Talk:Pittsburgh synagogue shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Seriously dude? Get a fucking life bro.

This is utterly ridiculous. No wonder Wikipedia has no credibility. The bodies still lay on the floor and already some bozo with no life is writing his account of history which is "according to the news." Jsin607 (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an account of a current event, as noted by the helpful template right up at the top of the article, complete with caveats. Why creating articles about current events would lessen Wikipedia's credibility is unclear. Do news outlets similarly lose credibility for reporting on events before some unspecified amount of time has passed? Plandu (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the article should exist at this time but as is usual policy verifiability should apply throughout. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of quotes in Suspect section

Now that I've been reverted for trying to remove a long quote from the suspected (not confirmed) perpetrator, I think it's time to discuss things. The following was added by an editor, allegedly from social media posts made by Bowers (but not confirmed by any credible sources):

Shortly before the attack Bowers posted on social media that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in", referencing immigrants to United States. He reportedly believed that U.S. President Donald Trump is "too soft" on Jews, claiming that the "swamp" cannot be drained, or America made great again, without Jew killings.

References

I'm not buying that we need all of this crap, especially when it takes up half of the Suspect section. SounderBruce 18:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What does the "not confirmed" even mean? Volunteer Marek 18:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And both CNN and Pittsburgh-Post Gazette are credible sources. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And actually he was "confirmed" [5]. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And I'm sure the Suspect section will get larger. It makes no sense to remove some (reliably sourced) info just because we haven't added other info yet. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources may be credible, but this addition to the Suspect section is written in a way, referencing various Trump campaign slogans, that strongly implies the alleged shooter was a Trump sympathizer. His social media posts suggest he was a consistent Trump critic. The section should better reflect both that a good understanding of the shooter's mindset and motives is still being pieced together and that there's no evidence he was animated by Trump rhetoric. Dr Fell (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about the "drain the swamp" part then yeah, I didn't add that part and if it's not sourced it needs to go. I added the part about "invaders". Volunteer Marek 18:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump quote

"President Trump later tweeted that the situation is "far more devastating than originally thought", suggesting that the death and injury toll may be higher than reported."

All this means is that it's worse than whatever number initially passed through his head. And that's only assuming it even means anything at all. Most likely it's just his usual jumble of random words. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's not a particularly meaningful comment.--Pharos (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Robert Bowers (alleged gunman)

Should not be a standalone article JMHamo (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree per WP:1E. Yoninah (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Agree. All information in that article could or should simply be in this article. No need for two separate articles, certainly not at this point. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

IMO this doesn't even need a merge discussion. I am going to boldly convert the other article into a redirect, per WP:CRIME. Maybe someday he will qualify for a separate article, but for now the information should be in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yep, I restored the redirect. ansh666 23:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Support – Example: Nikolas Jacob Cruz → Stoneman Douglas High School shooting —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: Bowers has not even been charged with anything, so. -Mardus /talk 23:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I support a redirect, per WP:E1--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Good. Clear consensus: for now it should be kept as a redirect. If people keep changing it back to an article, we could request semi-protection for it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Which weapon?

The current article revision specifies an AR-15 that was used, while CNN has it, that it was an AK-47. With this in mind, a more definite confirmation is required. -Mardus /talk 20:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

the police refused to comment on the style of rifle other than assault. I believe we should change it to assault style until police confirm. Too many contradicting stories. Assault style was the only thing confirmed in the press conference. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Done, with inline code comments in caps telling not to specify make/model. -Mardus /talk 21:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Proof at video: The special agent in the case used the phrase "assault rifle", and then specified "at least three handguns", but nothing more. Three handguns were self-identified by the suspect in an earlier post on Gab. -Mardus /talk 00:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Calling them his "glock family"

Any reason why this line keeps popping up? I know it's minute, but I don't exactly get the relevance and kind of see it as silly. People keep adding it back so, so I ask: what does it add to the article? The most important part of the whole statement is about which specific glock variants Bowers used. We don't need to know his pet name for them. AdamO19 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do. Is it reliably sourced? We are educated by learning that he refers to the 3 guns that way. "Bowers also recently posted a photo of a collection of three black semi-automatic handguns he titled “my glock family,” a reference to the Austrian firearms manufacturer. He also posted photos of bullet holes in person-sized targets at a firing range, touting the “amazing trigger” on his weapon."[6] We are concerned with how he presented himself to the world prior to the attack. We are interested in prevention. Not "we" personally. But rather news reports are very concerned with warning signs and whether this could have been prevented. Bus stop (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea being, that Bowers has been recorded as showing the handguns off, and then identifying them as Glocks using the phrase "glock family", but also to describe his frame of mind. For one, there is no official source outside his social media that has confirmed the makes and models of the three handguns found on his person in the aftermath of the shooting. For the other, it's one of the few relevant quotes of his that are not hateful towards any person or group, but still manages to describe his frame of mind. -Mardus /talk 02:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference to Central American caravans

Fellow Wikipedians - Can we discuss the removal of this sentence? In my opinion it is appropriate for the article. If the consensus is otherwise, we can leave it out.

