This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buffalo police shoving incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A fact from Buffalo police shoving incident appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of George Floyd protests in New York (state) was copied or moved into Niagara Square police violence incident. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
His Twitter page portrays his as a far-left activist. Until today, his tweets were public, and displayed hate/violence towards the government and police officers. Abobeck11 ( talk) 02:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
After looking further, it looks like this is actually mentioned in the Buffalo News article that is already cited as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abobeck11 ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Why was my piece on Radio Frequency Aquisition Mode deleted? His phone was in RFAM and therefore is relevant to the discussion. My mom is a college lecturer and said that we shouldn't be deleting comments, but having open discussion. Can I repost about RFAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.5.79 ( talk) 10:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Just so we know: The origin of this nonsense is an anonymous blogger using the nickname "Sundance". He posted his claim on a far-right blog called "Conservative Treehouse", which describes itself as "a Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits". [1] The only "evidence" he cited was his own Twitter feed. The item was picked up by a "reporter" named Kristian Rouz (who also works for the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik). It was broadcast on the notorious cable news channel One America News Network. [2] Trump picked it up from there and amplified it in a tweet which has been condemned from all sides, Republicans as well as Democrats. Bottom line: We here at Wikipedia require Reliable Sources. That is about as far from reliably sourced information as it is possible to get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN ( talk • contribs)
I would also like to make it known that I too feel the article does not have an equal amount of valid information from all sources as required by encycolopedic neutrality. There is no information on why the police pushed him for instance, despite him walking up to them and, from what I see, clearly touching his phone against an officer possibly up to three times. There are reports and video footage of this. There is also no detail on Martin Gugino's past arrests which he himself has declared on his own blog source (which, as he is the subject and those are his words is a valid source). I have tried to make two edits now adding what I am very sure are valid references but they have been reverted. Gu64rk g ( talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Snopes has reported on this error which stemmed from a conflation of Mayor Brown's description of two different people: Martin Gugino and Myles Carter. From the transcript of this interview, it is clear that Brown's use of the word "agitator" is being applied to Myles (erroneously named 'Miles') Carter and not Mr. Gugino.
Xerotex ( talk) 10:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Xerotex
Sources
|
---|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CubkyIzygQ Title of the video is biased but a description of what is happening in it would be good for the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.117 ( talk) 10:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The article says "Officers in the line appeared to walk past Gugino, as he lay on the ground with blood pooling around his head. One officer attempted to check on Gugino but was pulled back by another officer and both continued to enforce the curfew." I don't see it like this, because the officer who pulled the other one back talks into his radio gear while he is staying near Gugino. To me it looks like he is calling for medical assistance. Didn't anybody else see this?-- Einar Moses Wohltun ( talk) 13:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to One officer attempted to check on Gugino, but was persuaded to move on by another officer
.
Source says One officer leans down to check on the injured man before he is urged along by another officer, the video shows.
starship
.paint (
talk)
15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure the cops called for medical assistance. I have seen reports that it was bystanders who did so. See here, for instance: "People can be heard shouting in the video that the man was bleeding from his ear, and that medics were being called. An ambulance arrived soon after." Of course it's possible that both the police and the bystanders did so. And as for "while he is staying near Gugino", that's not what I see. He starts to bend over but is immediately pulled back into line by the officer next to him. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Our main image is being described as unnecessary; Defense of its usage is welcome at: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_June_10#File:Assault_on_Martin_Gugino.png Feoffer ( talk) 19:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the titles of the (currently) 30 sources used as reference in this article:
My issues with the current article title:
Proposing Buffalo shoving incident as a replacement article title. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively Buffalo police shoving incident ("police" appearing in 23 of the sources' titles), but less WP:CONCISE as an article title; also, I suppose it best the article title neither singles out the person being shoved, nor the party doing the shoving. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I am OK with a move - I never did like having his name in the title - but I wonder if "Buffalo police" is a little unclear? Will people, not familiar with the names of U.S. cities, wonder what in the word are the buffalo police? Maybe we should say "Buffalo, New York police shoving incident" since Buffalo is not one of those U.S. cities where the state can be omitted. And the city is certainly not the Primary Topic for the word buffalo. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to how a shoving incident benefits from obscuring the victim of the shoving. Searching for Martin Gugino redirects to the article, but the sought after conciseness suffers from an inconspicuous vagueness. Where the shoving incident took place is subordinate to who was being shoved. There's also a redundant focus on taking sides when there is no debate being had. I think that's lending to overthinking how to title the shoving incident (of Martin Gugino.) The title as it is assumes there would never be a future shoving incident in Buffalo. This is 'the one'. Thehappypoet ( talk) 22:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about the twitter account & am preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "not relevant; WP:AVOIDVICTIM". The policy says 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. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. The material is off-topic as the Twitter account did not precipitate the incident. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, if included (about which I have no strong opinion) it should be moved to the "Aftermath" section. It doesn't belong in any other section than "Aftermath". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
”Drew scrutiny” is indeed supported by the source. This is in fact the exact language that is used by the source. I think putting it under “Aftermath” definitely makes more sense. Can we achieve a consensus here? Abobeck11 ( talk) 04:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Should the article reflect Version A: Trump made several false claims in his response to the incident on Twitter
or Version B: Trump has made baseless or false claims in his response to the incident on Twitter
? Taking this issue to talk due to
User:JimKaatFan's revert.
