"A white gunman"[edit]

@Drmies: Can we talk about this? You want to have the opening sentence say "a white gunman armed with an AR-style rifle fired shots…" You’ve restored the word "white" twice after other people have removed it. You argue that "white" is "verified in a thousand news articles". Well, is it? Of the articles we cite here, three mention, somewhere down in the body of their story, that "the gunman is described as a 19-year-old white male." The other sixteen articles (I didn’t count Twitter) do not mention "white" at all. No article makes a big point of it, as we would certainly be doing if we put it in the lead sentence. It's true that Earnest describes himself, in his 4chan letter, as "a man of European ancestry", we could mention that somewhere if you want. Police say he has no known link to white supremacist groups.

I really don’t see why it is so important to you to emphasize "Caucasian". After all, the four victims are also Caucasian, aren’t they? This incident doesn’t appear to be about race - it's about other forms of bigotry - but emphasizing "a white gunman" in the lead sentence certainly makes it sound that way. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The word "white" does not belong in the lead. I don't mind if it's in the body. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that "white" should go in the body section, where the suspect is described. Regarding "This incident doesn’t appear to be about race", however, some Jews and non-Jews do consider the Jewish people to be a race. (This is a complicated and controversial issue, beyond the scope of this article.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that someone has removed it from the lead sentence. I have added it to the body of the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that this was an antisemitic attack by a white nationalist, it seems relevant to me that the shooter, a white nationalist, was in fact white. That the victims were "Caucasian" is probably a matter of serious discussion (elsewhere), as Funcrunch noted. I suppose it's OK to take it from the lead, I don't know, as long as it is somewhere; I have mixed feelings about that but this isn't about my feelings. Anyway, "doesn't appear to be about race" is kind of a canard--well-informed people will explain how race is a social construct in the way we use it, but for that shooter it did appear to be about race, unless we want to argue that he had some well-thought out discourse laying around on what makes someone Jewish, in which he argued that it's about self-identification. But I doubt that. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry if I complicated the discussion with an offhand remark; I agree the situation with regard to "race" is far more complex than I described it, and that discussion is way beyond the scope of this talk page. However, I do think we are winding up at the same place here - to include it in the text, in the police description of the person. That’s what we have now. Looking at a few other articles, I could not find a comparable article where the shooter’s race was identified in the lead sentence. I see that the Pittsburgh shooting article mentions, in the text, a police description of the shooter as “white,” while the Christchurch shooting article does not mention the shooter’s race anywhere. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's OK. At some point, though, one wonders where that community discussion is, not just here but in the country as a whole, when the question will be asked whether or not the mass murderer's race (or "race") isn't an essential part of the crime because, well, duh... Drmies (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend towards inclusion of the identifier. The section on the alleged perpetrator is like a mini-BLP embedded in an "incident" article, the only thing this person is known for. Some description of his identity, including incidentals, is appropriate even if they may or may not have a clear impact on the story. In the case of his being white, he seems to bring this into the story. Let error towards inclusion without prejudice. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have included it, in the section about the suspect. The controversy here was whether to make it part of the lead sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I see someone removed it from that section. I have restored it since that seems to be the consensus here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not agree with "White" being in the description and one of reason is that the race of non-whites are never mentioned. It appears that wiki-editors do their best to mention race only when it can make White people look racist but never ever would they do that against non whites so I vote to remove White from the description or go back and add the race of all the other killers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.62.50 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the race of non-whites are never mentioned This is not true. Your opinion amounts to WP:FORUM which is not helpful at talk pages. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass shooting[edit]

This is a mass shooting per this source - the Daily Beast - https://www.thedailybeast.com/san-diego-synagogue-shooting-multiple-people-including-children-injured-at-synagogue-chabad-of-poway-suspect-in-custody

And Bloomberg called it a mass shooting as well. https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-04-28/the-latest-rabbi-recalls-moment-shooter-confronted-him

And ABC calls it a mass shooting. https://abc7news.com/amp/rabbi-hails-heroes-who-chased-off-poway-synagogue-gunman/5275030/

And CBS calls it a mass shooting. https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/04/28/yisroel-goldstein-chaim-goldstein-poway-synagogue-shooting/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E010:1100:B520:41BD:41D1:599E (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MSNBC called it a mass shooting. https://www.msnbc.com/kasie-dc/watch/rabbi-who-survived-synagogue-shooting-tells-suspect-hating-jews-is-hating-humanity-we-are-all-humans-1512907331914

The New York Times called it a mass shooting. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/04/28/us/ap-us-synagogue-shooting-california-the-latest.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E010:1100:B520:41BD:41D1:599E (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It also meets the first sentence of mass shooting - as formerly explained (and ignored by an editor).

“A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence.”

No reason to delete the reference to mass shooting. Really odd that an editor has done so repeatedly. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B520:41BD:41D1:599E (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass shootings in the United States suggests the killing of at least four people. WWGB (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That “one common definition” conflicts with the first sentence of the WP article it is subsidiary to. And both say there is not an agreed upon single definition. But we do here have lots of top news media specifically calling this shooting a mass shooting and that should be enough to determine that it is ok to call this a mass shooting. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B520:41BD:41D1:599E (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I added this article to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019, I did so because it matched the first two listed definitions offered there:
  • Mass Shooting Tracker: 4+ shot in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time.
  • Gun Violence Archive: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.
That said, I don't have a strong opinion over whether this "counts" as a mass shooting or not; the event is horrific and tragic regardless. Funcrunch (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most common definition is at least 4 people shot in one incident, regardless of how many are killed. Jim Michael (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes more sense. The gunman here unloaded 10 rounds and was shooting at everyone in sight. Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of article[edit]

