Talk:United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting

World War II Veteran

I added a to the claim that von Brunn is a WWII vet, as the references only link to articles about the shooting, which themselves cite his website as the source for his WWII vet claim. Given this guy's apparent mindset, I don't think anything he says is reliable. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The "three battle stars" passage should be removed. That merely refers to the small devices on a campaign ribbon, not an actual medal. It's just excess trivial info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.7.99 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The shooter

I've redirected the shooter's name to this article. At the moment, per WP:BLP1E, an article on him isn't really warranted. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea for now. It is not just that an article is unwarranted, but that some of the sources on his name are so old, dating back to the '50s, that it might not be him. It would take trips to the morgues of several newspapers to piece his life together. A hint for those who are looking; he seemed to have married a novelist wife, an alumae of the College of William & Mary, over half a century ago. I could be wrong. Joey the Mango (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the article as it was originally written, if true, might be support for an actual article. But that leads to verifiability issues, since that article didn't have any sourcing for its claims (like that he had previously served jail time, that he served during WWII). That said, I still think the redirect serves for now, until we learn more. One thing that troubles me is the sourced claim in this article, that he has a wikipedia profile. Anyone know if this is true? Umbralcorax (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it was an inactive profile. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, so this bunghole had a wikipedia profile = User:James von Brunn ! That makes for some strange "advertising" for freakipedia. It makes me wonder even more about the company 'round here and the "truthiness" of the things found on this site. Geez-la-frickin'-weez!!! Sassbucket (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

Further info about the gunman from the Post: "James Von Brunn has been a leading writer in the white supremacist fringe for many years. Several of the country's largest and most prolific producers of racist tracts and books have traditionally been based in the mid-Atlantic states, some of them centered for many years around the National Alliance, which was run from William Pierce's secluded West Virginia headquarters until his death in 2002. Von Brunn's online book, "Kill The Best Gentiles," is hundreds of pages of conspiracy theories that include Holocaust denial, the ancient hoax of the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," and wild webs of fantasy seeking to link the Federal Reserve Bank, the Illuminati, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx in a grand, centuries-long story of Jewish plotting against white people."Marc Fisher Looks like he might be noteworthy enough for an article after all. Not that I want to be the one writing it... --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This von Brunn douche nozzle is only about as infamous as that douche Richard Poplawski, and that dingleberry didn't even get his own Wikipedia page, however, Ashley Alexandra Dupré has a page, as far as minor short term crappy news stories about farts in the wind are concerned. Though, I'm sure von Brunn (championed by other racist douche nozzles) will get his article in due time, once all the raunchy little details about his soiled life are compiled in a "proper" article. Hey, since we know Brunn had a Wikipedia profile, wouldn't it be even more screwed up if we found out that he did this crap just so he would finally be "notable" enough to have a crummy little Wikipedia page named after him? What a douche! Sassbucket (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In reference to claims in the original article on the shooter, this NPR link has some details about him, including a conviction in 1983 for attempting to kidnap member's of the Federal Reserve Board, and his book called "Kill the Best Gentile". I'm not sure though, how this would best fit in the article (if at all). Thoughts? Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is something considered a "book" if it's just appeared online? We need a new word. Even "online" or "electronic book" isn't quite right...in my book. Carpool Kathleen (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Link to shooter's website

I'm not convinced that the link to the alleged shooter's website is appropriate. It seems to me like undue attention and advertisement. Is there any real reason to keep it? Rami R 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing myself, but didn't want to remove it without any consensus. I'll remove it now (assuming it hasn't been removed already). Umbralcorax (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think it should stay; it's gives readers an opportunity to really learn about this psycho. wadester16 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should stay for the time being. Until someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia's editorial policies, it's better to err on the side of linking to too much.--Lord of the Ping (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront @#$hole types don't need web traffic. Unless it comes from Anonymous in massive amounts :D 12.52.96.200 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They don't, but the rest of us do. --zenohockey (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep. In general, the shooter is a prolific author of some of the most hateful scrreds on race and religion. He's widely cited in various supremacist/hate group literature and on their websites, such as StormFront. He's associated with the author of the 'Turner Diaries,' a key piece of hate literature. That, in my opinion, makes him notable. Suggest rolling this article up under hate groups in general. 156.70.222.27 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now, the website is down. Google still has it cached (minus images) though. --DOHC Holiday (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Guard

The guard is dead http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/10/national/main5077874.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline I'm not experienced enough to handle this, someone else? Vint (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already there, earlier on; the death was confirmed by the local ABC affiliate on their website. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Article name

Should it be changed to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, or something like that? I don't think the "2009" part is necessary since that's the first shooting to take place at the museum. Thoughts? APK lives in a very, very Mad World 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what policy is; on principle I agree. I think adding the date in the title of articles is usually somewhat unnecessary. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't care about the year. I've been in too many arguments regarding years in titles. But this should include "Memorial". wadester16 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the date is important. I mean, hopefully this will be the last "U.S. Holocaust Museum shooting", but if it ain't... it's important to list the dates of things like this anyway. I basically think this page can be modeled after this one. Sassbucket (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sassbucket on this one. Citybug (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and moved it, but before I saw this last comment. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't feel very strongly, but I do agree with User:Sassbucket and I did think this was the standard naming protocol because of these:
• 1919 United States anarchist bombings
• 1973 New York City bomb plot
• 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack
• 1989 firebombing of the Riverdale Press
• 1993 Shootings at CIA Headquarters
• 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• 2000 New York terror attack
• 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting
• 2003 ricin letters
• 2004 financial buildings plot
• 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot
• 2009 New York bomb plotHistoricist (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Von Brunn's age?

I've seen Von Brunn's age stated variously as 88 or 89. Any confirmation on his age?

92708S (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The source we cited for it being 89 actually says 88 (might have been adjusted in the original article in The Times) and this source and this one say 88 as well, so I've changed to that for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it recently his birthday by any chance? Given the connotation of "88", I would not be surprised if he orchestrated the attack on his 88th birthday. --Rock8591 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Was there a previous shooting incident?

I copied this from the AFD: "*Keep. This is the second shooting at the Memorial in less than 30 years. How is that not notable? Evening Scribe (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)" Does anyone have knowledge of such an incident?Historicist (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I read something about the *attempted* 2002 bombing which incorrectly implied it was a successful shooting at the time when I made my comment. Obviously I didn't read it on Wikipedia. ;) Evening Scribe (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

News?

Is it Wikipedia's job to cover the latest news story? Is there going to be a page for the cat with one giant eye or the calf with six legs, too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.211.108 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've got my camera. Where do I go? Tomer^talk 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

lol--Airplaneman (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it will not be the latest story in 50 years when someone wants to look up this shooting. --Airplaneman (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

His name is spelled...?

In the infobox, his last name is spelled "Wennecker" but in the subheading in the article, it is spelled "Wenneker". Which one is correct? I'll then change the redirect if necessary. It is currently James Wennecker von Brunn, with the "c". Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see that someone fixed the spelling in the infobox. Thanks. Should I delete the wrongly spelled redirect, or should I leave it in case someone searches it?--Airplaneman (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mensa Member

I checked the Mensa directory for "Brunn" "von Brunn" and various variations of "Wennecker." There is no listing of him. He was not a current member.

J. J. in PA (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the current homepage of American Mensa, he was a member for less than a year over 20 years ago. Autarch (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this important? After all, the Waffen SS was filled with sharp German intellecutals having Doctorate and Master's Degrees with spotless records. The Squicks (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainly it was reported in the media - possibly based on his personal details from his website. Autarch (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Significance of his birthday

To racial supremacists, the number "88" is significant because of its ties to Nazi doctrine. Is there any evidence to suggest the shooter was impressed to commemorate his age by perpetrating a hate crime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Previous attacks on this museum

I find it relevant that there was a previous plan by white supremacists to attack this Museum. I have put this on the page, and hope that those who object will discuss it here.

In 2002 a group of white supremacists were convicted of planning to bomb a series of institutions associated with the black and Jewish communities including the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Historicist (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but doesn't that go on the main Holocaust Museum article? This article is about this shooting, and this shooting only. Unless this man was one of the previous attackers or somehow related to them, I don't see how it it is relevant. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• 1) the fact taht this is the second White supremacist attack is relevant.

2) other, similar articles have discussions of previous and similar attacks

It seems reasonaable, since we two differ on this, to let others weigh in before removing the material.Historicist (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is relevant an so am "weighing in" to keep the 2002 planned attack in the article. rkmlai (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Elect to keep info on other relevant attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.248.11 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like how it is now. It's integrated better now, so it's not just laying there as a random fact. Green caterpillar (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Infobox: Usage of the Word "Alleged"

This looks like a subtle bias, and I was wondering if this could be stricken. By now, it's been confirmed him and no longer alleged. Any thoughts? Citybug (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is a result of American legal vocabulary; von Brunn is innocent until proven guilty... for a very specific value of "proven". DS (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct. For legal reasons, we have to say "alleged" or "suspect" until von Brunn stands trial. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 12:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

point of curiosity. The bloke is in critical condition and is , if i remember correctly, 189 years old. What if he dies? Lots of 189-year-old guys do. Does it remain "alleged" forever? even though there were umpteen witnesses and security camera film of him murdering people down with a rifle? I know I'm being flippant. But, seriously, at what point do we just call this murderer a murderer?Historicist (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press Style Guide. This work serves as a guide for journalists worldwide and provides conclusive guidance regarding using the term alleged. Individuals are suspects until they are convicted. Until a conviction is handed down, you can state that Pat Smith, for example, was arrested for a murder or that Pat Smith is the alleged killer. Smith becomes the killer once he or she is convicted. Do not use the term alleged crime.

Thanks for the information. I thought that was the case, but wasn't sure. Heh, been looking far too closely into semantics. Citybug (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In general terms, even being founded guilty not actually proves if one is actually guilty or not, time to time people even state crimes they didn't commit for the "honour of the act" or when they forced or paid to do so. I have to mention I didn't investigate the case much, but by the media coverage and his previous actions, he is guilty (if you ask me with no reason to doubt), unless e.g. he is "mind controlled" by "others" (which is a rare chance) or "subjected to a big plot". But for legal reasons and neutrality which applies to anyone, you just say he is convicted of murder, and that is enough. But if the person states he commited (or would) the crime, or like in this case when he is number 1 suspect by evidence and previous actions, after he gets a conviction (like most possibly he will get) you can also say he murdered. Kasaalan (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

citation

Can someone fix the WaPo citation I've added? (article title: "At a Solemn Memorial, a Moment of Deadly Violence") I included the three authors, but only two are visible. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 14:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I used a simple ref with no templates, though I followed the citenews template format rather than your original citeweb, since that is the format most commonly used on this article, though refs are still inconsistent overall. I really don't see the point of templates—they don't lead to consistency and they are incomprehensible and intimidating to a new editor. A simple ref is much closer to a wysiwyg form. (I also hate numerical date format—ugly and lacks the immediate clarity of words for months.) 86.44.27.26 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I was reverted. [2] Ho-hum. 86.44.27.26 (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Idaho tie-in

I changed the text to say that the Aryan Nations was based in Hayden, Idaho, until 2001. See Aryan Nations. Thank goodness that particular nest of racist idiots was cleared out.

Sca (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits

Someone by the same name of the alleged shooter made a couple of edits to wikipedia. You can see them here. [[3]]. Can't substantiate that it is the same person, but randomly interesting. Remember (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed yesterday (on various WP pages), but you can read more about it here. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism?

So I had removed the terrorism-related categories from this article, replacing them with categories related to antisemitism, hate crimes, and white supremacy, but that was reverted. I'd like to discuss. The reverter suggested that I look up the definition of terrorism, which I did. Here are some of the definitions of the term 'terrorism' from within the United States, taken from the Definition of terrorism article (emphasis added):

• United States Law Code: "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".
• Federal Criminal Code: "…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…"
• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"
• United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
• USA PATRIOT Act: "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

So, from these various definitions, the US definition of terrorism becomes somewhat clear: It's a violent act, against civilians, meant to intimidate a group of people, or coercively influence a government. I think we can all agree that this was a violent act against civilians. I think we can all agree that it was not intended to target a government. The question, then, is whether or not it was meant to intimidate the Jewish community. I just don't think that members of the Jewish community are now hiding in their homes, fearful for their personal safety because one crazy 88-year-old white supremacist ran into a memorial and shot a couple people. This is much different than, say, if someone had placed explosive devices outside of several synagogues – that would undoubtedly intimidate Jews, making them fearful to attended services at other synagogues. That would be terrorism. This was clearly a hate crime, but it lacks the "threat of [future] violence" called for in the various definitions of terrorism. Thoughts? ← George ^[talk] 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that the future threat in this case would be further madmen walking into important locations and killing, that could be disputed. It's probably more important as far as backing up descriptions of the act as terrorism to reference media sources which describe it as such. Nevard (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For example, this WaPo article notes an FBI description of the attack as 'domestic terrorism' and discusses the changes in white supremacist tactics since the feds broke up the most threatening groups. Nevard (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. It seems to conflict with other reports from today, such as this one, which states that "The Homeland Security Department said the shooting does not appear to have a connection to terrorism, according to a joint Homeland Security and FBI assessment, though Persichini characterized it as 'domestic terrorism.'" What do editors think about waiting to categorize this as terrorism until he is charged with it? Domestic terrorism is a crime in the United States, so if the government agencies charge him with it, that would be a great indicator that it should be labelled as terrorism to me. If they chose not to charge him with domestic terrorism, that would likewise be a signal to not add the category. Thoughts? ← George ^[talk] 01:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as he is an 88 year old man the prosecution could simply charge him with assault and the prison keep him entirely away from other prisoners and still be confident he would be imprisoned for the rest of his natural life. Getting the terrorism prosecution'd be a bit of a waste of money. Nevard (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Aryan based racist violance acts are dangeous, organized and systematical crimes through US history if you ask me. But I also state, a big number of terrorism related see alsos are somewhat distracting. What I propose is, building a sub list, within the list articles mentioned, that solely consists of various race-religious based hate violance acts to civillians in US. Kasaalan (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this is being referred to as "terrorism" and the perpetrator as a "terrorist"in the mainstream press, for example
"Shootings show threat of 'lone wolf' terrorists" - Associated Press - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnWfmfytjNNI_s-AKLIYXwkyMPUwD98PRQL00
-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet postings