[5]. I refer you to the sources below.
starship
.paint (
talk)
14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Source 1 (globalnews.ca) [6]: U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday claimed, without providing evidence, that a 75-year-old man who was shoved to the ground by police during an anti-Black racism protest in Buffalo, N.Y., was an Antifa provocateur.
Source 2 (BBC News) [7]: We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices. It is also not clear how police equipment could be interfered with in this way. There are plenty of apps claiming to be able to listen into police audio that have been popular during the recent wave of protests in the United States. But these apps wouldn't allow you to interfere with a police device - or to "black out police equipment" as the president suggested.
Source 3 (CNN) [8]: the President of the United States suggested -- without offering a shred of evidence -- that the entire episode was the result of a broad scam involving Antifa, a protest organization "whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform." [...] In the segment, footage is shown that suggests the man, Martin Gugino, 75, "was appearing to use common Antifa tactics" when he approached the officers." That tactic? Using his phone to "scan" police communication. The OAN reporter claims that Gugino was using police tracking software on his phone. But there's absolutely no way of telling that from the clip; what's on the screen of Gugino's phone is not visible. And he could just be gesturing with the phone. Again, there's simply no way of knowing. [...] What we also know is that Gugino is a longtime activist and peaceful protester. There is no evidence that he is part of Antifa.
Source 4 (Associated Press): [9] President Donald Trump ignited fresh controversy over his hard-line “law and order” push Tuesday by peddling yet another unfounded conspiracy theory, this time trying to raise suspicions about a 75-year-old protester who was hospitalized after being shoved by police and falling. Trump tweeted without evidence that the confrontation in Buffalo, New York, may have been a “set up” as he once again sided with police officers over protesters and demonstrated anew his willingness to spread and amplify bogus charges cooked up by far-right outlets. [Tweet] There is no evidence to suggest that anything of the sort took place. As for the substance of the tweet, the president’s claim is “so technically incomprehensible, I’m not even sure where to start,” said Matt Blaze, a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University. It is possible to disrupt police radio —an illegal action often called “jamming”— but hackers can only do that by attacking receiving stations, not with handheld devices that target an individual police officer’s radio, Blaze said. “Any radio system is subject to interference, but it doesn’t work by pointing some sort of ray gun and interfering,” Blaze said.
In my reading of the above sources, the only claim the sources say is false is the theory that Gugino was trying to "black out communications" (Source 2 & 4). Every other theory is not stated as false, but as baseless / without evidence / unfounded / unknowable - these theories are him being Antifa (Source 1 & 3), this being a setup (Source 4), him scanning or tracking the police (Source 2 & 3). Therefore, we should use Version B "baseless or false", instead of Version A of just "false". starship .paint ( talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
11:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Fuzheado ( talk), Starship.paint ( talk), Leaky.Solar ( talk), and Fram ( talk). Nominated by Starship.paint ( talk) at 03:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count.(It it had been over seven days old, then the expansion would be required.) So in this case, the copied characters, being duplicated from from George Floyd protests in New York (state)#Niagara Square police violence incident in Buffalo police shoving incident are excluded from the total count of the latter, but that total count of the rest of the article just needs to hit the 1500 minimum. At this point, it's large enough regardless of the counting method, but had it not been expanded, it would still be long enough. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Earwig throwing up some stuff but it's direct quotations and the Trump tweet so no copyvio. Since there are pics, do you want to add one? Just a thought. As another comment, I find it a bit jarring that some quotations are wikilinked eg "serious but stable condition" →
Medical state and "were simply following orders" and "simply doing their job" →
Superior orders. This seems a bit like editorialisation, in contrast to "Black Lives Matter" →
Black Lives Matter which seems like a straightforward link.
