Talk:2019 Jersey City shooting

Is listing the name and address of a private establishment necessary?
I removed the specific name and address of the second shooting location from the infobox, and then those details were reinstated. Unless there's a good reason to, I don't think we should be listing this much detail for a private establishment, particularly this one considering concerns about anti-semitism (though I have no reason to believe that is a motive in this shooting). Funcrunch (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd say leave it, as it is the precise location where the crime occurred, and is widely available in the media.


 * I'm not sure that Antisemitism can be absolutely ruled out as a motive, at least until we find out why the perpetrators drove over a mile from the cemetery directly to a Jewish grocery store. I'll not edit the page due to the scarcity of info available, but the way it currently reads (fled to store) makes it sound as though the sites are adjacent or close together, rather than over a mile apart.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.6.253.214 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Per this recently added source it appears now that the grocery store might indeed have been targeted. But I still think including the specific name and address of it here on Wikipedia is unnecessary and could possibly make it even more of a target for antisemitism. Funcrunch (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The name of the establishment and that it was a kosher food store should be included if such information is reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Shooting, shootings or shootout?
I suggest 2019 Jersey City Shootout might be a better title for this event, since a significant volume of fire may have been from the responding law enforcement personnel who appear to have been armed with assault weapons; and it may be difficult to determine whose bullets killed the civilians within the store. While the number of shots fired illegally may be estimated, police reports often fail to specify how many cartridges were fired by law enforcement personnel. Thewellman (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The shootout was preceded by the shooting death of a police officer, so the entire matter was not just a shootout. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For that reason, the title should be 2019 Jersey City shootings. Jim Michael (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * edit by User:David O. Johnson, the article has been re-cast to exclude the killing of the officer in the cemetery. Do not believe this does justice the article, making it inconsistent, or properly describes the situation about how the two events are inextricably intertwined...Is the statement in the article However, James Shea, the Jersey City Public Safety Director, indicated on December 11 that the shooting began at the market. based on the reference given sufficient to re-cast the article?Djflem (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems as though there was no shooting at the cemetery.

"Information continues to develop, and while authorities said Tuesday that it appeared the standoff began with the deadly shooting of a police officer at a separate site, Fulop and Shea said Wednesday that the bloodshed began at the market.

"We now know this did not begin with gunfire between police officers and perpetrators and then move to the store," Shea, the brother of NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea, said. "It began with an attack on the civilians inside the store." 

I'm just going by what the sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no shooting at the cemetery? What? The same source you cited extensively discusses a shooting at the cemetery. If going to re-cast the article, then do it properly. You left it that the police officer was shot at the grocery store. Why?Djflem (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Victims
In a section sub-headed 'Victims", identifying the officer is appropriate and much better than: "The dead police officer was 39 years old". Naming others may be appropriate as well.Djflem (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In accordance with Village pump (policy)/Archive 138, the inclusion of victim names requires consensus on this talk page. WWGB (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The above refers only to names and does not draw a conclusion about biographical material.Djflem (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course victim names should be included if reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is my first time adding to a talk page, please excuse any mistakes if I make any here. I added some information about the fallen officer and added a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccull415 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – I support adding the victim names.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support make sense in this case. Djflem (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – I also support adding the names of the victims. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude all victims' names for reasons I've stated on many talk pages of articles about mass casualty events. Jim Michael (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support if limited to listing the victims' names and ages only. Funcrunch (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? What would be the harm in mentioning such information as occupation, if reliably sourced? Wouldn't we also indicate gender either by pronoun or by "M" or "F"? (Male or female.) I think the rule of thumb should be "prevalence in sources". If virtually all sources describe someone as a "schoolteacher" I think we should just go along with that description. In instances in which information on occupation (for instance) is not provided then we simply say nothing about occupation or if in a table or list we just write "not known". I don't think we should delve into extensive biographical information. But basic statistical-type stuff, if reliably-sourced, only makes the article more informative. But it depends on "prevalence in sources". Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Gender could also be nonbinary (though news sources usually get that wrong). Regardless, unless the gender, profession, etc. is somehow connected to the shooting motive, I don't think we need to include that information along with each of the victims' names; readers can go to the sources if they want more information. Funcrunch (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Age, sex (as opposed to gender), profession/occupation, residence and other bio info normally mentioned in press are not included in the policy cited above.Djflem (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, there is no "policy cited above". The link provided above is only to a Village Pump discussion which merely concludes that the inclusion or exclusion of victim names is to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which is of course what we are doing at this moment. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear, policy is wrong word; let's say consensus. The essay Casualty lists is also informative.Djflem (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So too is WP:Victim lists. WWGB (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Casualty lists gives guidance about mentioning names in articles, while WP:Victim lists does not.Djflem (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I get the sense that both essays are being presented as having some weight here, with no evidence of the degree of community support for either. Anybody can put their opinions in an essay, and most essays should not be used in discussions like this beyond saying, "I agree with this essay". Thus an essay can serve as a convenient way to convey a lengthy and nuanced argument with a simple link, but it can't have weight like a guideline or policy – not even a little weight – unless widespread community support can be reasonably asserted (for example, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay for which widespread community support can be reasonably asserted). I just wanted to be sure we're clear on that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The bottom line should be "prevalence in sources". If this information is not prevalent in sources then we should omit it. If this information is prevalent in sources then we should include it. Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Numerous sources provide information about the victims, mentioning them each individually.00:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose naming all dead victims – like Jim Michael above, for reasons I've stated on many talk pages of articles about mass casualty events, which I can copy here upon request. I do not oppose naming dead victims who played a significant active role in the event, provided the article at least briefly describes that role. I believe the dead detective qualifies because he died in the line of duty in a job he knew to be dangerous. Simply dying at the hands of another, however tragic and unjust, is not an active role but a passive one. (I also oppose naming wounded but surviving victims regardless of their roles.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – Many sources identify the deceased. CNN The New York Times CBS News USA Today ABC News NBC News NPR Time NJ.com. I believe all six names should be included in the article. Inclusion can be in prose, table, or list form. I don't think we concoct criteria for which names get included and which names get omitted. We are not omniscient. Contrary to what my colleagues argue we cannot anticipate the needs of readers and we should not even try. We should just adhere to the general outline of a subject as provided to us by most reliable sources. Wikipedia is at its best when it sticks to compiling information. Wikipedia is at its worst when it weeds through information and decides which information to include and which information to omit. We should not be picking and choosing which names warrant inclusion and which names should be omitted. Even if there were 30 people killed—God forbid—we should list them all. Bus stop (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I also oppose naming surviving victims. In the case of non-civilians killed in the line of duty (police, members of the armed forces, firefighters etc.), their occupations & ranks are more important to the event & more relevant to readers than their names are. Jim Michael (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Language
Is this a valid sentence? I can't parse it. Can someone make it more clear? "It is believed that the detective approached the suspects to interdict guns a van which was related to a murder the previous weekend in nearby Bayonne. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.190.191.59 (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed word to confiscate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccull415 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Military terminology
Despite trends in usage, it is incorrect to use the word "civilians" in this context. Police are not military. Words like "members of the public", "bystanders", or "a supermarket owner, an employee and a customer" would be more accurate. — Felix Lechner (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Police are not military, but police are not civilians. In an article where police and the public are involved, it may not be inappropriate to use "civilians" to differentiate them from the police. WWGB (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites
I don't know who claimed Anderson was connected using a source that says "Anderson was at one time a follower of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement", but it doesn't belong in thea article IMHO. We shouldn't suggest that a group he once belonged to might be to blame. He might have been kicked out for having violent tendencies, we don't know. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not? It gives insight into the male shooter's motive, the Black Hebrew Israelites are a hate group that particularly hates Jewish people...The dots connect. It is relevant that he belonged to that group in the past, no different than if a [obviously white] former klan member attacked a minority, that past affiliation would be presented as it should be. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:F830:FF01:34F4:9823 (talk)


 * There is clear evidence that hateful messages referencing the New Testament was heard playing from the female shooter (Francine's) house. Please refer to articles for this. I also think it is important that we include pictures of the shooters. I will stop all funding and contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation until this is done, and will be requesting a refund (via chargebacks) of all the contributions I have made until now unless the photographs and history of the shooters are added to this page.


