Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move 19 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: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The term Buffalo shooting is the most common, popular name used by the majority of verifiable third-party English sources. Therefore, it is preferred that 2022 Buffalo shooting remains the title. The title already meets the five criteria set forth for title naming conventions in the MOS, as there's no evidence of any other shooting in Buffalo that could be confused with this one. The strongest arguments for changing the title have been the anticipation of another shooting, and it's already been stated that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so that voids that argument. Article titles and redirects should also anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and what they'll expect to be taken to. Using that metric, the term Buffalo shooting is much more popular as a search term than Buffalo supermarket shooting. Readers who type Buffalo shooting will expect to be taken to an article about the 2022 Buffalo shooting, per the spike in search terms after the shooting. Cadenrock1 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References

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

• Support - It's how it will be remembered years from now regardless of how its named here. So might as well be in tandem.--Mapsfly (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Just a casual reader. Buffalo shooting reads like you shoot some buffalos. Supermarket gives you more context. 2601:646:8881:A720:9C73:5607:1CD1:CE9A (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCE. Year Place, Event is descriptive and helpful to readers. --Enos733 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting to be less ambiguous because there have been so many shootings, not even counting the hunting of any bison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobiexor (talk • contribs) 19:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment. "Tops Friendly Markets shooting" I think would be a better title.TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose "Supermarket" is not a "place" in general terms. This will just be confusing. Buffalo is a "place". Time is more relevant here. Unless RS is more concerned with identifying the word "supermarket" than the year the subject occurred (which doesn't seem to track with RS typically), this is an easy "oppose". DN (talk) 04:07, 26 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

should we include a page from the shooter's alleged manifesto for its subsection?--🐦DrWho42👻 18:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because it has problems with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There are also WP:NFCC problems because it is being used under fair use criteria. To include it, it would have to say something that could not be explained by text. We know from reliable sources that the author of the manifesto/alleged shooter apparently researched the Tops store before the shooting. The diagram doesn't tell us much more than that, so it has problems with NFCC#8.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

In a part of the text about the perpetrator it is mentioned that he modified the gun to receive 30 round clips. I just want to mention that no gun needs to be modified to hold extra rounds . You just buy a larger magazine. So maybe change it to say equipped with a 30 round mag? 79.107.9.8 (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: While that may certainly be possible, Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources say about something. Just because it was theoretically not necessary for the shooter to modify the gun itself doesn't mean he didn't. —Sirdog (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post source says "In one posting, Gendron admitted to illegally modifying the weapon in another way. He wrote that he used his father’s power drill to remove a state-mandated lock that prevented the attachment of magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

'Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act' Mentioned Here

To what extent has the defeat of the legislation advanced after the Buffalo shooting changed things? Will the measure be tried again? What exactly was brought up when Republicans opposed it? There's a lot of context that probably should be added to this article (I actually am not personally sure on these issues myself, hence why I'm making this discussion)? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that none of this should be included, at least not yet. There's every possibility that it will amount to a tempest in a teapot, and fail to meet the WP:10YT. By my lights, we should leave it out until we know it's actually something noteworthy and not just the usual cut and thrust of legislative activity. As ever, just one old guy's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I could counter-argue that the Biden administration has made anti-domestic-terrorism efforts a fundamental part of their domestic policy goals alongside building infrastructure and expanding healthcare services, and the association of something with Biden personally makes it notable-ish at least. Yet, as I said before, I'm uncertain on this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The Killer Used to Be a Left-wing Political Extremist?

Is it worth including the factoid when describing the shooter's personal background that he was of the 'authoritarian left-wing' before embracing national socialist ideology and related beliefs? I'm not so sure about this. Not to get ideological here, but I guess the cross-pollination between neo-Nazism and neo-Stalinism in both the U.S. and other Anglospheren nations is intense? Given the links between Nazism and Stalinism? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is the right link, so why the unexpected surprise? Don't make misleading links. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

