Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 7 April 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pittsburgh This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Appropriate Location?

I have moved the article on the shooter to here and expanded the article into a little more than a stub. Is this the proper location for this tragedy, or is another name more appropriate? TharsHammar and 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like the appropriate place for this article, for the time being anyway. I don't think this Richard Poplawski jagoff deserves his own page anyhow. What a freakin' nutty jagoff! I hope they give this jagoff the death penalty. What a nutty fanatical gun freak and a cowardly right-wing jagoff. The chair is too good for this jagoff. I hope they string this jagoff up from the 9th Street Bridge. Yinz know what I'm sayin' in'at? Geneisner (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the right place to me. — brighterorange (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Was not an assault rifle

There is no evidence the shooter used an assault rifle. There was absolutely no mention of automatic fire in any of the news reports. R.westermeyer (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AK-47 is an assault rifle, it doesn't have to be automatic to be classified as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.210 (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Harper said the shooter, identified as 23-year-old Richard Poplawski, fired at the officers several dozen times using a high-powered assault rifle before he was finally wounded and then surrendered." TharsHammar and 12:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Assault rifle" or "assault weapon" as used in the United States is a political term. For a rifle to be considered a true "Assault rifle" it must be select fire - meaning capable of semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire. There's a very important distinction there. The news stories calling it an "assault rifle" are using the political term. Misplaced Pages's own article, Assault Rifle agrees with me. In the same vein, his rifle was most likely not actually an AK-47, but a gun patterned after the AK. "Real" AK-47s are capable of fully-automatic fire, and only a very small amount were ever imported. More likely his rifle was an imported, "demilitarized" variant from a country like Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria etc. I doubt we'll ever actually hear what specific variant his gun was, though. R.westermeyer (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The media reports and wording in this article are based on the Chief of Police's account. "Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper said Poplawski was armed with a high-powered assault rifle and a pistol, and he had a significant amount of ammunition as he allegedly fired out of his bedroom window on Fairfield Street." TharsHammar and 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was an AK-47. Officer McManaway identified it. My source, Officer McManaway. And not all Assault Rifles are full auto. The M1 Garand is an assault rifle and it is not automatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.42.210 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no mention of automatic fire, including "AK-47 assault rifle" in the article is misleading. The Pittsburgh chief of police does not get to change the definition of assault rifle. He was using the political term. TharsHammer, you say in your profile "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms". You obviously have no wish to understand this issue and you're just using this article as a way to push your anti-gun agenda by inserting bad information into the article. If you're not going to try and understand, please stop editing the article. 71.60.42.210, you do not understand the issue either. All assault rifles are by definition capable of fully automatic fire. The term "assault rifle" is also used as a political term to describe a rifle that resembles a real assault rifle, but lacks the capabilities of one. The M1 Garand is not an assault rifle by anyone's definition. Even going by the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban's definition it does not qualify. It is simply classed as a semi-automatic rifle. R.westermeyer (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. The issue is what WP:V and WP:RS sources say. The chief of police has categorized the weapon as an assault rifle. He would have a much better understanding of the weapon used than you. You are attempting to include WP:OR in the article. Please generate reliable sources stating it was not an assault rifle. TharsHammar and 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My userpage says, "This user knows totalitarians love Gun control." I'm the person who created the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus article. I'm aware of and agree with John Lott's claim that every multiple-victim public shooting that he had studied, where more than three people were killed, took place at a location where guns were banned. I know that the gun ban at the Luby's massacre prevented Suzanna Hupp from saving the lives of her own parents and many other people. I wrote in Ron Paul for President. But even I understand that wikipedia articles have to reflect the sources. If the source quotes the police officer as saying something, then the wikipedia article should say that the police officer said it. That doesn't mean it's true - it just means the police officer said it. And yes, I am fully aware that some people misuse terms like "assault rifle," and that can even include police officers. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on what definition you choose to use. I've found ALL of the following definitions. I think the term "assault rifle" seems more than appropriate, myself. assault rifle  –noun 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. 2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usu. modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

Origin: 1970–75 Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. Cite This Source

assault rifle n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

assault rifle

noun any of the automatic rifles or semiautomatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.103 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Stormfront connections

