Talk:2025 killing of Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. workers

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Requested move 22 May 2025

2025 killing of Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. workers → 2025 killing of Israeli Embassy workers – The language in the title is a bit difficult to parse as is. The proposed title matches the title in the infobox and is more concise. Alxeedo ゐ talk 05:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since there is no common name so soon afterwards, we should follow WP:NCWWW and include a location. Perhaps 2025 killing of Israeli embassy workers in Washington, D.C. would be less awkward while still providing the who, what, and where recommended in our guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that "2025 killing of Israeli embassy workers in Washington, D.C." would make more sense here. Something that retains all details but changes the phrasing would be fine by me. Edenaviv5 (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nope, that makes the location far too vague, DC is a relatively large city, therefore we should be specific. 2603:7000:9500:340E:8847:ACEB:B80C:2309 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Well as it stands now it reads that in 2025 the Israeli Embassy was killed in Washington DC and then adds the word workers to the end. It is not grammatically correct. Anything that uses corrected grammar would be preferable. DPG1987 (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment If the victims names become widely reported we could probably use them in the title since early accounts say the attack was targeted. ^Falling_Gravity 07:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Move to 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting. The current title diverges from common naming conventions for attacks, which usually mention the location. For example see Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting. Rafi Chazon (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. This seems in line with naming for other incidents as well as reporting of this incident. Jbbdude (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to add some more rationale here for the logic.

  WP:NCWWW dictates listing when, where, what. That would lead to this proposal. There are cases when the victims being centered is preferable e.g. targeted assassinations of notable people. In this case, it was otherwise non notable people walking out of a Jewish museum.

  Usage, users: the current Google Trends data shows much higher popularity for "Jewish museum shooting" searches than for "Israeli embassy shooting" or related terms.

  Usage, media: here's a quick, extremely incomplete round up.

  • USA Today: Capital Jewish Museum Shooting: Couple slain as they exited DC Jewish community event
  • WaPo: D.C. Jewish Museum shooting shows signs of ‘targeted violence’
  • NBC News: Two Israeli Embassy staffers shot dead outside D.C.'s Capital Jewish Museum
  • CNN: Two Israeli Embassy staffers shot and killed outside Jewish Museum in DC
  • NBC Washington local news 2 Israeli Embassy staff shot and killed in front of Capital Jewish Museum in DC

  It seems to be that most outlets are including both identity of the victims and the location of the shooting in their headlines. A WP article title obviously won't do that. Multiple mainstream articles are referring to it as the "Capital Jewish Museum shooting."

  Given the prevalence of articles like Pulse nightclub shooting and Charleston church shooting, this seems to be the consistent naming pattern, even with fewer victims. Jbbdude (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. The shooting wasn't at the embassy nor was it an embassy event. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agree, as well. it's also not clear (based off of the sources), if the two victims were target based off of where they works or the attendance at the event. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. The current title is verbose and unclear. This is a good shortening. The location of the event is probably more relevant than the fact that the two victims were employed by the Israeli Embassy. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Agree This is more accurate and relevant than the current title. Attacks like these I think always describe the location rather than the circumstance of the victims. It seems like they just happened to be embassy workers and werent targetted for that reason, altho we might find out more about such a motive later, but thats where it stands. Metallurgist (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Agree for reasons of length. Borgenland (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support either 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting or Killing of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgram per above. Personally, I prefer the latter as this doesn't fit the generally accepted definition of a mass shooting (four people injured and/or killed). ZionniThePeruser (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support either of these proposals, with preference to the former - while there were ultimately only two victims, available evidence does indicate this was an attempted mass shooting (i.e. the two victims themselves were not the premeditated targets a la an assassination, the event as a whole was). Current title is too wordy. The Kip ^(contribs) 13:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support either of these. Paris1127 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• 'Support' Killing of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgram - similar to Killing of Brian Thompson. Use of either the victim names or Israeli Embassy staff (not workers) in the title is acceptable. Let's avoid using the museum name in the title.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support. This proposed title is generated by the flowchart from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) and precedent for the title of form "Killing of <name> and <name>" is available at Killing of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams. Arguments raised against "<when> <where> shooting" as 2 people were killed seem cogent. Allegations about gunman's intent to shoot more people are at this point merely allegations. It is probably too early to tell what Wikipedia:COMMONNAME will actually emerge in the lexicon so consensus on that seems unlikely. HussainHx (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Move to 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting for brevity and simplicity. WWGB (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment — I strongly oppose 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting, given that the shooting did not actually occur at the museum and "Capital Jewish Museum" is not the title of the article on the shooting. What is significant here is that two Israeli Embassy employees were killed, not that there was a shooting near a museum in which two people died—List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025 regularly sees much deadlier incidents. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Move to 2025 killing of Israeli Embassy staff. The most common phrase used in headlines is "two Israeli Embassy staff" or "staffers". "Shooting" is also commonly used but WP:DEATHS dictates we use killing as homicide is self-evident and admitted. Oppose any use of "Capital Jewish Museum" in the name as that is POV and not accurate and not COMMONNAME in any way.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Israeli Embassy" without "Washington, D.C.", "United States" or some such is too imprecise. If an attack occurred at a Jewish museum it isn't POV to say so in the article title, but the other objections here may apply (e.g., it was outside the museum). Ham II (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  2025 killing of Israeli embassy staff in Washington would satisfy WP:NCWWW, without the problems identified in 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting. Killing of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgram still seems like another possibility; which do we presume would be the more recognizable future description of the event? Ham II (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Move to 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting. The cited sources demonstrate that the museum was specifically targeted, that the two victims were killed while exiting the museum, and that they were present in the area for the purpose of attending an event at the museum. I’m not persuaded by the argument that the shooting didn’t occur at the museum; I find this argument to be at odds with basically all coverage of the attack. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy move to any grammatically correct title. Come on, this is just embarrassing. Einsof (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:NCWWW, when comes first, where comes second, and what comes last. That leaves 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting as the best title. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy move to 2025 killing of Israeli Embassy workers and then continue discussion The current title is awful, the grammar is all over the place. At first glance, it sounds like the Israeli Embassy was killed. This temporary change won't cause any confusion, as there have been no other killings of Israeli embassy workers in 2025 (at least, none that have articles). Mlb96 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support speedy move and continue (or restart) discussion per the above, with the new nomination being "2025 killing of Israeli Embassy workers → ?" as the previous target can't be used. Ham II (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support speedy move and continue. I have doubts that "Israeli Embassy" needs to be emphasized in the title, but lets at least move this to a workable title, then discuss what final form the article title will take. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support speedy move to 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting and then continue discussion. This discussion won't have to be renamed or restarted with a new nomination. It would be in line with WP:NCWWW and the current WP:COMMON NAME, then cases can continue to be made for the exceptions from general policy for less victims, precise venue, a new/evolving commonly used name, etc.

  Strong agree on the need for a speedy move given this current nonsense title. It is indeed embarrassing that no conclusion could be reached in nearly a day. It's good that nobody is jumping the gun to pull the trigger before consensus, but uhhhh this is a concerning title for a major current event. Jbbdude (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  The title isnt grammatically incorrect, its just awkward. I do support this move to make it more clear, but it looks like we are pretty unanimous on the real move above, so its kindof moot. Metallurgist (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support speedy move, but continue the discussion. The current gramatically incorrect title needs to be changed. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Support 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting per WWGB, Chess EvansHallBear (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Question Is "2025 killing of Israeli Embassy workers (Washington, D.C.)" an option? Support speedy move to anything besides current name and disagree with Paine Ellsworth's revert. Mikewem (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Per the snowballing support for a speedy move to a grammatically correct title, I moved the page to 2025 killing of Israeli embassy workers in Washington, D.C., which achieves grammatical correctness with the minimal amount of change to the content or wording of the previous title. Einsof (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Paine Ellsworth: You reverted this move because it didn't follow the formal RM process. If you don't actually support the current title, WP:Ignore all rules says we should do the move anyways. That's a pillar of Wikipedia and overrides the RM process here.

  The only dispute is whether the title should be "2025 killing of Israeli embassy workers in Washington, D.C." or "2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting". Nobody supports the current title, which is grammatically incorrect on an article with tens of thousands of page views. It would obviously benefit the encyclopedia to bend the rules here.

  I'm not going to WP:WHEELWAR, but I would appreciate you self-reverting unless you actually think the current title is good. Strict adherence to process for the sake of the process benefits nobody and does, in fact, violate the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 09:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, this was an application of WP:IAR and I was careful to pick an interim title that closely matched the original one so that it would not amount to an end run around this RM discussion. It's disappointing that Paine Ellsworth reverted this page to a title that embarrasses the project. Einsof (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Support The "In Washington, D.C" adds an unnecessary part to it Yesyesmrcool (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Support move, and also support snow. Unless there's been another killing of Israeli Embassy workers this year (I'm not aware of any) that is notable enough for an article, the "in Washington DC" part is unnecessary disambiguation when the shorter title is not ambiguous at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Support: This title immediately struck me as strangely/awkwardly worded. It should be 2025 killing of Israeli Embassy staff in Washington, D.C. or something of the like (workers/staff, whatever, but I'm talking about the structure) if we're going to be keeping the title somewhat similar. The current wording is just bizarre. TheDoodbly (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support 2025 Capital Jewish Museum shooting. I think location is primary. The event was organized by the American Jewish Committee, not the Embassy of Israel, and I don't think there's any evidence that the killer selected his victims on the basis of where they worked. I disagree with Paine Ellsworth's revert of the move to 2025 killing of Israeli embassy workers in Washington, D.C., because I believe that was a good compromise that did not cut off this discussion, and "2025 killing of Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. workers" is atrocious: (a) the word "workers" is too far from "Embassy". (b) per MOS:GEOCOMMA and all major style guides, there has to be a comma after "D.C." —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Skitash (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Several others may be injured

Yesterday's attack left two Israeli embassy workers dead, but others may have been shot and wounded as well. From The Telegraph (Link:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/05/22/israeli-embassy-worker-shot-jewish-museum-washington-dc/): "Earlier, Danny Danon, the Israeli UN ambassador, announced that 'employees' had been injured but did not give details on their condition. He said: 'The fatal shooting that took place outside the event, that took place at the Jewish Museum in Washington DC, in which Israeli embassy employees were also injured, is a depraved act of anti-Semitic terrorism.'"

Isaac Herzog also reported that there were injured, according to NBC (Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/live-updates-israeli-embassy-officials-gunned-jewish-museum-rcna208435): “Our hearts are with the loved ones of those murdered and our immediate prayers are with the injured. I send my full support to the Ambassador and all the embassy staff. We stand with the Jewish community in DC and across the U.S.,” he continued. Editor3125 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done - these details have been added. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

German and Israeli

He was german and israeli. Please add. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgn6nd3wlvo Macjena (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done - good catch! Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Rodriguez life

Rodriguez lived in the Avondale area of Chicago throughout his entire life. He held a BA in English from the University of Illinois and worked in the administration of the American Osteopathic Information Association in Chicago. According to a Federal Election Commission filing, he donated $500 to former president Biden's campaign on March 11, 2020. Exactly three years prior in 2017, he participated in a protest over the death of a teenager who was shot by a Chicago police officer as well as him been involved in a demonstration outside the then-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel residence, protesting the city’s bid to host an Amazon headquarters. Witnesses said that Rodriguez told the police as before being arrested, “I did it, I did it for Gaza. Free Palestine!” It was completely unknown if Chicago Police searched through his Kimball Avenue home after the killings.

• https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/who-is-elias-rodriguez-sole-suspect-in-dc-jewish-museum-shooting-that-killed-2-israeli-embassy-staffers/3853567/
• https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/israel-news/2402185/d-c-terrorist-was-a-radical-far-leftist-donated-money-to-joe-biden.html

2600:1702:5225:C010:7176:9711:FB1E:3971 (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Most of this is irrelevant trivia. WWGB (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I knew it. I don't know how to get good information. 2600:1702:5225:C010:7176:9711:FB1E:3971 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In see also

Antisemitism during the Gaza war should be added to the “See also” section TwitchingMovie (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

✔️ Done. Jbbdude (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2025

Please change: "Lischinsky was an German-Israeli staff member" to "Lischinsky was an Evangelical Christian German-Israeli staff member"

source: http://archive.today/m25Go Gumdrop-pasta (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: link doesn't work Cannolis (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for inclusion of motive-relevant biographical context (Rodriguez)

The classification of Elias Rodriguez’s background as “irrelevant trivia” lacks policy grounding and contradicts established precedent in similar ideologically-motivated incidents. The subject’s educational history (BA in English, University of Illinois), employment (American Osteopathic Information Association), political donation (to Joe Biden, per FEC records), and prior activism (anti-police and anti-Amazon protests in Chicago) are all reliably sourced and materially intersect with motive attribution. Per WP:BLP, biographical material must be presented with appropriate weight and sourced with high-quality references—both conditions are met. Per WP:DUE, the degree of emphasis should reflect its prominence in reliable coverage; several outlets cite these elements as part of his sociopolitical orientation and ideological profile. That profile becomes epistemically salient once motive is explicitly stated (“I did it for Gaza”) and corroborated by the recovery of an ideological manifesto. The selective exclusion of these details under the assertion of “trivia” introduces systemic inconsistency: comparable background data is regularly included in articles where attackers are associated with right-wing or religious extremism. That asymmetry risks constituting a latent violation of WP:NPOV, as it curates perception of ideological causality through omission rather than source-driven synthesis. Furthermore, given that the notability of the incident itself hinges on motive (i.e., an antisemitic, ideologically targeted attack on state-affiliated individuals), editorial minimization of context that informs ideological development contravenes the integrity of the event’s encyclopedic record. Policy alignment requires consistency across ideological spectra. Therefore, an editor should incorporate a concise, neutrally-presented summary of Rodriguez’s background insofar as it informs his ideological orientation and provides necessary interpretive context for the event’s sourcing and notability. TrustyTusk (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@TrustyTusk: Please provide several high-quality sources that support your claims that this information is important, and remember that NOR is a policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, WP:DUE, and WP:RS, the following high-quality sources document Elias Rodriguez’s educational history, political affiliations, and ideological motives—elements directly relevant to understanding the attack and its notability.

Educational History:

Rodriguez graduated with a BA in English from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

(https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/elias-rodriguez-dc-shooting-israeli-embassy-staff-what-to-know/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Political Affiliations and Activism:

He was previously linked to far-left activist circles in Chicago, including demonstrations connected to anti-police protests and opposition to Amazon's expansion bid.

(https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2025-05-22/ty-article/chicago-native-linked-to-far-left-group-everything-we-know-about-d-c-shooting-suspect/00000196-f90a-d6d3-ab9e-fb3bdff00000?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Manifesto and Motive Statements:

Rodriguez reportedly authored a manifesto framing the killings as retribution for perceived genocide in Gaza. Upon arrest, he chanted “Free, free Palestine.”

(https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/two-israeli-embassy-staffers-killed-washington-shooting-2025-05-22/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

(https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/22/shooting-occurs-outside-jewish-museum-in-washington-dc?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

(https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/elias-rodriguez-chicago-shooter-washington-dc-bz5j7p9bf?utm_source=chatgpt.com&region=global)

These facts are not speculative, synthesized, or OR violations. They are reported by multiple secondary sources and support inclusion of concise context establishing ideological motive. The content fulfills WP:NPOV through proportionate weight, improves reader understanding, and aligns with how comparable entries are treated when motive is ideologically explicit. TrustyTusk (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

absurd title for this article

. . . but the fact that this absurd title is still (!) the article title for the murderous attack at the Capitol JEWISH Museum is helpful for demonstrating/confirming what a lot of us already know in recent years; The encyclopedic editors who used to keep Wikipedia objective have been subsumed replaced and dominated by a chorus of anti-Israel activists who seek to spin every antisemitic act by a "pro-Palestinian" activist to be: "Oh it 'just' against Israel! It's not antisemitic!". Even if you disagree with the above assessment, you have to agree that this title that's stuck in place, is absurd, for what happened and where it happened. Certainly given the knowledge known at this point. 141.155.165.35 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a perfectly good move discussion on this very page where you can share your opinion about the title. It may take time for the article to be moved (assuming some consensus is reached), but that's how it's done here. Paris1127 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

FBI raided Rodriguez home in Northwest side of Chicago

Both the FBI and the Chicago Police Department had raided through the home of Elias Rodriguez on the 4707 block of North Troy Street in Albany Park.

• https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/elias-rodriguez-fbi-raid-chicago-home-israel
• https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/fbi-raids-east-albany-park-residence-amid-investigation-into-fatal-shooting-of-israeli-embassy-staffers-in-dc/
• https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-man-elias-rodriguez-idd-suspect-washington-dc-shooting-2-israeli-embassy-staffers/16503962/
• https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/fbi-surrounds-chicago-home-of-suspected-gunman-behind-jewish-museum-shooting-in-d-c/3751685/
• https://news.wttw.com/2025/05/22/fbi-searching-chicago-home-suspect-after-2-staff-members-israeli-embassy-killed-shooting

99.190.209.83 (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the category "Antisemitic attacks and incidents in the United States"

Is it appropriate to add this category given that the only references to this in the article are quotes from various politicians (apparently opinion-based) rather than investigators/people familiar with the criminal act? The other categories are backed by relevant, good sourcing, and I do not oppose the background discussion of antisemitic violence in the article, but this category seems unsupported at this time. Macxcxz (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it Mason7512 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle I think it's pretty obvious why I removed this, it is pure opinion/original research not supported by RSs. Mason7512 (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources show that a shooter traveled to a Jewish history museum to carry out an indiscriminate attack on the Jewish individuals present there; this was then widely condemned as antisemitic on both a national and international level. The antisemitic nature of the attack seems pretty well-substantiated by the reliable sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, all of this is your interpretation and the opinion of others. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOTOPINION. Mason7512 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism" is also an interpretation and an opinion. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The way you say it, this would be considered original research and opinion-based. The fact is that this is contentious information regarding a living person, and should be removed until further information comes to light suggesting otherwise (per WP:BLP). Macxcxz (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

NYTimes presents it as settled in its reporting [[1]] Mikewem (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That is one source which is based on the opinion of a professor, not a consensus by any means. Macxcxz (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that you have for some reason reverted my edit despite no consensus being reached on this talk page, I will have to take this to the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard, since I do not think I can revert your reversion per the "active arbitration remedies". Macxcxz (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/world/europe/shooting-dc-jewish-museum-antisemitism.html]. Also, per the article this is being investigated as a hate crime. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, whatever a suspect is accused of should not be treated as factual until/if a conviction is secured. This is also why it would be inappropriate to label this incident as "murder" right now. Macxcxz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what Macxcxz said, It could be being investigated as an anti-Israeli hate crime, if it is not specified. Mason7512 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no evidence the attack was motivated by antisemitism. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

RS disagree, but there's no harm in waiting a few days to re-add the category once the info settles Mikewem (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The RS you linked is opinion-based. Though the NYT would typically be considered a RS, this article in particular would be inappropriate for the specific purpose of establishing this act as antisemitic or not (see WP:RSP). This is because this is a highly contentious claim about a living person, which means it is given a lot more scrutiny. Macxcxz (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

NYTimes doesn't present the claim as opinion-based and doesn't present the claim as highly contentious, but like I said, I'm fine with waiting Mikewem (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

They actually do, qualifying it with things like "according to some" or similar statements, such as attributing them. If the reliable source attributes such a controversial statement, we should be too - such as "(so and so) told the NYT that they believed the attack was an example of antisemitism". We should not present in Wikivoice those things that the sources we are relying on are attributing. And there's a big due weight concern as to whether the opinions of a couple individuals in one source are due to include at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right that NYT presents this as fact in the opening line. That says more about their terrible journalistic practices around the I/P issue than whether this was truly antisemitic. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't right. The NYT presents it as an attributed opinion. The line is quoted here for you, emphasis mine: The slaying of two Israeli Embassy aides on Wednesday outside a Jewish museum in Washington was an extreme example of what law enforcement officials and others call a global surge in antisemitic incidents that emerged after Hamas terrorists killed more than 1,200 people and seized 250 hostages on Oct. 7, 2023. An attributed statement is an opinion statement, not presenting it as fact. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation of that sentence is that law enforcement officials say there is a surge in antisemitic incidents. The author (not law enforcement officials) is calling this particular incident an example of antisemitism.

Either way, the conclusion is the same. Let's attribute POV until there's more evidence either way. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think this should be included. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that for now it should not be included until more information comes out. Anti-Zionism, while it can often cross the line into antisemitism, is not the same thing. As of now the only sources I've seen are attributing calling it "antisemitic" to a couple of people at most. Iff we are to include anything related to antisemitism in the article here, it needs to be attributed to the people the sources are attributing it too. Which is what the "Reactions" section is already doing. A category should not be added unless and until it becomes clear this was actually antisemitic, rather than an Anti-Zionism based attack. Just because the victims were Jewish does not mean it was antisemitism - the event was known to have not been just for Jewish people but for diplomats, for example. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Going to copy most of a reply I made below here, since it's pertinent. Bluntly, both sides of the political spectrum - progressive and conservative - have their own motives for trying to label this as antisemitic. Progressive sources will try to label it as antisemitic so that it's associated with antisemitism (which they're against), and not associated with what appears to be the actual reason, anti-Zionist. They will do this because they don't want the anti-Zionist/Free Palestine/etc. movements to be seen as associated with this attack, because it harms their ability to talk about it being a wholly peaceful movement. On the other hand, conservatives will try to call it antisemitic to bolster their claims that antisemitism is on the rise and at an all time high.

In other words, we should wait for as neutral sources as possible. Just because the sources (so far) may be reporting the same outcome from both sides doesn't mean they aren't (so far) all biased one way or the other and doing it for their own reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Per RS there is as yet no evidence the perpetrator knew his victims. He attacked an event at a Jewish museum organized by a Jewish organization, about humanitarian issues in the Middle East in general. If that is merely "antizionist" then you have indeed collapsed any distinction between "antizionism" and antisemitism. PrimaPrime (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Here are several of the reliable sources that connect the Jewish Museum shooting to antisemitism. Even if you take an issue with each article individually, I would request that they also be considered in the collective. The fact is that reliable sources are widely connecting this attack to antisemitism.

• Slaying Outside D.C. Jewish Museum Is Part of Global Surge in Antisemitism-Michael Shear, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist writing for the New York Times, connects the shooting to a rising surge of antisemitism.
• The Rise of Antisemitism and Political Violence in the U.S. Time Magazine connects the shooting to rising antisemitism in the United States.
• D.C. Shooting Alarms Jewish Groups Already Hit by Rising Antisemitism Washington Post Article. Connects the shooting to rising antisemitism and describes the security measures being taken at Jewish institutions in Pittsburg following the attack.
• A Dangerous Disguise for Anti-Semitism Atlantic article accuses the shooter of using Gaza as a pretext to harm Jews.
• Even if the Capital Jewish Museum shooter ‘did it for Gaza,’ his actions were antisemitic. Article from the Forward (a Jewish news source) which argues the shooting was antisemitic even if the direct motivation was the invasion of Gaza.

I've largely left out articles from Israeli/Jewish news sources since these sources consistently and unsurprisingly describe the attack as antisemitic. I've also deliberately omitted articles that "merely" quote world leaders, Jewish organizations, friends and family of the victim, etc who describe the attacks as antisemitic. There are many news sources falling into both categories; I beleive that these sources further demonstrate the connection between the attack and antisemitism.

Also, the claim that it is possible to murder Jews during a planned attack on a Jewish cultural institute without being antisemitic is itself a controversial claim. I invite anyone who believes this attack was anti-Zionist, not antisemitic, to provide sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

He literally yelled "Free Free Palestine" when he was being taken into custody. Most (if not all) of the sources you list report on that too. Of course a Jewish news source is going to argue it was antisemitic and not anti-Zionist, as will the "other side" (i.e. progressives) - for their own biased reasons. Furthermore, being "connected" to rising antisemitism does not mean that the attack itself was antisemitic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

You are quite literally arguing that murdering Jews isn't antisemitic as long as you say something about Palestine. I fail to see any point in writing up a rebuttal. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

He set out to murder people who he viewed as complicit in genocide. One of them happened to be Jewish. Do you not see the distinction between that and murdering Jews because they are Jewish? EvansHallBear (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

It's only antisemitic if the reason they were murdered was because they are Jewish and to specifically kill someone Jewish. That's literally the definition of antisemitism. And it's also the reason that we have the term anti-Zionist for people who are violent/discriminatory/hateful towards Israel but not for the fact that they're primarily Jewish. Murdering citizens of a country, or employees of that country's embassy (this was an event for "young diplomats" primarily), because you are against that country has nothing to do with their race/religion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless he murdered them because they were Jewish, yeah. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

would like to point out: 1. at least the last source (Forward) is an opinion piece, so WP:NEWSOPED applies and 2. a bit nitpicky, but its been incorrectly stated multiple times so: the victims were not both Jewish, one was Christian (as sourced and stated in the article) Mason7512 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is obviously an antisemitic an/or antizionist attack, BUT that determination has not yet been made by reliable sources or authorities. This is a fresh and unfolding situation. If he gets charged with a hate crime enhancement, and more sources assess the motivations, we can put that in. Nothing is set in stone. I know everyone is eager to wield these events to their agenda, but we have rules and standards for a reason. Metallurgist (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Very well said. +1. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

If he is charged with a hate crime enhancement or any form of such, it would perhaps be even more controversial to add such a category, as it could imply something of which the suspect has not been convicted of. Generally, you are supposed to presume innocence until conviction when writing articles in regards to living persons. Macxcxz (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents in the United States: I have been mulling this over for a couple of hours and I think there are some good arguments on both sides of the question. My decision to support is because, if an individual goes to a location that has the word "Jewish" in its name, and is among other things a Jewish event space, and the space is rented for the evening by an organzation that has the word "Jewish" in its name, and is in fact the American Jewish Committee, and the individual spends a long time "casing the joint" or at least the front of the joint, and then kills people on their way out of the event space, not as part of a robbery, not as part of a sexual assault, but purely to kill people, it's a hate crime, and it's specifically an antisemitic hate crime, and his expressions of solidarity with the Palestinians does not change this conclusion. Let us suppose a fictional scenario that I hope does not happen. Suppose an individual who supports Israel and opposes there ever being a Palestinian state went to a museum called the Lilah & Ahmed Salaam Capital Islamic Museum, where an organization called the American Islamic Committee was hosting an event. The individual cases the joint and shoots people as they are leaving the event. After being apprehended and arrested, the individual says, "Long live Israel!" And let's say the individual's Facebook page was full of anti-Palestinian rhetoric. In this fictional scenario, the incident took place at in Islamic museum and meeting space, at an event organized by a prominent Islamic group, and it would be ludicrous to argue that, well, anti-Palestinianism is distinct from Islamophobia. Therefore, I don't think the actual suspect's remarks in custody do anything to remove the incident from Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents in the United States. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 22 May 2025

Description of suggested change: The "See also" list includes "Antisemitism during the Gaza war" but no entry on anti-Israel protests or anti-Israeli sentiment. This foregrounds one explanatory frame (that the shooter acted out of hatred of Jews as Jews) and sidelines the other (that the shooter acted out of anti-Israel bias), nudging editors and readers toward an antisemitic interpretation.

Diff:

−

== See also == * [[Antisemitism during the Gaza war]] * [[1977 Washington, D.C., attack and hostage taking]] * [[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting]] * [[Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting]] * [[List of attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats]]

+

== See also == * [[1977 Washington, D.C., attack and hostage taking]] * [[United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting]] * [[Jewish Museum of Belgium shooting]] * [[List of attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats]]

Mekshift (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: opted to add Criticism of Israel to See Also instead of remove Antisemitism during the Gaza war Mikewem (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 22 May 2025

Description of suggested change: Replace the current "See also" links under the Background section. The present links (Antisemitism in the United States and Israel–United States relations) pre-emptively frame the shooting as an antisemitic incident tied to U.S.–Israel diplomacy, even though investigators have not yet established antisemitism as the motive. A neutral framing should point readers to context that is unquestionably relevant and undisputed:

1. ongoing Israeli mass killings in Gaza,
2. the wave of Gaza-war protests in the United States, and
3. the broader pattern of Palestinian-related political violence.

These topics directly concern the suspect's reported slogans ("Free Palestine") and alleged manifesto, which reference Gaza rather than Jewish identity. Updating the links improves NPOV by presenting background that does not presume the attack was antisemitic before reliable sources confirm that conclusion.

Diff:

−

==Background== <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: [[:Antisemitism in the United States]] and [[:Israel–United States relations]]</div>

+

==Background== <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">See also: [[:Gaza genocide]], [[:Gaza war protests in the United States]], and [[:Palestinian political violence]]</div>

Mekshift (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Rodriguez is not being reported as being Palestinian.

As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body MOS:SEEALSO Mikewem (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Conflicting reports

CNN reports the other two Israeli embassy aides with the couple were unharmed. Even tho Israeli officials say they were.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/israeli-embassy-washington-dc-shooting-05-21-25#cmazhwjf2000y3b6mv5ydn9ej 102.89.22.251 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Vox article

Two terrible truths about the antisemitic murders in DC

https://www.vox.com/politics/414137/dc-shooting-capital-jewish-museum-terrorism-israel-palestine-motive

Vox is a progressive media outlet. It classifies the murders as antisemitic. Please consider including it in the article. 2A0A:EF40:7A0:7201:955B:B083:67E5:4937 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

“Fears of anti-Israel political violence on the left are real, and last night that threat became deadly,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the leader of the pro-peace J Street activist group, said in an emailed statement. “We urge all those in the pro-Palestine movement to take stock of this moment and recognize the danger of extreme rhetoric as it hits the ears of unhinged individuals.”

2A0A:EF40:7A0:7201:955B:B083:67E5:4937 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The guy that thought there was a bridge between Gaza and the West Bank called it antisemitic. Noted. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Bluntly, both sides of the political spectrum - progressive and conservative - have their own motives for trying to label this as antisemitic. Progressive sources will try to label it as antisemitic so that it's not associated with what appears to be the actual reason, which was anti-Zionist in nature. They will do this because they don't want the anti-Zionist/Free Palestine/etc. movements to be seen as associated with this attack. On the other hand, conservatives will try to call it antisemitic to bolster their claims that antisemitism is on the rise and at an all time high.

In other words, we should wait for as neutral sources as possible. Just because the sources (so far) may be reporting the same outcome from both sides doesn't mean they aren't (so far) all biased one way or the other and doing it for their own reasons. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. Because what I've been told in the context of editing other articles is that it's not up to individual editors to determine what's balanced, but rather to simply go with what the consensus of reliable sources say. And your reasoning here seems to be a lot of interpretation on your part and second-guessing source material.

As for the anti-Zionist / anti-Semitic distinction, yes, there's techically a differnce. (And anti-Judaism would be yet another concept.) But it's a wild exaggeration to act as if there's an absolute bright line between the two and that anti-Zionism doesn't sometimes (maybe even quite often) bleed over into anti-Semitism. So I think there needs to be a better argument for why this attack on a literal terrorist murder of a Jewish civilian (though I'll note that one of the victims wasn't Jewish) is simply an "anti-Zionist" attack and does not cross the line into anti-Semitism. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, if editors misuse the talk page as a forum to have that kind of argument it should be deleted or archived. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Washington Post update

Affidavit: Suspect in D.C. Jewish museum shooting confessed to killings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/05/22/israeli-embassy-staff-dc-shooting-capital-jewish-museum 2A0A:EF40:7A0:7201:955B:B083:67E5:4937 (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

False flag claims

There have been a sizeable number of people on social media trying to paint this attack as a false flag by the US or Israeli government. Should this go in the reactions section? An argument against this would be the fact that lots of other mass shootings (even non-politically-motivated ones like Sandy Hook) have become the subject of semi-popular conspiracy theories. So unless a really high-profile public figure labels this particular shooting a false flag, it might not cross the threshold of notability.173.27.3.111 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not promote conspiracy theories. 2A0A:EF40:7A0:7201:955B:B083:67E5:4937 (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 23 May 2025

Can we please change the title so that it makes grammatical sense? I feel as though it should read something like "2025 Murder of Israeli Embassy Staff in Washington DC" or at least something more sensical than what we have now?:

Diff:

−

2025 killing of Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. workers

+

2025 Murder of Israeli Embassy Staff in Washington DC

DPG1987 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. A requested move discussion is also open already on this talk page. Day Creature (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The Forward article

Even if the Capital Jewish Museum shooter ‘did it for Gaza,’ his actions were antisemitic

https://forward.com/opinion/722776/capital-jewish-museum-shooting-palestine-antisemitism 2A0A:EF40:7A0:7201:955B:B083:67E5:4937 (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)