Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Political ideology

Three related threads combined. Slight edit to first comment for context. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

White supremacy? Who determined that? Are you all mind readers? 23.114.209.214 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The term has been used in several sources, and both the FBI and Erie County Sheriff have described the shooting as "racially motivated." We shall see how things shake out. Dumuzid (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Being described as" and "Describing oneself as" are inherently different things. Journalistic integrity demands either citations to the individual's claims, or the article's revision to reflect others' description of the individual. Otodus Meg (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

He calls himself a white supremacist in his manifesto. 24.144.227.41 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"you people" are editors citing reliable sources, not expressing their own opinions. See Wikipedia policy. Jibal (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

his manifesto, which can be found in PDF form on 4chan where he posted it before carrying out the shooting, make it abundantly clear that he is concerned about whites getting replaced by nonwhites. His ideology is therefore primarily white supremacist. If he was in favor of some kind of socialist wealth redistribution, he made it abundantly clear that this would come only *after* killing all nonwhite people. His ideology is primarily guided by white supremacy, great replacement theory, etc. Furthermore, far right white supremacists have a long history of appropriating the term "socialism" for their own ends. The NSDAP of Germany called themselves socialists but they also called themselves anti-marxist, and they privatized large swathes of the German economy, while carrying out genocide against Jews, Poles, Roma, etc. If the NSDAP was truly socialist in a left wing sense, why were Communists and ethnic minorities thrown into their concentration camps? It is clear that being in favor of wealth redistribution for only one racial group does not make a person "leftist" or "socialist" even if they self-apply that term. Keep that in mind. Pu1Vahvahwu0LooWohlah7ug5hai9goh7Eij8eet2ieghohjee (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So you're trying to say that this guy was a "right-wing extremist"? Come on. This guy is a deranged lunatic who hates blacks and Jews, and wants to start a race war. He may well be right-wing, but speculating about his political motives before we know the whole story...I don't think we should be doing that. FairBol (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It can be stated that in the alleged manifesto the author self identified that "on the political compass I fall into the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called populist". Any other political label is assigned by the editor and should be either removed or noted as such. CaptainNedaESB (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is more in line with Wikipedia policies to wait for interpretation from secondary sources than it is to uncritically adopt a primary source's characterization, especially given such an unreliable narrator. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why this still hasn't been done. If the shooter himself identifies as "authoritarian left", why should we believe otherwise? And what evidence suggests that he's somehow incorrect about himself? FairBol (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you think what we know of the suspect suggests perceptiveness and accurate judgment? Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying he had "accurate judgment", not at all. Don't try to put words in my mouth. BTW, the white supremacy thing aside, I don't see any other evidence that this was approached from a purely "right-wing" perspective. Could you enlighten me as to where/what that might be? FairBol (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am trying to demonstrate why people might not choose to take anything the suspect said or wrote at face value. And "the white supremacy thing aside" is a bit like "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" I would refer you to the reliable sources for their current analysis of the suspect and his political leanings. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess I understand your point. I still beg to differ, but...civility is a good thing! LOL. FairBol (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You're making the very basic mistake of assuming that a person can't be racist and leftist at the same time. Your own political bias is showing- you're only allowing good qualities to be ascribed to the ideology that you identify with, while allowing bad qualities be ascribed to ideology that you oppose. Zorak5000 (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

He said that depending on the definition, he could either be considered left wing or right wing, and also supports socialism in some cases. Why is he considered Far Right?

I would submit that if he indeed endorsed Great Replacement Theory, as is being reported, that would be some evidence in that direction. Dumuzid (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Simply calling yourself something does not make it so. North Korea calls itself "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea." The Nazis called themselves "socialists." If I call myself a fire breathing dragon, it does not make it true. If a far right mass shooter says "I might be considered left wing by some" it is mostly a reflection of ignorance on their part, rather than a failure on our part to understand them. Pu1Vahvahwu0LooWohlah7ug5hai9goh7Eij8eet2ieghohjee (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Or ignorance on the part of sizable segments of the public. There is a long history of (neo-)conservatives in the USA claiming that Hitler and Nazism were actually left-wing or liberal (like in this book, for instance), and it’s possible those conservatives are the “some” he was referring to in his manifesto. Saying “some people might characterize me as X” doesn’t actually mean much because there are lots of people out there with non-standard “takes” on how to classify different political views. To make an analogy, a Wiccan could say in an interview that “some people might characterize me as a Satanist”, given that the Christian Right in the USA routinely equates the two. However, that doesn’t mean Wiccans _actually_ believe in Satan (they don’t), nor that Wikipedia should say that Wiccans are Satanists in its own voice. There are a lot of untrue things that “some people” still believe in. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:1F5F (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As Dumuzid said, it is more in line with wiki policy to wait for an interpretation of "motivation" from secondary sources than to speculate based on an original reading of the primary source.DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You make a good point, and one that I'll give you credit for. There are many who believe things that are demonstrably false. If I were to point out that the sky is usually blue, and grass usually green, some people would say otherwise..."no no no, the sky is green, and grass is blue". This is regardless of party affiliation or ideology. FairBol (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

His manifesto calls himself a leftist socialist. How is that white supremacy? Why is leftist socialist not the description? 2601:14B:C200:3C20:A130:87E2:CE77:1872 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Source? Nythar (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What does being a leftist socialist have anything to do with being or not being a white supremacist?--Mapsfly (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Didn't actually read his manifesto, did you? The left isn't flogging the phony "replacement theory" dead-horse. The right is.39.116.182.33 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

According to The New York Times the manifesto promoted the great replacement theory. Whether or not he is left wing or right wing doesn't look clear now. Nythar (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It actually is pretty clear at that point, ngl Genabab (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

None of us have read the manifesto, nor is our reading it relevant--Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the article should report what they are saying ... and at this time it does. Jibal (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So if the perp calls himself a socialist, but the media intentionally ignores it and calls him a far-right white supremacist...Wikipedia accepts mainstream media narrative instead of looking at the actual source? The Wikipedia loop of consent in action: journalist calls perp a nazi, Wikipedia accepts it as gospel, other media outlets check Wikipedia to verify their own narratives, hey...they were correct! What a coincidence! And on and on it goes. This site is a cesspool of activists trying to uphold a public narrative that has been specifically designed for one end of the political spectrum, and that's not a matter of opinion.

Selectively using mainstream media and "fact checkers" as sources and then presenting information as established facts is activism.

Meanwhile in the Waukesha Christmas parade attack article, not a single mention of "racial", "race", "hate"...are we still pretending Wikipedia is even attempting neutrality at this point? 86.137.102.238 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this absolute double standard. 38.132.179.74 (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia is based on what reliable secondary sources say, not editor's interpretations of WP:primary sources. You can call it what you want, but this has been Wikipedia policy for something like 18 years or more. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" is based on a feedback loop where certain mainstream media outlets are considered the source of truth - and these media outlets often use Wikipedia for fact-checking exercises. But sure, let's continue to pretend Wikipedia is attempting neutrality. 86.137.102.238 (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This is actually addressed at WP:CITOGENESIS, and it can certainly be a problem. Unfortunately, the only alternative structure I ever see proposed is "just believe me," which I would argue is even worse. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I can call myself an evangelical Christian and preach atheism. What he calls himself is unrelated to the things he put in his manifesto. In the manifesto there are clear references to things like black crime statistics and a comic about black people being less intelligent. How is that anything other than white supremacism? 2601:8C:701:D00:50B1:B113:1880:53EB (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The above IP isn't whining about him falsely being called a white supremacist. They're whining because they think there's a double standard. 14.46.200.34 (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Granted, this is not a standard media source. Others probably will be forthcoming. It appears that he follows the replacement theory ideology. "The manifesto, which talks about the extremist far-right white or great replacement theory and includes alt-right 4chan memes and jokes, is similar to ones written by shooters who attacked a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, the Tree of Life synagogue in Pennsylvania and an El Paso, Texas, Walmart in recent years, Yale professor Jason Stanley says." Above quote is from: [1] Although the above quote does cite academic Jason Stanley. His Twitter statement on the shooter's ideas are motivated by "replacement theory": [2] The article needs to cite "replacement theory" as influencing the shooter's thoughts Dogru144 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Jason Stanley is a liberal activist. Predictably, his "findings" will always agree with his political slant. If you look at his twitter you can clearly see that he strongly identifies with one side. It shouldn't be surprising that when an event happens (whatever it may be) he's going to take the "liberal" side. It's a lot like listening to a fundamentalist Christian judge talk about abortion- while you can't deny his legal training, you also can't pretend that he's being unbiased. Zorak5000 (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on topic relating to how to improve our article. General gripes about the world are not on topic and may be removed as I just did. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Not just antisemitism but also anti-Arabism and Turkophobia

