Talk:YouTube headquarters shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pings

@Sullay, SshibumXZ, and Steven Walling: I went ahead and redirected 2018 YouTube headquarters shooting to here. Figured that was easier than a history merge. Seems might be for nothing, though, if this article is merged or deleted. Pinging in case you wish to help expand. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: I appreciate your bold edit, but now because of the AfD, we can't just redirect this page. Can you start a page move discussion here, though? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

All the cited sources refer to YouTube as the primary location. Can't someone just boldly close the AFD as nonsense? Steven Walling • talk 21:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I already created an article about the shooting before this article. The article I created was also considerably longer than this one so I have no idea why you @Another Believer: keep redirecting the old article into the new one you created? Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sullay: Until the AFD resolves itself I went ahead and merged in the better content from the other page. The redirect will work to serve people searching for "YouTube shooting" for now. Steven Walling • talk 21:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sullay: Sorry, I understand, but I am just following rules as I understand them. We can't just redirect this article, which has been nominated for deletion. The page can be moved at a later time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: Why did you merge the old article into the new one and not the other way around? I've never seen anyone do it this way on Wikipedia before. Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 21:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sullay: Because of the active deletion discussion, it's a pain in the butt and technically not allowed to merge the other way around. Once someone closes that AFD (it will almost certainly happen soon) then we can flip around the titles. Steven Walling • talk 21:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Steven Walling: Apparently the AfD has been closed. Hopefully we will follow the policies now as things were done exactly against them. Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 21:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Very well. But to my understanding if an article is already created about a subject and someone decides to create an article about the exact same subject, the new page should always be a redirection into the already existing one, not the other way around. No matter what. And to be honest, I have no idea what you guys mean with "AfD". The things on the English Wikipedia have changed tremendously since the late noughties when I was a more active writer.

By "AfD", we're referring to the article's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 San Bruno, California shooting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge tag

Resolved

Do we still need the merge tag at the top of this page? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Has been removed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Title

Resolved

If the AfD closes I can move the page to 2018 YouTube headquarters shooting if needed. It will require a page mover or admin due to the history involved. This seems like the best title. -- Dane ^talk 21:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's the title describing the incident noticeably better than a mere "2018 San Bruno, California shooting" which doesn't even hint towards the fact that the shooting is targeted especially at YouTube headquarters. And the most important one, it was the article first created. Never have I met an incident on Wikipedia where an already existing article would be redirected into an article created minutes later. Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 21:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sullay: No one's arguing against moving the page later, but we can't do anything during an ongoing deletion discussion. Please be patient, thanks. In the meantime, your time is better spent making improvements to the existing article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks Dane! Steven Walling • talk 21:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dane. Page now at "2018 YouTube headquarters shooting". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem! Now to build this article up! -- Dane ^talk 21:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Move

Resolved

*sigh* @Prisencolin: This page should not have been moved because of the ongoing deletion discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dane: Do you mind moving this talk page back, too? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Another Believer:  Done -- Dane ^talk 21:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Tweet

Resolved

Do we need to include mention of Vadim Lavrusik's tweet? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think something more generic about "YouTube employees shared blah blah on twitter" would be sufficient at best. Better not to include any unverified direct quotes about details at this juncture. Steven Walling • talk 21:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Marking as resolved with this edit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts and prayers

I went ahead and linked "Thoughts and prayers", the bane of my existence. I suppose others will take issue with this, so let's discuss? For the record, this was recently discussed here re: Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the entire section on reactions is premature while there's only one reaction. That's just my opinion though. -- Dane ^talk 22:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not within consensus on this, but I personally believe that reaction sections to disasters of any type are generally not encyclopedic. I don't have strong feelings on the thoughts and prayers wikilink, though. --joe decker^talk 22:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

1. They tend to be highly duplicative and don't add anything in the way of unique facts. Steven Walling • talk 23:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Gender of suspect

Women are rarely suspects in mass shootings. Should we add mention of this? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• {{citation needed}} Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why it should be mentioned. Stryn (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's probably notable but let's wait for a source to put it in historical context. I'm sure more in-depth analysis of the potential cause later will mention it. Steven Walling • talk 22:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated: I added a short slug about it given that there is already the NBC story whose title and premise is about the rarity of female shooters. Steven Walling • talk 23:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Motivation

Should the motivation, either suspected or unknown, be added to the infobox? --Jamez42 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source. It's speculation now and probably will always be speculation since the shooter is evidently dead but when you see a reputable outlet say a motivation, then it can be added. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

1 what Koafv said Victor Grigas (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Time

The page currently says "about 1:30", but one of the sourced links claims the attack happened at about 12:46. The other link isn't as specific, though there is a tweet suggesting it happened around 1:57. A second NYT page (the same source) suggests the shooting happened "Slightly before 1PM local time", neither actually suggest the listed 1:30. 153.90.20.111 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Date in title

FYI, I have moved the page from 2018 YouTube headquarters shooting to YouTube headquarters shooting. The date is not a necessary disambiguation, and so we exclude it. For an analogous title decision, see Manchester Arena bombing (we dropped the year in the title via a unanimous decision). Thanks, Neutrality^talk 02:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. Sources below

• https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/03/us/youtube-hq-shooting/index.html
• http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-youtube-shooter-20180403-story.html
• http://www.fox19.com/story/37871876/female-suspect-in-youtube-shooting-identified-3-wounded
• https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/youtube-shooter-identified-as-nasim-aghdam.html
• https://nypost.com/2018/04/03/woman-behind-youtube-hq-shooting-identified/

-KDDLB (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected Nasim Najafi Aghdam and Nasim Aghdam to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

All the mass shooting tidbits in the suspect section should be removed. This wasn't a Mass shooting. Also, the DV aspect is a lot of speculation. Considering the suspects past with YouTube, this may be a targeted attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:4D78:F9BA:3240:71C9 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"This section needs expansion" tag?

Is there a specific reason for the "This section needs expansion" tag in the "Shooting" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed WWGB (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Domestic violence in the United States

I added Category:Domestic violence in the United States, since the shooting is believed to have been motivated by a domestic dispute. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

pure speculation. she lived in San Diego and no connection to the victims has been provided. however, previous disputes with youtube are now available. her you tube channel was put under a strong/mature content flagdue to graphic and militant vegan/animal rights footage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:4D78:F9BA:3240:71C9 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Further investigation revealed that there was no domestic aspect to it at all, no boyfriend/girlfriend factor, but hostility, a grudge (one reporter even called it a vendetta) against Youtube because of specific policy changes including "age restriction" and demonetization which affected the shooter's channel(s). I removed the category. – Athaenara ✉ 09:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, no problem. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

BBC News link

Please open up the article the BBC News link is wrong. The right one is http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43635864. --Tommyboynr1 (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That has been fixed. --denny vrandečić (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Viral in Iran"

Apparently, the shooter had a significant, if mostly ironic, following in Iran. NYT--Pharos (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Shooter Age

Some reports are saying that the shooter died the day before her birthday and was thus technically "38", not "39".

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/03/youtube-shooters-father-says-she-was-angry-at-company/

This should be noted if the "age" is being emphasized.Ryoung122 17:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Info Box

If we know the exact day that she was born (April 5, 1979), and we also know the exact day that she died (April 3, 2018): why does the Info Box state: (aged 38–39) as her age? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Shooter's age & birthday.

I noticed that the incident happened on the shooter's birthday. Her age in the box says "38", but the article text says "39". Not sure which is right, but shouldn't they be consistent?77Mike77 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed someone else brought this up. The shooting was before her birthday, so she died when she was 38.77Mike77 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.55.38 (talk)

Is this really an important article?

While this is a horrible crime yes, I don't think it's important enough to warrant a page. It wasn't a terrorist attack, it was some crazy person angry about youtube censorship. Thankfully no one was killed (aside from the perpetrator) but these kinds of things happen. Wikipedia can't and shouldn't account for every bank robbery, murder, etc (i.e. violent crimes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E460:5330:8595:3DF5:4368:C752 (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't remove articles just because people find the identity of the subject to be politically inconvenient. Jtrainor (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Did I say it was "politically inconvenient"? I said it wasn't important. Like I said, we don't put every crime on here, every bank robbery, every homicide. This is a case of attempted murder, how does that belong on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E460:5330:8595:3DF5:4368:C752 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Notability (events) it says;

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

I don't see what could give this any significance. It's just a regular crime. It wasn't a mass shooting, a terrorist attack, and it has no effect on pretty much anything. 2600:1700:E460:5330:8595:3DF5:4368:C752 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Also see the discussion of the deletion nomination. It also should be noted that besides the international coverage, this is probably the first attack against a major tech company such as YouTube. It's likely that if there was a similar incident in, let's say, Google or Apple, it would also have an article.--Jamez42 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Joseph and Melissa Batten was a Microsoft shooting in 2008. Probably don't need that article either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:C540:B3AA:327A:85CC (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft wasn't the target, target just worked there. If you want to propose that one for deletion, I'm in. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Iranian

"The 39-year-old, who was of Iranian descent, posted regularly on YouTube in Farsi, Turkish and English." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libracarol (talk • contribs) 16:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no indication that her ethnic background is relevant to the incident or that it is normal to format the identification of the suspect area as though it carries some relelvance, and as is the case in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting we can see that despite being immediately relevant to the incident the ethnic/race details are not provided in the same manner consistent with how they are provided here. What is the reasoning for including identification of ethnic and racial background in the manner as it is here when it is not apparently relevant? Barring some kind of reasonable justification, it seems inappropriate to highlight her name so low in the article (as is not done in other examples on wikipedia) or to emphasize her ethnicity so immediately, as this implies relevance to the incident. Panoramalama (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

She was Iranian immigrant of Bahá'í Faith, see NY Times. This is relevant information and is highlighted in every news report. This is not racial profiling but sharing important background information. America has people from all over the world and it is very normal to add people's nationality, especially the location of their birth.Libracarol (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Aye. I almost told Panoramalama earlier that this is an actual Iranian, not an ethnicity/race/descent thing, but thought the article had made it clear enough by that point. Not clear enough for everybody, apparently. I think it's reasonable to include a nationality if it's reasonable to include an age or gender. It doesn't mean Iranians are bad people or anything, just not from around here. Most famous American shooters are local, younger and men. When something's odd, I think it's leadworthy (unless it's also fishy). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Police weren't "warned"

Her family reported her missing on Monday and as part of it said she may be heading to YouTube. They didn't know she had a gun. Police found her early Tuesday sleeping in her car. As an adult, they can't do anything except notify the original reporter that she was located. They won't even tell the original reporting party where she was located if she didn't want to. The paragraph in the article is overly dramatic with "warning" when no one even suspected she had a gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:FC8E:7FCC:3222:350A (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The bare facts do appear to be that the family reported her missing and believed she may have been headed to YouTube HQ over her video dispute. Use of "warned" implies the family thought she was a danger, which appears to be a case of reporters applying 20/20 hindsight. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

This is most recent [2]

• 1. DV is not what is being investigated or postulated. No evidence that the shooter knew any of the victims or lived in the area per sources. Remove "Domestic Violence" as motive as well as the categories as LE has updated the press with "no connection.". The source the article uses for "Domestic Violence" has been updated to remove it and clarified they are don't know each other.[3]
• 2. Three injured does not meet any criteria for a mass shooting. References and categories need to be removed. We don't make the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:4D78:F9BA:3240:71C9 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

First request: Seems to have been  Already done.

Second request:  Not done: This is from the article Mass shooting:

according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least three victims, excluding the perpetrator.

This shooting had three victims. Leaving this open for the first request. — MRD2014 ^Talk 12:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki article was incorrect. "Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012" defined "mass killing," not shooting and all the sources say "mass killing" which requires three deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:58D9:B1D0:128B:4933 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

External links

Why on earth are we linking to Aghdam's homepage? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It features and expands upon the shooter and the gripe. What's a work shooting without a shooter and a gripe? Just another day at the office. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

Californian resident, Iranian descent, lived in San Diego?

Presently the intro/lead reads that the suspect is a "Iranian-born woman". Such limited information could be misleading to some readers. Due to good faith omission of information. In other words, a risk of jumping to the a false conclusion that she was a resident of Iran. Also, as you know there is presently no evidence that ethnicity played a role in the shooting. I suggest to add to the introduction that Aghdam was a Californian resident of Iranian descent, who lived in San Diego. How about this draft sentence?

The suspect, later identified as a 38-year-old, Nasim Najafi Aghdam, was a Californian resident of Iranian descent, who lived in San Diego.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

She was born in Iran, see NY Times, and that makes her an Iranian woman. If she had a U.S. passport, it would have "Iran" as place of birth. Many Iranians live in California.Libracarol (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Does "Iranian-American woman" not work for some reason? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I object to this edit. She was born in Iran. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "ethnicity", and descent makes it sound like her ancestors were from Iran but she wasn't. She was. Even if she was not a binational (we don't know if she was a legal resident or a naturalized US citizen at this point), she was still Iranian-born. That should not be redacted from the lede. User:WWGB: Could you please add it back?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether she was born in Iran or Iowa has no relevance to the crime. It has no place in the lead. We don't write that every school shooter was "American-born" so what is the difference here, other than planting the idea that her place of birth was somehow a factor in the crime? Her background belongs in her bio section, not in the lead. So, no, I will not add it back. WWGB (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Because this happened in the United States of America! Was she even a naturalized US citizen?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Her residence/citizenship status directly affects the legality of her possession and acquisition of a firearm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:58D9:B1D0:128B:4933 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point: was the gun hers and was she legally entitled to possess it? Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

She "might" not be a citizen! She "might" not be allowed to carry! None of this has been shown to be true, so they are just straw arguments. Gratuitous inclusion of her POB is sailing close to racial profiling. I repeat, her birthplace is NOT a defining factor in the crime. Get over it and move on. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what racial profiling means. Even allowing Iranian as a race, saying one committed a crime is basically the opposite of presuming one will commit another, in a future vs past sense. That's not even to weaken your argument, just letting you know. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the details about her in the Perpetrator section only. My point is that, when reliable sources give the relevant details, the article should say what her status in the US was, and whether or not she legally held her gun. Jim Michael (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'alls. Please read the short essay: WP:CREATELEAD to help us get this lead into better compliance with WP:MOS. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Nasim Aghdam deserves her own article on wikipedia

She has become very popular on internet since the shooting incident. Social networks is full of her images and videos. People use her hashtag #NasimAghdam and memes. Not notable yet? She was a unique case. People want to know more about her. This article does not give enough details about her. --188.159.243.174 (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's possible she's independently notable, but not very likely because of WP:SINGLEEVENT. ^Falling_Gravity 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

"YouTube headquarters massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect YouTube headquarters massacre has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2 § YouTube headquarters massacre until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove link to Thoughts and prayers

This edit by myself was reverted by @JesseRafe: with this edit. I contend that the target page is about a US slacktivism controversy and the paragraph nor anything in this article mentions that specifically. JesseRafe mention in his edit summary "that article exactly encapsulates the usage here, as a bromide social media reaction by a public official."

