Talk:Killing of Breonna Taylor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

May we change the archive period to 7 days?

Now that the talk page is creeping over 100kB, may we change the talk page archive period to 7 days? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is better to archive single threads that are completed, rather than risk an 8-day old thread disappearing overnight by an automated process. If you don't have an archive tool installed, try adding User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver. Then you can read a thread, compare it to the article content, decide if it is completed, and if it is complete archive just that one thread. If you don't wish to install a tool with your account, simply "mark" a thread as completed or resolved (some use Template:Resolved to mark a thread as done) and someone else will archive that thread (leaving the active threads remaining). Normal Op (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that there was useful discussion in a thread $12-million payout to Taylor family details needed after it was idle more than 7 days. Bob K31416 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of the recent spike was after the Sept 23 grand jury findings, so any stale threads from around then will autoarchive soon.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - @Bob K31416:, @Bagumba:, @Normal Op:, the discussion needs to stop somewhere, so IMHO, 7 days seems sufficient. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, 7 days is too short. The automated archiving tool's purpose is to archive STALE threads, not to stop discussion. Anyone can install the OneClickArchiver tool and use it to archive single threads that are COMPLETE/DONE. However, I've not been involved in these discussions, so reading the lengthier ones would be tedious for me starting from ground zero. I did read and archive a few shorter ones the other day. You can do the same. If you find the length of this page difficult, that's not anyone else's problem and doesn't need an automated archiving tool to solve it for you. As I said before, if you don't want to install the archiving tool, then MARK the done threads and someone else will archive them. Normal Op (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• I checked, and several threads will auto-archive in 2 days, several more in 3 and 4 days from now. (Providing no one adds a new comment to those threads.) Normal Op (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest going to [1] and scrolling down to better understand the situation. The page has its ebb and flow, as I think Bagumba's message alluded to. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's funny. So Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake gets changed from 7 days to 14 days because it's too short. Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor gets changed from 30 days to 14 days at the same time... and THAT is still too long? 14 days seems adequate, acceptable, and usual for a fast moving Talk page. And 28 threads is not too many. Try 88 threads which was on Talk:List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests on June 21st [2]. Now THAT was "too many". (In the end, I archived over 90 threads one-by-one, after checking each one.) Normal Op (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It really depends on the activity on the page which varies but tends to peak when the issue is receiving a lot of attention like when a grand jury decision was made. Unless you're volunteering to manually archive threads, and will do so in a way that won't lead to conflict, automatic archiving is often the best option. 28 threads is indeed a lot and catering to editors with limited devices is everyone's problem. The simple fact is, a thread which hasn't been replied to in 7 days is generally stale on a very active page. Editors are always free to mark a thread to prevent archival, or to reverse archival if they feel it still needs attention despite having no new replies in 7 days. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, there were 31 threads when this discussion began, and it's now down to 16.—Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - This talk page is still at about 140 kB, and dropping slowly indeed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

New BodyCam Footage and Vice special update

Now that there is publicly available bodycam footage that has been released by Louisville PD showing Kenneth Walker falsely claiming upon being arrested that Breonna fired the 9 mm and not himself, it warrants inclusion in the article.

In the video Kenneth Walker while being detained states "What did I do??" and then cries out "We heard banging at the door and yelled back in confusion" to which one of the police officers responds "No, no we yelled three times police warrant we need to search the apartment". He explains that his girlfriend is dead inside the apartment and then when asked where he is responds "She's in the hall-way", the officer then asks "What kind of gun did she shoot" and Kenneth responds "It's a 9, it's a regular 9 mm", the officer then asks "Did she shoot it or did you shoot it? and Walker responds "It was her, she was scared".

Also, photographs included in the police report show at the night of the shooting in her apartment there was mail addressed to Jamarcus Glover and this ought to be included as well in the body since there seems to be the notion that she had nothing to do with him, which is unlikely given the fact Kenneth said later in his official story that he initially thought it was her ex (convicted criminal Jamarcus Glover) who was entering the apartment.

Here is the source, https://www.wdrb.com/news/body-camera-video-shows-frantic-moments-after-fatal-raid-on-breonna-taylors-home/article_1ec98154-080c-11eb-a45c-abdc67f16c12.html as I have not been part of the formation of this article so I will let someone who has been working on it add this portion in somewhere. Pformenti (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Are sources expressing doubt that he wasn't the shooter?—Bagumba (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It was evident I am pretty sure that she was not the shooter so no source alleged she was, this is more to include the chronology of events following Kenneth Walker's arrest, here is another article talking about him blaming the shooting on Breonna upon being arrested. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8815125/New-bodycam-footage-shows-Breonna-Taylors-boyfriend-screaming-girlfriends-dead.html there is this source - Shouldn't we source the bodycam video since it's a primary source? Pformenti (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's not crucial to understanding the shooting, I'd err on the side of WP:NOTDIARY and leave it out. Incidentally, Daily Mail is not a reliable source per WP:RS/P, though I'm sure this is mentioned in passing in some reliable sources. Also, WP:PRIMARY doesnt give any special weight to primary sources.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I added it here, along with the dialog about whether they knocked, before seeing the discussion here, and I'm certainly open to discussion. I think it's significant, because it reflects on Walker's credibility - both pro and con. The fact Walker said then that he didn't hear an announcement bolsters his credibility on that issue, while the fact that he said Taylor (rather than he) fired the gun casts doubt generally on his statements.John2510 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not really Wikipedia's job to add minor details like this just for the purpose of impugning someone's credibility. I don't think it needs to be there. It's irrelevant to the actual story because he's retracted that claim and it's almost certainly false. And I don't think it's widely reported enough to be an important point on its own. It seems like picking and choosing for an ulterior motive. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It’s not certainly false that he lied and told the police Breonna fired the 9 mm gun it’s viewable on video from the bodycam footage. Pformenti (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, we don't automatically include everything just because it is true. It does not seem his retracted statememt is receiving continued scrutiny.—Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

New article for Breonna Taylor protests

Support - @Albertaont:, @JJonahJackalope: and @FloNight:, Now that this article is above 100kB, I support the creation of a new article entitled Breonna Taylor protests. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Note Earlier discussion archived here.—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Support - @Jax 0677: but only if you have time. I think the protests might have died down as new protests currently seem to be focused on the San Bernandino shooting. Albertaont (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support I don't find it objectionable at all, but also don't feel a great need for it. But then again, I have a pretty good internet connection most of the time. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

"Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old unarmed African-American woman, was fatally shot ..."

