Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Category: Disasters in nightclubs

Hello,

This category (Disasters in nightclubs) was recently removed from the article, should this category be added back into the article or should it stay removed?
Thank you, --Vwanweb (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A shooting is not a disaster. I suppose, if a building, or vessels or vehicles suffered major structural damage as a result of the attack, then it would have been pertinent to add that category. -Mardus /talk 13:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

According to wikipedia it is a Disaster. The paragraph Man-made disasters even says "War and deliberate attacks may also be put in this category. ". 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not structural collapse of any kind, or an event in which a vehicle or building is directly involved in the death of one or more persons. A disaster would be something like force majeure. -Mardus /talk 14:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is in Category:Attacks on nightclubs, which is a subcat of Category:Disasters in nightclubs. Jim Michael (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's more specific all right. -Mardus /talk 14:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Why hide terrorism?

Someone continues to remove link to Terrorism in the US despite there being THREE different 'anti gun' posts in the see also section. Any explanation for that? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

VERY Obvious whoever is doing it is an ANTI GUN crusader. Why so many ANTI GUN articles in the see also and NO LINK TO TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism is speculation, also opinions do not belong in Wikipedia articles IFixThings (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism is a SPECULATIVE as the SHOOTING PART! What is your agenda? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop accusing other editors of "hiding" terrorism or of having an agenda. We don't speculate terrorism into an article until it's established by the reliable sources. This shooting isn't even 24 hours old yet, so it will probably be awhile before those kinds of details are sorted out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Azure IFixThings (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

News and sources

Hi Wikipedia's, Since this event takes place in southern California, please keep in mind of using local news sources. The links of inline citation/reference may break. See

• ABC7 local news for Ventura County for all news related to the shooting. Lots of first account interviews with surviving people.
• Ventura County Sheriff's Department Advisory on street closure for Nov 8, 2018 10am local time. Procession. They will transport the body of Sgt Ron Helus through the streets.
• Whitehouse Lowers flag

Please note that newsreports outside of California are not first account. They are simply repeats what the local news and local reports.

I have added sources to External sources. Maybe someone can save the news to archive.org. SWP13 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Shooter description

Find it odd that I can not find a source that describes the shooter as other than a '29 year old male.' Not a single mention of race/ethnicity. I find this to be peculiar, has anyone else found any updated sources that describe the perpetrator? This one: https://www.foxnews.com/us/witnesses-describe-deadly-california-shooting seems to go out of its way to describe the shooter. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, to NOT describe the shooter I meant.- A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm the age of the shooter? The article lists him as 28 and 29 and the sources for each support each age. It's a small difference, but it should probably be resolved and corrected. Danbert8 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

>>This was broadcast live on television ABC7 (channel 7) from 11:20pm non-stop til next morning. IMHO, if you want news as it is happening, you need to watch TV or go on twitter. SWP13 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-fatal injuries

Where are we getting the 25 from? The cited source says Between 10 and 12 people suffered injuries ... others with more minor wounds escaping, Is the 25 from 13 dead + 12 injured? I do realize that the source gets constantly updated. CNN says between 10 and 15. [1] WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

We also need to clarify how many were actual gun shot victims... I am seeing reports that some of the injuries were due to people getting hurt while fleeing (escaping out a window and being cut by glass, for example). Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Does it matter how they were injured? The 2017 Las Vegas shooting lists "Non-fatal injuries: 851 (422 by gunfire). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 20:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I think so... accuracy is important. We don’t want to give the impression that more people were shot than actually were. According to the latest reports, there was only one non-fatal gun shot victim. All the other injuries were essentially accidents that occurred during the panic. Indirectly caused by the event, but not directly caused by Long himself. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Perpetrator information

The perpetrator section should have the latest and most widely accepted/released information about the perpetrator. If there needs to be a summary of the investigation and report history, a new section should be made similar to the 2017 Las Vegas Shooting. Starting out this section with initial reports that may not be accurate is confusing when the correct details are listed further into the section. I attempted to remove the section and it was reverted, would it be better being moved into a new section?Danbert8 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I moved the info you tried to remove into the events section. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Was gunman present at Vegas shooting or not?

