Talk:Pittsburgh synagogue shooting/Archive 3

Details in a source
Afaikt Source [34] is quoting fake and inflammatory details. Should be removed. Eliedaat (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt this is fake news or inflammatory and have removed that from your section title. But, I cannot find a second source, and it's probably undue weight anyhow; so I removed it. O3000 (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't just remove another editor's words, you replaced them with your own. Doubting someone's assertion, even strongly, is no excuse to change its meaning. I've restored the title, but agree with the content removal. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TALKNEW: Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. I suggest you change it back. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To your version that communicates the specific view that Source 34 (the topic) may not be accurate? Why should I, especially after what you just taught me? If anyone should change anything, it's Eliedaat. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You expect a one-edit user to fix this? Besides, no one "owns" section titles. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I expect that user to decide whether it's even broken. Nobody owns anything here, it's all sharealike, but he or she authored the thing as surely as the signed part below it. So it counts as someone else's comment insofar as you or I should never touch it, and doesn't (seem to) meet any exception criteria. We could probably go back and forth about how maybe everything we don't believe is an attack on everything we do, but that won't help the article in the slightest. In the interest of compromise and focusing on fighting about currently published inaccuracies (which anyone can edit), I recommend you collapse and archive this offensive and answered request, then simply don't look at it so long as it bothers you. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it should not count as part of the author's text. It is not unusual for section titles to be changed by non-authors, particularly when added by a one-edit user with little knowledge of WP guidelines. Just pointing this out to avoid someone else believing this to be true. O3000 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to tell me bad things happen. Just the other day, I saw a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate, entitled to display the Book of All Knowledge (with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet), take a thumping for uttering "lumping".
 * Commoner now than ever or not, we can't let this rising hatred of problematic/hateful/inedible rhetoric cross into Wikiworld and drive us all mad (I tell ya). Today "quoting fake details" doesn't work for you, tomorrow it could be your doubters fixing what difference you thought you made. Our forefathers wrote those guidelines to protect all of us from any one of us arbitrarily silencing suspected fools. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What in the [everloving heck] are you on about? And keep in mind, guidelines were written by [certain individuals] via consensus gathering, not handed down from [good heavens], so I don't know what that has to do with this either. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're both talking about the same regular people that came before us, not everlasting fucking sky gods or some guy on Mount Sinai. They agreed to draft, amend and "pass down" to us this bit of advice (emphasis theirs): "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." Since I couldn't teach you why this is good advice through words, I've practically bowdlerized pieces of your questions I deem unsafe (feel free to revert them, of course, whether or not you see the point). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the only one that has modified another user's comments. And you did so to be WP:POINTY. This is disruptive editing and your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is worsening. Section headings are NOT a part of a users comments and can be changed to fall under guidelines. O3000 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, can only be changed for twenty listed reasons. Is your reason for wanting to change this header among those? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, number 12. And your change was a blockable offense. O3000 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, we finally agree on something! I also didn't know which source [34] was. Under your new header, it's not even slightly clearer, but at least it makes it sound less like someone has a problem with something. Good work. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

wanted: facts about his childhood / his parents
I only have found this (nytimes.com). --109.91.197.85 (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling that to our attention, and I've made this edit in response. I'm not sure if its placement or wording is ideal so someone may want to adjust that. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I added more from the Washington Post. Yoninah (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed any reference to his parents' names. They are uninvolved and do not deserve to be "outed". WWGB (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018
The section

"and a bris, a circumcision celebration[20] marking the birth[6] and naming ceremony of newborn[33] twins recently adopted by a gay couple.[34]"

is false.

It all stems from source [34] which attributes it to "The Delta Foundation of Pittsburgh" The statement by the Delta foundation is no longer up, as it was not substantiated. In addition, the rabbi of the synagogue has confirmed in person that there was no such thing. Masterz wiki (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Don't know whether it is true or not; but removed as per the section below. O3000 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I find three sources 1 2 3 that state this explicitly, plus references to an apparently unrelated rabbi's 10 minute video posted on Facebook (I haven't seen). No clue as to their reliability, or if they all share a common, single source.  Would be nice to see a source for the "rabbi of the synagogues" denial.  It's possible that the report is actually accurate, but that the synagogue is denying it for security and/or other reasons.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This source conveys similar material. But this source writes "The media hasn’t helped the exhaustion, the congregants say. Victims ascribed to the wrong congregation. Misspelled names. Misreported facts. (Rose Mallinger was not a Holocaust survivor; there was no baby naming or bris last Shabbat morning, the congregants say, as was widely reported.)" So I don't think we really know this material well enough to pontificate about it. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There have been no parents or baby identified for the supposed bris and here is a source quoting the rabbi of the Tree of Life synagogue stating there was no bris taking place. “There was no bris taking place in our synagogue,” Rabbi Meyers told VIN News." https://www.vosizneias.com/309232/2018/11/05/pittsburgh-pa-fake-news-says-tree-of-life-rabbi-addressing-rumors-of-gay-bris-during-pittsburgh-synagogue-massacre/ Kaltenmeyer (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a bit confusing now. The NYT only says a bris was presumably taking place because of a traditional table setup at the entrance. WaPo says a brit milah was taking place, which amounts to the same thing. I'm not comfortable using VIN as a source for this as the bris, if it occurred as claimed in the Advocate, was a cause of some consternation in the Orthodox community. I was about to remove it; but thought I'd wait for comments. I'm leaning toward removal as it's not an important element and could use better sourcing. O3000 (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is the local paper, could be checked for what it says. The People magazine says a bris was taking place on the first floor of the synagogue by the Dor Hadash congregation. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited to omit reference to questionable bris. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we include information from this newspaper?
https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/jewish-doctors-nursers-helped-treat-accused-synagogue-shooter/ (below is an article from the New York Post) I find it fascinating that some of the doctors that saved his life were Jewish.