By the respective topic ‘investigation’ there is only a mention of Anti-Semitism, however the hatred to Arabs and Turks is ignored (Payton Grendon literally describes Turks as invaders in Europe and that they shall be seen as invaders.) The guy got inspired by Breivik and Tarrant whom both antagonized Turks as the enemy of Western Europe. The former describing Turks as genocidal monsters and the latter threatening Turks that they shouldn’t live on the European side of their country, imbecile!

Interestingly, the far rightist terrorist was Christchurch is obsessed by the Turks, not unlike Anders Breivik in his own manifesto. Turkophobia kills, we have another, terrible example today, that should be mentioned. 2A02:A466:AEAD:1:E5B6:1977:F8A8:3EA1 (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree about Turkophobia broadly, and I have only glanced at the "manifesto," but I got the sense that his complaints about Turks in Europe were very much part of the copypasta: i.e., just plagiarized and unclear about what effect it might have had on his actual motivations. This may well make it into the article, but we should let things shake out and have the reliable sources tell us whether this facet is truly notable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Given a 180-page manifest and a 673-page diary, there's a plethora of nuggets to WP:COATRACK.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/buffalo-shooting-supermarket-673-page-diary-reveals-suspects-descent-into-racist-extremism-11652814938?mod=hp_lead_pos10

kencf0618 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The alleged author of the Buffalo manuscript wanted to kill Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Brenton Tarrant also wanted to do this and there may be a copycat element) plus Sadiq Khan and George Soros. As with the Christchurch mosque shootings‎, it isn't practical to list all of the crackpot stuff that the shooter wanted to do. Most of the focus has been on the shooter's desire to kill black people due to what happened at the supermarket.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Update, the original Buffalo manifesto may actually be 600 pages. Imagine how long that hate list must be. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 12:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Source? Love of Corey (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Alt-What?

Per the article Payton "... describes himself as a fascist, white supremacist, and an antisemite" except that's the view of a single CNN source. Other sources note he's an eco-fascist who hates conservatives and whose views evolved from communism to something along the "mild-moderate authoritarian left category" though he'd prefer the label populist and is open to being called socialist. That's poles apart on the standard Left-Right spectrum. Oh Payton also hates libertarianism, but that's due to it being pioneered by Jews apparently.

Okay found a specific counter-quote to the CNN piece - 'The Buffalo attacker described his own politics as "mild-moderate authoritarian left," "eco-fascist national socialist" and "populist" and wrote that he formed his racist worldview based on "infographics, s---posts and memes" that he found online' [3]

So how do we reconcile there differences? 人族 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Fox News is not considered a reliable source for issues relating to politics. CNN is. There's nothing really to "reconcile" unless you have a reliable source to work with. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out, that's not exactly true. The page you cited says there is "no consensus" on whether or not political stories from Fox News are reliable. There's a difference between a source being regarded as "unreliable" and "we're not sure if the source is reliable or not". FairBol (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That is enough a reason to disqualify it for the purposes of this article. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO for an article this current and serious we should avoid using sources that are questionably reliable Googleguy007 (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Going to cut the facade real quick, Fox News is trying to push a false narrative to cover up for the renewed wave of hatred against non-whites that they play a big part in, and then blame the left for it in bad faith.

Thus, for this specific article, Fox News has no place in it. Fox is reliable for subjects that are not as politically charged, when backing up something already stated by a better source, and for opinions. June Parker (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

CNN is absolutely not a credible media outlet. They're currently in a battle with MSNBC to try to capture the liberal audience (since Fox News has already captured the conservative audience). They aren't on the level of Reuters, BBC, ABC, etc. Zorak5000 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the exact same narrative that was pushed by right wing media in regards to the Christchurch shooter, and just like in that case it has zero basis in reality. Above user has also received multiple warnings over the past year regarding potentially disruptive behavior and POV-pushing on talk pages related to american politics. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? Love of Corey (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Shooting leaves people without a grocery store

This is the source. What is the best way to include this?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't add it at all. However, what you can say is something that goes along the lines of: "The supermarket was a crucial contributor to the East Side's economy and its indefinite closure has caused countless consumers to either find alternatives or go further for quality groceries." Hope this helps. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YT. Unless the supermarket closed permanently as a result of the shooting, which is too early to say, the fact that it is still closed while the investigation is ongoing isn't a big deal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It depends on how long the supermarket stays closed.

In the Boulder Colorado supermarket mass shooting, they kept the store closed for nearly a year (if memory serves me). So the closing went from being for routine forensic reasons, to the purpose of long-term psychological distancing from the trauma, done for the community.

I would therefore say mention of the "longer" but not neccessarily "permanent" kind of closing (if it happens that way in Buffalo) would then be appropriate for this article.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad I asked. This all makes sense.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Can editors decide to never include the alleged shooter's photo or name in the article?

Major American news outlets (including CNN) are now refusing to use the alleged shooters name-- to prevent him from achieving personal notoriety for his crime.

They are also noting that he Livestreamed the killings-- showing a clear attempt to maximize his notoriety.

What latitude do Wikipedia editors have to never include the alleged shooters photograph (or even never use his name) in this article?

And if this can be done, should it?

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 10:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It would probably need to be done on a case by case basis for each article, like how we do deciding to put victims names in. In theory if a policy was set in regards to it, that could be an option, but I don't see that realistically happening. Major outlets, American and worldwide, would have to actually stop using the alleged's name. So long as multiple RS do use it, it will end up being added to article. A discussion to remove(or add) it would need to happen on talk page if it's addition was contested. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! The news provider CNN announced two days ago that they will no longer use the name of the alleged shooter in any of their coverage.

Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 11:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This is similar to Jacinda Ardern saying that she would never use the Christchurch shooter's name, commenting "He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety - that is why you will never hear me mention his name."[4] It is worrying, though, if a major news organization goes down this road. Where would it end? Would we be banned from naming Lee Harvey Oswald or Mark Chapman? Sadly, some shooters are thinking about the lasting notoriety that they could obtain from their acts, but damnatio memoriae is not the way to go.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The editorial decisions of one news source, and that of one politician, are not necessarily restrictive on what we here at Wikipedia do. I'm not saying that means we should or should not include such information, but picking random examples from random other places is not always helpful. We, as an encyclopedia, have different purposes than do either politicians or advertiser-supported news organizations. We should not exclusively base our editorial decisions on blindly following what either of them do. --Jayron32 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Operating on the assumption that it is inevitable that in such an article the name of the perpetrator would be covered in reliable sources.. if consensus decides on edits that remove any mention of their name or photo, that could be defended as part of how wikipedia operates. If such a consensus would match the policy or goals of an encyclopedia whose primary intent is to provide accurate knowledge of topics would be in my opinion, a contentious one. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to reconcile omission of the shooter's name with policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Unless there's a legal reason to not include the shooter's name at all, I don't see a justification for omitting it from the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