Word ordering. "Unarmed" is a description of her state at the time that she was shot and not an ongoing description of who she is/was as a person. As such, the adjective "unarmed" does not belong between "26-year-old" and "African-American woman". I suggest therefore that the adjective "unarmed" belongs a little later in the sentence. E.g. "Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African-American woman, was fatally shot while unarmed ... " In this way the sentence separates (a) who is Breonna Taylor from (b) the circumstances of her death.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobysharp (talk • contribs) 12:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus at this time. Participants disagree on which title would be more CONSISTENT with similar articles. The below-mentioned RFC could address these inconsistencies, so the title may be reassessed after that discussion is closed. Opposers also cited the relatively recent previous RM, so it may be easier to find consensus after some more time passed and the subject case possibly develops further. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Shooting of Breonna Taylor → Killing of Breonna Taylor – Per established WP:CONSISTENT titles: [3]. Taylor was killed, not just get shot. That she was killed is why this article mostly exists. Albertaont (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Although it might be better to wait until this RfC is closed.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support per op. Even if the RfC is inconclusive it seems like a good move.blindlynx (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Just a few months ago we established a consensus to move this to the current title – see Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor/Archive 1#Requested move 23 May 2020. Very little has changed since then. The vast majority of articles about fatal shootings (except those called "Murder of") are using "Shooting of" titles, so WP:CONSISTENT would favor the current title. — BarrelProof (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As BarrelProof points out, consensus was recently established for the current title and it's actually consistent with a greater number of other articles. Though further developments, such as legal ones, might warrant a change in the future. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 07:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The proposal's rationale doesn't account for titles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin, where the victim also died. The mere existence of "Killing of ..." titles is not sufficient to argue that a change is needed here.—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Consistency is important (WP: CONSISTENT, and most articles indeed do that. Unless you want to change every article mentioning shootings, I will oppose. 66.74.88.17 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - GNews hits for "Shooting of Breonna taylor": 129, GNews hits for "Killing of Breonna Taylor": 163. Looks like "Killing of..." leads by a relatively slim margin in usage. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adrian Walker

Not sure how much it matters, but the article's background section talks briefly about an Adrian Walker and their relationship to the initial Police Department investigation. On Thursday, Adrain Walker was found dead of a gun-related shooting. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - @Super Goku V:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the suggestion Jax 0677. I did not do so was because there is not an aftermath section, but I believe I will create one in the next few days. (Worse case scenario, it gets merged to a better location.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Black and white

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Dream Focus: Hello! In this edit summary, you said, "When referring to a race, Black and White are capitalized, unless its in a quote from someone". Could you please provide a link to where the Wikipedia Manual of Style says that? I'm not disagreeing, I just want to see it in the MOS. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I looked around a little more, and I found this: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. I've just taken a quick skim through there, and it looks to me like this subject is still under discussion. About this article, and in general, I think it would be better if "white" was not capitalized. It would probably also be better to capitalize "Black". That's just my opinion. This is a whole big debate, which I've read about elsewhere too. If anyone really wants to get into it, it would probably be better to do it on the MOS talk page, as part of the main discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Black is already capitalized in this article. Why would you capitalize one race and not the other? Dream Focus 23:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not capitalizing "white", or capitalizing it, is part of the whole big discussion. For example, the New York Times is capitalizing "black" but not "white" now, and there's a quote about that on the MOS discussion page. It's in the "courtesy collapsed" thing. It says in part, "We will retain lowercase treatment for “white.” While there is an obvious question of parallelism, there has been no comparable movement toward widespread adoption of a new style for “white,” and there is less of a sense that “white” describes a shared culture and history. Moreover, hate groups and white supremacists have long favored the uppercase style, which in itself is reason to avoid it." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not some random newspaper trying to be all politically correct and not upset anyone. The fact that inbred hillbillies somewhere might use a capital letter for reasons of racism, is not a valid reason to not use it. Hitler built and supported interstates, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Some news sources capitalize both or neither, or randomly change according to whoever wrote the article, examples of that in the discussion. Dream Focus 00:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not just that, it's also that Black people, unlike whites, have elements of a shared history and identity. Anyway, we could have our own branch of this discussion here. But probably it'd be better to join the larger debate, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello everybody. The other discussion has been closed, as "Consensus against updating MOSCAPS to capitalize "Black" when used as a racial or ethnic descriptor." Again, that's at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

“Jamarcus Glover's conflicting statements” subsection

Jamarcus Glover's series of conflicting statements about Taylor's handling or not handling of money related to his non-legal recreational drug trafficking keeps getting re-written into a smooth narrative where he supposedly simply describes Taylor holding money for him, sometimes with an edit summary about fixing a “mess” of a paragraph.

Breonna Taylor, remember, as a recently deceased person, is covered by the WP:BLP policy (and note that this page is marked {{Ds/talk notice|topic=blp}}); so, endeavoring to prevent this passage from getting re-written again to make it sound like more of an accusation of criminal involvement than it actually is, I have created a subsection header for it and prominently marked it as a series of conflicting and contradictory statements. Please don't try to re-write it into a coherent narrative or remove the cited statement that Breonna Taylor was never named as a defendant in the drug trafficking investigation. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 16:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Remember that Jamarcus Glover is also covered by BLP policy, and describing his statements as "conflicting" when the cited sources do not say that is also a violation of BLP policy. Simply citing different statements in different sources and labeling them in Wikipedia's voice as "conflicting" is only acceptable if the sources are making that determination. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this article by USA Today about the claim that the police not having a warrant being false correct?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-police-had-no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-apartment/3235029001/

Sarsath3 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sarsath3: Talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM for general discussion about the topic. However, if you believe that source can help improve the Wikipedia article, feel free to make a specific edit suggestion. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Warning shot.

The article says "Fired a warning shot that struck the police officer" by your own definition on Wikipedia that is not a warning shot. A warning shot is a artillery shot fired Into the air not horizontally towards someone. Clipfacegun (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

See Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor#Shooting_and_aftermath. There is a dispute on how the officer was shot. The "warning shot" is attributed to Walker.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

link does not support statement

the Background section: "Glover had cohabited with Taylor and said the police had pressured him to move out of Taylor's residence for unspecified reasons.[37]". The article referenced says Glover was pressured to move away from Elliott Avenue. Breonna Taylor's home address was on Springfield Drive: "...detectives repeatedly pressured him about leaving the Elliott Avenue home months before the March 13 raid." Fosterloti (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Warning shot"

Hi there. The article says that a "warning shot" was fired (according to Walker), but a look at the sources provided shows only one supporting this and [4] [5] [6] three say nothing about it being a warning shot. Also, how could it be a warning shot if it hit someone? To include a claim like this (even when attributed to Walker) seems wrong. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Also consider that many months after the incident, the issue of whether it was a warning shot is disputed [7]. It might be worth just saying that he shot Mattingly before we see the result of this lawsuit, then we can have some closure and say if it was a warning shot or not. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The dispute is detailed further at Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor#Shooting_and_aftermath. There's enough doubt to leave both Walker's and the police's versions attributed. As recent as December 2020, ABC was still alluding to the possibility of a warning shot: When police burst in, Walker, a licensed gun owner, said he fired a single shot at the ground as a warning shot, thinking there were intruders trying to break in. Police immediately returned fire.[8]—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021

hello world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.205.247 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Request to change wording

In Reactions, September 2020: "In Seattle, a police officer rode a bicycle over a man's head."