Among other things, he claimed Jews were aiding members of Central American caravans moving towards the United States border, referring to members of such caravans as "invaders".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Andone |first1=Dakin |last2=Hanna |first2=Jason |last3=Sterling |first3=Joe |last4=Murphy |first4=Paul P. |title=11 people killed in Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, official says |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/27/us/pittsburgh-synagogue-active-shooter/index.html |accessdate=October 28, 2018 |work=CNN |date=October 28, 2018 |quote=In one post, Bowers claimed Jews were helping transport members of the migrant caravans. He believed that those in the migrant caravans were violent because they were attempting to leave countries that had high levels of violence. And Bowers repeatedly called them "invaders."}}</ref>

Thanks to all for all your contributions KConWiki (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That sentence should be included. Especially at this early stage of forming the article I would hazard a guess that all of the perpetrator's delusions should be included. If he refers to his gun collection as his "glock family", that should be included. If he believes Jews are organizing caravans of refugees from Honduras—that warrants inclusion. In my opinion there has to be a defensible reason why such information should be excluded. Bus stop (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I am re-adding that sentence based on the above comment; Let's discuss further as needed. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it all depends on how the line is framed. If the line is used to highlight Bowers' extremist views displayed on social media, I think it should be removed. If it used to highlight the connection between what the congregation was doing to help immigrants in the caravan, I say keep it because it is important to understand motive. AdamO19 (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Any relevant quote from his past posts that labels a people using racist and very derogatory words, or calls for violence, should not be included, but the quote's nature can be described ("peddled conspiracy theories about white genocide"). Quotes that are not dangerous, can be included, if they are relevant; such as "glock family", or his calling of caravans "invaders", as these portray his frame of mind. For example, one can put in the article, that "he used 'these and these words' to describe this and that," but using direct quotes is not necessary.

Whereas the violent words he said during the attack certainly merit inclusion, because those belong to the event.

In that view, I would employ substantial discretion with regard to including direct quotes from his past social media posts. -Mardus /talk 02:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. Calling caravans of refugees "invaders" is obviously dangerous, though it's not a direct call for violence, and "invaders" is not a word known as a racist slur. But the entire phrase is a substantial dog-whistle. Therefore, one has to be very careful in how the charged suspect's views are relayed on Wikipedia, and if and how much of the suspect's direct quotes should be used. -Mardus /talk 02:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Archive of his Gab

I didn't want to add this to the main page in case it's inappropriate, but here is an archive of his Gab: https://archive.fo/1zr9J --24.21.215.155 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm putting this additional link here in case anyone with more experience in editing than me decides it's appropriate to include in this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20181027160428/https:/imgur.com/a/cwB9QkR I found this archive through Slate magazine's reporting where they report that "Producer and director Robby Starbuck managed to grab some of his posts and posted an archive online." --24.21.215.155 (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

GoFundMe content

Someone added content in the Response section about a GoFundMe account that was started for the victims. My inclination was to remove it (at least for now) until questions about the appropriateness of the content and legitimacy of the fund are answered, and it's discussed here. But I left it for now and simply edited it. I'm very leery about GoFundMe content because of all the past scandals regarding GoFundMe scams, etc. Should this content even be included in the article? Is there any precedent on Wikipedia for including content about GoFundMe accounts in articles about tragedies like this? I will not object if someone simply removes the content until a consensus is reached here. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The Orlando nightclub shooting article talks about a GoFundMe campaign in the aftermath section. Maybe we could create an aftermath section in this article instead of removing the content? --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering that a huge chunk of text was just deleted, it would make sense to restore some (if not all) of the deleted content and, perhaps, put portions of it under an aftermath section. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this is important information, so I restored all of it. Now here's what could be put in the aftermath section:

Extended content

On the evening of the shooting, over 3,000 people gathered at the intersection of Murray and Forbes avenues in Squirrel Hill for an interfaith candlelight vigil organized by students from nearby Taylor Allderdice High School. Two additional vigils were also held in the neighborhood. A GoFundMe account has so far raised over $239,000 for the synagogue, survivors, and families of the deceased. References

--Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That wholesale removal of content appeared to be vandalism and was correctly restored. In any case, I see that 24.21.215.155 is the edtior who originally inserted the GoFundMe content. Let's see what input we get from other editors. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think it should be included, for the reasons said by others above. 2604:2000:E010:1100:790B:5859:847F:16BA (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What reasons are you talking about? Only two other editors replied and one of them is the editor who added the content in the first place, and he didn't give any reason; he just said put all the content back that was removed by someone. The other editor said because another article includes GoFundMe content. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue of this thread is solely about whether or not the GoFundMe content should be included. Yes or no, and why or why not. Whether or not to create a new section is a separate topic. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If a particular campaign has been covered by secondary sources, it may be considered like any other aspect of the story. But it can't act as a source itself (for things like current pledge totals) and the link shouldn't be directly promoted from here. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Christian Identity

The belief that Jews are “children of Satan” is a key tenet of Christian Identity theology, and at least one source has pointed out this possible connection to Bowers’ motives. 2600:1014:B01F:B773:64EC:7B:A60B:EE8E (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Possible" is speculation. This is a contentious biographical claim, there requires a source reliable for claims about Bowers's motives. Paradoctor (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Too many reference errors!!!

How do these get fixed???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.97.89 (talk • contribs)

They got introduced during these two edits, which therefore needs to be checked to fix it. --Cold Season (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Now fixed by Drbogdan. Much appreciated! --PFHLai (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Greenblatt

Would the quote from Jonathan Greenblatt be more appropriate under response section than victims? The fact that the statement does reference the number of victims is noted. Danielemmitblake (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely. I moved it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

2009 Collier Township shooting, See also

In this edit 2009 Collier Township shooting is removed from "See also" with edit summary "How is this relevant? Just because it is also a shooting that took place in Pittsburgh?" Between the two articles there are many differences, similarities, and unknowns. This article was initiated a mere 12 hours ago. What is the point to "dismantling" it already? I've re-added that to the See also section. I fail to see the big deal. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The Collier Township shooting was motivated by severe sexual frustration (and not race), though User AdamO19's edits have been somewhat disruptive. -Mardus /talk 23:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It is only 10 years ago, in the same general locality, and "motivation" is not entirely clear in either case, and we are just beginning to write this article. No doubt many more editors will change many things over the next few weeks. I fail to see the wisdom in removing such a link as I think it is at least somewhat relevant. Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed your link, and perhaps specified in addition, that it was not far from Pittsburgh, or that it was in the vicinity. AdamO19's motivation may possibly have been, that the Collier event was not primarily motivated by racism. But I can't exactly talk for him. -Mardus /talk 23:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course I am aware that it does not contain the element of antisemitism as for instance does the article Richard Baumhammers, which I also added to See also. But I don't think the specifics have to all line up, and they rarely do. My reasoning is that if an article is somewhat related it is better to err on the side of inclusion especially at this early stage of initiating the article. Incidentally I learned of the "2009 Collier Township shooting" from an online news report. I haven't seen this comparison in print but the news presenters spoke of it as it it bore some relevance. It was only then that I checked to see if Wikipedia had an article on that earlier incident. The same news report alerted me to "Richard Baumhammers". I feel if we have articles somewhat related we might as well link them to one another. I would refrain from doing so if a solid argument were presented involving for instance a perceived impropriety. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, speeking for myself now. I removed 2009 Collier Township shooting from the see also because–as far as I understand–the only thing the synagogue shooting has in common with the 2009 shooting is that they were a) acts of mass violence and b) took place in Pittsburgh. I can now see that the see also section has been cut, but this is my motivation for removing the article from see also. AdamO19 (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Makes no sense to me. Factors that make another article a candidate for "See also" would be recent gun violence in the Pittsburgh area and antisemitism. In general I think it is a good idea to add thoughtful articles to "See also" and relevant "Categories" for "navigational" purposes—a reader is offered an option to go to another part of the encyclopedia, where of course additional options are offered in the form of other "See also" sections and "Categories". That is how I use the encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. Too bold, perhaps. But I was worried about the shoe-horning in of a long list of other incidents, and about the criteria used to select them. Perhaps if a list of similar or geographically related crimes is to be included under the See also, each link could be followed by a brief description to explain its relevance, particularly those where it's not immediately apparent from the article title alone? Moscow Mule (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That certainly can be done, Moscow Mule. Two of the articles already have the date added. I would add (suburb of Pittsburgh) after the article 2009 Collier Township shooting, making the section look something like this:

See also

• History of the Jews in Pittsburgh
• 1999 Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting
• Richard Baumhammers (2000)
• 2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting
• 2009 Collier Township shooting (suburb of Pittsburgh)
• 2009 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting
• 2014 Overland Park Jewish Community Center shooting
• Murder of Blaze Bernstein (2018)

Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -Mardus /talk 03:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed because the See also section has been changed so much in the past several hours. But one idea occurs to me and that is to use a default collapsed section heading for the See also section and to allow the section to contain an unusual number of links to related articles. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bris vs. brit milah

I keep changing this wording to the Wikipedia page link brit milah, and someone keeps changing it back to the short form and Ashkenazi pronunciation. Then I tried to pipe the link as circumcision ceremony, and someone changed it back to "bris". Most Jews in the world do not use Ashkenazi pronunciation. American Jews especially use Sephardic pronunciation (a "t" instead of an "s" at the end of the word.) It's not true that most sources are using "bris"; the New York Times certainly doesn't. Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bris. The vast majority of reliable U.S.-based sources use "bris", and this is a U.S. event. Although I disagree with you about what most world or U.S. Jews know or use, an editor's personal beliefs or assumptions about that are irrelevant. We look at what the sources use. A quick check shows that media outlets use bris about seven times more than brit milah. In terms of using "circumcision ceremony", it is not appropriate; the name of the ceremony, not a description of the ceremony, should be used. If readers want to learn more about it, they can simply click the wikilink for information. Finally, contrary to your claim, the New York Times certainly does use bris and it's a primary source in this article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the name of the ceremony is bris milah, not bris. Bris means "covenant" (as in the covenant between God and Abraham); bris milah is the "covenant of circumcision". I am seeing plenty of sources, including local Pittsburgh ones, that use the correct terminology, even if they're spelling it with a "t". The New York Times page that I saw seems to have been taken down, but elsewhere they have plenty of pages calling it brit milah. I take offense at your assigning my argument to an editor's personal beliefs or assumptions. I am also trying to write an impartial encyclopedia. Yoninah (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Alluding to your claim about what most Jews in the U.S. or worldwide purportedly use was not intended in any way to be a personal attack. In usage disputes like this, one can always find a few sources that use whatever supports their preference, but the fact remains that the vast majority of top-tier, mainstream sources use bris, including the New York Times which you incorrectly asserted "certainly doesn't". And again, what you describe as "the correct terminology" is irrelevant; it's all about the sources. For the record, I never doubted for a second your interest in properly improving the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Israel response

Israel respond and solidarity with the Jewish community of Pittsburgh (as happaned in other antisemitic attacks like the Hypercacher kosher supermarket siege)

1. Tel Aviv Municipality lit its building with the colors of the American flag in solidarity with the victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue attack. Sky News Jewish Press
2. Netanyahu condemns 'horrifying anti-Semitic brutality' after Pittsburgh shooting. The Hill Reuters CNN
3. Various Israeli leaders offered messages of solidarity with the Pittsburgh Jewish community: Presiden Reuven Rivlin, Oversees diaspora affairs minister Natalie Bennet (he also travel to Pittsburgh to meet with the community), Jewish Agency Chairman Issac Herzog (expected to travel to Pittsburgh too) and others (mentions in the articles). Independent (from The Washington Post) The Time of Israel The New York Times
4. Israel’s cabinet stood for a moment’s silence on Sunday to honor the victims of a synagogue shooting. Reuters

Sokuya (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Since no one is working on adding this, I'm going to just go ahead and write something then someone else can clean it up. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I took all of your sources and wrote something preliminary and added it. I didn't include every single mentioned Israeli official, so someone who wants to go through them in more detail should do so and add anything else that is noteworthy enough to include. Also, please redo my writing so that it's cleaner and flows better etc. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism?

Yeah, it would terrify me. But, officials are calling this a hate crime, not a terrorist act -- at least thus far. Should the terrorism portal and category links exist? O3000 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any harm in the existence of the terrorism portal and the terrorism category link? I would argue we should err on the side of inclusion of these navigational devices. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There should be clear, reliably-sourced verification that it applies to this event before such devices are inserted. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This article's lead section still describes the attack as an act of domestic terrorism. Is this description inaccurate? Jarble (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the infobox, not the lead. The lead doesn't mention it. You can remove it from the infobox if it's unsourced/unverified. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Not even charged with terrorism-related crimes, much less convicted. When police "investigate (something) as" terrorism, that only means the counterterrorism team is looking into it. Wikipedia has a long and storied history of misunderstanding this expression (often on purpose). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If authorities are not classifying this as terrorism in a way where we can verify it by turning to them as sources, I don't see why we should introduce our own editorializing in this wikipedia article. So, I support calling this terrorism if and only if there is a way to verify that it's being classified as terrorism. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Page for perpetrator

I have attempted to create a separate page for Bowers, which has has been repeatedly reverted to a redirect page. I won't push it, but when this guy has a page in a few days, I guess I can say, "I told you so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamO19 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:1E. Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you should delete Stephen Paddock in that case. AdamO19 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point, which is that it's simply too soon to warrant a separate article for him. As WP:E1 says, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Too soon. -Mardus /talk 21:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest we wait on page for the alleged perp. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Perp bios rarely get created peacefully or easily. Best to wait for new stories to develop. Like with George Zimmerman, the world's most notable perp, his article wasn't created until about 18 months after the shooting (editors still show up there complaining he doesn't "deserve" a Wikipedia article). Stephen Paddock's only took a few days because he was such a mysterious subject with unknown motives, but even then there were multiple AfDs. My guess is this perp is cut and dry there won't be much to say that isn't already in the event article. -- GreenC 02:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Gab Shooter questions

AdamO19 brought up a good point here Should we wait until an article kinda like the MAGA bomber? The reason is I saw it in Twitter but it's just a search term linking back to some news stories. It's pretty normal to append the terrorist organization before the suspect type (ISIS bomber, ISIS hijacker), are there specific guidelines for when a terrorist organization claims a terrorist attack?

References

Criminal jurisdiction [?]

Apropos this tragic event, it occurred entirely within the boundaries of Allegheny County, Pa. Thus, I presumed that the accused individual, one Robert Bowers, will be tried in state criminal court.

Several news articles, however, state that the U.S. Attorney's office is pursuing federal criminal charges. Can anybody here attest to the constitutionality of Mr. Bowers's getting tried in federal court? I am not a lawyer or constitutional expert by any means, but it would certainly improve the article if somebody listed any allegations of breaking federal criminal law.

--Thank You. Pine (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the federal charges filing (https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdpa/pr/statement-filing-federal-charges), "The crimes of violence are based upon the federal civil rights laws prohibiting hate crimes." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"A white male with a beard"

Under the "Incident" section, it starts off by saying "The suspect, a white male with a beard,". I find this odd. What relevance does his race and his facial hair have with his crime? Now, descriptors like those are important for the police, but I highly doubt that any of us are Pittsburgh police. I just find it odd to put in a Wikipedia article. --23.17.209.149 (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you.24.21.215.155 (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's describing the narrative of the incident, as it happened, per the cite source. P37307 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Characterization isn't narrative. Noting the race and/or religion is somewhat understandable, given the Jewish context. His hairiness seems as irrelevant as his obesity. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Eventually we’ll probably get a fair use picture of him anyway, making the whole point moot. 63.231.143.203 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Blind folk use WP too. I'm OK with white, male as people are interested in such. Don't care about where he has hair. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Images can have an alt parameter, which is rendered as an HTML alt attribute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The original description given by news reports should be 100% preserved. This includes his race, and also his beard, and his fat.--Calthinus (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is this horrible killing labeled under "Alt-Right"?

I'm sorry. Did I miss something? What about this horrible catastrophe categorized in the Wikipedia article as something that was "Alt-Right"? It was a hate crime.. no question.. but horrible catastrophes and slaughter... and causes of the "alt-right"... aren't the same thing.

Its this kind of thing that fuels the fire of "fake news". Why do we do this? If we want to bring people together, we might start with being more accurate in our words.. even as we root for Democrats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.159.249 (talk)

User:Yoninah, can you sign your comment? David O. Johnson (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It was an IP that made the comment, and Yoninah just fixed the spacing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the Guardian: "The author of the posts was someone “steeped in the debates of the alt-right”, said the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks American hate groups.. The final post appears to reference a debate within the American “alt-right” over the “optics” of different kinds of public advocacy for white nationalism, SPLC analysts said." -- GreenC 02:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories on contentious articles are always a shitshow. I'm not sure if this needs "Alt-right" when Category:Neo-Nazism in the United States seems like a better fit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If it's verifiable via our sources, then why are we inserting our own editorial bias by interpreting them away? If he's described as alt-right in those above sources, then why is it inaccurate to put this in the alt right categorization? 24.21.215.155 (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't incidental or unrelated to the alt right, it is reasonable to assume that someone murdering people at a synagogue and spouting anti Jewish rhetoric is anti semitic. If the torch carrying alt right marchers at Charlottesville had been chanting "flashlights will not replace us" and one of their fans had shot up a store selling flashlights the connection would be obvious. The chant was "Jews will not replace us", how can that be anything but a call for antisemitism by the alt right? It isn't as if fascism and antisemitism have not previously been connected. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100% with WereSpielChequers here. Our job as per current policy is not to correct any alleged biases in news media that are themselves generally regarded as balanced and reliable. --Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition of optics

