Jump to content

Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all victims were black

[edit]

First victim shot was a white female. 2600:4808:711:EA00:80A1:B827:2516:6A6B (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear that two of the individuals injured were not black (though all of the individuals shot fatally were black and that the perpetrator had targeted black individuals). Is there something specific in the article that you see that is inaccurate that should be changed? Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roberta Drury was white. 2600:4808:711:EA00:80A1:B827:2516:6A6B (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google “Roberta Drury Family”. Click images. Look at the images of her entire family in one picture. They are white. She was white. Don’t let the narrative get in the way of facts. She deserves to be represented properly. 2600:4808:711:EA00:80A1:B827:2516:6A6B (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your perception of someone's race based on a Google image search is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously discussed at Talk:2022_Buffalo_shooting/Archive_5#First_person_shot_was_white.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not right or left

[edit]

This attack should not be labeled as "right wing terrorism". Because terrorism is not right or left. Terrorism is just terrosim. Trying to attach one mans evil to the political views & beliefs of half the population is irresponsible, offensive and creates hostility among fellow Americans. 12.74.54.120 (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what the reliable sources say--and that's what matters for a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Tucker Carlson

[edit]

Is the giant picture of Tucker Carlson in Fox News as a potential inspiration necessary? I have issues with that entire section really, but it seems inappropriate to include a picture of a man on an article about something as serious as a mass shooting when said man has no actual known connection to the incident. The section itself states that Tucker has only been speculated as a 'potential inspiration' (?) even though the attacker already outlined all his inspirations in his manifesto (which did not include Carlson). Additionally, as stated in the section, the attacker did not ever mention Tucker Carlson at all and in fact expressed a dislike of Fox News. The attacker said he was radicalised online during COVID 19.

At this time, I am not arguing against the inclusion of this section, I am just suggesting the removal of Carlson's picture. It suggests a connection from Tucker to the incident which has not been proved and can be seen as implying Tucker's culpability. This image is just out of place too, what purpose does it serve? Tucker is not an important figure related to this shooting. Why include a picture of him over a picture of the perpetrator, or one of his actual confirmed inspirations like Brenton Tarrant? It just seems wholly unnecessary to me and I cannot think of a justifiable reason for its inclusion. Macxcxz (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I understand why you bring this issue up, but there are sources supporting at least a hypothetical connection between the shooter's rhetoric and Carlson. I would be okay without the picture (and perhaps trimming the section a bit), but let's see if we get any other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to reiterate that I am not against including the information about the hypothetical association/inspiration, I am just against showing Carlson's picture for the reasons stated above. Macxcxz (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that its been over a month without other opinions, do you think it would be appropriate to remove it now? If, at a later date, it proves to be a problem for someone, they can always add it back and/or reply to the discussion. Macxcxz (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image. It isn't really needed to illustrate this particular article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Macxcxz - I share your concerns regarding that section in general - I think it is supposed to aggregate commentary about the great replacement theory in the wake of the shooting, hence why I changed the section title a few days ago to "Usage of Gendron's rhetoric by others." "Fox News as a potential inspiration" seems like it is assuming something that is in fact 100% wrong. wizzito | say hello! 23:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator birthdate

[edit]

OK, so I originally removed the perpetrator's supposed birthdate because it was not supported by the source(s) cited. I later readded it in an invisible comment (which cannot be seen outside the page editor) because I figure I could find a source and unhide it later - that was removed as well. (I've seen this done in other articles to hide unsourced birthdates, e.g. Xanthe Huynh so I figured it would be acceptable)

This is the closest source I can find so far that says something regarding age: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/crime-courts/tops-mass-shooter-may-14-payton-gendron-death-penalty/article_7a533168-46a2-11ef-a6fa-8350336aa8f4.html

The quote in question is: "At the time of the Buffalo racist mass shooting, Gendron was 18 years, 10 months, and 28 days old – 328 days over the line established by the Supreme Court ruling." A quick calculation shows a birthdate of June 16, 2003.

I've seen this kind of back of the napkin date math used on other articles to calculate birthdates - sorry but cannot remember which ones. Open to hearing thoughts. wizzito | say hello! 02:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website vice.com, which has not been declared unreliable, gives the DOB as June 20, 2003.[1] WWGB (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late, but good catch. wizzito | say hello! 23:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you unopposed to the source being added? wizzito | say hello! 19:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the video of this, he shoots 4 white people before he even enters

[edit]

what do you mean ALL african american 2605:59C8:147D:BC10:AC48:BEC0:E7C7:B15A (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2022_Buffalo_shooting#Not_all_victims_were_black and Talk:2022_Buffalo_shooting/Archive_5#First_person_shot_was_white.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]