Talk:2022 New York City Subway attack

Attack or shooting?

It's currently not being considered a terrorist attack, and other recent mass shootings all use shooting in the title. Any reason why this one should be titled differently? Otherwise move to 2022 Brooklyn subway shooting. BBC and NYT refer to it as a shooting, USA Today uses both attack and shooting. --jonas (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Smoke bombs were used so it is not a shooting. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be shooting but we can wait and see what the majority focus on. 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting says 4 people were injured by tear gas but it's still called shooting. Currently this ABC News article says it's "a smoke canister commonly bought online" and doesn't refer to it as an attack. Raymond Spencer (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but please explain yourself. 10 people shot is not a shooting? Your response has left me a bit confused. Juneau Mike (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Dunutubble meant that it's not only a shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

BBC now moved to attack.[1] Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Tomato Tomahto. The primary weapon here was a gun. A secondary weapon was two smoke grenades. There were also unused fireworks that were recovered. Both attack and shooting could be used and it is a small distinction. It was a mass shooting whatever the title. Pikavoom ^Talk 05:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"2022 Brooklyn attack" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2022 Brooklyn attack and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 12#2022 Brooklyn attack until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Too much detail in Aftermath

In the Aftermath section I think there is too much detail about the service closures. I haven’t removed anything relating to it but I believe that it can stay as just stating which services were delayed or temporarily closed. Grey13z (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Change "several undetonated devices" to "two non-detonated smoke grenades". The initial quote is no longer in the article as more information has come to light. There were initially rumours of explosives but "there were no known active explosive devices on the train." (From the same article.) Piman10 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A .380 caliber handgun was not used. The NYPD Chief of Detectives said it was a 9mm. Raymond Spencer (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

According to this ABC article a police official said it was a .380; we may need to wait a bit for clarity in the sources. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a bit of confusion in the initial sources. I see now 9mm Glock in later sources, however .380 ACP and 9mm are very close, with .380 ACP also being called 9mm Browning. The difference between 9mm and .380 as usually used is not diameter but bullet length. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I updated the article with Glock 17 9mm, they recovered the weapon and magazines, and later sources point out the exact model. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

New photo

We need a new photo, like one of the crime scene at least. An irrelevant picture from seven years ago is lame. HumanHistory1 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If you have one, that would be great. I am thinking of replacing the station photo with a photo of the inside of subway car, as the attack was carried out inside the train when the train was moving. Pikavoom ^Talk 11:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How is a picture of the station irrelevant? If you're able to get a picture of the crime scene then feel free to do that. Otherwise, I'd say that an interior of a subway car is even more "irrelevant" and "lame" than a picture of the station where victims got off. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think pictures of empty trains or platforms are particularly helpful to the reader; the image of the group of victims at 36th St would be best, out of what we have so far. While all three might be Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, one with people affected on the day itself must, by its nature, fulfil those criteria better than the others, which are more distant from the topic. SN54129 12:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a picture of the victims would be the most relevant. However, in the absence of such a picture, I'd argue an image of the station would be more relevant than the interior of the subway car. (Given how the MTA is fairly quick on uploading compatibly licensed images to its Flickr account, though, I wouldn't be surprised if images of the aftermath were uploaded later.) – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The attack didn't take place the station. The attack was inside of a moving railway car, this is a video from the attack: [2]. This is what the car looked like afterwards: [3]. Pikavoom ^Talk 13:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

the __ Street station

I’ve noticed that whenever a station is mentioned, someone has added ‘the’ in front of it (e.g. the 25th street station) and I think that it would be more suitable without the ‘the’. Grey13z (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Putting "the" before the station names is both more natural and grammatically correct. If you removed the station name, it would not be grammatically correct, e.g. "Passengers got off at 36th Street station" becomes "Passengers got off at station". It is the station, so thus we should use a parallel grammatical construction. So I think we should leave it. (I should note, however, that it makes sense to remove the definite article if you also drop "station", e.g. "Passengers got off at 36th Street"). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. To me there is a "the" if it ends with "station", because there is one specific station. There is no "the" if there is no "station". So "they disembarked at 36th street" and "they disembarked at the 36h street station". Pikavoom ^Talk 14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The syntax is changed, but by the street rather than station. For example, contrast "I got off at the Square" and "I got off at Times Square" (both gram. correct) and "I got off at Square", grammatically incorrect. AmEng for ya! SN54129 14:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Beefed up

I made an account to point this out, so I can't make the edit while this article is protected, but can someone change the line about the mayor's security detail being "beefed up" to something that's a bit more professional language? Hemohobgoblin (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the cattle, but I'm not alone (Telegraph ("Jens Stoltenberg: We need a beefed-up Nato to face down", NBC ("Bay Area transit agencies beefed up security Tuesday following a mass shooting in the New York City subway system")). What phrase would you suggest as an alternative? Pikavoom ^Talk 15:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How about improved or increased? Jim Michael (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Reaction

A small point to note but I think the wording around Uber and Lyft could be better. It sounds like the article is saying they were "accused" of giving customers refunds. Also, surge pricing happens automatically when the supply is higher than the demand. The article makes it sounds like the surges were orchestrated in some way. CroissantAvenue (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Croissant Avenue

Injuries not casualties

The article erroneously states that there were “29 casualties.” Please correct 2601:14A:C001:33D0:D986:33DC:B44A:21C6 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Casualties can be injuries. JungleEntity (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not all casualties are fatalities.

