Talk:Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting

shooter biography

 * Leaving this for others to decide what if anything to use from it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Victims Section
So while I was logged in there was a section that listed only the ages of the victims and not the names, it seems that the entire section has now been removed and the information has been tacked on to the end of the shooting section. Even if there is an issue about the names of the victims being included as was seen with Virginia Beach shooting, can the "Victims" section go back to showing the ages and amount of people involved?

Also just to start the conversation should the names of the victims be published as at least two are under the age of 18? 2603:301D:19C:8000:3982:E958:9DB6:656B (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Age doesn't matter if they're deceased. Also, 90% of articles on shootings have a named victim list, we just have a few editors who are very very very much opposed to victim names for some reason. They like to think every single one of them needs to be debated on the talk page, but that's not what WP:CON says. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone has restored the "victims" section, with age and gender but not names. I support keeping it. Age and gender absolutely matter and should be included; Reliable Sources always report at least that much, and readers want to know it. The press is now naming the victims. I know there are always big arguments about naming the victims, and I can see the reasoning on both sides so I will not weigh in on that. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the names have now been added. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As they should be. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The victims were unremarkable, their names are irrelevant. By the way, the asserted figure of 90% is original research with no credibility. WWGB (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not this again. You are entitled to your opinion as to what is relevant or not but you are only one reader—albeit one who happens to be an editor. We include information if it is on-topic and reliably-sourced. The names of the victims are both reliably sourced and relevant to the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis.. WWGB (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And that's what this discussion is for: how to handle it in this case. No consensus yet, but the discussion appears to be: two three four in favor of names, one against, two neutral. This is not just a !vote; each of you has stated a brief rationale for your opinion. Let discussion continue. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Victim names should be added.  As has been done in many other similar articles.  If it's on a case-by-case basis, we need to establish consensus here (as to inclusion or exclusion).  I !vote for inclusion of victim's names. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * RE: "not credible" and "original research", User:Locke Cole/Mass shooting victim statistics —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said, WP:OR and highly selective. (Numerous articles without names of the dead are omitted, for example, 2017 London Bridge attack.) WWGB (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 2017 London Bridge attack omits the names of the victims. But there is no reason for that—just as there would be no reason to omit the names of the victims from the "Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting" article. Bus stop (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OR only applies to article content. Not sure if you're just using WP:OR deliberately to try and discourage people from supporting, or just ignorant that it's inapplicable here (as we're not using the data in the article, simply to discuss what the trends are with articles). As to selective, other than choosing a shooting category to work from, there was nothing selective about it... —Locke Cole • t • c 14:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that victims names should be included in this article, as they are included in most similar articles. The victims names have been and are being widely reported. As fas as I can tell, none of the RS covering the story are suppressing the names of the victims. We shouldn't either. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WWGB—please tell us why we should omit this on-topic and reliably-sourced material. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No badgering, please. WWGB has stated their opinion. Given the trend here, I am going to add the names while discussion continues. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I see Bus stop has already added them. They should remain in the article pending further discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of established practice, which requires a consensus to include disputed content. No such consensus exists yet. Pinging admin, who has been vocal as to process in the handling of this issue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been applying WP:ONUS under the GC/DS (here is the relevant ARCA), with the recommendation that those who wish to automatically include lists of victim names should turn WP:VL into policy. That said, I'm not going to step on another's admin's toes here. But that is my position, which I have enforced on the Virginia Beach shooting, El Paso shooting and 2019 Dayton shooting. El_C 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading El C's comment, are you standing by your position that the disputed content should remain in until there is a consensus to remove it? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My position was based on the "case by case" rule cited above. The current opinion here is: five people want the names included, two want them omitted. At the time I said that, the opinion was four-to-one for inclusion, which I why I added it to the article it was added to the article by someone else, but I concurred with adding it. I still say that if the case-by-case rule applies, they should stay (pending further discussion). However I will defer to El C's decision here, once I understand it, which at the moment I don't. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, El C, thanks for coming by. I am involved in editing this article so you are the real admin here, not me; I am just another editor. Speaking as an editor, I’m not sure I understand your answer. According to the 2017 discussion linked above, these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis. You citedWP:VL, an essay, which says not to include lists of victims. As you point out, it is not policy so it is not enforceable. Nobody here is saying that victim’s names should AUTOMATICALLY be included so I’m not sure why you said that. But bottom line is that you apply ONUS; does that allow for case-by-case handling, or what does it tell you to do? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Current community consensus is that this is handled case-by-case; that is not at issue. The issue is whether the disputed content remains in or out during discussion. Common practice and common sense say out. It can change the ultimate outcome, as we saw in one case awhile back where the names were edit-warred in by supporters, opponents let them have their way because they were less aggressive, and the closer of the no-consensus discussion deemed that there was no consensus to remove! Thus we rewarded aggressiveness, encouraging more of it, which we have seen. I'll ping again, since you didn't; lest we assume he is watching this. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, MelanieN. Yes, case by case basis is the order of the day, until WP:VL (regardless of what is says now) becomes policy, one way or the other (or BLP or NOTAMEMORIAL, or any other page are likewise amended). But to avoid edit warring while the discussion is ongoing, WP:ONUS —onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content— is applied under the GC/DS (what the ARCA was about). In other words, this is just about initial inclusion or exclusion. Once consensus is reached, that inclusion or exclusion follows accordingly (in a long-lasting way). If consensus here has been decided on the side of inclusion, then the list should be included. In the other three articles this has been much less clear cut. Note that I've not reviewed this talk page, so I'll just take your word that this is the consensus. El_C 22:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, El_C. Well, you decide. Discussion here has been going on for a week. Actually the discussion had died down 6 days ago, at which time it was four-to-one for inclusion. So the material has been in the article since then, since the discussion seemed over and that seemed like consensus. There has been no discussion, no edit warring, and no controversy during the six days it has been there. Today Mandruss came and revived the discussion. Now it’s five-to-two for inclusion. I agree that consensus is needed to include the names. Do we have consensus, or what else is needed to establish it? (BTW I have not expressed an opinion one way or the other so I am not counted in that tally.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hope it made sense, MelanieN. I have actually opted for consensus to be formalized by a proper closure, so I been phrasing the question as an RFC — but those three articles have had a lot more participants arguing to include or exclude. Here, with 5:1 preference ratio in favour of inclusion, I can see why it seemed like consensus was quickly realized. If you look at the talk pages of the other three articles, I think you'll see a much more varied scenario.  El_C 23:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Now 5:2, me and WWGB. If MelanieN wants to close this now as consensus to include (evaluating more than mere numbers), I won't object; she is as competent as any editor to do so. When these discussions receive high participation, the result has more often been "no consensus" (to include), but (1) other cases have no bearing here, and (2) this may be too low-profile to get much more participation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see why you needed a more formal process for those other, higher-profile articles, with more controversy and larger numbers of victims. Here, with just three victims, we don't even need a list, just a sentence, and so there really wasn't any big controversy. So it seems to me that a simple informal process was sufficient and no reason to put everything on hold for an RfC. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested an RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. Are you insisting on a formal close of this discussion? I can do it if you want. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, never mind. If you truly feel that the arguments presented here represent a consensus to include (consensus is not merely about numbers), I'll accept that while disagreeing with it. But I will continue to resist inclusion of controversial content while discussion expressly remains open, simply because the discussion is currently leaning toward inclusion after a day or two (based on numbers alone). That practice encourages disruption and edit warring, the opposite of structure and order. It's not something that should be supported by admins, even "off duty" admins. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  14:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * —at "Virginia Beach shooting" you posted: "But I've been on record of generally being against using victims' names in mass shootings — are you sure you want me to the one who closes?" I thank you for your honesty but wouldn't that apply to similar articles? The reason I say this is that people tend to have fixed opinions on this question, meaning the same editors seem to oppose and support across many articles. is saying she is involved but I don't know that you are uninvolved as you have "been on record of generally being against using victims' names in mass shootings". Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It does apply. I don't intend on being the one who closes those discussions, either, including this one. El_C 01:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, I was asked my opinion about this on a user talk page some time ago, and my answer was that exclusion seems to be my read of general consensus (that's what I refer to, and only that, as being on record). I'm not sure if I would answer this the same today, since now I see it as much more split. Note that my application of the GC/DS emerged both in consultation with other admins at RfPP and with the Committee's knowledge at at ARCA. The edit warring over this was too much in all three articles, so there needed to be some system in place to curtail this edit warring while consensus is reached. I would not be doing anything different even if I was in favour of inclusion. But mostly, unlike many of you, I just don't feel that strongly about this issue, anyway, and was never to the best of my recollection involved in discussions about inclusion or exclusion of victim lists in the past, beyond that one, single conversation. El_C 02:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, thanks for your input and for your willingness to try to bring order to an area that you don't even have strong feelings about. Just a thought: Might the opposition be proportional to the number of victims? In other words, including three names in a sentence is accepted, but a bulleted list or table of a large number of victims is objected to? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, I get that sense, also. There certainly appears to be a correlation between the length of the list, and the how intensive and extensive objections are to it. El_C 18:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The higher the body count, the more news coverage. The more news coverage, the more participation at the article, and the more participation in a victims' list discussion. The more participation in a victims' list discussionespecially when there is an uninvolved closethe less likely there will be a consensus to include the names; that's empirical fact.I don't recall seeing any Opposers' arguments that have anything to do with the number of names, or whether the format is list or prose. If there have been any, they are far from the main thrust of the opposition. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The number of names and whether list or prose are irrelevant factors. The relevant consideration is—what enhances articles? A surprisingly large number of listed names takes up very little space and prose can and should be used in close proximity to lists in order to supplement information as needed pertaining to any of the names in a list. (In this article prose alone suffices.) Such a layout is easy to grasp at a glance. I think this sort of layout can be seen in all or most of the 4 articles I mention below in response to Markbassett. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I support including the names of the victims in this article. They have been, as said, widely reported, and there is no compelling reason to exclude them. Funcrunch (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders, ages, and/or ethnicities could be summarized in prose.Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.For the multiple excellent counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2.  The 90% number largely represents the effective equivalent of democratic voting by editing, and it falls dramatically when you look at articles where the issue has received significant scrutiny in recent years. It falls so far that nobody can claim that it represents a community consensus for the lists. Attempts to reach a consensus in community venues such as the Village Pump have repeatedly failed, despite arguments about precedent, and there could be little clearer evidence of the absence of a community consensus for the lists. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  21:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude - maybe should be a RFC, but seems like usually list of victims is not in WP, and seems like coverage usually does not list them so it would be low WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * —you say "seems like usually list of victims is not in WP". Let us simply say that some articles of this nature include victim lists and other articles of this nature do not contain victim lists. But look to the articles that do contain victim lists and notice the quality of those articles. And ask yourself if those articles would be improved by the removal of the victim list—articles like Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. I'm not talking about quantity of articles now. I'm just talking about quality of articles that contain victim lists. Quality is a matter of opinion but I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that you could remove the victim lists from those articles and many others. I think it is obvious, once the victim lists are in place, that they enhance the quality of those articles. Were you to remove the victim lists from the above-named articles I think you would diminish the quality of those articles. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bus stop. Nope. Those articles are worse in appearance and readability for the jamming in a block of unused text.  And it seems not encyclopedically a good.  That it seems usually not done in WP or coverage WEIGHT just seems shown by example to have practical reasons as well as policy.  I suggest in return you read WP:BIO1E, WP:VICTIM, WP:EFFECT, WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  Qualities and judgements may vary here, but I think it obvious that those policies are good and necessary.   There seems no plausible alternative policy stance or alternative bright line here.... no reason that wrongful death here should be favored and get notice over wrongful death elsewhere and turning WP into obituary list by any tragic means - plane crash, drunk driver, whatever.  So no, do not degrade the quality of this article, or ignore policy made for just such situation.  Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * —the presence of a victim list allows for evenhanded treatment of decedents. Providing only a perpetrator's name is one-sided and not encyclopedic. It becomes evident over a period of time that an article's quality is enhanced by the presence of a victim list. I don't think any article with a victim list has ever had the victim list removed. Are you aware of any such instance? Do you think you would succeed in removing the victim list from any of the 4 articles mentioned above? Consensus would clearly be against it. Do you think you would succeed in removing the victim list from 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting? I don't think so. This is a good-quality article and part of the reason, is the presence of the victim list. The list and the small amount of prose in the relevant section area complement one another, and the victim names provide a counterweight to the alleged perpetrator—to whom an entire article is devoted. The victim names serve an integral role in these sorts of articles. I think the initiative underway at several articles at this time to prevent the inclusion of victim names runs at cross-purposes with this project. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also disagree that those articles are improved by those lists. Whether one would succeed in removing them is entirely irrelevant in discussions about new lists. I could just as easily ask you, "Do you think you would succeed in adding lists at {insert list of four recent articles where attempts to reach consensus to include a list have failed]?" Both questions are equally pointless. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The presence of victim lists in certain other articles is not "entirely irrelevant" because the value of the victim lists emerge over time. Consensus is not a meaningless thing. Yes, consensus can change. But the persistence over time of victim lists at the four above-named articles is an indication that the victim lists are seen as contributing value to those articles. That is why you would have an impossible task removing victim lists at those articles. Unlike "Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting" they are mature articles. Every element of those articles has to an extent stood the test of time. Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The "test of time" argument is one of the factors that would be raised if there were discussions about removing the lists at those articles. Even there, it wouldn't be the only factor considered, and consensus might find that there were stronger arguments for removal (I reject your crystal ball as unreliable). In any case, the "test of time" at those articles has no relevance at other articles. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But I invite you to include that argument in your contributions to future list discussions, provided you don't do it repetitively, and see if anybody's convinced by it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a "crystal ball" so I don't know if "[t]he 'test of time' argument is one of the factors that would be raised if there were discussions about removing the lists at those articles." Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need a crystal ball to say how things work at Wikipedia. I'm done and the last word is all yours. Have a nice day. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Mandruss The test of time is already sort of visible - when there are not webpages about the list of victims, and articles tend quickly / mostly to not list them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bus stop The policy is for case by case consensus, and I think those examples show school or church deaths that have gone the other way, and that each had to overcome WP:ONUS to do so despite multiple policies leaning against this. If you’ve no alternative policy or bright line then I think we’re done with ‘policies generally against’ and ‘no difference offered’ that would say why this should get a list and not all the other wrongful deaths at September 11 attacks,  Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, Dam failure, Carrollton bus collision, Kempsey bus crash, and hundreds of others.  Look, there are going to be some coverage in any wrongful deaths that offer names, but unless the name is part of the reason for killing or play an active part in narrative of events, a plain list just is not favoured.  Show a reason why this one is different, or accept that it is not.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Markbassett—you refer to "multiple policies leaning against". There are no policies suggesting we should omit the names of victims in incidents like this. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bus stop Just look at the items called out above:  ONUS, NOTMEMORIAL, NOTEVERYTHING, BIO1E, VICTIM, EFFECT, WEIGHT, the GC/DS and the ARCA, and essay VL.  Each case-by-case determination has to face and try to overcome that policies are generally against this, urging restraint or setting hurdles, and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t.  But for *this* case, it’s simple fact that policies (and prior decisions, and essay cites) called out above are leaning towards ‘do not include’.
 * I am also trying to get clarification on your thread — here you seem to be suggesting that victim lists always help - but the policy problem with that is there seems no plausible alternative policy phrasing or bright line offered to show how this case is different and should be favored over all the (thousands?) of other wrongful death articles. Please clarify: if you’re proposing it as a universal essay, then say so; or if you’re proposing this as a special case, then say what you think makes it different.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no reason not to name the victims. The alleged perpetrator is a victim too in the topic this article addresses and the perpetrator is named. Good quality sources tell us of the names of those killed by the alleged perpetrator. Our approach to article writing should be encyclopedic which means comprehensive in terms of information. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Include – the victim names in the article. I did not realize that this discussion "turned into" a !vote.  I agree with the points made by User Bus stop. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"the gunman"
The phrasing in the opening, "resulting in four deaths, including the gunman" is a bit awkward, because he did not shoot himself, and was thus not the only man-with-a-gun involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That sentence has gone back and forth between "three deaths (not counting the gunman)" and "four deaths, including the gunman". I don't see any problem with calling him the gunman (or the shooter, but most sources say gunman); virtually all Reliable Sources refer to him that way. Is your argument that the police also had guns and used them, so they are also gunmen? I don't think we (or readers) are going to have any trouble making the distinction between the person whose criminal shooting this is all about, and the first responders who took him out. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, while the police did use guns I doubt anyone would think we were talking about them when we use the term gunman.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Morning news is quoting the coroner as saying the murderer committed suicide with his own weapon. Spree killers frequently commit suicide once police or victim return fire. I would credit police response with prompting the suicide. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

American, Italian or Iranian?