 * Democracy is at risk in such darkness (there is a dangerous media attempt to filter and muddle the truth by allowing many in the public to infer that this was the work of White Supremacists or Nazi sympathizers, when in fact this was the work of Black Hebrew Isrealites (who are now being added by the SPLC as a hate group, and have a history of aggressive and violent acts against innocent individuals)). I think it is shameful that Wikimedia (a purported 501c3) is being perverted by certain biased individuals to mirror the same agenda being pushed through mass media: attempting to mislead people into thinking that this incident had right-wing motives. I live within 2 miles of the shooting and know for a fact that Jersey City is an extremely liberal place, where right-leaning thinkers are practically entirely absent, for all intents and purposes. David and Francine's associations and motives (why specifically they targeted Whites of the Jewish faith) should not continue to be censored. Their identity should be shared (photos and history), as opposed to how the news media is handling this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:102:785B:215A:F7F:653E:DA01 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, I don't know if you're trolling with your statement about stopping contributions to the WMF and requesting a refund, but in case you or other readers don't know, Wikipedia articles are written entirely by volunteers. Your ultimatum carries no weight here. Funcrunch (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are no source that says that the BHI played role in radicalising the attacker then there will be no mention of it in the article. And you can break your head in the wall complaining.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, him being a member of the BHI in the past would be shedding light on his motivations to carry out the attack. It is relevant information for people to know. The BHI is a hate group that hates Jewish people, he belonged to that group. It is no different than if a former KKK member went out and attacked black people - you know that his past affiliation with the KKK would be in the article, as it should be, and the BHI should be mentioned in this article as well for the same reason. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:5CBB:FDA6:A983:CB88 (talk)


 * We don't do original research here. We only report what reliable sources say. Right now reliable sources are not saying that the BHI played any role in redicalizing him. Also per WP:PROPORTION discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Two people committed a crime and one of them was an ex-member of the group. This is all we have now. So why would we include the attack in that article? This applies to all groups like the KKK or whatever groups there are.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Per the Nytimes, a reliable source - "Suspect in Jersey City Linked to Black Hebrew Israelite Group. The Black Hebrew Israelites have been labeled a hate group. The suspect wrote anti-Semitic and anti-police posts, an official said." So there is a reliable source noting both that A - He was a part of that hate group and B - he wrote anti-Semitic [anti Jewish particularly] comments. That is a motive right there per the Nytimes as well as valid background information, some information should be in the article about that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/nyregion/jersey-city-shooting.html 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:5CBB:FDA6:A983:CB88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I am answering myself here, i see that there is more information now and that the BHI are mentioned. So i am going to bow out of this at this point, it seems to be a much more balanced article at this point. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:5CBB:FDA6:A983:CB88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller, you have to be intentionally ignoring the facts if you think that David Anderson's (aka Dawada Maqabath's) motives were not at all linked to his membership and credence to the Black Hebrew Israelites. Please see all the *direct* primary sources and references to the shooter's own social media accounts on this page: https://heavy.com/news/2019/12/david-anderson-social-media-dawada-maqabath/


 * I don't particularly think heavy.com is a major media source, but if you look at the screenshots and exact posts made by David everywhere, as he rails against Ashkenazi Jews being 'fraudulent' (according to David's world theory), you would see that his association with the Black Hebrew Israelites is highly relevant information to his motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:102:785B:215A:F7F:653E:DA01 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If it is well-sourced I think some mention of this should be included in our article. "A suspect in the deadly attack on a kosher market in Jersey City was connected to the Black Hebrew Israelites, which has been labeled a hate group." Another New York Times source: "Suspect in Jersey City Linked to Black Hebrew Israelite Group". Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't even be a question, should be in. Top notch media is reporting on the connection to this hate group. See The Philadelphia Inquirer:, The New York Times:. Much of the coverage in the media covering the shooting is on this hate group. --900Mike (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar, Black Hebrew Israelites are not a single group, but a large number of smalll groups of greatly varying beliefs and practices. Some of these groups are clearly hate groups, and some are just as clearly not. It is relevant, but we should be clear that it is only a subset of the movement, such as the One West Camp tendency, that is associated with hate groups. I don't think it is clear at all if the suspect actually "belonged" to a particular group, or just used some of the movement's language online.--Pharos (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Not rocket science. The RSs report it in articles on the event. So we should. 2604:2000:E010:1100:4C24:FD8C:676:AD5F (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"There were postings that connected to Anderson's social page with Black Hebrew Israelite, anti-police and antisemitic writings."
 * ????? However the material is covered it should be coherent Djflem (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Misaskim
Misaskim worked authorities to provides services for the care of the dead Orthodox Jewish victims. The involvement of this agency is significant in that two of the victims were Orthodox Jews whose religion prescribes strict procedures for the handling of dead.Djflem (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Lots of organisations provide support to the dead and their families. Nothing particularly noteworthy about this one that requires mention in the article. WWGB (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't our article mention the role of Misaskim? I've restored that. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not many organizations are allowed onto the crime scene to observe and guide handling of bodies.Djflem (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Gravesite image
Re:

According to this NYT article, the detective was shot "outside the cemetery". To me that means on the street. In any case it probably didn't occur at or near the gravesite of Helen Eloise Freudenberg (1928-1989), which is what the image portrays. A reader does not come away from the article knowing more about the event for having viewed that image – and in fact the image may well leave them with the false impression that the detective was killed inside the cemetery. We should not include images that are tangentially connected but not informative about the article subject. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The image adds no information relevent to this article.Djflem (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No evidence on who shot the 3 victims inside the store
So far, there is no media report, or otherwise, that claims that the shooters are the ones who actually shot the victims in the store, as they might have been shot to death by CJPD who were firing indiscriminately, in all directions, blindly into the store. Can someone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.187.159 (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Per The New York Times, "investigators believed that the three people slain inside the store — Leah Mindel Ferencz, Moshe Deutsch and Douglas Miguel Rodriguez — were killed within minutes of the assailants’ entrance. Then, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Graham began firing at police officers who were responding to calls about shots being fired. The deceased were killed before police responded. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry not sorry, but this could not possibly be relevant. The article states initially a pipe bomb was found, but later leaves it out of the inventory of weapons found in the van, The unnamed "officials" who made the comment about the victims being dead did not exactly say they were dead before police arrived, only that they were dead within minutes of the assailants entering the store. Reporting police statements is not journalism, and this article has no credible factual information which is independently provided or corroborated. I Guess, it should be noted that the exact time line of events, and when the two beat officers who previously stated responded within 30 seconds as they were stationed at the corner of the block started shooting into the store. Considering there is video evidence of a person escaping the store, through the front door, after assailants had entered, leaves questions as to weather or not they were actually shooting as they entered, did they in fact shoot anyone: https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5642228,00.html#autoplay. I think that until an independent report declares that police fired bullets did not kill anyone inside the store, we will never know who killed them. Considering the result of the UPS truck hijacking just a week prior, where police killed a hostage and a bistander while aimlessly and indiscriminately shooting in all directions in an attempt to execute a crime suspect, doubt should be placed on any such ambiguous, unnamed comment made by "officials" (police officials? city officials? FBI officials? maybe they are just hired private sector employees who can be officials?, hard to say). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.187.159 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspects/perpetrator>>>assailants?