While I greatly sympathize with the idea of never mentioning details about the shooter himself, I agree with that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, that would go against years and years of precedence when it comes to Wikipedia's coverage of these events. Love of Corey (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, we've multiple articles about murderers based on the outrage over what they did, John Wilkes Booth comes to mind among many others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a general pattern to list the names of perpetrators, even if some media agencies doesn't want to. See Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 6#Killer's name, Talk:2020 Nova Scotia attacks/Archive 1#Justin Trudeau's reservations about naming the perpetrator or using his photo, Talk:Midland–Odessa shooting#The Lead, Talk:E.O. Green School shooting/Archive 1#WP:BLP, etc. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

some of the sources are blank links? why?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.95.226 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Which ones? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you post them here and people can do searches and find the links and add them in. Thanks in advance. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 07:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Black"

The Wikipedia Manual of Style, at MOS:PEOPLELANG, says that ethno-racial color labels, including "Black" and "White" can be given lowercase or uppercase. I propose that this article use the uppercase style. That style is predominant in US usage; I scanned through a random selection of sources currently in the article, and they all use the capital "Black". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Would we then also capitalize the 'white' that appears in the article as well? Or only 'Black'? --Kbabej (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the APA recommends capitalizing both. Seen here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:PEOPLELANG says Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). So either way is acceptable, as long as black and white are treated consistently. In my opinion, they should both be lowercase. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think capitalizing Black and White is probably the best call. Racial or ethnic titles just feel like they should be capitalized. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it comes down to preference. The black people article on WP does not capitalize, and in its lead has a mainstream source stating it should be capitalized and a mainstream source saying it shouldn't. I don't know if there's actually a definitive answer. --Kbabej (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm fairly sure I've used it without capitalizing too. If in thinking about it when I write it I capitalize it though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think both should be capitalized in service of avoiding ambiguity. Black and White capitalized rarely refer to anything but the 'color labels', but those same words not capitalized have many other meanings. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't care personally either way works, both capitalized or both lower case, just remain consistent. Somers-all does makes a good point above about it only every being capitalize when dealing with race. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There's White and Black in chess, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

TIL Somers-all-the-time (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's unrelated to the point being made but usually in chess you use Black and White as proper nouns, e.g. "White plays 1. e4" instead of "The White player plays 1. e4". It makes sense in this context for White and Black to always be capitalized. Dofley (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally I dislike capitalizing "white" and "black" as it can sometimes be used to indicate "political whiteness" and "political blackness," which is oftentimes inappropriate. Whatever case we use, we should definitely capitalize both or neither. There's a bizarre trend on some pages (often lower quality ones) where only white is capitalized and black is not, or vice versa. Let us be consistent either way. Joe (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I see people say that "Black" should be captialized because people use it as an ethnic identity, since the slave trade erased their family's country of origin. "White," therefore, shouldn't be, since it usually means a skin color and people's families almost always know where they're from. Tayuro (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Im familiar with, and generally receptive to, that argument. It hasn't faired well in on-wiki discussions so far. I'm happy to see both capitalized if that's what's needed to get consensus for "Black". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Capitalize the B in black. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

All races should be capitalized. However recently some don't want the "W" in "white" to be capitalized, because white surpremacists always capitolize it. I don't agree with that because 1) white supremecists are given influence that they should not have in indirectly causing people to Un-capitolize white. And 2) I don't think it's fair that only white people should have their race uncapitalized.

I am a mixed-race person, by the way. I am not pushing for any race as better than any other, I am just saying-- be fair and capitalize everybody. Respectfully, Chesapeake77 ^{>>> ♥ Truth} 15:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that there's no consensus in terms of reliable news sources as well as reliable academic sources as to whether or not ethnicity based labels should be always capitalized, I'd rather than we continue to just use "black" and "white". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, MOS:RETAIN is about national varieties of English, but MOS:VAR says something similar about retaining existing styles in general. That said, it continues with "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page", which is what's happened here.

That said, CoffeeWithMarkets' comment and your/CactiStaccingCrane's reverts make the consensus much less clear, and I won't revert without further input. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose MOS:VAR is the relevant one here, though they do say very similar things. Regardless, "what was the original style" seems like the best rule of thumb to go for when there is no clear style in the article and no clear reason to prefer one over the other. Endwise (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)