Talk:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting/Archive 2

Archiving
Since we are well over 75k, with 40 sections on this page, I think it is time to start archiving those sections that have been inactive for the past several days. We could turn on ClueBot III for automated archival of threads more than, say, 72 hours old. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 18:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do it with MiszaBot II. I'll actually set it to 5 days, but feel free to tweak the parameters and add DNAU tags as you see fit. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good enough, I just added an archive box so those old threads can be found somewhere, just so we can point to archived threads rather than retreading the same ground.Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 03:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: moved by. FWIW, I agree with his assessment of the consensus and I would also add that the consensus is for the lowercased "temple". Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Oak Creek shooting → 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting – The current name is misleading. Consensus is generally strong that it should be moved, but in question is where it should be moved to. The above appears to have the most consensus, but on a potentially high-profile article I want to make sure consensus is clear before a move happens. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Move . Name does need to change.  This seems to have the most agreement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move - the title that includes Sikh temple helps people find it easier and gives a better understanding of it. -- Activism  1234  23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move (at some point) - Agree that including "Sikh temple" makes it clearer what the article is about. I'm happy with either "2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting" or "2012 Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting". But again, I'm not sure it's worth the effort and possible devolvement into move protection to bother moving it right now, when the current name is reasonably clear and the details are still unfolding. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It's already move-protected. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retain.  is the standard format for such article, for example, 2012 Aurora shooting. WWGB (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many others call the other shooting the Aurora shooting. Nobody except Wikipedia calls this the Oak Creek shooting; there is always either Sikh Temple or Wisconsin or both added. Check with a Google search. Wikipedia shouldn't create something new. Churn and change (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Move - The current wording for the name of the article is a bit awkward, and not very clear. It should be "Oak Creek Sikh Temple shooting" (or maybe even "Wisconsin 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.  The move and change and modification to article name should happen.  Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Move. The first time I looked at this title, I thought "where the hell is Oak Creek?". The state name needs to be somewhere in the title. Thechased (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Many readers may be moved to think "where the hell is Winconsin"! WWGB (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not nearly as much as with "Oak Creek". The fact is that way more people are familiar (in and out of the United States) with the "Wisconsin" than they are with "Oak Creek", and which specific "Oak Creek" it is.  Wisconsin is clearer...and more familiar to people, overall, in general.  That's just a fact.  But even aside from that, the name of article should have the words "Sikh Temple" in it, to make it clear that it was not a random shooting in just any old random public place, but was more specific to Sikh religion and temple. That's MY main point and crux here. And seems to be the general consensus also so far in this section. Jots and graphs (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Move -- The title should include Sikh Temple and although Oak Creek is the proper place, there are other towns named Oak Creek. I think "2012 Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting" is best, and note the capital "T" in Temple as the actual name of the temple is "Sikh Temple." 70.36.137.11 (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move I'm happy to go along with "2012 Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting" as it gives the year and location, which is standard Wikipedia practice. Also agree that it should be "Sikh Temple" (both in capitals) as this is the correct name of the building.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Move Everyone is calling it the Sikh Temple shooting. WP:COMMONNAME. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Move Most news sources are referring to it as Wisconsin Sikh Temple shootings. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move I believe enough support is there for the redirection. Regards,   theTigerKing    15:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retain per WWGB. It is not the place of Wikipedia to make up names or endorse names that have not become the popular name. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agreed with your point, but the fact is no one is calling it oak creek shooting. Regards,   theTigerKing    18:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is an argument for nutrality.