Among other traces found on the Internet (and quickly vanishing), it appears that von Brunn frequently posted on various websites under the name "RUSH IS RIGHT", presumably a reference to Rush Limbaugh. Many such posts have been deleted in the last day, but you can still see one (spouting "birther" conspiracy theories) here. However, as far as I can tell reliable sources haven't mentioned this. It's been discussed on blogs from the right (two) and left, and the Huffington Post at least has linked to the posts under the "RUSH IS RIGHT" name (scroll down to the sentence "A man has posted under the name James W. Von Brunn on various online forums, questioning President Barack Obama's origin of birth"; the word "online" links to the "RUSH IS RIGHT" post), but I haven't been able to find any mainstream news source specifically addressing the matter. Am I right in thinking that this means that it can't be included in the article? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think for now that has to be the case. Clearly a part of the story here is that this guy was posting his racist rants all over the internet, and probably our coverage of that will expand. The Huffington Post piece would probably serve as a reliable source, but as you say that story only links to some posts rather than discussing this issue which is not sufficient for our purposes. I imagine the general reporting on von Brunn's internet wanderings will increase in the next few days (and beyond), and if the fact that he frequently (apparently) posted under the handle "Rush is Right" is regularly discussed in those stories then I think it's worth mentioning. It's also possible that this information, assuming it is eventually covered in reliable secondary sources, will tie in with a brewing debate (which I personally find ridiculous) as to whether von Brunn is a "right winger" or "left winger." I'm crystal balling it a bit there though, we'll have to wait and see if that left v. right debate becomes a significant part of the story—if it does the "Rush" internet handle might be tied up with it.

Another consideration is whether or not we ever end up with an article about von Brunn himself. If we did we could presumably devote more coverage to his online musings there, whereas we perhaps don't want to get into too much detail with that in this article.

So overall it's an interesting point to raise, but for now I think we take a wait and see approach as to whether this warrants inclusion or not, which is to say I agree with you. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got the right of it, BTP. Given his previous criminal activities, combined with this, I'd say he's crossing into notability, but it's too early to create an article. We just don't have enough reliable sources on the man outside his crimes yet. And no one's been able to directly substantiate the claims that those posts were made by him, so we're stuck with a probably notable BLP without enough sources to create it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How book details can be considered as advertism

My edits in bold

He has written many antisemitic essays, created an antisemitic website called The Holy Western Empire, and is the author of Kill the Best Gentiles or "Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog" (from Talmud Sanhedrin 59 ) - The Racialist Guide for the Preservation and Nuture of the White Gene Pool, an 12 chapter self published book dated 1999 which praises Adolf Hitler, denies the Nazi Holocaust of Jews and first 6 parts distributed as an ebook for free.

How stating name and subtitle of a book which indicates what state of mind the person was in, stating it is self published for better judgement which indicates it is not reliable by third party publisher, stating publishing date for indicating how long the book was in circulation over internet, and referring Holocaust commited by Nazis over Jews can be considered as advertising. Kasaalan (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's just way too much information to cram into the paragraph. We don't need the full title to identify the books/websites/etc. Especially when that's already laid out in the referenced source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. There's no need to add unsourced {{fact}}ed information, and the "with 6 free chapters!" bit reads like an advertisement. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Books full name is Kill the Best Gentiles - Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog, which writer claims a quote from Talmud Sanhedrin 59 (from book cover without a doubt), which I cited with because I didn't check relevant quote from Talmud myself yet (which I have not much expertise in), but it is certainly quoted in the book like that. The book's subtitle is "The Racialist Guide for the Preservation and Nuture of the White Gene Pool" which is related to racialism (Scientific racism) and can only be considered as "scientific" as Intelligent design(creationism) efforts. Of course anything writes in any reference, but in article you mention details. Also it should be noted as a self published self promoted book like I edited. Complete reversing is not an option. Kasaalan (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I could provide an online copy of the ebook for the quote, but it could be a real advertisement, and without actually reading the book I cannot post his "racialist" thoughts, since they may include hate speech or violance act praising like he committed himself. But if you really have doubts about the title and subtitle of the book I posted, you can find the first 6 chapters of his book published in his own site. Kasaalan (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"6 free chapters" is on contrary indicates, he publishes half of his self published book for free because of self propaganda purposes, and he is engaged in seriously advocating and spreading his racist ideas. Kasaalan (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We just don't need "with 6 free chapters online" or "available as a free download from Audible.com" or "with a 10% rebate" in our articles when books are mentioned. Also, the long-form book title is fine in the referenced source, but it just crowds up the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that part is misleading you can change that part only instead a complete revert by a tool. You can easily perform a search to see I accurately quoted, and added a reasonable doubt by over if Talmud contains that quote. Others may have more expertise in the area. Kasaalan (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You can easily tell "12 chapter self published book dated 1999 which praises Adolf Hitler, denies the Nazi Holocaust of Jews and first 6 parts distributed as an ebook for free."(most because it don't worth any money) indicates he has been distributing freely half of his self published book for probaganda since 1999, where authorities did nothing in the meantime. It may be stated better but for that you should actually edit for improvement, not completely revert and call it advertisement. Kasaalan (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position. I strongly disagree. It isn't needed in an article about the shooting. Sorry. I doubt you can get consensus that an article on a shooting needs to bring attention in the article itself to the availability of his antisemetic tirades. So far two editors have told you this. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another attempt, without stating his book is self published, his book's name, or he distributed half of his book as ebook for free it states no detail. Telling he is writer of a book, actually implies his book is published by a real publisher.

Proposed addition to the book info

He has written many antisemitic essays, created an antisemitic website called The Holy Western Empire, and is the author of a book titled Kill the Best Gentiles/"Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog" (from Talmud Sanhedrin 59) - "The Racialist Guide for the Preservation and Nuture of the White Gene Pool, self published in 1999 which praises Adolf Hitler, denies the Nazi Holocaust of Jews and half of its content distributed freely for self promotion).

Proposed additions are in bold

He has written many antisemitic essays, created an antisemitic website called The Holy Western Empire, and is the author of a book titled Kill the Best Gentiles/"Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog" (from Talmud Sanhedrin 59) - "The Racialist Guide for the Preservation and Nuture of the White Gene Pool, self published in 1999 which praises Adolf Hitler, denies the Nazi Holocaust of Jews (OPTIONAL and half of its content distributed freely for self promotion).

You may ignore optional part, but rest gives the detail about the book. And without self publishing added, the text even implies it is a real book published by a third party publisher, and giving credit to his book. By the way can anyone state, what kill the best gentiles actually refers. Kasaalan (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Quadell, the additional content is not needed. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I, too, concur. This is an article about the shooting, not about Brunn, no matter how many off-beat, erroneous, hate-filled, poisonous, ignorance-exposing, pieces of garbage he may have written. Any shrines to Brunn's works should be held off-wiki. Unfortunately, one will find plenty of takers for that kind of trash, but wikipedia is not the place for any of it. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As an anti-racist inclusionist, I prefer details to be added near every time, and I find only proven measure to stop spreading racist thoughts is proving their ideas are false to the end, unlike just calling them trash and leaving out the title of his book. But also in this case, his self published book of racial supremacism and his obsession on his racist relio-politic arguments, is directly related to the hate crime he later committed. The book is mentioned in the article and I can't possibly agree, how title of his book which indicates his racist and ethnical hate background, or stating it is self published in 1999, may shrine his work. In general terms I always apply title, (subtitle), publisher, date approach, of which all are essential in this case. So I don't agree with you or likely I will, but without consensus adding info is not useful and also I will try not to waste much more of time over a hateful racist book title discussion anyway. (Yet possibly I will eventually) Kasaalan (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The title and description is there as brought in from the source artice; we don't need any more than that. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely "is the author of a book self published in 1999 which praises Adolf Hitler, denies the Nazi Holocaust of Jews".. provides just as much useful information? Sanhedrin 59 apparently discusses the interaction between Jewish ritual law and the Noahide laws for the Gentiles. No doubt v.B. was operating off off some theory that used that passage as the basis for some conspiracy by the Jews. It certainly doesn't seem appropriate to link to the articles on Jewish religious and religious legal texts in the context of lies about them. Nevard (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Sanhedrin 59 apparently discusses the interaction between Jewish ritual law and the Noahide laws for the Gentiles." So it refers to a Torah scripture. Thanks for the info. Was the translation he used is exact, or a misinterpretation. Kasaalan (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, Kasaalan. The passage is abstruse, prone to misunderstanding, and is has been classically used by antisemites for millenia. This article is not the place to be discussing the depths of von Brunn's hatred, ignorance, and stupidity. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So it is a misinterpretation that refers Torah. Is there any accurate translation of the quote that you can provide. This is the talk page of the shootings, he is the committer and it will debated eventually, so right place to discuss his hatred. Kasaalan (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is not the proper place. This is an article on the shooting. -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware, but "Nazi Holocaust of Jews" is a term used by people such as von Brunn to dilute the magnitude and horror of The Holocaust by portraying it relative to other situations. As atrocious as any of them are, dilution of the term is not what wikipedia is supposed to be. What we have now: "…is the author of a 1999 self published book, Kill the Best Gentiles, which praises Adolf Hitler and denies the Holocaust." is perfectly sufficient. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you mean, how "Nazi Holocaust of Jews" may possibly sound anything good, or should I care if he braggs with it. Of course, I didn't read anything what Brunn write except his book cover yet, and I have no current intention of reading his writing. I don't even care what Hitler writes nor any other racists actually, and possibly I won't waste any of my time on reading their false ideas willingly except to prove that they are wrong. What we know is more as I suggested above. Hiding the title of his book is not helpful to anyone. Kasaalan (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the book, as per the USA Today article here http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-10-shooter_N.htm. We do not need to add any more information that would have hate-mongers salivating. The article's encyclopedianess (is that even a word?) would suffer if we start derailing it into a von Brunn-centered piece. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it is a hate crime you still highly angry and emotional most possibly and in talk page it is no issue, however in article my approach is generally adding accurate and detailed info on wikipedia even for highly tragic ones. James Von Brunn: An ADL Backgrounder Beliefs and Activities by Anti-Defamation League, I am a critic of ADL but ADL's "jewishness" should not be in question. People will discuss these matters eventually. Kasaalan (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Kaslaan. This is an encyclopedia, not a stream of consciousness exercise. Extraneous information only serves to distract the purpose of this article. -- Avi (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