Jewish doctors and nurses at a Pittsburgh hospital were part of the team that helped save the anti-Semitic gunman accused of murdering 11 people during Shabbat services at a local synagogue.

After allegedly killing eight men and three women and wounding six other people, including four police officers at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue on Saturday, Robert Bowers, 46, was shot multiple times before being taken to Allegheny General Hospital.

“He’s taken into my hospital and he’s shouting, ‘I want to kill all the Jews,'” Dr. Jeff Cohen, the hospital’s president and a member of the Tree of Life Synagogue, told ABC.

“The first three people to take care of him are Jewish.”

A nurse whose father is a rabbi also treated Bowers, Cohen said.

“We have a very simple mission at [Allegheny General Hospital] and I imagine it’s exactly the same at the other hospitals in the area: We’re here to take care of sick people. We’re not here to judge you,” Cohen said.

The hospital president, who is Jewish, said he personally went to check in on Bowers and introduce himself.

“I thought it was important to at least talk to him and meet him,” Cohen explained. “You can’t on one hand say we should talk to each other, and then I don’t talk to him.”

But, he added to CNN, “Isn’t it ironic that somebody who is yelling in the ambulance and in the hospital, ‘I want to kill all the Jews,’ is taken care of by a Jewish nurse and there’s a Jewish hospital president that comes in to check on him afterwards?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.111.24.202 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this work? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just added this ref before noticing this discussion. Your version seems concise enough. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)  w umbolo   ^^^  15:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a great perspective for a newspaper story, but I think "Wikipedia is not news" applies here. WP:NOTNP


 * I don't see how that applies, but I may be missing something.
 * We don't need two sources, though, especially when they're both essentially Cohen. And I'm not sure "treated" is the right word; sounds like a pleasant gift and doesn't quite convey the magnitude of the situation. Eating that hail of bullets legitimately knocked buddy's homeostasis way out of whack, and if not for this prompt and proper medical assistance, this story would be (not might be) drastically different. No trial, no answers, no justice, no closure. They literally saved his life, so now other doctors may one day "take care of" it, much like Gary Heidnik was given due process and ultimately cured. Even if "treated" doesn't mean the joyful opposite of "tricked", it suggests the wounds were only skin-deep, I find.
 * Does anyone have a problem with saying they "cared for", "took care of" or "tended to" him? When asked if his team saved Bowers' life, Cohen once told a guy (emphasis mine): "It may be a bit of an overstatement, but yes. He was severely injured and he got great care here. Many of the people that attended to him were Jewish." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because something is ironic, does not mean it's noteworthy in an encyclopedia. Hospitals treat "objectionable" patients every single day. It would be noteworthy if they refused to treat him.Tym Whittier (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Our article doesn't say that anything is "ironic". It says "Most of the victims were taken to UPMC Presbyterian Hospital and UPMC Mercy, while the suspected shooter was taken to Allegheny General Hospital, where three Jews were among those who treated him." Bus stop (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Should names of victims be listed?
An editor removed the names of the 11 people killed, which is published in numerous mainstream sources. For now, I have restored the sources to the section, but did not restore the list of names. This appears to be a dispute every time a mass shooting like this occurs. Some of the articles include a list of (non-notable) victims, while some do not. Should the displayed list of victims be restored in this article, or is it sufficient to simply attach the sources that report the names? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Per this discussion, the inclusion of victims' names is determined on a case-by-case basis for every such article. I suggest that a straw poll be established to gauge sentiments here. WWGB (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of victim names