A little background on this can be found on WP:NPOV/N here. Also I attempted a merge here that contains some points. I also this same day unlinked this phrase at [[ Aberdeen, Maryland shooting]], William Hughes (born 1998), Capital Gazette shooting‎, List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump during 2018‎, Thunder River Rapids Ride‎, Martha Roby‎ and Cory Gardner‎. JesseRafe reverted each.

MOS:LWQ makes it clear that we should link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. As made clear in the argument made against merging this article, the target article (Thoughts and prayers) is about controversy in American politics. Nothing in this article mentions this controversy specifically and certainly was not the intention of the quote. WP:EASTEREGG and WP:SURPRISE also apply.

It is my opinion that linking "thoughts and prayers" is done as a promotion of a POV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

JesseRafe in this revert accuses me with it seems your contention is nothing should link to "thoughts and prayers"?. This is not true and show lack of WP:AGF. The list of article linked can be found here. I went through them with care and only unlinked the ones where the controversy was not mentioned or implied. For instance, currently Ben Cardin is on the top of the list and the article is linked in the section on gun control. I fink the link completely appropriate and did not unlink it.

I understand the issue is politically loaded and maybe JesseRafe is worried I am trying to slant things. I am not. I hate to see Wikipedia subverted to someones political agenda, that is why I removed these links. I ask that JesseRafe revert himself at this article and the consider each of the others reverts as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The first line of the target page is "The phrase "thoughts and prayers" is often used by public officials offering condolences after any publicly notable event such as a deadly natural disaster." It is thus obviously pertinent to use an internal wikilink when the encyclopedia is quoting public officials offering condolences after a publicly notable event. The idea of removing links to the page would, in effect, intentionally orphan it, and in my opinion is a non-neutral action. Above user should nominate the page for deletion if they wish to neuter it entirely, rather than use a back-channel method of simply de-linking its WLs. JesseRafe (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As I made clear I do not intend to orphan the article and it does not deserve to be deleted. However the target article is not about the phrase and you know it. I do not have an ax to grind about gun control or public official inaction. I do not want Wikipedia used to promote your pet peeve. If you want this linked write more in the reaction section quoting pundits saying politicians suck at getting anything done. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As I made clear, "The first line of the target page is "The phrase "thoughts and prayers" is often used by public officials offering condolences after any publicly notable event such as a deadly natural disaster."" If you can actually address this simple fact instead of relying on OR or idiosyncratic interpretation we can get somewhere. As it stands, the phrase is wholly applicable to all the articles you've removed it from. JesseRafe (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand your argument, it is just not valid. If the article was about the phrase, then it should be redirected to a central article about condolences. You yourself said the link was appropriate because the use of the phrase was a bromide social media reaction by a public official. This is an interpretation of the quote that violates MOS:LWQ and put a POV in Wikipedia's voice. You have failed to address the issues I have brought up. Clearly you just do not like the person who made the quote and want to add subtext to taint it. No doubt some pundit in a RS commented on how this incident was another example of political or bureaucratic failure that politicians have covered up with sympathy. Just add it to the article and you can put the link there and I will think it is great place for the link. Do not be lazy and put a blue link where it does not belong. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You simply do not make sense. The article describes this exact usage. I await consensus on the matter from other users, as I cannot deal with you if you cannot explain how The phrase "thoughts and prayers" is often used by public officials offering condolences after any publicly notable event is not apt. Bye! JesseRafe (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As the entry makes clear, the phrase "thoughts and prayers" has been derided as an empty cliche. Blue-linking to that entry calls attention to Trump's use of a phrase that many people consider dumb, and it reads like a sarcastic editorial comment. It's not consistent with Trump's intent - I'm sure he didn't intend to make himself look like he was offering a shopworn platitude - and it's not neutral. Nblund ^talk 22:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Add a picture

Shouldn’t we add a picture of Nasim in the “Perpetrator” section? If you search up the shooting on google, it shows her face on the blue background. 50.233.99.163 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We would need a free image, or a non-free image uploaded with WP:FAIRUSE rationale. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)