Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Wrong supermarket linked

Tops Supermarket is a south east Asian chain, as far as i can tell. The article should link to Tops Friendly Markets --Tritium21 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The article correctly links to Tops Friendly Markets. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

It does now, at least --Tritium21 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022 (2)

On reactions "All of the Buffalo area sports teams tweeted out messages showing condolences for the families of the victims and a call for unity." 76.82.51.127 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Change to Terrorism attack type 73.141.181.50 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{requested move/dated}}

2022 Buffalo mass shooting → 2022 Buffalo shooting – Per other articles about mass shootings, e.g. 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, etc., etc. I've never seen an article about a mass shooting titled "[Insert location name here] mass shooting". Love of Corey (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Cadenrock1 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Support The "mass" part of the title isn't important. Nythar (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Support per OP. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The correct title would be Buffalo supermarket shooting. Place names are at a higher priority than the date. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 00:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So why isn't 2019 El Paso shooting called El Paso supermarket shooting? Nythar (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for same reason. The city and specific place should take priority. The year is more of a weather event thing. --Mapsfly (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Support per OP. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, works for me. (Page creator if that speeds things up...) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It should say 2022 Buffalo Shooting Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - per the standardized precedents demonstrated by OP. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  I actually think this is an uncontentious technical move. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actioned as such. Please restore the templates if this proves to be a problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think you could've tried this as a bold move. Either way, WP:SNOW seems to apply. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 15 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.

Curious, any sources on racism in his hometown, Conklin NY? Why is the town only 1% Black?

The following discussion 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.

---

Was racism in Conklin an influence on [Gendron]? What sources are available?

The demographics section says that [Gendron's] hometown-- the town of Conklin, New York is only 1% Black. Are Black people being discriminated against in housing / real estate there? Why such a strangely low number?

Have Black people been pushed out of there? Only 1% Black for a town is a suspicious number in New York State.

Does anyone have any sources on racism in Conklin NY? Did [Gendron] grow up in a racist environment?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Chesapeake77. Conklin is not in upstate New York. It is in Broome County, New York, in the Southern Tier, quite close to the Pennsylvania state line. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Corrected ^^^.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Check out Upstate New York. It includes the Binghamton area and the Southern Tier, so that would include Conklin.Dogru144 (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This shooting just happened earlier today. You can't expect speculation about the hometown of the accused shooter hours after an event. When news organizations get to covering subjects, then they can be possibly added to the article. You don't want original research done by Wikipedia editors here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 15 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.

[Gendron] called himself a "Left Socialist" in his manifesto

Not a forum, please go and read our articles on Nazism and the FAQs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hitler was a socialist, he called the movement that he led National socialism. And he was also a White supremicist racist. So yes a "Left" (not Right-wing) socialist can be a White supremecist/racist. Also the communist Soviet Union was anti-semetic (another kind of ethnic hate). So it was both communist (extreme Left) and it discriminated based on ethnicity (among other things). So again, one can be "Left" and be an ethnic / racist hater at the same time. Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Unless you have a legitimate source proving that, it's irrelevant synthesis. 39.116.182.33 (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC) And no, National Socialism isn't the same as what you're referring to (IE American liberalism.) That's almost as trite and false as the replacement theory the terrorist whined about in his manifesto. If National Socialism was "leftist" than why was the Unite the Right rally chanting "Blood and soil" and other Nazi slogans? 39.116.182.33 (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC) The sources are reporting that he called himself a "Left socialist" in his manifesto, as well as a White supremicist. This was deleted from the Talk Page. That is Talk Page vandalism. I was just pointing out the fallacy behind this censorship. Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC) How are you 'pointing out a fallacy' by repeating textbook examples from the exact pot the shooter drew from, exactly? --2001:8003:1D0D:301:348C:5D61:16A5:1306 (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved, WP:SNOW(non-admin closure) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Buffalo shooting → 2022 Buffalo, New York shooting – The victims were human beings, not buffalo. Animal lover 666 (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose That's why Buffalo is capitalized, because it's a town and not an animal. Nythar (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose everyone should know Buffalo --Mapsfly (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Nythar Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Somebody tried that excuse with Boulder shooting, too, no luck. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - Snow close this nonsense. There's many examples of titles that can be contrived to mean something absurd. As mentioned above, Boulder shooting, the Nice attack, etc. It's silly. -- Veggies (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Can someone please WP:SNOW close this? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Weak Support I don't see why not. Buffalo can mean alot of things, maybe not this title but the title isn't opposed to change. June Parker (talk) 04:33, 15 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.

Manifesto

The following discussion 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.

---

I'm readin the manifesto, I don't know if I'm allowed to link to it but Google should help, he basically plagirized entire chunks from the Christchurch shooter's own manifesto.

Also, IDK what we're going to do about it since I doubt a source will pick up on it, but most of what it says about black people is objectively incorrect. I don't mean crime rates or IQ, which is just a racist opinoon based off a single, misinterpeted fact, the shooter claims he targetted black people and did what he did because of some "Blackies are invading white land" nonsense. It's one thing to whine about crime rates and how inferior we are compared to white people (Which is also bullshit) but his idea of comparing African-Americans to immigrants is both objectively and emotionally incorrect. Just felt the need to mention that.

Also a quick edit before anyone responds, he claims he was inspired by the Christchurch shooter. If any source picks up on those fact please add them to the article. June Parker (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The manifesto will be covered as WP:RS releases details. The above comment strikes me as somewhat WP:FORUM. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how. I'm requesting these details be prioritized once covered by RS June Parker (talk) 04:56, 15 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.

Unclear meaning

“ Because he had heavily armored plating on, the bullet had no round. ” what does that mean, for people who don’t understand weapon-speak? 2600:1700:F90:6950:7C22:D9B:B84E:650A (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I can only guess he misspoke. The round had no effect perhaps. --Mapsfly (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Rittenhouse comparisons?

I can already predict the answer to this question, but I am hot off twitter and loads of people are comparing this shooting to the Kenosha Unrest Shooting, mainly the treatment of the suspect by law enforcement as well as the fact he traveled hours to a black neightborhood.

Obviously throwing him in right now would be disruptive, but if signfigant sources decide to take it upon themselves to compare this to Kenosha, where and how would it fit? June Parker (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Best decided if and when it actually gets picked up in the reliable sources. I am dubious, but stranger things have happened. Dumuzid (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I am confused on how a mass shooting would be compared to Kenosha, as it was a completely different situation. Is there any source stating that the Kenosha shooting had white supremacy rooted in it or the Great Replacement? Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

IF an RS mentions it, it'll likely say critics of the Rittenhouse verdict see it as an example of the system protecting white supremacy because they felt like the man intended to harm BLM protesters for bigoted reasons. And he shot those men under the assumption they were BLM. This was the arguement made by his prosecuters too.

However these same people are saying this shooting was a direct result of the verdict, which is false. Because the shooter had been planning this long before Kenosha. If RS insists some nuance should be added to that tidbit. June Parker (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, anything that begins with "IF an RS mentions it" is approaching WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Twitter should be used as a source for anything, especially this claim, as anybody who paid attention to the Rittenhouse trial would know it is false. Rittenhouse travelled 21 miles/28 minutes [1] (a distance that would be the same street in many American cities) to the place where his father lives and he worked, in a 90% non-black town, and shot three fellow German-Americans. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I never suggested using twitter as a source. And I suggest you don't let your opinion cloud what a reliable source might say. June Parker (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to echo what Dumuzid said above, especially in an emotive issue like this, rather than speculating what RS may say, editors should concentrate on finding reliable sources and reporting what they say. That avoids silly disputes about how probable it is RS may say something. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests

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

Gunman's name removed again; major BLP issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Travel from Conklin to Buffalo

• Flynn said Gendron came from Conklin, New York, which is approximately a three-and-a-half hour drive from Buffalo. Source: [2].

• The suspected gunman was identified as Payton Gendron, of Conklin, New York, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Buffalo. Source: [3]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record...

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

Date of birth

Payton S. Gendron was born on June 20, 2003. Source: [4]. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Material for "background" section ?

how relevant would information regarding gendron's firearm purchase in endicott, ny be to this article ? additionally, a few reliable sources have talked about buffalo's history of segregation which has formed the ethnic makeup of the city. although the article has mentioned that the attack took place in a predominately Black neighbourhood, including a short piece of context regarding policies enacted by the city could potentially be productive. example article: [5] Ayyydoc (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

jimboboiii

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

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

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

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

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

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

See alsos

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

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

Clarity needed

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

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

Weapons list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright thx, got it. Snake101201 (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Qualifiers

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

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

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

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

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

Magazine capacity

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

Agreed, this is similar to the Thousand Oaks shooting where California law bans magazines of more than ten rounds, but the shooter had managed to get around this somehow. The laws on high-capacity magazine bans vary from state to state, so it would be better to explain how many rounds were in the magazines during the Buffalo incident. The Buffalo shooter allegedly said that he wanted to use 30 round magazines and investigators apparently confirmed this off the record, but this is not officially confirmed.[6] The legal limit in New York state is ten rounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Accused, no longer just suspect