 * Yes, this should be considered standard material for inclusion in an article such as this. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "who" of a story is one of the basic and expected Five Ws of expository writing. Has nothing to do with memorial policy (which is about standalone articles) or actual memorials (which include sentimental recollections, not merely ID). Quite sufficiently verifiable in news sources, even the kind with objective integrity. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I think that the Victims section would be incomplete if it didn't actually include all of the victims. Further, credible media sources have given substantial coverage to the victims of this tragedy. Writing an article about a shooting without information on the various victims would make the article, as well as the “Victims” sub-section, incomplete. D'd also argue that when there is intense media coverage of a certain aspect of a certain event, then there is a presumption that the aspect should be included in the article. It’s true that we are not required to include everything the media says in an article. However, the mere fact that we can exclude is not a valid argument to exclude. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that in a situation such as this, the names of the victims should be listed unless there is a very specific reason not to. I think that some editors read "Wikipedia is not a memorial" and think that there should be no mention at all of victim names unless they were well-known prior to the incident. In my opinion this is an unfortunate interpretation of a policy that was more designed to discourage article creation about a given editor's friend or loved one if that friend or loved ones passed away. KConWiki (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes Per InedibleHulk's beautifully and concisely stated argument for inclusion. That says it all. Based on IH's reasoning, and as Bus stop has advocated, it would be irresponsible editing not to include the names of victims in articles like this. It's vital, widely published, reliably-sourced content. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. I support that we include the names of the victims.  Why can't Wikipedia have a policy about this, so we don't have to re-invent the wheel on every article?  For example: Talk:Schoharie limousine crash.  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right, there should be clear guidelines about using victim lists in articles like this so it will be unnecessary to start debates from scratch every time. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Already exists: WP:MEMORIAL. Unless the victims are notable for something besides this tragedy, we don't list them. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unless the victims are notable for something besides this tragedy, we don't list them." We are permitted to list them. The content of an article is not determined by the notability of its component parts. We would not be permitted to start a new article on the basis that one or more non-notable individuals lost their lives. But if the incident causing the loss of life is notable, as it is in this case, we are permitted to include the names of the victims. That doesn't mean that we must include the names of the victims. That is what we are discussing here. I am maintaining an open mind. I have yet to hear anyone articulate a reason why the names of the victims should be excluded. Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:NOTMEMORIAL already exists. When that's removed (as it should be, or, at least, clarified to mean "Yes, you can include a list of victims"), the list of victims of this attack and all others should be included in their articles. Until then, it's a PoV mess. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting WP:MEMORIAL, which refers to "subjects of encyclopedia articles". No-one is proposing an article about any of the dead, so that policy is moot here. WWGB (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, then. Guess it's time to try re-instating the names of victims at, say, Omagh bombing... Can I quote you, ? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Why the unnecessary snark directed at WWGB? They merely replied to your (incorrect) representation of WP:MEMORIAL. And it was civil (and correct). Also, they didn't even "vote" to include (or exclude) the names. Contrary to your implication, no one here has said that a list of victims should be included in all mass killing articles, thus the references like "in an article such as this", "in a situation such as this", and "in articles like this". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes In all honesty, I think that the notion that the names of victims of mass killings should never be mentioned in articles about those crimes is absurd. This is a perfect example of a situation where editorial judgment is required based on the specific circumstances of each individual case. Obviously, our article about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack should not include a list of nearly 3000 victims, since such a lengthy list would interfere with the readability of the article. Perhaps a complete victim list would not be appropriate for incidents like the Las Vegas concert shooting and the Oklahoma City bombing because the numbers are too large. But eleven names and their ages is not excessive in this and similar cases because these people have been discussed extensively by many reliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Exclusion of victim names

 * Support exclusion: per avoiding an indiscriminate amount of information. It also seems disrespectful somehow. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For some reason, you linked to the overall policy article (What Wikipedia is not) rather than the specific portion of the policy on which you're basing your argument against inclusion, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please explain how you believe WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to listing the names of victims.
 * Also, putting aside the fact that the names have been published in all forms of mainstream media across the world, I think it would be more disrespectful not to include their names. More importantly, I think we as editors would be doing a disservice not to include the names since they are arguably the most important part of the story (subject). It is extremely noteworthy, widely published, and reliably sourced information, right? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude for reasons I've stated in the discussion below. Jim Michael (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude the article is not significantly improved by their inclusion, when weighed against the right to privacy of the victim's families. -- Jayron 32 05:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Privacy concerns obviously do not apply once the names are published by many or most major metro newspapers and other mainstream media outlets around the world. It then becomes clearly noteworthy content and we would be irresponsible not to include it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