The officer never was riding the bicycle. The word 'rode' gives the complete wrong context to what actually happened. Recommend something like: "In Seattle, a police officer was walking his bike along the road when he deliberately rolled it over a man's head."

Source has no information about what happened: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2020/09/24/are-we-a-banana-republic-490423

Halfway down page source previously used: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/24/breonna-taylor-charging-decision-protests/

Sources show what happened: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-seattle-officer-appearing-roll-over-protester-s-head-bike-n1241012 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/25/seattle-police-bike-protester-head/ https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-seattle-cop-rolls-bike-over-protester-head-video-shows-20200924-qrm756yxgrek7dbkbrfcf7wmoy-story.html

 Done Changed to, In Seattle, as a result of a Seattle Police Department use of force investigation, an unnamed police officer was placed on administrative leave after rolling both wheels of his bicycle over the head of a protester lying in the street. The incident was referred to the King County Sheriff's Office for a potential criminal investigation. with your first two sources and a ref to the SPD press release. For future reference, Fregiouaherth, see Wikipedia:Edit requests.

I think that describing the police officers' skin colour is entirely unnecessary and should be removed. JohnStrelley (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

I think that the police officers' skin colour does not need to be included in their description. It is unnecessary information that assumes racism or racial motivation. JohnStrelley (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It was covered heavily by reliable sources and Wikipedia content is weighted by coverage in reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Change "but Taylor was hit by six bullets and died" to "but Taylor was hit by six bullets and killed" BreakfastCalzone (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please get consensus for any changes to the lead of this article before requesting the edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove the word white.

Remove the word white from the article. “Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African-American woman, was fatally shot in her Louisville, Kentucky, apartment on March 13, 2020, when **white** plainclothes officers Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison, and Myles Cosgrove of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) forced entry into the apartment as part of an investigation into drug dealing operations.“ The officers had very little visual of the people inside, so it has no context to mention the race of officers and the accidental victim. Kebabai į namus (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

We reflect the WP:WEIGHT of sources that race of the officers is mentioned in reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, if it is right to keep "white" in here, then why don't you go add "African-american" to the shooting of Justine Damond. She was an innocent Caucasian woman, who got killed by police officer Mohamed Noor in Minneapolis. KJ4488 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the Taylor talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Breonna Taylor Page

Note: I'm copying post from my talk page by Pformenti to here, where others can also comment.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, you cannot remove the fact that Kenneth Walker initially told the police Breonna shot at the police when initially being arrested and then add a Vice article about the witness changing his mind a week after endless publicity of the event and death threats he received to change his reporting of the event. In a trial law or any judicial system, witnesses cannot simply change their recounting of events when it's convenient for them, which is clear as day in this case. So I wonder unless you want to push a POV why you would decide it's not relevant to include the fact Walker lied to the police and blamed Breonna for the shooting but it's relevant to mention the neighbor changed his mind a week after everything. It seems as if only things that push blame or fault on the police are allowed onto the article.

Please explain.

Pformenti (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, you cannot remove the fact ... I don't recall removing it. I see where it was removed by Bueller 007. There was no consensus for its inclusion at Talk:Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor/Archive_4#New_BodyCam_Footage_and_Vice_special_update. Saying Walker "lied" seems WP:OR, and would need reliable sources too.—Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the neighbor who was a witness to the knocking, it's WP:DUE coverage with multiple reliable sources cited. It was introduced in September 2020 during discussion at Talk:Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor/Archive_1#"but_how_the_officers_announced_their_identity_before_forcing_entry_is_in_dispute"_should_be_"but_how_or_if_the_officers_announced_their_identity_before_forcing_entry_is_in_dispute". I've restored your removal, and added another source as well. Feel free to form a new consensus to remove it.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources for the "it was her. she was scared" line: 1 2 3. It seems fine to me to say something along the lines of "While he initially said [...], he later clarified that [...]". Regarding your previous discussion, it seems like it was you and one editor who thought it shouldn't be added, and Pformenti and another who thought it should – doesn't seem there's much to gleam from that discussion. As a side note, it seems very strange to me that no mention of the existence of the body cam footage is made in this article, seems odd. Volteer1 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems trivial if nobody believe she fired the gun, why we need to include the minutiae. As for the sources you cited, The Independent seems fine, but there is no consensus on the reliability of the NY Post per WP:RSP, and Snopes is factual but shouldn't be used to determine WP:DUE as it's whole purpose is to debunk fringe theories. What is clear is that no reliable sources are saying he lied.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Scrolling through sources after the new details emerge, it does seem to be a common thing that people mention when they give an extensive recount of events (which we're doing here in this Wikipedia article), rather than giving a short summary of events. We shouldn't survey the sources published before this information was actually known. Collating some sources in rough order of how good I think they are (and taking out the Daily Mail for obvious reasons...):

• The Independent: "The tape also reveals Mr Walker saying it was Mr Taylor who fired at officers, though he later reversed this statement and said it was he who fired after as police busted down the door. “It was her,” Mr Walker says when asked who shot at officers, including Louisville police Sgt Jonathan Mattingly, who got struck in the thigh. “She was scared.”"
• The Associated Press: "Walker said “she was the one who shot at us.” Walker later confessed that he was the one who opened fire."
• ABC News: "In the tense moment, he told police it was Breonna, not he, who fired the gun. Later in a police interview, Walker admitted it was actually he who fired a shot. He said he told police it had been Breonna because he was scared."
• Courier Journal: "On the footage, Walker can be heard telling police it was Taylor who shot at officers. He eventually admitted he was the one who fired the one shot at the door."
• WDRB: "HANKISON: "Did she shoot or you shoot?" WALKER: "It was her. She was scared." Walker would later reverse this statement."
• WFPL: "Walker initially told police that it was Taylor who shot at the officers, though he later admitted he fired the shot."
• WINK: Walker’s attorney, Steve Romines, told CNN that Walker initially told officers that Taylor fired at them because he feared for his life. Romines said his client later admitted to firing a shot when he was interviewed at a police station.
• Snopes: "When asked which of them fired at the police, a visibly emotional and confused Walker said, “It was her. She was scared.” But since that night, in numerous interviews Walker has insisted that he fired his handgun."
• NYPost: "“It was her. She was scared,” Walker answered. The boyfriend, who was not hurt, later reversed the statement"

I'm sure there are more, I've just given up googling because I'm bored now. It seems to clear to me that the inclusion of this is certainly due. Obviously we shouldn't say he was "lying", but including a mention of his changed statement is reasonable. Volteer1 (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Do you have any additional objections to the inclusion of a sentence about this that weren't addressed in my post above? If not, I think I'll go ahead and grab a couple of sources from the top and write a small sentence about it (probably similar to how it was discussed in the ABC News article). Volteer1 (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: My feelings are still the same as I stated in the last discussion: If it's not crucial to understanding the shooting, I'd err on the side of WP:NOTDIARY and leave it out. Walker fired the gun, not Taylor There's little/no doubt about it. Sometimes Wikipedia is too caught up with inconsequential details about how we came to know something, as opposed to just saying what we know now. I don't see it being relevant. It potentially opens up Pandora's box. Would we then need to add more NPOV that the police threatened Walker: You’re going to f***ing prison, that’s what going on.[9]—Bagumba (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

There are indeed more things that I think should be included, like Walker said an officer asked him if he was hit with any bullets. When he said no, the officer replied: "That’s unfortunate." (source), which is mentioned a lot. I'm not sure we really learn much about what happened from the quote You’re going to f***ing prison, that’s what going on and it seems reliable sources quote it less (cursory google search, could be wrong!) but it could provide context for what ABC News said: "[Walker] said he told police it had been Breonna because he was scared", though it may be WP:SYNTH to put the statements next to each other. I don't think it opens up a "pandora's box" situation though, what else of the new information do you think we should include? I don't think there's much. To be clear here, I don't think "NPOV" means we should add as many statements that you think makes one party ""look bad"" as makes the other party ""look bad"", I think NPOV just means we give due weight to what reliable sources discuss, you shouldn't be thinking of things in the former terms. Volteer1 (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I still maintain it's more of a WP:NOTDIARY issue. If it's excluded, nothing is lost aside from some back-and-forth drama. —Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I still disagree. Quotes like "You’re going to fucking prison" don't change our understanding of the chronology of events, and aren't covered so much by reliable sources. Walkers admission or lack thereof is materially relevant to the chronology of events, and extensively covered by reliable sources. I don't understand why you'd think the due weight to apply to the new info from the bodycam footage is "exactly none". I've given this a bit of time to see if any other editors wanted to voice their opinions, and given they haven't, the consensus between the three of us involved in the discussion is to include these details, so I've added it into the article. Volteer1 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted this back to your edit with ES of "it's fine". Not that I agree with your edit, but meaning more that the other one was not an improvement and misleading.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba, we do have reliable sources which make mention of this and it's certainly not minutiae considering the amount of detail in this article. We have given you: Independent News (foreign news reporting about an event in America) and WDRB local news station for Kentucky (the state where it happened) who I also may add didn't edit the bodycam footage like Vice did to purposely leave out the part where Kenneth Walker tried to blame the shooting on his girlfriend, Breonna.

Lastly, here is what you said to me a year ago when I first brought this up before Bueller 007 deleted mine and another editor's edits.

"It’s not certainly false that he lied and told the police Breonna fired the 9 mm gun it’s viewable on video from the bodycam footage. Pformenti (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP: ONUS, we don't automatically include −everything just because it is true. It does not seem his retracted statement is receiving continued scrutiny.—Bagumba (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)"

You seem to be particularly attached and defensive about this page, guarding it to the point where you refuse to allow anything even remotely negative or lending credibility to any other position/argument exist. 2 reliable sources and a video... at what point are we just curating the truth with these highly politicized encyclopedia articles. Pformenti (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Déjà vu: It is your talk page where admin Drmies warned you: So, I'll say this again: do not personalize conflicts, and do not willy-nilly accuse editors and admins of 'whitewashing'.[10] Nobody WP:OWNs pages—not me, not you. We have given you: Independent News ...: No, that would be Volteer1, not you. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See above. As a word of advice, it can often be the case that arguing a point badly is worse than not arguing it at all, this is why strawman socks exist. Please try not to discuss other editors so much and stick to a discussion of the actual content at hand. Volteer1 (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You literally just accused me of personalizing conflicts and then did it yourself in the same sentence. I was not personalizing an attack, I was simply pointing out that you have been watch-dogging this article and I felt like a consensus was not reached and my addition to the page had a carpet thrown over it. I am not trying to own this page or allege you own it, I just think that the article should have this included and I had added it and felt the justification for removing it to be weak given how much it's been covered as Volteer1 has provided a list of reliable sources. I provided the Louisville source and brought up the subject in the first place, so yes he provided Independent News, not me. I'm happy to argue a point badly when it's over something that obviously warrants inclusion on this page. Pformenti (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Not hearing police

I clarified here that Walker reversing his statement was not a reversal that they did not hear the police announce themselves. That part is undisputed, and presumably why all criminal charges against Walker were permanently dropped.—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The way it's written now seems good to me. Volteer1 (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over Bagumba, inserting "While" into opening of second sentence.

We are splitting hairs here, why is better to have "While"? that sounds like you are making a case for defending the fact he lied to the arresting officer since he later changed his mind.

For instance, which of the two sentences sounds more neutral?

"Bagumba walked to the store and spat out his gum on the floor, but later on picked it up"

"While Bagumba walked to the store and spat out his gum on the floor, he later picked it up".

Hopefully, the former since it is not adding a qualifier for his actions. We are splitting hairs here, if you are making the argument that it's over grammatical correctness please explain how my revision is not grammatically correct. You added the part of him claiming to not hear the police as the introductory sentence of the section even though it's mentioned already in the article ad nauseum. Keep in mind, I'm not fighting you on that but can we agree on keeping the language as encyclopedic and neutral as possible? All I ask, hope you don't take this to heart you are a good editor. Pformenti (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You made edits without an edit summary that removed "while", leaving two complete sentences separated by a comma. Poor grammar. I reverted you. Once. You are mistaking WP:BRD for an "edit war". By your latest edit, you have now added "but" in between. Your edit summary includes a curious please stop reverting, give it a rest. This is not your article, nor is it anyone's fault but your own that you forgot "but" and didn't leave an edit summary. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You added the part of him claiming to not hear the police: There was no issues brought up at #Not hearing police. I've removed it, and left the part about thinking they were intruders.—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you Pformenti (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Have" or "has" is not as important as actually providing a reference

@NonReproBlue and AlsoWukai: have been to and froing over whether a statement in the article should say "None of the officers involved in the raid have been charged in Taylor's death" or "None of the officers involved in the raid has been charged in Taylor's death". Unless a reference is found to actually support the statement, it will be removed anyway. The current reference does not support it. 04:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs)

The citation in the lead says None of the three officers were directly charged in Taylor's death.[11] There's another source in the body as well.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so it does. Belay that. Now, about "have" or "has".... Moriori (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's "have", very odd thing to edit war over though lol. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the context it can be either (although to my ear "none has" will always sound weird). In this context however, "have" is correct, and is in line with the source which uses the plural "were". If the source said "was", there would be a better argument for "has". I would be open to listening to a compelling argument as to why I am wrong, but simply reverting with an edit summary of "no" is not a compelling argument. NonReproBlue (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree that "no" is a poor edit summary, but it doesn't justify constantly reverting over the topic. —Bagumba (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So having explained my position in edit summary, explained my position here, shown that it is in line with the source, and it gets reverted either with "no" or now no edit summary at all (and a somewhat deceptive "minor" edit flag) and no participation here (where at least one other editor has agreed "have" is correct), are you saying that what I should do is just ignore it and allow the incorrect, inappropriately reverted change to stand indefinitely? How is that the correct solution, and how am I the one in the wrong here? NonReproBlue (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Discuss here, as you have been doing since Moriori started this thread, and establish consensus. You can also refer to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Page to 'Killing of Breonna Taylor'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support - Part of WikiProject Death to create more consistent naming conventions around deaths per WP:DEATHS. 'Shooting of...' 'Stabbing of...' etc. should only be used when the person in question did not die. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 22:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – This was proposed a few months ago, and there was not a consensus to rename it then. With that being said, it might be okay to reconsider it now -- though perhaps it would be better to go through the Requested Move process. The previous discussion is at Talk:Shooting of Breonna Taylor/Archive 4#Requested move 27 October 2020. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Combefere: Agree with Mudwater that it's best to make a formal WP:RM request. Without it, someone will likely contest any consensus reached on this thread, especially since this a highly visible page on a contentious topic. You would then be forced to do an RM anyways, essentially duplicatng the discussion again. For your reference, the last move request is at Talk:Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor/Archive_4#Requested_move_27_October_2020. Your rationale seem slightly different. —Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 23 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Shooting of Breonna Taylor → Killing of Breonna Taylor – Per WP:DEATHS: 'Shooting of...' 'Stabbing of...' etc. should only be used when the person in question did not die. This convention was published as part of WikiProject Death in December 2020 to establish a neutral and consistent naming convention around deaths on Wikipedia, and did not exist during the last RM for this page in October 2020. All killings by police officers listed on Wikipedia since December 2020 have adopted this naming convention, including Duante Wright, Ma'Khia Bryant, Christan Hall, Adam Toledo, Dolal Idd, Andre Hill, and more. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 12:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose first proposal which make the article is wrong and not consistent. I propose it to be moved as Murder of Breonna Taylor per WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles named "Murder of xxxx such as Murder of George Floyd. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but per WP:DEATHS there should be a conviction for murder before pages are named as such, otherwise we run into issues with WP:BLP. The Murder of George Floyd was recently renamed from Killing of George Floyd, only after the conviction of Derrick Chauvin. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 13:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DEATHS. 162 etc. (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. Rublov (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)1
• Support per nom. Do not use an unqualified “murder” unless there is a conviction of unqualified murder, meaning first degree murder, which corresponds to the English language meaning that assumes intent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. Love of Corey (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. chri. (talk | contribs) 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Inline with WP:DEATHS. Melmann 15:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. Park3r (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DEATHS. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021

x when white plainclothes officers

y when plainclothes officers

remove the word "white" from the above sentence as it was clearly written by someone who is racist against white people. Noisany76 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It reflects the WP:WEIGHT of sources that race of the officers is oft-mentioned in reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning of entering the home

Police say that they had a complaint but no one seem say where it was coming from. The "White" police men said that they had to check Taylors room but didnt have a warrent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.99.84 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If you're suggesting for a change in the article, you will need to present a reliable source that supports it.—Bagumba (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

There is no image of a search warrant anywhere on the page: I7773 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There's no need for an image of a search warrant. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That goes double for an image of a search warrant from a non reliable or unofficial source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Glover using Taylor's address

There's sources that he used her address. But i don't see sources that they lived together (recent change) or the previous text "cohabitated".[12].—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@KYLE5112: I've partially reverted your revert at 13:26, 28 October 2021. It's a WP:BLP violation and WP:OR of the current citation that they lived together. Also, the police were not telling him to move out of Taylor's home. She lived in an apartment on Springfield Dr.[13] Per the citation in the article, police ... repeatedly pressured him about leaving the Elliott Avenue home months before the March 13 raid.[14] They are different places.—Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate lead revert

The recent, unexplained revert by KYLE5112 introduced multiple inaccuaracies:

• The officers being white was removed. Longstanding text in the lead since Talk:Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor/Archive_3#Race_of_the_officers was that the officers being white is WP:DUE for the lead based on the weight of sources.
• The no-knock warrant is overemphasized in the lead, when officials say they did a "knock and announce".[15]
• It inaccurately states unqualified that Walker shot Mattingly. That is the officials' viewpoint. Walker said he fired a warning shot into the ground,[16] and ballistics reports did not say he was shot by Walker. ("The KSP report says 'due to limited markings of comparative value,' the 9-mm bullet that hit and exited Sgt. John Mattingly was neither 'identified nor eliminated as having been fired' from Walker’s gun."[17]) Walker's legal team cast doubt on the officials: "However, Romines said the evidence casts doubt on whether it was Walker's bullet that struck Mattingly in the left leg."[18]

—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@KYLE5112: EvergreenFir had reverted your previous edit‎ at 05:12, 28 October, but you essentially reverted back at 13:20, 28 October—without disucussion or consensus here—that the officers were white.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been no support for the removal of "white". Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. It seems to have been restored a few days ago.[19]—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Racist remarks

I'm offended that they feel the need to emphasize the fact the officers are white. Why couldn't the just say officers? 2600:6C44:B7F:E791:C9F:1FE0:CFEE:56FD (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It's considered due per Talk:Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor/Archive_3#Race_of_the_officers.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a racial incident

The clarification of what race either party was, is irrelevant to this story. Until we stop making everything about race, we'll always will have racial problems. I suggest removing anything that has to do with race from this article. The incident involved incompetent officers that didn't correctly do their jobs. 184.6.13.178 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Many people do perceive this as a racial incident, and it's been extensively discussed as one. That's not the opinion of Wikipedia editors, it's supported by a number of the third-party references in the article. And here's one that's not in the article but could be added.

References

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Questionable choice of phrasing

The article mentions that the officer fired shots that hit a neighbouring occupied house. They stated that he was reprimanded for endangering the white people in that home.

Did the law specify that the occupants must be white for the officers actions to have constituted misconduct?

I understand that it is relevant to specify the officers and the victims race given the context and the social perception of the killing. However I fail to see the relevance of the genetics of innocent and somewhat irrelevant people.

It seems to imply that the race of the neighbours had some sort of effect on the proceeding events.

RIP Breonna Taylor 49.196.44.131 (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In Local and State Investigation, I removed the adjectives "white" and "black" describing the families whose apartments were shot into. Not only does this article not show that one family's apartment was used in the indictment specifically because they were white, but I also think we should pay attention to the following paragraphs in this WFPL article :

Aguiar told WFPL News he knows Napper and Etherton are white and that the upstairs neighbors are Black because he has met them.

Lawrence said he doesn’t know how Napper or Etherton identify racially, but that they deserve justice, and so does Taylor.

Ender and Peter 21:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Regarding this change, we at least need to show why describing the race of the families is demonstrably due. The way the current phrasing begins with describing an indictment "for endangering a neighboring white family of three" is rather puzzling. As was originally pointed out, why would someone be indicted for endangering a white family in particular? But when you read a little further this article only starts to hint at why it might be saying this, so we might as well just state this explicitly. But we need to be careful about stating who exactly is making what claim.

From what I am understanding, the father of the "black family" is Stanley David who made the following statement:

“My apartment was hit, too,” David said. “The bullet that came through my floor right in front of my bedroom door, if that bullet went through my bed, maybe I would have been dead, too. I’m a human being, too.”

Daily Beast, Courier Journal

I am not finding statements from him specifically talking about racial discrimination. However, Taylor's lawyers have most certainly made statements accusing the state investigators of such a thing.

I propose the following edit. It will give the article a more neutral tone and clearly show why race is being mentioned, still waiting until the end of the paragraph to delve into this in the spirit of the original prose, while avoiding inadvertently asserting more than intended. Please tell me your thoughts:

On September 23, 2020, a state grand jury indicted Hankison on three counts of wanton endangerment for endangering a neighboring family of three when shots he fired penetrated their apartment.123 He faced up to five years in prison and a fine for each count.3 Bullets also entered the upstairs apartment of another family but no charges were filed. An attorney for Taylor's family criticized this decision, stating: "Three counts for the shots into the apartment of the white neighbors, but no counts for the shots into the apartment of the Black neighbors upstairs above Breonna’s".45

Ender and Peter 18:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

The section saying she was shot by 3 white officers is inappropriate. That statement makes this sound racist. Neither you or I was there. To know if the officers announced themselves. If this incident was reversed and the police were black and the residents were white, the police officers wouldn't be described as 3 black officers. How do you fight racism with racism. We are all people regardless of race. 2603:8000:6900:5773:1145:B3E8:9CAE:7921 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia applies due weight based on coverage in reliable sources. Most editors are not witnesses to the topics they write about.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

Change “plainclothes officers” to officers in uniform. This info is based on the book “12 seconds in the dark” by Sgt. John Mattingly. 2601:601:8480:4FE0:4DB6:3583:C087:CC7E (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. We generally use secondary sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference to "12 Seconds in the Dark: A Police Officer's Firsthand Account of the Breonna Taylor Raid"

This article should include a link to the first-hand account by John Mattingly. ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09QMHD92K https://www.amazon.com/12-Seconds-Dark-Officers-Firsthand-ebook/dp/B09QMHD92K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:D80:BC0:64F3:3F4B:DBC0:59A3 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a WP:PRIMARY source published by a division of The Daily Wire, which is listed as not reliable at WP:RSP. At best, it might only be worth mentioning as far as reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources discuss it.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Plainclothes officers and "knock-and-announce"

I am wary of the lead's treatment of these two topics, but currently unsure how to address this.

I agree with Bagumba that it may be difficult to confirm what exactly the officers wore other than body armor, but there does not appear to be dispute about the presence of the battering ram and shields. Although "plainclothes" is a repeated term throughout the sources, it may not be all too relevant if neither side could see each other. It is hard to see the significance of their uniforms in this case.

As intrigued by Mattingly's first-hand account as I am, I share Bagumba's concern that his book was published by a very far-right publication like The Daily Wire. I should note that I share a similar discomfort with The Daily Beast for being very far-left.

The "knock-and-announce" issue has been highly contentious. It looks like there is at least agreement on the "knock" part, in that Walker and neighbors described loud banging. We should be very critical of Walker's statements, and careful not to inadvertently portray them as statements of fact. Fortunately, some body cam footage after the shooting is widely available. In this video, you will notice contradictions in his statements versus information that has since been confirmed. He clearly says that it was Breonna who shot at the police, and he seems a bit slow to realize that he was dealing with the police the entire time. It is understandable they found it difficult to rely on his information and were compelled to clear the unit before tending to Breonna. And so, when the lead says "Walker said he did not hear any announcement, thought the officers were intruders, and fired a warning shot at them", we should be careful that this does not come across as a definitive assessment. Ender and Peter 20:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Saying "Walker said..." meets WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, in that it's attributed to Walker, as opposed to being a fact stated in Wikipedia's voice e.g. "Walker did not hear..." The reader is left to judge the credibility of Walker and his statement.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

We should be very critical of Walker's statements...: We write what reliable sources say and analyze about what happened. Wikipedia isn't the one that's being critical, per se. Witnesses retract statements all the time. We reflect what sources say, applying WP:DUE.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The placement of Walker's statement may be adding undue weight. In the lead, his statement appears to be the only thing refuting the claim that the police announced themselves. Walker has made a handful of contradictions/retractions, making the accuracy of this claim questionable. Again, he initially told police that it was Breonna who fired a shot. Later, in the formal police interview, he says he was the one who fired. Eventually, as shown in a source article, one of Walker's lawyer's pushes the theory that Mattingly was actually shot by friendly fire. As I review the Detroit News article, I should correct myself in acknowledging there was a brief point where each side saw each other before Walker's shot. He says that if he knew it was the police, he would not have fired. I do not understand why police must wear "official" uniforms for others to be convinced that they are in fact police. People who are not police could wear such a thing and theoretically obtain similar equipment. Walker's confusing and contradicting statements should be given little weight, if any.