However I would agree this could confuse some people and should be clarified in text. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Height of Frank R. James

Article states that Frank R. James is 5' 5". Photos of his arrest by New York Police Department have been released. In these photos he looks much taller, unless NYPD has a lot of 4' 11" cops. Lyttle-Wight (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Frank James motivations

Shouldn't Frank James motivations having Black nationalist beliefs be included in the articles. There are reliable sources available as you see in these sources [4][5] [6][7][8]. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Good luck adding them yourself. Someone will come up with some reason why they can't or shouldn't be included, probably. Dogman15 (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

There's also that slatersteven guy who polices the Waukesha Massacre page; he's always on guard as well. 2601:642:C401:72D0:58AC:DF70:F286:C4FF (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

his youtube channel reportedly contained plenty of hatred against BIPOC, Jewish people, Asian diaspora, and homeless people. sounds rather Uncle Ruckus. 2601:18C:8700:C980:5125:5EB5:2E90:2D27 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be more political than racial. I don't know, but politics could be a factor Brookline Fire buff (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

On the day of the shooting, the NYPD said they weren't treating it as a terrorist incident. On the following day, James was charged with a terrorist offense. The article should say why. Jim Michael (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached to include his black nationalist and racist ties in the lede as well as the article. It's been added. Innican Soufou (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Innican Soufou: – could you please show where this consensus has been reached? That sentence has been removed a few times and re-added a few times; I don't see that as anything near consensus. Please also be aware that you're on the edge of WP:3RR too; these are content disputes and so not exempt from 3RR – in this edit you state the removal of the wording was due to vandalism, but it was this edit that removed it (which is clearly not vandalism). Thanks, MIDI (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@MIDI: Feel free to refer to the talk page in order to alleviate any concerns. Innican Soufou (talk)

This is the only section that refers to the content, and there is certainly no consensus (or attempt to build) consensus. You've stated that consensus has been reached – could you please show me where? Thank you again. MIDI (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Their is clear consensus. See this talk page, reality and the article. 24.57.55.50 (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

@Neutrality:@Innican Soufou: Please, no more reverts to this article right now. Use this page to establish consensus. Given that we are in a cycle of this content being added and removed, we clearly do not have consensus either way. Please both discuss here without further implementing your desired changes. MIDI (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I see no evidence of consensus to include the proposed wording. I also don't think it's appropriate wording for the lead, because it doesn't reflect what the article says. The body says "James' beliefs have been linked to black nationalism". That really isn't the same as saying someone is a black nationalist. It might seem like they are equivalent wordings, but they're not. He might be, but we need to be able to verify that. What does "linked to black nationalism" even mean? If WP:RS do say he is a black nationalist, then we should update the body wording as appropriate. Only then should the lead say the same. As User:Neutrality has previously said, the onus to provide this verification is on the editor who adds the content. MIDI (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude his racist, black nationalist motivations. Iv re-added the important information and cited multiple sources. If you have sources that disprove his racism, please present them before whitewashing article. Innican Soufou (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm clearly not looking to disprove anything, and I'm certainly not whitewashing – in fact, I don't think I've even removed the content you're adding. Your additions have been removed by multiple editors, with one saying there is no consensus to add it. You said that there is no consensus to remove it. This sort of stalemate is evidence of no consensus either way. I have asked you multiple times to prove or otherwise seek consensus, and you appear to have ignored this request. I will again refer you to your comment that "Consensus has been reached". It hasn't, else we wouldn't be having this conversation. MIDI (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The expression "black nationalist" is used in multiple reliable sources to describe James. I don't know why that requires "consensus" for inclusion. WWGB (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It needs consensus because editors have disputed whether it should be included in the lead; simply repeatedly adding and removing it is not productive. I think for the time-being I oppose its inclusion in the lead (not the body), at least with the current wording, because it implies a motive. We cite sources that state "Police have not given a motive for the attack".