References

WP:LEAD

I added back the lead that I started last night. It actually needs to be expanded quite a bit. It should summarize the entire article so readers can quickly get an idea of what they will be reading. It should be entirely redundant and not introduce any info that isn't in the body. Take a look at Air France Flight 447 to see a current events article with a pretty good lead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See also, templates

Why racism template or Racism in the United States removed, any good reason, but an editor's weak nerves. Also I didn't alphebetized them in the first place, I categorized them by context. Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think racism is too broad. The more focused anti-semitism (a type of racism) template is better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a racist hate crime, and when adding templates including anti semitism but not adding racism is not much rational. I added both templates, and even white supremasism template is relevant. Kasaalan (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"but an editor's weak nerves." What the hell is that supposed to mean? APK lives in a very, very Mad World 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It was just adressing to a "friendly" comment ("this guy is getting on my nerves") from an editor referring me while removing a relevant template with no clear explanation, but no big deal by my part, I am not easily offended. Kasaalan (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are the one. I didn't notice. Why did you add your personal frustration to the edit history in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why Category: 21st-century attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations] removed, isn't the museum is one of communal organizations. Kasaalan (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fit that exactly, but maybe the category name should be changed so that it would be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the racism template should stay, but not the "communal organizations" as this is an official US government museum. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that has fair rationale. Maybe someone may create a broader category over 21st-century attacks on synagogues and Jewish communal organizations that covers this one too. But untill then the removal of category is right. Kasaalan (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is fairly simple: The museum is not a Jewish organization. The category is meant for Jewish religious institutions, but even if we stretch its limits to include secular Jewish institutions (like Israeli schools, etc.), this still doesn't come anywhere near the US Holocaust Museum, which is a non-religious American institution. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the consensus is to not include the category, but I think the weight of sentiment seems to be to put back in the racism template. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The racism template is too broad. Antisemitism is the main subject of this article. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This guy seems obsessed with adding the racism template. I haven't seen a consensus to add it. I agree with Peregrine Fisher's statement, "I think racism is too broad. The more focused anti-semitism (a type of racism) template is better." APK lives in a very, very Mad World 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can clearly tell, racism template covers near all revelant major titles for racism, racist hate crimes, racist hate groups. But without no apparent reason, you tell it is broad, the question is does it relevant or not, which clearly it is. Both templates are relevant, I added both templates myself. Anyone is free to check contents or not, since the template is collapsed, you are just trying to remove relevant info with non relevant "broadness" argument.

Antisemitism is a category within racism, focusing is one thing, removing racism template is another. You are the actual one who is persistently trying to remove racism the template. Your argument is "focusing", which is failing because racism template does not distract the topic. I added both templates, simply because it is antisemitic-racist attack. When you refer antisetimism but not refer racism it is not rational at all. Kasaalan (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Question is simple is this a racist antisemitic attack, Yes, then both templates are relevant.

Why you try to hide racism in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the racist template, but I am not so sure anymore that there is a consensus to add, even though it is fairly clear to me that the racism template belongs in this article. Rather than edit war over this, it may be best to go to dispute resolution, such as an RfC. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We can go there, but taking every case to RFC wastes too much time in the first place. Some common sense is better. The template is collapsed it doesn't consume space in the first place, and if anyone feels he doesn't need the template, he can always not click to see it. Kasaalan (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it is still there and has not been reverted. I think adding this template, which includes hate crimes, is useful to the reader, is not duplicative, and that this be allowed to remain without edit warring. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Asking questions like "Why you try to hide racism in the first place" is the icing on top. I'm not going to waste any more time with this character. APK doesn't play cards. APK is in the gay mafia 15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By refferring himself in third person APK think he might be truly cool kid, yet he is not right. Also try not to refer other editor's as "character", "this guy is getting my nerves" or "Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase that refers to the act of bringing the issue of race or racism into a debate" in an indirect way, simply because you fail in your arguments. If you don't play cards, try not to talk like you sit on the table because I don't play cards in the first place, try saving your personal arguments for your personal fans. Kasaalan (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The proper template is the Antisemitism one; the racism template is inappropriate as it is too broad. -- Avi (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged perp

Hey there: I added the word "alleged" to the subject header. I think that's needed for legal reasons, innocent until proven guilty, etc. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of other changes along the same lines for the same reason. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally use the word claim in such cases, alleged may also contain a bit of bias. Kasaalan (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Or "accused." That would also work in the header. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Accused may be even better for a trial. Kasaalan (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section header to "James Von Brunn." Less jargony. Any comments? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

'Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh made this happen'

Would statements by liberal commentators such as Chris Matthews that take this kind of tone be worth including in the article?

