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)

his manifesto, which can be found in PDF form on 4chan where he posted it before carrying out the shooting, make it abundantly clear that he is concerned about whites getting replaced by nonwhites. His ideology is therefore primarily white supremacist. If he was in favor of some kind of socialist wealth redistribution, he made it abundantly clear that this would come only *after* killing all nonwhite people. His ideology is primarily guided by white supremacy, great replacement theory, etc. Furthermore, far right white supremacists have a long history of appropriating the term "socialism" for their own ends. The NSDAP of Germany called themselves socialists but they also called themselves anti-marxist, and they privatized large swathes of the German economy, while carrying out genocide against Jews, Poles, Roma, etc. If the NSDAP was truly socialist in a left wing sense, why were Communists and ethnic minorities thrown into their concentration camps? It is clear that being in favor of wealth redistribution for only one racial group does not make a person "leftist" or "socialist" even if they self-apply that term. Keep that in mind. Pu1Vahvahwu0LooWohlah7ug5hai9goh7Eij8eet2ieghohjee (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So you're trying to say that this guy was a "right-wing extremist"? Come on. This guy is a deranged lunatic who hates blacks and Jews, and wants to start a race war. He may well be right-wing, but speculating about his political motives before we know the whole story...I don't think we should be doing that. FairBol (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It can be stated that in the alleged manifesto the author self identified that "on the political compass I fall into the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called populist". Any other political label is assigned by the editor and should be either removed or noted as such. CaptainNedaESB (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is more in line with Wikipedia policies to wait for interpretation from secondary sources than it is to uncritically adopt a primary source's characterization, especially given such an unreliable narrator. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 16 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)

Simply calling yourself something does not make it so. North Korea calls itself "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea." The Nazis called themselves "socialists." If I call myself a fire breathing dragon, it does not make it true. If a far right mass shooter says "I might be considered left wing by some" it is mostly a reflection of ignorance on their part, rather than a failure on our part to understand them. Pu1Vahvahwu0LooWohlah7ug5hai9goh7Eij8eet2ieghohjee (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Or ignorance on the part of sizable segments of the public. There is a long history of (neo-)conservatives in the USA claiming that Hitler and Nazism were actually left-wing or liberal (like in this book, for instance), and it’s possible those conservatives are the “some” he was referring to in his manifesto. Saying “some people might characterize me as X” doesn’t actually mean much because there are lots of people out there with non-standard “takes” on how to classify different political views. To make an analogy, a Wiccan could say in an interview that “some people might characterize me as a Satanist”, given that the Christian Right in the USA routinely equates the two. However, that doesn’t mean Wiccans _actually_ believe in Satan (they don’t), nor that Wikipedia should say that Wiccans are Satanists in its own voice. There are a lot of untrue things that “some people” still believe in. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:1F5F (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As Dumuzid said, it is more in line with wiki policy to wait for an interpretation of "motivation" from secondary sources than to speculate based on an original reading of the primary source.DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:18, 17 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)

Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" is based on a feedback loop where certain mainstream media outlets are considered the source of truth - and these media outlets often use Wikipedia for fact-checking exercises. But sure, let's continue to pretend Wikipedia is attempting neutrality. 86.137.102.238 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is actually addressed at WP:CITOGENESIS, and it can certainly be a problem. Unfortunately, the only alternative structure I ever see proposed is "just believe me," which I would argue is even worse. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I can call myself an evangelical Christian and preach atheism. What he calls himself is unrelated to the things he put in his manifesto. In the manifesto there are clear references to things like black crime statistics and a comic about black people being less intelligent. How is that anything other than white supremacism? 2601:8C:701:D00:50B1:B113:1880:53EB (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The above IP isn't whining about him falsely being called a white supremacist. They're whining because they think there's a double standard. 14.46.200.34 (talk) 06:32, 16 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)

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)

We should in fact mention that he was radicalized on 4chan's /pol, a well known source of far right radicalization. Ommitting that fact contributes to whitewashing the site, by censoring information about it's true nature. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Eventually the manifesto's location and source text will have to be outed, even (perhaps especially) if only to enable credible research. knoodelhed (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't mean it must be specifically available on or through Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

If and when this manifesto becomes public record, for example, it's fair game for Wikipedia. kencf0618 (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, agreed, and consensus may well incline towards including it in some form. I am just saying it is not a foregone conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:00, 16 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)

Really? You "feel" what's appropriate for an encyclopedia? Furthermore, you're new to editing? OK then, would you please do the world a favor and stop doing it. You really do show what's wrong with the world's "new" generations. 88.69.26.134 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If that's your attitude, I'll take a hundred editors like LightSonnet over one of you, IP. Dumuzid (talk) 02:17, 17 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)

Alright thx, got it. Snake101201 (talk) 05:56, 16 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)

Last sentence: “…a lot there is similar to this “ could be “much is similar to this” Bellagio99 (talk) 22:03, 16 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)

This could only be relevant if we see violent protests because of this, IMHO. Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Approaching WP:NOTAFORUM territory but I hope an RS brainstorms the possibility this mass shooting community might be sending eachother manifesto templates. June Parker (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I personally doubt it at this point. Love of Corey (talk) 01:54, 18 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)

bUt gAb iS A rElIaBlE sOuRcE /(sarcasm) Ocemccool (talk) 12:32, 16 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)

@TrangaBellam: that is a misrepresentation. From WP:NEWSWEEK: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". 82.176.221.176 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we'd need to have multiple WP:RS that demonstrates these conspiracy theories have entered the public mainstream as a real controversy. Love of Corey (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And the Forbes one is Smith via Forbes, not Forbes. Not surprising to see such ridiculous claims, though. —PaleoNeonate – 23:11, 17 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)

I take your point, TrangaBellam, but, in my opinion, what is lost in concision is more than made up for in clarity for those less familiar with the topic. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand your point. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Laguna Woods church shooting

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

And? What does that have to do with this one? It is an unfortunate coincidence that they both happened same weekend, but not much other relation. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 01:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the first case is a clear cut case of right wing, white supremacist terrorism, whereas in the second case, motivations are not that obvious. I question the rationale of putting them side by side - but I do not wish to assume bad faith. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Both are terrorism, but with vastly different motives. The first was clearly motivated by racism and the second was probably political (Republic of China/KMT vs Mainland China/PRC.) 14.46.200.34 (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually both seem to be left-wing. It's a Beijing Chinese hater of Taiwanese in the Laguna Woods shooting, and it's a self described eco-fascist national socialist (mild-moderate authoritarian left) who attacked Buffalo. Still early days though and motivation may change as more evidence is discovered. 人族 (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Accused, no longer just suspect

Please note that Gendron, having been charged, is now the "accused" and no longer just a "suspect". This difference is made clear at http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-suspect-and-accused. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@WWGB and ProcrastinatingReader: There is an edit notice here that warns us not to include any material which suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Does this section mention any suspects who have not been convicted? Jarble (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, BLPCRIME's application tends to be haphazard and inconsistent in mass-shootings. I will remove the editnotice so it isn't conflicting with the article's reality. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Including victims' names in the article

