Talk:Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Context

Basic information to add to this article: the context in which this event occurred (including who the others besides Bryant were, and what they were doing on the property). Also, didn't a male try to kick the girl who Bryant had pushed to the ground in the head? The current version of the article doesn't even say in which part of Columbus this incident took place, or on whose property it occurred. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of that info has been updated. The part about the guy appearing to kick the woman on the ground doesn't seem that important in the overall context. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not important enough for the lead, but it should be mentioned in the article because it's partly shown in the video & is a significant part of what happened as police arrived at the scene. Jim Michael (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Knife

She was holding a knife when she was shot. This information must be in the lead as it was a key factor in the shooting. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, obviously, it's a pretty central detail. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There are sources, e.g. CNN, that are careful to not say that, and adding details that imply that she may have been, e.g. CBS, simply because a knife was found next to her, particularly in the lead, and suggesting in an edit summary that this is "common sense" all seems to be excessive detail for the lead as well as possible original research. The news is still breaking, the event is under investigation, and we also have to abide by WP:NPOV, so especially right now, it appears that caution is especially warranted. A straightforward lead, with additional detail in the body of the article that attributes and qualifies the information currently available, seems most appropriate at this time. It does not appear to be appropriate to independently interpret body camera footage nor to write with greater certainty than multiple independent and reliable sources in any part of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the language right now is a lot better than it was earlier today, when the lead said "Bryant was attempting to stab two women". That seemed incautious and afoul of BLP policies (which still apply to the recently deceased) as inferring intent. I think we need to stay cautious. However, the question of whether or not Bryant was armed is central to understanding this event, as that information is necessary to understanding how and why things unfolded. I think her being armed is necessary for the lead. Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

From that CNN article you linked: a Black teen who charged two females with a knife., or the second source used in the article: [1] Bodycam footage released by police showed the teen was confronting another girl and wielding the knife as shots were fired. We are not doing our own original research and trying to interpret the video ourselves here, that would be you in this case. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The CNN article, outside of the image caption quoted above, uses more cautious language in the body of the article, e.g. " An officer arrived at the scene and opened fire when the girl appeared to attempt to stab a second woman." and "The video shows a teen quickly move toward another girl with what appears to be a knife, and the girl falls to the ground. The officer yells, "Hey, hey, hey, hey. Get down!" before she appears to lunge at a second girl with the knife, according to the video." While that USAToday article is less cautious, it appears the caution by outlets such as CNN, CBS, etc is the majority approach. It may also be helpful to add somewhere in the article the commentary from news sources, e.g. USAToday/Yahoo about the "unusual decision by the city and police" to release the bodycam footage; additional commentary may become available that further explores this issue. Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting the image caption, I was quoting the first line of the article. If CNN somewhere says "X is true" and later in the article says "it appears that X is true", we can use that as a source for X. Here's more sources that describe it as a matter of fact: Associated Press: [2] a Black teenager who charged at two people with a knife, Reuters: [3] Black teenage girl they confronted as she lunged at two people with a knife, etc. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As a side note to my point above, the AP states, "Officials with the Columbus Division of Police had released initial footage of the shooting Tuesday night just hours after it happened, which was a departure from protocol..." and as to your point about Reuters, it appears to clarify with an attribution: "The police chief said the video, which he said shows Bryant trying to stab the two other people..." So I continue to think that attention to WP:NPOV is needed, especially for an article like this, and that given the discrepancies in how this is being reported, an WP:IMPARTIAL tone is needed, e.g. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I must say I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. That it was a departure from protocol to release the bodycam footage that early invalidates AP's claims how exactly? And again with Reuters, describing what the police chief said invalidates their earlier claims how exactly? The tone is neutral – it describes (what reliable sources attest to be) facts flatly in wikivoice. I really don't understand what you mean. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. The departure from protocol in releasing the bodycam footage, and the POV of the police chief could help provide encyclopedic context, including because it appears there are discrepancies in how the event is being reported; excluding cautious sources, such as CNN and CBS, seems potentially problematic per WP:NPOV. When there are several POV of the event being reported, the WP:NPOV policy seems to urge caution, and for us to be careful to not select one POV and give it prominence over other POV, especially in the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Most sources state matter-of-factly that she was charging with a knife. Anyone can see the footage for themselves as well. To pick out phrasings from certain sources to water this down is deeply POV. See also: WP:FALSEBALANCE. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading article as imbalanced on race

The article is deliberately misleading by identify the race of the dead attacker but not of her intended victims nor the police officers involved.

As well, the article beings in political subjects that are not connected to the death.

(A lesser matter is that I question the term 'African-American, there are other origins of black-skinned people in the USA such as South Pacific islands.)

While the general subject is appropriate for Wikipedia which lists many individual persons who were newsworthy, it is irresponsibly written. Thus it should either be rewritten to proper journalistic standards or deleted.

RationalKeith (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources find her race to be important enough to mention. I also don't think reliable sources report much (or at all?) on the race of the officer, so we don't either. If you think this is biased/misleading/imbalanced/etc that would be on news media and not on us; our neutral point of view guidelines require us to characterize things as reliable sources do. You're kind of shooting the messenger here. As a side note I think I also support the term "black" because that's what sources called her, but I'm not particularly fussed. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a good balance between deleting and keeping the article would be to rename it from "Killing of..." to "Police involved shooting of..." which would be a perfectly neutral title but allow the article to survive given the newsworthiness and its close association to the Officer Chauvin trial. What say everyone? Reply with either "leave the same" or "change to Police involved" ‑‑mrbill66 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No. See the flowchart at WP:DEATHS. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with (talk that the "killing of" is not accurate to describe a police-involved shooting in which both the mayor and police chief and evidence released show that the events were a police response to an attempted murder in progress. The current headline is deliberately inciting violence. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Striking sock comment –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No one here is "deliberately inciting violence." Please keep personal attacks to youself. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman There have been 3 days of riots and protests in Columbus about the alleged accusation that the white police officer "killed" an "unarmed" black 16 year old girl. Wikipedia is the most popular source of information for the general public so using the phrase "killing" of an accused attempted murderer does not fit the FBI use of OIS. The definition of "personal attack" means I would be deliberately writing something that is directed on the personal life of another. That does not fit in this situation. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Striking sock comment –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Lives Matter

A user has now violated 3RR to remove this content from the article, calling it undue "trivial": "Following Bryant's killing, a police officer at the scene shouted "Blue Lives Matter" to bystanders. Another officer was seen wearing a Blue Lives Matter face mask."