To avoid the continued reversions and slo-mo Edit warring you're engaged that is de-stabilizing the article, can you live with Assailants,  a term that clearly indicates who shooters were and used by reliable sources (as above)? Djflem (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you bother to check the article edit history, you will see that I reverted "suspect" to "perpetrator" in a single sequence. No rational editor would consider that I participated in an "edit war" on this matter. While your suggestion is helpful, your accusations of "continued reversions", "edit warring" and "de-stabilizing the article" (to which I take exception) are not. Perhaps you might take a less accusatory tone in future? WWGB (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If that is so, my apologies. You may not have been involved in the back-and-forth, but the article history does demonstrate that there has been one.Djflem (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * and, WWGB said there is no doubt that they attacked. There is also no doubt that Tarrant is the one who is behind the Christchurch mosque shootings and he filmed himself while shooting yet his name is not in the infobox and the section is called suspect not perpetrator or assailants. I think assailants is just another way of saying perpetrator. Right now all sources say suspects.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tarrant is alive and facing a trial. It is therefore presumptuous to call him a perp. The New Jersey 2 are dead. They will never face trial. Two very different situations. It is plain wrong to say that "all sources say suspects". CNN, for example, calls them "shooters''. WWGB (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there is no trial, there is an ongoing investigation and sources are still calling them suspects and shooters. Sources also call Tarrant a shooter. That doesn't mean he or those two shooters are criminals. There are many possibilities, like, the shooters were mentally ill. That makes them not criminals and the word perpetrators suggest that they are criminals.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Misaskim was on the scene; Orthodox Judaism does not allow autopsy, and at least two of the victims have been buried. There is no likely chance that any evidence to suggest that they were killed by anyone other than the assailants or shooters will surface.The one eye-witness who was in the shop confirms that they entered and began shooting.Djflem (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The importance of stating the race of the assailants?
Why dispute the importance of stating the race of the assailants? Since this is a racial hate crime, I believe the racial identity of the assailants is material and of interest. Disputing this seems more like an attempt to cover a significant part of the story, and make it less clear, less descriptive, less encyclopedic. Calidrago (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First, Judaism is a religion, not a race, so where is the "racial hate"? Second, what you "believe" is irrelevant here. WWGB (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Judaism is a religion, and Jews are also a race, this isn't disputed and has been repeatedly ruled by the US supreme court, particularly when it comes to violence against them as a group. The addition is of interest and of consequence and is merited in order to give a better picture and understanding of the event. Calidrago (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the sources I've seen, very few if any explicitly state the races of the two individuals. I tried various Google searches and couldn't find a single one, which indicates we are far short of the requisite weight. That's how we decide. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, in that case it makes more sense to elaborate on the nature of the group the assailants were affiliated with, Black_Hebrew_Israelites.Calidrago (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I find your conduct rude and inappropriate for Wikipedia. The source of my addition was no other than the article on Black Hebrew Israelites. You erased my edits for a second time, rather than ask for a clarification/reference. You seem to be politically motivated and intent on dis-informing readers about the nature of this crime, which has been with no dispute a deadly racist assault by fringe black perpetrators on innocent Jews in a NJ Kosher deli. Calidrago (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yada, yada. Stop inventing Wikipedia content and stick to what is published in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Black is an identity just as Jewish is an identity. Black and Jewish overlap as identities in those individuals that are black and Jewish. But the identity of black can be addressed separately and the identity of Jewish can be addressed separately. I think identity can be overemphasized and this can be problematic. But I don't think it is problematic to mention once that the assailants are black, if this is supported by a source. When making such an assertion a source (a citation) would have to be placed right after the assertion. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mandruss that "Of the sources I've seen, very few if any explicitly state the races of the two individuals." I am only finding the implication of race in the term "Black Hebrew Israelites". Sources do not seem to note race apart from the reference to the group Black Hebrew Israelites. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First, Most sources have pictures of the assailants, same for TV news coverage. So while the fact that the assailants are black isn't in the texts, it is nevertheless shown on screen, which is not the case with this article. Second, The fact that many sources omit stating the race of the assailants is part of a color lunacy that many US intellectuals, journalists and elites have been conditioned to after many years of taming. In many cases it can indeed be irrelevant to mention race. Here, the racial self identity of the shooters was key to understanding the motive. They are not mass shooters + Antisemites who happen to be black. The are extremists who were associated with a cult which has a documented black supremacist ideology. Calidrago (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide RS that have come to your conclusion? Otherwise it's conjecture, known as No original research.Djflem (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that sources reasoned that they could save a word because it would be redundant with the photos (not only because they know some of their readers are blind). So I'm not buying that argument. See the number of articles such as Shooting of Michael Brown, in which the races of the parties is mentioned right up front. That's done because sources made race a central issue and mentioned the races in virtually every article. This shows that sources are not shy about stating race and fairly debunks your "color lunacy" claim.You said two days ago, in that case it makes more sense to elaborate on the nature of the group the assailants were affiliated with, Black Hebrew Israelites. I don't disagree with that assuming there is sufficient RS coverage, so why aren't you doing that instead of pursuing this? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * —a reference to race requires a citation, in my opinion. The article can't state that they are "black" in the absence of a source to support that assertion. We are required to hew to the findings of reliable sources. Thus we can't strike out on our own and interpret images to reach our own conclusions. As that would be a violation of no original research. Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * —by way of a quick followup let me say that sources are now assigning identities to the assailants."The killers, who were black, continued on to a kosher market, where they shot dead three hostages — the owner, a worker and a customer — before cops killed them in an hours-long gun battle.""Officials have said that the two, both African-American, were driven by anti-Semitism to attack the kosher store and that they had expressed interest in the Black Hebrew Israelites, a fringe group." Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will use those citations. I tried to add an elaboration on the Black Hebrew Israelites, based on information in the article. see my erased edit from 16 Dec 10:14, was erased by WWGB. Regarding your point on the Michael Brown shooting, color lunacy goes only in one direction. See this funny BBC satire on the matter.  Calidrago (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've already added "Both are African-American." Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Detective Seals/husband and father of 5 children
Is this too much information to add to the article? I am reverted for adding it. My justification is that virtually every source identifying the slain officer also mentions he is a husband and father of five. Omission of such basic information is a contrivance; this sort of information is conspicuous in its absence. Bus stop (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not writing a biography, memorial or human interest story. His parenting is irrelevant to an attack article. WWGB (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't gratuitously omit information that is prominently found in sources. Bus stop (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What is meant by "gratuitously"? In any case, yes, we often do omit information that is prominently found in sources. Per WP:ONUS etc, source reporting alone – even "prominent" source reporting – is not the only consideration for inclusion of any content. This article is about the shooting events, not about Seals. Unless sources make it so and explain the relevance, the fact that he was a husband and father of five had nothing to do with the shooting events. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You say "Thus that could be included in a Wikipedia article about Seals, but not one about the shooting. Name, age, and role in the event are sufficient." How do you concoct these limitations? You say What is meant by "gratuitously"? Gratuitously can mean "In a manner not demanded by the circumstances". Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Why doesn't the title mention Terror Attack or Terrorism incident etc?
As indicated in the entry this was labeled a domestic terror incident by the NJ AG. So why not have the article title reflect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerita2005 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Extensive additions
I have just added considerable material to bring this page more closely into line with the page on the |2018 Tree of Life shooting. I think there is still more work to be done, but I've just added a lot, and thought I'd give others a chance to engage with this before pressing on. As always, I'm very happy to discuss in a civil and well-reasoned way any modifications editors think appropriate Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)