Talk:Pittsburgh synagogue shooting/Archive 4

There was no bris at Tree of Life during shooting
This November 15 story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette addresses the confusion about whether or not there was a bris/baby-naming ceremony taking place during the Tree of Life shooting. There was actually a baby-naming ceremony for a little girl taking place at another Squirrel synagogue, Temple Sinai, at the same time the shooting at Tree of Life was happening. Temple Sinai and Tree of Life are one mile apart. The Post-Gazette story explains how the parents of the baby girl believe they were the source of the unverified, viral rumor that there was a bris/baby-naming ceremony at Tree of Life. It also tells how the father's 80+ year old female relative, a Tree of Life member, would have been at Tree of Life during the shooting had she not been invited to the ceremony for the baby. I just wanted to mention this to put an end to all the debates here about this issue. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this article by Bob Batz Junior does nothing at all to discredit the above sources. "Jason and Lauren Silver of Pine believe they somehow were the source of that widely reported but never verified detail." relies on the personal opinion of Batz interpreting the opinions of the Silvers. CNN Newsroom Anchor Brooke Baldwin interviewed Zachary Weiss who conveyed the account of his father Stephen (a 29-year member of the congregation called in to assist the sick rabbi):
 * 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.
 * These two locations are already described in the article:
 * The modern synagogue building, located at the intersection of Wilkins Avenue and Shady Avenue in Squirrel Hill, was built in 1953; it rents space to Dor Hadash,[b] a Reconstructionist congregation; and New Light, another Conservative congregation.


 * Batz claim that it was "never verified" simply could mean that Batz overlooked the CNN interview with Weiss while writing the article. If people denying a bris happened in the building while being aware of the Weiss interview, then they are simply nitpicking over whether "Tree of Life" refers to the entire building owned by ToL, or the room in which the ToL service was being held, excluding the rooms the other services were being held in.


 * This article by Batz is an example of something not notable, people who think they are the cause of misreporting that isn't actually misreporting. It's more logical to interpret this as Batz/Silvers being presumptuous, not as all the above sources being wrong about there bring a bris in the building. Ash Carol (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As a reader I was confused by the complete omission of the bris issue. I came to this article as a reader to help me understand why so many important sources say there was a bris, but some leave this out. Confusingly, there was nothing in the article about this. Fortunately, the above Talk paragraph clarified the issue for me. I am completely at a loss to understand why it is even controversial to say that the sources should be trusted to say what counts as a notable media reaction. What I see here is that the personal opinions of some editors take precedence over what the sources say. As a reader, I come to Wikipedia to learn the truth about complex or disputed issues. This article did me a disservice. Israelgale (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You came to a shooting article to read about circumcision? Sorry, Wikipedia does not report what did not happen. We deal in reliably-sourced facts. WWGB (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WWGB that's a little combative. People sometimes read news articles first, then come to see how Wikipedia reports the news. Having established so many sources mention this, it is VERY odd we do not. Since we already mention those two spaces, adding mention that they were also holding services at the time (one of them being a bris) is non-controversial at this point. Ash Carol (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not "report the news." This is an encylopedia. Look at this page; your obsession with this issue is perplexing. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

was the bris held by Dor Hadash or New Light
Sources appear to confirm that while a bris occurred within the Tree of Life building, it did not occur upstairs within the Tree of Life's main service, but rather in one of the other two synagogues that rent out the space. This doesn't make it irrelevant since members of all 3 services were killed (7 from ToL, 3 from NL, 1 from DH)

What I need help is in comparing and finding sources which relate specifics as to which of these two services, either "New Light" or "Dor Hadash", was holding the bris. Here are two examples which give different specifics:





CNN is saying "New Life" (obviously a mistake referring to New Light) had the bris, People is saying Dor Hadash had the bris. Can anyone find a tiebreaker? Ash Carol (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: found one:

Weight seems to be on DH not NL. Will update to reflect. Ash Carol (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * your preoccupation with the details of Dor Hadash and New Light victim totals, and your insistence on recording who was supposedly holding the bris, makes me suspect that you have a conflict of interest here. Are you by chance a member of either congregation? Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not a member of Dor Hadash or New Light. I've seen sources mention which of the victims were from which of the 3 congregations, so I don't think it is a preoccupation to reflect that here. Ash Carol (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me be less specific here. Do you have a COI? Most editors (and readers) have left this page by now. The legal proceedings will deliver more answers to all our questions. Why do you persist in adding more and more information and analysis, much of which is speculation on the part of the media? Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No, do you? You haven't left either. What specifically are you calling "speculation by the media". I don't think I would have added anything worded speculatively ("perhaps"/"maybe") only direct statements from them. Adding information's not a bad thing. Ash Carol (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I don't even live in the US. I find it interesting that the rabbi of Tree of Life stated flatly that no bris was being held on the premises, but you've found all these other sources that say there was. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, the rabbi was very clear in saying there was no bris that day, yet AC is doing everything he can to cherry-pick sources who say (incorrectly) what he wants them to say. AC refuses to answer why they are so obsessed with inserting the types of conent you alluded to. This talk page says it all. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah and 2605, there were multiple rabbis in the building. I request from here on you not use "the rabbi" as it does not make clear who you were referring to. Please also cite exactly what a source says in regards to arguments. Neither of you has linked a source here.