References

Bringing to the talk page for further discussion, as I initially advised them to do. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a relevant valid addition. I tried to restore it previously but someone beat me to it. Removers comment was that Blue Lives Matter was common belief among belief, I was going to say that might be true, but police shouting it after a police killing isn't something common at all. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:3RR - it was not broken. Please see WP:ONUS as it is on you to gain consensus for inclusion (The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.). Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my belief. I didn't say it was "undue" as you claim I did. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6]. And I was paraphrasing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think 'paraphrasing' is, but it certainly doesn't mean putting words in others' mouths. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Struck and moved on. Why did you go past 3RR? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:3RR? It clearly states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. I performed three. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyhow, consensus is against you, so please dont remove again. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this verifiable, though? If it is it warrants inclusion, but I'm not at all sure that it is. It is for now breaking news from less reliable sources. For instance, Snopes (entry at RSP): [7] calls the claim "unproven": One reputable news outlet reported that a police officer at the scene of Bryant's death donned a "blue lives matter" face mask, and a bystander's Facebook Live video recorded someone using the phrase, but it was unclear who said it If a preponderance of reliable sources report this to be a fact (note that the WaPo source didn't actually claim the officer said "blue lives matter) then it should be included, but until then? No. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. How about "Allegedly"? Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Copying and pasting it as above and inserting "allegedly" is probably not good enough (who's alleging it?), especially given it's about living people. Although I feel a bit uncomfortable about it, we could try to summarize something like "social media users have said x and some sources have picked up on that and agreed, though fact checkers say it is still unproven". Given it's still breaking news though I think I'd prefer to wait until we find out what's actually true (remember, it is not our job to be news), but it's probably not the end of the world if it was included as e.g. Snopes describes it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Support inclusion - the incident has been reported by multiple RSs, which include video of the incident. If some RSs are couching the incident by saying "it's unclear who said it," then we should use similar phrasing in the article. Since multiple RSs have deemed this significant enough to report, I see no reason for its omission. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 23:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content on Reardon

Mattplaysthedrums, I do not understand this revert [8] either; perhaps it would be better for you to clarify your reasoning here. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A mistake on my part. Apologises. Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Where was Bryant shot?

This is probably a stupid question, but does anyone know where she was shot and has a source on it? I can't find anything explicitly stating it. I can't really tell from the bodycam video, and I wouldn't want to go against WP:NOR. I think it would be relevant to include. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Reardon and Bryant Biography?

My details giving the background of Nicholas Reardon were deleted because they are not relevant to the shooting. Should we include a Reardon and Bryant biography in the People Involved section, or does it go against WP:ROC? I am asking because George Floyd and Derek Chauvin have biographies. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WWGB, as you were the user to remove this, perhaps you would like to explain your reasoning to all here. Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I was not the first editor to revert that stuff. That was done with this edit. The contested material was then re-added by the author which was against WP:BRD. I came along about four hours later and removed it again. My reasoning was made clear in the edit summary, which was "this is NOT a Reardon biography, none of this is relevant to the shooting". I stand by that argument. What has the cop being a high school wrestler got to do with the shooting? WWGB (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That editor you're referring to admitted here that his edit was made in error. This is typical background information that exists at most similar pages; I'm sure you'd find it preferable to the alternative of spinning it out into another page altogether. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not find it preferable in any article at this time. Should Reardon gain his own article, I would then reconsider my position. High school wrestler? Come on! WWGB (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we also not have a biography on Bryant then? Also, I think him having a military background and being an expertly trained marksman is relevant, and some articles have explicitly mentioned it (I wouldn't be surprised if activists/public figures have also mentioned it), such as this one: [9]

I also think his father also being a police officer is relevant. In addition, there was something else I found in an article about a former classmate alleging that Reardon had anger issues, which might be relevant to include. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What you "think" is relevant is not a decisive factor here. We include relevant content that is published in multiple reliable sources. Refinery29 (your source) is an entertainment website focused on young women, and its reputation for fact-checking is far from clear. WWGB (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That was just an example of an article to illustrate my point about it being explicitly mentioned as something noteworthy. Even if the article itself isn't reliable (and I wouldn't use it as a source), the fact that that factor is seen as noteworthy is, perhaps even more so (since it is sensationalized). Here's another one: [10] I'm new, but as far as I'm aware (and as I would assume from common sense), we don't need a source to explicitly state that something is relevant (although in this case regarding the military background aspect, sources literally did); that is more up to editor discretion, although I may be wrong. His father being a police officer and his personal connections are relevant, in my opinion, because it ties into the wider societal concerns about the blue wall of silence, police misuse of force, and police accountability, which is ultimately why the case is notable in the first place, and gives context. His father being a police officer is, in fact, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Their biographies are generally important to the protests and context of what led up to the shooting (their perspectives are relevant). However, I think they could be incorporated into the narrative more than a separate entry. I added in some blanks to include the others directly involved in the incident, but commented them out until we have something to fill them with. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The other officers?

Does anyone know anything about the other officers and has a source on them? I can't really find anything. Apparently Reardon wasn't the only one there. From the bodycam video, it appears that Reardon was the first one to get there, but I'm not sure. When did they get there and what were they doing? I think it is pretty important for context. From what we've written, it kind of sounds like we're bringing them up out of nowhere. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes they arrived later so were not exactly complicit in the shooting. Still should get a clearer mention. AFAIK, the other names haven't been released yet. ɱ (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

9 seconds from Reardon arriving to the shooting = many were probably not yet CLEARLY on the scene. Buffs (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about lead broadness

My edit in the lead giving examples of celebrities who condemned the killing was deleted because the lead should be broad, which makes sense. Does this mean we should also delete the examples given in the lead of other people of color shot by police recently (Daunte Wright and Adam Toledo)? Forgive me for my cluelessness; I'm new. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As the editor who removed that part of the edit, I'll explain my reasoning here. There have been many, many people who have given responses to this, including current officeholders. As such, I don't know how important in the context of all of those a comedian's and an athlete's are. I'm also concerned about the two that were highlighted, as Kathy Griffin was not listed later in the article, and LeBron later deleted his tweet. I think the way it is currently, describing the range of responses, is appropriate. The only individual reactions I would consider maybe adding to the lead would be from the family or the police or if Biden were to directly comment on this. However, I invite further discussion from other editors. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Biden's press secretary commented on it the same day it happened. So did his Press Secretary. Buffs (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Girl or young woman?

Should we use "girl" or "young woman" for both Bryant and the victims? I feel that if we use either for one of them we should use the same for all of them. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Most RSs say girl, and many activists have noted that "young woman" inaccurately portrays her to be older/an adult. ɱ (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Are the ages of the victims known? I'm assuming that they are around Bryant's age, and they appear to look young in the video of the incident, but I haven't heard exactly. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Biggest Fan, Bryant is a girl. The other two people involved in the altercation are women, as they are in their 20s. Enwebb (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Should I include the "young" then, since they are legally adults? Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Biggest Fan, I think it's fine to call them women or young women, as both are accurate. It is not accurate to call them "girls", just as it is not accurate to call Bryant a "woman". Enwebb (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

At least per our page, "young woman" in its typically use tends to refer to someone a bit older. While I think it would be technically correct, they would be on the younger age of that range to be sure and as such I worry that term may be misleading. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Bryant was a girl (underage; 16). The other two were 20 and 22, legally adults. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo

Seems like the well publicized photo should be added. Its public domain, and crucial to the understanding of the shooting. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What well publicized photo adds crucial understanding to the event? Do you have a link? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The one with Bryant about to stab to death the girl in the pink jumpsuit would be the photo which comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5b02:703c:21aa:e0ec:d880:63e1 (talk • contribs)

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/8b26cc1689f547adb88ef950cfde7172/3000.jpeg ResultingConstant (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be okay with adding that photo, seems most news articles use it. Seems similar to the photos used at e.g. Killing of Adam Toledo or Murder of George Floyd. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we include a "normal" photo of Bryant or the officer (as in taken outside of the incident)? I'm not sure how these things work; I'm new. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Any images we use would need to comply with our copyright guidelines. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The photo likely wouldn't be free, but if anyone's interested, I could upload it under a fair use rationale. ɱ (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Upload a low res version; fair use definitely applies here. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Are we allowed to quote/paraphrase the video?

