Talk:2019 El Paso shooting/Archive 5

Recent edits
I recently edited the section to read:  I also added a reliable source in a recent Washington Post article. I think my wording uses better sourcing, is more factual (especially regarding the purported "invasion", which we shouldn't describe in Wikipedia's voice), and offers important context (comparing the El Paso and Christchurch manifestos). Is there a specific reason these changes should be reverted? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (edit: struck text removed from article, 14:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC))

In the above excerpt, the word "invasion" seems exactly like the kind of "emotive opinion" mentioned under MOS:QUOTEPOV that shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Regarding the comparison between the two manifestos, Luke Darby in The Telegraph also describes them as "similar". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't like the quotes around "invasion". Feels like we're telling people Wikipedia itself finds this word itself worthy of contempt, not the whole idea (of shooting Mexicans who do it for purportedly political reasons). If there was an actual problem, some neutral or inverted version would exist, like they do for imperialism, automation and degradation. But it doesn't, so ordinary people use "invasion" when describing infestations, infections or infiltrations, rather than imply the invaders are like vermin, disease or secret agents. Humans have been invading territory since Day One, there's no shame in it anymore. We just still don't like being thought of rats, scum and tools, because of our (generally) common feeling of mastery and dominion over those "things". Unless you can paraphrase it without making it "stronger", I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's voice is sufficient for this wholly innocent word that's just been sometimes used and repeated by the wrong people for irrelevant reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "ordinary people" say, but according to Webster's, "invasion" means either an incursion by an armed force ("the D-Day invasion") or the entry of something harmful ("invasion of privacy"). Since #1 doesn't apply, and #2 is highly opinionated, there's no neutral way to use "invasion" in Wikipedia's voice.The "innocence" of the word is not the issue; language doesn't exist in a vacuum, and the reasons people talk of immigrant "invasions"namely, to spread fear and promote a nativist political agendaare therefore very relevant.What if we put the exact phrase "Hispanic invasion" in quotes? That should remove any suggestion of "contempt". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a step in the right direction, I think; a phrase in quotes seems less "suspicious", even if it is just two words. I don't disagree with the idea that speaking of invasions is a solid way to sow fear of them and create a sense of "united states" between politicians and voters, but so it goes with speaking of the looming threat of military-industrial complex interloping with rich women to build killer robots that don't mind taking dead-end jobs more efficiently than any man could, rapidly devaluing money in favour of "radical" pursuits, like reintroducing bats, frogs, porcupines, cougars and petroleum-based lubricants into our own backyards, with "callous disregard" for the continual loyalty of our twelve thousand varieties of "dog specially bred and altered to lack attributes necessary for survival beyond slavery" and one species of lawn grass.
 * In brief, everything is harmful if you spin it that way for long enough. That's the ordinary, mundane essence of promising to protect a group from overall anguish if they give you the power over security. If there's nothing to fear, there's no power. For the moment, the guy with the power is a more popular villain than Hitler, which foggies up the "national debate" a bit, but trust me, fear of invasion is normal, fear of "invasion" is not.
 * Part of me doesn't want to be the guy to remind you that there are good and bad people on both sides, because "that's racist", but it's true. Sometimes Mexicans enter something harmful (a historically trigger-happy and white male-dominated state), sometimes they facilitate the entry of something harmful (cocaine, history of violence and machismo, cars). Either way you look at it, it's pretty scary. Scary enough to help drive a native stupid enough to harm himself and others, in this case. Even "realer" than the manifesto's other four fears (I see you've "neutralized" two), for being legitimately and straightforwardly self-fulfilling.