Of course, I find this to be morally disgusting but its apparently something that people in the media picked up on. The Squicks (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Political commentators will use this event as an excuse to smear their ideological rivals and boost their television show ratings. The same thing applies to political blogs. There's no need to give them another platform. "So the corpse is still warm and already we're debating gun laws? Classy." (not directed at The Squicks, but to those who would use these types of tragedies to further a political agenda) APK lives in a very, very Mad World 02:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Homo homini lupus The Squicks (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Other types of political agendas trigger this kind of shootings in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref #1

The link for this ref has changed to a different article on the Washington Post site, as the article was updated and some details, such as the car testing positively for explosives, removed. I've fixed what I could find and updated the link in the reference, but I'd suggest going through the other references as the articles may have changed as this one did. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CAIR reaction

There's text devoted to reaction from CAIR and a Muslim group. This was removed by an IP, reverted as "vandalism," but I think the IP has a point. CAIR et al have no real relevancy to the shooting or the museum and I don't see the point of including this organization's reaction. There must be reaction from many dozens or hundreds of organizations. For brevity's sake, I think that there needs to be some kind of cutoff, to persons and entities with a more direct connection to this kind of incident. Comments? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There's been a cutoff since the current text was added three days ago. No one has been trying to add more reactions, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Considering the media/social attention surrounding Muslims and Jews, the statements made by the two leading Muslim groups seems appropriate. APK is in the gay mafia 00:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there needs to be some cutoff, but I see reactions by major civil rights organizations to be well within the cut-off. Groups like CAIR, the NACCP, the SPLC, and so on that are not specifically connected to the museam are all notable in my opinion. The Squicks (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the CAIR article. CAIR are probably the most major Muslim advocacy group- they're the go to guys for statements on how most Muslims are moderate- but that doesn't make them a major organisation. Nevard (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with CAIR. They call themselves "America's largest Islamic civil liberties and advocacy organization" and are frequently mentioned in the media. Whether or not we agree with their ideology, it's common knowledge that they're a well-known U.S. Muslim organization. One sentence which includes their condemnation is not asking for much. APK is in the gay mafia 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

But this was not an attack by a Muslim group. If it was, I could see the kind or prominence that one would give to a criticism by a Muslim organization. I thought Stormfront's reaction was relevant because that's a white hate group, and this was an attack by a white hater. Given that, I have a problem with the amount of space given to CAIR, a group aimed at advancing Muslim interests according to its Wiki article, from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, as it was placed directly after President Obama's reaction in the first paragraph of the Reaction section, with a quote that was longer than his. I reduced it in size and moved it to a more appropriate place in the Reaction section, but would have no objection to it being removed entirely. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Weight is a fundamentally different question than whether or not it should be mentioned in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the current version "The Council on American-Islamic Relations condemned the attack as well" is located between the prayer vigil and museum reopening. It seems out of place in that paragraph. APK (If You Wanna) 04:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

2002 plot

Content discussing the 2002 white supremacist terror plot was removed as OR (which is true...the way it was stated I mean), but this LA Times article mentions it when describing threats against the museum. It seems relevant, but I'm not sure how to add it without the whole thing sounding like OR. Suggestions? APK is in the gay mafia 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is definitely relevant, as background, and can be inserted somewhere. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This information certainly belongs in the article. Also, the article on the 2002 white supremacist terror plot needs enhancement.Historicist (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the bottom of the timeline. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Claim of withholding of social security

Should VB's claim of having his social security payments cut off / reduced be mentioned or researched? Best guess around my personal crowd is that he might have been a tax evader, and had his payment attached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.9.194 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

on the same level?

The second paragraph states: "Von Brunn is a white supremacist, Obama citizenship conspiracy theorist, and Holocaust denier..." One of these things is not like the other things. While the Obama citizenship conspiracy theorists are nutty, they don't compare to people who are white supremacists or would actually deny The Holocaust. I think the mention of him being an Obama citizenship conspiracy theorist should be moved to the bio section, and not placed in the lede. APK is in the gay mafia 14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Historicist (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken it out of the lead and placed it below. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Looks like he may have been a Ron Paul fan.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ZVsm-6bP5-EJ:groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaulforPresident/mes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.217.238 (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There's been some chatter in the media about links between von Brunn and Paul. This may be worth mentioning. In fact, given that the controversy concerning this incident is continuing to reverberate, it may be a good idea to expand the reaction section somewhat, as this incident has become a catalyst for heated debate. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's not possible to peg this guy ideologically. He hated Israel, Fox News, The Weekly Standard, and was openly anti-business/anti-capitalist (sounds pretty typically left-wing). He was a white supremacist, anti-gun-control, anti-Obama, anti-government conspiracy theorist (sounds pretty right-wing).