This is more of a question on Wikipedia in general and content rules, but are we allowed to quote or paraphrase the video of the incident in the Incident section as a source, or do we need another source to do that? Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Best to use another source. The George Floyd video and the "drugs" comment is a good example of how deciphering words can be a problem and, if done by an editor, basically WP:OR. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You can also consult Wikipedia:Video links. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure how that worked. Knowing now that that we aren't allowed to quote the video's audio, are we allowed to visually use the video as a source to what happened, or is that also a no? Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend you find a news source reporting on exactly whatever you are adding to the article. See also our policy on due and undue weight. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ma'Khia Bryant's parents

User:WWGB, Thank you for your interest when you deleted [11] from the section Ma'Khia Bryant the names of her parents with the edit summary "does not improve readers understanding of the attack". Mentioning them and giving a reference that has a current picture of them shows that they are alive and physically well and were separated from Ma'Khia, which could contribute to Ma'Khia's state of mind before and during the attack. It helps the reader understand her situation.

I would like to hear any further thoughts you may have and any thoughts that other editors may have on whether or not to restore the deleted names of the parents and the corresponding reference that has a current picture of them. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's relevant info, but not for the reasons you're providing, which sounds to me like WP:OR psychoanalysis. The fact is, the parents are obviously germane to the story, and have been vocal following the shooting (as one would expect). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from the article that Bryant was in foster care. Her parents have already been subjected to vilification in the media, such as [12]. Adding their names to a perpetual encyclopedia does not assist the readers' understanding of the situation in any way, and exposes them to ongoing identification and condemnation for the rest of their lives. In any statements about them, they can be referred to as "the parents" or "mother" and "father" without any loss of accuracy or identity. According to WP:BLPNAME, "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". WWGB (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the article you gave, Bryant's father was the one who kicked the girl in the video, so he seems relevant enough to include his name. After all, why include the names of the two girl victims but not the parents, especially if the father was present and participating in the incident? That seems strange. If anything, Nicholas Reardon will be the one (probably even more than the parents) to be exposed to ongoing identification and condemnation for the rest of his life, and likely threats and the risk of violence, even if the investigation finds no wrong doing on his part, but we still find it relevant to give his name, as he's involved in the incident. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not speculate about living people's futures or alleged actions. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't speculation. It's paraphrasing exactly what was stated in the article. Given that information, the father was indeed involved in the incident and the mother has been highly vocal about criticizing the police officer, their relationship to the deceased is relevant and should be in the article; they are highly involved in the incident and aftermath. Excluding them makes no sense. Likewise, characterizing Ma'Khia Bryant as the "victim" is absurd. Buffs (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The parents have chosen to publicize their names and pictures, as indicated by their presentation in the given major media reference (Associated Press story in The Seattle Times). Here's the item that was deleted from the Ma'Khia Bryant section of the present Wikipedia article.

Ma'Khia's mother is Paula Bryant and her father is Myron Hammonds.

Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate and natural-sounding place to reference this information would be later in the text, i.e. "Bryant's parents, Myron Hammonds and Paula Bryant, said x". Given that they have spoken out against this shooting I reiterate my stance that this is relevant info; parents of killed children have taken a leading role in BLM, see Mothers of the Movement. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I added an item [13] to the Reactions section per your suggestion. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion was to have the article report "Bryant's parents, Myron Hammonds and Paula Bryant, said x". Your addition does not have them saying anything, so inclusion of their names has no purpose. WWGB (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Re satisfying User:AllegedlyHuman's suggestion, maybe that editor will offer thoughts on the issue. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, in case you're interested, here's the video of the press conference [14]. Paula Bryant and Myron Hammonds speak at 10:00 and 11:40 respectively, and introduce themselves again at 15:15. Since the parents are taking an active role in the story, it's natural to mention their names. You may have a different style of editing, and that's OK, but so far you are alone here in that preference so that shouldn't be imposed on the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added in some information I feel is pertinent to the article about her parents' reactions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Protect the privacy of people and children

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Per Wikipedia:BLP, caution must be given to protect private individuals, especially children. It does not matter if certain details about the event are reported in a reliable source. Non-notable names do not belong in the article, nor does a descriptors about the status of children who might live at a particular residence. The editor wishing to include potentially sensitive information on private persons must seek consensus to include it if challenged. Minnemeeples (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

For children's names? Yes, as per WP:BLPNAME, that is reasonable. The fact that the shooting occurred at a foster home? No, there is no BLP violation in that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times considered this info important enough to have it in the lede of one of their articles. I defer to their judgment. (I also don't think there's anything wrong at all with being a foster child – I sincerely hope no one disagrees with that, this is the 21st century after all.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s sharing private information about the legal status of children who live at a residence. This event involved several non-notable minors during an alleged crime. The article should be free of sensationalism and should strive to protect privacy. Minnemeeples (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as the names, addresses etc. of the people involved aren't stated, there's no problem in that regard. Jim Michael (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that she lived in a foster home, and had a dispute and attempted to stab former foster children, is central to this article. Otherwise, all we have is "someone tried to stab someone else at a house". WWGB (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I can accept that the consensus is to keep. I will not start an edit ward and will move on. But this event involved children, and it includes a link to video featuring violence between children, and it includes private information about the status of children who live at a home. The central facts to the event are why the existence of this article is problematic. Minnemeeples (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see you've brought those points in the deletion discussion, a more appropriate place but where consensus is against you still. I appreciate you admitting this discussion here was to illustrate a point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid characterizing and assigning motives to talk comments by other edits. Many editors are raising privacy concerns about content in the article. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Images?

Apparently this is contentious, so I'll open it up on the talk page here: should this article have more than one image/video? IMO, this [15] looks better than this [16]. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. For me the issue wasn't more than one image/video, it was more than one protest picture. BTW one picture that we need is the widely publicized one of Bryant a moment before she was shot. Anyhow, regarding the current issue, here's what I wrote in my edit summary, "As mentioned before in an edit summary, too many protest pictures before (3) and now there are 4. One protest picture is appropriate in the Reactions section since the main topic is the killing, not the protests." Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I added to the infobox the widely publicized picture of Bryant a moment before she was shot. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Background" section, why is it here, and what does it have to do with this incident?

The background section speaks of nothing about the background of the dead girl, the dynamics happening in the neighborhood, or at her foster care home, or about the officer who fired the shots. So, then why is it here? Whatever the statistics are about crime in that area, have nothing to do with the specific incident. Each incident like these need to be seen ONLY with the facts of the incident, not some other "history" which does not apply in anyway to any of the particular parties involved. Either remove this section, or apply "background" information to the various parties actually involved in the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5b02:703c:21aa:e0ec:d880:63e1 (talk • contribs)

I concur. The background section is entirely one-sided and appears to be an attempt at guilt-by-association. Whether police killings are more prevalent or not needs a LOT more context over a vague claim of "among the highest" (the article actually shows them as "18th of the top 100 metro areas"...so, top 20%, not exactly the "among the highest". Likewise, this case has nothing to do with the Chauvin trial or the fact that another police officer in the area, but not part of his unit, has been accused of murder are irrelevant to THIS instance. General protests directly related to this case SHOULD be included within reason (not every protest in every city is WP:NOTABLE).Buffs (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Description of incident

Specifically, this edit seems contentious. Perhaps it could just be better phrased. Describing the incident while omitting some of the relevant actions that took place is inappropriate. I'm open to other options for a description. Buffs (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content.

