Jump to content

Talk:Congressional baseball shooting: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Not A Terrorist Attack: IMHO notability is no longer a question
Main Page: new section
Line 60: Line 60:
The background section is not giving a background for the shooting. In fact, both sections tell the same story. It would be smarter to have a shooting section and doing the background for the shooting when we actually know anything about the background. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rævhuld|Rævhuld]] ([[User talk:Rævhuld#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rævhuld|contribs]]) 13:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The background section is not giving a background for the shooting. In fact, both sections tell the same story. It would be smarter to have a shooting section and doing the background for the shooting when we actually know anything about the background. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rævhuld|Rævhuld]] ([[User talk:Rævhuld#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rævhuld|contribs]]) 13:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*I added more about the game. [[User:Wikimandia|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Мандичка'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Wikimandia|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]</sup> 😜 13:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
*I added more about the game. [[User:Wikimandia|<font color="#0066cc">—'''''Мандичка'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Wikimandia|<font color="#6600cc">'''''YO'''''</font>]]</sup> 😜 13:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

== Main Page ==

Add a link to this article on the Main Page. I added {{main page}} to the article.--[[User:Covfefe user|Covfefe user]] ([[User talk:Covfefe user|talk]]) 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:07, 14 June 2017

Title

Thanks for making this so quickly - it's a shooting, shouldn't it be called "shooting" and not "attack"? Thanks! МандичкаYO 😜 12:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is already calling it an attack. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]
@Wikimandia and Emigdioofmiami: - The title will almost certainly change. It may be too soon for a common name to have been established.
In the interim, it may be worth considering some other titles, as the current one seems little clunky. Perhaps "2017 Congressional Baseball shooting" or "Eugene Simpson stadium shooting"? NickCT (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would say the 2017 Congressional Baseball shooting. That's what I looked for when I was trying to find the article earlier. Virginia attack is too generic. МандичкаYO 😜 13:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No argument here go ahead and be WP:BOLD =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "2017 Congressional Baseball shooting" for now... the current title ("June 2017 Virginia attack") is too generic. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely mention Baseball. Currently too vague, I agree. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving! Congressional Baseball Game is the very accurate name of the game so it works well МандичкаYO 😜 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not A Terrorist Attack

As of now, there is no evidence of a motive nor any link to a terrorist group and no media is speculating on any connection to terrorism even though the possibility is obvious. If there was a category for incidents which look like but lack evidence to declare obvious terrorist attacks with a high powered rifle mass shooting, it would qualify. Usually in cases like this expect calls to delete the article as not notable or not news. Bachcell (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A member of Congress has been shot, what wouldn't be notable about that and it's after effects? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A congressman was shot. That makes it WP:NOTE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talkcontribs) 12:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He asked if republicans were on the field, sounds politically motivated based on that. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/14/rep-ron-desantis-shooting-man-asked-if-republicans/
It could be the case, but I would hold off until it is confirmed as the motive. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that is the shooter. He said he wasn't sure. They practice there and are known in the neighborhood bc people walking their dogs etc come to watch - it could be anyone just curious which team was practicing that day. МандичкаYO 😜 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because multiple congressmen were shot. Terrorism or not, it involved high ranking government officials being shot in the United States. As notable as any article we have. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others. This is hugely notable. 10-minute shootout with guy opening fire on 25 Congressman, third-ranked GOP guy shot. Very notable. МандичкаYO 😜 13:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, this is a domestic terror attack. With reports coming out that the gunmen was asking whether people were Republicans or Democrats this seems very politically motivated. Gamermadness (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO notability is no longer a question, but the issue of whether it is a terror attack will be settled when the media (1) report the motivation of the shooter and (2) call it a terror attack. Right now the intro graf has thre refs that backstop the claim that "the motive is currently unknown" and I don't see any refs saying "this was a terror attack." Further, I think the current title is ok as it is, and if there is a media discussion of whether it is a terror attack or not, we can add a section called "Allegations of Terrorism" or something like that. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the references in the summary

It's Wikipedia policy to remove all references from the summary. All the references should be in the main text. The summary should only sum up the article. I tried to include to include the references into the text and remove it from the summary, but a user undid it.

I'm not sure of policy, but most all articles I have seen have refs in the summary. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't policy but when it comes to WP:GA or WP:FA status it is preferred. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO references in the intro graf are appropriate for emerging details of a rapidly developing event and/or for controversial points. Agree that in general refs should me minimized but not neccessarily eliminated. Peace, MPS (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background and shooting

The background section is not giving a background for the shooting. In fact, both sections tell the same story. It would be smarter to have a shooting section and doing the background for the shooting when we actually know anything about the background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rævhuld (talkcontribs) 13:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

Add a link to this article on the Main Page. I added Error: no page names specified (help). to the article.--Covfefe user (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]