What "misleading links"? What the hell? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The implications of your surprise and misleading/forbidden WP:EASTEREGG link ("links between Nazism and Stalinism") is that there is a direct link, not just a "comparison", as the actual link describes. That threw me for a loop. Two opposites can be compared without there being a direct link. Maybe you just misread or misremembered the actual link? No biggie, as this is a talk page where it's not as serious a matter as if it was done in an article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand what you're upset about. I guess we can both drop it, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@CoffeeWithMarkets, Yes, I think it's worth including because multiple reliable sources mention that he changed his political views from left to far right in the span of 2 years after getting deep into 4chan and the Daily Stormer, initially while being at home during the pandemic. There have historically been links between Nazism and Stalinism, as that Wikipedia article does a good job of explaining, but I haven't read any articles saying the Buffalo shooter was a neo-Stalinist. "Authoritarian left" includes more than just Stalin. JJMM (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@James James Morrison Morrison In his manifesto however, it states that he was a communist but moved away from communism to his current beliefs from the ages of 15-18 and states he "falls in the mid-moderate authoritarian left category and would prefer to be called a populist" later going on to state "I would prefer to call myself a populist,but you can call me an ethno-nationalist,eco-fascist,national socialist if you want,I would disagree with you". Basedosaurus (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

He was initially a totalitarian leftist, and then he became a neo-Nazi (among other things). Pretty simple and straightforward. Not that much of an evolution, really. Many if not most of the historical Nazis in Europe started out as left-wing authoritarian types (sharing the same hatreds of capitalism, democracy, disabled people, Jews, LGBT people, et cetera). Hitlerism is Stalinism with a different mustache (and vise versa). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Basedosaurus, your edits appear to be an attempt to erase the shooter's political evolution from left to right. What's up with that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry if it seems that way,I assure you it's not. Basedosaurus (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a general reminder here that we should be tracing things as much as possible to reliable secondary sources. I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't trust the suspect here to be accurate about anything, including categorizing his own political beliefs. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Labels such as "fascist", "Nazi", and "white supremacist" are sourced, yes, and that's an important point. It's diffcult, as you stated, in terms of his own beliefs as to how they evolved specifically... can he be trusted to accurately describe his own personal life? Is there any reason to not have a pinch of salt there? Agreed. As of this exact moment (1:18pm central time in the U.S.), the article seems alright to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"The shooter said blah blah blah" is a Simon says game. The manifesto is a jumbled up screed of nonsense and internet memes. It shouldn't be taken too literally.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Should also be mentioned that mass shooters will frequently outright lie about clear-cut things (i.e. where they lived, who they dated, what they read, and so on). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the BLP vio in this heading because, for very good reason, it's against our policy to say that an accused person is a killer. The BLP vio has been reinstated by the only WP editor who very frequently reverts my edits. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree; while it would arguably be a violation to call him a "murderer," I am aware of no serious contemplation from any quarter that he did not commit the acts at the heart of the article. As ever, just my opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ETA--To be clear, I don't think this means he should be described this way in the article. I merely mean that it is not the sort of BLP issue which requires drastic action.

He's the accused, not convicted. BLP, which applies to talk pages, is clear on this matter. I'm not suggesting drastic action; merely a change of this section heading. I changed it to remove the BLP vio & possibly libellous claim, but the only editor who frequently reverts my edits falsely claims that changing section headings is inherently against policy & has threatened to report me to ANI for it, even though changing them is actually recommended when they need to be improved. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Legal guilt and objective fact are related, but not the same thing. He is accused of murder (and terrorism). He might have killed those people and not been a murderer. One can kill no one and still be guilty of murder. Courts do not determine reality, they determine legal responsibility. Calling him a murderer would be a violation, as that would imply a court had made a ruling. Were there any serious doubt here (e.g., if he were proclaiming his innocence), I would agree that this violates BLP and would have to be removed from talk. But as there is at this point none, I do not think it so. I agree with you it is best practice to be careful, however. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

He's been charged & is likely to be tried. How can it be a good thing for us to describe the accused as the killer? We don't usually do that, and shouldn't. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I am saying it's sub-optimal, but not a BLP violation. Lots of Wikipedia (especially where I am involved!) is sub-optimal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid hit the nail on the head on every point. Yes, using nothing but the appropriate euphemistic formal legal terminology would be optimal. However "killer" qualifies as an uncontentious fact and is not a value-laden label, thus it's not a BLP vio. In these cases we can simultaneously respect the legal formality that the subject is presumed innocent and speak plainly about the reality. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to reiterate this again. The shooter being an authoritarian leftist is entirely based on the position he got for The Political Compass test, a random online test whose methodology has not been released to the public and has been criticized by several journalists and writers as flawed[1][2]. X-Editor (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of what made the shooter consider himself 'authoritarian left,' his manifesto does not reflect that he evolved from a left winger to a right winger, and he still considered himself 'authoritarian left' when he wrote his manifesto. To say that he once considered himself 'authoritarian left' and then his beliefs evolved is wrong, from reading what the shooter himself wrote. And to ignore that he voiced support and disdain for ideas from both sides ignores that this was a complex, albeit mixed up, person. But he still considered himself, when he wrote his manifesto, as 'authoritarian left.'