I don't see this as interpretive in any nature. The officer stated "Get Down" and she didn't. That doesn't imply malice on her part. I think it's possible/probable she didn't even know an officer was there. (editorial comment) She seemed completely channelized on these two individuals (the one she pushed over and the other she attempted to stab). But this isn't a statement of her state of mind or an opinion of whether she was doing the right thing or not. It's simply a statement of events. It's no different than saying she was wearing pink or black or jeans or wearing shoes. As such, the statement that she didn't comply is merely a descriptive statement and it can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. There's not a different interpretation of the facts of what happened (no one is attempting to imply a motive for such actions/inactions). Buffs (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's what was in the article, "Reardon ordered Bryant to "Get down!" four times". It's interpretive because it says that Reardon was directing the orders to Bryant. He could have been directing the orders to the woman in pink in front of Bryant so that she wouldn't be inadvertently shot. BTW, "drop the knife" seems like the usual order to an armed person, not "get down". In any case, a reliable source is required for any interpretation of who Reardon was directing the order to. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

But you reverted ALL of it. I can see that point and I don't have an issue with it per se. I've since rephrased to just "ordered" without directing to whom (you correctly point out it's nebulous). My point was that we should keep "Bryant was non-compliant" or another similarly neutral phrase. Keep in mind, this all happened VERY quickly (like in 9 seconds, an officer exits his vehicle, two women are attacked by a girl with a knife, a man kicks one of those attacked, and an officer shoots someone 4 times...9 seconds...it happened VERY fast). Buffs (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Bryant would be non-compliant only if the order "get down" was directed at her. You need an RS. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If she didn't do as the officer ordered, she would be noncompliant, by definition, regardless of whether or not she thought it was directed at her. This doesn't imply any malfeasance on her part (it's irrelevant in terms of this sentence fragment). Anyone else want to weigh in here? Offer an alternative? Buffs (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We should use the same phrasing sources do, here and everywhere. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source added. Buffs (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The names of the two women involved

I'm on the fence here regarding including the names of the other two women involved in the altercation. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPPRIVACY, I could see the argument for not including their names: just because other sources have done so doesn't mean that we have to. Anyone else have thoughts? Enwebb (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I am always in favour of withholding the names of peripheral people, in accordance with WP:BLP1E. WWGB (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY is concerned with identity theft, as indicated by the lead sentence, "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private." The problem mentioned concerns the combination of name and date of birth, not just name.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM is concerned with including every detail about a person. Here's the lead sentence, "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced." It's not concerned with just the person's name.

WP:BLP1E is irrelevant because its concern is about creating an article about a person. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

These aren't peripheral people. They are victims of Ma'Khia Bryant's assaults/battery/attempted murder (the proximate reason for the shooting in the first place). Including details makes sense. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Victims? You mean the perpetrators of the fight? Plus they were grown women who did not live at that foster house anymore, whereas Bryant was defending herself while being a resident at the location. The owner of all ✌️ 01:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling them "perpetrators" doesn't align with the video. The video doesn't show everything that happened prior, but from what we HAVE seen, as the officer's were pulling up Ma'Khia Bryant emerges from the house brandishing a kitchen knife. She them pushes over one woman over and then turned around and pinned another to a car and swung back as if attempting to stab her (if she wasn't doing so, she certainly gave that impression). I'm not saying these women weren't causing problems, but it's pretty clear that she was not just "defending herself". She came OUT of the house (a place she was relatively safe) to confront these two women. Buffs (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

An editor is claiming and fighting to keep in an aside that Mike DeWine "plagiarized" a statement from Andrew Ginther. The source does not say this was plagiarism, so this is original research and should not be included as potentially defamatory about a living person. However, I also find it very unlikely that the two said the exact same thing, as the article says currently. Is one of these quotes incorrect? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. It's WP:OR. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like for the user who reverted the "Failed Verification" tag to find the quote that is cited as footnote 28. Which is https://www.wtrf.com/news/ohio-headlines/gov-dewine-says-theres-a-clear-pathway-for-reforms-in-wake-of-makhia-bryant-shooting/ . I read that article and did not find the quote. Which makes me believe the paragraph above, that the mayor said it, and not the governor. The owner of all ✌️ 18:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Point taken; fixed. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Opposition and Support

Opposition and support for Officer Reardon's actions are specifically mentioned in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, this should be expanded upon in the body of the article. Without such a reference, the lead makes no sense. Describing such an addition as WP:OR is inherently dishonest. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the OR, the proposed conclusions didn't fit with the text either. In both the support paragraph and the nonsupporting paragraph, the only politicians mentioned were democrats, so calling one situation bipartisan and the other partisan didn't make sense. (I didn't give much weight to Meghan McCain.) Also, we can't conclude bipartisan and partisan from just these small samples of people. That's one reason why a source is needed to present such conclusions. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, you've decided to negate one conservative "support" for unknown reasons when an opposition is included from the exact same show in the following paragraph. You also negated the fact that opposition IS one-sided; if it isn't, it should be easy to prove (simply find 1-2 [even moderately] conservative voices and we can simply label it as either "bipartisan" or "mixed". That isn't WP:OR. That's a statement of introduction for the facts presented. They were in here long ago. WP:BRD and WP:1RR apply here. I resent the implication of malfeasance and would direct you to read WP:AGF before you cast aspersions. Buffs (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've rephrased the second paragraph intro. If you don't like that, feel free to create your own lead into the paragraph. Leaving it without a lead into the paragraph fails WP:LEAD and paragraph writing 101. Buffs (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I created lead sentences for the two paragraphs. [17] Bob K31416 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I like where you're going with it. I tweaked it to remove the passive voice and re-include the fact that this is in reference to the political response to the incident. In the second, since the sources made broader statements about more than just this incident, I rephrased that one too. Tell me what you think. Buffs (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the two lead sentences are a source of contention, I removed them until there is consensus on this Talk page.

There are various things to discuss and I'll start with the passive voice used in my lead sentences. First here's an excerpt from a discussion of the use of passive vs active voice.

"At the most basic level, the active voice emphasizes the person or agent who performs an action, in short, the “actor.” The passive voice emphasizes the recipient of the action or sometimes the action itself."[18]

In my versions I wanted to emphasize the "recipient" of the action, which distinguished one paragraph from the other. Here are my versions for the lead sentences of the two paragraphs. (I've rewritten the first lead sentence.)

Support for the officer's actions came from the Columbus mayor, a congresswoman, and others.

Concern about systemic racism in policing was expressed by President Biden's press secretary and two U. S. senators.