Should all of the victims' names be included in this article? Love of Corey (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, other than the inclusion of Salter’s name. The others were not notable prior to the shooting, and their names would be meaningless to almost all readers. Their ages and ethnicity are sufficient to report the scope of the attack. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Of all the incidents where I'd have expected the usual behavior of being disruptive over the inclusion of victims, I was sincerely hoping this would not be it. Who these victims are is not meaningless, for the same reason they weren't meaningless to the suspect who appears to have chose them because of the color of their skin. Their identities are central to this shooting, and excluding them is a clear WP:NPOV violation. Objectifying them by only referring to their skin color and age is insulting to who they were. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Excluding them is a clear enough NPOV violation, but to exclude anyone but Salter is particularly egregious. Regardless of why an editor prefers his name or why any number of readers arguably might, the preference itself is the problem. And yeah, so are perpetual bureaucratic hurdles (and mass shootings). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Include for the same reasons established in this discussion. This information is relevant and there is not a good reason to hide it from our readers. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WWGB. Love of Corey (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support as is standard for almost all other mass shooting articles. It's amazing to me that this project tolerates such blatant disruption when something like this is so generally accepted. WP:NOTBURO is clear that while our policies and guidelines are important, simply being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive is not what we want here. These victims were targeted precisely because of who they are. WP:NPOV demands that we include them, and naming them is the least we can do. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  An assertion of "being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive" is a blatant misrepresenation. There is a long-established "consensus that these scenarios should be handled on a case-by-case basis" which is exactly what we are doing here, and will continue to do on a case-by-case basis according to the individual details of the attack. That is how Wikipedia works. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOTBURO guides us here, specifically Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. You're using a nearly five-year-old discussion as an excuse to bog down what is, at this point, standard practice, in a debate because you don't like it. This is not how Wikipedia works: it's disruptive, full stop. The "accepted practice" here is to name the victims. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  You're also failing to communicate which individual details of the attack make the 10% of victims named Salter exceptional to you. Again, it doesn't matter why, NPOV still rules. But as long as we're ostensibly working toward an understanding here, let's hear you out. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Because other discussions similar to this one have !voted to include the name of any deceased who engaged directly with the attacker (for example, in a school or church), a separate decision to the naming of "passive" victims. No point discussing the inclusion of Salter when the outcome is obvious. WWGB (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Engaged directly with" means "shot", or something broader? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  For a guy who claims he's here to handle this on a case-by-case basis according to the individual details of the attack, you sure have a funny way of vaguely alluding to unspecified past discussions instead and leaving your colleagues hanging for 36 minutes on very uncertain terms. Part of me respects that. But if you're just going to sit there quietly for the foreseeable future, I'm walking away from this table with nothing but the nagging feeling that I've been duped yet again, and this time that's final! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's unreasonable to accuse editors of being disruptive because they oppose naming non-notable strangers who are the victims of mass shootings. Those names mean nothing to over 99% of our readers. You limit your list to mass shootings in the US. Why should they be treated differently to those in the rest of the world? The large majority of our articles about mass shootings (& other mass-casualty incidents) in the rest of the world don't name the victims. This year's mass shootings include: the 2022 Arauca clashes, the Dankade massacre, the 2022 Kech District attack, the 2022 Dnipro shooting, the Las Tinajas massacre & the Abu Khashab shooting - none of which include victims' names. Most of the editors who want victims' names included didn't even edit those articles, let alone add victims' names to them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support There are ten fatalities, a "manageable" number in the context of a catastrophic crime like this. Mentioning and briefly describing each victim, based on coverage in reliable sources, is exceptionally encyclopedic. Such well referenced content enables our readers to understand how horrific this crime was. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support dead, publicized and cited. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Cullen328. (Summoned by bot) —Sirdog (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose except for Salter. No significant context is added by including the other names, and the usual arguments against doing this apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (At least) a couple of them have been profiled: [1] [2] --Chillabit (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose naming any of the victims, because they're non-notable strangers to the shooter & the general public. The media love to publicise & sensationalise, but for over 99% of readers their names are merely those of ordinary people. Adding their names doesn't help the reader. Like with other mass shootings, 99% of people aren't going to remember their names years in the future. There's no reason to include names of victims of mass shootings in the US, but not of mass shootings (or other mass-casualty events) in the rest of the world; we should be consistent. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you seriously gave a shit about consistency, you'd look at the one dead cop and nine supermarket patrons killed by a young white American male with a tactical vest, some crazy ideas and an assault rifle in 2021 Boulder shooting#Victims, then drop that automated stick and move on from this like a civilized human who realizes they've made an honest mistake. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm consistent & haven't made a mistake in regard to this matter. The names of the victims of the Boulder & Buffalo shootings aren't relevant to 99% of readers. If you cared about consistency, you'd have frequently edited Las Tinajas massacre, whose death toll was twice this one's. Western-centrism & especially Americentrism is a major bias of WP. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

For ten years, I've consistently hit up the ones that attract the most attention from English users, because those are the most likely to contain errors, especially while they're on the Main Page and in the speculatory phase of American ballyhoo. If that makes me an uncultured predictable sheep, so be it, bah! At least it breeds familiarity with the way these mainstream horror stories are typically written. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WWGB. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support gives us more detail(the who) about the shooting to include them, and I see no reason and there is no policy that requires us to omit them. Including each persons race as well, which most media a lot have done since they were racial targeted. Age usually also included when we list victims, I'm not apposed to prose or list format. In regards to the question "all of the victims", I'm just supporting the deceased victims. As article states now 13 were shot, but only 10 of those have died. I don't support inclusion of the 3 who are still living. Don't think proposer meant those 3 either, but I'm just clarifying for myself. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The names don't tell us anything about them; they're not info that's useful to our readers. The media often include them, but they often also write mini-bios of them. The media love to sensationalise, gain publicity for themselves & gain more sales/views. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It tells us their names. I am not suggesting mini-bios for people to be included in the article. I don't care about the media or their sensationalism/sales/views. WikiVirusC^(talk) 11:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

