included because of the massive nationwide worldwide coverage it received from independent reliable sources. Reliable Sources determine our coverage, not what we think "ought" to be included. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well put. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It being in RS doesn't mean that we have to include it.
 * Sensationally reporting that a murder victim's widower has no family, in order to get hundreds of strangers to go to the funeral, to report that to gain media coverage, is certainly a publicity stunt. Can you honestly claim that the funeral is historically significant & something that will be useful to our readers 10 years from now? Jim Michael (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know from where some are deriving that "[t]his article is about the shooting". That would be a contrived scope for this article. We exercise judgement as to what to include but we take our cue from reliable sources. We especially take our cue from the prominence of information found in sources and the quality of the sources presenting that information. Sources are showing us what to include. We don't include everything found in sources—but there has to be a good reason for omitting material that is prominently found in good quality sources. We are merely transcribing sources. This isn't a creative writing project. We should not be endeavoring to narrow the scope of the article. There is no possibility of WP:COATRACKing when the logical connection is as proximal as the funeral following the death of a victim in a mass shooting. Let us stick to the topic and cover the incident in such a way that our article conforms to the coverage found in reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing contrived about limiting an article about a shooting to that which is directly relevant to it. The funerals of victims of people killed in a mass shooting (or bombing, poisoning, mass stabbing etc.) aren't normally included in our articles. A publicity stunt in regard to one of these victims is not something which we should join in with. She was no different to the other victims. Her widower not being in contact with any of his family does not make her, him, or her funeral important. Events afterwards can be important, such as a prosecution of the killer or a change in the law due to the attack, but a funeral of an ordinary person should not be in an encyclopedia. Jim Michael (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jim Michael—why would we want to narrow the scope of this article from a scope that is suggested by reliable sources? Above makes the point that "Reliable Sources determine our coverage, not what we think 'ought' to be included". I agree with that. Bus stop (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because some RS sometimes report things that aren't worthy of an encyclopedia. We should use judgement to make our coverage solely about the relevant info & be better than the media. Unlike them, we're not trying to skew our coverage to suit a particular bias, nor to make a profit. We're a public service giving relevant info about notable things to our readers, rather than trying to sell or promote anything or psychologically manipulate them. Jim Michael (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim Michael—sources dictate this article to us. We merely put the words found in sources into our own words and we omit material if it violates any of our policies. Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That position completely overlooks WP:VNOTSUFF wherein "all verifiable information need not be included in an article". WWGB (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't forget we are not talking about minor sources. These are important sources. And they include international sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't mean we have to or should include it. We need to back our info with RS, but being in RS (even if they're international) doesn't mean that we have to include it. None of our policies or guidelines say to include funeral info in articles about mass shootings. Our notability & inclusion standards aren't the same as those of the media. Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jim Michael—you say "it still doesn't mean we have to or should include it." Your statement is correct that we don't "have to" mention the Reckard funeral. I'm trying to understand why you object to the inclusion of this material. You wish to exclude material that is presented in a multitude of good-quality sources including prominent international sources. Why should we deviate from sources in the way that you are recommending? Is there a good reason for this? You are additionally saying "none of our policies or guidelines say to include funeral info in articles about mass shootings." Well, of course "none of our policies or guidelines say to include funeral info in articles about mass shootings." Policy is not specific. Policy tends to address abstract concepts about how articles should be written and how articles should not be written. Thank god policy doesn't address "funerals" in "mass shootings". Have you read the essay WP:CREEP? Should we have policy telling us whether or not to include funerals in mass shootings? In my opinion we should write an article that presents an abbreviated version of the material that sources focus on, unless the inclusion of that material would be discouraged or prohibited by our policies and guidelines. But I don't think anything in our policies and guidelines would suggest that mention of the Reckard funeral in the 2019 El Paso shooting article would be problematic in any way. Do you know of any policies or guidelines that would suggest we should not include the Reckard funeral in this article? Do you know of any other good reason that we should not include the Reckard funeral in this article? Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given my reasons clearly. The unwarranted media coverage of this one funeral was a publicity stunt by the victim's widower & the media, whipping up emotions in people by claiming that it's especially tragic for Basco in that he has no living family (even though that's unlikely to be true & it's far more likely that he has family whom he isn't in contact with). It's not important or helpful to our readers who want to know about this mass shooting. Would you honestly claim that, in 10 years' time, it will be useful, important, helpful etc. to our readers to know about the funeral of one victim? Our policies & guidelines don't say not to include funeral details of victims in mass shooting articles because it's obvious not to. Jim Michael (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jim Michael—you say "I've given my reasons clearly." Yes, you have explained that the Reckard funeral was "a publicity stunt by the victim's widower & the media, whipping up emotions in people by claiming that it's especially tragic for Basco in that he has no living family (even though that's unlikely to be true & it's far more likely that he has family whom he isn't in contact with)". But it is reliable sources that should be determining the composition of an article. As has been pointed out by in this thread "Reliable Sources determine our coverage, not what we think 'ought' to be included." We should not omit information on editorial whim when that information falls squarely within the scope of the article. (—could you please sign your above post?) Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have a rule that inclusion in RS mandates its inclusion in our articles.
 * Info about the funeral doesn't come close to falling squarely within the scope of this article. What use could it be to our readers (especially years from now) who want to know about this mass shooting? Are you claiming that a significant aspect of this mass shooting (not merely the media's reaction to it) is that one victim's widower invited a load of strangers to her funeral? Reckard was no different to the other victims, so shouldn't be singled out by our article for extra coverage. The media often like to focus on one victim more than the others in mass killings. Unlike the media, we aren't trying to emotionally manipulate our readers to gain popularity or promote an agenda. Publicity stunts aren't worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia articles. Jim Michael (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * —please reread 's comment. "I think the two-sentence version suggested above should be included in the article, with one or two citations. Not because we "should" include information on victims' funerals, not because of recentism or sensationalism, nothing at all to do with our opinions. It should be included because of the massive nationwide coverage it received from independent reliable sources. Reliable Sources determine our coverage, not what we think "ought" to be included." At Wikipedia we transcribe sources. This isn't a creative writing project. It doesn't matter if we like the coverage provided by sources or not. Our aim should be to reflect the coverage found in sources. In my opinion we should only deviate from the coverage provided by sources if the material is considered indiscriminate or proscribed by policy in some way. Bus stop (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bus stop: Thanks for the pings, but I don't know why we are even still discussing this. The consensus to include it clear, and it is already in the article; there is really nothing more to say. Jim Michael can keep repeating his objections, the same argument over and over, but his opinion is not policy-based and there is no need to keep responding to it. To steal a comment I saw at Atsme's user page (and copied to my own): On Wikipedia, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * —thank you. Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 *  Comment - Post to facilitate automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We select relevant info from RS - we don't include everything that's in RS. That's common sense, not creative writing. Publicity stunts gain a great deal of media coverage & gain them readers - that's why the media do them. We're an encyclopedia & should be better than the media.
 * We're discussing this because there's a dispute about its inclusion & because no policy/guideline says to include funeral details of one victim of a mass shooting. It's wrong to imply that I'm the only objector - other people have commented in this section who disagree with the funeral details being in the article.