I thought that the paragraphs were mainly about the beginning parts of each of these lead sentences and the beginning parts also distinguished the two paragraphs from each other, so that is why I used the passive voice in order to put them first. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Well, you wanted to remove them entirely in the first place, so let's not try to pretend this is some sort of compromise or a "let's wait and see what we come up with"; this action is being cloaked in an aura of WP:AGF when, in fact, it's another way to get what you wanted all along.
2. Per WP:LEAD "...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." You cannot write "Reactions from the public included support of the actions of the officer and protests against the killing." in the lead and then fail to mention that these are the reactions you're referring to.
3. These two paragraphs, effectively encompass the range of political opinions nationwide. To remove that this is the political dialogue surrounding this event is absurd.
4. The first paragraph contains more than the opinions of just those people you named in your introductory sentence; it only highlights the opinions of Democrats.
5. The second paragraph contains more than the opinions of just those people you named in your introductory sentence; it too only highlights the opinions of Democrats (what a shock). It also encompasses WAY more than just allegations of "systemic racism"
6. To remove all introductory statements and merely list "Person A said X, Person B said Y" fails basic paragraph composition writing in even grade school.
7. Unlike what was stated in your edit summaries, to state that these statements aren't political opinions/commentary in support of or in opposition to the officer's actions is WP:OR is absurd and uncivil. It's already broken down in to two paragraphs pro and then con. That isn't coincidence. It's how we organize our thoughts. It's specifically mentioned in WP:MoS: "The examples of weasel words above may be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph only when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution and accurately support that statement." It's common to do so throughout Wikipedia for introductory statements.
8. Lastly, passive voice in this case is just lazy writing and your logic isn't supported by the content of the paragraphs in question. Your supposed recipient of the support isn't even mentioned by name by the people in the paragraphs. The subject of these paragraphs are the people who expressed support/opposition and what they said/did.

In short ("too late!"), the proposed solution doesn't solve/address ANY of these problems. Buffs (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding passive voice, I don't think you understood my point, so I'll just leave that as something we disagree on.

I disagree with most, if not all, of your other ideas and since your comments don't seem reasonable, I'll just let you pursue gaining consensus before you add any more lead sentence versions. So I suggest you make your proposal here for your versions of lead sentences and see the resulting comments opposing or supporting it. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"I'll just let you pursue gaining consensus before you add any more lead sentence versions". That just validates what I said above. This removal isn't a good faith edit. It's a way to manipulate the situation to get what you want.

Passive voice: I understood your point just fine, you just don't want it and you are manipulating the system to get what you want.

"your comments don't seem reasonable" This is supposed to be a collaborative effort. You don't get to say "No, not that. We're doing it my way. You're unreasonable. I'm not going to listen to your comments". Collaboration requires that you address each others' concerns and come to a compromise. This isn't a compromise. This are uncivil accusations and you yourself are being unreasonable. I cannot address concerns you refuse to identify. "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion". I'm following policy to the letter and explaining. You've just said "I disagree and we're keeping it out." You need to explain your actions and/or come up with alternatives. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said in my message, make your proposal here for your versions of lead sentences and see the resulting comments opposing or supporting it. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss options, but not "no not that" is not discussion. I HAVE offered multiple options, including tweaking yours. You've made it clear you aren't going to discuss them, so what's the point. If I hear nothing from you in 5 days, I'll start by putting back what was there a month ago and was not under dispute. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

So...continuing a lack of discussion? WP:BRD: read it...especially the "D" part... Buffs (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for lead sentences of two paragraphs in Reactions section

Please consider the following lead sentences (indicated in bold type) for the corresponding two paragraphs (indicated in small type) of the Reactions section.

Support for the officer's actions came from the Columbus mayor, a congresswoman, and others. Mayor Ginther said that "based on this footage, the officer took action to protect another young [woman] in our community", calling the shooting a tragic day.[26][27] On Face the Nation, Democratic Congresswoman and former police chief Val Demings said, "But the limited information that I know in viewing the video, it appears that the officer responded as he was trained to do with the main thought of preventing a tragedy and a loss of life of the person who was about to be assaulted."[28] CNN commentators Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon agreed that if the officer did not react in the time that he did, Bonner could have been killed, resulting in two tragic deaths instead of one.[29][30] Conservative commentator Meghan McCain stated "she was about to stab another girl and I think the police officer did what he thought he had to do."[31]

Concern about systemic racism in policing was expressed by President Biden's press secretary and two U. S. senators. Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary, told reporters that President Joe Biden had been briefed on the situation,[32] and that the shooting was tragic, underscored the systemic racism in policing, and made reference to higher rates of police violence experienced by Black and Latino communities and the particular vulnerabilities of children in foster care.[33] In addition to Psaki, Senators Cory Booker and Raphael Warnock voiced concerns that the killing pointed to the need for police reform to address "systemic racism and implicit bias".[34][35] Professional basketball player LeBron James posted a tweet of an image of Reardon captioned "YOU'RE NEXT", as a nod to the conviction of Derek Chauvin, with the hashtag "#ACCOUNTABILITY". After a "flurry of outrage and accusations", James deleted the tweet.[36] Liberal commentator Joy Behar stated that the police should have shot the air and there is "something wrong" if the only solution to someone potentially killing another human is to use deadly force.[30]

Please give your comments below of support or oppose for these two lead sentences. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've said this before and you've done exactly zero to address these issues. The first sentence only mentions Democrats by name and everyone else into "and others". Likewise, the second paragraph lead again only mentions 3 more elected Democrats and doesn't address the comments of two of the people in the paragraph (neither mention "systemic racism" or mentioned in the lead. The balance of these sentences is exceptionally far-left. Thus far, you've done absolutely nothing to address these points I've repeatedly pointed out nor justified how they are appropriate via policies and guidelines instead insisting on your way or the highway. You do not WP:OWN this article. Stop acting as if you do. Instead, address the shortages in your sentences and fix them. Obviously I can do nothing right about them in your eyes as you've a) dismissed all criticism as unreasonable and b) refused discussion (see above). This whole process is quickly becoming uncivil and needs to stop. Buffs (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC) (edit struck)

Re "The first sentence only mentions Democrats by name and everyone else into 'and others'." — That's a false statement because no one is mentioned by name in the first sentence. I used "the others" for conciseness in the lead sentence. The main point of the lead sentence was to show that the paragraph was about support for the officer. Also there was no bias in using "the others" because they consisted of two liberal CNN commentators (Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon) and a conservative daytime talk show cohost (Meghan McCain). Furthermore, I thought that the comments of the mayor of the city where the incident took place and a prominent African-American congresswoman, who was also a former police chief, were more significant and relevant in this paragraph about support for the officer.

Re "Likewise, the second paragraph lead again only mentions 3 more elected Democrats and doesn't address the comments of two of the people in the paragraph (neither mention 'systemic racism' or mentioned in the lead." — First off, of the eleven people mentioned in the two paragraphs, only one is a republican (a daytime talk show cohost). I thought that the main topic of the second paragraph came from the comments about the systemic racism in policing mentioned by the presidential press secretary and two U. S. Senators. The other comments in the paragraph were a retracted tweet by a professional basketball player and comment by a liberal daytime talk show cohost about shooting in the air.

The rest of your comment consists of false attacks, similar to those in a previous section, that I will be ignoring although I consider them disruptive. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to refer to the introductory statement as the intro...