This article states that Poplawski "was a frequent poster to the site" in the sentence on Stormfront. This is extremely misleading and the source does not support this statement. I'm removing this particular clause. He only posted a single time on the site. 129.25.17.195 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am restoring the essence of this statement. The article cited is titled "Poplawski frequented right-wing Web sites" and the New York Times article added indicates he visted Stormfront at 3:32 AM saturday, only hours before the shootout. TharsHammar and 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Numerous sources have confirmed that he posted, some state his usernames and others the actually content of his posts. He posted dozens of messages and several images. Grsz 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite these sources please. As far as I know, he only posted once on Stormfront in particular to show off a tattoo. Lurking!=Frequent-Poster either. His posting on numerous sites around the internet and once on Stormfront (which is what the sourced article states) != frequent poster on Stormfront. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.25.17.195 (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the ADL press release, . I think you are being confused by the two seperate accounts that Mr. Poplawski had on stormfront. The ADL states:

"He found expression for his hateful opinions on Stormfront, the world's largest white supremacist on-line discussion forum. Poplawski first created an account in late 2006 or early 2007, but only posted once, sharing pictures of his tattoo (which he described later as a "deliberately Americanized version of the iron eagle").

It was almost a year later, in October 2007, that Poplawski created a second Stormfront account, using the screen name "RichP." This time, Poplawski felt more comfortable sharing his feelings with the other white supremacists on Stormfront. Ascribing his racist beliefs to his "solid upbringing" by his mother, Poplawski stated that "Negroes especially have disgusting facial features. The fat nosed flaring nostril look is putrid. Nappy hair makes me want to gag." He followed these comments with insults against Hispanics, Asians, and Arabs. However, after a burst of racist posting, Poplawski went silent. It would be a year before he posted again on Stormfront.

Poplawski's last collection of posts on Stormfront, from November 2008 through March 2009, are more disturbing, as they indicate an increasing desire to be confrontational. Rather than "retreat peaceably into the hills," Poplawski urged his fellow white supremacists in November 2008 to achieve "ultimate victory for our people" by "taking back our nation." Stating that he believed they were running out of time, he noted that "a revolutionary is always regarded as a nutcase at first, their ideas dismissed as fantasy." In another posting that month, he said that he would probably be "ramping up the activism" in the near future.

Following the Super Bowl victory of the Pittsburgh Steelers in early February 2009, Poplawski used the celebrations that occurred in Pittsburgh as an opportunity to "survey police procedure in an unrestful environment," and reported the results of his reconnaissance to fellow Stormfronters. "It was just creepy seeing busses put into action by authorities, as if they were ready to transport busloads of Steeler fans to 645 FEMA drive if necessary."

So multiple posting on the website. Are you satisfied now that the term "frequent poster" can be used? TharsHammar and 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The ADL is an agenda-biased source, but I'll accept that for now. Also the article starts out with: "An ADL investigation". Wouldn't the police be the ones checking his computer and such? 129.25.17.195 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the ADL has an agenda against anti-semitism. We could also use the Post-Gazette article as a source. . TharsHammar and 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lone Wolf...?

Any connection to Hardy Lloyd? Or the White Power Movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.155.117.235 (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hardy Lloyd, off his website, claims this:

I love how the americans and their media are trying like the devil to FORCE Brother Richard into the "wacko racist" label... The SPLC claims he was a National Alliance member, D.R. of the Pgh Post claims he was a Skinhead, someone on Myspace told me he was a Catholic, non-racist, christian, CAH claims he wasn't an NA member but that he read "tons of racist fiction books", and the ADL claims he was a member of the KKK even though he wasn't Christian-Identity... Why? Because according to them any White man who shoots people has to be a "racist nut". The truth is he is THEIR creation, THEIR monster, THEIR child!! He is the product of decades of intense antiwhite propaganda aimed at making White people HATE THEMSELVES!! No wonder he started shooting when the pigs came calling. He was worried that his rights as a HUMAN BEING were about to be fucked in the ass by the evil empire of the "'United' 'States'"!! You, Anglos and JEWS of the USA, YOU created him and the millions to come. What goes around comes around...!

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Pittsburgh articles
• Unknown-importance Pittsburgh articles
• WikiProject Pittsburgh articles
• Unassessed Pennsylvania articles
• Unknown-importance Pennsylvania articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of Pittsburgh