Jump to content

Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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

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.

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

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)

Ten black people were killed?

Roberta Drury, one of the ten killed, wasn't black? Hgh1985 (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Source says "10 Black people killed". Do you have evidence to the contrary? WWGB (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Roberta Drury, a 32-year-old woman who was the youngest of the 10 Black people killed at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket, was remembered at her funeral on Saturday for her kindness and welcoming nature as the city marked one week since the mass shooting. Source. Not sure what you're on about. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
To judge from her photo, she appears to have been relatively light-skinned (she probably would have passed a brown paper bag test), but that doesn't mean she wasn't black. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:11, 24 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.[1][2][3]
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 isn’t the place to air your personal political views. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:F5FC:F3AD:F671:4BA4 (talk) 02:54, 25 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.[1][2]
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.[3]
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)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a place for leftist views. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:F5FC:F3AD:F671:4BA4 (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not "Wikipedia editors associating Carlson with the shooting"....Its the source. Heck, it's Tucker himself in a certain way of looking at it. I agree with Valjean, I would say if it's not in WP:VOICE and it's properly cited it should not be an issue. Here's some context from NPR. DN (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Absent consensus to include the references to Carlson should be removed from this article. Springee (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree about mentioning Tucker Carlson in the article - the connection has been established through reliable sources after the manifesto was leaked. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wood, Graeme (2022-05-16). "Why Tucker Carlson Should Want the Buffalo Manifesto Made Public". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-05-23.
  2. ^ Friedersdorf, Conor (2022-05-18). "Tucker Carlson Deserves Blame—But Not for Buffalo". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-05-23.
  3. ^ "Did Buffalo Shooting Suspect Attack Fox News in 'Manifesto'?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2022-05-23.

“Officers responded a minute later” lie.

The officers did not respond a minute later, dispatch hung up in the lady face because she was whispering. The worker had to call her boyfriend to call the police. 153.33.68.172 (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here, and both are covered in the article. According to the sourcing, the first responding officers arrived at the scene at 2:32 pm, around a minute after being dispatched.[4] The second issue is the alleged conduct of the 911 operator, which is now under investigation.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Buffalo_shooting/Archive_4&oldid=1090767070"