 * Highly emotional processes, these delusional waking nightmares, but can be described without any connotation whatsoever if we simply accept the fact that a number of Hispanics entered a place and were harmed, following decades of reports of other Hispanics entering that place with harmful intent and/or actions, spreading harmful fear and harmful responses alike, where before there was nothing to fear but everything and everyone except Hispanic invasion. Again, I am not blaming the victims for entering while Hispanic; that's all on Crusius for not confronting his irrational fear of the unknown the decent American way; staying inside with the door locked and "the tube" on. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All soapboxing aside, we seem to have a rough consensus on the phrase "Hispanic invasion" in quotes, so I'll edit the article accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph is repetitive and contains trivia. The weapon and his name can be included in the intro. The sentence providing obvious political cover does not need to be repeated by WP. IP75 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * assuming you mean the part about the author's beliefs, one could certainly make the argument that it was meant as political cover. However, we have it sourced to reliable, independent sources. I think it adds useful context, so I've restored it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was more sloppy elucidation on the meaning of real harm and perceived threat coinciding (to Hispanics and Crusius, respectively) than straight soapboxing, but yeah, "philosophy" aside, I think we both don't hate the compromise. Since we're down to three concerns, after casually dismissing the military-industrial complex under the rug, I can't help but notice environmental degradation is now the odd duck out, in a "real word" sense. I'll change it to "destruction of our planet", unless you mind terribly; more reflective of the actual "manifesto" and might (subjectively) look less "naked". InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "destruction of our planet" seems presumptuous in Wikipedia's voice, and I don't see the phrase quoted in any independent sources. Likewise, I didn't "casually dismiss" military imperialism; it was not not be found in any of the published sources I looked at. If there are sources that mention it, feel free to add them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it's "destruction of our environment". See Dennis-Embury's Telegraph piece. If we don't want to suggest "we" (readers or writers) share global concerns with a jackoff, I could go for "environmental destruction" (quoteless, of course). The destruction, rather than degradation, is the main thing. Pretty confident the military was covered in an earlier revision, but could be a false memory. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Embury-Dennis in The Independent is quoting the manifesto directly here. We should instead summarize evaluation and analysis by reliable, secondary sources. While both "degradation" and "destruction" have support from published sources, I don't see how one would conclude the latter to be the "main thing". Eventually, we should have more in-depth secondary coverage, allowing us to dispense with such soundbites altogether. But for the time being, I think "degradation" sums up the issue better; "destruction" seems a trifle too melodramatic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to seem melodramatic, it's announcing a famous massacre while trying to justify it to Lorax-minded readers, possibly inspire them. Same with all his quotes we share. Nobody's afraid of a degraded planet, we were born on one. But a destroyed Earth? That's concerning. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to seem melodramatic ... Same with all his quotes we share. I'm generally against sharing direct quotes when there's a reliably-sourced alternative, as I explained above under . In any case, "environmental destruction" isn't a direct quote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but it's only edited for space. Still means what he did, essentially. So it's accurate, just happens to convey a fear scarier than degradation. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And what is the basis in published sources for picking the "scarier" word? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the one that most closely reflects the primary source. We'd do the same for a "sexy", "solemn" or "silly" word. The fidelity is the deciding factor. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, Trump tweeted an all-caps "DESTRUCTION" today. Don't let it shape your view of the word, though, the rhetoric, agenda and discourse are entirely dissimilar. He was using it to describe false and disproven premises for war between two cartoonishly villainous presidents (Bush and Hussein). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

We base articles on evaluation and analysis from reliable, secondary sources, summarizing them in our own words. We don't copy from primary sources, which in this case is a piece of propaganda.While both terms have support from recent news coverage, "degradation" suggests a degree of interpretation, as opposed to a word lifted straight from the manifesto. It also has the advantage of a more impartial tone. —04:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You lift "Hispanic invasion" and "cultural and ethnic replacement" in the exact same line. Unlike "destruction", which you seem to dislike for personal reasons, "invasion" is reportedly a divisive, racist and fearful word. You can't arbitrarily hold two-thirds of a line to one standard and the last third to another. We speak of invasion, replacement and destruction not because we're spreading propoganda, but because we're describing a document that speaks of invasion, replacement and destruction. To claim that it contains a grievance about degradation in Wikipedia's voice makes Wikipedia a liar, and to suggest that environmental destruction is some sort of radical nutbar terminology that should be nipped in the bud lest it alarm, corrupt or inspire an average reader implies our editorial team has had its head in the sand since Silent Spring and the resultant flood of mainstream acceptance of catastrophic planetary decline (as opposed to slipping from a B to a C+). Not cool, reverted. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Crusius hypermarket shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crusius hypermarket shooting. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 18:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mass murder?
Hi there, a user has added that this is a mass murder in the infobox. I was about to revert, asking them to reach a consensus first. I have not reverted, but would appreciate thoughts on whether it should be included. Although I agree that it meets the definition of a mass murder, I believe a claim like this needs discussion. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 15:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed this per WP:BLPCRIME.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see that categorization as having any relevance to WP:BLPCRIME. There is no doubt that a mass murder occured, and the categorization does not accuse any individual of being the perpetrator. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There were mixed opinions about this at Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings/Archive_11.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That discussion shows pretty clear consensus towards inclusion. Can you explain why you think there is any BLP concern? BLPCRIME precludes us from tagging any unconvicted person as a murderer (which I agree with), but no one is proposing that here. VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A prosecutor's job is to prove a crime occured at some place and time and that the defendant did it. Whether both things are sufficiently proven is up to the jury and judge. Anybody else doing it beforehand is doing it prejudicially. While it would be worse to explicitly find the defendant guilty before a fair trial, for human rights and BLP reasons, it's still bad to presume an alleged crime is a crime without hearing the case, because we might be proven wrong later by people who did. And every bit of suggestion we currently convey that Crusius killed people becomes suggestion that he killed them during a mass murder, which pretty strongly suggests he murdered them, heavily implying he's a murderer, making a trial seem pointless even though it isn't. Patience and indecision works best for outside observers. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Similar rhetoric beyond "invasion"?
If we're to say Trump used similar "rhetoric" to a killer, in a section about potential hate crimes, for no reason other than to imply he's involved in atrocity, despite the supposed lone gunman stating we're wrong to believe it, we should explain what that means. Which parts, similar how? I saw an IP relay descriptions of "divisive rhetoric", "racist rhetoric" and "fear-evoking language", but that's vague enough to describe pretty much anyone discussing a divisive scary racial issue. Guns, immigration, art, language, sex, zoning, sports, prison, pollution, drugs.

