Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting/Archive 2

Mass murder
In regards to this edit, — What's wrong with the category about mass murder? The FBI says it must be at least four people murdered in a single incident- which this shooting obviously is. If you look at the Category:Mass murder in 2022 page (or for any other "Mass murder in X_year" category) you won't see a tendency to wait until the trial (the majority of the perpetrators likely never will be placed on trial). Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dunutubble - the issue is "murder" because he has not been convicted of anything (yet). If/when he is, then we can add that category.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mass murder is not legally something you can be convicted for (just a way to classify a type of murder). Wikipedia also doesn't function solely by the assumption that an event needs to have a conviction to happen, all that matters is that somebody shot dead multiple people in a single event. (He shot and killed at least 4 people, illegally=mass murder) Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus from other similar articles is not to use the word "murder" unless a court conviction is obtained. There are a range of possible outcomes (manslaughter, not guilty by reason of insanity etc). Even if these are unlikely when a person is charged with murder one, it's best to wait for a jury to decide.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Illegally" is a legal conclusion there. There have been notable cases of someone shooting multiple people in a single event and that being ruled lawful, most recently the Kenosha shootings. Now it's very hard to see this being ruled lawful, but "Oh come on, would you look at it? That's clearly murder" is not an exception to BLP.Perhaps the solution here is to stop basing event and victim categories around legal conclusions. I've just removed several "murder" categories from James Brady, as those had the BLP-violating effect of calling John Hinckley Jr. a murderer, when he was never charged with that crime and indeed a jury found that he was insane (and thus could not be held criminally liable) at the time of the shooting. Making categories for mass homicides, homicide victims, etc., would be a lot smoother. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 16:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * +1 to pretty much everything Tamzin said. I might go for killings over homicides, but that's a conversation to be had elsewhere Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another +1 here. That is a nice, succinct way to explain it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Emmett Till's death was ruled lawful, even though morally it was pure evil, thus it's still referred to as a "Murder" in every page mentioning it. Both morally and factually, as the killers had a drawn out plan to track and kill him with contempt.
 * The Holocaust was also lawful but we still refer to it as a genocide. Most genocides were lawful, in fact.
 * Recently, Alice Sebold's "Rapist" was actually proven innocent due to a lie on her part, proving he was not the one who assualted her. He was labelled an evil rapist until the news came out.
 * Becuase of weird things like this I feel like Wikipedia needs to stop basing what it calls evil and not evil on the law, and probably needs to change it's vocab to merely state the facts coldly. As to prevent implying moral crimes ruled lawful weren't immoral, and vice versa. June Parker (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We've had this same issue arise, over and over again. Some people claim that, without a conviction, there can be "no murder". I disagree. Here are some of my standard examples: (1) murder-suicides; and (2) unsolved murders. Example 1: So, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were never convicted in the Columbine High School massacre. The lack of a criminal conviction in court does not mean that "no murder, therefore, occurred". Example 2: The Black Dahlia is an unsolved murder. No one was ever convicted. Nonetheless, the victim was still murdered, independent of the (non-)conviction. As in the cases of millions of (other) unsolved murders. All of the victims of the Zodiac Killer ... another unsolved crime ... they were not murdered? So, again, the lack of a criminal conviction in court does not mean that "no murder, therefore, occurred". During the September 11 attacks, did not murders occur? During the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, did no murders occur? Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman ... they were not murdered? In the case at hand, the Tops Supermarket in New York ... there is clearly a mass murder. Whether or not someone gets (legally) convicted of it (in a court of law) ... and whether or not that person is Gendron ... has no bearing on whether or not a mass murder occurred. A mass murder did indeed occur. Whether or not someone is held legally responsible is a whole different matter, altogether. Otherwise, we have to go edit all of those other articles (Columbine, Black Dahlia, Zodiac Killer, 9-11, etc.) and remove the word "murder". Which would be ridiculous. And in no way serves the readers. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In all cases, there is no living person said to be the murderer. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are deceased, Black Dahlia is unsolved, regarding Nicole and Ron: sure, they were unlawfully killed, but we don't label OJ as the murderer (or even the killer), since he was acquitted.