Should the word synagogue be capitalised, as is it referring to a specific synagogue? --82.2.5.153 (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. It is not called the "Poway Synagogue", but the "Chabad Community Center", which is located in Poway. Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"F*** the Jews"[edit]

According to a friend of the heroic dead lady, the man who carried out the attack said, "Fuck the Jews". That's probably significant, as it illustrates sectarianism and hateful intent. Here is a link to a BBC article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48096197 I don't know if it qualifies as a usable source. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are differing reports from witnesses, ranging from "he said nothing" to "he shouted obscenities". Let's wait for confirmation or additional information. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to revisit this. If there are some reports that he said nothing, and some reports that he said something, then maybe that should be included in the article. --82.2.5.153 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undue weight tag[edit]

I see that an "undue weight" tag has been added to the section discussing the theological controversy among various Christians that this shooting has brought up. These two paragraphs appear to have initially been added primarily based on the Post article on that subject. However, I added more information to that section tonight, since, in my view, the quotations used from Rev. Kwon in this article did not fully represent what he had been quoted as saying in the Post article, and, in fact, could lead people to believe that Rev. Kwon was stating that anti-Semitism was a necessary consequence of Christian teaching. That is not Rev. Kwon's belief, and the Post article indicates that, which is why I included more of his statement from that article. I also added a quote from a Reformed theologian, since it does not seem in my view to be NPOV to include Fea's characterization of Reformed theology as a "replacement theology" when many Reformed theologians do not agree with that characterization.

If people generally believe that this section is too significant in the article as a whole, I certainly think that it can be trimmed down, but I would want to make sure that it was done in a way that didn't leave the impression that mainstream, modern Reformed theology condones anti-Semitic violence. Evan Donovan (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my view, I think it's worth covering the debate on these theological issues at reasonable length, just as it would be for an alleged shooter who claimed to be following the teachings of Islam or any other religion as a motive for his or her crime. Compare how this issue is handled on the page for Paul Jennings Hill. Both his theological motivations and the arguments against them by other Christians are discussed fairly pervasively in that article.

The only difference here would be if it is concluded that Earnest's claims of religious motivation are not sincere by comparison to Hill's and that he was motivated purely by white supremacist ideology. But that is precisely what is under debate, and so it is worth covering. Evan Donovan (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it was concluded that this was undue weight, here's what I would propose:

The suspect was a member of the Escondido Orthodox Presbyterian Church, part of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a theologically traditionalist Christian denomination (link to Post article). The Orthodox Presbyterian Church issued a statement condemning the shooter's actions and repudiating anti-Semitism (link to their statement).

That would be more succinct, and avoid getting into questions around Christianity and anti-Semitism more than may be necessary in this context. If people wanted to read more about that, they could do so in the Post article, since it would still be linked. My initial primary concern was that I believed that Kwon's quote in the Post article was being taken out of context. This thread from Duke Kwon's Twitter indicates the parts of Earnest's manifesto which he believed to be correct - https://twitter.com/dukekwondc/status/1123773161831575555. They were not the parts on anti-Semitism.

Evan Donovan (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agreed with the undue weight tag. I have trimmed the information considerably, and in particular I got rid of the theological quibbling about the relative roles of Jews and Christians. Sorry, I edit-conflicted with you while you were writing this proposed version. I did leave in a little more of the debate than you did. Do you think it's still too much? or did I leave out anything important? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you did a good job on this. As a Christian myself, it would be easy for me to put in too much material on this, so I was trying to figure out a way to be NPOV on it, while correctly characterizing the statements of Kwon, et al. Stylistically, the only thing I would wonder is whether it is necessary to say "denomination" after Orthodox Presbyterian Church, since it is clear from the earlier context in the article that that is the name of the denomination. Also, I think the quote from the OPC statement should have an "[a]". I tried to make that edit, but it was a conflict, so I've left it alone for now. I'll check back tomorrow to see if anyone else is working on this.
As with any terror attack, I think potential religious motives are worth discussing (and I read his entire manifesto just now), but there are clearly other motives, and it's also unclear whether all of his manifesto was written in sincerity or was misdirection, like the Christchurch manifesto. Evan Donovan (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, a shooter's motives are worth discussing, and if they include religion, that belongs here. But I don't think extensive commentary from third parties on whether he was interpreting his religion "correctly" or not belongs here, and I agree with the person who deleted several additional paragraphs along that line. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2019[edit]

“We forcefully condemn the evil of anti-Semitism and hate,” - Trump told the crowd in Green Bay, Wisconsin. “It must be defeated. We will all get to the bottom of it.” This needs to be added to "Trump's reaction" section. It NEEDS to be there to take the oxygen out of the Neo-Nazi movement. 2600:8801:F902:1300:383A:FF5:2AAB:D289 (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. All quotes need to be sourced for proper attribution. NiciVampireHeart 08:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was widely quoted, including in the Washington Post.[1] Fences&Windows 18:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose that Escondido mosque fire be merged into this article, as its own section. They were committed by the same person less than a month apart for the same reasons, and the mosque fire is only properly understood in the context this article provides. No one died or was injured in that attack, while they were in Poway (I don't think the fire independently fulfills the GNG or NEVENT, while this does, and there's not enough content to warrant a split). The fire is usually mentioned as a footnote to the shooting. I would like to expand this article and it would be nice to not have to split information on what is best noted together between two different, smaller, and worse articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did it, sorry for not waiting very long, but Wikipedia guidelines say to WP:BEBOLD, I don't see anyone realistically disagreeing with this, and it was impeding me from improving the article. Pretty much no content besides the infobox was removed anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories