Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting

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)

I agree. I don't know why this still hasn't been done. If the shooter himself identifies as "authoritarian left", why should we believe otherwise? And what evidence suggests that he's somehow incorrect about himself? FairBol (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you think what we know of the suspect suggests perceptiveness and accurate judgment? Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying he had "accurate judgment", not at all. Don't try to put words in my mouth. BTW, the white supremacy thing aside, I don't see any other evidence that this was approached from a purely "right-wing" perspective. Could you enlighten me as to where/what that might be? FairBol (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to demonstrate why people might not choose to take anything the suspect said or wrote at face value. And "the white supremacy thing aside" is a bit like "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I would refer you to the reliable sources for their current analysis of the suspect and his political leanings. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess I understand your point. I still beg to differ, but...civility is a good thing! LOL. FairBol (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You're making the very basic mistake of assuming that a person can't be racist and leftist at the same time. Your own political bias is showing- you're only allowing good qualities to be ascribed to the ideology that you identify with, while allowing bad qualities be ascribed to ideology that you oppose. Zorak5000 (talk) 02:38, 21 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)

You make a good point, and one that I'll give you credit for. There are many who believe things that are demonstrably false. If I were to point out that the sky is usually blue, and grass usually green, some people would say otherwise..."no no no, the sky is green, and grass is blue". This is regardless of party affiliation or ideology. FairBol (talk) 17:22, 18 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)

What does being a leftist socialist have anything to do with being or not being a white supremacist?--Mapsfly (talk) 18:00, 20 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)

Jason Stanley is a liberal activist. Predictably, his "findings" will always agree with his political slant. If you look at his twitter you can clearly see that he strongly identifies with one side. It shouldn't be surprising that when an event happens (whatever it may be) he's going to take the "liberal" side. It's a lot like listening to a fundamentalist Christian judge talk about abortion- while you can't deny his legal training, you also can't pretend that he's being unbiased. Zorak5000 (talk) 02:50, 21 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)

Wendy Rogers 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)

A conspiracy theory should be getting widespread "believers" before being noted and quoted. And mention of a CT should always be followed by the real facts, or a quote from a reliable debunker.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Including victims' names in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include the victim names, preferably in prose rather than a bare list. Most agreed the names are well enough sourced, so the majority of the discussion came down to whether or not including them would be relevant/encyclopedic. To that extent, the strongest policy that comes into play is NPOV, and the opposing arguments did not provide any justification to overcome those concerns (particularly about due weight). Some opposing also mentioned the scope, but WP:Relevance would suggest the names are objective information directly about the topic of the article and therefore of the highest relevance to the scope of the article. ––FormalDude talk 05:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

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)

  Leaving out information is not original research. It's editing. We don't include everything every source says, we include encyclopedic details. Details that help us understand the event. The names of the victims do not help understand the event. Details about the shooter could help us understand how he came to be like this. Details about the weapons enhance understanding of how he was able to do it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Details about a shooter have never helped us understand how he came to be like that. Nor a strangler, stabber or suicide bomber. Like elephants, some people are just jerks. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  They sometimes do, especially in regard to those who've been radicalised into an ideology. To know why a person was attracted to their gang, cult, terrorist group etc. is relevant. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Link an example of a case where Wikipedia explains why one member of a cult/gang/group committed a mass shooting and his or her fellows did not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  While Jim's looking, note how details on the victims also help us understand how they came to be like that. Drury was buying groceries for dinner. Chaney, who couldn't run like her younger sister, was getting strawberries for shortcakes. Patterson was helping someone load a trunk. Massey and Young were on shopping trips. Salter, a security guard, shot at his shooter. Mackniel needed a cake, chips and pop for his son's third birthday party, Morrisson some snacks for a marital movie night. Whitfield was on her way back from visiting her husband, Talley sent her fiancé down an aisle. Being black factored in, overall, but these particular black people had definite and distinct reasons to be in "the wrong place at the wrong time", none randomly appeared. It only seems that way if one ignores their widely reported paths to this previously obscure store. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying that those details about each victim should be included in the article? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, I'm saying they also help us understand how they came to be like that. More to illustrate how they aren't just random meaningless interchangeable proper nouns. Each came to be the Who in this story in their own way, as did Gendron. The list itself should go Name, Age, Hometown. The inline citations will provide this further reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Readers don't need to know - let alone understand - why each of the victims were there. The victims of shootings, stabbings, explosions etc. at shops are usually shoppers &/or staff. Their specifics are trivia. They were unlucky & weren't individually sought out. They were strangers to both the killer & the general public. Active tackling of the perpetrator is worth mentioning, but even then there's no need to name the person who intervened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Aside from Salter's deliberate actions in attempting to end the shooting, none of that is relevant detail that belongs in an encyclopedia. That is textbook "wrong place at the wrong time". It doesn't even rise to the level of trivial. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's your opinion. I see absolutely no connection between trying to end a shooting and being identified as one its dead. Massey had tried to end multiple future shootings, through letter writing, equally in vain. Reliable sources don't single him or her out for such weird reasons. We should reflect every covered victim, per NPOV. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Leaving out information is not original research. – it is when it affects the balance of the article, shifting the focus to one party or one view over another. It's literally why WP:NPOV (and specifically, WP:UNDUE) exists. The names of the victims do not help understand the event. – replace victims with "shooter" and walk me through the logic in how their name helps our readers? As I've asked you below already, why are we supplanting the judgement of our sources with what you prefer? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  The thing that would put undue focus on one party would be to list the names. The personal identity of the shooter is central to the event, the personal identities of the victims aren't. They didn't die because they were themselves, they died because they were simply there. The reason we would leave out information our sources include is that we are not the same sort of publication. Newspapers put in any sort of sensationalism that they feel will increase sales. An encyclopedia puts in information that is relevant to understanding an event. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  The personal identity of the shooter is central to the event, the personal identities of the victims aren't – if the victims weren't killed, we wouldn't even be writing this article 🤷‍♂️ They didn't die because they were themselves – they were specifically targeted because of the color of their skin (their race), that is literally part of their identity, who they are. An encyclopedia puts in information that is relevant to understanding an event – ...while not providing WP:UNDUE weight to one perspective or view over another, as the opposes are doing here. WP:NPOV is non-negotiable. Any idea that the victims are any less central to this is comedy bordering on insulting. Reducing them to their race, genders and age is objectifying them for the reader and making it impersonal, removing the gravity of the fact that these lives, people who were just going about their days, are over. If your goal is to undermine the severity of this event, then yes, objectifying them would do that. But providing balance is my goal. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, if some victims weren't killed, we wouldn't be writing this article. Whether it was these people or others. They were killed for their race, not who they were as individuals. Details about them as individuals are undue because their involvement in this event wasn't as individuals. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  Details about them as individuals are undue because their involvement in this event wasn't as individuals. – 🤦‍♂️ As individuals they are now dead because the shooter explicitly hunted them down and killed them. Our sources are clear on who they were, and have even detailed in some instances what they did to try and survive. Your attempt earlier at discrediting our sources being irrelevant (please go read WP:RS, and if you think these sources are inappropriate, seek to have them discredited there), we won't be supplanting your judgement for the judgement of our reliable secondary sources. Not today. Not ever. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 23 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)

  @Locke Cole: ::Sigh:: (Here we go again)

  Of interest to this RfC:

  • See not a newspaper. Most of these names will be meaningless in an encyclopedia article even three months from now. Hell, a couple of years from now, few will even remember the perpetrator's name, and a decade from now, no one will remember his name at all.
  • See Not memorial, which encompasses WP:VL and the spirit of WP:VICTIM, and is certainly policy. The same ideas hold for a list of random, non-notable victims. None of these victims appear especially notable enough to be memorialized by name in the article, with the possible exception of the deceased armed guy that shot back.

  Requested other thoughts:

  • Encyclopedic articles don't need to know all the minutia either; who cares exactly what gun(s) he used, what he ate for breakfast that day; is he left-wing/right-wing, etc. To me, that's all trivia and speculation, especially at this point. The listing of such information regarding the perpetrator gives too much weight to them, their justification, and their cause, and should be summarized in an article about the event, not expanded, and certainly not a full article, now or in the future.
  • See Perpetrators if you want to see policy regarding information needs of the perpetrator of this act. I, however, have in the past argued strongly for article deletion and summary inclusion only in the victim articles of subjects such as Jared Loughner. I really do not like that such overly detailed articles about perpetrators known only for the one event they caused even exist. Those kinds of articles were not allowed when I first started editing here, but, consensus changed along the way. I still think summarizing is the way forward here (as is done in this article), but it does not need to be a huge section, just the basics.
  • None of this is original research, nor is it pushing any point of view as you seem to be accusing me of, as what I have argued for is Wikipedia policy-based.

  This discussion is going way past the scope of this RfC, and becoming a wall of words, so I'll stop here. I did want to address your concerns, as the tone of your response seemed a bit adversarial, and crossed into areas not being addressed by the RfC.

  My OPPOSE stands, as it has many times in the past in such discussions.

  Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  See not a newspaper. Yes. See it. It's not saying what you're thinking it's saying: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic (their "importance to the overall topic" is clear; if not for their deaths this event would not be notable). [W]hich encompasses WP:VL and the spirit of WP:VICTIM, and is certainly policy; WP:VL is, again, an essay, not even remotely close to a policy or a guideline. WP:VICTIM is a notability guideline for articles about subjects involved in a crime (victims or perpetrators). As to the rest, as your argument hinges on these false interpretations of "policy", I'll leave it alone. If my tone is "adversarial" it is because you are misunderstanding policies and guidelines and misapplying them. This is WP:NOTAVOTE. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR is policy, and those along with WP:UNDUE should be what guides this. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: The content in an article only needs to follow content guidelines. It doesn't have to be 'notable'. And even if it did, notability is vanishingly easy to achieve (just 3 sources with independent coverage of a non-trivial nature is enough to cement notability). There is no content guidelines that requires an article to exclude victims. If 'size' is a concern, I remind people that Wikipedia formatting includes has the sortable, collapsible, H:TABLE function. One example exists in the Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks page. As long as the list can be cited using what consensus views as reliable sources (and again I say, this doesn't require notability or GNG to be achieved), there is no reason to oppose the inclusion of such a list, and I see no legitimate reasons to oppose one. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think when people use "notable" here they mean the dictionary 'notable' and not WP:N WikiSpeak 'notable'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  I see. Well, I consider that idea irrelevant or without merit, and has no bearing on my view. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:IINFO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, etc. Citing of other examples of victim lists in Wikipedia is not convincing; that we do the wrong thing elsewhere in Wikipedia is not a justification for doing the wrong thing here also. --Jayron32 17:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  What makes the list of victims in an article a "memorial" and not just a list of victims? edit - On reading WP:NOTMEMORIAL, it has nothing to do with edits to add victim names. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about the "subject of wikipedia articles". The victims are not the subject of this article, the massacre in which they died in is the subject. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant to the discussion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - This is a perennial debate. I favor adding/keeping the victim names. They are part of the story ... in fact, they are the story. It would be like omitting the name of the supermarket, or the town, or the suspect, or the type of weapon, etc. They are a significant "component" of the story. Also, it would be quite unseemly to list one victim (the security guard), while omitting the other nine. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support: There are enough sources to make a list of the victims, without them there would be no article to write. Jjjimg (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, without the shooter there would be no story. Without these particular victims, there would almost certainly be other victims. That's the difference. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  They said without victims, not without these specific/particular victims. Shootings happen, and not always are there going to be a lot of coverage, especially if there are no victims. And as Jjjimg said, without victims there wouldn't be an article, same goes without a shooter there wouldn't be an article. Not withstanding other circumstances. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  They said "the victims", that makes it specific. The identities of the victims are incidental, the identity of the shooter is central. Without this particular guy deciding to shoot people, nothing would have happened here. Without these particular people being shot, there still would have been an attack and virtually certainly still would have been victims. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not gonna bother with what he meant when he said them and if his point is same, sorry for even referring to it. The point I was making and said is without victims there wouldn't be an article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Remind me again why we're supplanting the judgement of our sources with what you prefer? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support I think their names should never be forgotten. However the alleged shooters name should not be in the article. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is little encyclopedic value in including the name, and while it is obviously a great tragedy for the victims and their families, we are an encyclopedia not a memorial site.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support as it honours the dead who were targetted for their identity. It adds information to the article.--Seggallion (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I've seen some discussion of what Wikipedia's policies are in this area. FYI - per this 2017 discussion, which I do not believe has been superseded by a more recent one, there is no sitewide consensus or policy on how to handle this issue. The question should be resolved by consensus on an a case-by-case basis in discussions like this one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Requested closure here. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

It's unrelated to the point being made but usually in chess you use Black and White as proper nouns, e.g. "White plays 1. e4" instead of "The White player plays 1. e4". It makes sense in this context for White and Black to always be capitalized. Dofley (talk) 18:12, 19 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)

Capitalize the B in black. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

All races should be capitalized. However recently some don't want the "W" in "white" to be capitalized, because white surpremacists always capitolize it. I don't agree with that because 1) white supremecists are given influence that they should not have in indirectly causing people to Un-capitolize white. And 2) I don't think it's fair that only white people should have their race uncapitalized.

I am a mixed-race person, by the way. I am not pushing for any race as better than any other, I am just saying-- be fair and capitalize everybody. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that there's no consensus in terms of reliable news sources as well as reliable academic sources as to whether or not ethnicity based labels should be always capitalized, I'd rather than we continue to just use "black" and "white". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, MOS:RETAIN is about national varieties of English, but MOS:VAR says something similar about retaining existing styles in general. That said, it continues with "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page", which is what's happened here.

That said, CoffeeWithMarkets' comment and your/CactiStaccingCrane's reverts make the consensus much less clear, and I won't revert without further input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose MOS:VAR is the relevant one here, though they do say very similar things. Regardless, "what was the original style" seems like the best rule of thumb to go for when there is no clear style in the article and no clear reason to prefer one over the other. Endwise (talk) 18:47, 22 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' [3]

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)

CNN is absolutely not a credible media outlet. They're currently in a battle with MSNBC to try to capture the liberal audience (since Fox News has already captured the conservative audience). They aren't on the level of Reuters, BBC, ABC, etc. Zorak5000 (talk) 04:31, 21 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)

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)

The shooter's right wing ideology was a clear motivator in this case and has been described as such by reliable sources. There is no reason to censor this fact, except to cover up the shooter's obvious and unquestionable ties to growing far right extremism in the United States. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 07:58, 18 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)

He clearly isn't swarthy enough to be a terrorist. Ergo, this must be a case of mental illness.14.46.200.34 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This comment ^^^ (just above mine, right here ^^^) is totally racist. Does anyone know how to report this? I've read that IPs can be banned. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

You could certainly lodge a complaint at WP:ANI, but it reads to me like ironic social commentary. As they say, your mileage may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Perhaps they were critisizing how people get pigeon-holed. Ok nevermind. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Not just antisemitism but also anti-Arabism and Turkophobia

By the respective topic ‘investigation’ there is only a mention of Anti-Semitism, however the hatred to Arabs and Turks is ignored (Payton Grendon literally describes Turks as invaders in Europe and that they shall be seen as invaders.) The guy got inspired by Breivik and Tarrant whom both antagonized Turks as the enemy of Western Europe. The former describing Turks as genocidal monsters and the latter threatening Turks that they shouldn’t live on the European side of their country, imbecile!

Interestingly, the far rightist terrorist was Christchurch is obsessed by the Turks, not unlike Anders Breivik in his own manifesto. Turkophobia kills, we have another, terrible example today, that should be mentioned. 2A02:A466:AEAD:1:E5B6:1977:F8A8:3EA1 (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree about Turkophobia broadly, and I have only glanced at the "manifesto," but I got the sense that his complaints about Turks in Europe were very much part of the copypasta: i.e., just plagiarized and unclear about what effect it might have had on his actual motivations. This may well make it into the article, but we should let things shake out and have the reliable sources tell us whether this facet is truly notable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Given a 180-page manifest and a 673-page diary, there's a plethora of nuggets to WP:COATRACK.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buffalo-shooting-supermarket-673-page-diary-reveals-suspects-descent-into-racist-extremism-11652814938?mod=hp_lead_pos10

kencf0618 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The alleged author of the Buffalo manuscript wanted to kill Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Brenton Tarrant also wanted to do this and there may be a copycat element) plus Sadiq Khan and George Soros. As with the Christchurch mosque shootings‎, it isn't practical to list all of the crackpot stuff that the shooter wanted to do. Most of the focus has been on the shooter's desire to kill black people due to what happened at the supermarket.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Update, the original Buffalo manifesto may actually be 600 pages. Imagine how long that hate list must be. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Source? Love of Corey (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"Great Replacement" or "White Genocide" conspiracy theory?

Hello, so, in looking at the reliable sources about the massacre, it appears that the shooter's extremist viewpoints are both described as being in support of the 'Great Replacement' theory (that an evil Jewish-LGBT conspiracy by elites in banking and media institutions are trying to replace the U.S. white Christian populace with non-whites and non-Christians) and the 'White Genocide' theory (that said cabal is doing just that, but with the long-term aim to eliminate white Christians as a tribe altogether in the U.S.). We use the former in the article but don't really get into it in depth in terms of the context, seems like we probably should. We don't mention the latter term at all. Is this a mistake? Thoughts? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the lack of context provided on the two viewpoints in RS and the article was the reason I added White genocide conspiracy theory to the See also section. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The exact words "white genocide" are used in the media often in reference to this shooting, here's an example from Axois.com. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Beast has argued that "the killer was animated by a noxious brew of ideas centered around the claim that there is a deliberate plot to commit to genocide against white Americans—using non-white immigration as its supposed primary means" as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of material to the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that "Great" should be taken out and replaced with "White". Great replacement theory = White replacement conspiracy theory. Because the word "Great" promotes the theory. And concensus is almost certainly that it's not a "Great" theory. And yes it's a C.S. for sure.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, but I want to see what other editors think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2022

2022 Buffalo shooting → Buffalo supermarket shooting – Place usually takes precedent over date. See WP:NOYEAR Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, mass shootings have become so common in the U.S. in the last decade or two that, at least for me, the rationale of WP:NOYEAR is looking weaker and weaker as applied. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

My reading of WP:NOYEAR is that the date should be included unless the event is of extremely great prominence. Given the (horrific) regularity of mass shootings in the US, I find it unlikely for any such event to rise to that level. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

No other supermarket shooting has taken place in Buffalo that is anywhere near notable. There is no other shooting in Buffalo's history (besides the Assassination of William McKinley) that is so notable. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - "supermarket" is not descriptive enough to clearly identify the event with regards to when it occurred. Many other shootings/attacks are titled "YYYY [Place name] [shooting/bombing/attack/etc]". -- Veggies (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's done when multiple other (notable) attacks have taken place in the same area, not because of an attempt to align article titles. For instance July 2010 Lahore bombings/September 2010 Lahore bombings and 2002 Itamar attack/2011 Itamar attack versus Rann bombing (not called 2017 Rann bombing) and Mo So massacre (not called 2021 Myanmar massacre). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's not true. Wikipedia generally follows what the common name for an event is. If it doesn't have one, WP:NCE states: In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors: When the incident happened. Where the incident happened. What happened.. Your proposal does not satisfy that requirement and there's no evidence that "supermarket shooting" is in any way a common, established name for this. -- Veggies (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  "2022 Buffalo shooting" is not a common name either. WP:NCE states that the "where and what" format is also allowed and that Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  The event happened a little over a week ago. It is far too recent to try and use a crystal ball to guess at what the historic perspective of this event will be. The WP:NOYEAR part of NCE cannot apply this soon after an event. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep As-is For Now - The current title seems perfectly alright to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Happy with the title as it is.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support The obsession we have with creating every new article with the year out front, whether necessary or not, is just weird. If we need to differentiate between two different article titles, that's fine, but there has been only one Wikipedia-worthy shooting in a Buffalo supermarket; the whole "The U.S. is a chaotic wasteland of nonstop gun violence and we can't keep up unless we have the year in the title" is inaccurate at best and plainly insulting at worst. WP:NOYEAR applies, and the arguments above do not establish any reason to not follow that guidance. --Jayron32 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support because the type of venue is a better disambiguator than the year. This is the only notable shooting in a supermarket in Buffalo. The proposed title is being used by some mainstream RS. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Concise, precise and common. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - too early to determine whether or not this will become the common name. Similar to 2019 El Paso shooting and 2021 Boulder shooting, both of which occurred at supermarkets, the location is probably too specific for the title. Also oppose proposed title because of lack of year, as this may not be the only shooting that has ever occurred at a supermarket in Buffalo, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  We can always find random examples of pages that use differing formats. Looking at Category:Attacks on supermarkets shows that there is a roughly 50/50 chance a supermarket shooting will have a date in the title, and even then this is usually to differentiate from other attacks in the area. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The common name I have seen on most media outlets is simply "Buffalo shooting" which per MOS requires a year to disambiguate. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Nuetral Both are fine. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• I think people are more likely to search "2022 Buffalo..." than "Buffalo supermarket...", so weak oppose (?) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Location is probably too specific. Similar supermarket attacks, such as 2019 El Paso shooting and 2021 Boulder shooting, use the "[year] [city] shooting" format. As User:Another Believer stated, people are probably more likely to search "2022 Buffalo shooting" than "Buffalo supermarket shooting." Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 04:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Honestly, since the title is 2022 buffalo shooting, there might be more shootings in buffalo and it would be harder to find it. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 04:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, current name is perfectly fine and appears to be consistent with other similar articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• There are about 254 shootings in Buffalo each year-- So which "Buffalo shooting" are we talking about? Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC) P.S. Support. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the source about the average of 254 Buffalo shootings per year-- [New year begins in Buffalo with more deadly gun violence https://buffalonews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/new-year-begins-in-buffalo-with-more-deadly-gun-violence/article_ba5def68-6b3b-11ec-9b07-cfbdfc215bd5.html] Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The one that has enough notability to have a Wikipedia article. If we create two articles about mass shootings in Buffalo in supermarkets, then we can use the year to differentiate them. --Jayron32 12:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support as the proposed title is less ambiguous and has been used in sources from AP and CNN. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Supermarket" is a non-necessary disambiguator. Someone above wrote that there may be more shootings. If that should happen, we'll fix it then. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The year is a useful identifier, and aids recognition for readers of any era, to distinguish it from an event from the 1990s, 1970s, 2000s or any other time. The "supermarket" isn't vital though, it is primarily identified with Buffalo alone and unless another shooting occurs there this year, it's unnecessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 20 M" ay 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32 @Amakuru @GenQuest then the title should be, "2022 Buffalo mass shooting". Also with 250+ shootings in Buffalo a year, there could be another Wikipedia article appearing at any time.

Also-- People find Wikipedia with Google searches. How many "Buffalo shootings" might be coming up in the same search, making it hard to find this article? Right now, this one will come to the top, but as the weeks go by, it won't. "2022 Buffalo mass shooting" will prevent this problem.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Unlikely, as with any topic, not every shooting has enough reliable source text to create a stand-alone Wikipedia article about it. This one does. None of those other 250 or so do. --Jayron32 15:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32 People find Wikipedia with Google searches. How many "Buffalo shootings" might be coming up in the same search, making it hard to find this article?

Right now, this one will come to the top, but as the weeks go by, it won't. "2022 Buffalo mass shooting" will prevent this problem.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 16:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

My position on the matter is already clear and unambiguous, and this discussion would not benefit from further commentary by me. Your position is also similarly well-explained at this point. Maybe let other voices get heard. --Jayron32 17:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While I agree this title needs to be more specific, Buffalo Supermarket Shooting is a very generic term. I would support 2022 Buffalo Supermarket Shooting or something similar (I know this was the prior name, but I think it suits much better). Haiiya (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose makes the title less clear, per the comments above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above Yeungkahchun (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NCE is the guideline to follow here, which establishes a When, Where, What pattern for naming articles such as this one. The event has no established common name, and is far too recent for WP:NOYEAR to apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. "2022" is more identifying and recognisable than "supermarket", and we don't need "supermarket" for disambiguation purposes. The "[Year] [Place] [Event]" format is also WP:CONSISTENT with other articles on shootings, and in accordance with the advice given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Endwise (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral with alternative name. "Buffalo Supermarket Shooting" is fine, although so is "2022 Buffalo shooting". Why not: "2022 Buffalo Supermarket Shooting" so it's the best of both worlds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveywalker500 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, it's my first comment and I wasn't sure how to format it! Harveywalker500 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The year and "supermarket" are both useful identifiers. I would support "2022 Buffalo Supermarket Shooting". AkiraRorschach (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - There was a mass shooting, at a supermarket, in Buffalo. The only reason you would add the year is if there were another similar shooting. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Compiling news coverage of the shooting, an enormous amount of articles written by reliable, third-party national sources refer to the event as the Buffalo shooting. There is scant evidence otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadenrock1 (talk • contribs)

This material does not support your argument; all of the sources describe the shooting at a supermarket. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, it is our duty as editors to review the sourcing and form an encyclopedic title derived from those sources. Buffalo supermarket shooting is the appropriate title in this case. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral per User:Haiiya. The current title is way too vague, but so is "Buffalo supermarket shooting". Something more akin to "2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting" would be better than both. Washing Machine (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Shooting leaves people without a grocery store

This is the source. What is the best way to include this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't add it at all. However, what you can say is something that goes along the lines of: "The supermarket was a crucial contributor to the East Side's economy and its indefinite closure has caused countless consumers to either find alternatives or go further for quality groceries." Hope this helps. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. Unless the supermarket closed permanently as a result of the shooting, which is too early to say, the fact that it is still closed while the investigation is ongoing isn't a big deal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It depends on how long the supermarket stays closed.

In the Boulder Colorado supermarket mass shooting, they kept the store closed for nearly a year (if memory serves me). So the closing went from being for routine forensic reasons, to the purpose of long-term psychological distancing from the trauma, done for the community.

I would therefore say mention of the "longer" but not neccessarily "permanent" kind of closing (if it happens that way in Buffalo) would then be appropriate for this article.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked. This all makes sense.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Assertion that "had the shooter been black" things would've been different

While I don't object to the idea that the shooter was treated differently than other criminals in the past some years given the context, with that certainly being theoretically possible, I'm concerned about mentioning this claim without specific support from multiple reliable sources in adequate detail. Thoughts? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, this is rather WP:NOTNEWS and controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This was also claimed by some in regard to Anders Behring Breivik, perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks; Dylann Roof, perpetrator of the Charleston church shooting and Brenton Tarrant, perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings. However, there's no evidence that Breivik, Roof, Tarrant & Gendron being white had anything to do with how police interacted with them. They weren't shot because they gave themselves up. What's more relevant to know is why. Most mass shooters don't allow the police to arrest them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The opinion of a notable person (who is relevant to the topic as well) can be quoted on this (as "a stated opinion" only and not as a fact). I've seen that in other Wikipedia articles. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Have any RS said why any of them chose to give themselves up within minutes? What's their motive for wanting to being imprisoned for the rest of their lives? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because they get years more to spread their bile in courts. WWGB (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Any sources suggesting that the A.K. was not as tough as he thought he was, so he surrendered? Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 12:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree strongly with WWGB. Anders Breivik (or Fjotolf Hansen as he now calls himself) wanted to be taken alive so that he could continue to drone on about about how justified he was while in court and in prison.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That appears to be the case, yes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps we've a consensus building here that we shouldn't make any kind of "the shooter would've been treated differently if he wasn't white" statement in the article unless there's multiple reliable source evidence? My objection, again, isn't that such a claim is controversial but that it's made without strong support. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree that such a claim should be avoided. It falls deep into the commentary news cycle which we should avoid. Springee (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Can editors decide to never include the alleged shooter's photo or name in the article?

Major American news outlets (including CNN) are now refusing to use the alleged shooters name-- to prevent him from achieving personal notoriety for his crime.

They are also noting that he Livestreamed the killings-- showing a clear attempt to maximize his notoriety.

What latitude do Wikipedia editors have to never include the alleged shooters photograph (or even never use his name) in this article?

And if this can be done, should it?

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It would probably need to be done on a case by case basis for each article, like how we do deciding to put victims names in. In theory if a policy was set in regards to it, that could be an option, but I don't see that realistically happening. Major outlets, American and worldwide, would have to actually stop using the alleged's name. So long as multiple RS do use it, it will end up being added to article. A discussion to remove(or add) it would need to happen on talk page if it's addition was contested. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! The news provider CNN announced two days ago that they will no longer use the name of the alleged shooter in any of their coverage.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This is similar to Jacinda Ardern saying that she would never use the Christchurch shooter's name, commenting "He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety - that is why you will never hear me mention his name."[4] It is worrying, though, if a major news organization goes down this road. Where would it end? Would we be banned from naming Lee Harvey Oswald or Mark Chapman? Sadly, some shooters are thinking about the lasting notoriety that they could obtain from their acts, but damnatio memoriae is not the way to go.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The editorial decisions of one news source, and that of one politician, are not necessarily restrictive on what we here at Wikipedia do. I'm not saying that means we should or should not include such information, but picking random examples from random other places is not always helpful. We, as an encyclopedia, have different purposes than do either politicians or advertiser-supported news organizations. We should not exclusively base our editorial decisions on blindly following what either of them do. --Jayron32 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Operating on the assumption that it is inevitable that in such an article the name of the perpetrator would be covered in reliable sources.. if consensus decides on edits that remove any mention of their name or photo, that could be defended as part of how wikipedia operates. If such a consensus would match the policy or goals of an encyclopedia whose primary intent is to provide accurate knowledge of topics would be in my opinion, a contentious one. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to reconcile omission of the shooter's name with policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Unless there's a legal reason to not include the shooter's name at all, I don't see a justification for omitting it from the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

While I greatly sympathize with the idea of never mentioning details about the shooter himself, I agree with that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, that would go against years and years of precedence when it comes to Wikipedia's coverage of these events. Love of Corey (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, we've multiple articles about murderers based on the outrage over what they did, John Wilkes Booth comes to mind among many others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a general pattern to list the names of perpetrators, even if some media agencies doesn't want to. See Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 6#Killer's name, Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 1#Justin Trudeau's reservations about naming the perpetrator or using his photo, Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#The Lead, Talk:E.O. Green School shooting/Archive 1#WP:BLP, etc. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

some of the sources are blank links? why?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.95.226 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Which ones? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you post them here and people can do searches and find the links and add them in. Thanks in advance. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 07:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Was the A.S. a fan of Tucker Carlson?

Carlson made hundreds of W.R.T. arguments on his talk show in the last few years.

Also of note is his spectacular denial that he made yesterday-- claiming that he never said any of these things (that he spent the last few years saying).

Is the alleged Buffalo shooter a fan of Tuckers? That would be the key issue for TC's relevance, notability, etc.

Are there any sources about this?

Has any of the manifesto been re-released?

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 02:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The 180 page manifesto does not contain a single named reference to Tucker Carlson; the Discord logs don't either. This means that it is the media that has made the link to Carlson, not the alleged shooter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your point? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The point is that the author of the manifesto and the Discord logs never refers to Tucker Carlson by name. This makes it hard to portray the AS as a fan of Tucker Carlson. When it comes to assessing what the AS was thinking, most of it comes back to the manifesto and Discord logs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

And, for Wikipedia purposes, the reliable sources' interpretation of the events and those primary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No reliable source says that the shooter was a fan of Carlson. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether the manifesto includes a reference to Tucker Carlson or not, numerous reliable sources have published pieces detailing the scrutiny that Tucker Carlson has come under directly after the shooting for pushing the Great Replacement conspiracy on his platform, a theory that the shooter echoed.[5][6][7]

I think that this warrants at least a passing mention in the article, given that its pertinent to the national conversation around the shooting. At the very least, it certainly meets the criteria for notability. So whether the shooter is a fan of Tucker Carlson or not, the argument for his relevance in this article stands IMO. Cadenrock1 (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The scrutiny of Carlson is OK, making a direct link between the AS and Carlson isn't. This is what I was trying to say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's okay if the Reliable Sources bring it up such that it is WP:DUE. Dumuzid (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately it is up to investigators to decide what the motive was. We know that the AS appears to have been obsessed with the Great Replacement theory, but the link to Carlson is something of a side issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@ianmacm

Thanks for the added detail and for clarifying. It is not looking like there is any direct link to Carlson. The only relevence to the article is, as was mentioned, media scrutiny of Carlsons heavy promotion of WRT ideas, coinciding with the formative period for the A.S. Perhaps also a mention of Carlson's quickly exposed bald-faced lie on Fox a few days ago, claiming that he had never promoted WRT.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 12:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This article shouldn't contain speculation that ties Carlson to this crime. We do not have to include media speculation especially when it has BLP implications. Springee (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the attention this article is giving rather undue weight to Tucker Carlson. No direct link between Tucker and Gendron have been found, and claims that the two are connected have been criticized.

Snopes notes that while Gendron does mention Fox News once in his manifesto, it's not about its journalistic/editorial coverage but just an anti-semitic meme saying Fox is controlled by Jews. Nor is there a reference to Carlson.

There are worrying BLP violations if we give too much attention to Carlson. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Dunutubble, I suspect you've got a typo in "while Carlson does mention Fox News". I suspect you mean Gendron, not Carlson. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There would only be BLP concerns if we directly stated the shooter was a fan of Carlson if we had no RS which said so. We do not say that because we don't have RS which say that. There is no BLP violation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like there's a lot of talking past each other here. The article does not include speculation that Gendron was a fan of Tucker Carlson, and we all seem to agree that it shouldn't. What's currently in the article is something of the form "the shooter's promotion of the Great Replacement led to increased scrutiny on figures like Tucker Carlson". That claim is accurate and reliably sourced; I cannot for the life of me understand why it would be a BLP violation. We are connecting the response to the shooting amongst media/the public to Carlson (because that is what actually happened), not connecting Gendron to Carlson. Endwise (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• True but we are associating Carlson with a mass shooting by including him in this article. That violates the idea that we should err on the side of caution when dealing with BLP subjects. Also, it's a bit of a coat rack to mention Carlson with respect to the shooting. Yes, the shooter seems to have embraced X and Carlson is viewed to have promoted X. Sources may link the two via commentary but absent a direct link (not a commentary link) between the two we shouldn't link them in this article. Otherwise it has all the properties of a coatrack even if we can point to an external source offering the spin for us. Springee (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Arguably the most sophisticated pov-pushing, I have seen in a while. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also, it's a bit of a coat rack to mention Carlson with respect to the shooting... Sources may link the two via commentary but absent a direct link (not a commentary link) between the two we shouldn't link them in this article -- I completely disagree with this. The entire "response" section is only connected to the shooting via people's commentary. In fact it is just people's commentary. If we have an article about a topic "X", commentary about the topic will also generally be included in that article. Every article about every album, song, movie, video game, etc. will have a "critical reception" section dedicated to commentary about it, and every tragedy will probably have "responses" section dealing with public commentary about it as well. Look up "Tucker Carlson Buffalo shooting" on Google News; this is a significant aspect of the topic of the 2022 Buffalo shooting, just as commentary about any other topic would be. Endwise (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Poor choice of words

In the "Shooting" section of the article, in the sentence with reference #24, it's written that "the shooter aimed his gun at a white person cowering behind a checkout counter." The word "cowering" in this context, in my view, is pretty disrespectful. I think a work like "hiding" would be more appropriate.Aamori1212 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aamori1212 Agree. I've changed "cowering" to "hiding". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's also not great. A checkout counter is probably the most natural spot for anyone in a store to check out, "hiding" makes him seem stupid. I don't think we need a verb at all (so removed it). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with simply "... person behind a checkout counter". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)