It's a bit confusing his citizenship in the article. Even more since we don't know where he was born. --181.27.151.217 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is confusing. I found a source that said he described himself as being "of Italian and Iranian descent" and I substituted that. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of Italian or Iranian descent, or Instagram, in this source "An Instagram account was opened four days before the shooting by a Santino William Legan of the same age, who self-identified as being of Italian and Iranian descent.[13]" "Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting: Alleged Shooter Screamed Out "I'm Really Angry"". CBS San Francisco. July 29, 2019. Retrieved July 29, 2019.64.203.62.4 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with those "continually updated" news stories; they shift. I have added a better source; this is widely reported. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

"Because the book contains racist and anti-Semitic content, it is popular in white supremacist and neo-Nazi circles."
Who the book is/was popular with tells us nothing about Legan's reasons for citing it, and is an attempt at narrative shaping. This sentence ascribes multiple motives that are not in evidence in this case, and even directly contrary to the evidence (Legan revealed contempt for both "whites" and "mestizos"). The book, "Might Is Right", advocates and was also popular with social Darwinists and anti-Christians. If we are going to ascribe motives to Legan, why not categorize him as a radical Darwinist? It would make more sense, given the evidence currently available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.35.99 (talk • contribs)
 * We are not ascribing any motives to him. We are, however, noting that he chose to call attention to this one book and tell people they should read it. We don't know why he felt so strongly about it, that he recommended it with virtually his last words. But that's about the only thing he left us, so it has to be mentioned. We quote one sentence, from a Reliable Source, describing the book's contents. Any conclusions people care to draw from his mentioning that book are up to them; Wikipedia is not calling it a motive, and the police said they are still trying to determine his motive. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The FBI has stated that the media was erroneous to link him to white supremacy and that he read material from both the left and the right. Also that he had radical Islamic material.
 * https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-07-31/gilroy-shooting-motive-santino-william-legan
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/01/media-wrong-gilroy-shooters-white-supremacy-ideology-fbi-says/1893490001/
 * https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/erroneous-reporting-garlic-festival-shooting-suspects-ideology-fbi/story?id=64706955
 * So should we also add that he read left wing and radical Islamic materials? Not to mention the fact that the white supremacist book he read is the foundation of the Satanic Bible. KRLA18 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the range of possible ideological motivations is sufficiently relevant to warrant inclusion in the article but we should also make clear that at this time the FBI's "Behavioral Analysis Unit" has not reached any determination as to a motive in the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We have no objection to mentioning the book, which is why the mere reference to the book was left in place and unchanged. What was removed was the attempt to incorrectly ascribe or link a white supremacist motivation to Legan in spite of evidence to the contrary.  Legan clearly made a denigrating remark against whites, for example.  MelanieN claims that, "We quote one sentence, from a Reliable Source, describing the book's contents", but descriptions of the book's contents belong under the "Might Is Right" Wiki page.  There people can discover that the book is also anti-Christian, and advocates social Darwinism.  Selective and self-serving descriptions of the book's actual contents are misleading and reveal a vested bias.  Readers are not helped by isolating the white supremacy narrative out of the book, while leaving the other agendas out of view.  What if Legan turns out to be a radical Darwinist who hates whites and mestizos alike?


 * Early reports stated he had Might Makes Right on his Intstagram. Only later, after Might is Right was found to be a book, did this change. I have yet to see any visual evidence of his instagram account to support Might is Right was mentioned, much less actually endorsed.
 * And you won't, because the Instagram account has been taken down. People who did see it said he urged people to read that book (there was no “later” finding out that it is a book). That reporting from neutral reliable sources is we base our article on. On the other hand - to address what seem to be your concerns - the FBI has said it is too soon to assess a motive or ideology to the shooter, and I will add that to the article if someone hasn’t already. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The book was written by a socialist and was antichristian. It was used by the Church of Satan. White nationalists don't use the book, but Satanists do. 2600:1003:B002:6B59:71D0:4254:940D:C704 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Lol. See Might is Right. Egoist anarchism isn't socialism and the Church of Satan doesn't believe there's s devil. And yes, it's popular among racists. -- Doug Weller talk 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

About the lead
About the second paragraph of the lead, the one that tries to talk about the killer's motive: User:Nice4What has been adding material implying bias or white supremacy motives. I have been trying to keep it neutral and in line with what the authorities, specifically the FBI, are saying. Originally (earlier today) it looked like this:"The motive of the attack remains unclear as different sources of information about the shooter's ideology 'don’t all align'. An Instagram post suspected of being connected to the gunman had previously recommended the book Might Is Right, which is popular among white supremacists, yet expressed worry about overcrowding caused by 'hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats'.[5] An FBI spokesman stated he wanted to 'knock down' an idea that had been circulating that white supremacy had been determined as a motive and noted that no conclusions should be drawn regarding any motive or ideology based upon the book recommendation.[6]" During the course of the day that got changed to this:"Investigators have not yet determined the gunman's motive.[4][5] The gunman owned literature 'from left to right',[6] including reading material on white supremacy and Islamic extremism found within his home.[7] On the day of the attack, an Instagram post attributed to the gunman had recommended the 19th-century book Might Is Right, a proto-fascist work popular among white supremacist that promotes racial violence. The post also ranted about 'hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats.'[8][6]" I changed it back (edit summary "I'm re-neutralizing the lead. The FBI cautions no motive yet, but we have stuffed the lead full of white nationalist implications - which the FBI officially wanted to shoot down!") to a version more in line with the FBI information, as follows: "Investigators have not yet determined the gunman's motive.[4] The gunman owned literature 'from left to right' so that sources of information about his ideology 'don't all align'.[5] On the day of the attack, an Instagram post attributed to the gunman had recommended the 19th-century book Might Is Right, a proto-fascist work popular among white supremacists that promotes racial violence. However, an FBI spokesman urged against speculation about white supremacy or any other motivating factors while the investigation continues.[4]" User:Nice4What readded some of the material with the edit summary''"I appreciate the effort to "neutralize" the lede, but why not mention that along with posting the book he ranted about "white "t**ts"? And if a reliable source indicates what sort of left/right literature he had, why not include it? I know you wanted to take away implications about white supremacy, but you deleted the evidence the opposed that assertion in the process."'' The result, and what is now in the article, was this:"Investigators have not yet determined the gunman's motive.[4][5] The gunman owned literature 'from left to right',[6] including reading material on white supremacy and Islamic extremism found within his home.[7] On the day of the attack, an Instagram post attributed to the gunman had recommended the 19th-century book Might Is Right, a proto-fascist work popular among white supremacist that promotes racial violence. The post also ranted about 'hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats.'[8][6] An FBI spokesman urged against speculation about white supremacy or any other motivating factors while the investigation continues.[4]" We need other people's opinions here. To what extent should we quote the Instagram post (which gets a single paragraph in the article) in the lead? To what extent should we try to avoid sensationalizing or implying a particular motive in the lead? Opinions please. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe if we include the book recommendation, we need to include the post's caption to show the ideology is conflicting. I appreciate your effort to make this neutral! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The post's caption? What does that mean? -- MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, how is that the post's caption? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the USA Today article that's cited:
 * "In an Instagram post just before the shooting, a now-deleted account believed to belong to the gunman urged people to read “Might Is Right,” a late 19th century book that the Southern Poverty Law Center said is “widely popular” among white nationalists, Rolling Stone reported. The post reportedly went on, “Why overcrowd towns and pave more open space to make room for hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white tw*ts?”"


 * I believe the full context of the recommendation is needed is we're going to tie it to white supremacy in the lede. Showing the caption will easily allow readers to see that the gunman's ideology is conflicting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a caption. It's just a quote. A racist quote. Including it does not conflict with the idea of white supremacy; on the contrary, it supports it. It makes the section more slanted toward the ideology-the-FBI-doesn't-want-us-to-assume-he-had, not less. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * White supremacist book being used to warn about "white tw*ts"... Are you serious right now? At least the caption gives context. Also, in understanding how Instagram works, the caption is the post unless a text image was uploaded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 03:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am totally not following why you call that quote from the Instagram post a "caption". "Caption: a title or brief explanation appended to an article, illustration, cartoon, or poster." The book, written in the 1890s, has nothing to do with that very 21st century quote from the Instagram post. I am done with this discussion, we are getting nowhere. Would anyone else like to chime in on the content of the second paragraph of the lead? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's forget all the "caption" stuff and start over. Is the reason you want to include this quote, or that you think it conflicts with a white supremacy implication - is that because it complains about "white tw*ts"? That you think if he hates some white people, that would prove he isn't a white supremacist after all? Not at all. Most of them hate large groups of white people (those who disagree with them) as well as non-whites. In any case we are not trying to use the lead to suggest that he is or isn't a white supremacist. Quite the contrary. What I am trying to do is to MINIMIZE in the lead any implication that he was or that it has been proven to be his motive. Sure, leave all this stuff in the article text. But not in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, if you told me you weren't familiar with Instagram, I'd better understand. On Instagram, a post is composed of on image and a caption. He made a post with a picture and the caption read "Read Might is Right by Ragnar Readbeard / Why overcrowd towns and pave more open spaces to make room for hordes of [you know the rest]?" Picture of his Instagram post. Point being if we are to discuss the Instagram in the lede, let's not slice it in half as the FBI had warned against alluding to a white supremacy motive at the moment! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 20:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed reversion of the lead to previous version
So, bottom line, what I want to do is to replace the current sentence, added by Nice4What, The gunman owned literature "from left to right",[6] including reading material on white supremacy and Islamic extremism found within his home.[7] with the previous sentence The gunman owned literature "from left to right" so that sources of information about his ideology "don't all align".[5]. And to remove the added sentence The post also ranted about "hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats."[8][6] The reason is that I think this material improperly promotes the idea that he was a white supremacist. And I'd like to do it soon, while the subject is still in the public eye. Looking for opinions on those two proposed changes, please. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just said above, but the removal of that sentence using the slur makes the lede seem like he's more of a white supremacist than keep him neutral. And the fact that we have a source showing what sort of material he has allows readers to easily understand how his ideology doesn't all align (though I can see why this is better placed in the body than lede). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 20:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then let's take out all the Instagram stuff from the lead. I would be fine with that. It's only one paragraph in the article so per WEIGHT it may not belong there anyhow. How about Investigators have not yet determined the gunman's motive.[4] According to the FBI, the gunman owned literature "from left to right" so that sources of information about his ideology "don't all align".[5] An FBI spokesman urged against speculation about motivating factors while the investigation continues. Or better yet, simply Investigators have not yet determined the gunman's motive.[4] That's what we say in a lot of articles on this subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfect to me! Thanks again. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 23:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Updating the lede now. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 02:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's probably what we should have done all along. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just looked at the history - and saw all the edit-warring that has been happening in that paragraph today. It was definitely the right thing to take all that stuff out. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternatives to that

 * User:MelanieN - opening a separate area for my ‘none of the above’ (or others who offer views that differ from the above choices). I think you’re discussing edits direct to lead that is not summarizing  body content to justify it per WP:LEAD.  I suggest instead that motive be moved to a subsection.   While the lead (at the moment) is not horrible, this seems trying to be conveying moralizing WP:SPECULATION speculation or exploiting the event as the greatest prominence and bulk or focus of the lead.  But the motive simply is unknown, which is part of the story — there was no wide and long history or specific statement from shooter.  But this is details better made a section.  I propose move the para -  let the lead simply identify the event that is the topic and nothing more.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Mark. This material was fairly recently added and was never subject to consensus. I would retain the name of the suspect in the lead, and the fact that the case is being investigated as domestic terrorism, and move the rest to the "perpetrator" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made those changes. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight?
This article about a shooting at a single event of the Gilroy Garlic Festival is almost five and a half times as long as the article about the Gilroy Garlic Festival as a whole. Had this been included in the main article, it would have taken up almost 85% of its content. Shouldn't Wikipedia concentrate on the festival itself instead of a single shooting incident? J I P &#124; Talk 01:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)