"Move." It should be renamed. The Sikh temple aspect is a crucial public identifier. --(User:Toughasbrads)
 * Move Appears to be Common name. 2012 Oak Creek shooting doesn't adequately identify this article's scope. Ryan Vesey 20:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move WP should follow the lead of the secondary sources. Per a Google search, no one else calls this the "2012 Oak Creek shooting." Voting for "2012 Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting".Churn and change (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move The media is calling him Sikh Temple shooting. Move it!!! -- Camilo S&aacute;nchez Talk to me 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I support moving to "2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting", not "2012 Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting" with the capital T. The temple is called the "Sikh Temple of Wisconsin", so the name is incorrect. Also, we're describing a shooting at a Sikh temple that is in Wisconsin; capitalizing it is less of a description of that, and instead more like us naming the incident or naming the temple. Thus, it should be "temple." This is also what seems to be used extensively in the media, except when referring to the full "Sikh Temple of Wisconsin" name; otherwise it's "Sikh temple" in most reports. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move: Current title will not allow one to find the article via search unless they know the name of the specific town, which is not well-known.--Chimino (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most common titles ("2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting", just plain "Sikh temple shooting", etc) redirect here. Even a search for something more vague like "wisconsin temple shooting" (which certainly isn't worthy of a redirect) still brings it up as the first result, with the blurb noting it was at a Sikh temple etc (and likely matching Sikh in the listed redirect if that's what was searched for.) So I don't imagine people are having THAT much trouble finding it, although the name in the results could be clearer. It does need to change, but I don't see the name causing any major inability to find the article for now. I suppose it is a bit harder to find via a regular search engine though. (But Googling "wikipedia wisconsin temple shooting" still brings it up. I imagine Google ranks for the page will go up if the name is changed as proposed, which I guess does provide another reason to change the name, so random people searching for information see the Wikipedia result more often.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 22:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That's why I'm perfectly content to let it run the seven days of a RM without an immediate change. But long-term, it needs to change. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move: The temple itself was called "Sikh Temple of Wisconsin", http://www.sikhtempleofwisconsin.com/ so the suggested title change sounds very genuine to me werldwayd (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move, in due time. It is not a priority as all the redirects are in place, but this was an attack against the Sikh, not a random shooting like Aurora, so it should be in the title. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move with "temple" in lowercase, per 2001:db8 and WP:UCN and recognisability. GotR Talk 01:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Move there seems to be too much concentration on inter article consistency sometimes even tho this has never been a big consideration on Wikipedia particularly in case of fairly dissimilar stuff and some cases like here seems in clear opposition to COMMONNAME. As others have said, this is nearly universally identified as the Sikh temple shooting in the US or Wisconsin Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Planning to drop the date Whenever I close this discussion, I plan to drop the date from the title. Thus the title will become Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (or  T emple shooting). This is in accordance with Naming_conventions_(events), which indicates the date is unnecessary when the place and the event are sufficient to identify. A quick search reveals that there is no other Sikh temple shooting that people are likely to search for, at least in Wisconsin. Therefore the date is unnecessary and, according to the guideline, should be dropped.--Chaser (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral on this; either way seems fine to me, as far as the date goes, though I still maintain "temple" should remain in lowercase, per reasons stated above. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

reference to one of the victim's being an assistant priest
According the the page on Sikhism, there are no priests.

Priestly class: Sikhism does not have priests, they were abolished by Guru Gobind Singh (the 10th Guru of Sikhism).[51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.153.9 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a better source to clarify for those not completely familiar with the religion? Another Wikipedia article isn't a good ref, since "priest" may just be a standard English usage of whatever the actual term is for a temple leader, or whatnot. "Priest" came from the sources used, so that points to it being adopted English usage, just as we call a gurdwara a "Sikh temple" as common usage. "Priest" is used as a generic English term to refer to many types of religious leaders, and it does seem to have been used by witnesses and in later reports. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Sikhism does not have priests, which were abolished by Guru Gobind Singh. The Guru felt that they had become corrupt and full of ego. Sikhs only have custodians of the Guru Granth Sahib (granthi)..."

from http://www.sikhs.org/summary.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.153.9 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply because Sikhism does not have "priests" does not mean that we cannot use various reliable sources that mention "Sikh priests." This is a matter of common English usage, with "priest" being meant in the generic sense of a member of the religious organization. Is that incorrect? The quote doesn't say WHAT "priests" were abolished, nor does the page. If there is a better description for Sikh "priests" than "priest", then feel free to update the article (and the whole article, not just removing "priest" here or there with no backing), with appropriate references. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaleka battled with the Gunman
The Hindu says that Temple founder Sadwant Singh Kaleka battled with the gunman with his Kirpan (short knife) which may have saved lives of women and children. Can this be verified from other sources and added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.231.107 (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we will ever get an unemotional source on this. Sadwant's role was no doubt brave, but it will become folkloric in its retelling. There are already expressions like "heroic battle" and "saved dozens of women, children and other worshippers" which are perhaps embellished. His actions were only seen through the eyes of people who were staring at death, hardly neutral. It should also be noted that the spokeperson is Sadwant's son, who no doubt sees his father as a martyr. WWGB (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Similar claims were made about the role of Jonathan Blunk in the 2012 Aurora shooting. At the moment, these claims are hard to source reliably.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indian ambassador to us, praising his actions and also that of Murphy. Read somewhere, that some FBI officer had also praised him on seeing the bleeding man. Regards,   theTigerKing    16:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Edited later Regarding reference of FBI praising Singh "Your Dad's a hero":

With due respect to all, let's consider a religious leader in their "house of worship" leading anything. They're typically surrounded by worshipers. ESPECIALLY at a communal meal time. Now, consider a knife that can be worn around the neck being used against a strange gunman in that situation. Indeed, consider my foot long combat knife in that situation. One would most likely not reach the gunman in time to even give a scratch. Now, consider what an agent would say to give comfort to survivors. Not denigrating anything, just suggesting that lacking reliable sources that fail to contradict what happened and the laws of physics, one gives the matter due consideration with two grains of salt.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Laws of physics nonwithstanding (which your hypothetical defense may indeed violate), reliable sources alone are an issue. I agree with the suggestions that there are no non-emotional sources on this...perhaps if someone who DID battle the gunman gives an interview or other better account, but not just based on anecdotal evidence. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. It appears that consensus has shown the current title to be sufficiently clear. A different title, such as Wisconsin Sikh temple massacre might have had success--clearly this was a massacre, and a terrible shooting that remains inexplicable. Red Slash 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting → Wisconsin Sikh Massacre – 7 people were killed (and others injured), contradicting the article which previously stated six people died. The title implies that the Sikh temple itself was shot, and that people didn't die. Other articles (ex. the listing of massacres on Wikipedia) clearly identify this as a massacre. I think the current title is trying to minimize the incident and should be changed. 209.153.242.10 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, see Talk:Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting above. Consensus formed around this article name, and it is more descriptive than the proposed name.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as I believe that people generally understand that an article title with a location followed by "shooting" implies that people were shot. bd2412  T 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I disagree with the above two points for the following reasons:


 * 1. Comparable events have been classified as massacres on Wikipedia, such as the Capitol Hill massacre (6 dead), Brown's Chicken massacre (7 dead), Bat Mitzvah massacre (4 dead), Loughinisland massacre (6 dead), the racist Greensboro massacre Greensboro massacre (5 dead), etc. I believe the current title is politically biased and downplays the severity of the event. It is not "more descriptive than the proposed name." On the contrary: calling the article "Wisconsin Sikh massacre" (or something similar) is more descriptive because it tells you that people died. Simply indicating that it's a shooting does not necessarily mean that people died, while a massacre clearly indicates that people died.


 * 2. A "shooting" implies that people may or may not have died (ie. you can be shot and not die). A massacre indicates that people died, which is what happened (7 people died). Again, this downplays the severity of the incident.


 * 3. Concerning the point "I believe.... that an article with a location followed by "shooting" implies that people were shot." The problem is that the name of the Sikh temple is the "Sikh Temple of Wisconsin" not "Wisconsin Sikh temple," which makes the naming of this article ambiguous and bizarre. If Christians were massacred in a church, the church would be named (ex. Saint James Church massacre, 11 dead). The article title makes the location and victims faceless, while other massacre articles rightly name the victims and the location where those people died.


 * 4. I'm a bit concerned about the double standard used in editing this article, and if not resolved, will flag it for POV bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.56.145 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Addendum to above: most major news outlets label this a massacre:
 * ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779
 * CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/opinion/kaleka-sikh-father-killed/
 * Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/10/thousands-to-honor-victims-sikh-temple-shooting-massacre-in-wisconsin/
 * CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sikh-son-first-saw-father-at-dads-wis-funeral-after-massacre/
 * CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/thousands-mourn-sikh-victims-of-wisconsin-massacre-1.1172377
 * etc.


 * Another interesting point, according to ABC/Daily Beast/CBS/etc the act HAS been labelled an act of domestic terrorism:
 * ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-oak-creek-wisconsin-officials-white-supremacist/story?id=16933779
 * The Daily Beast: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/05/wisconsin-shooting-7-dead-at-sikh-temple.html
 * CBS: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/06/prayer-vigils-for-sikh-temple-victims-to-be-held-in-chicago-area/


 * Given that there are (1) ample verifiable references that indicate this is a massacre, and (2) that similar events on Wikipedia have been described as a massacre, and (3) police HAVE labelled this an incident of domestic terrorism (making the above point about "synthesis" irrelevant) this article should be renamed to the "Wisconsin Sikh Massacre" or a similar title. It should also be edited to indicate that this is considered an act of domestic terrorism by law enforcement officials. Whether or not editors believe it is an act of terrorism is another issue (which is actually an example of "synthesis"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.56.145 (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed title is, if anything, more ambiguous than the current one. Is a Sikh massacre one in which Sikhs are the victims or the perpetrators? Is this a massacre involving Wisconsin Sikhs (perhaps traveling somewhere), or was it in Wisconsin? No, the current title is preferable. I'm not necessarily objecting to calling the event a massacre, however, with a title such as Wisconsin Sikh temple massacre. --BDD (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Terrorism or Mass Shooting?
The Sikh temple shooting was the act of a person with a radical ideology asserting the racial superiority of Europeans. That man had a xenophobic attitude toward Indian people and took their lives because of that attitude. This is no shooting; this is terrorism. Wikipedia itself defines it as "the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion." What part of that definition does not accurately describe what happened at the Sikh temple?Ibnsina786 (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The part where reliable sources call it a mass shooting, not terrorism. As such, while it certainly meets the definition of terrorism, calling it that is synthesis, which is against Wikipedia policy. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The police chief was right that Wade Page's exact motive died with him. Although Page was known to have links to far right organizations, it has been suggested that financial problems and losing his job were also factors.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 03:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Change it to a shooting of people in a Church, by a black Muslim supremicist with a tattoo of the Iraqi invasion. Haha. Terrorism is applied eaisly to some things but not others. Yeah we don't know his motive officially, just like we didin't so many others, but if an ISIS member blew up a school well I could probably be safe in guessing it was motivated by extremist views of Islam. Just like a white supremicist, with a tattoo of the 9/11 attacks happens to attack brown skinned people with turbans, often mistaken for the radical muslim sects that did 9/11. Well lets just be honest, regardless of his motivation he went to a temple of people who weren't doing anything and shot at civilians. Women, Children, and men. Similar to some middle eastern children where the same thing happened. Regardless of wether it is a mass shooting or terrorist attack. It is the same in violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120809235839/http://nation.time.com/2012/08/07/relatives-speak-of-those-killed-in-temple-shooting/ to http://nation.time.com/2012/08/07/relatives-speak-of-those-killed-in-temple-shooting/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Terrorist"
Re this edit: if you look closely at the sourcing, what it says is that investigators were treating the attack as "a domestic terrorist-type incident" or similar wording, rather than saying "Wade Page was a terrorist". This runs into problems with WP:OR and WP:TERRORIST. The article already says "Oak Creek police chief John Edwards said his force treated the incident as a "domestic terrorism incident"". Page obviously had links to far right organizations, but as the police chief said, we will never know exactly what went on in his head. I put back the part about him being an army veteran because this is reliably sourced and relevant information. As for Category:United States Domestic Terrorists, this is a red link so there isn't a great deal of point in adding it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Image of Wade Michael Page
The image (File:Wade michael page police handout.png) is used in the article's section about the perpetrator responsible for the shooting. This is not like other images of perpetrators getting deleted, right? When I was reading the article in the Show Preview page, I already understand that the perpetrator was part of the event. Also, I already understand the event without this non-free image by reading the whole article. I can grasp how disturbing the event was without the image of this person. Nevertheless, I suspect that some might disagree and say that the whole headshot appearance (i.e. the mugshot) effectively increases readers' understanding of the event well. But how? Pinging Medeis who uploaded the image. --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the debate for this image, but what is relevant is the state's copyright. Some states copyright their mugshots, others don't.  James Holmes (mass murderer) (Colorado Movie Shooter) picture was released to the press, and we did not delete it. μηδείς (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Medeis. I was asking whether you think removing would affect this article and the readers' understanding of the article subject, the shooting itself. The image is used in the non-biographical article, so I wonder how readers find the image of the person significant to the shooting. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * George Ho seems to have an ongoing crusade to remove perp photos from articles. As with other debates where this has happened, my view is that the photo is not absolutely necessary, but I'm not going to rush to delete it by using WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm... not exactly. Not all perp photos are non-free. An image of Omar Mateen is free to use because the Florida government made it public domain, so the "2016 Orlando nightclub shooting" includes the image. On the other hand, I tried to insert the free image of Christina Grimmie's killer, but the consensus went against it. --George Ho (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only issue for me is whether the image is free; otherwise it should be kept. A picture is worth a thousand words.  The fact that an abstract 'understanding' is possible does not negate the illustrative value of the image.  Think of the curious reader.  Pardon my French, but are we going to tell him, "Eff you, use Google Image" when there's no reason we can't post it here? This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, not an expurgated reader's digest. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Either I can take this image to the FFD, or we can have a central discussion, i.e. RfC, about perp photos before doing the FFD. Pinging Medeis and Ianmacm about this. --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you file an RfC, please ping me. At this point I think I have expressed myself fully. Thanks for notifying me in the first place. μηδείς (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I read sources saying that FBI handed out the photo. But then this sources credits the police department of Oak Creek, Wisconsin... or maybe it was that of Oak Creek, Colorado. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your third source published in Denver has a second picture "credited" to Getty, but with no copyright given. This article on the abuse of NC mugshots by publishers who basically blackmail people whose photos have been published to remove them from their website says that NC mugshots are indeed in the public domain, but that people whose charges are dropped or who are found not guilty have been permanently stigmatized.  In this case, even if we doubt the free status of the Colorado mugshot, the NC nugshot in your source is free, and their is no controversy over his guilt, and the dead have no reputational rights under common law.  I would therefore have no objection to replacing the CO picture with the one from NC, assuming we are unsure of CO law regarding mugshots. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not an expert on US copyright law, the default position on Wikipedia is to assume that police department mugshot photos taken in the US are copyrighted unless specifically stated otherwise. Useful source here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an expert to understand the basics, which I do know. You can read our copyright policy and our law articles. In general, federal documents are public domain, while copyright status of local documents varies state by state, or municipality.  In NC, the article I linked to above, says lawmakers admit "They go out and publish your picture – which is public record and that's OK" but find it leads to abuses they want to correct: NC Mugshots.  So, as I said, we can always use the NC mugshot instead of the CO one in this case, but there's no general reason we should not use a mugshot of a dead perpetrator in this article. μηδείς (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Medeis and Ianmacm, I have taken the image to Files for discussion/2017 August 19. Let's comment there. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: the image is deleted (well, it was deleted but then undeleted but then re-deleted) per. George Ho (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

a problem with the infobox
So, I don't know if the problem is with the size of my phone screen, but the text wrap isn't working correctly on my phone. The map size is a little too small for the infobox and this causes some the text below the map ("show map of") to be displayed on the left side of the map, and the rest of the text ("Wisconsin" and "show map of United States", "show both"). I tried fixing it but the preview doesn't work correctly in this case and I don't want to overwhelm someone's watchlist. TryKid (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is a screenshot of how it appears on my phone. Sure enough, some of the text is on the left. Since I rarely look at or edit Wikipedia articles on a phone screen, it is hard to know what to suggest here. The formatting works OK on my laptop.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2021

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting → Oak Creek gurdwara shooting – The current title is too vague and implies the shooting took place in a Sikh temple located somewhere in Wisconsin. "Oak Creek" is more specific, plus it aligns with other articles about mass shootings at places of worship, e.g. Charleston church shooting, Christchurch mosque shootings, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, etc. As for gurdwara, it's the official term used for Sikh temples, for those of you who don't know. Love of Corey (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I'm not a great fan of this proposed change. Unfortunately gurdwara is not a common English word, so it would be better to have something like "Oak Creek Sikh temple shooting".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SUpport per nom and consice—blindlynx (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as the headlines in the article's references show a clear preference for "Wisconsin" (35 mentions) over "Oak Creek" (14 mentions) and "Sikh temple" (35 mentions) over "gurdwara" (3 mentions, all by The Times of India). The full phrase "Oak Creek gurdwara shooting" does not appear in any headlines, whereas "Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting" appears 2 times, "Sikh temple shooting" appears 14 times, and "Wisconsin temple shooting" appears 9 times. Rublov (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The same thing with references applies to Sutherland Springs church shooting, yet here we are with that title. Love of Corey (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, "Oak Creek" at minimum. Using Wisconsin is much too vague. JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 13:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Supportish - I agree with what everyone has said. However, I think the title should be changed.  Oak Creek should be included.  I would like gurudwara to be in it, but i think it might be stretching it for much of the anglophony. --awkwafaba (📥) 23:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Google seems to show "Sikh temple" as much more common than "gurdwara" when searching this topic. 162 etc. (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not appear to be the case —blindlynx (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, "Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting" pulls 10x more hits than "Wisconsin Gurdwara shooting". Top 3 results in my case are the New York Times, NPR, and Toronto Star, whose headlines use "Wisconsin Sikh temple".  162 etc. (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oh i see—blindlynx (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment - Any update as to the status of this rename discussion? Love of Corey (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Make the prepator section an article
Make the prepator section an article, And give details too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruhOfficial (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The perpetrators of mass shootings generally don't need their own articles. The article would have to be significantly longer and more detailed to be worthwhile. Not much is known about Wade Page beyond the fact that he was something of a loner and had links to far right organizations.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)