Not sure how to read this sentence...

• Molina, Brett (November 8, 2018). "Some Thousand Oaks victims survived mass shooting in Las Vegas, reports say" [Thousand Oaks bar shooting: Some victims survived Las Vegas attack]. USA Today. Some people who survived the Borderline Bar & Grill shooting that left 13 dead, including the gunman, also escaped the mass shooting at the Route 91 music festival in Las Vegas last year

Is this "some people .. including the gunman, also escaped" ? Or should I read this like "some people who survived the .. (shooting that left 13 dead, including the gunman), also escaped" ?

If it is the latter and not former then it seems like Molina might've been clearer by using brackets instead of a comma. Not sure what grammar rules apply here. I'm thinking it is the latter since the gunman was among the 13 dead, but does anyone understand what I mean about the word grouping? Ash Carol (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The sentence was poorly written, but I think it merely means that the gunman was among the 13 dead. The text states that "some people who survived" were also present, yet the gunman did not survive. Regardless of interpretation, we should not rely on such ambiguous sources for claims likely to be contested. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Title

The title seems inadequate. Aren't there many "shootings in Thousand Oaks"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean WP:Notable shootings? Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

>>Yes. If you dig for info, you will find the lots of crimes in Ventura county, California. The officers who run into gun fire to save lives need to be appreciated...

• Aug 2018 Gang stabbing arrest
• Oct 10, 2018 Officer involved shooting.
• Sept/Oct 2018 Inmate deaths
• Ventua County Sheriff Dept list — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWP13 (talk • contribs) 18:34, November 8, 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure lots of crimes happen in Thousand Oaks, that's beside the point. None of those are blue wikilinks so my presumption is they are not notable. By the same token, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting was surely not the only shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, but it is the title of our article. Nil Einne (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Illegal magazine?

Latest reports note that Long had an illegal extended magazine in his gun. I think this should be mentioned when referencing the firearm used, as it allowed him to shoot more people. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

DONE (Did it myself). Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I suspect BBC was confused over California "high capacity" law versus the meaning of "extended" magazine. Standard magazine for the .45 Glock pistol as designed is 13 rounds with the magazine even with the bottom of the grip. California law describes a magazine over ten rounds as "high capacity". Reduced capacity 10 round magazines are made for California sales of guns sold since the 10 round limit was imposed. The standard 13 round magazines would be illegal for new sales in California as "high capacity". Magazines legally sold and legally purchased before the ban were grandfathered. We are not being shown the actual weapon or magazine(s) used. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the ban went into effect on 1 Jan. 2000, when the alleged perp was 10 or 11 years old, probably not yet a resident of California, and definitely not the legal owner of a Glock which it would fit into, we might be able to disregard that last possibility. Whether he actually HAD a high capacity magazine remains to be seen, reports have been conflicting so far. 104.168.154.50 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas shooting

Why delete the DOCUMENTED LINK? It has been reported that some of the bar patrons present had survived the 2017 Las Vegas shooting concert shooting, it is not known whether any were injured in this incident.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As of now, with very little information confirmed, it is best not to add unsubstantiated claims like this one. Wait for more information to come in. In addition, refrain from writing phrases like, "it has been reported" and "according to ABC News." Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it is also not a place for your guesswork. KidAd (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ACanadianToker, the Daily Mirror is not a WP:reliable source. If it gets mentions elsewhere then it can be included. At the moment, its just tabloid gossip. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

How about https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-bar-shooting-some-victims-survived-las-vegas-attack/1928082002/ ? GOOD ENOUGH? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I sure hope so! - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

But then again this is a CURRENT EVENT PAGE ANYWAY RIGHT? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC) ARe you the one who keeps deleting reference to terrorism in the see also section? 15:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to say? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This still isn't a newspaper. Refrain from writing it like one. I will keep reverting your edits. KidAd (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia bullies are disgusting. Clearly the 2017 shooting had a great deal to do with this one. Why was I bullied by an admin? Why were my worthwhile additions needlessly deleted? There is clearly an agenda for many wikipedeans (not saying I'm innocent). For me to have been there, to know, and then to even go so far as to make the talk page article and then to be ignored and banned? Disgusting. This article is biased. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Facts Missing (The escape, possession, flag lowered)

Hi all, The following items are missing from this article.