 * I suppose those events are murders, in the sense that they are unlawful killings, but there is no living person accused of committing those unlawful killings, and there's no expectation that there ever will be. We don't expect Zodiac or OJ to be solved, at least not in a court of law. If you end up with the scenario where you call an event a murder, you're implicitly saying the suspect committed those murders, and that seems to get into WP:BLPCRIME territory. The issue is we've often had cases of unlawful killings where the suspect was acquitted of committing a crime, so it'd have been quite inappropriate to explicitly or implicitly label them a murderer off the bat. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed my whole point. There are two very different issues.  (1)  Was a murder committed?  Yes or no?  (2)  If yes, who is (legally) responsible for that murder?  They are two completely different issues.  And the answer to Question 1 does not "hinge" on the answer to Question 2.  In other words, legal culpability for a murder (in a court of law) is not a necessary pre-requisite or requirement for an act to be called a "murder".  It is, however, a necessary pre-requisite or requirement for an individual to be called a "murderer".  Again, two separate issues.  One does not hinge on the other.  Which is exactly why we have "things" that are called "unsolved murders", or "murder suicides", or "murder cases in which the suspect was acquitted", etc., etc., etc.  In all of these scenarios, there was no conviction ... but there was still a murder.  I pointed out the ridiculous results (above) if we say that no murder occurred on 9/11 ... or at Sandy Hook ... or at Columbine ... or with the Black Dahlia ... or with the Zodiac Killer.  If we use your logic, how can we call the O. J. Simpson murder case a "murder case", when there was -- supposedly -- no murder?  Indeed, there was a murder (two, in fact).  We just don't have a responsible party for that murder.  Hence, again, two totally separate issues.  Essentially, one has nothing to do with the other.  In other words, it is not inconsistent -- nor mutually exclusive.  We can, without contradiction, say that "A murder occurred on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a place ... and Mister XYZ is a suspect in that murder".  No contradiction whatsoever.  And, in this case (Tops Supermarket and Gendron), I am pretty sure that that's what all of the RS's are reporting.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If a known lone actor is not criminally responsible for an act, no crime occurred, and we can't know whether the actor is criminally responsible until after a verdict. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * According to your definition, then, the notion of an "unsolved crime" can never exist. Please share that insight with all of the police, FBI, etc.  Who work on "unsolved crimes" 24/7.  Are you out of your mind?  No crime occurred at Columbine, at the World Trade Center, with the Zodiac, with Nicole Simpson, etc., etc., etc.?  How is it, then, that they are subject to extensive criminal investigations, police investigations, FBI investigations, etc., etc., etc.?  How can something be called a "murder suicide" ... or ... an "unsolved murder"?   I guess Gabby Petito was not a crime victim.  When D. B. Cooper hijacked that plane, no crime was committed?  When the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum was robbed of millions of dollars worth of art, no crime was committed?  Unreal.  How can your comment be taken seriously?   LOL.  I will assume it's in jest.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about cases like the Killing of Tim McLean and 2014 Calgary stabbing. One killer, not dead, no mens rea. You're talking about suspects who can never be tried. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well ... Your exact words were "If a known lone actor is not criminally responsible for an act, no crime occurred, and we can't know whether the actor is criminally responsible until after a verdict." That description matches all of the examples that I cited above ... Zodiac, Sandy Hook, 9/11, etc.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Zodiac Killer is far from known, 9/11 wasn't committed alone and Lanza was never found not criminally responsible. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: these categories ... Lists of unsolved murders.  And the hundreds of articles included in those categories.  Shall we start a deletion discussion for all of them ... and/or a renaming discussion for all of them?     LOL.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to wade in on what is really a philosophical debate, but I feel the need to say that one can, quite reasonably, disagree with courts, or even reach a conclusion not up to the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Thus, if I am a juror in a murder trial, and I am pretty sure the defendant is guilty, but for a lingering doubt or two, I should vote to acquit.  It would not, however, be contradictory for me to later say "yeah, I think that defendant murdered those people."  While in general I agree with caution, we should not allow court process to shape our views of reality.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The word "murder" has one meaning in a court of law ... and another meaning in everyday parlance, newspapers, TV, radio, encyclopedias, etc.  Much like a lot of other words.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a courtroom.   (Actually, the word "murder" probably has some 100+ odd "meanings" / definitions in all of the different courts of law in various states / countries.)   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines murder quite clearly. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to wade in on what is really a philosophical debate, but I feel the need to say that one can, quite reasonably, disagree with courts, or even reach a conclusion not up to the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Thus, if I am a juror in a murder trial, and I am pretty sure the defendant is guilty, but for a lingering doubt or two, I should vote to acquit.  It would not, however, be contradictory for me to later say "yeah, I think that defendant murdered those people."  While in general I agree with caution, we should not allow court process to shape our views of reality.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The word "murder" has one meaning in a court of law ... and another meaning in everyday parlance, newspapers, TV, radio, encyclopedias, etc.  Much like a lot of other words.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a courtroom.   (Actually, the word "murder" probably has some 100+ odd "meanings" / definitions in all of the different courts of law in various states / countries.)   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines murder quite clearly. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. The word "murder" has one meaning in a court of law ... and another meaning in everyday parlance, newspapers, TV, radio, encyclopedias, etc.  Much like a lot of other words.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a courtroom.   (Actually, the word "murder" probably has some 100+ odd "meanings" / definitions in all of the different courts of law in various states / countries.)   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines murder quite clearly. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