That said, if we do include it in the lead, the wording needs to be tweaked I think – the lead is different to the article body. Lead states he is a black nationalist, body says he posted/shared black nationalist stuff; that's not quite the same. WP:CONTENTIOUS implies we should cite a source that explicitly labels him a black nationalist. If we have a source that literally states that, we shouldn't beat around the bush and should use that exact wording in the article body. MIDI (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

He was a member of the Nation of Islam was he not, a racist Black Supremacist organisation. Why is this not in the article? Rustygecko (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Because editors with an agenda already took control. This guy was a black supremacist racist and it should be stated that it was an anti-white terror attack in the article itself. 2A02:810B:4B3F:D788:7866:2BCC:E3EA:3A60 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"Part of"

Why does the infobox say "Part of mass shootings in the United States"? Mass shootings in the US are sporadic and unrelated acts of violence, not a coordinated terrorist campaign or an ongoing war, which is what the "Part of" section in that infobox is reserved for. That addition seems strange to me. --DannyC55 (Talk) 05:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because nearly one-third of the world's public mass shootings occur in the United States, so it really is an ongoing, American thing. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is not optimal. However 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, which had a similar alleged motivation, also links to that. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Suspect section

I was checking through the article, just fixing a couple things and saw that most of the stuff in the suspect section seems more suitable in the investigation section, as a lot of it seems more relevant to the investigation than the subject. Grey13z (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Selection of his previous comments

It seems as if the current selected comments are incredibly poor given the scope of this attack. For the time being unless something further is revealed regrding his motives, the quotes should primarily focus on any comments he made about killing people and/or any comments he made regarding supporting/enginging in terrorism, since these are the things he is specificlly being charged with/ccused of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:300:6C30:45A9:CBF7:79C2 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, there are just so many comments he made about so many subjects, not much of a coherent stance or ideology among them, and so little in-depth (not quick hit) analysis from the media, that us trying to choose a "representative" sample would verge on WP:OR if not be it outright. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

indeed, there is a lot he has appraently said, which calls into question what quotes should be put into the article, since we obviously can't include them all. If any arre incuded, certinly the ones relted to illing/shooting/terrorism should be included. I'm not quite sure what the relevance of WP:OR regrding the matter. obviously the quotes need to come from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:300:6C30:45A9:CBF7:79C2 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth

Re: Frank R. James. Seems to be reported as August 8, 1959. But not quite good enough sources. Are not police reports, arrest reports, etc., publicly available somewhere? I assume they'd list his Date of Birth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the federal complaint. I don't see any DOB, but we must also note the limitation of WP:BLPPRIMARY for DOB etc (though it has not been consistently applied for suspected criminals). Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was probably thinking more along the lines of a police report ... where there are all sorts of blank boxes (name, address, phone, race, birth, height, weight, eye color, hair color, etc.) that the police fill in. I assume that is out there, somewhere, in the public? Even jail booking forms. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Title

This article's title is ambiguous, because the death of Michelle Go was also an attack on the NYC Subway in 2022. This article's title should be moved to 2022 New York City Subway shooting, April 2022 New York City Subway attack or 2022 Brooklyn attack. Jim Michael (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Which title would be the best? Jim Michael (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of a decent title, at the moment. But, I was agreeing that this incident and the Michelle Go incident needed some better wording to distinguish them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Any "confusion" with the death of Michelle Go is taken care of with a hatnote. This involved smoke bombs and a gun, so it was not just a shooting. WWGB (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Why have any ambiguity in the title? Jim Michael (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. The Go article does not mention an attack. WWGB (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That article doesn't include the word attack, but the first sentence of its lead makes it clear that it's about a fatal attack. Jim Michael (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think 2022 Brooklyn Attack or 2022 Brooklyn Subway Attack. Grey13z (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

My !vote is for 2022 New York City Subway shooting, as the incident was primarily a shooting, with the gas bombs being secondary to the attacker's actions. I'm wary of using Brooklyn as a disambiguator because it's not really precise; this was a shooting on the subway specifically. The April 2022 title may work, but that would indicate Death of Michelle Go is named January 2022 New York City Subway attack, which it currently is not. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a common name for this event. Most sources I have seen say (UK perspective) use both depending on the mood of the editor. FT: [9][10]; BBC: [11][12]; The Guardian:[13][14]. We should be biased towards the description which is most neutral (at least that is my reading of WP:DESCRIPTOR). I think "shooting" is more neutral than "attack", the latter of which may suggest the event is particularly vicious (see) or that it involves an ideological element (hence the prevalence of "terrorist attack"). Shooting works for me. Solipsism 101 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I prefer Brooklyn over New York as it is more specific and I don't see any greater ambiguity for Brooklyn over New York, there is even a New York (Ukraine). I am neutral regarding attack vs. shooting, though if it helps with disambig it could be title as a shooting. It was a mass shooting and the main weapon was a gun. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you use "New York City" (not "New York"), then there is much less ambiguity since NYC is much more well known globally. It also avoids confusion with New York (state), New York (Ukraine), etc. By contrast, "Brooklyn" also can be confused with all of those places. In general, we want to only include as much additional detail in the title as necessary, per WP:TITLEDAB. However, this incident took place entirely on the subway, so "2022 New York City Subway attack", "2022 New York City Subway shooting", "2022 Brooklyn subway attack", etc. may be better as titles. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"2022 New York City Subway massacre" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2022 New York City Subway massacre has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2 § 2022 New York City Subway massacre until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)