All inherently polarizing and emotional by design, but only some speeches and essays contain similar scary racist divisive rhetoric (meaning actual phrases, ideas, allusions, cadence and the rest). Fear, division and racism are more like broad themes than devices. If we consider fear and division to be harmful, we shouldn't spread fear of Republican or Democrat candidates unless they're actually harmful and we can show how. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That was ; I forgot to log in. I agree we should explain what "rhetoric" refers to; that's exactly what the words "invaders"/"invasion" are there to do. The comment we shouldn't spread fear of Republican or Democrat candidates unless they're actually harmful is a non-sequitur, nor are we implying anything about Trump's involvement or lack thereof. We follow published sources, giving due weight to prominent views. As for inciting fear of Trump personally, I'd say that ship has already sailed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Aye, Trump broke the whole system, as far as freely and widely accusing the sitting president of racist murder and lying about Americans goes. I'm not even shocked, three years on, just gently buzzzed and disappointed more with the unending quantity than the abysmal quality of these stories. I appreciate your willingness to conform to the facts presented by reliable sources, and your dropping of "such as", but I somewhat greatly fear you're confusing the fact that "invasion" and "invaders" are two individual and separate words with the recently-popular opinion that two disjointed single words constitute rhetoric, contrary to most if not all respected English dictionaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're not up for "same words", how does "similar language" suit you? Two words is hardly an entire language, but it's a start. When a baby starts spouting "muh" and "duh" sounds, parents everywhere are convinced it's learning their language, but Trump and Crusius aren't adorably ignorant idiots anymore, and I think we all can tell what they've been reading and listening to together over the last couple of decades, as clearly as your synonym for cow juice got me thinking le vache qui rit. On that note, does French on either side of the Western world have a polite word for "invasion", modern or archaic? English could really use another loanword about now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Call me developmentally disabled (or worse), but I just noticed something after staring it in the face for however long it's been. I even referenced the politician at the center of my profound revelation in a recent deleted personal call to a high-ranking member of Wikipedian democracy, but was too drunk to coherently connect even the dots that I thought I was seeing at the time. The rhetorical mastermind behind the whole thing is right there in the goddamned title. If this was 2000, the heel commentators would be shouting his name like a sleazy Jewish promoter watching a Detroit-built manbeast drive a defenseless Canadian fruitcake through a ludicrously lavish piece of window dressing. Sorry for the opacity, but the simple "truth" might be "inconvenient", unless there's an elephant in the room who'd like to "put a stamp" on this "subliminal message" and "send it home" to that one candidate' who "gave a hoot" about "global warning" and "cybertronic election interference". Florida man, remember? Registered Democrat? Didn't win, possibly begrudgingly, stewing in own natural juices since? Come on, people, think! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * These lengthy, off-topic paragraphs are making this thread difficult to follow. Please keep the political commentary to a minimum. Wikipedia isn't a general discussion forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know whose the recently-popular opinion that two disjointed single words constitute rhetoric would be, but in any case published sources are the ones calling it that, not me. I don't have any problem with saying instead, but not because of any lack of support for "rhetoric". The two terms are more or less synonymous here, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The shorter, blunter question might be why we mention Trump on the basis of these two words that a lot of people have said for a very long time, when the title is clearly inspired by Al Gore's signature propaganda piece, An Inconvenient Truth. It's been hashed and rehashed countless times throughout Crusius' formative years, and also unlike Trump's borrowed words of late, is something a declared environmental activist might actually watch and hear on purpose and intentionally nod at in his one and only published manifesto on a perceived threat.
 * The other only seems to kind of fit if you disregard the etymology of "invade", the definition of "rhetoric", the idea that most killers know why they do it, the tendency of known Trump fanatics to proudly admit it and the lack of skepticism given the confession as a whole by the same reliable sources.
 * It all points to bullshit, and we do have editorial freedom to omit potentially harmful bullshit from articles about living people. WP:BLPCRIME loosely advises we approach with due caution the mere suggestion that a person not even sought for questioning in one of America's most heinous hate crime cases is somehow the man responsible for creating a monster, despite being literally the only person in America explicitly ruled out by anyone with reported direct knowledge of the situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be saying here is that you consider evaluation and analysis by mainstream news organizations, including The Guardian, Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Telegraph, and the LA Times, among others, to be "bullshit". You're welcome to take it to WP:RS/N, but I don't see any reason to question the sources' interpretation here. They are all highly respected news outlets, so WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems to be satisfied.If you want to mention Al Gore, it's very simple: find published sources that connect him to the incident. Reliable, mainstream sources are required: Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, including speculation about what may have inspired Crusius.BLPCRIME is a red herring; we aren't accusing Trump of any crimes here. Trump is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE in any case, and we have multiple quality references for the link to his public statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric means, among other things, "verbal communication; discourse". Seems to fit the way the word is used here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't want to mention Gore. Just saying his absence (despite the similar words, themes and title), combined with Trump's presence (despite far smaller and more tenuous links), suggests this association is based in the running feud between Trump and the press, rather than the facts of this shooting. If you're not trying to blame Trump for inspiring murder and racial hatred, what is the point of sandwiching his name in between those sentences and piling on eight citations to opinion pieces damning the guy?