When you read the names, did you recognise any of them as people whom you knew (of), or are they names of strangers who are irrelevant to you, as they are to over 99% of readers? If the latter, how would their presence in the article be useful to our readers? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It provides the same use as the suspects name does. If someone wants to know suspect name it is there, if someone wants to know the victims name it is there. There are plenty of articles I have read on Wikipedia articles that are large and have a ton of information that I personally did not need, and I simply didn't read it. I can not attest to what each individual reader is going to want when they come here. Some may want that information, some may simply skip over it. Omitting it hinders the usefulness of the article for those that want it, and doesn't do anything more than skipping over it would do for those that skip names. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of describing the the basic details about the victims like age, height, weight (e.g. "The shooter walked to the aisle where he shot a 20-year old man holding a yogurt") but I wouldn't be so keen about necessarily giving, say, their names or places of birth (e.g., "The shooter walked to the aisle where he shot a 20-year old man named John Doe from Billmore, Missouri who was holding a yogurt") unless it has something important to do with the article. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest not (invited by the bot) For various reasons, listing of victims of tragedies is not the norm. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support with sources - See Virginia Tech shooting. They have an infobox on the right side of the article page with all the names cited. -- Veggies (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support provided that coverage from reliable sources can be found. The names of the victims are part of the coverage for this event and should be given due weight. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support with sources. Article is not that big anyway. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per the reasons given by other agreeing editors. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - While I think there's an argument from non-notability for exclusion, per many of the others I think the event itself is notable enough to justify inclusion. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - We have this discussion almost every time something like this happens, and the result is almost always the same. There's coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 17:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Include the names of the victims, since there are multiple sources available. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. My initial inclination was towards excluding the names; my main concern would be for the privacy of the victims' families. See WP:BDP (stating that BLP applies to contentious material about recently deceased persons that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime). However, upon review, there does appear to be coverage about the victims that has relatively high visibility in mainstream reliable sources: see NPR, NYT, ABC, CNN. Given the principle that we tend to follow the lead of reliable sources, I have no objections to including the victim names here. Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Like Mz7, I leaned towards exclusion but the extensive coverage in RS-es seals it for me. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:VICTIM and WP:Victim lists. The specific names of the victims does not add much value to the article itself, and could be considered WP:UNDUE especially considering this article is not particularly long. The main argument in support is that it's just been covered in RS, but have they asked what this actually adds to the article? The names are not needed to create a well-rounded documentation of this mass shooting, and it even raises some privacy concerns, since the victims were non-notable people. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  I would also like to add that the mention of the victims names in other similar articles is something I also would be opposed to, lacking a compelling reason for inclusion of course. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  This article wouldn't exist but for the victims. If the shooter had gone into an abandoned building and shot twenty holes in the wall we wouldn't even be hearing about it. And in so much as mass shooting articles go, the fact that the shooter appears to have deliberately came to shoot a specific race of people makes them even more relevant, not less. Also, why are we deviating from the sources here? The sources are devoting entire articles to them, and yet our article is tripping over itself to appeal to mass shooter porn enthusiasts by including details like the exact models of weapons he brought along, and including a mini biography on him. Walk me through the logic you're using here to omit half of the narrative of this event? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the weapons used is encyclopaedic information. If you are reading on this event in 50 years time, that kind of information seems relevant. The background of the shooter, how they fell into whatever ideology drove them to commit the act is also of interest. The backgrounds of the victims is generally not of interest to the shooting, except to the extent their background relates to the shooting. In this case, the relevant background seems to be the colour of their skin. I don't mean to be crude, but not much else of their background is relevant to this article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Well put. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not really, which is why I'm ignoring it. Are you going to reply or do you have no answers of your own? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - non-notable people who simply had the bad fortune to be in the way of a killer. They were not specifically targeted as individuals (the shooter did not go out looking to kill these particular people, just any black people he could find). Unlike Salter, the other victims played no active role in the incident. THere is no logical or moral reason to make the only reason anyone ever hears of these people be the worst thing that ever happened to them. It is simple sensationalism. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  Our sources name them, often devoting entire articles/segments to them and who they were. Is there a reason we should engage in original research, ignore the sources, and reduce the victims to just their race and age range? Neutrality demands we provide balanced coverage of a topic, how do you reconcile ignoring the victims while simultaneously providing deep detail on the accused? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support including all names, doing so is perfectly standard on a page like this, there are dozens of RS with the names, it is relevant info, we're already mentioning some of the victims, so why not all, and there's no good reason not to. Joe (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• OPPOSE We already have policies for this: see listing of VICTIMS. Names of non-NOTABLE victims and those, victim or not, who have had no notable interaction with the shooter are meaningless to our readers (see: CRIME victims) and clearly non-encyclopedic. They should be referred to only in the most generic of terms, as we are NOT the news. GenQuest ^"scribble"