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: page speedily moved back. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting → 2022 Buffalo shooting – This move was literally not discussed on the talk page first. I strongly call for an emergency move back to the original title, with a proper RM discussion to follow on the talk page, because I can't revert the move from my end. Love of Corey (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Love of Corey (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * there is an existing discussion on this, albeit without the RM template, taking place above at Talk:2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like a proper vote, though. Love of Corey (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus building is not a vote. We don't really do voting on enwiki. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way, there's clear opposition towards such a premature rename. Love of Corey (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully you are too involved in the discussions on this talk page to make that conclusion.
 * How about instead of doing yet another page move to restore the previous version followed by having a discussion on what the article name should be, we just skip straight to that discussion? This page has already cluttered the move log several times thanks to the actions of several editors present. We don't need to move back to whatever the name was to have a discussion on what the name should be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about instead of doing yet another page move to restore the previous version followed by having a discussion on what the article name should be, we just skip straight to that discussion? This page has already cluttered the move log several times thanks to the actions of several editors present. We don't need to move back to whatever the name was to have a discussion on what the name should be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:59, 19 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.
 * Support - I'm not exactly sure what the general thoughts are on a title. Having said that, I agree with the proposal. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why are we having an RfC to simply revert a contested move? Surely this is better handled at Requested moves? WWGB (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * DONE - I added the request. What an absurd thing to do: moving a highly-visible, heavily-edited article without a shred of consensus. -- Veggies (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - revert to original title, no discussion on talk page first. Crossover1370  (talk &#124; contribs) 04:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2022
In "see also", delete:
 * List of right-wing terrorist attacks

In "references", delete:

Category:Alt-right terrorism FairBol (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Although we're beginning to piece together the shooter's motive in this case, it is still debatable whether he is "right-wing" or "left-wing". Until that debate is conclusively settled, I do not feel that we should mention political ideology here. We can always put the information back in later. Let's let the full narrative come out, before we start jumping to possibly erroneous conclusion
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The alt-right footer seems like it doesn't belong, for now. Searching for the Buffalo shooting with variations on the phrase 'alt right' brings few articles, and WP:BLP applies. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so you want a consensus. Let me again state my reasons for this change.  First, it has been implicitly agreed upon that "the alt-right footer doesn't belong".  If that's the case, then I fail to see how labeling this a "right-wing terrorist attack" is appropriate.  This has not been conclusively settled.  Second, the shooter himself (in his manifesto) said that he is LEFT-WING, not right-wing.  If we're taking him at his word, then the "right-wing terrorist" narrative is nothing but a bald-faced lie.  Knowing that Wikipedia is seen as Gospel by some, we shouldn't be pushing "disinformation".
 * I again call for the removal of this label. If anything, we should note the attack to be left-wing in nature...but I won't hold my breath on that one. FairBol (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)FairBol (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closing while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the justification for closing this sub-discussion? Are we just ignoring the reasoning that I have stated and explained? I get it...I have a different viewpoint, so I must be stupid/crazy/racist, right? (Not saying you actually think this, but I hear it in political circles all the time) FairBol (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish was using colloquial phrasing there, not literal. It simply means the template used to submit the edit request has been procedurally marked as answered. It is standard standard practice to do so if an edit is under any level of discussion. This is so that the page that lists all active edit requests is not clogged with requests that cannot be made due to consensus building actively taking place. The discussion itself is not closed and may continue. — Sirdog (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish was using colloquial phrasing there, not literal. It simply means the template used to submit the edit request has been procedurally marked as answered. It is standard standard practice to do so if an edit is under any level of discussion. This is so that the page that lists all active edit requests is not clogged with requests that cannot be made due to consensus building actively taking place. The discussion itself is not closed and may continue. — Sirdog (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

FAQ?