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

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

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

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

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

The secondary source currently used is [7], which is some local news station (so not the highest quality source) and it's their understanding of what investigators said. So re use secondary sources who have endured that They didn't watch any clip afaict. The source also doesn't give a series of events as Wikipedia describes, so I think the IP's described issue is legitimate, and I'll fix accordingly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Last sentence: “…a lot there is similar to this “ could be “much is similar to this” Bellagio99 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

Change "counseling the victims' families" to "consoling the victims' families" SolFinch (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Great. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

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

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

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

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

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

Magazine capacity

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

Agreed, this is similar to the Thousand Oaks shooting where California law bans magazines of more than ten rounds, but the shooter had managed to get around this somehow. The laws on high-capacity magazine bans vary from state to state, so it would be better to explain how many rounds were in the magazines during the Buffalo incident. The Buffalo shooter allegedly said that he wanted to use 30 round magazines and investigators apparently confirmed this off the record, but this is not officially confirmed.[8] The legal limit in New York state is ten rounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Accused, no longer just suspect

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

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

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

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

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

The secondary source currently used is [9], which is some local news station (so not the highest quality source) and it's their understanding of what investigators said. So re use secondary sources who have endured that They didn't watch any clip afaict. The source also doesn't give a series of events as Wikipedia describes, so I think the IP's described issue is legitimate, and I'll fix accordingly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Last sentence: “…a lot there is similar to this “ could be “much is similar to this” Bellagio99 (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Name of security guard

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

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

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

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

Locking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real manifesto

I think it's importante and its not in this wiki, his manifesto its a copypaste with a little bit of modifications of the Brenton Tarrant's manifesto. 157.100.93.66 (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I personally doubt it at this point. Love of Corey (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Soliciting input on External link

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

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

Laguna Woods church shooting

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

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

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

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

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

The left isn't pushing the replacement hoax. I'm not saying there aren't bigots on the left, but his particular focus on replacement is RW. 14.46.200.34 (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Radicalization etc

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

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

This has my support. More coverage needs to be given to that scrutiny, and it should be presented in wikivoice. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Curious about a Wikipedia rule

I am curious about a Wikipedia rule. Is there some rule that says we cannot actually name the suspect in the intro / lead? I was editing another article ... Killing of Brittanee Drexel. And, in that article, some editor added the following "comment" / note:

• '' <!-- Per BLPCRIME, do not put the individual's name in the intro until and unless he is convicted of or pleads guilty to the charges--> ''

So, what's the correct approach? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's the "rule": Wikipedia:BLPCRIME. I read it -- rather quickly -- and I think that the editor who commented in the Killing of Brittanee Drexel article has incorrectly interpreted this rule. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Given the amount of news media coverage that Gendron has received, including numerous photos of what he looks like, little of value would be achieved by hiding his name. There is a case for not naming people who have been arrested but not charged, but once a person has been charged there should not be a problem with reporting what mainstream sources say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But, that wasn't really my question. The issue you present is whether we can name him (at all) in the article. To which, you say "yes". The other editor was making the claim that, per the policy cited, the suspect can't be named in the intro. But, presumably, can be named later on, in the article. That's the distinction. Nonetheless, I think that editor (from the Killing of Brittanee Drexel article) has misinterpreted the cited rule. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME doesn't ban mentions of an accused person's name, and it would be misinterpreting the policy to say this. It says an accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. I can't recall other articles about mass shootings where there was a ban on naming a person once they had been formally charged. There isn't a problem with having Gendron's name in the lead now that he has been charged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. You and I agree. The other editor at the other article apparently disagrees. So much so, that they affirmatively posted that (above) comment into the "edit mode" section of that article. That's why I came to this Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

In practice I've found that it does in most cases, which I think is good as a lot of criminal trials tend to have their fair share of twists and turns, but I think it has not usually applied to mass shootings (probably, in part, due to the high publicity, and there's also a very high conviction rate for obvious reasons) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Part of...

W1lliam halifax suggested on ITN[10] that this article is part of 2020–2022 United States racial unrest. Can we reflect this on infobox? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

W1lliam halifax has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that law enforcement officials strongly regard the manifesto as being authentic, though they have not confirmed this is so yet. FairBol (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Again, agreed, and consensus may well incline towards including it in some form. I am just saying it is not a foregone conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)