 * And if multiple opinions that there is a link make it factual and relevant, why is it only mentioned at the shooting article and not his own? Shouldn't this supposed connection affect both parts? I'd think so.
 * "Discourse" and "verbal communication" also entail more than two forms of one root word; if we agree on nothing else, let's at least agree "language" is both accurate and used by sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the citations (Vox) could plausibly be called an opinion piece. The rest are not. Once again, if you think the sources are being improperly cited, take it to WP:RS/N. The reason these sources are cited here and not at Donald Trump is that they are not primarily about him. We generally cite sources focused on the topic at hand. However, you are free to add any of them to his bio as you see fit. The sentence is placed where it is because reliable sources connect Trump to the racist themes of the manifesto. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Every article you point to as an analysis or evaluation piece is what I would point to as an opinion or feature piece. I have no problem with any of these sources' factual reliability, and am well aware where I could complain if I did. That Trump said "invasion" is a fact, that the post says "invasion" is a fact, that there is some connection between these facts is conjecture, speculation, possibility, wishful thinking, comparative analysis, weighted evaluation and/or subjective opinion. See WP:YESPOV for more on how you have a problem in interpreting the rules on whom Wikipedia should parrot about what. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comparative analysis and weighted evaluation are precisely what we look for in reliable sources. Calling these articles opinion pieces or feature stories is simply false. They are all by staff writers, not editors or opinion columnists, and appear in the "news"/"politics" sections of their respective publications. (The New York Times and Washington Post stories appeared in print on the front pages of their respective papers.) The Associated Press in particular is not known for publishing opinion pieces. If commenting on the obvious similarity between two people's statements is the same as conjecture, speculation, possibility, [or] wishful thinking, then I'm the queen of Sheba. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If any two statements were obviously similar, the conjectors wishing similar statements existed could point to them and so could we. But in fact, the best they could find to work with are two matching words. It was those writers' choice to choose those words instead of any other from the same statements, and seek them in presidential speeches instead of any other piece of pop literature. In those two naked ambitions alone, they cease to be detached impersonal reporters, regardless of whether they or their platform typically or elsewise play it completely straight.
 * Truly obviously self-evidently Trump hit pieces from the headers to the bottom lines, and plainly clearly really more appropriate in one of the dozens of Wikipedia's dedicated Trump Analysis and Reaction sections. Even in this article's reaction section, it'd make infinitely more sense than failing to describe something admittedly not about Trump.
 * How does that last decent proposal sound, Your Imaginary Majesty? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving the material to would make it less visible on the page, and also imply that the subject is the news articles themselves, rather than the manifesto. Both would fail to give the material due weight in the context of the whole article. The issue goes beyond two matching words. The AP mentions "jobs" and "send them back"; The Guardian points out references to "open borders" and "fake news". The idea of an invasion by "Hispanics" is central to the comparison with Trump's rhetoric, as several sources make clear.I see no point in continuing to debate these (frankly ridiculous) objections to mainstream news coverage. I've given my reasons in support of the existing sources; any further objections can be posted to the appropriate forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How does that last decent proposal sound, Your Imaginary Majesty? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving the material to would make it less visible on the page, and also imply that the subject is the news articles themselves, rather than the manifesto. Both would fail to give the material due weight in the context of the whole article. The issue goes beyond two matching words. The AP mentions "jobs" and "send them back"; The Guardian points out references to "open borders" and "fake news". The idea of an invasion by "Hispanics" is central to the comparison with Trump's rhetoric, as several sources make clear.I see no point in continuing to debate these (frankly ridiculous) objections to mainstream news coverage. I've given my reasons in support of the existing sources; any further objections can be posted to the appropriate forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Robert Evans snippet in Suspect
I feel taking a partial sentence from an obscure web sleuth on how a Twitter account from April 2017 made him feel about the user he started analyzing within the prior day in August 2019 is unduly prominent, unclearly relevant and strangely dissimilar to the objective and authoritative police statements in the same paragraph.

I also surmise by the deletion of Evans' views on Crusius' Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn accounts (relatively active in 2019) and his never-copied views on Crusius' 8chan post, its connection to Brendon Tarrant's post and the suspected online terror game that the general purpose in sharing his feelings here was always intended to associate a non-famous teenaged online version of the guy to Trump and/or Republicans, rather than flesh out the infamous adult offline version or discuss his alleged murders and/or hate speech.

A recent edit summary restoring this deleted trivia bit claimed its non-triviality is better seen in light of the 8chan post. But that contains no reference to the abandoned Twitter account, no projected Republican image and no support for Trump. The Belingcat post also posits no connection between what seemed to be in April 2017 and anything that was 28 months later, nor shares the opinion expressed in other sources about Trump's 2015-2019 language inspiring the 8chan piece.

Understanding how a guy from Belingcat's opinion on how a normal Twitter user appeared in the month he stopped tweeting is somehow related to a real person's arrest on charges he'd never tweeted about may be easy for someone already thinking about how Republicans or Trump are obviously racist hateful murderous white gun-supporting men, but someone reading to learn about Crusius instead might be reasonably troubled by this sudden shift in time, space and theme. Should stay deleted the fifth time, or be reworded to convey the reason it exists here beside talk of police, law and weapons. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Mental disabilities does NOT mean autistic
If you have evidence of the subject's autism, identify it. The defense claim of "mental disabilities" is simply too vague.207.224.194.32 (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't find autism in the current version of the article. The source given is here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Manifesto
Instead of presenting excerpt(s) from the manifesto, I think we should rely on the in-depth evaluation, interpretation, and analysis provided by published secondary sources to describe its contents. Not only should we avoid indiscriminate and unduly weighted soundbites, quoting them without appropriate context is arguably promotional. As terrorism expert Peter R. Neumann told The Washington Post recently, these manifestos are propaganda meant to inspire similar attacks. It should go without saying that's not what an encyclopedia is for. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming silence, I've removed the quote box from the top of the section, which had just such an indiscriminate excerpt. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed and an out-of-context paraphrase of the author's thoughts on. To reiterate, Wikipedia is explicitly not for spreading propaganda. Rather than summarizing the manifesto uncritically, we should summarize the evaluation of published secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: : Well, he would, wouldn't he? In any case, I've added two reliable sources describing the attack as an expression of white supremacy. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism category
I can't find any justification for categorizing this terrorism. Crusius was not even charged with terrorism, much less convicted of it, despite the Department of Justice making highly publicized indications to do so. The guideline is: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Where are the reliable sources calling this terrorism? Nweil (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are cited in the article, , , , , and . See also: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Crusius explicitly stated that he was targeting Hispanics, and his manifesto makes it clear that the shooting was politically motivated. Terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Going off of this information alone, it is clear that the shooting was an act of terrorism. History Man1812 (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)History_Man1812

Claim that manifesto excuses Trump

 * ''While the document uses language about immigrants similar to that used by U.S. president Donald Trump, such as referring to a migrant "invasion", it states that the author's beliefs predate Trump's presidency, and that Trump should not be blamed for the attack.

This appears to be a terrible paraphrase of the original AP source, which indirectly absolves Trump through poor wording. In fact, the original AP source said:


 * ''Though a Twitter account that appears to belong to Crusius included pro-Trump posts praising the plan to build more border wall, the writer of the online document says his views on race predated Trump’s campaign and that any attempt to blame the president for his actions was “fake news.”

This is far more accurate and neutral. My suggestion would to use the exact quote here, since multiple editors have butchered the meaning and intent with a poor paraphrase. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The AP quote you provided should replace what is currently there. Given how long ago this post is from and the layers of restrictions on editing this page I was wondering if there is any rule, ruling or reason preventing one from going ahead and making that change? OgamD218 (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. There’s been so many sneaky edits to this article over the years that I suspect much of it needs a rewrite and a second look at the original sources.  It’s common in controversial articles like this to find the content and the source references at total odds with each other.  I’ll take another look tomorrow and see if I can’t make a change.  Otherwise, please, have at it.  I have a list of similar articles on this topic that need work.  If you’re interested or have time, contact me on my talk page, and I’ll give you the link to the master file in my user space. Viriditas (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * El Paso Shooting Monument.jpg

Why did Crusius do it?
What went wrong in his life to commit such a horrific act other than his racial opinions? You don't just develop that overnight. 2.44.175.25 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Unlike the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, where a large number of concerns had been raised about Nikolas Cruz's conduct and mental health background prior to the shooting, Patrick Crusius does not seem to have been regarded as a major risk before the alleged incident. The article could expand on Crusius' background but is limited by the upcoming trial.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)