Jump to content

Talk:Pittsburgh synagogue shooting/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Mention that bris refers to naming ceremony

https://www.thedailybeast.com/search-for-active-shooter-underway-at-pittsburgh-synagogue says "The attack took place around 10 a.m. as a naming ceremony for a newborn baby was underway in the synagogue." but Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting#Incident cites thedailybeast.com as a source for "The shooting took place during scheduled Shabbat morning services and a bris" even though the term "bris" is not used by the website.

I think it should be phrased "bris (a naming ceremony)" to clarify this to readers who are not familiar with the term, replicating the phrasing this source used. Ash Carol (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"AR-15 rifle" considered an "Assault Weapon" - or Not?

FWIW - seems some are supportive of noting that the "AR-15 style rifle" used in the event is an "Assault Weapon"; whereas others may not be - ALSO - seems that a "Google Search" for "AR-15 assault rifle" pittsburgh synagogue shooting gives 9,030 results at the moment, a significant figure - ALSO - many reliable news sources, including The New York Times, refers to the "AR-15 style rifle" used as an "AR-15-style assault rifle" (please see => https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/27/us/active-shooter-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting.html )[1] - ALSO - The "Assault Weapon" article refers to the AR-15 as an "assault weapon" and is pictured at the top of the article.

QUESTION: Should the AR-15 rifle used in the event be identified in the main article as an "Assault Weapon" - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The never-ending assault rifle debate

Two new editors have removed the term assault rifle. This is a common event as some people don’t like the term. But, the RS we are using use it. So, we should use it. O3000 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I Agree. Since we're here to maintain a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and to only include information that is verifiable WP:VER, it only makes sense to parrot our sources. --24.21.215.155 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I Agree as well - for reasons stated well above - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I no Disagree. When ambiguous terms are used, they should be clarified. In this case, the correct usage should be "rifle" (Rifle) (vs. "handgun" Handgun or "pistol" Pistol ), as the identification of the particular firearm has not been established. When the make and model are reported, the particular nomenclature identifying the firearm should be used. This avoids ambiguous or inaccurate terms used by reporting media. Mcmustang (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I no Disagree. An AR-15 was used. This fact is not disputed. The AR-15 is legally an assault rifle in some US states, but not in PA. Technically, it is or is not an assault rifle, depending on which definition you choose. But this has nothing to do with the matter of this article, nor does any journalist's or officer's alleged failure to correctly explain what an AR-15 is. 198.179.125.170 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Robertson, Campbell; Mele, Christopher; Tsvrernise, Sabrina (October 27, 2018). "11 Killed in Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre; Suspect Charged With 29 Counts". The New York Times. Retrieved October 27, 2018.

The comments above are somewhat confusing, in that it's not quite clear whether editors are advocating that the AR-15 used in the synagogue shooting be called an "assault weapon" or an "assault rifle". Specifically which term is being advocated for here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right. After eating some dinner, I'll read some of the sources and see what they are calling the weapon and then list them here (if anyone else hasn't already done so). I only want to parrot what sources writing on this topic are saying without adding in my own, or anyone else's, interpretation of those sources. This topic will change rapidly and, in the long run, we'll end up with authoritative reporting after all the dust has settled which may change how we reference the weapon.24.21.215.155 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is decided to catagorize the shooters weapon as an “assault rifle”, then the Assault Rifle page should be edited as well because it explicitly states that the Colt AR-15 is not an assault rifle. SoldierMed68W (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The AR-15 has been made in both semiautomatic and full-auto, indistinguishable from an early-model M16; the latter is just the government's designation for a fully-automatic or selective AR-15. Similarly, the Remington 700 is called an M24 when it puts on a uniform. "Assault rifle" is just a sloppy ambiguous term in and of itself, and it adds nothing to the discussion of the Pittsburgh shooting.198.179.125.170 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
One of the conveniences of editing Wikipedia is that we don’t have to make decisions like what is and is not an assault rifle, or synthesize an answer to such questions. We just use WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
OK I'm gonna start listing sources used so far and what they call it:
Some sources
I'm not finished yet. I just wanted to save some of this before I continued. SO FAR, not that I've counted yet, it seems like the majority of sources are calling it an assault rifle, it seems like most of them are calling it an assault style rifle but there's clear conflict with some being extremely ambiguous.
As far as I understand it the definition of assault rifle vs. assault weapon hinges on whether a weapon is fully automatic or not. Additionally, as far as I understand it, it's trivial for gun owners to modify weapons to function in this way. Therefore, could the FBI agent in charge that's the most quoted among these sources (that I've looked at so far) be correctly labeling the weapon as such? I'm still not done going through them all (I'm on reference 35), but I wanted to put some initial thoughts down.
I stopped on citation number 70 ( "Critics say Trump has fostered the toxic environment for the political violence he denounces") if anyone wants to continue. I'm going to stop there and tally up the various uses of language.24.21.215.155 (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, after having gone through 70 out of the 87 citations and finding every mention of a weapon, firearm, gun, rifle, etc. I then tallied them up into these categories: Nine call it an assault-style rifle, fourteen call it an assault rifle, three use less precise labeling (such as gun or rifle), and two (from early reports) called it an AK-47. It's also noteworthy that the vast majority of the sources that even mention the weapon are referencing Bob Jones FBI special agent in charge of the Pittsburgh field office and it seems as if this comes from a press conference by him. So, we could probably lay this to rest by finding his press conference as he and his agents should be able to correctly classify the weapon as an assault rifle or not.24.21.215.155 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
"Assault rifle" is more of a technical term, in that one of the discriminating features is whether or not the rifle is capable of selective fire. The Colt AR-15 SP1 does not have selective fire, and Colt implemented a number of design features to make it difficult for owners to convert one to fully automatic. "Assault weapon" is more of a legal term, in that legislatures made certain firearms illegal to purchase using definitions revolving around particular features such as pistol grips and detachable magazines. With regard to Special Agent Jones stating that the perpetrator in the synagogue shooting used an "assault rifle," I suspect he wanted to convey the point that the weapon the shooter used had assault rifle style features (which regrettably are quite useful when someone wants to kill a large number of people trapped inside a building with them), but overlooked the fact that technically, the AR-15 SP1 is not a selective fire rifle. Good work on compiling lots of sources and examples. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, AzureCitizen. Since it's still ambiguous to me (as you just wrote "Colt implemented a number of design features to make it difficult for owners to convert one to fully automatic" which doesn't preclude the possibility that it had been modified as such), I'm going to plop down his press conference that's the source of their language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki5DhmV-Lv4 @16:21
Bob Jones says "... we think one was an assault rifle ..." so there's even ambiguity there.
I figure this will just help people get closer to laying this issue to rest one way or the other. These sources were, by the way, just taken from the article. I didn't find them. I just copied the wikitext from the article and put them in the collapsible box above.24.21.215.155 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The distinction between semi-automatic and fully automatic is significant. AR-15’s are designed to be incompatible with select fire components. I understand definitions change over time, especially so in modern times. I just wanted to bring up that if this weapon is considered an “assault rifle”, the definition in the assault rifle page needs to be updated so that it remains accurate. “Assault weapon”, or “assault style weapon” is a much more loosely defined term which the Colt AR-15 falls under more easily. SoldierMed68W (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed someone decided to do some editorializing. We should refrain from this as per WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:KNOW, and WP:PRESERVEBIAS. Even if the source is supposedly incorrect, if you are going to add a line that says that, you must have a source that says that itself. 24.21.215.155 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As used in the criminal complaint

Pence's Christian "rabbi" and Conway's atheist comment

Two other controversies have continued to boil over:

1) At a Oct 30 rally in Michigan, Pence had a "rabbi" bless the victims, except that this "rabbi" was actually a Christian, and a former member of Jews for Jesus who had himself since been defrocked by the Messianist group. Even worse for the detractors was that although this guy didn't name the victims, he went on and named Republican candidates in need of help.

