Talk:2017 Olathe shooting

Suspect and victim information

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. The suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Private people's names must remain private, until convicted. The victim's names should not be written here per the same policy. Please read WP:BLP.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redhat101: I'm pinging you here, because this is the appropriate place to have discussion, as noted in my previous edit summary that I was creating this section. To answer what you said on the admin's user talk page, the reaction stuff was removed because it was WP:UNDUE. The names were removed due to WP:BLPCRIME and we should obviously not be listing the names of victims in the article. Private people should remain private. Also, as far as other articles go, WP:OSE. Just because an article has or doesn't have something, doesn't mean it is in line with Wikipedia policy. Regardless of the use of the suspect's name, the edits you are trying to restore state that the suspect committed the crimes, and assume his guilt. We cannot edit like this.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It was a fair and balanced summery of reactions from appropriate government organizations, prominent people and was directly related to the incident so i don't think it'll be a WP:UNDUE, and you esp removed the comments related to Trump administration. as for WP:BLPCRIME, read the guideline it suggest name should only be removed--"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed."--One victim was deceased so it'll not apply to him and i further removed the section which listed the names of family members, but anyways thanks to your reckless mass removal without discussion, page is locked.Redhat101 (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as WP:BLPCRIME goes, you are wrong. The suspect has not been convicted of a crime, and should not be included. Per WP:BLPCRIME:

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured.

and talking into account this, per WP:BLP:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

it is quite clear that Wikipedia is concerned with the privacy of a person's name, especially when they have not been convicted of a crime. You are restoring edits that say:

On February 22, 2017, an Indian engineer was shot dead and another was injured when Adam W. Purinton, a white American who mistook them for people from the Middle East, yelled "get out of my country" and "terrorist" before shooting them at the Austins Bar & Grill in Olathe, Kansas.

Not only should we not use the suspect's name, as he has yet to be convicted of a crime, and was an unknown person before this crime was committed, but we should definitely not state that he committed the crime, as though he has been convicted, before it is even brought to trial.

As far as the reactions section goes, the criticism of Trump stuff is definitely WP:UNDUE here. This information would not be UNDUE on Presidency of Donald Trump, so please feel free to take that information there. This is an article about this shooting, not about what some reporter thinks about Trump. Trump condemning the incident should be a reaction, as most articles that have these sort of reactions sections use the official statements released by governments and organizations in relation to the incident in question. Not everyone's reaction is relevant, Garmin's reaction is relevant, the Governor of Kansas' reaction is relevant, the President of the United States' reaction is relevant, etc.

As far as the victim's names go, we should not include them as per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. As for the deceased victim, it is not against Wikipedia policy, and was removed because of the convoluted nature of the edits you were making. This issue should have been brought to the talk page and discussed, rather than you reverting and running to the admins to get a page edit protected, when you have no actual basis for doing so. Your edits are a BLATANT violation of WP:BLPCRIME, yet you stated they are not, please actually read this policy and WP:BLP and you will understand why you were reverted.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Hey can someone restore the changes I made to the map here. They weren't controversial in any way but got reverted due to the chaos in editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalthebest (talk • contribs)

@Kamalthebest:I had re-added it after the clearly disruptive edits were reverted, but no, now they cannot be re-added for the time being. Only admins can edit the article at this point, because Redhat tried to "report" his violations to Wikipedia policy being reverted, and an admin took him seriously, rather than handing Redhat a temporary block for disruptive editing. You can add it back when the edit protection expires next week.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Brave, coming from a guy who edited out Vandalized an entire article without a singe discussion just cause it contained comments related to Mr.President. Redhat101 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Garmin's reaction is relevant, the Governor of Kansas' reaction is relevant, the President of the United States' reaction is relevant, etc.

Do you even read what you write, It contained a comment from POTUS and Yet you removed that section.

And was removed because of the convoluted nature of the edits you were making.

I wasn't making some new edits it was the previous long standing version which i was trying to restore, you can check the history of that page, it was created by me and I contributed lot of content on it. as for WP:LPNAME again its clear in the guideline that name should not be included if they're 'not widely discussed in mainstream media.' which isn't the case with Olathe incident.Redhat101 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redhat101: Do not accuse me of vandalism again. Nothing I, nor anyone else who removed content that violates Wikipedia policy, did is even remotely construed as vandalism. Also, stop twisting words. I reverted your edits, because of the massive amount of things you had reverted, and I was in the process of re-adding things that were relevant and not WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, etc, when you went and made wild claims of edit warring, before you even attempted to respond to the section I created on this very talk page about the issues, which I said I was doing in my edit summary, so don't you dare accuse me of, "Vandalized an entire article without a singe discussion just cause it contained comments related to Mr.President." when you're the one who made absolutely no attempt at discussion, and unjustly accuse me of making edits to benefit a president. I am only editing to cleanup Wikipedia policy violations, as you can clearly see in my edit history throughout Wikipedia. You don't know my personal views, and you should definitely not assume I edit because of or in spite of my views. You got the article edit blocked, and then complained that you didn't get the version you wanted restored, clearly attempting to use administrative sanctions to enforce your views of this article, which is rather frightening. You also claimed that there was no WP:BLPCRIME violation when you restored and edit that says, " when Adam W. Purinton, a white American who mistook them for people from the Middle East, yelled "get out of my country" and "terrorist" before shooting them at the Austins Bar & Grill in Olathe, Kansas." Are you kidding me? That is the most blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME I have ever seen. I am beginning to believe this really is a case of WP:CIR.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redhat101: @MordeKyle: please no drama The question is whether adding the (suspected) perpetrator's name to the article is against WP policy. As discussed on another related article (Talk:2017 Düsseldorf axe attack), that information adds no useful content whatsoever (same example, again: whether the suspect is called "John Doe" or "William Doe" or "Johnny Doe", or whatever else, adds no useful encyclopedic information) and it's a crystal clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME - which clearly states that the suspect is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law, which has as of yet not been the case.

On another topic, I disagree with the renaming. First argument - per this and this, "Olathe shooting" seems to appear more often. Also, almost all sources linked in the article identify the town as "Olathe", not "Olather, Kansas" (or variant thereof) - which means that it's the primary usage of the name (the "Olathe" in Colorado has a population of 2000, much less notable and very likely not to be confused for the Olathe in Kansas) - same as the Düsseldorf attack - nobody identifies it as "Düsseldorf, Germany" because it's unambiguous. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:LPNAME Policy is clear that name should not be included if they are not widely known or discussed in MSM which isn't the case with Olathe incident:

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed."

as you can see in similar Quebec City mosque shooting and all other articles related to famous police shooting etc. they contain victim's name as well as suspect involved, if names are widely known cf. Shooting of Laquan McDonald, Shooting of Walter Scott. and besides that User:MordeKyle still didn't given any satisfactory explanation to why he removed the comments from POTUS and congressmen related to incident. Redhat101 Talk 04:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, there is no drama, only policy. ;-)  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 18:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Section I created on this very talk page about the issues, which I said I was doing in my edit summary

@MordeKyle:, You started talk page after the supposed 'Clean up' and two reverts, not before editing the page.

I reverted your edits, because of the massive amount of things you had reverted

Not making new edits, I was trying to undo the unexplained removal of content.

"white American who mistook them for people from the Middle East, yelled "get out of my country" and "terrorist" before shooting them at the Austins Bar & Grill in Olathe, Kansas." Are you kidding me? That is the most blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME I have ever seen.

That whole line is still there and as for Nth time go and actually read the WP:LPNAME guideline, which apparently states that name should not be included if they are not widely known or discussed in MSM which isn't the case with Olathe incident, as you can see in similar Quebec City mosque shooting and all other articles related to famous police shooting etc. they usualy contain victim's name as well as suspect involved, if names are widely known cf. Shooting of Laquan McDonald, Shooting of Walter Scott.

unjustly accuse me of making edits to benefit a president. I am only editing to cleanup Wikipedia policy violations

Yeah adding associated Well sourced comments from POTUS and WH Press Secretary is a Wiki policy violation, Really this 'discussion' is getting nowhere. Redhat101 Talk 04:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redhat101: This will be my last reply to this thread, as I do believe this to be a case of WP:CIR. The names were removed per WP:BLPCRIME, not WP:LPNAME. But since you keep wanting to use LPNAME, "...such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." and his name adds absolutely no context to this article whatsoever.

That whole line is still there and as for Nth time go and actually read the WP:LPNAME guideline...

Ok, this is where the WP:CIR really comes in here... Stating that a man did these things is not a WP:BLPCRIME violation. Saying that THIS man did it, before he is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he has done it, is a WP:BLPCRIME violation. Please go read this policies. Good luck in your future endeavors.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to voice my confusion about this and side with Redhat101 on the issue. I'm seeing a number of other articles where the suspects (who are still alive and sometimes still on trial, for your information) and victims are named, yet this one does not name the suspect or the victims. Last I checked, the article wasn't assuming anything about the suspect definitely being the guy who shot the victims. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm contributing because my input was solicited by Wikipedia. This defendant argued with his victims, who were singled out by him as immigrants, after he asked them what kind of visa they were on, walked out to retrieve a pistol, came back into the sports bar and shot both ethnic Indian IT workers. He fled, but as he was being pursued, his license plate # was recorded and traced to him. A swat team responded to his home but he had fled the area. He was arrested 82 miles away in a restaurant when he spontaneously said he had "killed two (sic) Middle Eastern (sic) men. He didn't mention the patron whom he shot through the hand and chest when the patron tried to apprehend him, thinking he had emptied his weapon. The restaurant called the police after his admission. I got 196,000 hits on the name "Adam Purinton." Though he's not Jack Ruby, who died without being convicted, identifying him doesn't seem to be debatable. Per the Atlantic article, he had difficulty holding a job. This was hardly a solitary hate crime committed in the vicinity of Olathe, in conservative Johnson County, Kansas. In 2014, another racist killer shot people who were in the vicinity of a Jewish rest home and a synagogue two years earlier but, ironically, none of the white supremacist's victims were Jewish. Scott Roeder, who assassinated George Tiller was a county resident, if memory serves, and was also captured when fleeing the scene of his crimes. Activist (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner, Activist: I just wanted to add for the sake of argument that I agree with both of y'all. I say we should include the name of the perpetrator and/or victims. Kamalthebest (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's not like mentioning the name is an automatic implication of the suspect's guilt. We can wait for a verdict. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyrus the Penner:, @Kamalthebest:, just noticed your excellent responses to my comments and thanks to you both. Sorry about the delay, but I hadn't been pinged and hadn't returned to this page to see if there was feedback. Activist (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Observance: Kansas declares March 16 as 'Indian-American Appreciation Day' to honour Srinivas Kuchibhotla. Padmaviswas (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please specify how you would want to add it. Also, you can't name the victim as it's against WP:BLPCRIME, there's a discussion about it just above. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on who declared the day as such. If it was the governor of Kansas, it would be easy to add to the reactions sections with something like, "Governor Sam Brownback declared March 16th as "Indian-American Appreciation Day to honor the victims." We will need a WP:RS for this to avoid WP:OR.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Found one: "'Kansas will remain committed to standing with the Indian community,' Kansas Governor Sam Brownback said at an event on Thursday to commemorate the life of Mr Kuchibhotla." (http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kansas-declares-march-16-as-indian-american-appreciation-day-1670753) - that article has further information if you wish to read in in whole - assuming that it is an appropriate source. I'm saying that because I guess that such a statement would have been reported by the US media, but the only sources that report it are Indian... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Further proposal

This has to be mentioned under the Reactions section of the page.~~PadmaViswas~~

Edit: Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed a proclamation to honor the three victims of the shooting and declared March 16th as Indian American Appreciation day ~~PadmaViswas~~

Source:

Reason: This news of hate crime against Indian wasn't covered much in the US. People need to know the facts Padmaviswas (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't specified how it should be added in the article... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Copied from above to keep discussion chronological, per WP:TALK This has to be mentioned under the Reactions section of the page. Padmaviswas (talk)

So the proposal is the sentence above? I don't object to it, but again, the US media not mentioning it is rather intriguing - for such an incident that was mentioned even by the BBC, it's quite strange that the follow-up appears in no other sources besides Indian ones. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes,That's the sentence I'm proposing.There is a source from Kansascity.com too, sharing the link again: which also includes the video of the Gov addressing the event.Please review. Thanks Padmaviswas (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Here's another video.This is KSNT News Channel. Padmaviswas (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I finally agree in favour of putting the above sentence in the article, with the 3 sources given originally. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

References

. Great! I appreciate that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmaviswas (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move to 2017 Olathe Shooting

Proposing move to 2017 Olathe Shooting.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 18:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 18:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Supoort Per the discussion higher on the page, my arguments there referring to WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Don't necessarily object to move, but in large section of media this incident is known as 'Kansas shooting/Kansas Bar shooting' and widely covered as such because Olathe being a relatively little known town, and besides a redirect is present and this page is already moved a couple of times.Redhat101 Talk 05:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: The page has previously been moved - it was created as "2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting" by the above user at 23:41, 24 February 2017‎, then moved to "The shooting of Srinivas Kuchibhotla" by another user at 06:03, 28 February 2017‎, changed reverted by yet another user on 01:31, 1 March 2017. It was moved to "2017 Olathe shooting" on 01:44, 12 March 2017‎, before being finally renamed to it's current title ("2017 Olathe, Kansas shooting") by above user at 03:49, 13 March 2017‎. We'd need to have a more in depth check to verify which is used more widely, as the sources in the article contradict the statement of Redhat (they all mostly say only "Olathe"). A quick google search for both variants currently examined ("2017 Olathe shooting" and the current version) return both about the same number of results (1 500 000 for "Olathe, Kansas" vs 1 530 000), and many are duplicated, so that doesn't help much.
  For the city name, however, "Olathe" returns about 14 100 000 results while "Olathe, Kansas" gives just short of 2 000 000. "Olathe KS" gives 4 560 000. This still means that at least 9 500 000 pages refer to Olathe without naming the state. Accounting for "Olathe Colorado", which has about 1 000 000 results, we are still left with an overwhelming number of mentions of the town do not disambiguate. As I said, we should still check whether coverage of the incident follows that trend. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I think in relation to WP:COMMONNAME, it's really more to do with what the sources are saying, and that seems to be 2017 Olathe Shooting. The rest is good info, however I think it may be irrelevant.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's what I said in the last sentence. The sources in the article are a mixed bag - some say "Olathe, Kansas", some "Kansas City", some "Olathe", which is why I went for more information in the hope to settle the argument once and for all. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for gathering all of that data though.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Please keep this open for at least a month unless views are universally one-sided. The media widely reported the shooting as "Kansas shooting" as you can see in this USA Today article, this CNN article, this Mother Jones article, and this BBC article. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I have changed my opinion, title should be remain the same as Olathe, Kansas to keep in distinct from Olathe, Colorado and large section of media covered this incident as Kansas shooting.Redhat101 Talk 00:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Olathe is a well known, and rapidly growing city, the seat of Johnson County in the metropolitan Kansas City area, pop. about 125,000 in the 2010 census. Its second largest employer is Garmin, which employed the East Indian victims. Kansas City, Kansas is in Wyandotte County, to the northeast.Activist (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Providing both City and State in the title provides greater notability to the topic and easier means of access to the information contained wherein. Limiting the title to either the Olathe or Kansas does not aid the goal of the article to be informative and easily referenced. A comprehensive title assists users who may only have partial knowledge of this incident. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 00:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Target section in infobox

The current subject of the target info box is Indian Immigrant workers. The shooter's actual target was not Indian people, should this be changed to reflect the actual, intended targets? Input?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A target is "the object of an attack" per [1], thus using the term target in this sense is accurate - whether or not they were the intended target, they still ended up being those hit by the actual attack. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Trump administration

This being added to this page in the reactions section is WP:UNDUE. If you would like to add information to Wikipedia about Trump's policies or "rhetoric", then please put that information in the relevant place, which is on Political positions of Donald Trump or on Presidency of Donald Trump. This article is about this shooting, not about political agendas.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The sources used do not provide sufficient notability to the presented view point. 'talkingpointsmemo.com' looks like an opinion blog and the other source, although more reliable, doesn't provide enough weight on it's own. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This still is UNDUE here, but blogs are allowed per WP:NEWSBLOG.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Again WP:REHASH, seriously never seen such unreasonable case of Tendentious editing, its just an official statement by WH press secretary on incident how its count as "Criticism of Mr. President".?

Seriously, it's not just a statement by WH press secretary, which is still UNDUE, because the press secretaries reaction to this incident is wholly irrelevant. You are using a very questionable source to show that some opinion blogger thinks this is somehow related to "Trump's rhetoric" which is terribly UNDUE as well. Also, stop accusing me of acting in bad faith.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement is directly associated with incident so you stop saying its Undue and i can give more proper sources, as for bad faith i see no other explanation because you're just keep giving WP:REHASH.Redhat101 Talk 02:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have a beef in this whole thing but I think we should at least set up a consensus poll before adding/removing this content. Personally, I believe it should be included because it was the victim's family who made the statements. I would say it was WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH if it was some random politician or journalist who made the claim that Trump's rhetoric is awful; however, this is the victim's family, which is different and I wouldn't classify it as WP:UNDUE. Still think we should have a debate first, though, before a adding/removing it. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A WP:RS is also very necessary.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 05:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Firstpost and Business Standard are reliable sources. Kamalthebest (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: certainly. However, a reaction to a reaction to a crime is still WP:UNDUE for a reactions to a crime section. If the family's reaction is properly sourced and not directly from some opinion piece, then it is perfectly fine for inclusion. The white house press secretary's reaction does not inherit weight from that though.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle:@Redhat101: I don't think the victim's family's reaction is "a reaction to a reaction to a crime." It's just "a reaction to a crime." And it is properly sourced too. Firstpost and Business Standard are two of the most popular Indian newspapers, and the articles were not opinion pieces. Or do you mean Sean Spicer's reaction should not be included? I agree that Spicer's reaction shouldn't be included but the family's reactions should be included. Kamalthebest (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Spicer's reaction is a reaction to a reaction and should not be included. I've already said I have no problem with the families reaction, as that is WP:DUE, though not usually something that is included in Wikipedia reaction sections. I believe it needs to be worded much more specifically than:

The families of victims initially have blamed the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump, for the incident.

We need direct sourcing to the reaction itself, with a quote. Reporting by a WP:RS does not always meet the standards for inclusion. The previously removed addition seen above is very open and not specific at all, and should not be included.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that what was added before was a clear extrapolation of the source, which was another reason for it's removal. RS's can be guilty of this as well.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle:@Redhat101: No, it's certainly not WP:OR to include the phrase, "The families of victims initially have blamed the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump, for the incident." since that's literally what the sources stated the family said. The Firstpost article explicitly states "The families of an Indian engineer who was killed and another who was injured in the firing by an American in Kansas have blamed the policies of President Donald Trump for the incident" and the Business Standard article explicitly states, "While parents of Srinivas Kuchibhotla, who was shot dead, were too shocked to speak, his relatives said the action of the former Navy serviceman was a result of Trump's policies."

If you want subsequently want to expand with direct quotes by the family after that, then you can. The only direct quotes by the family that are mentioned goes: "It shows Trump is the prime reason... The attacker made racist remark and asked them to get out of the country. It was clear that he wanted to target them... we feel threatened." which is pretty much the same thing that is already written. Simply writing "The families of victims initially have blamed the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump, for the incident." seems perfectly acceptable to me. Kamalthebest (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: I completely disagree. The victim's cousin stated, "It shows Trump is the prime reason." The source itself is extrapolating the rest out of that statement. Which, just like Spicer, is a reaction to a reaction. Reactions sections in Wikipedia are almost exclusively for direct quotes from the people giving the reactions, not an extrapolation of a statement made by the cousin of the victim. It is very questionable about the weight of this being included in this section based on this. Because of the vagueness of the quote itself, and the obvious extrapolation, this also violates WP:BLP in such that, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This fits that example as poorly sourced, because of the extrapolation.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle:@Redhat101: Hmm, I wouldn't call what the "victim's cousin" says as a "reaction to a reaction." It's a direct reaction to the crime. Secondly, you are just assuming the linked sources were extrapolating data. You don't know that for sure. Often times, newspapers and media outlets will summarize the statements by people they interviewed rather than giving direct quotes. And the victim's family directly states, and is quoted as saying, "It shows Trump is the prime reason... we feel threatened." This isn't just some random assumption the newspapers made.

Let me show you an example of this from another topic. Earlier today, there were some votes that were going to take place in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding a healthcare bill. These votes ended up being delayed and this BCC article is about that delay. In the fourth paragraph of the article, it states, "Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said that Republicans would still be meeting on Thursday evening but that the plan now was for a House vote on Friday, following a debate." Now, there is no direct quote by Kevin McCarthy anywhere in the article; however, if there was a Wikipedia page on this delay, I could still use that information about what McCarthy said because the BBC decided to summarize his viewpoints rather than giving a direct quote. This is essentially what Firstpost and Business Standard decided to do. Rather than give a direct quote from the family, they summarized their viewpoints in a prose format. Can you see what I'm saying? Kamalthebest (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The victim's cousins saying may be reported by many reliable sources, but what you haven't proven is it's weight and importance. Sure, the cousin said it. Does the cousin saying it give it enough weight to be put as such a clear criticism of a politician (no matter what our personal opinion of the politician may be)? I don't think so. He (the cousin) is not an expert on hate crimes and the fact that sources only report him saying it without giving more backing to it might mean something... Thus, that would fall WP:UNDUE. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: No, I don't consider the cousin's reaction a reaction to a reaction. I consider the extrapolation of his brief quote by the source a reaction to a reaction.

Also, this is a reaction section, not a section on what political ideologies effected this tragic incident. This is WP:UNDUE. Your above example holds no weight in this argument. A moronic, racist, idiot killed some very innocent people because he was a moronic, racist, idiot, not because of anything else. I do not edit Wikipedia in relation to my political beliefs or other beliefs, as should no one. That being said, I am not a fan of Trump, and I have no interest in trying to shield him. The point is, Wikipedia is not the place for these veiled attempts at blaming someone for a crime based solely on political agendas. You can look to any of the massive plethora of reaction sections of attack and terrorism pages, and you will find that a reaction from a family member is extremely rare. In fact, I've never seen one before. You can also look at all of those and see they are full of reactions from government officials and involved companies. They are all direct quote or say something obvious, like, Canadian Prime Minister called to offer his support. This is not the place for this sort of thing. Like I have said before it is WP:UNDUE here, as it is reported to us, and should be taken to the appropriate place.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle:, Redhat101, 69.165.196.103 Hold on, let's get something clear. I am not saying, in any way, that Trump is responsible for this. I'm not saying a certain political ideology is responsible for this. I am saying the victim's family said Trump's rhetoric is responsible for this. You could say that's a silly position to take (and I'd agree that's a silly position to take), but that's not grounds for removing it. Let me address the critiques here:

1. "The victim's family reaction does not have weight" Yes, it does. The victim's family is directly impacted by the awful act of losing a loved one. The section for WP:WEIGHT states that you should "consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" and the family's reactions were everywhere in the news.

2. "The victim's family is not an expert" I actually agree that they're not experts. They're not experts in hate crimes or politics. However, not all reactions to a crime have to be from experts.

3. "No other similar Wikipedia page features reactions from family or friends of the victims" Demonstrably not true. For example, reactions from family and friends of the victims are featured on pages of attacks such as: Charleston church shooting#Families, 2015 Copenhagen shootings#National, Omagh bombing#Victims' support group, Murder of James Bulger#Subsequent events, Death of Freddie Gray#Public response, Shooting of Philando Castile#Statements of attorneys for Yanez and Castile family, Shooting of Michael Brown#Aftermath, etc. You are right that family reactions are not mentioned in the articles for massive terrorist attacks like the 2016 Nice attack, but that's because there are so many victims, journalists rarely go to one individual and ask them for their reaction in particular.

4. "The articles were extrapolating information" No, they were not. Summarizing statements in an article without direct quotes is not extrapolation. Not to mention the fact that there was a direct quote by the family members in both articles, anyway. I linked above a BCC article that does the exact same thing where they state, "Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said that Republicans would still be meeting on Thursday evening but that the plan now was for a House vote on Friday, following a debate" without a direct quote by Kevin McCarthy anywhere in the article. It is a very common journalistic practice.

If you still disagree, then let's open up a consensus poll like we did here with WP:RFC and keep it open for at least 30 days so that we get some more neutral third opinions on whether or not to include the family's reactions. That seems like the best way to move forward. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's still WP:UNDUE and a reaction from a source, however, you have still failed to account for the BLP issue. You are arguing to add information that states that a living person is responsible for a murder in one way or another. That is a WP:BLP violation, and could even be seen as a WP:BLPCRIME violation as the president was never convicted of this crime. Also, per WP:WEIGHT, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Discussion is futile here, User:MordeKyle has a history of disruptive editing, Case in point A, B, C. I opened up a WP:AN/I regarding this issue, please share your opinion there.Redhat101 Talk 00:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redhat101: you might want to look into those before using them as evidence against me. The first one you mention, you can clearly see consensus was with me in the appropriate talk page. You also need to stop with the personal attacks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle:, Redhat101, 69.165.196.103 I'm going to assume WP:GOODFAITH and open up a consensus poll on this topic so that some neutral voices can add their opinions. Is this ok? Because clearly, with the three (or four) of us, this is not getting anywhere. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: That is absolutely fine, do an RfC. I'm tired of being harassed and personally attacked because I am attempting to enforce Wikipedia policy to the best of my abilities. This is some of the most disruptive editing I have ever seen. I reverted his addition again, based on the potential WP:BLP violation and the discussion that clearly shows the Spicer pert is WP:UNDUE, but hey, apparently that is grounds for ANI. My word...  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle:, Redhat101 I don't think anyone means anyone else any harm. This just turned into a heated topic out of nowhere for some reason, so let's get along. I apologize for any disruptive editing. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: None of your edits have been disruptive, nor has anyone else's edits barring one person. You are here having a discussion with me and the IP editor, like we are supposed to, and he just ignores all of it and re-adds the information that has potential WP:BLP implications without any regard. I do however that he is acting in bad faith due to his multiple attempts to get me blocked by the admins, even reporting myself and the IP editor as socks, and his ongoing attacks against myself. I'm not interested in enduring more abuse for following policy. My arguments have been made, and I hope you will do the right thing and include my side of the argument, which is well documented above, in the RfC, because I am now recusing myself from this article, as I do not need to continued to be harassed. Thank you for your professionalism Kamalthebest.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 00:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Sorry for the harassment, man. But before you go, could you please add your views to the RfC survey below? I want the counterpoints to represented so if you don't want to, I can add it for you. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: Done. Good luck.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kamalthebest: I tried my earnest to discuss the issues with MordeKyle but as you can see it wasn't going anywhere, and I wasnt adding a new content that whole page was created by me and it was later vandalized by MordeKyle which resulted in page getting temporarily blocked, so its a harassment other way around.Redhat101 Talk 02:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Redhat101: Yeah, sorry, I think both sides got heated but we're all acting in WP:GOODFAITH so let's just settle it with the RfC poll. Thx for agreeing with me on the issue, btw. Kamalthebest (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Yeah i was editing in bad faith by creating a article from scratch, which you later vandalized.

he just ignores all of it and re-adds the information that has potential WP:BLP

Isn't your reason for reverting was that comments related to Mr.Trump was Undue? and now it become a WP:BLP issue? and For for heaven's sake go and actually read the WP:BLP policy, it isn't apply to Deceased person and it only apply to article main-space.

multiple attempts to get me blocked by the admins, even reporting myself and the IP editor as socks,

Don't discuses WP:SPI issue here As i already said, It is not related to any edit conflict.Redhat101 Talk 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about adding victim's family's reaction to "Reactions" section

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the "Reaction" section of this article include the reactions of the victim's family to the shooting? Kamalthebest (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Important to include seeing as the family's reactions were everywhere in the news and articles for similar tragedies have similar sections (see this section here, this section here, or this section here). Kamalthebest (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose For several reasons. You can see the above thread, but I will also summarize briefly here. Press Secretary Spicer's reaction to the family members reaction is WP:UNDUE. This section is a reaction to the crime, not a reaction to the reactions of the crime. I do believe that the cousin staying, "It shows Trump is the prime reason." may be WP:DUE, but I believe the press saying that the family blames Trump is UNDUE and possibly an extrapolation of what was stated by the cousin. The statement itself could also encroach on WP:BLP issues, as it is being stated that Trump had something to do with a Man's murder. I don't believe there is enough weight here, seeing as this "viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 01:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Family's reaction was widely covered by local and International media.Redhat101 Talk 01:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As per the above discussion, what the victim's cousin says about Trump doesn't have enough weight. If it was said by some newspaper or appropriate source I'd have no objection, but in the current instance I cannot agree. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Redhat101's Taipei Times link is conclusive support that this reaction has indeed been "said by some newspaper", a major one far from both the shooting and the victim's homeland. Clearly, they thought it was noteworthy, so we should too. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A source reporting that something has been said and that same source saying it itself are two completely different things... 69.165.196.103 (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Obviously. The proposition that we should disallow any statement from the victim's family -- especially when such statements were widely reported in reliable sources -- is, to speak frankly, bizarre. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I would hope that the victim's family's reaction would be included in an article. WP:UNDUE applies in many cases, just not this one. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. Summoned by bot. If you read the top tier WP:RS sources, the family reactions were given a great deal of coverage. For example, The Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and the local major paper, the Kansas City Star, had headlines devoted to the family's reaction. Moreover, the top tier sources have a clear narrative:

1) Shooting occurs (multiple sources)

2) Father says that the U.S. is not safe for immigrants because of President Trump's rhetoric TimeWashington Post New York Times op-ed Kansas City Star

3) Sean Spicer says that's absurd Washington PostThe Guardian CBS Reuters

4) President Trump condemns the attack in the State of the Union address (multiple sources)

The above lists only the major coverage where the reactions were a primary focus of the article. There are more that have a simple quote from the family ([2] [3]) or where the concerns are not as pointed as those listed above ([4] [5]). I also have stuck to the major sources, could have included dozens of follow-on sources. It seems clear each event is notable and received significant coverage. The arguments for exclusion above are not compelling in the face of such clear attention from such high-quality sources. Also, it doesn't make sense to include the State of the Union address mention and not the related events, as they were covered in WP:RS. As an aside, there's nothing in the reaction section that discusses the widespread attention this event received in India, which was extensive.

To be precise: Given the level of coverage in top tier sources (and lots of second tier sources), I don't see a WP:UNDUE argument. As for the potential for WP:BLP issue, the claim that inflammatory rhetoric leads to increased violence is an opinion, not a statement of fact (the family did not say that Trump was in Kansas and bought the weapon or told the shooter to do it, for example), hence, as this is "criticism and praise" about a public figure, and not the encyclopedic voice presenting the linkage as fact, there is no BLP issue. Chris vLS (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support using subsection within section. The reaction section could have a subsection with the families reaction. This way the reader could see the societal/political effect of the public;s reaction, while at the same time reading about the families reaction. Many people like to skim articles so providing a subsection divider gives people a choice of what they wish to read. In addition, many people use the table of contents near the top of the article so a subdivision of public/family reaction would be useful in this way also.Dean Esmay (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(empty)

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.

Referencing of article

Is it proven\declared that the crime was a hate crime? Don't miss judge me .I have no COI on this matter .It is just a question of WP:CITE [User:WIZRADICAL|WIZRADICAL]] (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@WIZRADICAL: Yes FBI is investigating it as a hate crime, btw you can sign posts by typing four tildes(~).Redhat101 Talk 00:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction regarding employment

In the article as it has appeared since February, the alleged shooter was said to have been employed at GEN3RATION, an IT firm, at the time of the shooting. It was sourced to Heavy.com's "5 Fast Facts (sic) You Need To Know," feature. In actual fact, the alleged shooter hadn't worked at GEN3RATION for a while, or in IT generally, but had held a series of low skilled jobs that reflected his deteriorating behavior and mental condition. My guess is that Heavy.com got the employment information from the subject's outdated, self-authored LinkedIn profile. Not only has Heavy.com not changed that misinformation, almost two months later, but it appears likely to have been widely republicized in the press in India and even South Korea. Reliable information about his employment and mental condition was available in an Associated Press article co-authored by long time Kansas AP reporter John Hanna which I've cited. The AP article also notes that Purinton is a registered Republican, but that he was not known to discuss either of the two most recent U.S. presidents. Activist (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Accused pleaded guilty

http://time.com/5189320/adam-purinton-kansas-bar-shooting/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.189.82 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I have updated the article accordingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A outlandish reason seen mentioned!

A very eerie logic connecting the incident to some verbal codes is seen mentioned. Check this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D008:56AA:7909:818B:79F4:1691 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)