 * Comment - This is a pretty narrow definition of victims. Aren't relatives of the dead victims? Aren't those traumatized victims? I could easily expand this. O3000 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's rather obvious that the term "victim" implies "direct victims", not "indirect victims". To take your argument to the extreme: a federal crime -- as in this case -- is committed against the people of the United States.  So, technically, all 300+ million of us are "victims".  But, again, it is clearly understood that we are referring to "direct" victims.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The ripples extend even past real Americans. Billions of people across major religions placed intrinsic value on these individual lives, feel strong about right and wrong and fight for the rights of every man (including each woman's right to peacefully assemble). You hurt their friends, then you hurt their pride; when it comes to mortal sin, some say God can't let it slide.
 * Ergo, another unrepentant soul with firearms experience is (in theory) left with no option but to fight for the Axis come Armageddon. I wouldn't say this hurts chances for ultimate Allied victory in an extreme way, but it's a direct and measurable drop in the "sure as hell didn't help" bucket.
 * However thin any of us can stretch human suffering, best we all keep it simple and just name the dead. The wounded may still have privacy concerns. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * a) We don't usually name victims of massacres & it's not policy to do so.
 * b) Including the names adds nothing of use to the article.
 * c) Many survivors, witnesses and the families of those killed won't want publicity. Jim Michael (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As to point "a" above: I can offer you many Wikipedia articles that name the dead (and even the injured, in some cases). So, why are you claiming that (A) we don't usually name the victims; and (B) it's policy not to do so?  As to point "b", I disagree with you.  As to point "c", publicity comes from reliable sources, over which we have no control.  Perhaps serial killers and murderers and rapists also want no publicity.  They still get Wikipedia articles, much less merely mention within an article.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * a) We actually do name victims in many shooting articles & it's not policy not to do so.
 * b) Are you asserting that including the names of perpetrators/suspects does add something of use to the article, but including the names of the victims does not?
 * c) You're forgetting one minor detail: the list of victims of these massacres are published in hundreds of reliable, mainstream sources worldwide. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Some do, some don't - but it's not standard practice & there's no rule/guideline that says we should. Naming perps is obviously relevant & they've given up their right to privacy. I didn't forget - I'm aware that many media sources have done so, but that doesn't mean that we should. Jim Michael (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, many do. You evaded answering (b). And now, amazingly, you are implying that the 11 victims are not relevant to this article. Seriously? And are you saying we as editors need to privately investigate whether the family of each deceased victim will "allow" their family member's name to be listed in this article? Or are we supposed to simply guess what they want? Considering the fact that relatives or close friends of the majority of those killed have gone public and given interviews (I've read and watched them myself), I highly doubt that family privacy preferences for doing nothing more than listing the names of their loved ones is even an issue. In fact, I think they would be far more likely to be offended if we didn't include the names. Let's be real, everyone in the world who's read about this story or watched it on TV has seen the names of the 11. In fact, there have been numerous in-depth tributes to each of them by top-level mainstream sources. Here, we're talking about names only; no bio information whatsoever. But you're saying that our encyclopedia should eliminate even their names as if they're not even important enough to mention in the article about their murders? Should we also remove all sources that show the names? I mean, what's the difference if a reader clicks a source to read the names versus seeing them printed in this article? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Even Orlando nightclub shooting lists all of the deceased, and there were 49 of them. Stoneman Douglas had 17 killed. Finally, what do survivors and witnesses (as you mentioned in (c)) have to do with this? We're not considering listing any of them. The bottom line is this: Are the names of the 11 victims at the synagogue noteworthy content? Yes or no? We are editors of an encylopedia. Please don't forget that. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The identities of the victims aren't relevant to the articles of mass killings. They usually aren't individually targeted. In this case they were shot because they were Jews. We don't need to investigate which of the survivors or families of those killed want publicity - we shouldn't be publicising them. The names of perpetrators of major attacks can be named by millions - but very few people can name all the victims of any such attack, because it's not noteworthy info for anyone other than those directly affected. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "The identities of the victims aren't relevant to the articles of mass killings"... are you even listening to yourself? That's complete nonsense. "it's not noteworthy info for anyone other than those directly affected"... says whom? You? Is the a fact or an opinion? Is it "not noteworthy" to the numerous editors here and in other shooting articles who support including the names? And knock off the personal attacks about those close to the victims seeking "publicity". Did you ever consider that maybe they have spoken to the media to honor the memories of their loved ones who were murdered, and to speak out about hate and other related issues? But who here is giving the survivors or families publicity? We are not even mentioning any of them, nor have we ever considered doing so. So what are you even talking about? But that's all beside the point because the issue at hand is you claiming, in part, that we should leave out the names of those killed because they "may" want privacy (even though they're speaking publicly and the names of the dead have already been widely disseminated). Well how exactly are editors of this project supposed to figure out which, if any, of them would like privacy? Thus my questions to you about it. And how interesting that you claim on one side to be so concerned about their privacy, but on the other call them publicity seekers. Why don't you go and try removing the names of those killed from the articles about the shootings at the Orlando nightclub or Stoneman Douglas, then see what happens. I mean, none of them are relevant to those mass murders, right? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Some survivors & families of the dead want media attention, some don't; we should have privacy as our default. We're not stopping those who want publicity from gaining it. For over 99% of readers, the names mean nothing to them, so there's no value in naming them. Try finding anyone (other than those directly affected) who can name even one of the victims of, for example, the Port Arthur massacre or the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. The victims weren't individually targeted - they were strangers to the killers who shot them because they were there at the time. Jim Michael (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * And where's your evidence that some survivors & familes of the 11 dead are seeking media attention? Prove it or you're defaming them. Where the hell did you even get that from? Because you assume it's true? The names of the dead "mean nothing" to 99% of our readers? Again, do you even hear yourself before you type these bold, non-sensical assertions? Did you take a poll or are you just spitting into the wind again? You're hyperbole destroys your credibility. If I name 10 mass shootings over the past several years, will you be able to name the perpetrators of each of them without looking them up? We both know the answer to that question. So should we remove their names? And, no, privacy is not our default. Inclusion of encylopedic content is our default. Feel free to go repeat all your garbage on the talk pages of other mass shootings and see what kind of reception you get. I hope you're not simply trolling us because it sure feels like you are. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You know I'm not trolling, nor am I or talking garbage or nonsense. I'm making valid points in a constructive and civil way.


 * You said "....the relatives or close friends of the majority of those killed have gone public and given interviews." You are saying that they sought publicity, so it's ridiculous for you to bite my head off for saying a similar thing.


 * The names of the dead certainly don't mean anything to anyone other than those who personally knew them. They were ordinary people who had the great misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only exception to that is when family members of victims become prominent activists, writers etc. in reaction to their family member having been killed, but that only happens in a tiny minority of cases.


 * I certainly could name several perps of major massacres, especially those carried out by a lone killers against strangers - such as Michael Ryan, Seung-Hui Cho & Stephen Paddock - because the names became well-known through the huge amount of international media coverage. I couldn't name any of their victims, nor could the vast majority of people.


 * Including names of victims of massacres isn't our default position. Many people have added them to various massacre articles, but no policy or guideline says to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, go poll 100 random people on the street and ask them to name the perps in those three incidents and see how many come up with Ryan, Cho & Paddock. If you actually believe that "the vast majority of people" could name them, then it only enhances my argument about your motive. Ask them to name the Stoneman Douglas or Orlando nightclub shooters and see who knows. Even ask them who the suspect is in this shooting (Tree of Life) and see how many have already forgotten after just a week. You know what the results will be and so does everyone else. Your claims and reasoning are absurd. There are many "civil" trolls on Wikipedia. Based on this discussion and the numerous scoldings you've received on your talk page over the years from many experienced editors, I'm still not convinced that you're not one of them. Good luck getting the names of the deceased removed from this article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You know full well that I'm not a troll; falsely claiming that I am in a ridiculous attempt to discredit me won't get you anywhere. I've been constructively editing for years, on almost every day - which I strongly doubt is true of you. If you were familiar with the basic guidelines here, you'd know that you should assume good faith - something you've done the opposite of in regard to me.
 * I didn't say that the vast majority of people know the killers' names, but millions of people do. In contrast, only a tiny number know the names of the victims. Jim Michael (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I doubt even you believe your own BS. And even if "millions" know the names of those killers, which is obviously absurd (not to mention, wildly vague), we do not decide the noteworthiness of content based on how many people in the world are knowledgeable about said content! Where do you even come up with this mind-boggling nonsense? You say you've "been constructively editing for years"; That, or something very similar, appears historically to be your standard go-to retort to editors and administrators who have reprimanded you for your problematic editing and non-sensical explanations. You insist how experienced and good you are as an editor. If that's true, then you wouldn't need to try and convince so many people of it. The work of really good editors speaks for itself. You also say that you've been "editing for years, on almost every day - which I strongly doubt is true of you". Finally, a true claim! Perhaps you should consider not being on here every day. So, no, I do not know "full well" that you're not a troll. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not BS - I'm stating the relevant truth.
 * You can't honestly dispute that the names of perpetrators of massacres are notable & far more well known that the victims. I only mention my very long, frequent & productive editing to people who talk down to me as though I'm a novice or an idiot - or as in this case, by falsely claiming that I'm a troll. If you've been following me, you'll know that I'm a good editor. If you haven't, then you're making an unfounded & baseless, bad-faith assumption.
 * Getting back to the matter at hand, what good reason is there to include the names of the victims in articles such as this? Jim Michael (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Jim Michael—we include more useful and less useful information, and usefulness can vary by editor/reader. The pronouncement made by the unpronounceable number that I agree with most is that "privacy is not our default. Inclusion of encylopedic [sic] content is our default". My argument comes down to this: you have to tell us why something should not be included. You can do that either by reference to policy or by means of your own freeform argumentation. In my opinion you have thus far failed to bring policy to bear to effectively support your aim to omit this material. Nor do I think you have presented a convincing argument in the form of freeform reasoning. "Privacy" sounds nice. But how does it apply in this instance? You have said "we should have privacy as our default". But how does "privacy" apply? "Privacy" for what reason? I don't understand what "privacy" aims require protection in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 2 reasons why I think that the names of those killed shouldn't be on articles such as this:


 * a) When there is a high profile crime such as this one, it's common for the media to approach the survivors and the families of the victims. Many of them do not want to be contacted, so I don't think we should state the names.