2) Conway, in one statement, appeared to blame the massacre on "the removal of religion from public life", and called it "anti-religious"

In both cases, predictably, Jewish communities, especially those on the left among them, were fairly irritated, and the heat seems to have lasted over 24h in both cases. What are your guys' thoughts -- include?--Calthinus (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Incident section

The Incident section, as currently written, is literally a timeline. Therefore, should the section title be renamed "Incident timeline" (or something similar)? Also, are there guidelines about using a timeline format for incidents like this? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Punctuation inside and outside the quotation marks

There are 15 cases of a period being inside the quotation marks, and one instance of a comma. I suggest looking through all the cases and weeding out the inconsistencies.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

What are you saying? That the punctuation should be inside or outside of the quotation marks? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, the punctuation only goes inside the quotation marks if entire sentence(s) from the source is/are quoted. If it's only a part of a sentence, then it has to go outside the quotation marks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
So, is this a mistake? and stated that "Extremism and terrorism know no race or religion, and must be condemned in all cases".--Adûnâi (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't follow you. Can you give an example or two? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: read MOS:PUNCT. Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
See MOS:INOROUT. Yes, Adûnâi, it is most definitely a mistake because the entire sentence from the sourced material (https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/10/29/578439/Pittsburgh-Zarif-US-shooting-Twitter) is being quoted. Therefore, the period should be inside the quotation mark. An example of the period needing to go outside the quotation mark would be: He stated that extremism and terrorism "must be condemned in all cases". In that example, only a part of the sentence is being used, rather than the full sentence. A made-up example would be if a source says: Joe ate cookies for breakfast last Monday and Thursday. If you insert that exact sentence in an article, from beginning to end, then the quote goes inside: "Joe ate cookies for breakfast last Monday and Thursday." But if you paraphrase it, it would be: The young boy was fed "cookies for breakfast last Monday and Thursday". So the bottom line is that if you use full sentence(s), from beginning to end, and don't eliminate anything from the sourced material's sentence(s), then the period goes inside. Otherwise, it goes outside. Hope this helps. 173.91.60.85 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate text and sources in Victims section

I'm not sure if someone just didn't notice this, but the Victims section begins and ends with essentially the same words ("Eleven people were killed" and "The eleven killed were") and 3 of the same sources. That 11 were killed should be said only one time in that paragraph, with all the sources that verify the names of the victims attached to it. Why not just change the first sentence a bit to something like, "Eleven people, listed below, were killed,..." (and attached the 5 sources)? Or, "Eleven people were killed,[32][33][34][39][40] including three on the ground level and four in the synagogue's basement.[35] Their names are listed below." Or maybe it's not even necessary to indicate where the names are located since it's obvious to readers where (and who) they are. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Image of memorial

Can this image be uploaded for the article? Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is an image of the memorial in front of the synagogue that is public domain, but I don't know how to upload it. Could someone help here? Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

order of death

Can we get a timeline of immediate deaths on-scene vs those who did not die immediately but later died in hospital? Some of the earlier moment-by-moment reporting had only confirmed smaller numbers initially like https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/at-least-4-people-killed-in-shooting-at-pittsburgh-synagogue-1376986-2018-10-27 and I saw "at least ten" in an earlier version of USA Today as well. Ash Carol (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Pardon, but this sounds rather gruesome (even for Halloween). Dead is dead. It's not like radiation exposure deaths occurring a decade later. O3000 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

GoFundMe goal

In the Fundraising section, the content about the GoFundMe campaign (gofundme.com/tree-of-life-synagogue-shooting) can be updated. It has now raised over $1.1 million and has a new goal of $1.2 million, You can use this November 1 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story as the source. It's the most recent information I could find. Also, please change the words "GoFundMe account" to "GoFundMe campaign". "Campaign" is the actual/official term used for each fundraiser, per their Wikipedia article and the "How it works" page on GoFundMe's website that explains the three-step process: 1. Start your campaign, 2. Share with family and friends, 3. Manage donations. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo caption

In the infobox photo, the word "Synagogue" should have a lower case "s", as it's not part of the official name (Tree of Life Congregation). Or better yet, simply change "Synagogue" to "Congregation" in the infobox photo (and Victims section photo also, if you want). Yoninah already corrected this in the Victims section photo. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please avoid lumping liberals with blacks and Jews

I get that this edit summary somewhat makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist who watches too much wrestling, but hear me out. Multiple public attacks take place in America each and every day, even before Trump, even before Obama. Here's the latest and that's only the trendiest one.

And like I said the first time I removed this false equivalence attempt, if mailing a bomb that doesn't work to a private residence counts as a public attack, this would make 17, not three, even ignoring the hundreds of others. Stories just work better with threes, and CNN, MSNBC and The Washington Post are well aware of this. I'd like editors other than myself to be aware of this, too, lest Wikipedia be suckered into pushing their pre-midterm opinion as if it's a leadworthy fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying to say that these aren't related is... well, boggling, to be frank. And yes, it does sound conspiracist. These were not "everyday" attacks, there was a clear thread motivating them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with HandThatFeeds.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, what do you mean by this header?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought I was clear. CNN is attempting to drum up support for the left in the midterms by drawing the right as a a common enemy. We shouldn't pick sides, especially when many public attacks happened that week and 15 "bombings" are fifteen attacks, even if they weren't in public and didn't hurt anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
That is an outrageous statement and makes you sound yet more like a conspiracy theorist. O3000 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you think they fused them? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't draw conclusions and make accusations devoid of evidence. O3000 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you know why you said you want Wikipedia to fuse them? (Or did "Let's just follow RS" mean something else?) InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't remember using any words like that. This discussion is not useful. I have no interest in theories about threes or motivations behind RS. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
That's weird, I swear I see words exactly like that next to your signature right below this. Must be a virus. Do you find the proposed hate link in the CNN opinion piece signficant in any factual way, and do you have an interest in Wikipedia repeating the connection before mid-terms? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, saying that MSNBC, CNN, and WaPo are saying there were three public attacks simply because they like threes makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Let’s just follow RS and not pretend they are part of a conspiracy. O3000 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
To follow their lead is to ignore this attack. And this one. And this one. All in the same week, all reliably sourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
If you have a problem with WaPo or CNN as RS, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
If it's to be included, it should at least be reworded (and in Media reactions, not the lead); CNN doesn't mention anything about public attacks. Just incidents linked by "hate". A reliable source is no good if we misuse it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion as shown in this diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion as shown in this diff. We're not meant to present opinions as facts, and the opinion that the unprovoked double killing of two black men or the closest thing America's ever had to a mass extermination of Jews are on par with the intimidation of an elite group of national leaders who didn't get hurt at all is disgusting enough to be relegated to the reaction section. There's also a glaring conflict of interest, since CNN was one of the "targets" and these writers write for CNN, so I think WP:EXCEPTIONAL comes into play. Who else sees these three as equal, despite not a single hate crime charge pressed against the "bomber"? I'd rather we hear it from them, an independent reliable source. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion Not the edit-warred version just added by InedibleHulk that stated in Wikivoice that CNN is a high-profile liberal organization without a wit of evidence. This is disruptive editing and should be reverted immediately. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Can we compromise and leave out the descriptions of the allegedly equal minority groups, but leave it as the opinion it clearly is? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you revert the characterizations that you just added to the article in Wikivoice. It’s bad enough to post conspiracy theories on the TP; but you go way too far. This is currently a high profile article and you are forcing it into AP2 DS territory. O3000 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
How's this? All characterizations are sourced directly by the opinion piece's intro. We can't have it your way, per WP:YESPOV; without any indication that the odd case out involved a hate crime aspect (or attack), and no other solid definition of hate, Wikipedia's voice can't directly affirm all three involved it. (And I don't know what AP2 DS territory is.) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, see this section added to your TP two days ago: [1] O3000 (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Is the current version OK or not? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The current version has changed again, so I'll answer myself and contend it's still not. Even worse, with the think piece not mentioning "far-right" or "public attacks", let alone positing either as the common thread. Now we're left misrepresenting the spirit and the letter of the source, while still unduly highlighting a thinly-veiled political machination from a source with a clear vested interest in Democrats appearing relatable to two demographics at once. The very least someone could do is find a slightly more independent opinion writer to weave whatever pattern it is that's supposed to have the encyclopedic value here. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Your continued, baseless claims that CNN is a liberal organization attempting to elect Democrats is disruptive. If you have a problem with CNN, take it to WP:RSN. This is not the proper venue. O3000 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
CNN is fine for matters of fact, but when it comes to political leanings, anyone who's tuned into American TV since 9/11 can see they veer left and Fox veers right. An objective outlet does not trumpet headlines like "Nancy Pelosi is right. Democrats should win the House on Tuesday." Even in July, "Every sign is pointing to a Democratic wave in November". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I can’t even imagine why you would think that’s an indication of bias. Or, why you would ignore their statements that the Republicans will likely retain and even gain seats in the Senate; but cherry-pick one article. In any case, for the nth time, this is the wrong venue. You need WP:RSN. You have 64,000 edits. You should know your way around by now. O3000 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The only similar statement I can Google is "Republicans are viewed as more likely to retain the Senate than the House and Democratic leaders are projecting confidence that they will win the lower chamber of Congress." Even in that sentence, the bias is subtle but clear (to my grizzled eyes), through giving the Democratic prediction an active voice, humanization, more text and the last word. But this point isn't subtle at all. Nor this one or this one.
Larry King worked there for (roughly) 64,000 years and he knows what's up, too. The Internet's most-trusted bias-appraising website knows what's up. A man trusted enough (and sufficiently versed in lying) to be elected to lead the United States has repeatedly released his official findings on CNN's hatred, extreme bias and inability to function.
These are all strong indicators, taken together, that CNN is not the most neutral source we could use to pin two apparent hate crimes to a right-winger's political stunt to an election that will directly affect Trump's power to enact (alleged) habitual dangerous incompetence. As an overall source for straight facts, rather than ideological spin, it's reliable and I'd feel stupid bringing it up at that noticeboard. Maybe the NPOV or NOR one, if things still haven't ironed themselves out here by Monday. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Factually speaking, if three hate-related incidents/attacks occured this week in America and one of them was the 15 packages deal, where does that leave this guy from Friday? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Support inclusion which does not endorse any "lumping" POV by the way. It has been observed from all sides of the spectrum, including the right, that the rising political temperature has led to tension which has been floated as a connection between the three (or more) instances in the past week. The only difference is who the blame is pinned on-- but the text did not assert anything with regards to that.--Calthinus (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Your disagreement is your opinion. There were three different right-wing terrorist attacks in America within the span of a few days. Clarification is appropriate to avoid confusion between the three seemingly related attacks. My Wiki Alter Ego (talk)
Stop reinserting content that is unsupported by the sources. If the sentence were Some media sources pointed to the rhetoric of Trump and the Republican party as a possible explanation for the violence or something similar and was supported by a source, that would be one thing. But a line crafted to suggestively link several tragedies together only loosely based on opinion pieces is totally inappropriate and violates WP:SYNTH. And remember, even if we were to include the line about how some WP:RS have interpreted the violence as a symptom of political rhetoric, a position that does have support, we would be required to also include prominent opposing points per WP:DUE. Is that really a road we want to go down in the lede? Maybe the political analysis belongs elsewhere in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Please note who you are replying to, because I have never once edited this article, other than this Talk page where I added my own comments. My Wiki Alter Ego (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Your comment seemed to suggest disagreement with the idea that these three things are connected is just an opinion, implying the opposite opinion is some sort of fact. Wikieditor's response about the improper synthetic inerpretations of opinions into facts seems fitting. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
"Stop reinserting content that is unsupported by the source" was your reply to me. I have never edited this article and don't appreciate the accusation My Wiki Alter Ego (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As you advise, please note who is replying to you. Wikieditor19920 is not my Wiki alter ego. But if I was him or her, it might have had something to do with your paragraph's seeming association with the general position I oppose, as if we've all morphed into just two competing teams for simplicity's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, InedibleHulk, you had it right. My comment was more a general one, not specifically directed at My Wiki Alter Ego, though he is right that I should've clarified, so my apologies there. Concur with consensus for removal of the entire sentence. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
When I was last here, we alternately attributed either "public attack", "hate", "right-wing" or "terrorism" to CNN as their proposed commonality. When I came back, it had changed to attributing a "hate-incided public act of violence" central point to three different opinion pieces, none of which advance that idea. I've fixed it yet again and hope this version seems more reasonable to those who would distort it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
@Objective3000: @InedibleHulk: Re: your revert @ Objective...I actually think the version that Hulk put up is the best version so far, providing additional context. Thoughts?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This belongs in the ongoing discussion at [2]. I'd like to see thoughts of those in that this thread, and stability of current consensus text during discussion. O3000 (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not just additional context, to be clear. It relays the actual substance of what each commentator thought connected these, per WP:V. There's still wiggle room for how each point should be paraphrased/rhetoricized, but the basic way of presenting them as distinct and specific ideas cited separately to pieces sharing those ideas is a better gameplan than whipping up one poorly-crafted amalgamation to bind them all (and not because it's "my" idea). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Right, sure.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I don’t have a problem with moving to the body. Although, if such attacks continue, I’d revisit that. O3000 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Could it not appear in both body and lede?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If there's enough to write about it that's on topic where it needs summarized in the lead, then yes. If we're adding one sentence to the body so that we can then copy that sentence verbatim in the lead, then we're just adding content to prove a point regardless of the actual relative weight that it's due. GMGtalk 18:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The sources don't have to call the claims Wikipedia uses them to make dubious before a dubious tag is appropriate. That'd be prohibitively ridiculous. The claims just need to be demonstrably dubious, as this talk section mentions they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I've moved this out of the lead, as there seems to be a consensus for that. I don't see how it's dubious to note other contemporaneous events; the fact that the events occurred in the same week is not in question, nor is the fact that the incidents were "hate-incited". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't the guy who mailed the bombs charged with a hate crime? Why do two of the three sources used to claim this is all connected by hate claim it's connected by different phenomena? Why am I able to point out other hate-incited acts of violence in the United States that same week if this was one of just three? Of course it's still dubious, but I'm glad it's no longer prominent. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Indubitably indubious. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Then explain it! Or at least let me explain it. You can then change the parts you don't believe (and fix my spelling of "betwee"), so long as we're left conveying something resembling the truth from each of of these sidebar stories. Or delete the two (or one) that don't link them by "hate". Or whichever two anyone wants, so long as what's left is what's in the source (but not too closely matching) and opinions aren't stated as facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It has been explained. Watch your edit summaries. WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Where? In my edit summaries? Why are we citing a political column about these three things' combined political significance to politics but not mentioning the election at all? Why are we citing an op-ed blaming Trump for everything and not touching any of those things? Why must we imply Florida man is suspected of committing a hate crime when we also know the federal prosecutors who've already thrown the rest of the book at him left that page out? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
At this point, I fear I have no idea what you are talking about. WP is based upon consensus. You are not gaining consensus. Try another tactic. If you respond with something on point, I'll respond. Otherwise.... O3000 (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the two sources which don't vouch for the claim of a hate-inspired link now, and attribute this opinion to CNN, per WP:YESPOV and WP:V. I don't need local consensus to follow these policies, they've already been widely approved. If you feel like reverting me, I politely ask you explain (in an edit summary) why they belong next to a sentence that omits their material entirely. If unascribing CNN's opinion to make it appear like a fact, also explain why you believe this to be factual. I'll also move it to the "Media and organizations" subsection, but only out of my personal belief that most already agree CNN is a media organization. Clearer? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
And I meant "New York Times" in the summary, not "New York Post", in case anybody thinks I'm referencing references which didn't exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I support this edit. The "Media and organizations" section is the proper context. In my opinion this material is a relatively minor observation. We shouldn't be making more of it than is warranted. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that it's a reaction, is there consensus to ignore Joe Biden's account of the "all-out campaign of fear directed at immigrants" as a fourth thing? What about following the source that blames "the toxic politics of the President, and the racist, nationalist fervor that has been inflamed by his rise, and the success and the militancy of the gun lobby"? Or do we continue to frame it like CNN alone does and keep the other two citations simply for the illusion of unanimity? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Well, apparently this discussion is a waste of time since InedibleHulk says no consensus is required and they will edit-war whatever they wish into the article. O3000 (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a waste of time. Read it again, entirely ignoring everything you or I said this time; you should see several other people in agreeance that this opinion is an opinion, that it's not significant, defining or deeply-examined enough to belong in the lead and that we should claim nothing that isn't claimed by a reliable source. The version we have right now is shaped by those concerns, balanced against others' desires to mention the supposed connection at all. The "whatever I wish" version is still this version, once called the "best version", but it's not the version in the article and I didn't revert your undoing of it once. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
You keep removing the reliable sources, then claim there aren't any, sprinkle in conspiratorial comments that CNN is trying to elect Dems, and edit-warring in your version against consensus. You arguments are disingenuous at best. O3000 (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
As I carefully explained above, I removed them because they served no purpose. They were just sitting there, contrary to WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I've asked here what purpose they should serve, and gave some suggestions. Nobody has answered, including you. If you want the New Yorker or New York Times bits to vouch for a claim, which claim should that be? Before answering (if you bother answering), be sure that such claim is in the source. If you're just going to shit on every idea I have and offer no better alternative, this is just going to go in circles. And again, my version looks like this, not the one this consensus has arrived at. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
It is unimportant information. Three unrelated incidents took place in temporal proximity. So what? This is an article on only one of the three named incidents. As GMG has pointed out "we are not here...to provide WP:TRIVIA about tangentially related events." Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
This not only has been explained, but is consensus. And we add it because multiple reliable sources show the relevance. But, this editor keeps removing two sources without any explanation, then claims the remaining source is a part of a conspiracy to elect Dems devoid of evidence, and edit-wars their version, against consensus in this thread, into the article. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing has been explained. If it had, you'd be able to point me to the diff where it happened, or quote something, rather than insist it's been explained. "This editor" has twice explained the one time "they" removed both sources, with an explanation of the edit and an explanation of the fact that I've already explained this to you.
Maybe that's just a repeated honest mistake and I should keep assuming good faith. Sorry to shout. But could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that there's consensus against this thing's importance? Can you provide a diff or quote of where anyone said something positive to that effect?
And where (if I may ask) did you ever get the ridiculous idea that loading a claim with citations that only mention the subject of the claim (and make different claims about it) was ever intended as a way to "show relevance"? Do you think relevance means importance? Are you ever going to specify your prefered solution beyond including "Not the edit-warred version just added by InedibleHulk that stated in Wikivoice that CNN is a high-profile liberal organization without a wit of evidence."? That's a very vague suggestion, and this is all wrong on so many levels. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The other two incidents are only tangentially and coincidentally related to this incident. Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
That’s your opinion. RS appear to disagree. O3000 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it also my opinion that this is the article about the "Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" as opposed to the article about the "Jeffersontown Kroger shooting" or the article about the "October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts"? I first noticed this in the lede of this article. In this edit I moved it to the body of the article with the edit summary "not necessarily lede-worthy". It has since been moved to a better placement in the body. But it is still not an important piece of information in this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
We know it's your opinion. It's just against consensus. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You lost me there. Trick question. What is the title of this article? Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It's called historical context, and it is consensus here. Reading WP:CONSENSUS might be more valuable than snarky responses. O3000 (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
How "historical" is one week, actually less than one week? What is joining these three incidents other than temporal proximity? Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
AGAIN, we follow RS. Not your opinion that this is simply temporal proximity; but that there is a reason for such. Please use WP guidelines and RS instead of your own personal opinions. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is following the source right now. It says these three incidents happened in the United States this week and are all motivated by hate. So does CNN. What's the problem and how you would like to remedy it? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Only you keep removing the sources that don't follow your conspiracy theory that CNN is trying to elect Dems. The way to solve this is obvious. Revert to consensus and stop edit-warring and deleting valid sources. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
You just keep digging this absurd hole deeper. The NYT source gave plenty of support to my widely-shared theory. And that theory was never mentioned by any revision or proposal (so has nothing to do with related references), it was just something I told you for context as to why we shouldn't regurgitate CNN's opinion before the election. As I've told you four times now, neither deleted source backed the claim it was attached to, simple as that. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again—what is joining these three incidents other than temporal proximity? Please respond by cutting and pasting from sources or just in your own words. This is dialogue. We are talking. That is how collaborative editing works, in my humble opinion. Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
What RS say. We follow consensus and RS. You are violating both. As I said, this is pointless. You two have no intention of following consensus or using RS. You are simply edit-warring. O3000 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

Reliable sources chalk up the increase in incidents to electoral politics. Also to guns. They come down on both sides of the questions around gun availability, with some arguing that armed guards and even an armed citizenry protect against "bad guys with guns". The other side of the gun argument is that gun availability should be curtailed. But these are talking points. They are merely tangential to an article on one specific incident. This is a perennial problem—where to place material. There is a limit to how appropriately the material in question can be cobbled onto this article. There may be other already existing articles or articles waiting to be created for this material. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting/Archive_2&oldid=935330726"