Talk:2026 Montreal shooting

@Alansohn. Hi, you added a mention that this neighbourhood has a substantial Jewish population in the very intro of the Wiki page. Though, from the article you cited, a Rabbi from New York directly in communication with Chabad representatives in Montreal, said that it was unclear this was attack on the Jewish community.

The full quote from https://www.jta.org/2026/06/22/global/shots-fired-in-jewish-neighborhood-of-montreal

It was not clear if the intended targets were Jewish, but Rabbi Motti Seligson, a Chabad spokesman in New York, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that, based on what he has heard from Chabad representatives in Montreal, the shooting does not seem to be related to the Jewish community

I would like to refrain from possibly hinting or insinuating this was an attack on a particular ethnic group. The Cote-des-Neiges neighbourhood is a very diverse neighbourhood. See this article (https://www.mtl.org/en/experience/welcome-cote-neiges) which states that Cote-des-Neiges is home to "over 100 different ethnic communities". Another source (https://www.centraide-mtl.org/en/neighbourhood-profiles/montreal-island/cote-des-neiges/) claims that "nearly half of residents ... are immigrants". I know first-hand that this neighbourhood is also home to a large Filipino community; the largest one I know in Montreal. IrateSpecialist (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

• IrateSpecialist, further details have been added regarding other shooting incidents targeted at the area's Jewish community, which is specifically relevant to the context of the incident and has been highlighted in multiple sources. If you can point to any articles making a connection between this shooting and the area's large Filipino community (or any of the 98 other communities), please do so. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I'm not denying that shots were fired previously at buildings connected to the Jewish community. The motivation of the shooter has not yet been released. It does not make sense to link previous shootings in the area to this one. IrateSpecialist (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Here are more recent shootings in the area than the ones from 2023 and 2024 you mentioned:

  https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-crime/two-armed-assaults-within-hours-of-each-other-leave-three-men-injured-montreal-police-say/

  https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/teenager-hospitalized-after-being-shot-multiple-times-in-cote-des-neigesnotre-dame-de-grace/

  https://montreal.citynews.ca/2026/03/24/shots-fired-business-cote-des-neiges-notre-dame-de-grace/ IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Why don't we also highlight these shootings? IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Here's one specifically addressing violence prevention measures in the Filipino community in the CDN neighbourhood: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-filipino-community-more-inclusion-1.6320284 IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

  • IrateSpecialist, the source citied from this reference explicitly connects the demographics of the neighborhood and the previous shootings. There are a number of Jewish schools and synagogues in the area, including the Spanish and Portuguese synagogue, the oldest congregation in the country, established in 1768 and which moved to the neighborhood in 1947. The neighborhood is now the site of a large Chabad community and a number of Jewish restaurants and delis. The neighborhood has been targeted by gunfire in recent years, including incidents in 2023 and 2024 where shots were fired at Orthodox schools. I've looked for connections to the Filipino community (and the 98 others you list) but I couldn't find anything that makes the connection to tis incident. Nor could I find any connection to any of the other shootings you listed. On what basis do you argue that those shootings should be listed here in this article? Alansohn (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    The article you are linking mentions past shootings but there is no claim of any link between those past shootings and the one discussed in this article. We either document all past shootings in the area or none at all until the shooter's motives are known. IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    I've incorporated Rabbi Motti Seligson's mention that the shooting does not seem to be related to the Jewish community into the article.

    Feel free to remove mentions of past shootings. I think Rabbi Seligson's comment is a good compromise here, if you really want to include the Jewish community into the article. IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    IrateSpecialist, hard not to agree that a laundry list of all neighborhood crimes seems unnecessary, especially given that no source made a connection to this incident, unlike the JTA source already in the article that connects to the 2023 and 2024 shootings. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    The JTA source mentions the previous shootings and the current one in the same article but they do not claim that they are connected, which is why I believe it is premature to include them in the Wikipedia article. We have to wait until the police press conference reveals the shooter's motivations. IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    JTA mentioned the other shootings in the last paragraph while the Jewish nature of the neighborhood was in the headline. Other sources don't even mention these other events NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    I believe mentions of the attacks being anti-Semitic in nature to be premature. Even if the JTA mentions these other shootings, they do not explicitly link those shootings to the one mentioned in this article, nor do they provide a motivation for the shooter. We should wait until the SPVM reports a motivation before adding mentions of anti-Semitism into the article.