For para 1, re:"I thought that the comments of the mayor...and a prominent African-American congresswoman...were more significant" Whether someone is "more significant" or not is definitely WP:OR and saying that her skin color makes her more important to mention is called racial bias. What if someone else said Megan McCain's comments should be highlighted because she's white? There's no need to assign any weight to any one comment over another unless you have a WP:RS that says otherwise. The statement should be neutral, not biased.

For para 2, re:"I thought that the main topic of the second paragraph came from the comments about the systemic racism". Of the 5 sentences, only 2 mention "systemic racism". You've (again) decided to highlight the part you felt were important (and again with a bias) over writing a sentence that serves as an introduction to the entire paragraph.

Better, more concise options:

1. There was wide ranging political and popular support for officer Reardon's actions. (Neutral, accurately summarizes the paragraph's contents without bias/highlighting what you think is more important)
2. However, there was also vocal opposition to the officer's actions as well. (Contrasts with the previous paragraph, but still links it. Neutral, accurately summarizes the ENTIRE paragraph's contents without bias/highlighting what you think is more important)

Buffs (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re 1, it's not clear and goes beyond what's in the paragraph and is about the views of society in general. This is an example of a reason why various editors have called similar versions OR.

Re 2, the comments about systemic racism didn't explicitly criticize the officer's actions. Saying they did is OR.

The lead sentences I proposed don't have these OR problems, simply introduce the main topic of each paragraph, stick to what's in the paragraph, and are thus not biased. You've had your say, I responded, and It doesn't look like we're approaching agreement so I'll wait for other editors' comments. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"it's not clear" What's not clear?

"[it] is about the views of society in general" No it isn't. It states that there was a "wide range" and then mentions both political and popular views (which are both stated in the paragraph). It doesn't imply that this is a majority view or that this is the "correct" view, just a wide breadth and the fact that the opinions expressed are political and popular in origin. If you don't like them, modify them. Saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't appropriate.

"The lead sentences I proposed don't have these OR problems" I don't agree with your assessment about OR, but my point is that yours have bias and substantive problems.

"It doesn't look like we're approaching agreement" you're not offering ANY compromise or alternatives, so that's impossible at this point. You either want intros phrased the way you want or none at all. Work with others; collaborate!

Take mine and rephrase it. I'll take yours and rephrase it. This is how we'll reach a compromise. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hell, I'll even go first

"Nationwide, political opinions were mixed. Some voiced support for the officer's actions." The first sentence introduces both paragraphs and that there was not universal support/condemnation. The second shows that this is going to be about those that supported the officer's actions. While these are political opinions, we could easily remove "political"

"However, others voiced concerns about the officer's actions and the implications on policing in general." This starts with "however" contrasting with the previous paragraph and introducing differing opinions and then follows it with a summary of what the paragraph will cover (3 sentences about critiquing the officer's actions and 2 about how this points to "systemic racism").

How about that? Buffs (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence of a paragraph

WWGB, Your deletion of the lead sentence of the paragraph has been reverted by two editors. In your first edit summary you said that "no evidence that Psaki did not support the measures taken by police".[19] The evidence was Psaki's statement. Here's the excerpt from the subject paragraph.

Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary, told reporters that President Joe Biden had been briefed on the situation,[29] and that the shooting was tragic, underscored the systemic racism in policing, and made reference to higher rates of police violence experienced by Black and Latino communities and the particular vulnerabilities of children in foster care.[30

What did you see in Psaki's statement that supported the measures taken by police? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: The absence of criticism is not the same as support. There is nothing in Psaki's statement that directly criticises Reardon's shooting of Bryant. This does not mean she supported the shooting, it is a neutral position on the actions of Reardon. Her comment about systemic racism in policing, higher rates of police violence experienced by Black and Latino communities and the particular vulnerabilities of children in foster care is not indicative of a lack of support for Reardon's actions, and should not be characterised as such. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's the lead sentence that you deleted.

However, others did not support the measures taken by police.

It looks like you are saying that Psaki did not support the measures taken by police, which agrees with the lead sentence. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that comments can either support or not support the police measures. If there is nothing in a comment that supports police measures, then the comment did not support the police measures. Would it help clarify for you if the lead sentence was changed to the following?

However, the comments of others did not show any support for the measures taken by police.

Bob K31416 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WWGB, I've asked for over a month for compromise or any alternatives. Your response has been silence and undoing of any attempt to make an introductory statement. I think it's pretty clear that Psaki said "the shooting...underscored the systemic racism in policing". She is specifically addressing this shooting. Unless you think she supports systemic racism in policing, the implication is pretty clear. If you contend that she isn't addressing this shooting in particular, then we should just remove her quote altogether (it can't be both). Likewise, if you have a better option other than "no, not that", let's hear it.

Bob K31416, thank you. Buffs (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Reference kerfuffle about Behar

Let's talk about the references used here. They include the ACTUAL video in one of them and commentary from multiple angles (political and professional). A primary reference is insufficient alone when secondary sources are available. I prefer primary references are included where possible, but not at the exclusion of secondary references. Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The primary source is fine. Police Mag is, at best, a questionable source and clearly a biased source in this instance - and a blog from a biased source seems completely unnecessary. The Washington Times is a marginal, partisan source which should not be used for contentious claims or material about living people. As for FOX News, it, again, is at best a questionable source with regards to political content, and is unnecessary. Multiple editors have rejected them, and edit-warring to get your way is disruptive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof Nothing about this statement is contentious in any way (if it is, please say what it is that is contentious, otherwise your objection is moot). She said it; the WT link actually shows a clip of the video. Ergo, WT and FN are appropriate. While the last one is a blog, Doug Wylie is an expert on the subject of training and use of force for police. This isn't a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination; it is documentation of a TV program and what was said; you're misusing BLP to justify removal. That's what these sources back up. It's really that simple. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Doug Wylie is an "expert" on this topic? What are his academic credentials and work experiences? He appears to be a writer and editor of content for explicitly pro-law enforcement websites. That does not make someone an "expert" any more than someone who writes for Jacobin is an expert on economics.

You don't get to ramrod whatever you want into the article - the burden for inclusion of content lies on the person proposing to use a source or include a fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

1. You don't need to inflame the discussion with remarks like this:

   "You don't get to ramrod whatever you want into the article" - fails to assume good faith. Perhaps I just disagree with your assessment.

   "the burden for inclusion of content lies on the person proposing to use a source or include a fact." The facts presented don't seem to be in question in the slightest.

   "Police Mag appears to be an industry mouthpiece, not an independent reliable source." They are not an "industry mouthpiece", but you don't have to be so negative/condescending. They would probably best be described as a trade publication. Buffs (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

2. He is indeed an editor for a law-enforcement magazine, but I wouldn't call it "pro-law enforcement". He's written plenty of articles that are critical of police as well. His primary focus is training. But if you don't like that source, we can use others as well. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact that 4 separate editors have made 15 edits/reverts on this article over this exact issue over the prior 72 hours, and the resulting fights caused two editor blocks, is sufficient to call this matter "contentious". Platonk (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

And those blocks were a) not pertaining to this discussion and b) overturned. You are mistaking a disagreement for a "fight". The phrase itself is not contentious. If it is, please explain why. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

If Buffs' point is that it's unsafe and stupid to shoot in the air or to shoot a warning shot, then we get it. That point doesn't need to be driven home by a slew of citations without any text to make that point. (And such a point doesn't belong in this article.) It was one person's utterance, Behar's. If one thinks she needs to be excoriated over it, then stick it in her article, but it's tangential to this article and inserting it would be UNDUE WEIGHT.