  @GenQuest: *sigh* ... WP:VL is an essay, it is not a polic[y]. WP:VICTIM is about entire articles for victims, but it does say A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Which actually seems to support the idea that encyclopedic content should be added to articles about the event (it goes on to say if an article is too large, only then would it be appropriate to spin it out to a different article). They should be referred to only in the most generic of terms, as we are NOT the news. So on this, what is your thought on including the exact make and models of firearms he had with him? Or the other obviously unnecessary but clearly uncontroversial details about the accused/shooter? How do you reconcile deviating from the sources that do prominently name the victims, often with biographical details? In what way is what you're supporting not original research or pushing a point of view? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Magazine capacity

I believe it would be more appropriate to refer to the magazines by their capacity. Calling them Standard Capacity as the military outlines would ignore New York law. Calling them High-Capacity would be inaccurate. Listing them as "30-round magazines, which are illegal in the state of New York" or something to this effect would both refer to the capacity in a non political manner while also making note of the illegality. Tommyw10 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this is similar to the Thousand Oaks shooting where California law bans magazines of more than ten rounds, but the shooter had managed to get around this somehow. The laws on high-capacity magazine bans vary from state to state, so it would be better to explain how many rounds were in the magazines during the Buffalo incident. The Buffalo shooter allegedly said that he wanted to use 30 round magazines and investigators apparently confirmed this off the record, but this is not officially confirmed.[9] The legal limit in New York state is ten rounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

In "see also", delete:

• List of right-wing terrorist attacks

In "references", delete:

Category:Alt-right terrorism FairBol (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Although we're beginning to piece together the shooter's motive in this case, it is still debatable whether he is "right-wing" or "left-wing". Until that debate is conclusively settled, I do not feel that we should mention political ideology here. We can always put the information back in later. Let's let the full narrative come out, before we start jumping to possibly erroneous conclusion

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The alt-right footer seems like it doesn't belong, for now. Searching for the Buffalo shooting with variations on the phrase 'alt right' brings few articles, and WP:BLP applies. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, so you want a consensus. Let me again state my reasons for this change. First, it has been implicitly agreed upon that "the alt-right footer doesn't belong". If that's the case, then I fail to see how labeling this a "right-wing terrorist attack" is appropriate. This has not been conclusively settled. Second, the shooter himself (in his manifesto) said that he is LEFT-WING, not right-wing. If we're taking him at his word, then the "right-wing terrorist" narrative is nothing but a bald-faced lie. Knowing that Wikipedia is seen as Gospel by some, we shouldn't be pushing "disinformation".

I again call for the removal of this label. If anything, we should note the attack to be left-wing in nature...but I won't hold my breath on that one. FairBol (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)FairBol (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Closing while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022 (2)

Change the article details and the name of the section from "accused" to "suspect." Accused sounds weird and he's referred to as a "suspect" or "shooter" everywhere else in the article. WoodjaCoodja (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done The shooter is no longer just as suspect as he has been formally accused (see this explanation posted above). I've changed the prose to be more consistent changing "suspect" to "accused" or "shooter" as appropriate. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Name of security guard

There's obviously an RfC happening above regarding the victims' names, but for some reason the security guard's name is listed on more than one occasion. Is there any reason why this name is being treated differently than the list of victim's names? The security guard is a victim as well, and I don't see any reason why he is being treated separately. Thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

He's tried to kill the perpetrator but failed due to body armor. That makes him more famous than the other victims (in coverage) --Trade (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Typically if it's sourced and isn't contested it's fine in article. Victims names are pretty much always contested, so anyone with familiarly with these kind of articles would typically bring it here first before adding full victim list. If someone else adds one, it usually is removed and brought here to discuss. His name remaining in article shows that the people editing don't contest its inclusion. If the RfC ends up wanting us to not include victim names, then there may need to be a secondary discussion(this could be it?), whether to remove his as well. But I don't think that will be the case as like I said it doesn't seem to be contested. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes unlike a full systematic list, this is different and various sources mention it as a specific event during the attack. —PaleoNeonate – 23:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Black"

The Wikipedia Manual of Style, at MOS:PEOPLELANG, says that ethno-racial color labels, including "Black" and "White" can be given lowercase or uppercase. I propose that this article use the uppercase style. That style is predominant in US usage; I scanned through a random selection of sources currently in the article, and they all use the capital "Black". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Would we then also capitalize the 'white' that appears in the article as well? Or only 'Black'? --Kbabej (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the APA recommends capitalizing both. Seen here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:PEOPLELANG says Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). So either way is acceptable, as long as black and white are treated consistently. In my opinion, they should both be lowercase. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think capitalizing Black and White is probably the best call. Racial or ethnic titles just feel like they should be capitalized. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it comes down to preference. The black people article on WP does not capitalize, and in its lead has a mainstream source stating it should be capitalized and a mainstream source saying it shouldn't. I don't know if there's actually a definitive answer. --Kbabej (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm fairly sure I've used it without capitalizing too. If in thinking about it when I write it I capitalize it though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think both should be capitalized in service of avoiding ambiguity. Black and White capitalized rarely refer to anything but the 'color labels', but those same words not capitalized have many other meanings. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't care personally either way works, both capitalized or both lower case, just remain consistent. Somers-all does makes a good point above about it only every being capitalize when dealing with race. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There's White and Black in chess, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

TIL Somers-all-the-time (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally I dislike capitalizing "white" and "black" as it can sometimes be used to indicate "political whiteness" and "political blackness," which is oftentimes inappropriate. Whatever case we use, we should definitely capitalize both or neither. There's a bizarre trend on some pages (often lower quality ones) where only white is capitalized and black is not, or vice versa. Let us be consistent either way. Joe (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I see people say that "Black" should be captialized because people use it as an ethnic identity, since the slave trade erased their family's country of origin. "White," therefore, shouldn't be, since it usually means a skin color and people's families almost always know where they're from. Tayuro (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Im familiar with, and generally receptive to, that argument. It hasn't faired well in on-wiki discussions so far. I'm happy to see both capitalized if that's what's needed to get consensus for "Black". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Alt-What?

Per the article Payton "... describes himself as a fascist, white supremacist, and an antisemite" except that's the view of a single CNN source. Other sources note he's an eco-fascist who hates conservatives and whose views evolved from communism to something along the "mild-moderate authoritarian left category" though he'd prefer the label populist and is open to being called socialist. That's poles apart on the standard Left-Right spectrum. Oh Payton also hates libertarianism, but that's due to it being pioneered by Jews apparently.

Okay found a specific counter-quote to the CNN piece - 'The Buffalo attacker described his own politics as "mild-moderate authoritarian left," "eco-fascist national socialist" and "populist" and wrote that he formed his racist worldview based on "infographics, s---posts and memes" that he found online' [10]

So how do we reconcile there differences? 人族 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Fox News is not considered a reliable source for issues relating to politics. CNN is. There's nothing really to "reconcile" unless you have a reliable source to work with. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out, that's not exactly true. The page you cited says there is "no consensus" on whether or not political stories from Fox News are reliable. There's a difference between a source being regarded as "unreliable" and "we're not sure if the source is reliable or not". FairBol (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That is enough a reason to disqualify it for the purposes of this article. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO for an article this current and serious we should avoid using sources that are questionably reliable Googleguy007 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Going to cut the facade real quick, Fox News is trying to push a false narrative to cover up for the renewed wave of hatred against non-whites that they play a big part in, and then blame the left for it in bad faith.

Thus, for this specific article, Fox News has no place in it. Fox is reliable for subjects that are not as politically charged, when backing up something already stated by a better source, and for opinions. June Parker (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the exact same narrative that was pushed by right wing media in regards to the Christchurch shooter, and just like in that case it has zero basis in reality. Above user has also received multiple warnings over the past year regarding potentially disruptive behavior and POV-pushing on talk pages related to american politics. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? Love of Corey (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The National Review

The National Review criticized this scrutiny, saying that "He never mentioned Tucker Carlson, and expressed his hatred for Fox News." in the manifesto.

Not only is the National Review not regarded as reliable, this is WP:TRIVIA and off topic, in addition to going against WP:MANDY. I question why it was included, other than to add some kind of rebuttal against the (very well justified) criticism of right wing media for inspiring the attack. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont think this is WP:TRIVIA as it is related to the topic, but I do agree that WP:MANDY applies here. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree this WP:MANDY as well as WP:TRIVIA and off topic and should not be included. It's tangential and non-encyclopedic. It's like having ((random famous person))'s opinion of ((thing the famous person is not involved in)). 2600:1700:F90:6950:B8E7:2F19:61BE:3AD3 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

With apologies to Barry Manilow:

~Oh Mandy/you came and you wrote as expected~

Something to help me through Tuesday. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably should be avoided unless another source mentions this, with their analysis of this claim. —PaleoNeonate – 23:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Locking