I was thinking of making an FAQ for this page going over some basic things that seem to keep coming up (We wont link or cite the manifesto, We wont link or cite the livestream, We will not describe the shooter as left wing, anything else that other editors might notice) but wanted the communities input first, thoughts? Googleguy007 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I would support this idea, though I would leave out the bit about describing the shooter as left wing and hew closer to sourcing and other clear policies. While I agree with you 100%, there is the infinitesimal chance that new evidence might change that, while the approach to the other issues is fairly static.  We could certainly say that we won't describe him based on anything in the 'manifesto.'  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes great sense. Saying that we wont describe him based on anything in his manifesto makes more sense and was more of what I was going for. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

More detail on the survivors and the events within the store as they unfolded


This goes along with my support of the victims being included in the article, this is the balance we need as the article currently heavily leans on the suspect and what he did, with little detail on the victims, survivors and what they did. WP:BLP does apply to these people, obviously. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Attribution etc.
Police said that he is not from Buffalo [..]
 * Thanks but has anyone said that he is from Buffalo? Next, what - Police said that the accused graduated from ... ? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The National Review
'''The National Review criticized this scrutiny, saying that "He never mentioned Tucker Carlson, and expressed his hatred for Fox News." in the manifesto.'''

Not only is the National Review not regarded as reliable, this is WP:TRIVIA and off topic, in addition to going against WP:MANDY. I question why it was included, other than to add some kind of rebuttal against the (very well justified) criticism of right wing media for inspiring the attack. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I dont think this is WP:TRIVIA as it is related to the topic, but I do agree that WP:MANDY applies here. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree this WP:MANDY as well as WP:TRIVIA and off topic and should not be included. It's tangential and non-encyclopedic. It's like having ((random famous person))'s opinion of ((thing the famous person is not involved in)). 2600:1700:F90:6950:B8E7:2F19:61BE:3AD3 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With apologies to Barry Manilow:
 * ~Oh Mandy/you came and you wrote as expected~
 * Something to help me through Tuesday. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably should be avoided unless another source mentions this, with their analysis of this claim. — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP, "There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review." So I see it being treated correctly, as it is attributed as "conservative" and being given correct due weight (WP:WEIGHT).
 * Furthermore, I believe it is a very appropriate inclusion, as it not only rebuts the accusation, but provides the notable and critical addition that the shooter "expressed his hatred for Fox News". I think in order to remove the content from National Review, you'd have to demonstrably show that the shooter expressing "his hatred for Fox News" is untrue, or somehow irrelevant. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take some time to read WP:MANDY. Even if the national review can be used for attributed sentences, a simple denial of criticism that appears perfectly warranted to anyone taking even just a cursory glance at the whole case, is nowhere near important enough to be included in the article. Also, we don't have to prove anything. YOU are the one who needs to present reliable secondary sources that give any weight to his supposed hatred for Fox - which is rendered moot by the fact that he believes the same false narratives Fox News and other right wing media are responsible for proliferating. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the criticism "appears perfectly warranted." In fact, I find it patently absurd, considering the so-called manifesto by the shooter himself not only never mentions Carlson, but goes further and attacks Fox News (where Carlson has his show). This seems, logically, to totally debunk accusations that Carlson influenced the shooting in any meaningful way whatsoever. In fact, it's such a critical point, that it could be mentioned first in the Wikipedia article, with the accusations mentioned after. For example, it could say (paraphrased and shortened): "The shooter expressed his hatred for Fox News and never mentioned Tucker Carlson, yet Carlson was nevertheless accused of contributing to the shooting." I believe this would help with proper framing of the topic. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose removing the news-magazine's comment given that the underlying premise is correct. The shooter's commentary didn't praise Fox News, and Carlson was never mentioned in any way whatsoever. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be original research based on your reading of the manifesto. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If reliable sources claim there's a connection between narratives and conspiracy theories pushed by right wing media, including Tucker and Fox - something that to the average layman appears to be self-evident, considering the shooter's stance on the Waukesha christmas parade incident, among other things, then that is what wikipedia must reflect. A right wing outlet vehemently rejecting this criticism doesn't improve the article in amy meaningful way because... of course they reject it. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I call into question generally-approved "reliable sources" on this topic, as these are media outlets attacking their competition. It is one news outlet levying accusations against another news outlet. They are competitors. This is a conflict of interest. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration when applying due weight to a source, when it comes to this area? Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In a perfect encyclopedia, sure. But in an encyclopedia whose majority have long fought against Fox (and friends), good fucking luck! If I had my way, which I don't, the opening jab and the counterstrike would be cut as petty tangential squabbling. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In a perfect encyclopedia, sure. But in an encyclopedia whose majority have long fought against Fox (and friends), good fucking luck! If I had my way, which I don't, the opening jab and the counterstrike would be cut as petty tangential squabbling. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it's inappropriate to have the weapons in the quick facts?
I don't have any reason for this but it makes me feel a little weird. Anyone else feel the same and can enumerate why they feel this way? LightSonnet (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weapons are normally included here, see 2019 El Paso shooting and 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Nythar (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm new to editing Wikipedia. is the a guide on what should go into quick facts somewhere? LightSonnet (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By "quick facts", I assume that you mean the Info Box. Here is some information about that Info Box template: Template:Infobox civilian attack.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? You "feel" what's appropriate for an encyclopedia? Furthermore, you're new to editing? OK then, would you please do the world a favor and stop doing it. You really do show what's wrong with the world's "new" generations. 88.69.26.134 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's your attitude, I'll take a hundred editors like LightSonnet over one of you, IP. Dumuzid (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said. 2A02:C7F:258:BB00:B91F:BA92:C1F0:3D3F (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said. 2A02:C7F:258:BB00:B91F:BA92:C1F0:3D3F (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Title
I think "New York" should remain in the title. This may not be in line with precedence, but this isn't the only city named Buffalo that has experienced a mass shooting. (2021 Buffalo clinic attack) 2603:7080:1E39:6663:4929:D07B:74EA:5881 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)2603:7080:1e39:6663:4929:d07b:74ea:5881


 * Perhaps, given 2021 Buffalo clinic attack. It's a very awkward title though, and 2021 Buffalo clinic attack should also be moved if this one is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already moved that article title to Buffalo, Minnesota clinic attack. Love of Corey (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per precedence, shouldn't the article remain as 2022 Buffalo shooting or 2022 Buffalo, New York shooting? This is the usual style used for these mass shootings ex. 2022 Sacramento shooting, 2021 Boulder shooting, 2019 El Paso shooting. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lettler I second that. Avoids the bulkiness of having the state name, and (so far) there have not been any other Buffalo mass shootings in 2022.Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)User:Augusthorsesdroppings10
 * How about Buffalo supermarket shooting? The 2021 attack could be at Buffalo clinic attack. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've moved the page to Buffalo supermarket shooting. Are other editors on board? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 12:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't like the move, but this is 100% an aesthetic "feely" judgment on my part. I have no substantive argument to make.  Thus, if consensus is against me, no worries.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In recent years, it's become increasingly common for WP to disambiguate attacks by type of venue rather than year. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Page has now been moved to 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting‎. Can we slow down the page moves and come to a consensus? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it should definitely include the year, that's the key identifier most readers would expect and look for, and we mostly include it even where the incident is otherwise unambiguous, for example 2016 Munich knife attack, 2021 Hualien train derailment etc. If we need to shorten it then let's go back go the prior title of 2022 Buffalo shooting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would most be looking for the year? The first example you give is a bad one, because that didn't happen in Munich. The derailment shouldn't have the year in it unless another major derailment happened there. Many editors include the year unnecessarily. This article doesn't need the year as well as supermarket in its title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, well all these things have been discussed to death over the years and general consensus is that it's helpful to readers to include the year. Both the pages I mentioned have been through RM discussions, and other examples were given above. I have no issue with removing "supermarket", that was a recent addition, but either way I don't see much support for removing the year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it helpful? What is unclear about Buffalo supermarket shooting? Do you think Virginia Tech shooting should be at 2007 Virginia Tech shooting? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Amakuru, but yes. We already have to have a hatnote in that article with regards to the 2006 Virginia Tech Shooting, which redirects to William Morva. Adding the year to that example would help with clarity for differentiating between the 2007 and 2006 attacks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to say +1 for including the year as a helpful identifier. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Helpful how exactly? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By demarking it chronologically and for emphasis. Many shootings occur in Buffalo.  This one is qualitatively different than most. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the only notable shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I think my point still stands.  Dumuzid (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want 2022 in the title, or supermarket, or both? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess my preference would be to include both, as it's still not terribly long that way, and most informative. But as I keep saying, I am happy to trust the wisdom of consensus on this, should it go another way.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the year is a helpful identifier. At a glance it lets you know when the shooting happened; in 2022. I would also agree that, given America has multiple towns called Buffalo, further specifying that it is in New York state would also further improve clarity as to where the shooting happened; in Buffalo, New York. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Buffalo is always Buffalo, NY, unless otherwise stated. --Mapsfly (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Not me. Next time,, get a clear consensus for your change before you go moving highly-visible and heavily-edited article names. -- Veggies (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When I moved this, there had been no edits to this section in over 2 days. The most recent comment in it was mine, suggesting the move I subsequently made. That's debatably a weak form of consensus, after no consensus for the previous titles. There's now clearly no consensus for any title, so this needs to be discussed further. There are disagreements regarding the inclusion of 2022, supermarket & New York in the title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again: you need a clear consensus before moving a highly-visible (on the Main Page) and heavily-edited article&mdash;not what you admit is a "weak" consensus. Further, the initial commenter in this section wanted the title changed to include "New York" in the title, not to what you changed it to be. Another editor partially agreed and stated that, by precedence, the article should remain as is or add "New York" to the title and a third editor seconded his comment. So, that's three editors on board with either leaving the article title as is or adding "New York" to it. Then, you made your proposal and interpreted two days without reply as "consensus". Yeah, no. That doesn't even qualify as "weak". -- Veggies (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to faintly echo Veggies here -- Jim Michael 2, I do not doubt your good faith, or, really, your assessment of the situation. I would just urge that on important (and fast changing) articles, probably best to err on the side of caution.  But so it goes.  Happy Friday eve to all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again: you need a clear consensus before moving a highly-visible (on the Main Page) and heavily-edited article&mdash;not what you admit is a "weak" consensus. Further, the initial commenter in this section wanted the title changed to include "New York" in the title, not to what you changed it to be. Another editor partially agreed and stated that, by precedence, the article should remain as is or add "New York" to the title and a third editor seconded his comment. So, that's three editors on board with either leaving the article title as is or adding "New York" to it. Then, you made your proposal and interpreted two days without reply as "consensus". Yeah, no. That doesn't even qualify as "weak". -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 16:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to faintly echo Veggies here -- Jim Michael 2, I do not doubt your good faith, or, really, your assessment of the situation. I would just urge that on important (and fast changing) articles, probably best to err on the side of caution.  But so it goes.  Happy Friday eve to all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Authoritarian Left
The Manifesto itself has him describing himself as authoritarian left, but the article relates him as right wing. I think ignoring this aspect of the manifesto and situation is resulting in misinformation on the part of the wiki. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia takes its information from reliable secondary sources; I, for one, would not be comfortable taking any of the suspect's self-classifications at face value. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because I’m sure you Wikipedia editors would be saying the same thing if he said he was right wing… 2600:6C5A:A00:146E:E0E7:965D:4129:D552 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a believer in sticking to secondary sources as much as possible. That's kind of how Wikipedia works. Dumuzid (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay...? Love of Corey (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source to confirm that. Maybe one that isn't Fox News.
 * Dozens of sources as well as his own manifesto describe him as right wing and a white supremacist. That's why that's there. June Parker (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Someome hasn’t read the manifesto.. 2600:6C5A:A00:146E:E0E7:965D:4129:D552 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have, actually. Out of curiosity. He calls himself a white supremacist, reliable sources pick up on that and report on it. That's why this article describes him as a white supremacist. June Parker (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, he also says that he is "in the mild-moderate authoritarian left" category, politically. BTW, where's the manifesto posted? Shouldn't it be public knowledge here of what the document actually contains? I guess not...that would enable people to make up their own minds on the subject! OMG!! 16:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC) FairBol (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just coming here to say how funny it is when this kind of person tries to make a point in a snappy way Googleguy007 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia bases its articles on what reliable secondary sources say about a topic. So are there actually any such sources that concur with his self description though? If not, then any attempt to add such text as you're proposing would be original research and prevented by policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * just add a link of his manifesto, he literally states he’s auth left and hates Fox News, no amount of left wing propaganda is going to change that 2600:6C5A:A00:146E:E0E7:965D:4129:D552 (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we will not link to a copy of the manifesto, or the video. We use secondary sources. For instance, just because the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea calls itself that doesn't mean Wikipedia does. We never take such statements at face value. Please cut out the "left wing propaganda" accusations.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest we stop entertaining these people and just delete/block any requests to "Fight" this "Left wing agenda" that doesn't lay out reliable sources or a desire to improve the article. June Parker (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you so opposed to linking to the manifesto? Wait, I know...because if you want my viewpoint, you'll tell me what that viewpoint is. And what exactly are you getting at with your analogy? Nobody's talking about Korea here; that's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  Did someone drop you on your head repeatedly as a child, or what? FairBol (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The manifesto is not a reliable secondary source. It is an unreliable primary source. To make this change, as requested, would require us to perform original research on a primary source. Something we are not allowed to do by policy. Secondly, after the original manifesto was removed from Google Docs, if we were to link to it we can no longer verify whether or not it is actually authentic. So in addition to performing original research, we would be doing so on a source that we could not verify was authentic.
 * I suggest that you and any other editors who persist on this point should read fully Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research, and guideline on reliable sources, for why we cannot do this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That whooshing sound is Acroterion's point sailing clear over your head. 14.46.200.34 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Its very relevant to the discussion, it shows how self descriptors arent always accurate. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Every time a mass shooting is carried out by the far right, this claim is brought up on the incident's talk page multiple times. I know assuming good faith is part of the community guidelines, but there has to be a reasonable limit. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Every time a mass shooting is carried out by the far right, this claim is brought up on the incident's talk page multiple times. I know assuming good faith is part of the community guidelines, but there has to be a reasonable limit. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Authoritarian left thing is entirely based on his score on The Political Compass test, which hasn't released its methodology and has been criticized by several reliable sources. The guy's actual beliefs are a much more reliable indicator of his political ideology than the results of some random online test. X-Editor (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Horseshoe theory may apply here. Pika voom  Talk 09:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He's clearly both a national socialist and a white supremacist. This has been talked about a lot given the blood-stained history of both political concepts in the U.S. Whether or not we want to quibble if those doctrines are under this or that broad spectrum is kind of besides the point, I think? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Rogers suggests that the shooting is a false flag
On the same day as the shooting she posted to her Gab social media account "Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There would have to be WP:RS coverage of Rogers comments for inclusion in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * bUt gAb iS A rElIaBlE sOuRcE /(sarcasm) Ocemccool (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Good to know, would these count as WP:RS?

Wendy Rogers and Nick Fuentes, two prominent right-wing influencers, suggested Saturday that the racially-motivated mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, could be a false flag operation. https://www.newsweek.com/buffalo-shooting-false-flag-operation-suggest-wendy-rogers-nick-fuentes-1706747

''Arizona state senator Wendy Rogers — a member of the Oath Keepers who has appeared at Fuentes’ AFPAC conference — made a similar claim, conspiratorially suggesting Gendron was a government agent. “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo,” Rogers wrote in a Telegram post.'' https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/buffalo-shooting-great-replacement-theory-altright-rogers-loomer-fuentes-1353392/

''TANGENT Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers (R), a member of the far-right group the Oath Keepers, appeared to endorse an unevidenced conspiracy theory that the Buffalo shooting was a government operation. Rogers wrote Saturday on the right-leaning social media platform Gettr that “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo.” Rogers’ post—a play on the title of a Chet Hanks song—alluded to the conspiracy theory that government agents, or “feds,” secretly orchestrate mass shootings to create support for gun control laws or to distract from other issues.'' https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/15/buffalo-shooting-suspect-made-generalized-threat-at-school-last-year-police-say/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967F:DA30:A4F6:AA8B:4FAC:113E (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Two of the sources are not fit per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS and WP:NEWSWEEK. But the Forbes article suffices per WP:FORBES. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @TrangaBellam: that is a misrepresentation. From WP:NEWSWEEK: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". 82.176.221.176 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need to have multiple WP:RS that demonstrates these conspiracy theories have entered the public mainstream as a real controversy. Love of Corey (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the Forbes one is Smith via Forbes, not Forbes. Not surprising to see such ridiculous claims, though.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A conspiracy theory should be getting widespread "believers" before being noted and quoted. And mention of a CT should always be followed by the real facts, or a quote from a reliable debunker.
 * Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A conspiracy theory should be getting widespread "believers" before being noted and quoted. And mention of a CT should always be followed by the real facts, or a quote from a reliable debunker.
 * Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Ideology in Lede
"Motivation" should be removed from lede. Putting aside the question of giving airtime to a repellent ideology, it goes against the pattern of similar mass shootings.[1] More to the point, any attempt to divine motivation is an attempt to project coherence onto symptoms of mental illness.

[1] 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, 2021 Boulder shooting, Santa Fe High School shooting — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs)
 * But see, for instance, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. The reliable sources don't seem to me to be focusing on mental illness.  We should follow where they lead.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't OR to consider a mass shooter mentally disturbed: it's implicit. The point is that US newspapers rarely cast the narrative as a simply a sad loss of life because there are other narratives that readers find more appealing; Wikipedia shouldn't fall into that trap. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If what you are suggesting is that we not "fall into that trap" by ignoring reliable sources, I would respectfully disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The shooter's right wing ideology was a clear motivator in this case and has been described as such by reliable sources. There is no reason to censor this fact, except to cover up the shooter's obvious and unquestionable ties to growing far right extremism in the United States. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems an awful lot to me like you're trying to push your own narrative here. All reliable sources are covering this as a politically-motivated act. All are treating the accused's manifesto as relevant. You may dislike that. But this is an encyclopedia, not a media critique forum, and not a place to have the millionth iteration of the "Are mass shootings a mental health thing or a politics thing?" debate. I would strongly suggest that you self-revert your latest edit. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for both political radicalization and mental issues to not be important, especially when RS mention both. As for the lead, it should be a summary of the body of the article.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He clearly isn't swarthy enough to be a terrorist. Ergo, this must be a case of mental illness.14.46.200.34 (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment ^^^ (just above mine, right here ^^^) is totally racist. Does anyone know how to report this? I've read that IPs can be banned. Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You could certainly lodge a complaint at WP:ANI, but it reads to me like ironic social commentary. As they say, your mileage may differ.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean now. Perhaps they were critisizing how people get pigeon-holed. Ok nevermind. Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  15:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

"Great Replacement" or "White Genocide" conspiracy theory?
Hello, so, in looking at the reliable sources about the massacre, it appears that the shooter's extremist viewpoints are both described as being in support of the 'Great Replacement' theory (that an evil Jewish-LGBT conspiracy by elites in banking and media institutions are trying to replace the U.S. white Christian populace with non-whites and non-Christians) and the 'White Genocide' theory (that said cabal is doing just that, but with the long-term aim to eliminate white Christians as a tribe altogether in the U.S.). We use the former in the article but don't really get into it in depth in terms of the context, seems like we probably should. We don't mention the latter term at all. Is this a mistake? Thoughts? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the lack of context provided on the two viewpoints in RS and the article was the reason I added White genocide conspiracy theory to the See also section. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The exact words "white genocide" are used in the media often in reference to this shooting, here's an example from Axois.com. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast has argued that "the killer was animated by a noxious brew of ideas centered around the claim that there is a deliberate plot to commit to genocide against white Americans—using non-white immigration as its supposed primary means" as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a bunch of material to the article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that "Great" should be taken out and replaced with "White". Great replacement theory = White replacement conspiracy theory. Because the word "Great" promotes the theory. And concensus is almost certainly that it's not a "Great" theory. And yes it's a C.S. for sure.
 * Respectfully,   Chesapeake77 >>> ♥ Truth  15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea, but I want to see what other editors think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea, but I want to see what other editors think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)