Unless some high value reliable source (something marked as fact and not as opinion) connects Brunn and mainstream politics, let's keep the two separate. The Squicks (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Squicks. His ideology includes both (far) ends of the left-right political spectrum. Tying Ron Paul to von Brunn seems like a smear campaign against the politician. APK (If You Wanna) 01:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more of expanding the section to include how the Holocaust museum shooting has touched off a dialogue over political extremism. Just to elaborate: this Guardian article[4] is typical of the debate that has raged since the shooting in the media. I think the article needs to mention that.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just one person's opinion, though. It would be one thing if, say, Vice President Biden were to connect this incident to X, Y, Z other political issue. But this is not that. Comment is Free has a pretty wide range as far as who they let write articles for them, it does not seem to me to be that notable. The Squicks (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

memorial fund

Should this be mentioned in the reaction section? APK (If You Wanna) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, re your clarification, that a mention in the external links section may be more suitable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be link spam. APK (If You Wanna) 15:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If so, then by all means work in a sentence. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

World War II Veteran

How come the shooter doesn't have his own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.33.184 (talk • contribs)

James von Brunn photo

Someone added a photo of von Brunn, describing it as his mugshot. He was shot in the face and is in critical condition, so there's no way that photo was taken on June 10. The various websites that are using the image (example: The Washington Times) say the photograph is undated and was provided by the Talbot County Sheriff's Office. If someone can find the year it was taken, that would be helpful. APK (If You Wanna) 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone has nominated it for speedy deletion - possibly because the licencing situation is unclear. Autarch (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition

"Several news agencies have noted the timing of the June 10 shooting at the museum, came shortly after Obama's June 5 visit to and speech at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp[22] and that "President Obama’s recent visit to the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, in Germany, may have set off the shooter."[23] At Buchenwald, Obama had denounced "those who perpetuate every form of intolerance -- racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, and more" and stated the world has "no place for anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia, and right-wing extremism."[24] Given that these words came from Obama, an African-American, von Brunn's reaction could have been related to his views about both Jewish and Black people, whom he saw, according to several reports, as often working together against him. On his website von Brunn stated that his conviction in the 1980s was by "a Negro jury, Jew/Negro attorneys" and that he was "sentenced to prison for eleven years by a Jew judge. A Jew/Negro/White Court of Appeals" denied his appeal.[25]"

Is this considered OR? APK (If You Wanna) 04:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I'd read it as being synthesis, yeah. There's a whole laundry list of reasons von Brunn snapped, all mentioned in reliable sources, but the article referenced certainly doesn't make any connection between Obama's speech and conspiracy theories about Obama. I've removed the OR connecting sentence and the speech quote (as it doesn't appear in a story about the shooting) but it could use some expansion to include more relevant things. Nevard (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

July 6 - WaPo

There's an interesting article in today's WaPo. I'm not sure if von Brunn's bio section needs any more expansion (otherwise, a separate entry may be in order), but thought I'd mention it anyway. APK coffee talk 16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Tyrone Johns is African American

Is the security guard's ethnicity relevant enough to mention in this article? It currently isn't mentioned anywhere. It's likely (although not 100% certain) that, given von Brunn's views, he would not have shot Johns if Johns were white. However I'm still not sure if Johns' ethnicity is relevant enough or not. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says Johns was shot because of his ethnicity? If not, mentioning it in the article would be considered original research. APK that's not my name 07:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Atheist?

James is under the American Atheist Category. He is not an Atheist, no source recognizes this. Nazism and Fascism is not Atheism. I would take his name off the list, but I can't find the way to get him off 98.28.163.219 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the categories. They shouldn't be added to a redirect. APK that's not my name 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Split off article on Von Brunn

The section on Von Brunn is so voluminous and goes into so many facets of his life I propose that it be split off to an article of its own, with a bare summary left in this article with facts deemed relevant to the shooting incident. __meco (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

4KiB out of 11KiB of readable prose (14KiB out of 34KiB in wikitext) isn't that much to justify a split, at least not by itself (see WP:SIZERULE). Since von Brunn's primary reason of notability is the museum shooting (to the extent that it's unclear whether he'd be considered notable without it) I believe that info about him should remain on this page, without a split. Rami R 17:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm just saying that with my 30k edits I have never seen anything like this. It looks exactly like one article injected into another one. The redirect page is littered with categories also. Also using WP:SIZERULE isn't much support exactly for the reason you confirm: The argument is not based on the size of the article being too overwhelming (WP:SIZERULE reads "< 40 KB = Length alone does not justify division"). If the issue is that the biography on Von Brunn wouldn't be able to meet WP:BIO on its own, well then all the biograpical elaborations now included in this article need not be here either. And I do think that 36% of the current article being a biography is substantial. I think it's a lot too much. __meco (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613040641/http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0609/630674.html to http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0609/630674.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/gunman-opens-inside-holocaust-museum-kills-security-guard/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scpr.org/blogs/kitty-felde/2009/06/11/bad-day-museum/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614234429/http://dcist.com/2009/06/street_closures_affiliated_with_hol.php to http://dcist.com/2009/06/street_closures_affiliated_with_hol.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614092511/http://dcist.com/2009/06/holocaust_vigil_planned_for_2_pm.php to http://dcist.com/2009/06/holocaust_vigil_planned_for_2_pm.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003982248
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722113943/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20090703 to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20090703

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Section "Perpetrator": infobox

From what I've read here, he died before his trial and was therefore not convicted of anything. But there is a list of convictions in the infobox. Grassynoel (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)