Can there be an explanation of what the shooter meant by optics? Davidmith (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Davidmith: Yes, it's there, in the notes: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting#cite_note-55

Perhaps this concept should be covered in Unite the Right rally#Reactions.--Pharos (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pharos: I think that's a great idea. I added a new section to their talk page suggesting the edit and included the wikitext. --24.21.215.155 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Listen to how Pittsburgh shooting unfolded on police scanner, ending in Bowers' capture

https://media.gannett-cdn.com/28911775001/28911775001_5854916248001_5854907587001.mp4

69.181.23.220 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't listen as we can't use it. O3000 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Name: "Robert D. Bowers" or "Robert G. Bowers"?

Hi @75.91.226.53: and @Walk Like an Egyptian:. Please discuss what you're fighting over here instead of continuously reverting each other's edits. I got hit in the crossfire after adding a source. As I understand it you two are upset over his middle initial with one of you citing the following as proof: https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-05003-CR-0009000-2018 --24.21.215.155 (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not an issue anymore. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no discussing with you RETARDS! You won't even listen to an official website! They file charges based on his ID! Are you saying his ID is wrong? That is not just a misspelling! How do they go from D to Gregory?? HUH? Is his name Dregory? You are an example of STUPID! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.226.53 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, @75.91.226.53:. I think you make a good point. Please WP:FAITH assume good faith. I think it would be a good idea to expand the discussion to include some of the more significant editors on this page: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/wiki.riteme.site/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting So I'm going to "ping" some of them to ask them to chime in: @Drbogdan: @Mardus:@SounderBruce:@Volunteer Marek:. No point losing our heads over this. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I take back what I said as this is definitely an issue and I'm interested in seeing what everyone else thinks about the suspect's name. Even though the name appears to be Robert G. Bowers on the document, I'm still inclined to refer to him as Robert D. Bowers because that's the common name. Edit: I removed the middle initial for now so we can decide on which one to use (D or G). --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC); edited 08:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mardus, SounderBruce, Volunteer Marek, and Walk Like an Egyptian: FWIW - Thank you for the comments - seems clear to me atm that "Robert D. Bowers" is the correct name - especially due to the following "Google Search Results" => "Robert D. Bowers" pittsburgh synagogue shooting => 1,430 results, including The New York Times; Washington Post; and many, many more reliable news sources - OTOH - "Robert G. Bowers" pittsburgh synagogue shooting => 6 results, NOTE: there are NO reliable news results AFAIK - restored the correct name (ie, "Robert D. Bowers") to the main article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - yes - based on https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/MDJReport.ashx?docketNumber=MJ-05003-CR-0009000-2018 - may be a concern after all - removed the middle initial "D." from the main article - at least until the issue becomes clearer - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - seems "Robert G. Bowers" may be the official name after all - at least according to The Wall Street Journal - updated main article - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Thanks for taking the lead with following and confirming the correct information as we got new information! 24.21.215.155 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

References

•  Comment: Once the correct initial is determine, use it only in the infobox and the lede. After that, use "Robert Bowers", or just Bowers. -Mardus /talk 22:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The charge sheet, cited in the lead, has his name as Robert Gregory Bowers. Is that a good enough source to use the whole middle name? Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Use the full name in infobox and lede; after that, only given and surnames, and then use the surname only. -Mardus /talk 23:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bowers' social media posts

@SounderBruce and Volunteer Marek: can we discuss this here? Something about the social media posts by Bowers will certainly be in the article soon, but I don't like the specific diff currently being edit-warred over. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It speaks right to the motivation of the shooter. It was anti-semitism combined with a belief that would be refugees are coming into US to "slaughter" white people. Volunteer Marek 18:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The {{cn}}-bombed sentence is the problematic one, especially without references to posts other than the "I'm going in" one. (other than people on Twitter, I don't see reliable references about those published yet) Also, should we mention Gab (social network)) by name? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Volunteer Marek 18:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

He also had a facebook and twitter account. DerElektriker (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Image proper for Infobox?

Hi everyone, I'm not exactly sure what type of image should be placed into the infobox given the nature of this incident. Perhaps the map currently in place is best, but the header of this talk page marks that a new one is requested. What about an image of the synagogue prior to the shooting? For example, the Charleston church shooting contains a picture of the church prior to the incident while the Quebec City mosque shooting only has a map. Any ideas? BRES2773 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion there isn't a need for an image in the Infobox. The map is fine. Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A photograph of the synagogue would be best, but there are currently no free images on Wikimedia Commons, or compatible ones elsewhere on the Internet. Probably someone can relicense an older photo or take a new one photo of the exterior when the synagogue is reopened.--Pharos (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done - a relevant image (see => File:PSX 20181027 164107.jpg) has been added to the infobox - hope this is *entirely* ok - please comment if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Name of article

Our naming conventions for terrorist attacks such as this would seem to obligate us to call this the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. I don't see this discussed above, unless I missed it, so I thought I'd raise the issue now. Any objection to moving the article to that title? Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out that it is a redirect[7]. Bus stop (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, and I'm not sure how to deal with that (technically) in a case like this. I believe an admin's assistance may be needed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

To prevent a dispute, can you please provide a link to the relevant naming convention that you believe requires the year to be included? List of mass shootings in the United States doesn't seem to support what you're asserting. Personally, I think including the year in the title makes sense, but why would it be required if there are no other Pittsburgh synagogue shooting articles? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:A85E:80D4:F289:EB3F (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I was not thinking of any specific, written naming convention but rather our practice in terrorist incidents. For instance, 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack. 1994 Brooklyn Bridge shooting. Admittedly it is not uniform. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The year is only needed when there has been more than one notable event at the same location, such as 1996 Manchester bombing. If there's been more than one there in the same year, the month is also needed, for example November 2015 Paris attacks. If there's only one, such as Beslan school siege, there's no need for the year. Jim Michael (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on Pennsylvania Governor Wolf ?

Is it necessary to have the two images of PA Governor Tom Wolf and his tweet? (Actually, the first image shows several prominent people, but only Gov. Wolf is identified.) I think they distract (or detract) from the article. Also, considering that he is running for re-election in a few days, including them gives the impression of a campaign ad. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I restored the image because the article is sorely lacking images. Perhaps when Trump visits the synagogue, we can get another freely licensed image. Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

so much for Wiki is not a newspaper

This incident is only a few hours old, and here we are with an article. Very, very few facts are known. Wikipedia can wait - this is an encyclopedia, or it is supposed to be. 50.111.19.178 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? This is a mass shooting, and like any mass shooting it deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Yes, it’s a fresh story, and this is why it’s edited as more information becomes available. Bohbye (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And have you seen Wikinews? It's absolutely hopeless, so we only have Wikipedia to handle these fast-moving news events. 31.52.165.201 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm someone who never edits these current events pages. However, I know someone from Squirrel Hill and they've been having a hard time getting in touch with their parents due to cell tower overload. These pages are always way easier than regularly refreshing a dozen news sites as this type of page is just an amalgamation of those site anyway.Avilan01 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

+1. -Mardus /talk 20:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

These pages are incredibly valuable for giving a fairer summary of what is happening than individual news sources can, and this is clearly a notable event with political ramifications. Battleofalma (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Deadliest attack on US Jewish community

This source, added to the lead, is sufficient to drop the in-text attribution:

• Selk, Avi; Craig, Tim; Boburg, Shawn; Ba Tran, Andrew (October 28, 2018). "'They showed his photo, and my stomach just dropped': Neighbors recall synagogue massacre suspect as a loner". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 30, 2018. The attack, the deadliest on Jews in U.S. history, targeted a congregation that is an anchor of Pittsburgh's large and close-knit Jewish community, a synagogue about a 25-minute drive from Bowers's home.

107.77.207.77 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Edit implemented here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Grammar correction needed

In the "Local" subsection, change "In the morning on the day of the shooting..." to "On the morning of the shooting,..." or, even better, "Following the shooting,..." Please also note the comma that should come after the word "shooting".2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. But these are corrections you could make, too. Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