I'll take a wild guess at the type of thing you might be relying on:

This does not say "the premises", it says "our synagogue". The e-mail Eller attributes to Rabbi Meyers does not say "the building" or anything to indicate that his statement also includes the 2 other synagogues renting space in the building. So it does not contradict the other sources I've posted.

I have not added anything about a bris happening in ToL synagogue's area (the Pervin Chapel) because multiple sources which go into specifics about a bris taking place in the building say it was happening in the Dor Hadash synagogue near the front. This article is not exclusively about the Tree of Life synagogue, it is also about the 2 other synagogues who rent space from them and who also suffered deaths from the shooting. Ash Carol (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * We should not be suggesting that there was a bris as this is contradicted by credible sources and I have removed this suggestion. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What credible sources? Sandy Eller of VIN saying they got an e-mail from Myers which says nothing about Dor Hadash is a single source. It cannot compete with the full weight of the other sources. Ash Carol (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bus stop is of course correct, as others have repeatedly explained to you. AC, regarding your "request" that we not use "the rabbi"... request denied. Contrary to your claim, everyone here (including you) knows perfectly well that Jeffrey Myers is "the rabbi" being referred to. Although the congregations who rent space may have their own people perform services and other duties, Myers is "the rabbi" of Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation, the building as a whole, where the shooting took place. This is made clear in both this article and the TOLOLS article, and of course the sources. In this article, do you see the name(s) of any other rabbis who are employed in the building? Tell us, who is the rabbi of Dor Hadash? And if Myers stated "unequivocally" that "There was no bris taking place in our synagogue" when asked if one was taking place during the shooting, do you actually believe he would not say there was one if it was indeed happening anywhere in the building? And do you think all those who have asked if there was a bris going on were only talking about in the parts of the building Tree of Life uses? Or do you think they wanted to know if there was a bris taking place anywhere in the building? You, and everyone else, knows the answer to that question. AC, it would be hard for any reasonable person to believe that you're not just playing an intransigent game of semantics based on this type of nonsensical argument. If there was a bris happening anywhere in that building, Myers would obviously have said so and it would've been published in numerous mainstream, reliable sources because of the viral nature of the rumor. Unless you want to try and convince us that he was playing the same semantic games you are. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC) 18:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is quite normal in an attack like this that some false rumors circulate. The VIN News article itself mentions the other wrongly reported fact, that the eldest victim was a Holocaust survivor and refugee, when she was American-born..--Pharos (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The bris rumor spread like wildfire. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This section is not about whether or not any of the victims were Holocaust survivors. The state of reporting for that has nothing to do with this. Feel free to start a different section about it. Ash Carol (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are yet again missing, or pretending to miss, the very clear and valid point (Pharos was making). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

2605 is incorrect, Myers is not "the rabbi" of "the building as a whole", he does not serve as rabbi in the space allocated to Dor Hadash and New Light. They have their own rabbis.
 * do you actually believe he would not say there was one if it was indeed happening anywhere in the building?

We do not know that Eller included the entirety of the e-mail. Were you thinking "an e-mail exchange" was a single sentence?
 * do you think they wanted to know if there was a bris taking place anywhere in the building

I don't assume to know Eller's intentions or how Eller worded the question. Ash Carol (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You either lack basic reading comprehension skills or are being purposely disruptive like a troll. This entire page makes clear that you assume only what fits your agenda and refuse to answer any questions that will discredit it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

2605, some sources use "synagogue" to refer to the 3 worship areas within the building for the 3 congregations. Others use "synagogue" to refer to the whole building. My point is that since there is no context as to which way the e-mail intended it, we shouldn't jump to any conclusions about that. You speak as if you are assuming that the e-mail could ONLY have meant this the ENTIRE building despite many examples I've given below referring to "three synagogues" showing there is no basis for assuming that.

