Talk:Killing of Colten Boushie

Untitled

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanflynn (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Do we have an RS that gives the pronunciation of "Boushie"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring, Political Partisanship, and Bad Encyclopedic Activity

There seems to be a lot of editing that removes information, rather than enhancing the article. For example, the verdict section was massively shrunk down by a user into just the reaction of a chief. It doesn't fully fit in with the "verdict" section and might be better placed under a reaction section. I added the old one back but left the quote from the chief. I've added a point of view check as well. Sources like ATPN is an aboriginal source and is likely to be partisan on this case as well. It also lacks a lot of information regarding Gerald Stanley's defence under Hang Fire. It spends more time talking about the jury selection than the actual trial. Some users seem very insistent upon removing information. ( SailingOn (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC) )

Thanks SailingOn. You've made some good points. The verdict section does need more content that explains, for example, more about Hang Fire and also more about the legal parameters that influenced the jury's decision. More analysis is becoming available so this can be improved.

I am an inclusionist but I do appreciate editors who can simplify content so we remain encyclopedic. However, editors sometimes delete references for other statements or break the link between content and in line citations. There is no rush to delete. Could we copy and paste deleted content to the talk page and decide what can be retained and in what format? What specifically was deleted that you would like to have kept?

APTN is a Reliable source. If you are unsure of this, we can post it a discussion on the Noticeboard? Their journalists are professionals who are capable of determining what is is factual. Their input is invaluable in most stories about Canadian First Nations. However, while Wikipedia articles are required to be neutral, reliable sources, such as APTN are not. If an editor considers that an APTN statement is WP:BIASED, that editor can provide another point of view as expressed in another RS.Oceanflynn (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of uncited statements in the article, as well as statements that are "cited" but for which the information cited is not in the source cited. along with a lot of very biased, partisan editing—I can't tell if these are from trolls or what, but they seem to be primarily from IP editors. Perhaps the article warrants protection? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I appreciate your helpful contributions. How do we request protection? Oceanflynn (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a page that should be looked at in a few weeks and updated once the details are more clear. Although a lot of the poor-edits are from non-Wikipedians it does still seem like there's a lot of edit warring going on between the various people on this page. One major thing that seemed to be lacking is the testimony from Greg Williams which indicated that a bulge was caused by some anomaly. Additionally, I talked to Huon about protecting this article earlier who seemed interested in mentioning it on the talk page first. I'll try checking the chat again. ( SailingOn (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC) )

Just added a request on the page for it. ( SailingOn (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC) )

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

Please change "The defense relied heavily on the assertion that the fatal shot was unintentional and the result of a hang fire." to "The defense relied heavily on the assertion that the fatal shot was unintentional and the result of a hang fire, due to the improperly stored 64-year-old ammunition and Soviet-era Tokarev TT33." 1990volvo (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that this important factual piece of information has not placed in the article; why not? Theonemacduff (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 1990volvo for bringing this important point up. Hopefully, we can work out the best way to present this on the main page on the talk page.

Hang fire will probably become one of the main areas of debate. I created this reflist for this talk page just for the issue of hang fire. I suggest that we use the |quote="" field in the citation template to ensure what gets into the article is actually in the citation. My preference is to use "according to" whenever there may be a dissenting viewpoint.

• hang fire

Tokarev TT33, Russian semi-automatic pistol.

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Trial Reporting

The verdict depends ultimately on what the people who were there, both indigenous and otherwise, said actually happened. That would have all come out at trial, and yet there's no reporting of that. Are there no media accounts of testimony? Theonemacduff (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What was said at a trial or in a police report is not necessarily a fact. There is a long history of inquiries into police investigations and trials where new information contradicts reports and testimonies. We should of course add testimony as reported in the media but use the "x said. However, y said."

CBC did a useful in-depth podcast series hosted by Rachel Zelniker who was joined by Charles Hamilton, which includes some content not found elsewhere. I've listened to all of it but I have not added anything from to the article yet.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Newswise this case is making rounds more for alleged behaviour of police investigating the crime and mistreatment of the mother than actual details of the case itself. Majority of case seems to be pretty much accepted by both sides. It is the allegations of racism that make this case keep popping up. Kav2001c (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)kav2001c

Deletions

I removed this: "Police on Thursday said "charges are still being considered with respect to some property-related offences pending further investigation" as it refers to the original police ITO in August 2016 and is confusing.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 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: Moved to Shooting of Colten Boushie (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Death of Colten Boushie → Shooting of Colten Boushie – Standard main title header for Wikipedia articles delineating deaths by shooting, such as Death of Yoshihiro Hattori → Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori at Talk:Shooting of Yoshihiro Hattori#Requested move 16 October 2018. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:04, 18 March 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.

Issue with contradictory statements presented authoritatively in different sections of the article

In the early sections of the article, it is stated authoritatively in Wiki's voice that Boushie and his friends had been involved in attempted theft that day, both earlier against a different nearby farmer, and in the incident involving Gerald Stanley that is chronicled in this article. Yet, in the later sections of the article, it is stated authoritatively in Wiki's voice that Boushie was not involved in any property crime or other criminal offenses that day. Looking at the sources used, it would appear that these are indeed competing claims made by the different cited sources. So, we either need to figure out which claim is factually true and which is false and adjust the article to note that and bring those disparate sections of the article into agreement, or we need to change the tone of how those claims are presented in this article, making them less authoritative and noting them as claims, not fact. MojaveSummit (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)