    I do not understand why other users on this platform are trying to shoehorn anti-Semitism as a motivation. I feel like they are not acting in good faith. IrateSpecialist (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    It is far from good faith.

    The shooter was an incel: https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2026/06/22/fusillade-a-montreal-le-suspect-a-laisse-un-manifeste-dans-lequel-il-sattaque-aux-femmes BennamStyle (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    Thanks. Let's see if official word from the SPVM confirms this. IrateSpecialist (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    CBC's live updates are reporting that Radio-Canada has confirmed that the shooter distributed an incel manifesto. IrateSpecialist (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    I also disagree with stating that it was an antisemitic attack at this stage but I think the Jewish nature of the neighborhood is worth mentioning, as did pretty much all sources so far.

    I think we are all engaging here in good faith and would advise you to assume the same NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    Literally no official source is talking about an attack aimed at the Jewish community. Let's stop this narrative and focus on what the police says, eh? BennamStyle (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    The only sources trying to frontline this narrative are the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and the Times of Israel, which both clearly have very strong biases.

    Local news sources (CBC, Le Journal de Montreal, and Radio-Canada) are starting to report this was an incel attack. IrateSpecialist (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    I have assumed good faith this whole time, and I continue to do so. That's why I have tried to have a conversation on the Talk page. I even contributed somewhat to the paragraphs mentioning anti-Semitism before they were deleted by other users as facts on the civilian victim came out. I have done my best to remain objective.

    It's just very difficult to do so when I'm seeing strong pushes for this anti-Semitism narrative when it hasn't been confirmed by the police. I just want a pause on mentions of anti-Semitism until a concrete link has been confirmed by the police or local journalists.

    The only links between this incident and anti-Semitism are that

    - the shooting took place in a neighbourhood with a substantial Jewish community, and

    - the neighbourhood has had targeted anti-Semitic shootings in the past.

    Neither of these links necessarily mean that the shooter had anti-Semitic motives. IrateSpecialist (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    Just to make myself clear, I repeat that I am against saying that the shooting was motivated by antisemitism. However, pretty much all reports on this spoke of the Jewish nature of the neighborhood one way or another (CNN, The Guardian, NYT). The outlier is BBC, which doesn't say it's Jewish but does include a statement from a Jewish org The civilian killed in the attack was Michael Moshe Mizrahi, "a beloved member of Montreal's Jewish community", said the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

    It can be both an attack in a Jewish neighborhood an an incel attack at the same time. NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    I'm against these types of pages anyways but if we do make them, we should at least do so properly NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

    It looks like the JTA article we've been discussing has been edited. It removed Rabbi Motti Seligson's comment that the shooting does not seem to be related to the Jewish community, and it quotes a new individual, Moshe Blech, who claims to have recognized the civilian victim as a member of the Jewish community, though their identity has not been released by the police. Even if the attacks turn out to have anti-semitic motivations, I still find it premature to have mentioned them before the police press conference. IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Have any copyright free images relating to the incident been released yet? ~2026-35642-63 (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

A vandalizer deleted my previous reply. I had said:

I, or some other locals, could probably take photos around where the incident took place. What kinds of photos would be good for this article? The Hilton Hotel? Aylo HQ? IrateSpecialist (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

A photo of where either the female officer or shooter was positioned would be ideal, however a generic picture of the hotel would work fine. ~2026-35642-63 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