Your "eithor/or" description above about me aptly describes the impression I am forming of you. Of course there are always more than 2 possibilities, so I think we should keep an open mind to each other. I think both of us are capable of extending each other the benefit of the doubt and entertaining the possibility that the other may not have a conflict of interest and that neither of us are trolling.

I believe we both have basic reading comprehension skills. What this comes down to is a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of "synagogue". I will remind you that you are in opposition to PPG, TJW, TF, TNYO, WJW and WP if you insist that there are not 3 synagogues. Ash Carol (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Antisemitic exhortation shouted before or during the shooting
Example of source supporting during ("as"):

Example of source supporting before:

Many sources word it ambiguously enough that no set order is established.

Does anyone know the first to report on AJMD and if any more detailed accounts from whoever reported those 4 words exists to clarify where they were when they heard it? How many sources said they heard it?

It doesn't appear that everyone heard it. For example in https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/29/us/rabbi-recounts-shooting-pittsburgh-cnntv/index.html the Rabbi in the upstairs ToL congregation thought the first gunfire burst was a falling coat rack and that he wasn't concerned. He would obviously have been concerned if he had heard someone shouting "All Jews Must Die".

So if he did shout it before opening fire and killing the Rosenthal brothers (sources appear to agree they were the first 2 victims) at the entrance, it would probably be someone from one of the other 2 downstairs congregations (Dor Hadash and New Light) who heard it.

Or: is it possible he killed the Rosenthals first and THEN shouted it? It seems strange that someone trying to kill as many as possible would give up the element of surprise. Once that is lost after opening fire though, shouting would make more sense.

South African Jewish Report says that after killing the Rosenthals, the shooter entered New Light where Melvin Wax was leading the service (he was killed after exiting a closet, shooter did not notice other 3 remaining in closet due to lack of light) and then went upstairs afterward. So perhaps it was shouted when going down to New Light or going up to Tree of Life.

It's unclear in the timeline if he entered the Dor Hadash service or if the 1 member of DH who died might have been in a hallway. Ash Carol (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "He would obviously have been concerned...", "it would probably be...", "is it possible...?", "It seems strange...", "shouting would make more sense", "So perhaps it was shouted...". Your frequent assumptions and speculation is inappropriate and irrelevant. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So comment on the sources. WSBT or NDTV. Which do you think is more correct and why? Ash Carol (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it seems to me you are engaging in the same speculation and analysis as these sources. While Wikipedia relies on independent media for its "facts", the fact that so many news sources cited in this and the previous thread disagree about the exact facts shows that they are also engaging in analysis. Reporters talk to each other and to bystanders to pick up any pieces they can to weave into a story. I suggest you wait for the district attorney to present his case, which will be a lot more authentic and verifiable than these media sources scrambling for a scoop. Yoninah (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

please stop derailing this section. I'm highlighting that one source says "yelled.. as he shot" and another "Words Before Shooting". Are you siding with the former, the latter, or remaining neutral like me and saying that it might be either and that we need more sources to confirm? Ash Carol (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What? This is the first comment I made here. I just think you're getting too involved in digging up details when all we're trying to do is write an encyclopedia, not a charge sheet. Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A single comment can be derailing, especially if you are building on previous derailment. This has nothing to do with charges, but rather with the description of "AJMD!" and whether it was shouted before or after the first shot. This traces back to Police sources tell KDKA’s Andy Sheehan the gunman, Robert Bowers, walked into the building and yelled, “All Jews must die.", the original report didn't specify it either way, so people reporting affirmation one way or the other might be taking liberties. Ash Carol (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * AC, your preposterous allegation against Yoninah indicates perhaps a greater concern about your disruptive editing. I suggest that you look very carefully at this page, a point from which you continue to deflect. We're still waiting for your answer to these questions... What is the basis of your obsession with bris and circumcision content? Why are you so aggressively cherry-picking sources? How many accounts are you or have you edited under? How many accounts have you used to edit the two articles related to Tree of Life? In your 30 days of editing, how is it that you know so much about intricate formatting, not to mention guidelines and polices? And are you stating that you do not have a conflict of interest? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 2605, please stop derailing this section. This section is not about the bris, it is about whether the attacker yelled before or after opening fire. Ash Carol (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Deflecting yet again. Yes, every editor that disagrees with you is "derailing" the discussion. This ongoing theme is not helping you. What you're doing in this article and, in particular, on this talk page is bordering on trollish behavior that is likely to prompt sanctions against you. Now, we're still waiting for you to address the questions about editing with other accounts and doing so with a conflict of interest. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

2605 this section is about an "Antisemetic exhortation". If you choose to talk about that, I will not consider you to be derailing the section. If you feel the need to interrupt other conversations with your bris-related rage and vendetta against me, I will continue to ask you to stop. Ash Carol (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bris is a false report, according to The Forward
Let's put this to rest, there isn't a more RS Jewish media source, these artices were published a week after the attack, when rumors dissipated: Pittsburgh’s Day Of Rest Still A Day Of Grief — On First Shabbat After Shooting and Orthodox Rabbi: Don’t Pray For Pittsburgh Victims Because They Were Conservative Jews.--Pharos (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ari Feldman's November 3rd article was already addressed at the very start of above. Publishing late is not grounds to throw out all 20+ sources as "rumors" when none have published retractions. Sourcing isn't a matter of getting in The Last Word when far more reliable sources have already moved on to the next cycle and don't care to correct you. As User:InedibleHulk put it: "Feldman is the one with the exceptional view here. Should be ignored."
 * It isn't clear who "the congregants" refers to (congregants of the Tree of Life in the Pervin Chapel on 2nd floor? congregants of Dor Hadash on ground level? congregants of New Light in basement? congregants of a Buddhist monastery in Tibet?) and "no baby naming or bris last Shabbat morning" does not discredit the idea that an area for a Bris had been prepared.
 * Our article on morning says "There are no exact times for when morning begins and ends" so that term does not inform us unless we are told when congregants consider "morning" to end.
 * Aiden Pink's November 4 followup refers to this statement coming from "Pittsburgh Jewish community members" which doesn't specify that the "congregants"/"community members" were even members of one of the 3 synagogues.
 * Pink also says what is disputed is "that the massacre took place during a brit milah" which does not discredit the idea that a bris was merely set up for but not yet initiated.
 * Given that we have a named witnesse verified as present the day of the shooting (Werber of New Light) who refers to the bris in his interview (as does his niece in a followup interview) that is a more reliable source than Feldman's non-specific "congregants". If you want to complain about "rumors", Feldman's article resembles that more closely than Globe and Mail's interview with Werber. Ash Carol (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When the newspaper of record for this topic explicitly says in multiple articles that it was a false early rumor, then that is what we go with. Please stop.--Pharos (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It doesn't matter if there was one or twenty or a million "preliminary reports" of a Bris; they're not independent as they're all based on the same one or two initial reports. Whether Donald Trump said there was a bris is of absolutely no importance at all. If there was a bris, it should be easy to verify now which of the three congregations had it, and probably possible to verify who the parents of the newborn child were (though that specific detail might be excluded under the WP:BLP guidelines). If we can't verify that, we shouldn't include the information. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bris fixation
The fixation on a little boy's penis in this article and the talk page is sad and sick. The shooter would have attacked the synagogue whether a bris was happening or not, so it is completely irrelevant to the shooting, which is the subject of this article. It's time for everyone to move on from this minutiae. WWGB (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Surprise, everyone. User:Ash Carol has been shown to be a sockpuppet and is indefinitely blocked. Yoninah (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've manually archived all of that nonsense. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. This page can finally breathe again. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism
How is the attack not terrorism? It's clearly politically motivated. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no indication from the sources that the perpetrator was a terrorist. His was an act of antisemitism. Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is anti-semitism not an ideology or political motivation? Alex of Canada (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't understand how you can equate it with terrorism. If someone who is antisemitic and racist goes on a shooting spree, does that make him a terrorist? Were the Nazis terrorists? I don't think they'd be defined that way. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously it engendered terror. As for Nazi’s, they were terrorists before they gained power. But, probably not after by common definitions, even though their acts were worse. Was Kristallnacht a terrorist act? OTOH, was Mandela a terrorist? Jailed as such and eventually won 250 awards, honorary degrees and such. The definition is too sketchy. So, we go by what the US gov’t says as reported by reliable sources. Imperfect. But, encyclopedic. O3000 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This act does not meet a standard definition for terrorism as it did not have political ends. Generally, terrorism is a policy employed to alter an opponent's political or social position.  This seems to have been more of a hate filled rampage with no clear objective other than the rampage. Squatch347 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The real issue here is that we need reliable sources calling the act terrorism before we can do that. While it personally fits my definition of terrorism, we shouldn't add that to the article without sources. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The arguments here are nonsensical. Yes, shooting a bunch of people because of their politics, religion or race can be called terrorism. He literally explained that what he did not want to "sit by and watch [white people] get slaughtered." If that's not politically motivated, I don't know what is. You can call some Nazi acts terrorism, but that would be state terrorism, which is far more vague. There are indeed reliable sources that call this act terrorism. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)