Talk:At least 50 dead in shooting at Florida nightclub

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to go ahead and make edits. I outlined the article and got some basic structure started. I want to make sure to hit the main points:

  • largest mass shooting
  • Is it terrorism? Ties to terrorism
  • Was the target ANY nightclub, or did the shooter specifically want to shoot up a gay club?
  • some quotes from witnesses, police chief, anything else that's relevant

Thanks for your contribution Bman214 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)bman214

Review of revision 4223412 [Passed][edit]

Urgent-ish According to some reports (need to confirm sources), Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah. All three of those hate each other. It is likely that he was closet gay and his religion conflicted with that. He was apparently a regular and had gay dating accounts. (Again, need to confirm sources)

I feel that it is wrong to just say that he pledged to ISIS. The other pledges show that this is a different situation than a "standard" ISIS attack. It would be wrong to paint it as such.

If nobody makes the edit I will be submitting one soon.

2600:1015:B021:F27B:DC0E:9147:82AC:33A5 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Bman214

@2600:1015:B021:F27B:DC0E:9147:82AC:33A5: A news article is a snapshot in time. This article was published more than 24 hours ago, so if there's new information you'd need to submit a new article. --Pi zero (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

{{|flag}}

Sorry I don't know how to use this, but this was NOT the largest mass shooting in U.S. history http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-worst-mass-shooting-in-us-history-was-not-in-orlando Kmgordon627 (talk)kmgordon627

@Kmgordon627: If it wasn't then we need to issue a {{correction}}. I should have been more careful in reviewing, to qualify the statement as "reportedly" or some such.

Atm, theough, I'm having trouble accessing the page you've linked. --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I would suggest adding "largest mass shooting by a single gunmen" (as used in WP) or "in modern times" (which was used in the NBC News article). – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 14:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, ping won't work for Mac address and IPs...
acagastya 15:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kmgordon627: I would argue that what you linked is not a "mass shooting" in the traditional sense. It's an atrocity committed by the US military. I agree that it is definitely worse, but it isn't a mass shooting. By that logic, the largest mass shooting in American history should be some part of the civil war. The Battle of Antietam? Bman214 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)bman214
Seems to depend whether you allow multi-day battles; Gettysburg took three days. --Pi zero (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The difficulty of this case, I suggest, is not accuracy but neutrality. It seems as if pretty much everyone understands what was written, but some people feel that some other category of incidents is more important than the one the article is talking about. So our statement is interpreted, not entirely without justification, as having an implicit value judgement in it. The question is then whether that rises to the level of a {{correction}} notice. --Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has offered anything new on this discussion in some time. Afaics, everyone understands what the words written actually mean; and, because objections to the wording are themselves motivated by one or another ideological agenda, a {{correction}} might be more biased that what it seeks to unbias. So I'm leaving this as-is and deflagging. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Mass Killing in US History[edit]

Sir: The WACO MASSACRE were 78 MURDERED, which included men, women, and children. Are you perhaps disregarding this because it was government forces that were the perpetrators? Or , I hope, you are just repeating what other "news" sources are stating, a bald faced lie, as fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.186.194.3 (talkcontribs) 09:14, 16 June 2016

First, please note there is already a discussion of this very question directly above where you started a new section.

Second, calling it a "bald faced lie" is a groundless accusation since there is no plausible evidence of intent to deceive.

Third, even if you count atrocities by multiple perpetrators and exclude pitched battles, Waco was nowhere near the largest in US history. The Wounded Knee Massacre killed roughly two to four times as many people. If you don't exclude pitched battles — and it's not altogether clear why an atrocity by two groups of people would be any less atrocious — then the worst would be either the Battle of Antietam (single day) or the Battle of Gettysburg (multi-day). --Pi zero (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 : Yay somebody agrees with me. An atrocity and a mass shooting are two different categories. Thanks Pi Zero --Bman214 (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)bman214

Weapon[edit]

Dear Sir, You are incorrect on the style of rifle used in this tragedy. It was not automatic as those have been banned in the USA since 1986. It was a semi automatic Sig Sauer MCX also know as the Black Mamba in special forces circles. It was designed for special forces operatives and then released to the public as a semi automatic. It can be customized to used nato rounds but it has been confirmed that the shooter used .223 rounds.

A Miles

http://www.sigevolution.com/sigmcx https://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AMiles76 (talkcontribs) 13:30, 16 June 2016‎

Our article does not say it was an automatic weapon. Our article says according to one account it was an automatic weapon. Our statement would only be incorrect if there was no such account. --Pi zero (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Could this have been missed during review or has the sources been updated? None of them say the weapon was automatic. One says it was semi-automatic. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 14:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Not missed as such, no. At the time of review, as I recall, one of the sources said that someone had said he had an automatic weapon; I was skeptical that it was actually automatic, which is why I introduced wording to attribute the claim, in this edit. In retrospect I'd like to have made the attribution more prominent, but it is there. As of now, none of the sources mention that anyone said there was an automatic weapon, but that's probably because the mainstream news media routinely "updates" their articles in a way that not only adds information but also erases information. --Pi zero (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for having my back. The original sources did say he used an automatic weapon. Of course, I know automatic weapons are illegal. That's why I mentioned it. I felt that, if it was true he used a full-auto rifle, it was certainly significant. The edit you made was appropriate. However, I could see editing that sentence to include "but the weapon he used was actually a semi-automatic rifle." or something similar. --Bman214 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)bman214
@Bman214: If it were still within 24 hours after publication, information of that sort — preferably attributed to who said it, "police" or whoever — would be a good addition. Since it's been longer than 24 hours, though, the archive policy has kicked in. --Pi zero (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)