IrateSpecialist How goes the photography? ~2026-37077-78 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

i don't use Wikipedia whatsoever to edit but are we sure they're rumors? video clearly shows a civilian walking over to an officer which promptly scares them, causing the officer to shoot them in the head ~2026-36276-10 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Indeed, the wording of that section and the one below seem to be implying that the civilian was targeted by the shooter instead of being shot in error by the cop. Along with the anti-Semitic angle that seems forced and out of place - does it matter what initial reports were, now that the facts are known? 'Jewish Canadian member of the Jewish community' also seems unnecessary. Uhnyt Eiolog (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree. The anti-Semitic angle is no longer relevant. These "initial reports" were perpetuated by news sources like the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Times of Israel. France 24 also participated in this speculation, but the current version of the article -- (https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20260622-shooting-montreal-jewish-neighbourhood-leaves-three-dead-including-suspect) -- seems to have lost that language. IrateSpecialist (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

^ the incel-angle should also be retracted due to the shooters manifesto ranting about porn ruining people. the shooting occured outside of aylo's offices which runs most porn sites. theres no motive other than porn from what im hearing ~2026-36276-10 (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't fully understand why you believe the incel angle should be retracted. Incel ideology and his hate for Aylo and what it represents are not mutually exclusive. The news is calling him an incel or, at the very least, someone with incel ideologies. Though, I don't think they've released his manifesto yet. IrateSpecialist (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I read the manifesto from Rebel news, a pretty biased news source, but it would be pretty hard to fabricate such a huge document in such little time. Based off these reports, he was involved in incel-culture, but I don't think he specifically identified as one. Some of his claims in the manifesto also directly contradict the antisemitic angle and he appears to be a socialist. I won't edit the page, because obviously the manifesto is unverified, but from what I've seen ~2026-36276-10 (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is such an idiotic take.

Your source is a far-right extremist "news" website. ~2026-37095-36 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think it's best to avoid writing down rumours and wait to cite a reputable news source, even if you believe you are right about what you see in the video. IrateSpecialist (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Until it is confirmed by police, I would leave it at rumours. However, I do agree. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Can we remove the current wording "Further videos on social media appeared to show one officer accidentally fatally shooting a civilian." Not only is it speculation but when reviewing the footage carefully of the 2nd angle (filmed from within the Hilton hotel) it seems as though Michel was hit on the side of the head by a rifle round. ~2026-36749-45 (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

That is completely untrue.

When the civilian approaches the female officer, she points the pistol at him point blank. The recoil of the pistol firing is clearly observable. The civilian immediately jerks his head away from her, and falls in that direction, consistent with having been shot by her. Additionally, immediately prior to this taking place, you see the gunman hunker down behind the concrete and begin reloading. After the civilian is killed, the video pans back to the gunman, and you see him begin moving out of cover. Police have also confirmed there was not a 2nd gunman.

For the gunman to have killed the civilian, the police officer would have to have missed the point blank shot, that was clearly fired. And the civilian would have fallen in a completely different manner.

It is absolutely factual that she shot him. I don't know why you guys are fighting so hard to gatekeep this. She wont notice you bro. ~2026-41819-45 (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

it's not a rumour. The video provides pretty clear evidence.

Civilian startles her, she points the pistol at him, yiu can see it recoil from the shot. The civilian immediately recoils and falls down away from her in a direction consistent with being shot by her.

To support the gaslighting that the gunman shot him, she would have to have missed the point blank shot that she clearly fired, and his head would have moved the opposite direction. ~2026-41939-97 (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Better maps should be added. A dot-map showing the city of Montreal in North America isn't sufficient. A map of Montreal with a shaded area for the lockdown region, and a dot on that showing the shooting location, should be added -- ~2026-35590-97 (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Shooter was explicitly Marxist-Leninist, should be covered in article. https://www.rebelnews.com/manifesto_reveals_alleged_montreal_gunman_s_antisemitic_far_left_and_incel_ideology ~2026-31203-69 (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

rebel media (including rebel news) is generally considered unreliable, with a far-right slant. This should not be used in BLP-related articles, especially not when it's still developing and they propose that the shooter is a political opponent of theirs.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

This source looks very sketchy... Militant.Insurgency (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Theres nothing marxist leninist about wearing rhodesian military camo and shooting up pornhub HQ because you want a return to "traditional values". ~2026-36501-73 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

There is something very Marxist Leninist about wanting to overthrow capitalism through armed revolution.