I’d recommend locking this article because of people having drastically different strong political views about it and therefore lots of editing, then reverting, then editing again, etc. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is already semi-protected so that IPs and new accounts can't edit. Full protection is undertaken only briefly and in unusual circumstances, and the editing in recent time has been reasonably unproblematic. Is there a specific concern that needs to be addressed? Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I say just give anyone pushing a narrative a rope and let them screw themselves (WP:ROPE). This is a new subject and most vandals this page will ever suffer through will come within this month. June Parker (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Some part say “accused”, others “suspect”, others “shooter”, etc. It just sounds really weird and there needs to be consistency. I see in other conversations that people can’t agree on what to call the person that was arrested. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not always appropriate to use the same descriptive term. It is OK to say "the accused is Payton Gendron", but it is not OK to say "the accused killed 10 people" as that has to be proved in court. In the latter case, we say "the shooter killed 10 people". Likewise, Gendron only became the "accused" after he was charged. Until that time, he was just a "suspect". So it's not as simple as you might like. WWGB (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The logic used in the Kyle Rittenhouse case (and a couple others) was that it was okay to say Rittenhouse had killed a few people from the outset, but not to say he murdered them (with murder being the crime). This turned out to be reasonable in hindsight, since he was acquitted of the charges, and there was no dispute that he had fired fatal shots (he was on camera doing so, and didn't deny it either).

I suppose if there is no dispute that Gendron killed the individuals that precedent may apply here, though there's no reason to follow it and keeping a distinction between shooter v suspect could also work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of precedent to refer to the accused as having engaged in the underlying act if they don't dispute the applicable facts. See for instance this version of the Boston Marathon bombing article from before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's conviction. Assuming that the manifesto is real, it seems unlikely that Gendron will deny being the one who pulled the trigger and will instead rest his not-guilty plea on other grounds, at which point we can stop making the shooter/accused distinction. But until then, we must err on the side of "not guilty" being a full denial. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The court of law can be extremely biased so we should not use it as a basis as to how we describe events.

He livestreamed his 10+ murders. Reliable sources confirm 10+ murders. His manifesto describes in detail how he planned to carry out these murders.

If he is acquitted by court for some abysmal reason it does not change the fact he murdered 10 people. Especially since many sources verify this. If we only listened to what the court says, people like Emmett Till and Tamir Rice would be labeled as rapists and thugs simply because the court deemed them such. June Parker (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass murder

In regards to this edit, — What's wrong with the category about mass murder? The FBI says it must be at least four people murdered in a single incident- which this shooting obviously is. If you look at the Category:Mass murder in 2022 page (or for any other "Mass murder in X_year" category) you won't see a tendency to wait until the trial (the majority of the perpetrators likely never will be placed on trial). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble - the issue is "murder" because he has not been convicted of anything (yet). If/when he is, then we can add that category. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass murder is not legally something you can be convicted for (just a way to classify a type of murder). Wikipedia also doesn't function solely by the assumption that an event needs to have a conviction to happen, all that matters is that somebody shot dead multiple people in a single event. (He shot and killed at least 4 people, illegally=mass murder) Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus from other similar articles is not to use the word "murder" unless a court conviction is obtained. There are a range of possible outcomes (manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity etc). Even if these are unlikely when a person is charged with murder one, it's best to wait for a jury to decide.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Illegally" is a legal conclusion there. There have been notable cases of someone shooting multiple people in a single event and that being ruled lawful, most recently the Kenosha shootings. Now it's very hard to see this being ruled lawful, but "Oh come on, would you look at it? That's clearly murder" is not an exception to BLP.

Perhaps the solution here is to stop basing event and victim categories around legal conclusions. I've just removed several "murder" categories from James Brady, as those had the BLP-violating effect of calling John Hinckley Jr. a murderer, when he was never charged with that crime and indeed a jury found that he was insane (and thus could not be held criminally liable) at the time of the shooting. Making categories for mass homicides, homicide victims, etc., would be a lot smoother. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 to pretty much everything Tamzin said. I might go for killings over homicides, but that's a conversation to be had elsewhere Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Another +1 here. That is a nice, succinct way to explain it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Emmett Till's death was ruled lawful, even though morally it was pure evil, thus it's still referred to as a "Murder" in every page mentioning it. Both morally and factually, as the killers had a drawn out plan to track and kill him with contempt.

The Holocaust was also lawful but we still refer to it as a genocide. Most genocides were lawful, in fact.