 * If you were to talk about this mass shooting to someone years from now, are you honestly claiming that you'd mention the fact that hundreds of strangers attended the funeral of one of the victims, because her widower claimed to have no family & invited strangers to attend, & the media used it as an opportunity to create a publicity stunt? Are you claiming that mentioning her funeral helps our readers to understand this mass shooting? It has nothing to do with the events of the shooting, nor the lead up to it. It's not even a notable post-crime event, which will be the prosecution of the suspect (& if it happens, a change in legislation in regard to gun ownership, gun crime etc.) Jim Michael (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * —you are overthinking this. Wikipedia is a project in which we transcribe sources. We do not engage in the creative omission of information. There are a few exceptions. We omit information if it is indiscriminate, we omit information if it is proscribed by policy, and we omit information if there are space constraints. But these exceptions wouldn't apply to material about the Reckard funeral. It is merely your preference that we not mention the Reckard funeral. We should not be abiding by your preferences due to the prominence of coverage of the Reckard funeral in good quality sources. You have not presented a compelling reason that this information should be kept out of the article. I am distinguishing between compelling reasons and mere preferences. We are not here to express ourselves. Self-expression is not what Wikipedia is primarily about. Bus stop (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm using common sense. Info about the funeral of one victim (no-one wants to include the funerals of any of the other victims) isn't a relevant part of the shooting. Reckard was no more important than any of the other victims; her death was no more tragic than the others - therefore her funeral doesn't warrant a specific mention. It's so trivial & tangential to this crime that if a university student were giving a talk or writing a dissertation on this shooting, (s)he would be unlikely to mention Reckard's funeral. Try bringing it up in a conversation years from now. You, along with the hundreds of people who attended a stranger's funeral, have fallen for the publicity stunt by Basco & the media - duped into thinking it's important because they said it is. Based on your 'justification', we'd have to write articles about loads of trivial things that the media have prominently reported.


 * I've given several compelling reasons for excluding it. a) We don't usually include such info. b) No other funerals are mentioned in the article. c) No policy or guideline says that we should include such info. d) It's of no use to our readers in giving them relevant info about the shooting. e) It was a publicity stunt that we shouldn't be supporting or exacerbating. f) She was no more important & her death no more tragic than the others. Therefore including her funeral is undue weight & bias.


 * You're strongly implying that I'm the only person who doesn't want this info included - yet you can clearly see from this discussion that I'm not. Jim Michael (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Preferring anonymous sources and speaking for police
QuestFour recently reverted my allegedly nonconsensual and unnecessary improvements. Specifically, he replaced a bit in Suspect attributing the targeting of Mexicans to a known detective in an official affidavit with the same basic story sourced to two anons from a tweet six days earlier. He also "quoted" the tweeter, making it appear as if two law enforcement officials, ABC News or Crusius had said that phrase verbatim, rather than Joshua Hoyos. Two of three inline citations cover the later authorized claim, so sticking with a shady old tweet that was only the best we had while the story was still breaking is a dumb idea today.

In Manifesto, he describes what police are "reasonably confident" Crusius wrote as an anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant manifesto, meaning the police characterize it that way, despite neither source saying they do. Rather than lie like this, we should attribute the opinion to a reporter who actually presents it or remove it altogether. The next chunk of the section already heavily promotes the same idea, while ignoring all the "left wing" aspects (anti-corporatism, anti-imperialism, anti-pollution), so it's not like the message is lost by truthfully citing police in the opening.

That said, can we get consensus that updated, authoritative info is better than early whispers from shadowy figures and agree to not attribute ideas from writers to people merely included in the same writer's story? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * On closer look, nobody in either cited story described the manifesto like this. Pure original research, so I removed it without waiting for consensus. Making shit up has always been frowned upon here, but whether to use obsoleted news is still technically debatable. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 *  Comment - Post to facilitate automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Jim Watkins manifesto comments
I've removed this from the article; besides being a pretty egregious example of burying the lead (putting Facebook's rebuttal second, phrased less forcefully than the allegation itself), the allegation is textbook WP:FRINGE. Even the cited source says bluntly that "Watkins offered no evidence to support his statement". But the true test probably lies not in breaking news sources like this one, but in later coverage offering retrospective evaluation and analysis. Later stories by The Washington Post (Aug. 14 & Sep. 12), The Hill (Aug. 14 & Sep. 5), The Verge (Sep. 5), and NBC (Sep. 5), while discussing 8chan in connection with the massacre, don't mention the above allegation at all. So it hardly seems worth including even with additional context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)