I find it fair to mention far left extremism as an *alleged* motive for the time being. ~2026-36590-18 (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The source does not even mention 'Marxism' or 'Leninism', stop trying to promote your fantasies on Wikipedia. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Maybe Marxist Leninist isn’t the correct term. But in my eyes, wanting an armed anti capitalist revolution seems far left to me. ~2026-36590-18 (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Right-wingers can also be anti-capitalist and revolutionary. We should just wait until more information about his ideology an manifesto is released. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The shooter used Marxism as a worldview, his manifesto is transphobic, misogynistic, racist, and antisemitic which discourages me from believing he was communist-aligned. From what it seems, he was a right-wing populist. ~2026-31142-41 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Very minor issue, I know. News sources seem to be split on the victim's first name. Some name him as Michael and others as Michel. I'm not familiar with Jewish names. Are these perhaps interchangeable?

This article that appears to be written by someone close to the victim repeatedly calls him "Michel": https://nationalpost.com/opinion/moved-from-israel-to-montreal-only-to-lose-his-life-to-a-canadian-terrorist IrateSpecialist (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

It appears Michael was not the correct spelling, although it was originally reported that his first name was Michael. Unless there are objections, I don't see anything wrong with updating it to say "Michel" instead since newer sources say that. I don't think it is necessary to include a note either. Raskuly 🐰 22:09, 24 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Update to page : "On July 7, after a solemn march through downtown Montreal, a commemoration service was held at the Montreal Bell Center with over 6000 police officers in attendance, as well as the policeman’s parents, young son, and pregnant widow. Speakers included Chief of Police Fady Dagher, the siblings of the fallen constable, the mayor of Montreal and the premier of Quebec. A police choir sang Joh Lennon’s Imagine, among other songs, and the ceremony concluded with a military band playing the national anthems of Canada and Algeria, the constable’s native land." JayBishop (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I also want to note that this exact wording wouldn't be added to the article even if sourced as it does not follow an encyclopedic tone. I would not be surprised if a journalist attending the event wrote something along the lines of this. Raskuly 🐰 08:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Can you elaborate on the wording you disagree with and how you would incorporate an encyclopedic tone? Just curious about your thought process. Personally, I find it difficult to remove emotional language given the context of the article. IrateSpecialist (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The only thing I can think to remove is the word "solemn". IrateSpecialist (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I mentioned the march in my own edit at the bottom of the Reactions section, written from scratch. This edit request did alert me that there was an update that needed to be incorporated though.

• Without a source using that wording, a word like "solemn" should not be used. Still, it would probably be better to write, "what was described as a solemn march" or something like that.
• a commemoration service was held at the Montreal Bell Center → a commemoration service for Benredouane was held at the Montreal Bell Center
• Speakers included Chief of Police Fady Dagher → Speakers included Montreal police chief Fady Dagher
• the mayor of Montreal and the premier of Quebec. → Montreal mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada, and Quebec premier Christine Fréchette.
• There is a MOS:EUPHEMISM issue with "fallen constable", simply saying Benredouane would suffice.
• Why emphasize John Lennon's song specifically? Name is misspelled as well, and not linked. Neither is the song.
• Link Algeria.
• The ending would probably be better if it was worded like: "Benredouane's country of birth".

Raskuly 🐰 20:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. I understand and agree with all these points.

Yes, the John Lennon thing seemed weird to me.

One more thing I thought to edit was the mention of Benredouane's child and widow. It could be worded more neutrally by a single sentence: "Benredouane is survived by his widow and children." IrateSpecialist (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This source from La Presse , which was published on June 24, says:

Original: De son abri improvisé, lundi, le policier voit donc son collègue, l’agent Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, être atteint mortellement. En tentant de se défendre, la policière qui complétait le premier duo tire ensuite par erreur sur un commerçant, Michael Moshe Mizrahi, qui arrivait de la direction d’où le tireur la canardait. Le décès du commerçant sera constaté plus tard.

Translation: From his makeshift shelter on Monday, the police officer watched as his colleague, Officer Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, was fatally shot. While trying to defend herself, the female officer who was part of the original two-person team then accidentally shot a shopkeeper, Michael Moshe Mizrahi, who was approaching from the direction from which the shooter was firing at her. The shopkeeper was later pronounced dead.

I would like to hear other editor's thoughts about this source, and how to incorporate information from it into the article. For a claim like a police officer accidentally shooting and killing a civilian, I'm hesitant to do anything with this source without feedback. I imagine there is an investigation going on into Mizrahi's death, and it is not clear how La Presse felt so confident to say that, especially just two days after the shooting. I mean, this was even before Mizrahi's name was sorted out. Raskuly 🐰 09:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

While I initially opposed adding mentions that it was the police officer who shot the civilian, it has become the prevailing view. Videos circulating on social media support this. Where are the police in their investigation? IrateSpecialist (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

All I can find is that it is still an ongoing investigation. Raskuly 🐰 20:40, 9 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

While editing the "Shooting" section, I noticed that Benredouane's shooter is not mentioned. I assume he was shot by the gunman, but I refrain from adding that in until I find a source that says that explicitly.

For contrast, the female police officer who shot Mizrahi is mentioned, and so was the police officer (by name) who shot the gunman. IrateSpecialist (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Im pretty sure marc lepine wasnt an incel he wanted to fight feminism Cool4u7 (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm pretty sure that the wording of the mention of the École Polytechnique massacre used to only mention misogyny, but it was changed. I changed the wording to a mass shooting committed by a misogynistic terrorist. Be careful with your wording and provide context as to what you're referring to, as Marc Lépine was not mentioned by name in the article and being a terrorist is much more than wanting to "fight feminism", whatever that even entails. Raskuly 🐰 19:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I made the recent edit to call the perpetrator of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, Lepine, an incel. However, with your feedback, I agree it's not appropriate to call him an incel. Thank you for your correction. The 1989 shooting predates the coining of the term "incel" in 1997. Furthermore, Lepine's motivations were more anti-women than "involuntary celibacy".

@Raskuly, I believe what @Cool4u7 refers to as to "fight feminism" was that one of Lepine's motivations (based on my limited knowledge of the event) was that he was denied entry into the university. He believed his rejection into university was, in part, due to women taking up more seats. During the shooting, he verbally stated he hated feminists before opening fire. IrateSpecialist (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@IrateSpecialist yeh thats what I meant cuz the expression incen didn't exist at that time Cool4u7 (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Raskuly no I mean it was written "montreal polythecnic attack" was an incel terrorist attack but I meant that the attack wasnt motivated by incel ideology (mb for bad English cuz its not my first language) Cool4u7 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Compare 2026 Northern Ireland riots. In the talk page there it was discussed that as the perpetrator has not been sentenced for their crime, it is not Wikipedia's place to present their wrongdoing as fact. Since in this incident the perpetrator has not been sentenced either (as I understand it) it seems appropriate to make clear that the crime is alleged. ~2026-38025-76 (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

See Wikipedia:BLPCRIME. ~2026-38025-76 (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