Recently, Alice Sebold's "Rapist" was actually proven innocent due to a lie on her part, proving he was not the one who assualted her. He was labelled an evil rapist until the news came out.

Becuase of weird things like this I feel like Wikipedia needs to stop basing what it calls evil and not evil on the law, and probably needs to change it's vocab to merely state the facts coldly. As to prevent implying moral crimes ruled lawful weren't immoral, and vice versa. June Parker (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ideology in Lede

"Motivation" should be removed from lede. Putting aside the question of giving airtime to a repellent ideology, it goes against the pattern of similar mass shootings.[1] More to the point, any attempt to divine motivation is an attempt to project coherence onto symptoms of mental illness.

[1] 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, 2021 Boulder shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs)

But see, for instance, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. The reliable sources don't seem to me to be focusing on mental illness. We should follow where they lead. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It isn't OR to consider a mass shooter mentally disturbed: it's implicit. The point is that US newspapers rarely cast the narrative as a simply a sad loss of life because there are other narratives that readers find more appealing; Wikipedia shouldn't fall into that trap. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If what you are suggesting is that we not "fall into that trap" by ignoring reliable sources, I would respectfully disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19: It seems an awful lot to me like you're trying to push your own narrative here. All reliable sources are covering this as a politically-motivated act. All are treating the accused's manifesto as relevant. You may dislike that. But this is an encyclopedia, not a media critique forum, and not a place to have the millionth iteration of the "Are mass shootings a mental health thing or a politics thing?" debate. I would strongly suggest that you self-revert your latest edit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason for both political radicalization and mental issues to not be important, especially when RS mention both. As for the lead, it should be a summary of the body of the article. —PaleoNeonate – 23:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Please link this article to the Wiki article on Great Replacement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement Chezgold (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Some people contest it's inclusion right now, so it was removed. See discussion in Talk:2022_Buffalo_shooting#Political_ideology. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Radicalization etc

There has been incisive commentary on the mainstreaming of alt-right conspiracy theories, associated hate, and growing radicalization. Someone among you, please draft a decent section. To attribute the "renewed scrutiny" claim to Guardian, as if this is an exceptional claim, while ignoring the sources that engage in this "scrutiny" is ridiculous. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to help you out, but you need to clarify what you're asking for better. June Parker (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Authoritarian Left

The Manifesto itself has him describing himself as authoritarian left, but the article relates him as right wing. I think ignoring this aspect of the manifesto and situation is resulting in misinformation on the part of the wiki. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes its information from reliable secondary sources; I, for one, would not be comfortable taking any of the suspect's self-classifications at face value. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Because I’m sure you Wikipedia editors would be saying the same thing if he said he was right wing… 2600:6C5A:A00:146E:E0E7:965D:4129:D552 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a believer in sticking to secondary sources as much as possible. That's kind of how Wikipedia works. Dumuzid (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay...? Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to confirm that. Maybe one that isn't Fox News.

Dozens of sources as well as his own manifesto describe him as right wing and a white supremacist. That's why that's there. June Parker (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Someome hasn’t read the manifesto.. 2600:6C5A:A00:146E:E0E7:965D:4129:D552 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I have, actually. Out of curiosity. He calls himself a white supremacist, reliable sources pick up on that and report on it. That's why this article describes him as a white supremacist. June Parker (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases its articles on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic. So are there actually any such sources that concur with his self description though? If not, then any attempt to add such text as you're proposing would be original research and prevented by policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

just add a link of his manifesto, he literally states he’s auth left and hates Fox News, no amount of left wing propaganda is going to change that 2600:6C5A:A00:146E:E0E7:965D:4129:D552 (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we will not link to a copy of the manifesto, or the video. We use secondary sources. For instance, just because the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea calls itself that doesn't mean Wikipedia does. We never take such statements at face value. Please cut out the "left wing propaganda" accusations. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we stop entertaining these people and just delete/block any requests to "Fight" this "Left wing agenda" that doesn't lay out reliable sources or a desire to improve the article. June Parker (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Soliciting input on External link

Although its use as a source is an uncontroversial rejection, the accused's manifesto seems at first thought to be relevant enough to include in an External links section. I don't plan on adding it anytime soon, but I would be interested in hearing reasons to include or not to include it in the future. I don't see anything obvious in WP:EL that would disqualify it, and as an example, the article for The Anarchist Cookbook includes a link to the article's subject's full text despite its controversial content. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I doubt this will slide, even if it did fly Google done scrubbed it off the planet so... June Parker (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)