As far as statements by neighbors about what exactly they heard... I think that this clip from Hankinson's trial of one of the upstairs neighbors being confronted with a tape of him telling a detective that he heard the police announce themselves is demonstrative of the bizarre confusion about this. Initially, he outright denies he ever said such a thing. Eventually, when presented with audio, he says he does not remember saying it. Also, please listen to/watch this clip of another police interview with the neighbor who reiterates that the police announced themselves. Ender and Peter 23:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The placement of Walker's statement may be adding undue weight. In the lead, his statement appears to be the only thing refuting the claim that the police announced themselves. Walker has made a handful of contradictions/retractions, making the accuracy of this claim questionable.: The placement of Walker's story is consistent with that Detroit News link giving it prominent mention. It also seems to serve the reader to understand why the changes against Walker were dropped for firing at the police. The details about a witness saying the police announced themselves are in the body. FWIW (and stated already in the WP article), the witness also changed their story, originally saying, "nobody identified themselves".—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That is the very witness that the video clips I shared from Hankinson's trial refer to: Aaron Sarpee, the man who came to pick up his child from a babysitter. Even though his lawyer said "Sarpee never indicated that police announced themselves effectively", you can plainly hear what he says on tape in the video clips of Hankinson's trial. Also both sides in the trial stipulated that Sarpee indeed stated that the police announced themselves, making clear that they will not argue about that fact. I think the certainty by which Sarpee asserts that the police identified themselves in the recordings is worth noting in the lead. How is this less significant than Walker's statements? It is a shame how difficult independent verification on this has been. Ender and Peter 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

She wasn’t just shot. She was murdered. 2601:743:300:1960:94E2:A13A:E6CF:227A (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It is unclear what specific changes you are requesting be made, but I assume you are referring to the terms in the article used for the manner of death. There is no conviction for murder in this case, and independent reliable sources generally do not refer to the case as a murder. Therefore, it would be improper to refer to it as such on Wikipedia. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The motive

Huh?! I surprised that there is no word motive mentioned in this page to support the purpose of killing her. Why there is no word motive mentioned in this page? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:5C73:58D:9D4A:C313 (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

If you know of one that is missing, feel free to indentify the reliable source(s) to support its addition.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Description of Kenneth Walker

I see that my edits were reverted. My edit of the lede is less important, but I really feel that presenting that Walker “thought” police were intruders as an objective fact (as it currently reads) is problematic. The fact that his charges were ultimately dropped does not change this from simply being a claim he is making (noting that apparently the word “claim” is not generally used on Wiki, or that the claim is of actually quite believable in these circumstances, but still a claim nonetheless). I got a nice patronising “welcome to Wikipedia” comment for my efforts, so I’m keen to see what everyone else’s thoughts are before I start an edit war. To be honest, even the “persons involved” heading and the rest of the descriptions are weird too, but that is a separate issue. Cbe46 (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:CLAIM, we generally neutrally present what people say with "said" and the like, not "claim". A reader can think "claim" if they choose to interpret it as so, but it's not Wikipedia's place to add such doubt, unless it's supported by WP:WEIGHT. The lead currently says: ...but Walker said he did not hear any announcement, thought the officers were intruders, and fired a warning shot at them. Is there any doubt that he said this?—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove Cosgrove's 2023 hiring from the lead?

The last sentence of the lead is In 2021, the LMPD fired Cosgrove, and in 2023 he was hired as a law enforcement officer by Caroll County, Kentucky, because Cosgrove had faced no legal consequences for the killing. I'm not sure talking about a person who has been convicted of no crime's current employer is necessary in the lead. Seems like that might be too much WP:WEIGHT. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. His future employment is not critical for the lead of Taylor's killing.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead is still a bit unbalanced: "when three white police officers... forced entry"

I am foreseeing an issue with trying to describe the race(s) of the officers involved. The lead currently states that "three white police officers... forced entry" into the apartment. However, there were more officers than those three who were involved in the forced entry. For instance... how about the officer with the battering ram? Why is he (she?) not front and center in this list? According to an NYT source, there were around "eight or 10 officers". Why are they not all listed as being involved in the forced entry? Upon identifying them, must we also clarify their race? Ender and Peter 20:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems that those are the only three officers to have fired.[20] Presumably why they have gotten most of the attention. This recently from Reuters still identifies the officers with "white". Perhaps reword about which officers forced entry and who specifically fired shots?—Bagumba (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate the additional information. I do not dispute that those three officers were the only ones who fired, nor that several articles identify those officers as white. The problem with the current phrasing is how it singles out those three as the ones who forced entry, as though they acted independently. Clearly, this was a much bigger operation and other officers actually breached the door. Problems will arise when trying to identify these individuals, let alone their race. It is unclear why the race of the officers who shot is significant but the races of other officers involved are not.

My main concern is that if this article continues a trend of feeling obligated to identify the race of individuals involved, then it is going to have severe neutrality issues, which I fear it is already exhibiting.

And although several articles do use the word "plainclothes" to describe them, it is notable that they had tactical vests, and one had a shield while another had a battering ram. We should reconsider repeating this phrase. Ender and Peter 16:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

...trend of feeling obligated to identify the race of individuals involved...: The past consensus has been that it's WP:DUE based on mention in sources. There's no other "obligation" that Wikipedia has w.r.t. race. It seems that the three officers are the most frequently discussed, and worthy of mention in the lead. AFAIK, the identity of the others in the raid is not as prevalent, and can at most be mentioned in the body, if there's relevant coverage. Still, I agree the lead can be tweaked to not imply that those three officers were the only ones who helped force entry.—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this conversation. Sorry, I usually communicate in walls of text, so I sincerely appreciate you reading.

I just watched the video that the first sentence of the lead uses as a source. It does not describe the races of the individuals involved. Also, in the 3D reconstruction in the video, where the police are wearing body gear that says "POLICE" I might point out, and in the comments from the narrator, they plainly acknowledge that more than three people were involved in the forced entry, a point which I appreciate you acknowledging. I agree with you that naming the three officers who shot, as they are very understandably front and center, and clarifying their involvement are appropriate.

Yes, there are sources that specify the race of the individuals, but at the moment this article is unduly using these descriptions.

The issue is more with the manner in which this information is presented. I am not saying that race should not be mentioned at all here. As has been pointed out in previous discussions, clearly race is significant in understanding peoples' reaction to this event. But simply repeating certain words and phrases only because they are in other sources is going to make this article say things that it does not intend to say. Some of these sources have strong biases, or are intentionally communicating certain ideas to their audience. This is going to happen with newspapers, given that they target a very different audience than encyclopedias.

I recommend an edit very much akin to another related discussion I left comments on above. I suggest that the lead start with a summary more faithful to the information provided by the NYT video, regarding multiple people forcing entry and no commentary on race. This video is very appropriate for the first source introducing the reader to all of this information. Even though I dispute some of their conclusions, the information they present is very important and laid out comprehensively.

Sentences following the initial one should talk more about the racial questions that have emerged, being careful to pinpoint who has been asking these questions. A direct quote is not always required, but a summary of viewpoints needs to be expressed in a neutral manner so that it is clear that Wikipedia is not endorsing such a viewpoint. For instance, Daily Beast is a bit more biased on how they talk about these questions of race as though these questions are coming out of thin air and they are not the ones in fact asking them indirectly. Whereas Courier Journal, left-leaning as it may be, is much more careful to say who has made what statements about race so as to make clear they are not the ones making these statements.

I will put some thought into how to do this, but please tell me what you think. Thank you. Ender and Peter 17:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"plainclothes": IIRC, there was some pics of the officers wearing gear and body cameras before the raid, but was there any confirmation one way or the other what they actually wore during the raid? I don't think they ultimately used cameras, or at least there is no footage. AFAIK, "plainclothers" means not in official police uniform, not that they can't have gear on.—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've put more thought into this. I think I have a good plan for less confusion about how race is talked about in the lead. The best solution is to make clear why race is significant in this case.

Some bias, or perhaps at least the appearance, may still be present and is probably unavoidable. By not saying certain things, it very well may appear that something else is being said. Nevertheless, we can continue to fine tune this article to near perfection, as far as making it an indisputable paragon of truth.

By the way, I invite anyone who cares about this article to join this discussion, because I plan to alter the lead and a lot of feedback would be greatly appreciated. I enjoy talking with Bagumba, but it would be excellent to hear from more readers/editors.

As I survey this list, I notice a few trends:

• It is customary to mention the age and race of the article subject in the first sentence. The term African-American is used the most often.
• Leads with no source tend to describe the race of the offender(s) while sourced leads tend not to. I am seeing this adhered to with very few exceptions, such as Killing of Tamir Rice

Bearing this in mind, here is what I propose. Where you see an ellipsis (…) is text left untouched:

Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African-American woman, was fatally shot in her Louisville, Kentucky, apartment on March 13, 2020, when at least seven police officers forced entry into the apartment as part of an investigation into drug dealing operations. Three police officers: Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison, and Myles Cosgrove of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) were involved in the shooting.1 …

…

The shooting of Taylor by white police officers, and the lack of charges for her death, led to numerous protests that added to those across the United States against police brutality and racism.2…

Note how even though the source does not mention Taylor's age or race, this is nevertheless included to be consistent with similar articles, and this information is found in the sources here. Also note that although the text directly states that the officers are white, it is done so specifically in the context of what is said in the referenced source.

Ender and Peter 08:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba and Firefangledfeathers: I hope you don't mind the ping. I figured you are both interested in this discussion.

If there are no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make this change. I was hoping more editors/readers might share their views so we could be sure to talk about it before making an edit, but I'm taking the absence of disagreement as agreement. If not, I do hope we can talk more here.

I have a strong feeling this edit will help readers understand how what happened to Breonna Taylor plays a part in discussions about racial discrimination, in a manner that maintains objectivity and clarity. Ender and Peter 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for the recent edit. I'm glad to know you are okay with these changes in general.

I do understand feeling compelled to talk about the racial component earlier in the lead because that context does seem to be an aspect that makes what happened to Taylor particularly notable. I did first consider finding a way to do that, however I realized that it is best to let the text/sources speak for themselves. The two sources on the sentence "Three Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officers..." do mention the race of the officers. Even if they do not explicitly setup the context, there is at least some attempt to do so.

For instance, Breonna Taylor: Police officer charged but not over death says "Ms Taylor's relatives and activists for whom her death has become a rallying cry had been calling for the three officers, who are all white, to be charged with murder or manslaughter." We are given some reason to understand why their race is being mentioned. Even though "racial discrimination" is not specifically brought up, the fact that relatives and activists have made a rallying cry communicates why race might be significant. The language in this Wikipedia article should be more explicit, though. That way, there will be much less confusion as to why race is mentioned.

Likewise, in Breonna Taylor’s Life Was Changing. Then the Police Came to Her Door, the article talks about responses from Oprah Winfrey, and then Beyoncé who called for the "three white officers who opened fire to be criminally charged". Statements by prominent black women leaders talking about the race of the officers clearly communicates that they suspect racial discrimination was involved.

In the lead here, as it is currently setup anyway, it seems like the best place to start talking about racial components is when the lead mentions discussions on discrimination and impartial treatment that surround this incident. I fear that if we were to add "Three white Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) officers..." to the beginning, I'm quite sure that would bring up the original issue of why the article is talking about race without first explicitly laying out some context.

I would also point out that sending seven or more police officer's to one's door might already sound like overkill to a rational reader, in addition to the difference in bullets shot on either side along with the aftermath of consequences, all which should prime the reader for later extrapolations on why there have been strong accusations of unfair treatment. Ender and Peter 21:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

i would like to know about why there are any references to race or why they are missing when refering to the white officers. . i was directed to the killing of Tyre Nichols from Quora where some right wing nut job was comlpaining why the police officers invovled were condemned so quickly...especially in contrast to the killing of Breonna Taylor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor). tthis entry states that Breonna is black but done mention race when i comes to the seven WHITE cops involved??!

the FIRST line of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols states "On January 7, 2023, five Black police officers of the Memphis Police Department (MPD)". Coshydrogeo (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Coshydrogeo: The third sentence in the lead begins The killing of Taylor by white police officers... As recent as March 2022, the first sentence of the lead made reference to "three white police officers".[21] What would you propose? —Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

i think i was trying to lead in to a bigger picture conversation. i am in australia and struggle with the race situation in the USA. i think it needs to be an all in or all out situation. in the Taylor article it clearly states that she is black early in the piece and nothing about the cops until much later. in the Nichols article it identifies everyone as black inteh first two lines. it is a crpyy situation and i dont know how to fix it. Coshydrogeo (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a similar theme to the two articles for which I can understand why you would expect a similar lead. This article needed clarification regarding who was being identified as white when it came to the police involved in forcing entry. The clarification that the news articles identify the officers involved in the shooting as white will, I hope, help keep this article balanced. The current wording of the lead for Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols seems appropriate to me, more or less. Yes, there is no "right" way to go about this. I appreciate that the editors of this article want to stay very objective while still addressing subjective concerns. Ender and Peter 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)