They're dead. Raskuly 🐰 04:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ah. My bad. ~2026-38025-76 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wikipedia:BDP does seem to suggest recency of death matters. I am not sure how these guidelines intertwine so I thought I would just call it to attention instead. ~2026-38025-76 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Unless there was reasonable doubt about Hatfield's involvement, which there is not, everything should be fine. If it were a situation where a person who is deceased was suspected of being involved in a crime, special care should be taken. Hatfield being the person responsible for the attack is not doubted by reliable sources. Raskuly 🐰 05:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That seems like a reasonable assessment to me. ~2026-38025-76 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Stop gatekeeping the obvious truth. The video is pretty clear. The civilian approached the female officer and startled her. She shot him. You can clearly see her instinctively raising her pistol, pointing it at him, and the recoil of the shot being fired. The civilian, hit by shot immediately recoils away in the opposite direction consistent with having been shot by the officer.

It was accidental, sure. But it is an important factual occurence. ~2026-41939-97 (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The gunman was reloading at the time, and bunkered behind the concrete. When the video pans back he still hadn't moved yet, and you can see him finishing the reloading action. It is impossible for the gunman to have shot the civilian, and police have already confirmed there was not a 2nd gunman. It is factual, that the police officer shot the civilian. ~2026-41819-45 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

...and we cannot say this in the article without a reliable source saying so, as I'm sure you're aware. Anything else is speculation. That shooting is "under investigation" as the article says, so when that investigation concludes, we may have more. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

the reliable source is the crystal clear video showing it... She wont notice you bro. ~2026-41819-45 (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

...and I'm also sure you've read WP:OR. Just wait, there is literally no rush to do anything here. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Source cited, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. But you'll find another bs reason to hide this. ~2026-41819-45 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It is already mentioned that who shot Mizrahi is under investigation, which establishes that it is a possibility that Mizrahi was shot by police. Also, nowhere does it say that Mizrahi was shot by Hatfield, which would be problematic. You can follow the steps at WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, but I'd refrain from calling other editor's reasonings BS. Raskuly 🐰 14:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Copium ~2026-41819-45 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

What you're seeking to put into the article is not going to get into the article through this kind of behavior. I showed you a potential method, and if you refuse to take it, that is your choice. Raskuly 🐰 14:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It wont get into the article because you're finding frivolous reasons to remove it. A reliable source was cited, the text i added, attributed the claims to the reliable source, the attribution is made allegedly, and no identification provided. This adheres to WP policy in its entirety. Your reason for removing it is because there is a sentence stating the shooting is under investigation. That is not duplicate information, it is additive.

Technically speaking, your reasoning, that the shooting is under investigation, could be applied for deleting the entire rest of the article. Why have any information provided, all of the facts are under investigation... ~2026-41819-45 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because Wikipedia has policies, and in 99.99% of cases you can't break them, and nor can I. WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:V are all policies, and stating what you want on the basis of a video from Twitter breaks all three of them. Black Kite (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Guardian article says that witness video appeared to show Mizrahi being shot by police, and I can see the argument for attributing that wording to the outlet, which is why I'm trying to steer the conversation towards dispute resolution. Raskuly 🐰 14:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No, there isn't enough here - the Guardian is obviously reliable, but saying that "a video appears to show" is pushing it for a BLP issue. We might as well wait for the investigation to report - then we've got properly reliable sources. As I said above, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and the article isn't currently wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I know, which is why I restored the status quo. If anything productive can come out of this, it can be settling things more about how Mizrahi's killing is handled in the article by involving the opinion of more editors and adding a Q&A to the top of the talk page as to why the article addresses Mizrahi's death whatever way the conclusion is. This will probably get dredged up over and over until the investigation into who shot Mizrahi is finalized. Raskuly 🐰 14:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I protected it in the first place because of that problem. I've protected it again now. I wonder if an editnotice on the talk page would be useful (as well as a FAQ of course). Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

A page notice has been created. If you're willing, I'd prefer you to write the FAQ because I believe you'd simply write a better one. Raskuly 🐰 00:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Scotus1968: See discussion here and please don't hyperlink a Twitter video of the shooting in the body of the article. Raskuly 🐰 21:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply