Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting/Archive 1

Hate crime against Sikhs
Please add info about this being hate crime against sikhs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almightyvegeta (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 August 2012‎
 * This needs a reliable source, the motive is unclear at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, for all we know right now, the gunman could have been a Sikh, we just can't speculate about it. Time will tell.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am Alister Wm Macintyre. My Wikipedia account has expired.

Witness reports, in Aig-5 news media, said the shooter was clean shaven, bald head. This is at odds with the Sikh religion having long hair, for both men and women, beards for men.

Newspaper accounts Aug-6, such as http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sikh-temple-shooter-discharged-demoted-army-20120806,0,6159499.story https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/us/army-veteran-identified-as-suspect-in-wisconsin-shooting.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all say: Federal officials identified Wade Michael Page, age 40, as the slain attacker in a rampage that killed six people, plus himself, and left three others critically wounded at a house of worship in Oak Creek, Wi.

Those newspaper accounts, and others, such as http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2012/08/06/gunman-sikh-temple-attack-was-white-supremacist/ygMetwd9H1MkhsWUGsyXuJ/story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/us/army-veteran-identified-as-suspect-in-wisconsin-shooting.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Say the attacker is associated with white supremacist and neo-Nazi, but we have to be careful with the phraseology. He formed a band, and participated in a band, whose lyrics propose genocide. It is not yet clear to me, what all targets are involved in those lyrics. Is being the member of a band which sings about genocide, the same as being a person who preaches it?

There is enormous speculation that this attack falls into the category of people who hate Muslims, and attack other religions out of ignorance how to tell what religion someone is a part of. There should be separate Wikipedia articles on this topic. There was a similar phenomena in Nazi Germany where many Catholics were attacked because many Protestant Nazis could not distinguish between Jews and Catholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.152.239 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Title of article
I would suggest a better name is Sikh temple shooting. That seems to be the fact that stands out for the title. Casprings (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but sometimes it's better to at least say "where" the shooting happened. Sometimes, it's also good to use "when" it happened, particularly if it's happened before.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The title is fully in line with similar articles, eg 2011 Tucson shooting and 2012 Aurora shooting. "Sikh temple shooting" is far too vague.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting would be a better name. Sikh temple massacre is odd. Regards,   theTigerKing    20:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I based it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre . The problem with "shooting" it doesn't indicate multiple death.  I would suggest  a compromise with "2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple massacre"   However, I don't think you need 2012.  A Sikh temple massacre doesn't happen every year.  The last one I can think of was Operation Blue Star and that was a different type of event.  Next, I don't think Wisconsin is really that important to be in the title.  I really think simple is better.  "Sikh temple massacre"  Casprings (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Shooting would be a better word. I understand the gravity of the event that comes with the usage of the word massacre. The word is generally used with the "mass sacrifice"[for a cause] (like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre). No one would have wanted to sacrifice the precious life in the shooting. The word shooting does indicate multiple causalities 2012 Aurora shooting Regards,   theTigerKing    20:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Shooting works for me. Can we exclude 2012 and Wisconsin.  Just "Sikh temple shooting"  Less is more and I don't think 2012 or Wisconsin add anything.  Casprings (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, we need a location and we probably need a year for reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Is there going to some confusion with other shootings at other Sikh temples?  Perhaps, "US Sikh temple shooting"  The only other place I can think of as having violence in a Sikh temple is India.  Casprings (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How would one differentiate the article if shooting happens at some other temple in the future in US? Regards,   theTigerKing    20:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles about shooting incidents usually include the year and the location in the title (2011 Seal Beach shooting is another example). Asking for a title that goes against this practice is likely to be reverted.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Standard title naming process should be followed. Regards,  theTigerKing    20:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That would depend on the article and the shooting. Many do not.  I doubt that is backed by a policy.  WOuld 2012 Sikh temple shooting work?  To me, that follows WP:Precise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Including the year seems to be common enough, unless it's a very well-known incident like Columbine. I'd lean towards something like "2012 Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting" or maybe just "2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting" or something of that sort. (Since there are other Oak Creeks that are as large, and adding the full town+state gets unwieldy.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are going to put a name, why not define it by the country. "2012 US Sikh temple shooting"  Oak Creek does little to define it for people and most people will define it by the shooting that took place in the US involving Sikhs.  Casprings (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's vague for no good reason. "Wisconsin" is common enough to be well-known, which is why I suggested it, though I think "Oak Creek" is probably better. We can obviously wikilink the town. I actually kind of like the current name (2012 Oak Creek shooting), but just adding in "Sikh temple" or "temple" might be good if people feel it needs to be expanded. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, with two hours of debating, we're nearly back to where we started. Why not let us focus on the events, improve the article, then worry about if it's a massacre or a shooting, if it's a US Sikh temple or an Oak Creek shooting?  That's what WP:COMMONNAME is for.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing wrong with having a discussion about it. It would be helpful to focus on the article though; much of it was a mess before some editing, despite being shorter than this talk page section is... In other words, it's fine to discuss...but since the name is accurate and so forth, then it's not THAT useful to quibble over at this point, especially right after the event. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree the title should be 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.1.206 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw in my own opinion, I think the current title is fine as a working title, but as the article expands, we should consider other possible titles too. I personally would support 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting or 2012 Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting, though the current one works. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I like 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. The temple was named Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, so I think it works.Casprings (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Death tally
The number of confirmed deaths is not mentioned in the article at all, just in the info box. Shouldnt it be mentioned? 74.103.39.3 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but don't include the casualty of the perpetrator in the figures. Only innocent lives lost or injured needs to be mentioned Regards,   theTigerKing    20:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOV means that we should keep the perpetrator in the "people dead" group, but not in the "victims" group, I think. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Regards,   theTigerKing    15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability tag
Not sure why the notability tag was added, since it's being reported broadly and worldwide. But I'm going to challenge it here, not remove it (although anyone else can feel free to do so). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This event is being covered by worldwide media. I'd say it's certainly notable, and agree with both you and the other editor who did remove the superfluous tag. No reason for that tag to be on the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely 100% notable -- Activism  1234  00:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism
Several reliable sources are reporting that authorities are considering this Domestic Terrorism. Should the article refer to this? If so, how and where? Casprings (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in the article -- Activism  1234  00:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's being investigated as domestic terrorism. It is premature to call it domestic terrorism. --Nrehnby (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim terrorist attack
Why is there no mention in this article that this incident was a Muslim terrorist attack? The Muslims are targeting Sikhs just like they are targeting Jews.
 * Until we know from reliable sources that it was perpetrated by Muslims, that would violate WP:NPOV WP:OR among others. -- Activism  1234  00:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Because evidence points in the other direction, and there is little history of Sikh-Muslim violence in the US. Go back to the Free Republic. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is some evidence in South Asia, however.  Not to completely dismise the guy, but there MAY be a possible link.  It just has to be reported.  My guess would be a traditional neo-nazi type hate group, however.  Casprings (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding unsourced statements. If you don't someone might ban you. Will Maddickphit Esq (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact it's unsourced, it's downright offensive and racist. -- Activism  1234  01:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Those were the only edits made by him, too. Will Maddickphit Esq (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed this section as needlessly inflammatory. restored it with the comment "talk is not censored". I beg to differ. Muslims are living people, and this section makes unfounded accusations about them. WP:BLP has strict guidelines that any personal attack on any page (including talk pages) can be removed. I won't edit war about this, but I suggest that someone remove this section so we can stop feeding the troll who added it. Cresix (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the troll comments more racist remarks, I'll report him. I wouldn't oppose someone reporting him as it is now, or warning him. I'll warn him myself actually, in case he does comment such remarks again. -- Activism  1234  01:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But on the side, I've seen admins close inflammatory and racist sections, so I think the same should be done here as well. -- Activism  1234  01:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually he's already been notified -- Activism  1234  01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Gurdwara article
I think this gurdwara may require its own article now. We do have a few articles on them, see List of gurdwaras in the United States, though most are redlinked, which is bad.(mercurywoodrose)99.101.139.124 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Media Response
The media approach and coverage of this shooting, i.e. limited/footnote articles seems in stark contrast to the recent Aurora shootings. I'm not sure whether it's the fact that the media considers the shootings are "old hat" since they've had a recent mass murder with a higher body count to salivate over, or if it's other stories, such as the Olympics taking precedence. The latter seems to be the case for the UK media, somewhat understandably, but what is the coverage like in the states? Was my first statement unfair? I'm struggling to find much information on the net.

I hate to make a knee-jerk reaction but it seems that as it was group from a religious minority that were killed, the American media is simply not interested. As this is such a "new" story it'll will take some time to assemble a full picture of events. Therefore, in a few weeks/months time, I think commentary on the media response to two similar events would make a good encyclopedic entry, even if its not on this page. Any comments from others? (94.0.192.155 (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC))


 * This has WP:NOTAFORUM issues, although it is fair to say that so far the media coverage has been low key compared to the Aurora shooting. CNN is currently headlining the Curiosity rover and Usain Bolt.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely say the media response is not unlike missing white woman syndrome. And the issue is not limited to the USA. WWGB (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, all media organisations pick and choose what they think is important depending on their paymasters political stance, they should be thoroughly ashamed. They're all liars and hypocrites, some just more than others. I'm quite surprised to see it spread to Wikipedia though. The Batman shootings were headlined on Wikipedia front page for days on end, this story is buried in the current events page as a "shooting incident"(94.0.192.155 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC))

Race
May I ask what the shooter being a white male has anything to do with the story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.207.123.207 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been reported that he was a white supremacist - that section of the article should probably be expanded. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been reported, but WP:BLP applies to statements made about Wade Page, and this is too speculative at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The media now begins the inevitable trawl for the digital footprint of Wade Page, but the sourcing here is nowhere near WP:BLP standard at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The authorities reported that they are investigating this as related to white supremacy. I added just that specifically to the article (not that it had been tied to white supremacy or was being considered as such, just investigated.) I think the race of the shooter is perfectly relevant. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff)
 * Why is BLP applicable here? Page is dead, isn't he, and therefore no longer a "living person"? -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BDP applies to Page himself, even if BLP proper doesn't apply here; noting things like race and racist views without proper citations (which we do have now) could have negative BLP consequences for friends/relatives, thus BDP. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Bio of page
Regarding this:
 * He has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a singer in the "skinhead" band End Apathy. Wade is a native of Colorado. He entered the white power music scene in 2000, touring the country on a motorcycle attending concerts in Georgia, North Carolina, West Virginia and Colorado. He has been a member of hate rock bands Youngland (2001-2003), Celtic Warrior, Radikahl, Max Resist, Intimidation One, Aggressive Force and Blue Eyed Devils. He founded End Apathy in 2005, whose members included “Brent” on bass and “Ozzie” on drums; the men were former members of Definite Hate and another band, 13 Knots. The bands name, End Apathy, reflected Page's wish to "figure out how to end people’s apathetic ways" and start "moving forward. I was willing to point out some of my faults on how I was holding myself back," he said in an interview in 2010.

It was deleted as not conforming to BLP. I'm not sure what the issue here is, this is perfectly accurate and being reported all over the news. Southern Poverty Law Center is the leading anti-hate group in America and tracks all of these individuals, they are the most authoritative source available, other than perhaps the government. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was also removed as WP:WEASEL. I see no weaseling except that "(source) says (content)." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Southern Poverty Law Center is not a secondary reliable source, that is the main concern.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it is secondary, they are getting most of their information from a primary source, the interview given by Page in Label56. Or are you saying Southern Poverty is not "reliable"? Green Cardamom (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, everything except the origin of the band name definitely meets WP:V. BLP only says that things that aren't verifiably true should be removed. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't edit war if this is put back, but the media does tend to trawl up material that may have BLP issues in this type of situation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Understand the concern. In this case we have a direct primary source interview given by Wade himself in 2010 to verify that this isn't just rumor or made up stuff. Of course we are relying on the highly reliable secondary source SPLC so it's not a primary source issue. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that SPLC is a leading organization in these topics and are reliable. -- Activism  1234  15:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think the main concern should be being careful to avoid giving this undue weight, yah? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen enough coverage of this in mainstream news sources that are considered fairly reliable (such as AP News, for starters), I don't see a BLP concern here. Remember, the idea of BLP policy is to limit WM Foundation's liability for potential claims of defamation.  If we're getting it from SPLC and AP (and citing them) and not from some tabloid or gossip column, it's fine.  Due weight may be another issue, but it seems from the statements made by FBI and BATF officials to AP that this attack is officially considered to be racially motivated. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * SPLC is a credible source. However, SPLC is an organization with an agenda--fighting hate and bigotry and supporting the most vulnerable members of society (http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are). While that agenda is laudable, it also means they are not a neutral source when it comes to a putatively racism-driven shooting. The facts they present can be included in the article; the adjectives they use should not be: words like "frustrated", "hate rock band", the names of the various bands, and so on. Also note that the description of "End Apathy" says pretty much nothing directly; there is just an implication it is "apathy toward non-whites improving their standing" but since the wording doesn't say so it should not be included. I am against a wholesale revert of the piece; it should just be edited. Churn and change (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, like any NGO they have an agenda but that doesn't necessarily discredit them (although it does discredit some others), but the wording should be neutral, and RS media outlets should also be given preferrably. -- Activism  1234  18:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why would BLP concerns come into this at all? Page is deceased, isn't he? -208.81.148.195 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of overlap with statements involving living people or groups in the article. Page, though, is deceased.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP, despite its name, does apply to Page. See WP:BDP. Churn and change (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fact tags
Please stop adding fact tags. The article has suitably placed verifiable and trusted references. Please, stop putting them after every comma, semi colon or periods. Edits would be undone in the future, if they are placed without reading the references placed. Regards,  theTigerKing    18:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are currently two fact tags in the article. One is whether the Indian political party in question is in fact the largest Sikh political party (which is not answered in the wikilinked article). The other is the planned demonstration by that party, which ought to be easy enough to reference. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Expansion of lead section
The lead section should be expanded considering the length of the article. Regards,  theTigerKing    18:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Definite Hate
The article states that he "Founded" a band called Definite Hate. This is not true, Definite Hate did live shows and possibly collaborated with End Apathy but Wade Page did not found and was not part of the band "Definite Hate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.244.55 (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

About the "protest"
The article states: The largest Indian Sikh political party and ruling party of Punjab, Shiromani Akali Dal, planned to hold a demonstration in New Delhi's embassy district to protest. Could someone explain or go into a little more depth here? I mean, what's to protest? This is an isolated incident against a Sikh community (as opposed to a pogrom or other prolonged campaign), it is being vigorously investigated as a crime or terrorist act, and the U.S. President, among other leaders and commentators, has condemned the deed and offered condolences to victims and families. So, what exactly is being protested? Boneyard90 (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's obvious what is being "protested". The Sikhs want their voices heard to ensure steps are taken so this doesn't happen again, and have chosen public demonstration as the media are uninterested. I can see the shooting event being tidied away very neatly, "there's a dead lone gunman, he was insane, nothing more to see here". The condolences from the President are empty and meaningless, a standard scripted response. It's quite clear he's not going to do anything about the underlying issues as it's election time. I think everyone knows what the issues are but to be explicit 1) gun control 2) government generated xenophobic hysteria. (94.0.192.155 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC))


 * It's not an isolated incident. Jhs 3345 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your responses, but please note that if I (or anyone) had to ask, then it is not "obvious" as to what is being protested. To the issues ==>


 * To the AnonIP: You really didn't provide an answer. What's being protested? The President's "empty and meaningless" condolences? That's nothing to protest. The media's apparent lack of interest? I don't see how the US Embassy can help that. Gun control - that is an ongoing issue here in the US; laws that politicians in India (or anywhere) have no right to demand we change. And as for "government generated xenophobic hysteria" - sorry, that's just laughable conspiracy theory scare tactic propaganda. That's not even a real answer. So, once again, what's being "protested"? IF these "protesters" in India are gathering to express their outrage over the incident, then let's put that in the article, instead of an artificial and misleading term like "protest".
 * To User:JHS: Thank you for the link. That is certainly enlightening, and though I retract my use of the word "isolated", I think anti-Sikh violence can still be viewed as "uncommon" or even "rare". Hear me out. This was a temple mass-murder. There have been only three other attacks in Sikh temples since 2001, and the last was in 2004. So, I would say violence against Sikhs in their temples is "rare". Yes, there have been 700 incidents in the last 11 years, but how many incidents of white vs. black, black vs. white, white vs. Hispanic, etc. have there been in the same time? So, I grant that anti-Sikh violence is not "isolated", but I maintain that it is still rare. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Protests do not have to be logical or rational. They do not have to make sense to you or me. What matters for Wikipedia is whether a reliable secondary source has termed an act "a protest". NPR is a reliable secondary source; so is the source it quotes: LA Times. Churn and change (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, a "protest" does not have to "make sense". But what is the stated reason? That's what I'm asking. The above editors provided what they thought was "obvious", and a few opinions which amount to OR. Something must have been stated by the organizing politician. Is he protesting the crime? The USA? Perceived racism in the US? What's the stated purpose of the protest? If you think the sources are clear on this point, I invite you to modify the wording, or I can. I just wanted to open discussion before I made changes on an article dealing with a volatile and still new subject. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the stated reason is since the sources cited don't actually mention it. I took out the assumed reason. Now we are left with ". . . protested the shooting" which doesn't hang together, but is the best we have given what is there in the sources. Churn and change (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the best I could string together given the poor sources, when editing it to that. (But at least removing the unsourced stuff.) But it seems like an important and notable reaction, and they were obviously protesting in some fashion...so that seemed better than just not including it. As for the stated reason, I took it from the signs; it seemed reasonable to assume that the protestors' signs reflected their views. Maybe that's too much WP:SYNTH, so no problem with it being gone...a better ref is the solution, of course. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 01:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm satisfied that all parties are acting on good faith and editing to the extent possible given the available information in the sources. And I agree, that some kind of rally or demonstration, or gathering or whatever, by Sikh groups and in reaction to this attack on a Sikh temple is notable. Hopefully more accurate information will become available. Thanks folks! Boneyard90 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

JSOnline article just updated with a bunch of information


There's tons of new information about the shooter, including new details on his work history and suspicious behavior before the incident, that can be added to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Pat Robertson reaction?
Seems kinda disjointed and random to have it in there next to Obama and Singh--are there any other reactions from news figures that could be added to make it less so? I also removed a snippet at the end that was a tinge weasely. Jt (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The current three reactions (Obama, Walker, Singh) are enough. What Pat Robertson and other media commentators say should not be included unless it receives a great deal of coverage.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This really doesn't belong at all, being a religious screed from a non-notable figure, referring to non-factual elements. An extreme reaction should not be included in a general reactions section, and WP:BLP/WP:BDP alone applies due to that I'd think. (Edit: What ianmacm said above, unless something changes. The ones we have are a good set.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 07:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Obama calls for 'soul searching' after Wisconsin attack is an interesting article. It highlights the worries over easy availability of guns (predictably, the gun used in this latest shooting incident was bought legally).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the snippet at the end definitely needed to go. If it were to be reincluded, it should be cited as someone's opinion. But really as others have said there's no reason for us to have to tell readers that PR says random stuff because there's no reason to report the stuff he says in articles on the events. At most, it might have relevance to the article on him, which can be discussed in the appropriate talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Type of handgun used
Not sure where Springfield Armory XD has come from, despite a lot of googling, there was no RS. Possibly should be removed pending a cite.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * links- Regards,   theTigerKing   16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This also cropped up at User_talk:ROG5728. A 9mm Springfield handgun is not necessarily an XD. This is not specifically stated in the sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an XD but a springfield for sure. Regards,   theTigerKing   17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Image
I still would really like to add a picture of the temple itself, preferably pre-crime, if one is available in PD or a compatible license. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Name change for article
This wording for the name of the article is a bit awkward, and not very clear. It should be "Oak Creek Sikh Temple shooting" to make it clear that it was NOT just some random shooting that could have taken place in a random restaurant or movie theatre. But was specific to the Sikh religion and temple. Name change will (or should) be under way. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not change it without consensus. A discussion is ongoing above. Current consensus is pointing towards 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see, there's a discussion to that effect above. Adding to that discussion rather than stating that a name change will be under way would be more helpful, as you're likely to just get people reverting you if you change it unilaterally while a discussion is in progress, probably ending up with the article move-protected. So I would suggest not causing all that hassle by just moving it without consensus above. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, but the process should be under way. I never actually said I would do anything.  I'm not.  But the whole thing is "under way".   Consensus is building.  The current name is simply not complete or clear, and I'm not the only one who thinks that on here, obviously.  So then consensus will probably happen soon is the point.  Don't misunderstood or assume what I meant.   I did not say "I'm changing the name now".   But the whole thing is in process, per the discussion here, from what I see. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what, I'm going to start a Requested Move on this so as to make sure that consensus is determined by an admin, not just us, OK? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The current name is simply not complete or clear, and I'm not the only one who thinks that on here, obviously. So then consensus will probably happen soon is the point.  Don't misunderstood or assume what I meant.   I did not say "I'm changing the name now".  I didn't say I would actually do anything.  But the whole thing is in process, per the discussion here, from what I see. By the way, why is the "move" arrow option NOT visible on this article?  As it is in other articles... Jots and graphs (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been a move-war earlier because people couldn't decide where to put it, so it got move-protected. That's another reason I started the RM. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it's unfortunate that it was not move-protected with the more correct name for the article at the time. Instead it was locked and protected with the suckier name and wording, with the lack of clarity.   Just being honest.  Consensus is strong and clear that the name (not "title", but "name") of this article should be changed, and have the words "Sikh Temple" somewhere in it.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins are intentionally not generally supposed to decide which version is 'more correct', if anything going by what it was before and edit war developed but even that often isnt a good idea, see WP:WRONGVERSION Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that, but that doesn't matter as to my point, which was that it was unfortunate (at the time, since it's a moot point now anyway), that the move-protection wasn't done with the better wording of article name at the time. I know it was just a luck of the draw and an Admin won't generally decide that, at that juncture.  So?  That wasn't what I said.  I was just making the point that it was unfortunate, in a way, that the freezing of that "move" option was done during the time that the wrong version of article name was up. Because it was that way for a number of days, not just a day.  And consensus has it that that name was not the best rendering.  It was just a side remark. Jots and graphs (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Todo list
1) Can we have pic of the assailant uploaded in the article. 2) Also, the officer was helping wounded and guiding officers after he was shot dead. can we mention this too in the article. Multiple references point to the same fact. 3) can we agree on the date format to be used 4) Can we have the standard time mentioned in the article (EST,PST,GMT,IST) in the infobox itself. 5) Can we put in "Hate crime" that local communities allege as their POV in the reactions section. Regards,   theTigerKing    18:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Re time format, it should be CDT, since that's the local time zone. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should have a photograph of the temple (easy for someone who lives nearby) and a free to use image of Wade Page (may not be so easy).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a photo of him that is being widely used in the media which was released by the FBI, which could probably be used. See the first photo in this gallery at CBS. — Yksin (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Seeing how he is dead and no WP editor will be able to take a picture of him, we can definitely use that FBI pic under fair use if it not PD. I'm not too worried about WP:MUG, since WP:BLP does not apply. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, somewhat confusingly WP:BLP does apply. See WP:BDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churn and change (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely confusing. We can document his death, so does it or does it not apply? I wouldn't think so, but I'm not sure. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  14:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wade Page died at the age of 40, so it is not impossible that free images of him exist. The use of a mugshot would be justified only if it had a clear PD license. Federal mugshots do, local police mugshots usually do not.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What BDP means is that BLP will apply for a time nonetheless, because BLP is also protecting his family, friends, and other associates. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the ring and run, but I'm pressed for time. I noted: "His mother apologized to the Sikh victims[32] and said she had not been in touch with her son for the past twelve years, after divorcing his father.[33]" This was the first report, and came from a non-rigorous source. I read later that from a more reliable source (sorry I can't recall) that his mother died when he was 13, and he was raised from age 10 by a step-mother who had also divorced his father. Perhaps someone can did into it. --Nrehnby (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see this was taken care of. Awesome. --Nrehnby (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Time in the infobox
The infobox time states "10:25" and, in edit mode, there is some comment about it being a template that provides metadata. (I don't have any idea of what that means.) But, I think it's important for the time to indicate 10:25 AM (as opposed to PM). Without any notation at all, most people will not know if it's AM or PM (without reading the article). And the point of the infobox is to provide ready information about the event's basics, in a nut shell. The added notation (from the template) of -05:00 is meaningless to most people glancing at this. Can the "AM" be added somehow? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can use the   template instead of  , which does permit AM/PM but also emits the same metadata (which is a microformat with the time in UTC for use by scripts, etc.) Though the last article I saw this being an issue on, changing it just resulted in an edit war between two other editors, so I'm not going there myself. :) (But I agree it should say AM. 24-hour time is not common in the US, outside of scientific and military use.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks.  But, I did not understand the first few words of your post above.  You stated that I can use the "start date template" instead of the "start date template".  You just repeated the exact same thing, twice.  No?  Is this a typo?  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not a typo. :) One has a dash in it, the other does not. Click on both, they're wikilinked to the template documentation for each. (Why there are two similarly named templates and not a single one supporting things like local time formats, etc, I have no clue...) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense now. I now see the dash!  Thank you!  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Occupation
Is "White power musician" really his occupation? At least it should be just "musician" with the type of music in the article. Thoughts? E123 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the IP's unsourced comment above, I'd say his occupation is maybe "truck driver, musician (white power music)." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As odd as the term seems (and I was tempted to remove it myself when it first popped up), going through the references, it seems the best way to describe his occupation is in fact "white power musician." We have many reliable sources stating the white-power music scene was a significant part of his life—more than just a hobby, and it's common enough to include a musician's type of music in his or her occupation. We should add truck driver too, that seems to be new information; it appears he was fired in 2010 from that job for impaired driving. Note that the ref specifically says he was cited after refusing to submit to tests, and not for actually being caught drinking on the job, so keep that in mind when editing. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 20:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed his 'former' occupations from the infobox, since they are 1) not current, 2) not relevant to the situation and 3) discussed in some detail in the body of the section. If it was too bold, I'll be happy to put them back, though I would like to hear a good argument for inclusion in the infobox. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 23:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree they definitely don't need to be in the lead; that he was in the Army 15 years ago isn't very relevant from what we know at the moment, nor is driving a truck. His "white power musician" occupation is far more relevant to the crime and who he apparently was, so that does seem appropriate to be the only thing to keep in the lead. That said, I'd argue for inclusion of the other professions in the infobox simply because many pages do so; e.g., pages for politicians tend to contain their previous careers. I don't know if there's any WP:MOS guidance on this or not, so I'm not going to debate the point since I'm not sure if I'm right. :) (I did go ahead and put it in lower case, simply because "White power music" seems odd; there's "rock music", "hip-hop music", "country music", etc, and "white" is generally accepted as a proper noun in lowercase form for this type of use.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems WP:COMMONSENSE-ical. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Musician seems a bit odd. I doubt anyone cared for the musical prowess, as opposed to the white power bit. I am all for NPOV, but putting him in the same class as Duke Ellington seems weird. Is there any evidence he actually made money? If so, for what? μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have removed musician from the infobox. There is no indication he was a professional musician. We should only publish his occupation at time of the incident, if indeed he had one. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion. μηδείς (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: Bay Area Sikh temple shooting
Is there a reason we are linking to the Bay Area Sikh temple shooting? Its not closely related in any other way. I don't like "see also" sections padded out with tangential articles that end up showing a bias in editing. if the media are linking, thats different. why not link to the Golden Temple massacre in India? or the Aurora shooting?(mercurywoodrose)99.101.139.124 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like it there either, unless some link is shown. (E.g., some sort of similar motive.) The only thing in common is that they were at Sikh temples, which isn't notable in itself for a see also, I agree...unless something common is notable. That appears to be an incident with a gunman assaulting a specific target, whereas this appears to be an incident of a gunman committing a mass murder with no (yet known) specific target. And the media hasn't linked it either, as you noted. I actually saw it linked more closely with the Aurora shooting, simply because they occurred so close together. Don't think it should be in there, but I'm not going to go removing it as I might if the alleged gunman was alive as a WP:BLP matter...since he's not-so-...LP now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all your statements. The media will mention this in context with aurora, so that can definitely be in the article. I'll let someone else remove it, i prefer to let one person propose and another second, then a third dispose.(mercurywoodrose)99.101.139.124 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed this entry. The Bay Area incident was completely unrelated, a shooting by a Sikh who was not allowed to speak to the congregation. There is no relevance between the two incidents, other than they both involved Sikhs. So what? WWGB (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure on this one. I do think that both articles sharing the common "both shootings in a Sikh Temple" is NOT as trivial as both of you are making for some reason. That's very significant. NOT so "incidental". That commonality is extremely "notable in itself". For a "See also." I 99% disagree with both of you. That article point is not so "tangential". See alsos are not exactly the same necessarily, but simply have some reasonable similarities and significant commonalities. "Shooting at Sikh temple" is very similar and significant. I personally don't care that much one way or the other, as I would not revert anything, as I was not the one who put the See also in the first place either. But you're both simply wrong on this, for asserting they're so unrelated and that a shooting at a Sikh temple is so insignificant as far as relationships. Because that's a very notable commonality. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So we should also include Nankana massacre and Chittisinghpura massacre and ..... since these also involve shootings in a Sikh temple? There have been Sikh gurdwara massacres throughout time, we cannot possibly list them all. WWGB (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not "all", just some. Also, your argument/comparison/example is flawed.  The two articles you just cited are in Pakistan and India.   The Bay Area one, however, is also in the United States...just like this Wisconsin one.  So that's ANOTHER similarity...that is significant.  Both in the same country.  Unless you want to ignore that point, and think that's irrelevant too.  (Sighs...) Again, no one is suggesting putting "all" Sikh related massacres or shootings on the planet, in the See also section.   Just maybe the ones in the same country perhaps?   I'm just giving my take on this, and that there seems to be TOO much wiki-battering on things like this.   To make it like the Bay Area incident has NO similarity or relevance or notable commonalities when it has two major things that show that it does (both Sikh Temples, both shootings, and both in America) seems unreasonable.   A "See also" artice is not supposed to be exact in everything, just on some main issues.  Which for some reason you guys don't seem to acknowledge.  Again, the articles you cited, though having the Sikh element, do not have the "it was also done in the same country as Wisconsin" element.  So the examples are not that strong.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Bay Area incident was "disgruntled member of religious congregation attacks co-religionists"; the Oak Creek incident is "crazed bigot attacks persons not like himself". The two incidents are only similar in that they took place in the same country and involved victims of the same faith. Oak Creek is about as culturally dissimilar from the Bay Area as two places can be in the same country. The only reason to lump the two together is to make a "pointy" implication that there is something in the U.S. that creates such events. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, to re-iterate, See alsos do NOT have to be 1000% exactly the same in everything. Just have at least one or two major commonalities.  Per WP:SEEALSO it reads:  "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant . The 'See also' section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page)." WP policy does NOT make dogmatic statements on this.  So why are you?  It's not what you're saying it is.  They only have to be peripherally related or have some major commonalities.  And being in the same country and involving Sikh Temple or Religion seems significantly common and similar.   Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO when disputes over see alsos arise the best way to resolve them is to get back to the core purpose as explained in the section you linked to. I.E. see alsos are primarily a way to link to stuff which we should link in the article (or perhaps a navbox or template) but haven't developed the article to level where this can happen. In other words the first question to ask here is, can we see the link of dispute being somehow integrated in the article? If we can't, it likely doesn't belong. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article," so it does not need to be a link that could necessarily be in the body of the article itself. Jots and graphs (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the whole thing as I earlier suggested, rather then just quoting bits and pieces out of context. In particular, you seem to have entirely missed this bit
 * Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.
 * In other words, while see alsos do not have to directly relate to the topic of the article, they should still normally be things which would appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes if the article is high quality. Of course there may be exceptions, but these would be rare and would generally require very solid rationale for why something so unrelated to the topic that it won't even be mentioned in a high quality article or includes in relevent navboxes belongs in the seealso.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that I didn't read the thing you quoted already, THOUGH I IN FACT DID BEFORE HAND. In fact, before I even commented. The point is that there are plenty of articles that have "See also" links that don't (or just can't from the way the phrasing is) be put anywhere in the body of the article...but yet is somehow related, at least PERIPHERALLY.  I quoted nothing "out of context".   It said what it said.   That it does NOT have to be "directly related" and it said "are only peripherally relevant", how many different ways are there to interpret those statements???   Let's not be STICKLERS is the point...too much Wiki-battering has gone on with See also sections, and you're a good example (as are others) of one doing that.  We're going around in circles now.  See alsos don't have to be directly related to original article.  But can even be just somewhat related or peripherally, with maybe one or two commonalities.  Case closed. Jots and graphs (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding non-relevant reactions
E.g., Mitt Romney. This isn't a campaign coverage page where we need to have Romney's reaction just because we also have a reaction from Obama. Obama is notable here as he made his statement as President of the US. We mention Scott Walker by name as well, as Wisconsin's governor, and group other officials in with him. Romney is a presidential candidate. His reaction isn't noteworthy. (However, if something like Obama and Romney pulling advertising from the state happens as in Aurora, that might be noteworthy. But that hasn't happened.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 17:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. At this point, this incident has nothing to do with the election cycle and Romney's statements are no more relevant than anyone else's.  Regardless of the election, Obama is the President and the wording of his comment is relevant. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also agree. Romney holds no pertinent political office; his opinions don't really matter here. Obama's statements are notable as they are the POTUS' reaction. This isn't about politics. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Added Bloomberg's reactions because the gun problem is a larger problem be it these shootings or Aurora one. He is also the mayor of NYC. Regards,  theTigerKing    19:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people are reacting about gun problems. Many people are mayors of large cities and have reacted to the shooting, often noting gun violence. I don't see how his statements are any more notable than the thousands of other random ones. Also, you're quoting him as saying what presidential candidates should be doing...while the gun control debate will obviously come up in the article, how campaigns should approach the issue is not notable. (Except maybe on the pages for those campaigns.) We also already have statements from other more-notable sources (such as the protesting Sikhs) calling for increased gun control. So, multiple reasons not to include his statement. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I removed it again for the other reason given, that this is essentially a quote on campaign guidance and tangential to the article. (And that "mayor of NYC" still doesn't make him notable.) Feel free to re-add it; I'm not going to edit war, but I think we had a reasonable consensus forming, and already had started multiple discussions before it was added. (Edit: see also .) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The first three lines are simply your POV. Moreover, he is a mayor. So we can't ignore, even if you don't take his comments or opinions at the face value. Moreover, he added that following a recent spate in gun violence, the candidates must take a stand. He in no way guiding the campaign. He may be miles away from the oak creek, but given the fact that sikh community lives in large numbers in NYC and were subjected to hate crimes after 9/11, his opinion do matter.  Regards,   theTigerKing    19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should report those facts then: that he's the mayor of one of the largest Sikh communities in the US (and you should cite that), and one that was subjected to violence. And no, it's not my POV that many people are reacting about gun problems. And no, I haven't tallied how many large-city mayors specifically have commented, but they'd be grouped among the thousands of random politicians in general commenting on the incident. (I'm actually not sure exactly WHAT you consider POV here, since I didn't use line breaks, so please explain.) Saying that we can't ignore him because "he is a mayor" is also POV. Does that mean we cannot ignore any other mayor-level reactions or higher? (If we did that, the article would be 90% people's reactions.) In any case, your edit primarily conveyed that Bloomberg thinks presidential candidates should propose gun restrictions. Not anything about the history of Sikh violence in NYC or any other material to make it relevant. (Of course, simply making those changes still doesn't necessarily make Bloomberg's reaction notable at all. But at least the content would be more relevant, even if the individual isn't.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In essence, Bloomberg's reaction is possibly relevant to Gun control and related articles, but it's WP:UNDUE to put it in this one. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just like, your opinion, man. Naw, seriously though, I'm in total agreement with db8 on this one.  We could stuff the article with endless miles of reactions from everyone in the world we can think of, but this isn't the 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting controversy article, it's about the shooting itself.  Reactions have their place here, but let's try to limit it to reactions from folks who have some bearing on the thing, like the people directly involved, the mayor of Oak Creek, the governor of Wisconsin, the POTUS and the broader Sikh community.  Isn't that enough for opinions and reactions? Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 23:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to add a reaction but saw a hidden message saying not to add non-notable reactions unrelated to the shooting. If this is to be followed, President Obama's reaction is non-notable. He is supposed to express condolences whenever there's a mass shooting. This is expected. It is notable if he doesn't. However, President Obama is a big shot, so if people insist, I can see their point. Auchansa (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama is notable by virtue of being the president (yes, that makes him a "big shot", but the important thing is that he is the current elected president at the time of the incident), but I agree that if he's just offering "standard" condolences, that's not notable. However, he commented specifically on the Sikh community, and more notably, he also ordered flags to be flown at half-staff. His reaction could perhaps be trimmed down to a sentence, since some of it is indeed not-quite notable. But I think he certainly merits inclusion. If you were going to add someone else, you should mention that person here so we can discuss it; the comment is intended to help do that, not stifle editing! (As several editors, in addition to myself, have reverted non-notable reactions under WP:UNDUE and the like, as many have been added.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Then how is this following sentence a "notable reaction?" "Following the incident, there were vigils and protests by Sikhs in India." If people were protesting in India in their own personal capacity, how is that notable? They do not hold any positions. This article and the editing of it is very biased, and pro-certain political sides, whether it is pro-certain candidates, or pro-certain countries like pro-India. Many of the reactions from India on this page are very non-notable. What does it matter if there were vigils in India? There may have been vigils in Canada and the UK as well? Who cares if this issue was mentioned in the Indian Parliament, there was an actual resolution in the US Congress passed which is not even listed in this article. User:VickSPaul

Will the non-relevant sentences that I have pointed out be edited or taken out? There are many non-relevant instances and events mentioned in this article. Please edit. User:VickSPaul

Suspect section - nature of discharge?
If a RS can be found stating he was dishonorably discharged from the Army, I think it should be noted and also noted in the lead. This would show that the U.S. Army very strongly disapproved of his behaviour. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not had a chance to follow this closely, so I don't know where the comment came from, but I would assume we should reference it whether he was honorably or dishonorably discharged. I don't feel like a note should appear in the lead. Ryan Vesey 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have my source handy, but he was "less than honorably discharged" which is between honorable and dishonorable. Some examples of things that gran get you less than honorable discharge are marijuanna possession or other minor rules infraction, or more likely in this case, membership in a hate group. Dishonorable discharge generally requires a court martial. Dishonorable discharge via court Marshall conviction also generally leads to being categorized as a felon, which would make his purchase/possession of guns illegal, but that is not the case hereGaijin42 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AP, ABC News, CBS News and others have been reporting that Page was "less than honorably discharged and ineligible for reenlistment," which is how I worded it in the article, but that (like so much else here) has been folded spindled and mutilated all day long. We just need the edit count to slow down a little. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 23:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are sources stating he received a "general discharge". Other sources say he was "less-than-honorably" discharged, and his reported behavior would lead you to suspect that. But given conflicting sources (hell, when I was just editing the article, the refs either backed up "general discharge" or said nothing) and no authoritative information, and this being BDP/BLP, I'd go with what the FBI said at the live press conference: "general discharge." That seems like the most authoritative statement in the absence of something from the military or other law enforcement. There's a JSOnline article: that has some better details on the vague general discharge. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, go with what the FBI says, until we have something from the Army. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The suspect was discharged, per the only RS which is specific, under this section: Military_discharge. One private VA site describes general discharge as under "less than honorable circumstances." See http://www.vabenefitblog.com/types-of-military-discharge/ or http://www.armytimes.com/community/ask_lawyer/military_askthelawyer_092208w/ neither official sources but quite credible. So, yes, in loose parlance, this is a "less than honorable discharge" but not an "other than honorable discharge." Here is an excerpt from an official site http://www.eielson.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123117744 :

A General discharge is for service members who leave the service under honorable conditions, but their conduct and performance of duty was not so meritorious to receive an Honorable discharge. Reasons for such characterization are generally preceded by some form of nonjudicial conduct. Some people think that a General discharge is as good as an Honorable discharge, but this is not true. A General discharge may disqualify a veteran from participation in the GI Bill, service on veteran's commissions, and other programs where an honorable discharge is required. Churn and change (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should put that in the lead, this isn't an article about the shooter. It doesn't matter about the Army, if he was discharged (almost 15 years ago), he no longer represents them. WP is not in the business of making sure the Army looks good either. Though I don't think that was the intent of your comment. What I'm trying to say is, unless the Army officially disapproves of his actions, there is nothing for us to mention here other than he was in the Army from such to such date and was not honorably discharged, meaning, the Army didn't like him. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should Wikilink to the right section: Military_discharge instead of to the top Military_discharge. Churn and change (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did that in the main summary initially, where we do say "general discharge." No reason not to link that instead in the lead though, although I linked Military discharge directly there because the wording is just "discharged." Doesn't really matter either way. In any case, I still don't think "discharged" even needs to go in the lead at all... – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 01:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sikh-temple-shooter-discharged-demoted-army-20120806,0,6159499.story HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was in the military, a General Discharge can be given for any number of reasons, I knew a guy who got a General Discharge because he got drunk and crashed a jeep. I've heard the shooter got a General Discharge because he was AWOL and drunk on duty, but can't recall the source.  Also, he supposedly got the Army Good Conduct Medal (normally automatic after three years duty without getting in trouble) and the Army Humanitarian Medal (don't know what for).  Don't know if he got the Sharpshooter medal, but he seems to have been a good shot with a handgun, indicating he was an expert shot.  His Army records might prove illuminating.  2602:306:CEDF:1580:28E2:9C83:25DB:B14F (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Until we have ACTUAL information, the only thing we DO know is that he served in the US Army and was discharged for reason uncertain. The impression I got from a few news articles was that he had other than honorable, but it was not named that way. Hence, their reference is invalid. IF he was discharged for his skinhead beliefs, it'd be either general or other than honorable, depending on his activities. Until someone FOI's the records, it's only a guess, due to the media's posturing and ignorant to that specific detail status.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate crimes
Numerous publications and media are pointing to the hate crimes on Sikh post 9/11 with this incident. Sikhs are mistakenly confused with the Muslims for their turbans and beard. Also, the local Sikhs at Oak creek point to the same thing. I can post numerous articles on the same from respected journals, if needed. Can we add this to the article in the section? Can we all agree upon it? Regards,  theTigerKing    15:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested that Page mistook Sikhs for Muslims, but there is an element of media speculation here. Unlike previous shooters who have posted their manifestos to the media, the exact reasons for the Oak Creek shooting remain unclear.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The local Sikhs also point to the same fact. Also, the Sikhs were subject to hate crimes for the mistaken identity after 9/11. many editorials have been written on it as well. If you need, i can post the links to journals Regards,   theTigerKing   16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this does not establish a specific motive for Page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose this wording: ''While several area Sikhs indicated that they consider this shooting a hate crime,     Regards,   theTigerKing   16:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Several area Sikhs" is a phrase. There is a problem here, because although it is agreed that Page had links to white power groups, a specific anti-Sikh motive has not been established.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 16:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From what the sources I've read say, we can write that they believe they were targeted for looking like Muslims. We just can't write that they were targeted for looking like Muslims. Fine line, but I think that's where it is. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So what is the conclusion? Regards,  theTigerKing    18:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Jorgath's point: it's fine to add that they believe they were targeted for that reason. Just can't state that they WERE targeted for that reason without a reliable source. I think it's simpler to leave it out though, because you're assuming a motive somewhat (when we don't know much past "likely hate crime" at this point); I'd go with Jorgath's suggested wording to avoid any issues with that. There are probably Sikhs who consider it a hate crime, but don't think or don't know if the shooter thought they were Muslims; though I can't conclude that on the page, obviously. Going with the simpler wording makes it more inclusive and less POV in my opinion. (Edit: But ianmacm's issue with "several area Sikhs" seems correct as well, so the wording shouldn't include that or similar.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 18:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote from this CBS article: "I don't know why," Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards said when asked about Page's motive, "and I don't know that we'll ever know, because when he died, that died with him what his motive was or what he was thinking." Page's death leads to this problem, and the exact reason may never be known. According to this article, police also believe that the attack was not planned in advance.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe Page mis-took them for Muslims, and maybe he didn't care, because they were foreign looking, and obviously of some kind of Eastern religion. He probably idiotically thought they were Muslims, but then again, doesn't the Sikh Temple say "Sikh" somewhere on it?   Yes is does.  In fact, this one clearly has a big sign saying "Sikh Temple of Wisconsin".   Was Page that dumb and such an inbred turd that he couldn't see that the words "Muslim" or "Islamic" were NOWHERE on the building??    The point is we don't know (for sure) if he thought these Sikhs were Muslims.   And we can't ask him, because he doesn't exist anymore. Because he was shot dead.   Maybe the FBI will turn up some clues.  The point is, for sure, though, that he was a racist and didn't exactly like Asians or Easterns or non-European types.  (Being part of a racist group.) So it was based on hate or bias, logically.   He didn't shoot up random people in a theatre, of different races, colors, and ethnicities, you notice.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sikhs follow customary practise of wearing holy turban and have long beard. This is the main reason why people often confuse them with Muslims. Post 9/11, Sikhs were targeted mistakenly for their resemblance to Afghan Taliban. That is why, even after this accident, media and editorials are flooded with articles on Sikhism, hat crimes against Sikhs after 9/11 and the difference between these two religions. Regards,   theTigerKing    15:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm FULLY aware of all of that. I knew that just weeks after 9/11.   I watch news, and that was reported a few times.  And I know this now too.   That Sikhs have been idiotically sloppily mistaken for "Muslims" because of the turban and beards and Asian type or "Arab" type look etc.  (Even though, most Muslims actually DON'T wear turbans, ironically.)  My point is that, as I said, this nut PROBABLY thought they were Muslims, because he's obviously stupid to begin with.  But we don't know 1000000% for sure, as the other editor said.  It's conjecture, though based on some logical inference true.   But even so, the temple clearly says "Sikh" on it.  Did this moron not see that?  But again, he was a white supremacist, and was obviously against ANY darker-skinned foreigners.  So who really knows.  But the article should be careful not to state it dogmatically for sure, but rather word it that it's "surmised" or "speculated" by authorities at this point that so and so may have mistakenly believed so and so. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly agreed with you. Could be suitably sentenced. Regards,   theTigerKing    15:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All too true, but all reflect one key missing viewpoint. His white supremacist views. ANYONE with dark skin was "subject", hence to be attacked. Add in ANY religious difference than Christianity, he may well attack. But, that is a bit of OR and theory. As there are no AUTHORITIES on record, it remains to be undocumented, as citation is lacking.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First line
Please mention in the first line the title of the article. The purpose of having title is defeated otherwise. Reframing the sentence in no way changes the context of the article. Regards,  theTigerKing    19:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It just needs to be in actual sentence English. I added a "the" to the front of it and it works. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. The style guidelines and common format as used on other articles are clear. The bolded title should not be included. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try the version I just put in, which just has On August 5, 2012, a mass shooting took place at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. in the first sentence, as opposed to the version which started with the lone gunman opening fire. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article shouldn't start with "On..." Regards,   theTigerKing    19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Per what? It reads fine to me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to fit WP:LEADSENTENCE. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jorgath entirely, and there is no problem with starting a sentence with a prepositional phrase. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations all around!
I have to say, this is one of the best collaborations I have been a part of at Wikipedia. The standards and progress for this article (on the worst of subjects, of course) have been of the highest caliber. μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. Even edits to my own copy made sense once explained, and I agreed with them. Well done, all. --Nrehnby (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, as someone who's occasionally been frustrated when editing breaking news articles. (Primarily if there are editors who aren't cooperative in trying to resolve any contention, which we seem to have basically none of here!) It's nice to see good, reasoned edits, with any contention actually discussed. (Even if a bit pointed at times, at least from me. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He killed himself
See this article, he shot himself in the head after police officers shot him in the stomach. FBI now says the cause of death was his own bullet in the head. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The source suggests the cause of death being self-inflicted is unclear, as it was a combination of the two. Or was it? He was shot by police, he was possibly fatally wounded, then he gave himself another fatal wound in the head. I've changed the cause of death to gunshot wounds, as this seems the least ambiguous. Otherwise I think you really need to cram something like "self-inflicted gunshot after being shot by police", which is a bit too convoluted... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Without further sourcing, it is hard to say. Lee Harvey Oswald died after a single shot in the abdomen, but it is unclear whether the wound to Page's stomach would have proved fatal. The self-inflicted head wound would very likely have proved fatal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just sum this up (for here, not for article space) like this: A single shot to the abdomen can kill someone. A single shot to the head does (usually) kill someone. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Tattoo
There is a lot of discussion over the media reports saying that Wade Page had a "9/11" tattoo, while others claim it was an 838 tattoo. BrotherSulayman (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The article currently does not say anything about his tattoos, although they have caused a good deal of media coverage. Although they tend to confirm his links to white supremacist organizations, it is unclear whether they had any bearing on the shooting.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they can't go in the Perpetrator section. We can simply comment on them, and not draw conclusions, as we do with other material there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This was added, because the gun shop owner commented that Page had no objectionable tattoos visible when he purchased the gun. It has also received enough media coverage to be notable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Photograph Question
Why is there a photo for the Wade Page article but there no photograph for the James Holmes article? These events occured 15 days apart and one has a photo of the perp and one doesn't, what is the reason for this? Seems like there should be a policy of either posting a photo of the perpetrator or having none. Personally I think there should be none. Kardthrow (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * James Holmes is still alive, so a photo can be produced of him, thus making "fair use" on any random photo much harder. The current photo of Wade Page is unique in that he's...dead, so a new photo can't be taken. Using a mugshot via a news site might still be a copyright violation, but I see no reason to contest that given his status as dead; but someone can feel free to do so if the license is indeed an issue there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I uploaded this one. Doing the work is a pain in the ass, which is why I assume no one did it before I did.  In this case we are fortunate than no trial and execution will be necessary, so yes, 2001's explanation is the basic one.  If there's an arraignment photo for the Colorado killer it may still be admissible if the arresting authority doesn't copyright their mugshots.  And a fair-use case can be made that a picture of his died hair is illustrative and irreplaceable.  Take it up on the talk page for that article. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Additions + Expansion + Corrections

 * Can we include the fact that the Lok Sabha was adjourned today for the entire day when the issue was brought to the light in the parliament.


 * Can the lead section be expanded to include the reactions.


 * Three people were injured and not four.


 * Can we include the details of Murphy attending the victims and asking for help despite being shot many times.


 * Can we move the 10000 reward in the reactions section and change the heading name of reactions to response.

Regards,  theTigerKing    15:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we include the comments of Indian ambassador to USA who called them an isolated event.

Giani Gurbachan Singh
Giani Gurbachan Singh, is the chief priest of the Harmindar Sahib, also known as The Golden Temple, which is the holiest shrine of Sikhs, in India. The text has been copied from the reference mentioned in the article. But, the editor who has placed the fact tag hasn't bothered to go through the article. Regards,  theTigerKing   15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So it does. I doubled up the ref, so that it appears both where the fact tag had been and at the end of the sentence. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding Up
Things are adding up: the shooter recently broke up with his girlfriend Misty Cook; he lost his job as a truck driver; lost his VA home; got kicked out of the Army...and with his white supremicist beliefs he was a powder keg waiting to explode. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:9559:4996:19EE:A44D (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Source please, or we'll have to remove this comment per WP:BDP. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2001db8 has provided the source at, so we're good. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, per my comment below, we can't say that he lost his job for drinking. He was issued a citation for refusing to take a test after being pulled over in his own vehicle, and fired for that, and we can't speculate on the reason unless it's sourced. There's a good chance that it was for drinking, but the refs don't back it up. That SHOULD be removed from the talk page per BDP as noted, so I removed "for drinking" from the original comment. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding it up, there are no reliable sources that give reliable citations for any assumptions. Lacking the citations or facts, the first three letters apply to assumption in any encyclopedic source, such as Wikipedia. Such would be equal to the Hitler having syphilis theory. With even LESS facts available.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation overkill
There's a citation overkill in the introduction.

"He was shot by another officer, then fatally shot himself in the head.[5][6][7][8][9][10]"

Can anyone please fix this? Thank you! :) ComputerJA (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added more refs as requested, so we have: "[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]". (Just kidding; I pruned it down to the better refs. Could perhaps use more pruning in the lead, but I don't feel like moving refs around.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 09:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the chuckle and pruning. In this subject, one needs a bit of humor to check the horror.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nationality
I am removing the identification of nationality as American in the infobox for the murder-suicide. He is no way any more "American" than, say. the victims. A comment on ethnicity is likewise unnecessary. We have his picture and his self-identification is in the article. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, he is "more American" than four of the victims, who were Indian nationals. WWGB (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you are just clarifying, and not arguing that those four were his 'real' targets, him not having an issue with those who had secured citizenship? I can see clarifying his nationality had he snuck across the boarder like the Mumbai attackers. But in this case it seems grossly inappropriate and implies a comparison that plays into a racist 'narrative'. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. What should be in there is his birthplace, if we have it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply saying that he was American does NOT imply that the others he shot weren't necessarily. Not sure why you're seeing it that way.  Wikipedia is not the place to hide or suppress facts, simply because YOU might think there's a "playing into racist narratives", even though it really isn't.  It's just a neutral reporting of what his nationality was...not necessarily his racial ethnicity...   Meaning that this was not some Norwegian visitor to America that shot up the place. Saying his birthplace or nationality is "American" is just NPOV stating of what is.  No "implications" of racist anything need be seen in that.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is in no way suppressed or hidden. The question is whether it is of appropriate weight to be featured in the info box. Specifying that bit of information while omitting others is an editorial choice that does imply a certain emphasis that is odd in this case.  You might look at the Jeffrey Dahmer, Miami zombie, 2012 Aurora shooting and 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt articles, for example, none of which gives the nationality of the suspect in the info box.  As a side comment, you can put double apostrophes around words you want to emphasize with italics rather than using all caps. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But even having it in the info box does not seem like such a big problem or what you were saying "playing into a racist narrative". That was a bit of an over-reaction or over-statement.   To me personally, it can go either way.  Not a big deal really.  As far as caps versus italics, yeah, I know.  (You assumed I didn't.)  And I do use italics too sometimes.   But all caps (only for ISOLATED words, oh, I just did it again), is not necessarily "shouting", if it's just a word or two in isolation, in case that's what you're implying.   All caps is really "shouting" if it's whole sentences, or long phrases.  Not an isolated word or two.   The reason I use all caps sometimes for one or two words is to give an extra emphasis (but still not quite shouting).  Anyway, as I said, I agree that the info box does NOT NEED to have "American" in it, but I don't agree that if it does have it, it feeds into racist agendas or whatever, necessarily.   That's all I was saying.   Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)