Let's look at this. The text in the wiki article is Liberal commentator Joy Behar stated that the police should have shot the air and there is "something wrong if the only solution to someone potentially killing another human is to use deadly force." However, if you watch the video seen in the Law Enforcement Today article, you'll see that Behar was proposing several other ideas too, not just 'shoot in the air'. She mentioned in a stream of ideas: Taser, shoot in leg, shoot them in the [inaudible], stop them somehow, but if the only solution is to kill a teenager, there's something wrong with this, with the way these things are being conducted, even if the cop had to do it there's something wrong with it ... kids still keep getting shot." So to focus solely on the one single suggestion of 'shoot in the air' is undue weight. That is the reason I removed the text content (with the Daily Wire citation) in the first place. The entire comment about Behar is undue for this article, as is the earlier text in the article about Megan McCain. I mean, really, who cares what they "talk about" on The View?

I get it that the law enforcement people would want to press home the issue that 'we don't fire warning shots' and 'it's dangerous to shoot in the air', but that's their advocacy, and a necessary refocus point for society after heavy emotional coverage of a death involving a law enforcement officer. But that's not how it's being presented here in this article. It seems more of a COATRACK to name-drop McCain and Behar. Like I already said, who cares what is said on The View. The View is all opinion and Wikipedia discourages using opinion or being a news service. That there was a media firestorm after Behar's statement was more an issue about law enforcement shootings and less about who said the comment (in this case Behar). Of course they have to mention Behar. But do we... here in this article? Platonk (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time you have ever brought up WP:UNDUE, so let's not pretend that's the reason you removed it. You repeatedly cited WP:RS/WP:GUNREL and it's related pages. Once sources weren't an issue, you then tried something else. Behar's statement was directly referencing this shooting, not "more an issue about law enforcement shootings".

If you want to include the entire quote, I'm completely fine with that, but the quote/summary isn't inaccurate even if she said more. It isn't that "we don't fire warning shots" or "it's dangerous" it's a felony. That's not advocacy. That's not just department policy. That's just plain following the law.

There was indeed a media firestorm over it and, if you'll read above, these were the views chosen by the community to represent that firestorm. It's hardly a WP:COATRACK. If you want to change those and cite someone else, fine, let's talk about it. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: UNDUE is the reason I removed the content (along with the dailywire cite) in the first place. Whether or not I mentioned it before on this article is irrelevant, especially since you had me busy writing these dang treatises on the other articles where you were reverting my work. Platonk (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You chose to write small dissertations. That's on you. If WP:UNDUE is the primary reason, it's very odd because you never voiced it, so pardon me for being more than a little skeptical. You were clearly much too busy reverting my work (see how hollow that argument sounds? No one "owns" the work on Wikipedia. This is one the components of exhibiting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality). Buffs (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: Your continued incivility is disruptive and is not helping resolve the matter about citations in this article. Stick to the issues. Platonk (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion, by definition, is neither uncivil nor disruptive. Buffs (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Please continue further discussion in the section below. Platonk (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

List of citations

This is a chronological list of the additions/offerings of citations, with some notes on each. (Apologies if I've missed any. And this summary isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of edits and reverts.)

Platonk removed the original citation:

• Daily Wire — This source is considered generally unreliable per RSP.

Buffs reverts, and adds 8 more:

• Daily Wire, restored in revert

• Fox News 1 — Per RSP, "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims". This link has 'behar' in the URL and is used elsewhere in the article in the CITEBOMB after the Cuomo and Lemon mention.

• Washington Examiner — Per RSP, "there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims", and "statements from this publication should be attributed".

• Law Enforcement Today — This is an editorial which cites Breitbart News (blacklisted on Wikipedia) and Twitter posts. They do provide a video which includes the clip from The View of Behar talking, but

• Washington Times article, mobile device version. Note: This article appears 16 times in the Wayback Machine over 9 days in April of this year and now the content is deleted. [20] Could it be that they retracted the article? — Per RSP, "it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims" and "statements from this publication should be attributed".

• Fox News 2 — Per RSP, "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims".

• Fox News 3 — Per RSP, "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims".

• The Hill — Per RSP, generally reliable. However, this article is about lethal force and only mentions Behar in passing in a single sentence. Also this is in The Hills' OPINION section.

• Police Mag — Article on 'warning shots' sarcastically mentions Behar in passing. However, the statement made in the article doesn't support the text offered in this article (when and how was it said, for example).

Buffs adds primary source reference (no link):

• The View (primary source)
• reinserts Washington Examiner, Law Enforcement Today, Washington Times, Fox News 2, The Hill, Police Mag

Buffs reverts to:

• The View, Washington Times, Fox News 2, Police Mag

Current version: [21]

• The View

I think that's all of them. Platonk (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Yeah...you kinda left out that the DailyWire article was a citation for 5 4 months before you removed it... Buffs (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: 'Length of time' is irrelevant. I've cleaned up articles with blatant violations of wiki guidelines that have remained for over 15 years and dozens of editors didn't fix it before I did. Per WP:VOLUNTEER, no editor is required to evaluate whole articles, check all citations, and fix someone else's bad edits. Five months, you say? Maybe I should see if it was you who inserted dailywire in the first place. Oh my! Yes, it was Buffs. See diff and screenshot from Who Wrote That. Platonk (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Per WP:VOLUNTEER, no editor is required to evaluate whole articles" - is a straw man argument. I never said you had to evaluate whole articles

Length of time is not relevant as a barrier to make changes, per se. However, length of time is a factor for WP:BRD. Per that technique (which was cited in the process), you made a bold change. I objected. At that point we could/should have discussed. Likewise, WP:BRD states: "when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion". The idea that the addition of sources is somehow nefarious/improper is absurd; it's standard practice. Buffs (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Not so. The addition of a whole string of citations (9 in this case) to support a single sentence is covered under Wikipedia:Citation overkill. tldr="When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones." Platonk (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I pared it down to 4 as requested...and you are continuing to ignore it. You wrote this whole list of sources with editorial comments that don't apply after I removed some of them. You're acting as if those sources still exist. They don't. Your complaint above is moot.