 * b) Including the names doesn't add anything of value to the article; they're not relevant enough to include. They're previously unknown people who are known only for being shot because they were unlucky enough to be there at the time. If you were describing an attack like this to an acquaintance, you wouldn't mention the names of the victims, because their names and other aspects of their identity aren't relevant enough. Jim Michael (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "If you were describing an attack like this to an acquaintance, you wouldn't mention the names of the victims, because their names and other aspects of their identity aren't relevant enough." But I am not "describing an attack like this to an acquaintance". An article such as this is a document addressed to an indefinite group of people for an indeterminate period of time. It is a record of an event. There has to be a good reason to omit information. You aren't saying why this information should be omitted. Yes, you are saying that this information isn't "relevant enough". But I could just as well say that there is no information in the entire article more relevant than the names of the victims. Neither of us would be right, as this would be a matter of opinion. But our purpose is creating this document. It is an article that provides a summation of an area of information described by the title of the article. Victims are inarguably a part of a description of what transpired. You are calling for an exception to be made. Therefore the burden is on you to strongly present an argument in favor of omitting this information. In my opinion that should take the form of harm done by the inclusion of victims' names. As I see it, there is no harm done by listing names and ages of victims. This is rudimentary information, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assertion that the names of victims, who were shot at random by a stranger, are rudimentary information for an article about a mass killing.
 * The harm done is in unwanted attention being imposed on the families of those killed. We shouldn't be encouraging that.
 * There are many editors who want names of those killed included in articles about mass killings, and many others who want them excluded. As a result, we have many such articles with the names, and many others without - depending on what the more common belief of inclusion vs exclusion is among the editors of each such article. We should be consistent; there should be a clear ruling on whether they should be included on all such articles or on none. There's currently a discussion in regard to this matter on Talk:Thousand Oaks shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But you don't know this is "unwanted attention". From where do you derive that this is unwanted attention? The onus is on you or others maintaining your position to show the "harm" you allege. And no, we should not be "consistent". Consistency translates in this instance into running roughshod over the rationales applicable to individual articles for and against the inclusion of names of victims. Your overarching intention to bring all articles under a rule stifles out the discussion necessary for individual editors to create an article deemed by those editors to reflect the best possible form that article should take. I don't think this is a minor issue as it constitutes rule creep. The burden is on you to tell us why the names of the victims should not be included in the "Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" article. You are generalizing the discussion, which is your prerogative, but my focus is on this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Bus stop, your extremely commendable effort to educate Jim Michael about his absurd arguments has been a complete waste of time. I'm sorry to say it, but any reasonable person must conclude after reading this thread that he's either completely lost with regard to this encylopedia's purpose, policies, guidelines, and protocols, or he's trolling. Either way, it's very problematic. The only "rules" he goes by are his own. I suggest not feeding him any more because anything said to him will forever continue to fall on deaf ears. It's time to move on. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2605, I'm fully aware of the encylopedia's purpose, policies etc. Unlike you, I have tens of thousands of productive edits under my belt. Your patronising tone & false accusations against me won't get you anywhere. I'll almost certainly be editing almost every day for years more. Your continuous assumption of bad faith against me shows that it is you rather than me who is not following the rules. Jim Michael (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Footnote # 32 & 40 error
Footnote # 32 and # 40 on page has error. I am unsure how this gets repaired. Tinton5 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Numbering can change if sources are added or removed, what I see:


 * Cite error: The named reference ADLReport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
 * Not seeing a red error message for 40 (KDKA/Sheehan), what's wrong with it? Ash Carol (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

# 32 currently has error message. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

fixed Tinton5 (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

rumormongering
bus stop removed information in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting&diff=867718480&oldid=867715204

It is not rumormongering as BS said, to acknowledge that both Robertson of NYT and Rosenblatt of NBC both reported a bris took place (Quinn and Shallwani of Daily Beast referred to a "naming ceremony") and The Forward went on to deny is, so I'll be adding that back in part.

I believe that the reaction of the rabbi which was reported on by Forward, Pink News, Gay Star News and Advocate is also notable, but this is something we can discuss separately and I will not approach it within the same edit. Ash Carol (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It is of little consequence that some sources reported a naming ceremony. I have removed that information because it is not particularly relevant. Bus stop (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, whether a Bris happened or not is irrelevant to the shooting. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's relevant to media reactions to the shooting, which is why I've restored it to that section. Widespread misreporting and other media pointing that is out is notable. Ash Carol (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is always misreporting after horrific events. Back when I was looking for RS for the bris, I found little. The NYT just said a "presumed" bris. I don't know if there was a bris or not. I see no reason to include anything about it in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Misreporting is relevant to articles about the misreporters or their employers. They were involved in creating it and its controversy affects them. It has no bearing on the misreported topic itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BRIS: inclusion v exclusion
I think we should compile a comparison of sources which asserted a bris happened versus those which deny it happened and decide whether or not we should agree with the former or latter. Either way, it's clear there has been widespread coverage of that issue and efforts to exclude addressing it are groundless.

Support:

Dispute:

I don't think a single dispute by The Forward on November 3rd is grounds to disqualify the 20+ claims supported by other reports: Have any other reliable sources come out against the claim? Have any of the above sources published retractions? If so, I think that only affects how we should discuss the (mis?)reports regarding the bris, not whether or not to discuss them at all, because anyone resisting consensus acknowledging this is notable... well, perhaps let them explain their thought process here? Or can they not, and simply will keep reverting it?
 * Oct 27 by CJN/DMail/DMirror/JTA/NPR/NYP/NYT/NBC/TDB/Time/Variety
 * Oct 28 by Baltimore Sun/Huffington/Telegraph/Washington Post
 * Oct 29 by Charlotte Observer/Tatchell/Toronto Sun
 * Oct 30 by People/Times of Israel
 * Oct 31 by Miami Herald
 * Nov 2 by Vox.

It might be that Feldman of Forward is disagreeing with the Bris actually having been underway that morning. He doesn't agree with the idea of a bris being SCHEDULED, or prepared for, so I think we should still report at least that much. Ben Sales' "table with challah, wine and whiskey for a bris" seems too specific to deny that. Ash Carol (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems clear Feldman is the one with the exceptional view here. Should be ignored. If the tide later turns the other way, early reports should be ignored. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you support presently ignoring Feldman then do you support restoring mention of the bris? If so, how would you phrase it? If the "tide turns" later, I don't know if we should necessarily ignore the early reports, just put them in proper context (disproven or discredited) if that happens. The weight of them should be recognized, particularly since they've influenced people's commentary on the shooting. Ash Carol (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be mentioned as it was before Feldman made anyone doubt the veracity. Something like this. If this claim is agreed as bullshit by multiple reliable sources, it should be excised entirely, as things that didn't happen around a subject are irrelevant to it and potentially confusing to people who read to learn what did happen. Nothing like this. Spreading lies, even by calling them lies, generally makes people think about the lies. I prefer a "whole truth and nothing but the truth" approach. Much less poisonous. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It matters not why people came to the synagogue. What matters is that there were 75 people there, most of them elderly, and vulnerable to the shooter. The reader does not care whether they were there for prayer, reflection, habit, companionship or a special occasion. All of this argy bargy on who-said-what about a bris is peripheral to the focus of the article, which is the unprovoked attack on innocent people. Nobody but the pedantic and the orthodox could care less whether a bris was scheduled or not. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters. They wouldn't have died there if not for a reason to be there. They'd have died later elsewhere and we wouldn't be here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting aside our own opinion of what matters, I believe that when reliable sources consistently deign to include information (like Shabbat was in progress, and there was a bris) that they are forming a consensus in informing us that it matters to the reporters and to the public they serve, the events that were going on. If Wikipedians thought something did matter but sources didn't reliably report on it, we couldn't include it. If Wikipedians think something doesn't matter but sources reliably report on it consistently including references to that something, I think there is an obligation to include it anyway, or in the very least not obstruct those who take up that duty. Ash Carol (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "It matters not why people came to the synagogue." That is absolutely wrong. Of course it matters! The fact that the perp came into a synagogue and attacked people while they were worshipping is the precise reason he is being charged with all the federal crimes. And if it doesn't matter, then why does the article's very first sentence tell us that it happened "while Shabbat morning services were being held"? Because it matters. A lot. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "If this claim is agreed as bullshit by multiple reliable sources, it should be excised entirely, as things that didn't happen around a subject are irrelevant to it and potentially confusing" There would not be anything confusing about putting it under "reactions". People will read "incident" to find out what happened. If we later come to the conclusion that the bris was falsely reported by these 20+ sources, then we should say that. It already includes vague stuff like "A CNN editorial described the shooting". False reporting on a subject is definitely happening around it, and is a reaction to the subject. Ash Carol (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * How about we wait a couple months and see if this is still under discussion in RS? WP:RECENTISM WP:NOTNEWS WP:DUE WP:DEADLINE O3000 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone's always waiting to see, by default. It's what we do till then that matters. Shall we host the reliably-sourced fact, the poorly-sourced opinion that this isn't a fact, neither or both? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The slippery slope of condemning articles on recent events would do away with the article entirely. Having acknowledged that the shooting is notable and deserves an article, details of the situation provide context and have done so since day one of reporting. Ash Carol (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * RECENTISM doesn't mean we can't have an article for a clearly notable event. But, NODEADLINE suggests we wait until the dust settles over facts that may or may not be notable and may or may not be known. O3000 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clearly notable since all of these source included that information. If it was not notable then the sources would not consistently include it. Ash Carol (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Misreported facts can be omitted. I have reverted the edit adding material pertaining to misreported facts. I think the implication of the inclusion of misreported facts is to magnify mere errors into factors that have significance. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BS, it is not accurate to say you omitted a misreported fact, because we have not reached a consensus that it was misreported. Consensus in media reports is that it is true, one detractor is not grounds to throw it out. I believe after weighing the evidence it is the detraction which should be omitted as not notable, not the consensus claim. Ash Carol (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add some CNN transcripts regarding this as well. For example here they say Donald Trump commented on this:
 * October 27 at 15:00 MARQUARDT: All right, the president there addressing the horrific shooting in Pittsburgh at the top of his remarks. He said that all of the federal assets that the city needs have been dispatched. He called this attack pure evil. Said it was hard to believe and unimaginable. He did call this an anti-Semitic act and condemned anti-Semitism and other evil in all its forms. He did interestingly confirm that this did happen during a bris, a naming ceremony, on Saturday morning at the Tree of Life Synagogue.
 * October 28 at 18:00 JONATHAN GREENBLATT, CEO, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: Well, I will be honest, Wolf, I think the events of yesterday in Pittsburgh are nothing less than soul-breaking. I mean, all of our hearts are torn apart. The idea of elderly parishioners being slaughtered in the pews and in the halls of a synagogue on Shabbat morning. It is hard to think of something more sacrilegious. And you imagine that in that synagogue, on that day, there were families who were worshiping, others who were celebrating a bris (ph), right? The baby-naming ceremony for their child. My mean, I, myself learned about this when I was walking out of my synagogue. And it's just absolutely wrenching.

October 27 at 21:00 also includes a focused exchange about it:
 * GREENBLATT: It is sad. And Brooke, it will be more sad tomorrow as the stories of the victims come out. And I've -- what I've heard already is heartbreaking. And I think first and foremost our thoughts need to go out to the families and the victims who went into a Synagogue to worship, who went into a Synagogue to pray, and there was a Bris taking place. You know, this is the --
 * BALDWIN: There was a Bris?
 * GREENBLATT: That's right. There was a Bris.
 * BALDWIN: Chairman, go ahead and explain what a Bris is.
 * GREENBLATT: So when a boy baby is born, a male baby is born, eight days into its life it's comes to this -- it's brought to the Synagogue for a service where the baby gets its name. And at this moment of hope, suddenly there was this act of horror where a man ran into the Synagogue with automatic weapons and murdered in cold blood 11 people. Whose only crime, of course, whose only offense, of course, was that they were Jewish and that they were praying. So it's hard to imagine something more despicable. And I think just very sad overall. It make them Sikh that attack on the Jewish community, but it's an attack on our country. These are all our values. These are all our children. This is any one of us.
 * BALDWIN: The Bris that was happening and the baby boy, we understand the 11 people who were killed were all adults.

October 27 at 22:00 seems like it could provide a possible explanation for different accounts:
 * BALDWIN: That's what we heard, that you all practiced. You practiced an active shooter drill. And you had to, you know -- you were prepared for what happened today. I was talking to the head of the ADL earlier and he was telling people that there was a brisk happening this morning. Was there a baby boy all part of this, what happened?
 * WEISS: Well, there has been a lot of confusion in regards to this. And my answer to that is this, that there -- the synagogue is called tree of life, but there are also two other synagogues that rent space in the synagogue. So at the same time there were two services, one of which was from the Tree of Life and then there was another service from a separate synagogue called Dor Hadash (ph) and New Life did in fact have a brisk. So there was a bris, a third event that was also occurring at the synagogue. And between the three synagogues it would be fair to guesstimate probably about 30 to 40 individuals were at the synagogue at the time.

Zachary Weiss later mentions in this transcript "they were able to hide in place and then my dad was able to go down to the brisk and make sure they were aware, which they were already hiding." Any objections to using this interpretation? It would explain why some people would say ToL itself had no briss if it was one of the other 2 synagogues that rent space within the ToL synagogue which was doing it. Ash Carol (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This is all undue. And what if in three other areas of the building there was also a reading group, a group eating breakfast, and some religious school employees discussing next week's lessons; should all those gatherings be specifically mentioned in this article too? The suspect is accused of attacking people while they were worshipping (during Shabbat services), which is why the Shabbat services are prominently mentioned in the article. It's also the reason the suspect is facing all the federal charges. You've already contributed about 3,000 words to this one thread even though it's a relatively minor issue? Why are you putting such an extraordinay amount of time and effort into getting this content inserted into the article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Listen 2605, it's SOURCES which decide what is "due" not you. If you can point out as many sources as I have which talk about reading/breakfast clubs, then I would be for mentioning them as well, but sources do not do this, they instead consistently mention a bris. It isn't a minor issue, which is why you see some sources give far more than a passing mention of it, and describe how it makes the attack particularly outrageous. Ash Carol (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Like most people, I do not listen to someone who orders me to do so. You insist that "it's SOURCES which decide what is 'due'". Uh, wrong. Sources merely provide information; it's EDITORS of this encyclopedia that decide what is due. Maybe you should consider dropping your obsession with this issue. Otherwise, good luck getting a consensus for inclusion. You sure (claim to) know a lot about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for someone who's only edited for 29 days. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC) 15:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)