You can either present the shooter as he presented himself, with notes amplifying what is clearly your own interpretation, or you can spin. Seeing that the Manifesto section is still incorrect means that someone out there is choosing spin over fact. This is why Wikipedia is losing the credibility it has. What we should be presenting is truth, not spin. 24.199.252.134 (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I find your apparent faith in the killer as a good faith reporter of anything at all to be misplaced. To parrot his words uncritically would be to publish the "spin," as you put it, of a violent criminal. Dumuzid (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I find it disingenuous that you consider your interpretation of the shooters beliefs to have more credibility than what the shooter wrote about his own beliefs, to the point where you would change what he said about himself to fit your own narrative. That's revisionism, and likely politically motivated.

And saying that printing what the shooter himself wrote about his won beliefs is spin, while writing your own interpretation instead is not, is even more disingenuous. You're not even trying to impart accurate information, you're applying your own narrative. 99.34.235.231 (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

IP24, are you seriously suggesting it was a right-wing false flag operation to make liberals look bad? His actions belie such an idea as they fit with right-wing ideology and the current wave of right-wing, racially motivated, domestic terrorist acts by young white men. The very idea he had any form of left-wingism left in him is absurd on all counts.

As explained above "Multiple reliable sources mention that he changed his political views from left to far right in the span of 2 years after getting deep into 4chan and the Daily Stormer, initially while being at home during the pandemic." This is also a pattern seen among those who began to support Trump. He mainstreamed racism and white supremacy, so they followed him down the rabbit hole. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, I have no clue what 'logical' leap you took to think that's what I was suggesting, but no. What I'm saying is that the shooter was a far left winger, moved right, but still identified himself as being 'authoritarian left' when he wrote his manifesto. This article text, as written, does not agree with what the shooter wrote about himself.

If you want to be accurate, post what the shooter said about his own beliefs, and then post your own comments/ criticisms. But saying that "The author describes himself as someone identifying as being initially on the "authoritarian left", before developing antisemitic, eco-fascist, ethno-nationalist, national socialist (Nazi), populist, and white supremacist views," is simply wrong, according to the shooter's own words. 99.34.235.231 (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2022

“ Governor Kathy Hochul promised policy changes in the state as a result of the attack, while condemning the shooter and consoling the victims' families. ” — lede, last sentence

"consoling the victims' families" is based on the source quoting her saying "Yes, I’m here to console the families in a community that’s feeling so much pain right now". Stating such an intention is one thing, though, and claiming, as the current phrasing does, that the intention was actually achieved is quite another. A typical description here would be "to express support for", I think.

- 2A02:560:59D8:8400:886A:7AD3:79A:C024 (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

References

 Partly done: I think the best course of action here is to remove this altogether. Thanks for bringing this issue to attention. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspected or accused?

Should we describe Gendron as suspected or accused? @Dumuzid: reverted me for changing a couple instances of "accused" to "suspected". This was actually just intended to standardize the description in the article and I thought this was a settled question, but glancing over some of the most recent news coverage of him there's a mix of calling him accused vs. suspected. He was apparently indicted in court on various charges, for what that's worth. Chillabit (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it's a bad change or terribly unsupported, but "suspect" to me merely gives the impression that there is some doubt that Gendron actually committed the acts; as far as I can tell no one disputes that. Perhaps it's just a quirk of my language use, but for me, this makes "accused" slightly preferable. Cheers all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Gendron has been charged with first-degree murder, so it is fully appropriate to describe him as the accused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This is my bad, I believe I mixed up suspected and accused. I thought suspected was the stronger label and was going to go to bat for it because he was indicted. Oh dear. We are in agreement then, lol. Chillabit (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. WWGB (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

My personal hobby horse (with apologies)