• Sgt Ron Helus - He was the first law enforcement officer who engaged the shooter. Many consider him a hero.
• Matt Wennerstrom - He took a barstool and smashed a window. He helped people escape out of the building and saved more than 30 people.

See https://abc7.com/hero-saves-as-many-as-30-during-thousand-oaks-shooting-/4645524/

• Possession of Sgt Ron Helus - The possession was held on Nov 8, 2018 where the body of Sgt Ron Helus was transferred via motorcade from Los Robles Hospital to Ventura County Medical Examiner's office. Thousands of people stopped along the freeway and along the street.

See http://nixle.us/alert/6912870/ , https://abc13.com/thousand-oaks-shooting-remembering-sgt-ron-helus/4645691/ , https://ktla.com/2018/11/08/procession-for-sergeant-killed-in-thousand-oaks-mass-shooting-to-take-place-at-10-a-m/

• Whitehouse flag lowered at half-staff.

See https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-calls-mass-shooting-club-thousand-oaks/story?id=59053547 These are facts which should be included. So please help. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

POV Tag on article

I am placing a POV view tag on the article page. I believe that the link between the 2017 Las Vegas shooting has been intentionally minimized by biased 'contributors.' I will not be making any more edits to the article, but will happily discuss this issue here on the talk page. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This should be DISCUSSED ON THE TALK PAGE! It is innapropriate to merely remove a tag and ignore this issue. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ACanadianToker, I've re-added the link as I think it's related. It's mentioned within the body of the article, and there are multiple reliable sources making the connection. That said, you need to calm down and discuss things rationally. Bradv 20:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I was admin banned from even discussing anything. I am calm, that is why I put that tag on the article. The link between the two is extensive and not adequately covered by the article as it currently stands. I apprec. you discussing it here though. Hoping others might have a chance to chime in. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ACanadianToker, why don't you take a look at the edit before reverting it? Bradv 20:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

My issue is not with whether it is in the 'see also section' my issue is that this article minimizes a clear and important link to another event. Hoping OTHERS might be able to chime in, with time, thus the TAG. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

PS@BradV: not making any judgment on the edit you're referring to. The POV needs to stay though, IMO, because we need to allow time and others to discuss this. The link between the two is important and extensive. I am very frustrated, that despite making cited edits, I was simply ADMIN Banned for a differing viewpoint, precluding me from even editing the talk page. I believe that POV tag needs to stay, to allow others to share their input. CHeers, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

For reference, this content removal is an example of what I perceive to be biased minimizing of a serious and legitimate link btween the two events: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thousand_Oaks_shooting&diff=868075479&oldid=868075328 - A Canadian Toker (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ACanadianToker, your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is going to continue to cause trouble. Yelling in edit summaries and screaming about admin abuse aren't going to help anyone to see your point. Bradv 20:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, you're probably right. HOwever the POV tag says, explicity, that it is not supposed to be removed if people don't know what the issue is and until consensus has been reached on the talk page. It is WRONG to simply delete the POV tag and IGNORE the talk page discussion. I have a serious grievance with the POV of this article, and am going so far as to refrain from editing the article beyond adding the POV tag.

