Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting

Title

I think "New York" should remain in the title. This may not be in line with precedence, but this isn't the only city named Buffalo that has experienced a mass shooting. (2021 Buffalo clinic attack) 2603:7080:1E39:6663:4929:D07B:74EA:5881 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)2603:7080:1e39:6663:4929:d07b:74ea:5881

Perhaps, given 2021 Buffalo clinic attack. It's a very awkward title though, and 2021 Buffalo clinic attack should also be moved if this one is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I've already moved that article title to Buffalo, Minnesota clinic attack. Love of Corey (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Per precedence, shouldn't the article remain as 2022 Buffalo shooting or 2022 Buffalo, New York shooting? This is the usual style used for these mass shootings ex. 2022 Sacramento shooting, 2021 Boulder shooting, 2019 El Paso shooting. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lettler I second that. Avoids the bulkiness of having the state name, and (so far) there have not been any other Buffalo mass shootings in 2022.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)User:Augusthorsesdroppings10

How about Buffalo supermarket shooting? The 2021 attack could be at Buffalo clinic attack. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Political ideology

Three related threads combined. Slight edit to first comment for context. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

White supremacy? Who determined that? Are you all mind readers? 23.114.209.214 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The term has been used in several sources, and both the FBI and Erie County Sheriff have described the shooting as "racially motivated." We shall see how things shake out. Dumuzid (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Being described as" and "Describing oneself as" are inherently different things. Journalistic integrity demands either citations to the individual's claims, or the article's revision to reflect others' description of the individual. Otodus Meg (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

He calls himself a white supremacist in his manifesto. 24.144.227.41 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"you people" are editors citing reliable sources, not expressing their own opinions. See Wikipedia policy. Jibal (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

He said that depending on the definition, he could either be considered left wing or right wing, and also supports socialism in some cases. Why is he considered Far Right?

I would submit that if he indeed endorsed Great Replacement Theory, as is being reported, that would be some evidence in that direction. Dumuzid (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

His manifesto calls himself a leftist socialist. How is that white supremacy? Why is leftist socialist not the description? 2601:14B:C200:3C20:A130:87E2:CE77:1872 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Source? Nythar (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Didn't actually read his manifesto, did you? The left isn't flogging the phony "replacement theory" dead-horse. The right is.39.116.182.33 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

According to The New York Times the manifesto promoted the great replacement theory. Whether or not he is left wing or right wing doesn't look clear now. Nythar (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It actually is pretty clear at that point, ngl Genabab (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

None of us have read the manifesto, nor is our reading it relevant--Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the article should report what they are saying ... and at this time it does. Jibal (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So if the perp calls himself a socialist, but the media intentionally ignores it and calls him a far-right white supremacist...Wikipedia accepts mainstream media narrative instead of looking at the actual source? The Wikipedia loop of consent in action: journalist calls perp a nazi, Wikipedia accepts it as gospel, other media outlets check Wikipedia to verify their own narratives, hey...they were correct! What a coincidence! And on and on it goes. This site is a cesspool of activists trying to uphold a public narrative that has been specifically designed for one end of the political spectrum, and that's not a matter of opinion.

Selectively using mainstream media and "fact checkers" as sources and then presenting information as established facts is activism.

Meanwhile in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack article, not a single mention of "racial", "race", "hate"...are we still pretending Wikipedia is even attempting neutrality at this point? 86.137.102.238 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this absolute double standard. 38.132.179.74 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is based on what reliable secondary sources say, not editor's interpretations of WP:primary sources. You can call it what you want, but this has been Wikipedia policy for something like 18 years or more. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Granted, this is not a standard media source. Others probably will be forthcoming. It appears that he follows the replacement theory ideology. "The manifesto, which talks about the extremist far-right white or great replacement theory and includes alt-right 4chan memes and jokes, is similar to ones written by shooters who attacked a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, the Tree of Life synagogue in Pennsylvania and an El Paso, Texas, Walmart in recent years, Yale professor Jason Stanley says." Above quote is from: [1] Although the above quote does cite academic Jason Stanley. His Twitter statement on the shooter's ideas are motivated by "replacement theory": [2] The article needs to cite "replacement theory" as influencing the shooter's thoughts Dogru144 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on topic relating to how to improve our article. General gripes about the world are not on topic and may be removed as I just did. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See Alsos

Since we're listing various other racist shootings (like Charleston, El Paso, etc.), perhaps Joseph Christopher could be listed? While his crimes were in 1980, he mostly operated in the Buffalo area and targeted African-Americans. Paris1127 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather we trim the See also section and keep to only directly related entries. Perhaps there's a navbox we could use so we can reduce the number of See also links? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Gunman's name removed again. Major BLP issue

Three sources were cited. Two were the same AP article, one seems to have been copying it based on how things were worded. Both said that unnamed law enforcement articles gave the guy's name. No source said they had independently confirmed that. WP:BLPCRIME still applies here. We don't name people who someone anonymously told a journalist did something. I've removed the name again. There's no rush here, y'all. We don't get paid more for a big scoop. What matters is that we get it right, and right on the first try. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the name not confirmed yet? Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The name was confirmed shortly after I made the above post. However, still important to remember that that doesn't mean we can say in the encyclopedia's voice that "the shooter" and Payton Gendron are the same person. As long as there's any factual dispute as to that, we have to treat those as two distinct people. I've just reworded quite a bit that was running afoul of that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

He's been officially identified as the shooter and put in court. No need to keep removing his name now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

He's been officially acused of being the shooter. So yes, we can name the suspect. We cannot name the perpetrator, who may or may not be the same person as the suspect. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The article says nothing about a "perpetrator", just a suspect. The name of that suspect, which has been reported by reliable sources, should be in the article. Jibal (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It talks about a perpetrator: "The shooter". My point is that we can't call "The shooter" Payton S. Gendron, because doing so would violate WP:BLP. We can, however, call the person that the police arrested Payton S. Gendron, since that is reliably sourced to be his name. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Manifesto

Are we really going to post information from the manifesto but not let others view it? Who is interpreting it? This is certainly against Wikipedia guideline to post information from it through a third party but not reference it directly.--Mapsfly (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconded Otodus Meg (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Its actually in Wikipedia guidelines to reference everything from a reliable secondary source. Its better to use what is reported from news source than try and interpret it directly. I agree that the sourcing right now needs to be improved for what the article has right now. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly against Wikipedia guideline to post information from it through a third party but not reference it directly.

No, it certainly isn't. Jibal (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A single source interpreting a hidden document is not good enough for Wikipedia using WP:PROVEIT and/or WP:BURDEN --Mapsfly (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A single source can actually be good enough in some cases. But anyway, sourcing concerns like that can be dealt with by finding more reliable secondary sources. They cannot be dealt with by citing the primary source. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention what websites he got his racial views from. It's basically telling readers of this article where they can find racist content.

Is the manifesto still not confirmed yet? I have seen multiple sources stating that the manifesto is real.

Wikidude87654321 (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Wikidude87654321Wikidude87654321 (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests

I suggest we begin removing duplicate or trolling edit requests, rather than answering, and if necessary establish a FAQ. Also please remember that BLP applies to talk pages. Names without sources should be removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth

Payton S. Gendron was born on June 20, 2003. Source: [3]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Heavy.com may or may not be reliable, see WP:RSP. Nythar (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if that is accurate, it's not really relevant in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant. I can cite dozens (if not, hundreds) of similar articles, where the perpetrator's date of birth is listed. (Probably all of them, actually.) For myself, I'd rather wait for a conviction (than a suspicion) ... which is why I added it to the Talk Page, for future reference. How do you conclude that a perpetrator's date of birth is not relevant to an article about his crime? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The suspect isn't currently considered a perpetrator; also, a more reliable source than heavy.com would be nice. Nythar (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

According to Vinelink.com, Gendron was born June 20, 2003. He is being held at the Erie County Correctional Facility. Juneau Mike (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's inappropriate to have the weapons in the quick facts?

I don't have any reason for this but it makes me feel a little weird. Anyone else feel the same and can enumerate why they feel this way? LightSonnet (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Weapons are normally included here, see 2019 El Paso shooting and 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Nythar (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm new to editing Wikipedia. is the a guide on what should go into quick facts somewhere? LightSonnet (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

By "quick facts", I assume that you mean the Info Box. Here is some information about that Info Box template: Template:Infobox civilian attack. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Travel from Conklin to Buffalo

• Flynn said Gendron came from Conklin, New York, which is approximately a three-and-a-half hour drive from Buffalo. Source: [4].

• The suspected gunman was identified as Payton Gendron, of Conklin, New York, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Buffalo. Source: [5]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

jimboboiii

should we include the detail the shooter streamed as "jimboboiii" on twitch?--🐦DrWho42👻 03:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If it's sourced yes. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why that would be useful info... Love of Corey (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

jimboboiii and u/Jimbo-boiii are also his Discord and Reddit handles respectively. If they are included in RS please put them in if needed. June Parker (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a detail that (even if true) is of very little importance. And, quite frankly, I think it's best if we don't give publicity to his online accounts. Not sure that we should be spreading his writings. Wikidude87654321 (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

His Discord account seems to have been involved in some of the planning, it could end up being a relevant detail. Especially if the police have linked the account to his identity somehow like if they used the same email. Not adding it at the moment but I did pull a few sources that name a "jimboboiii" as being involved: [1] [2] [3]. --Chillabit (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record...

Just for the record, the reason why I didn't WP:BOLDly move the article as suggested earlier is because I did try earlier, but I was barred from doing so and had to use a WP:RM discussion to overcome it. Love of Corey (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Weapons List

I cannot see any citations, evidence or claims backing up the oddly very specific three weapons listed on this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.179.165 (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I was able to find a source, where it provided the Bushmaster XM-15, but not sure how the page editor was able to find gun sources for Mossberg 500 and the Axis XP bolt action rife.

Source: Buffalo Shooting Leaving 10 Dead Investigated as Hate Crime, Livestreamed (tmz.com) Snake101201 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

They seem to have been taken directly from photos on the shooter's manifesto. Love of Corey (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I see. Snake101201 (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's more than likely, given how I've seen excerpts of the manifesto online. Love of Corey (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it until reliable sources can be found. Please see WP:RS/P for a list of sources that have been discussed and provide a source that has consensus for being reliable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In the twitch viewed video he put, only shows him using 1 assault rifle. Snake101201 (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's similar to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Lanza had various weapons in the car, but all of the victims at the school were killed with the Bushmaster. It's unclear whether the Mossberg or the rifle were actually used during the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The events described are incorrect and is directly countered by the video livestream. He did not engage the security guard first and then shoot 6 people inside!

Nobody has any business referencing the livestream on Wikipedia, use secondary sources who have endured that
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It says here that he was engaged by a security guard as he entered the store. This did not happen straight away, he shot two women, then a man, then spared the life of a white employee or customer. Then the video ends. But this article makes it incorrectly sound like he was engaged straight away by the security guard, then shot 6 people inside. Might want to actually state the facts, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:6807:4600:D809:37EF:FF9A:48C5 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The secondary source currently used is [6], which is some local news station (so not the highest quality source) and it's their understanding of what investigators said. So re use secondary sources who have endured that They didn't watch any clip afaict. The source also doesn't give a series of events as Wikipedia describes, so I think the IP's described issue is legitimate, and I'll fix accordingly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, we certainly should be finding sources who have reported on the the livestream. However, we should not encouraging anybody to do that themselves, or referencing it directly. We don't want anybody to link to copies here, or to imply that it is in any manner acceptable to do so. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't cite the livestream or link to it. But we don't need to watch the livestream to action this request, since regardless of whether the timeline was factually correct or not or if the IP's account is accurate, our timeline still failed verification. The cited news source didn't actually present a timeline in the way our article did. If there is no established timeline in HQRS I think we should keep it time ambiguous, which I think handles the IP's request as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ProcrastinatingReader. It's something I encounter a lot at BLPN. When an editors complains about something and there's reason to think they might have a point even if they have no RS, a simple solution is often to check that whatever they're complaining about is actually support by RS, since often it isn't. I don't edit breaking news stuff as much as I used to, but I recall that a lot there too like here. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of...

W1lliam halifax suggested on ITN[7] that this article is part of 2020–2022 United States racial unrest. Can we reflect this on infobox? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It should also be added to that article. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The shooter claims to have been motivated by the christchurch shooter, and references the White Genocide conspiracy theory as a motive. These are ideas that were relevant before George Floyd's murder. And I don't see any signifigant connection yet aside from basic human empathy for the victims. June Parker (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

considering material for "background" section ?

how relevant would information regarding gendron's firearm purchase in endicott, ny be to this article ? additionally, a few reliable sources have talked about buffalo's history of segregation which has formed the ethnic makeup of the city. although the article has mentioned that the attack took place in a predominately Black neighbourhood, including a short piece of context regarding policies enacted by the city could potentially be productive. example article: [8] Ayyydoc (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The real manifesto

I think it's importante and its not in this wiki, his manifesto its a copypaste with a little bit of modifications of the Brenton Tarrant's manifesto

. 157.100.93.66 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to say this, and if/when they do, it will be included in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Surprisingly this did make its way into the Washington Post, I have added it. Apparently it has already been calculated that around 28% of the manifesto was plagiarized from the Christchurch shooting manifesto. --Chillabit (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Rogers (politician) suggests that the shooting is a False Flag

On the same day as the shooting she posted to her Gab social media account "Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There would have to be WP:RS coverage of Rogers comments for inclusion in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Good to know, would these count as WP:RS?

Wendy Rogers and Nick Fuentes, two prominent right-wing influencers, suggested Saturday that the racially-motivated mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, could be a false flag operation. https://www.newsweek.com/buffalo-shooting-false-flag-operation-suggest-wendy-rogers-nick-fuentes-1706747

Arizona state senator Wendy Rogers — a member of the Oath Keepers who has appeared at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference — made a similar claim, conspiratorially suggesting Gendron was a government agent. “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo,” Rogers wrote in a Telegram post. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/buffalo-shooting-great-replacement-theory-altright-rogers-loomer-fuentes-1353392/

TANGENT Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R), a member of the far-right group the Oath Keepers, appeared to endorse an unevidenced conspiracy theory that the Buffalo shooting was a government operation. Rogers wrote Saturday on the right-leaning social media platform Gettr that “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo.” Rogers’ post—a play on the title of a Chet Hanks song—alluded to the conspiracy theory that government agents, or “feds,” secretly orchestrate mass shootings to create support for gun control laws or to distract from other issues. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/15/buffalo-shooting-suspect-made-generalized-threat-at-school-last-year-police-say/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Two of the sources are not fit per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS and WP:NEWSWEEK. But the Forbes article suffices per WP:FORBES. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarity needed

The head of the local FBI office, Stephen Belongia, told reporters that the agency is investigating the shooting as both a hate crime and as racially motivated violent extremism.

• Both - the usage is strange. Isn't "racially motivated violent extremism" a subset of "hate crime"? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Qualifiers

promoting the white nationalist far-right "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory

Afaik, White Nationalist (or, Supremacist) politics is seen only in Right and Far-Right political setups. Not in Left or far-Left. Thus, I feel the far-right qualifier to be superflous. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean? June Parker (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Laguna Woods shooting

Reports indicate another shooting occurred in Laguna Woods, California.--🐦DrWho42👻 22:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)