As I say in the header, I apologize for bringing this up, but it's sort of a pet peeve of mine. Recently, IanMacM removed a number of categories with the notation that it was too early for them before trial. The categories related to racism and terrorism. I don't actually have strong beliefs about including these one way or the other, but I would respectfully differ with this rationale. As I have said before on this talk page (and apologies yet again for redundancy), courts determine legal responsibility, but they do not determine reality. Now, very often, the prudent and best course is to wait for a legal decision where there are contentious issues. But sometimes events overtake legal process, and sometimes the events at issue are not particularly contentious. This awful incident largely falls into the second category, I believe. There is no serious argument that the accused did not do the actions of which he is accused--he himself has not disputed that to my knowledge. We also have evidence of his state of mind and reasoning. It may not be dispositive evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. We need a court to tell us whether the accused here is legally responsible for his actions, but we don't need a court to tell us what happened or why the accused says he did it. All that said, reasonable minds may of course differ, and I'll try not to be a talk page bother. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say that the expanding footer "Alt-right" covers a lot of this ground already, as does the category "Racially motivated violence against African Americans". However, I do believe that some of the categories removed should wait until after the trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, I was less concerned with the actual removal than with the stated rationale, but I understand. Upon reflection, however, I do think we should probably have some category associated with racism, as that's certainly at least a large proclaimed factor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for payton's profile

TypeShEre (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Perpetrator!?

Why isn't the word "perpetrator" being used in this article? We all know who was responsible for this mass shooting. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been decided in the courts yet, and it would be a violation of our policy to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-US legal proceedings

It was reported today that British teenager Daniel Harris has been sentenced to eleven and a half years in prison for five counts of encouraging terrorism and one count of possession of material for terrorist purposes, after a trial in Manchester, UK. These charges encompass the creation and uploading of far-right videos, some of which were viewed and shared by Gendron, who also used an image from one of them in his "manifesto."[3] Nick Cooper (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting but just a bit tangential. Gendron was apparently viewing all sorts of nonsense on the internet (he seems to have rehashed half of the 4chan board /pol/ in his manifesto), and it is unlikely that these videos played a clear part in motivating him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard of someone going to jail for "incitement to terrorism" in the context of white supremacist violence (maybe there are other instances I haven't heard of), which seems significant enough to be documented on Wikipedia somewhere, if not this article. It appears he was arrested specifically in connection with the Buffalo attack [4], which I think might make it a strong enough link to mention here. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with you, though I think for now, I would still lean against inclusion here (though it's a close call for me). Where I think you'd be on even more solid ground would be an article on Mr. Harris himself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it can deserve one sentence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

First person shot was white

Article refers to the apology to the “white person” as proof of racism, but omits the fact the first person shot; in the parking lot, was white. 2A01:11:9240:2960:9D0:4EE3:F3A5:A1E (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The person shot dead in the parking lot outside the store was 32-year-old Roberta A. Drury.[5][6][7] Despite what some people have said, she was a black person.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that - however she self-identified. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Roberta Drury would have been black according to the one-drop rule. She was mixed race, as can be seen in her photo.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is the convicted murderer's name in BOLD letters, when the victims are not?

Is this now a current standard format or style within Wikipedia articles? Why would the names of the innocent victims be treated with less prominence than the perpetrator? I wanted to know why, before potentially editing the lede. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Because it is the landing place for a redirect. The term being redirected is bolded. See WP:RPLA. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt explanation and policy link. Also, I am glad to see the bolded name moved by you from the lede to the more appropriate perpetrator section. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

About Payton Gendron's sentence

At the time of this writing, the beginning of this article says "On February 15, 2023, Gendron was sentenced to 11 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole" while the "Legal proceedings"-section (at the time of this writing) says "On February 15, 2023, Gendron was denied youthful offender status and received 10 concurrent life sentences, without the possibility of parole". First of all, at the time of this writing, the source cited for those claims ([9]) only says that he was sentenced to life in prison without parole, not that there were 10 or 11 life sentences or that the life sentences were consecutive or concurrent. Furthermore, I can't (at the time of this writing) find any mention within the source in question that he was denied youthful offender status. What is the source for the number of life sentences, for whether the life sentences were consecutive or concurrent and for that he was denied youthful offender status? Heart of Destruction (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"Buffalo genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Buffalo genocide has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2 § Buffalo genocide until a consensus is reached. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)