LaunchGood GoFundMe content

In the "Local" subsection, the content about the LaunchGood GoFundMe account is way, way too long and detailed, and is inappropriately written in a way to promote the two non-notable organizations mentioned (Celebrate Mercy and MPower Change), including the insertion of links to each of their websites. Also, the content includes the name Tarek El-Messidi, who it claims is a LaunchGood founder. However, the LaunchGood article lists the founders and he's not one of them, nor is he even mentioned in the article. But it doesn't even matter because no names should be included in this article. If any of the content about the LaunchGood GoFundMe account warrants inclusion, then it should be one simple sentence, without any of the promotional nonsense, just like the content about the original GoFundMe account with the $1 million goal: "As of October 29, a GoFundMe account set up by an Iranian immigrant had raised over US$696,000 of a US$1 million goal for the synagogue to repair its building and assist the survivors and families of those killed." Finally, the words "set up by an Iranian immigrant" should also be removed; it doesn't matter one bit who set it up (unless the person is notable). Can someone please massively trim all that GoFundMe content? Or just remove all of it? Does any of it really belong in this article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done You're right, all that extra content smacked of WP:PROMOTION. I removed it, and edited the dollar total based on the source given. Yoninah (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah, I found a more recent dollar total for the GoFundMe account; $730,000 as of the evening of 10/29/18 per the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2018/10/29/Tree-of-Life-fundraising-synagogue-Pittsburgh-shootings-GoFundMe-donations-Khatiri/stories/201810290148). I know that fund is now at over $830,000, but I can't find a source yet that verifies more than the 830. Also, you'll note the Post-Gazette story nicely summarizes the current fundraising totals of the Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh (over $200,000) and LaunchGood ($150,000), plus a few others, which brings the current combined total to over $1 million. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the fundraising content belongs in the "Local" subsection. The big GoFundMe account, for example, are donations from all over the country (and beyond). To solve this problem easily and eliminate the relevance of geography, there should just be a separate subsection titled "Donations" (or something similar e.g. "Fundraising", "Contributions", etc.) 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the new ref. I rewrote the paragraph and moved it to its own section. Yoninah (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Well done! 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, I suggest changing from the vague "The local Jewish Federation" to the specific "the Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh", per the source. This is what you correctly did for the United Way; you wrote "the United Way of Southwestern Pennsylvania" instead of "the local United Way". Everything else looks great. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

US Reaction

Noteworthy relevant reaction, provides balance to Trump quote:

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto also disagreed with Trump, saying said "I don't think that the answer to this problem is solved by having our synagogues, mosques and churches filled with armed guards" and "I think the approach that we need to be looking at is how we take the guns — which is the common denominator of every mass shooting in America — out of the hands of those that are looking to express hatred through murder."

References

107.77.207.77 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The only relevant reactions in a normal Reaction section are those reacting to the main event. Reactions to Donald Trump or Donald Trump on social media belong in those articles. The mere appearance of his name anywhere online should not be misconstrued as an invitation to debate. Just let him say his federal-level piece like the state and municipal representatives do, and move on. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

With your extensive edit, Trump is the only US reaction? Really? The reaction of the President is the reaction of the United States? Trump's opinion is included unchallenged, without balance? The event stirred controversy. Noteworthy reliable sources cover diverse reaction, which need summarization to conform to neutrality. The Mayor is reacting to the proposal that armed guards are the solution. 107.77.207.77 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I just took out what didn't belong, and left what was closer to normal. Just happens that Trump already had the lion's share of attention. Feel free to add a quote from the other three (or remove Trump's). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Inedible has a point, that we shouldn't be having "reactions to reactions" as part of the article. That said, there are plenty of reactions directly to the event we could include. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Trump's visit

It is noteworthy that the President's visit to the synagogue was met with widespread antagonism by local and state officials, a petition calling for him to stay away, and hundreds of protesters. Should this be included in the Reactions section under the United States? Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably will agree, but with great care. But, I'd wait a week or so. WP:RECENTISM O3000 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I've added a bit of this. Tried to steer clear of the more explosive comments ("the great purveyor of hate speech") while still conveying the gist of the various forms of criticism ("too soon", he should have consulted the families, and that his presence did not unify or soothe people in a community that is known to be quite progressive). --Calthinus (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

motive

is there a motive to include for why he did it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.223.112 (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's covered when describing his Gab posts. From the article: Shortly before the attack, in an apparent reference to immigrants to the United States, he posted on Gab that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Ginsberg: Sadly, you're replying to more trolling from 71.209.223.112. Look at his/her "contributions" and block log. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

G not D

we should mention that that https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/us/active-shooter-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting.html says "The assailant, identified by law enforcement officials as Robert D. Bowers," and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/us/robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooter.html says "For months, Robert D. Bowers had been spewing his anger in post after post" it is important to identify if NYT is getting names wrong and it is G (for Gregory) and not D (for whatever thy thought) these are 2 keys apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.192.235 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

See here; it's Robert Gregory Bowers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to log in. I belive you are right that it is Gregory, but that we should report that the NYT got it wrong multipl times in case people are confused by their bad reporting. Ash Carol (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)