So far, you have cited

• WP:GUNREL to remove both the neutrally worded statements/quotes and the sources rather than replacing the sources with a {{cn}} tag or replacing it yourself
• WP:ANI to claim the words used (not the sources and not specifically the content cited) are contentious without describing how it is so and misleadingly using that discussion as criteria to cite WP:BIASED. In fact, the ANI thread deals with behavior on my talk page, not this article (and certainly not the content of the statement(s) in question).
• WP:CIVIL to reference discussion/any dissent from your opinions/any criticism of points you discussed as uncivil
• WP:REFBOMB citing that I added a "slew of citations without any text to make that point" but simultaneously omitting, by your own admission, that one of the sources includes a link to the specific video clip (and was one reason I included it)
• WP:VOLUNTEER as an excuse to violate WP:BRD
• WP:NOTNEWS when the whole point of these few sentences is to cite the media coverage (3 is NOT hyperextensive).
• and most recently WP:UNDUE, which you'd never brought up prior nor have you explained why it applies. I've explained that we (not just I) decided to add it as it was indicative/representative of the media firestorm that ensued. You've never once said that was incorrect or explained how that statement is inaccurate in any way. You implied that it wasn't notable, when, in fact, it was typical of the media reactions.
• and repeatedly describing a quote of a person as a "contentious claim" (see numerous references in your list of sources above). A quote/accurate summary is not a "contentious claim". Repeatedly describing it as such doesn't make it so and is not appropriate behavior
• and repeatedly outdenting for no apparent reason [22] [23] [24]
• and trying to stop discussion with others to force the discussion to be with you. Just because someone wants to continue another discussion doesn't mean you have the right to try and shut it down
• and selectively editing the above list of citations/chronology and leaving out pertinent details

And every time I point out how you're incorrect, you ignore that your point is invalid and simply move on to a different perceived flaw without addressing the flaws I pointed out in what you previously brought up. At this point, it seems pretty clear this falls under WP:TE and I'm going to ask you to stop.

Propose an alternative if you don't like what I proposed. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a nonstarter. Buffs (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Black or African-American

I opened up this section for editors to discuss whether to use black or African-American in two sentences [25]. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

We need to take care, as not all Blacks are African American. Many Blacks have Caribbean ancestry. In this case, we should follow sources, which describe her as Black. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the person making these edits is doing so simply to annoy/entrap me/use to say I'm edit warring ("brand new" IP account suddenly starts quoting policy = suspicious). I concur with WWGB. The sources call her black and she should be described as the sources do. If there is a source/policy that states otherwise, cite it. Otherwise I'll revert in 24 hours. Buffs (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional note: this has been brought up before Buffs (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are some sources that use Black:

Ma’Khia Bryant, a Black teenager [26] Associated Press

Black teen [27] CNN

Black teenage girl [28] Reuters

Black teenage girl [29] Washington Post

I couldn't find any sources that use African-American. I think Black should be used. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and revert. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to revert (no malice thought of) and discuss further here. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Capitalized "Black" or uncapitalized "black"

Just an MoS note, current MOSCAPS consensus is to not capitalize any racial descriptors that aren't already natural proper nouns, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms. No comment on which descriptor to use here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Peoples_and_their_languages,

"Ethno-racial 'color labels' may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white);..."

Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I, personally, find such capitalization mildly disruptive when I'm reading, because it comes off as unnecessarily shouty (especially if only one is capitalized, it comes off as trying to prove... well something, just not important enough to simply spit it out I guess), but it's not that big a deal to me. I've been more focused on other MoS and Principle of Some Astonishment copyediting. (Also wondering when that got inserted, because it rather clearly goes against the rather clear consensus from the discussion I linked above, but that's another matter) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It was added with this diff [30] and supported by this RFC: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_33#RFC:_representation_of_consensus_in_current_guideline. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Lowercase "black" should be used. "Black" seems to be used too often to push a political agenda. No other such descriptor is capitalized in that manner (i.e. white...except in white supremacy contexts). As such, I think it should be lowercase...by my count, that's 2v1. Anyone else? Buffs (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The four sources that I provided above in the main section describe Bryant using capitalized "Black". Would you care to provide sources that describe Bryant using uncapitalized "black"? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of whether sources specifically discussing a certain topic capitalize it or not, it is a matter of MOS:RETAIN. Looking through the article's history, the uncapitalized "black" was the longstanding version, so it should not be changed. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN pertains to varieties of English and isn't relevant here, except possibly to support the use of capitalized "Black". From MOS:RETAIN, "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." From the link "consistent usage" in that excerpt, "Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently." Bob K31416 (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary, this is a VERY American view on the subject (but is largely isolated to the political left). Buffs (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: if you want, MOS:VAR is more broad, and says more or less the same thing. The established style was lowercase, as you can see in the page history: [31] You changed it two days ago, without consensus: Special:Diff/1045505608. There is no reason to do this. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Volteer1, I've been giving the reason in this section, which is that "Black" (capitalized) is used in the sources to describe Ma'Khia Bryant. For example,

Ma’Khia Bryant, a Black teenager [32] Associated Press

shooting of Black teen [33] CNN

kill Black teenage girl [34] Reuters

shoot Black teenage girl [35] Washington Post

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, "Black" and "black" mean the same thing, and both styles are acceptable. It is like finding a bunch of sources talking about this incident that report the date it occurred as "20 April" instead of "April 20" and repeatedly changing the date format to one that appears in the sources you have found. We don't need sources to tell us if Ma'Khia Bryant specifically is "Black" or "black" any more than we need sources to tell us if this event specifically occurred on "20 April" or "April 20". ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought when I originally replaced "African-American" with "black" in July.[36] I wasn't aware of an issue between "black" and Black". In the discussion previous to this one about "African-American", I became aware that all the sources I found used capitalized "Black". So I simply used "Black" too. From what you say, "black" or "Black doesn't matter to you, so I presume your efforts here are to have the right process. I won't be reverting your edit without consensus and I'll wait to see if there is consensus to change to "Black", which is what the sources use for describing Ma'Khia Bryant. BTW, I was curious what the issue was about so I googled: uncapitalized black vs capitalized Black when describing African-Americans, in case anyone is interested. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Re "black" or "Black doesn't matter to you, so I presume your efforts here are to have the right process – this much is true, mostly it is inconsistency within an article that annoys me (this pathology of mine seems common among Wikipedia editors...) but I have changed b to B in other articles where it procedurally made sense to (either in the case of making an article consistent with itself or reverting someone who changed it to lowercase roughly with the argument "wtf! this is political bs!"). Regarding "African-American" vs. "B(b)lack", I think the MOS does not have specific guidance on this, and they are at least different words with sometimes different meanings depending on the context (for an extreme example, Indigenous Australians can also be called "black"), so a 'what do the sources say' type investigation does make more sense there IMO. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

re "sometimes different meanings depending on the context" — "black" can mean color whereas "Black" only refers to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No one is arguing otherwise, WP discussions came to the conclusion that there is no consensus to do so on a widespread basis. Consensus here is other than what you want and you need to accept that. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, they are both acceptable as long as there is consistency in the article. Trying to gain a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by arguing that the existing community consensus in the manual of style is "push[ing] a political agenda" does not override it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I was not arguing that the MOS is pushing a political agenda; if we choose to do so as a whole, then it is what it is. Right now, there is not a consensus. I'm arguing that pushing for capitalization is pushing a political agenda. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone could just as well argue that you're pushing a political agenda. I don't think either argument is productive. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You're the one arguing for the change. Saying "no" and sticking with status quo is appropriate. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I've provided an argument based on reliable sources, which is the same argument we used together to change from African-American. Back then you wrote, "The sources call her black and she should be described as the sources do."[37] Well, the sources call her "Black" (capitalized) and she should be described as the sources do. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You've made your point. Let's see if others agree/disagree. Right now, it's still 2v1 3v1. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This person is not notable, this article should be deleted

Yes? No? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)