I hope that, with time, others, who are less involved in this, may see the tag and share THEIR opinion so we may all mutually reach a consensus as to how detailed to detail the clear and obvious link between this incident and the 2017 Las Vegas incident. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am disgusted that other editors would rather start the process of finding an admin to ban me on my talk page, or simply removing the POV tag, and CHOOSE TO IGNORE the discussion we could have here on the talk page. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ACanadianToker, that edit you linked isn't a violation of WP:NPOV though, it's removal of sourced content without a valid explanation. The POV tag does not apply. Bradv 21:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Vegas Shooting from See Also section, because it already is wiki-linked in the article. See WP:SEEALSO. Based on the log you were banned for violating WP:3R, not for having different viewpoint. Regardless, as sources have stated, a large group of friends that live in this area and regularly visit this bar attended the concert last year in Vegas. Aside from that group of friends that were quoted in article, they said more patrons of the bar attended that concern. The fact that was a country music concert, and this is a country music bar, they are neighboring states, all of this sort of lines up with what you expect. There is a definite link in that regards, of course. The link isn't "important or extensive" in relation to the shooting itself UNLESS the shooting was motivated in some way by that link. Otherwise the link needs to be mentioned, but doesn't need to be the focus of the article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it should not be the focus of the article. I do not believe that the current amount of coverage for the link between the two shootings is sufficient, especially considering the fact that much more news coverage has talked about the link, especially the families of the victims. I am hoping others might be able to chime in. thank you, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

NB I am not putting that POV tag in response to any one edit. My perception: article 'as a whole' minimizes the link between the two events. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Well looks like someone just went ahead and deleted the POV tag without any further discussion. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ACanadianToker, what would you like to discuss? Be specific. If you have sourced material that you would like to include, mention it here and gather consensus. This simply isn't what the {{pov}} tag is for. Bradv 04:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, as I mention above I feel the link between the two incidents has been needlessly minimized. I advocate for a full section of article detailing the link between the 2017 incident and this one, especially considering recent media reports that specify this location as being a place of refuge for upwards of 60 local residents who were present int he 2017 incident. Many first hand accounts given to media were from survivors of the 2017 incident. For reasons unbenowest to me some feel that mention of the 2017 las vegas shooting should be minimized.

To Writ: a full section detailing the link between this event and the 2017 incident. I am hoping that others may be able to chime in with time though. Cheers, - A Canadian Toker (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the POV tag has been removed, again. The onyl mention of the 2017 incident is one sentence. This is Bias. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a misuse of the article-level tag as I understand it. Any link between the two events is a relatively small part of the story, your unsubstantiated accusations of editor bias notwithstanding. Advocate for content changes all you want, but lay off the tag please. Further unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith will not help your argument and may result in a block. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of social media during shooting

It should be included that Long posted to his instagram/fb during the shooting (approx. 4 minutes after he opened fire and fatally shot the security guard @ 11:20pm). Here is a link to an article which details what he actually posted, once at 11:24pm and then again at 11:27pm in which he details possible 'motive', as well as his state of mind during the shooting which is extremely rare. It is even more interesting due to the fact that he committed suicide meaning that this gives the greatest and latest insight into his mindset, considering an interrogation is no longer possible.

1. REDIRECT [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudgsk (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Vester Flanagan did something similar during the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. The posts by Long are so bizarre that they don't really explain why he did it, but they give a valuable insight into his state of mind.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely article-worthy if posted during the event. I would be less sure about SM posts prior to the event, unless they conveyed a coherent motive. But these guys are rarely coherent in the time leading up to the event. They tend to rant about all kinds of things, and some people think they see motive in their random rants. We never need additional "evidence" of the mental state of somebody who murders a random bunch of innocent people who they don't even know, and the "motive" is usually: They've finally been driven bat-shit crazy by their inability to cope with the bat-shit crazy world we live in. "Motive" requires the ability to think rationally. Two exceptions come to mind: Ted Kaczynski and Elliot Rodger.
But much of that is WP:FORUM. Back to Wikipedia editing. If there is some degree of agreement among reliable sources about motive, we should report it. Otherwise we should stay out of the motive business here, beyond saying that motive is unclear.
Are the two posts in the linked article the only two during the shooting that have been reported? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

High capacity (more than 10 rounds) magazine ban in California

This is more complicated than it first looks.[3][4] Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were technically banned in California in 2016, but the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association is currently engaged in a lawsuit which is blocking enforcement of the proposal. The sale of such magazines was banned in California in 2000, when Long was around 10 years old, so he could not have legally purchased one before 2000 and grandfathered it (ie claimed that he bought it before the ban was introduced). Overall, it appears that he should not have been in possession of a magazine of this type.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)