Mujinga (
talk)
18:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Will ping when I get back to this! starship .paint ( talk) 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
the Buffalo police department issued a false claim, or that
President Donald Trump spread false and unfounded conspiracy theories in his response to the incident on Twitter, using news outlets as verification, is unacceptable. There has not been a criminal trial, but I don't see the word "allegedly" being used anywhere except in the headline of The Washington Post. (It is absolutely mandatory in the hook.) I think you can tone down the inflammatory language in the hook without losing clicks. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that the
Buffalo, New York
police shoving incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with
assault? Source:
NBC News
ALT2 ... that the
Buffalo, New York
police shoving incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with
assault, to which they pleaded not guilty? Source:
NBC News
ALT3 ... that the
Buffalo, New York
police pushing incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with
assault, to which they pleaded not guilty? Source:
NBC News
The idea is good Yoninah, except that it misses the significance of the shove, which was that somebody was seriously injured. How about something like:
pushing a 75-year-old man to the ground, and using news sources to prove that this is what it happened, is unacceptable. They were charged with assault, but pleaded not guilty. This is clearly a case of trial by newspaper. Yoninah ( talk) 16:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Two Buffalo officers charged with assault over police shoving 75-year-old man to ground-- evrik ( talk) 00:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
ALT0? good to go. The hook and title are fine and certainly within
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The backbone of Wikipedia is
Wikipedia:Verifiability backed by
Wikipedia:Reliable sources and this article and its hook are above and beyond compliance.
Djflem (
talk)
17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
two Buffalo, New York, police officers. Yoninah ( talk) 22:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe the waving and scanning video I have uploaded forms is required to form an unbiased part of this story. Omitting this information will make the article one sided.
Gu64rk g ( talk) 15:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: my edit keeps being reverted without entering into logical discussion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gu64rk g ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Good God, are you still promoting this nonsense - that he was up to some kind of mischief when he waved his phone around? You used to say he was “scanning” the officer with his phone, which he had set on “Radio Frequency Activation Mode”, but RFAM does not appear to exist. [11] So it looks like you have now dropped that, but you still think there is some significance to what he was doing with his phone? We have disproven and dismissed this at least twice already at this page, see #Martin Gugino’s biography does not represent a neutral point of view and #More detailed description of Martin's activities while approaching police officers. To summarize, this is a rumor that has been circulating on the internet. You didn’t start it, you “simply found it online” and decided to believe it. (“I saw it on the internet so it must be true.”) This has no credibility and no place here, so please stop wasting our time with it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I feel Martin Gugino's own Blogger account should be admissible as a source because he wrote it and it shows his account of his life such as his arrests and his health problems which have been disputed. This is a valid source as he is writing about himself. Wikipedia says as for blog posts as reliable 'Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used. There are three major policies, guidelines, and pages that cover this. '. Further details: 'Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.' WP:BLPSELFPUB] The key words here are 'unless written or published by the subject of the article'. Martin Gugino is the subject of the article and the blog has been written and published by him therefore I feel it should be allowed. Gu64rk g ( talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Really don't like the way this section is worded here. While I personally don't necessarily disagree with the section's claims, it is a massive violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. I'm honestly considering just blanking the entire sub-section out until a proper subsection with a proper impartial tone can be drafted and written. -- letcreate123 ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I actually came to the talk page to see what people were saying about that part. Reading it, I thought that the chunk of stuff about OANN seemed to drift a bit off-topic into general criticism of OANN which, while entirely valid criticism, made the whole section feel a bit slanted. I think that last paragraph could be condensed down into a more simple description that they are highly partisan source who have acknowledged that they have zero evidence for the claims that they made. Maybe also the bit about the protesters, although even that feels a bit gratuitous to the topic. I could also see an argument for slightly condensing the paragraph of responses to Trump's response -- it looks a bit long, but I can also see why all four of the people quoted are quoted. Maybe just trim the word count a bit. That said, I think the first half is a great example of impartial, properly documented reporting on a figure of controversy, I wouldn't change a word there. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.113.201.237 (
talk)
17:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I keep wikilinking the police union's claim that they "were just following orders" to superior orders but someone keeps removing it. This is a real wiki article and legal defense, but it keeps getting removed (possibly because it doesn't portray police in a good light to be using Nazi rhetoric). I will add it again for a 3rd time but everyone keep an eye out for this censorship. -- Converting to insanity ( talk) 01:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the article for POV language and tone. There have been no trials or convictions, so we cannot state outright that the officers pushed the man and caused his injuries. I also tagged the lead for being insufficient and one-sided. It needs to summarize the whole article, which would include the various reactions and opposing viewpoints of what happened. That whole paragraph about the One America News Network looks WP:UNDUE and sounds like Wikipedia is trying to discredit it. Yoninah ( talk) 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There have been no trials or convictions, so we cannot state outright that the officers pushed the man and caused his injuries.This is a misunderstanding of the relevant policies, and of the facts of the case. The absence of a conviction of course prevents us from asserting, even implicitly, that a crime was committed – we can't say they assaulted him – but doesn't prevent us from reproducing widely reported facts. If the cops' lawyer was to claim that they didn't push him they would be laughed out of court; what's in question isn't whether they pushed him but whether doing so was within the limits of their legal powers. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The incident has been defined as "pushing" in the lead, but the page name is using a harsher and more deliberate term: "shoving". What about changing the page name? Yoninah ( talk) 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 ( talk) 03:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In President Trump's response, remove the "without evidence", since unfounded = without evidence. 108.35.187.79 ( talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The curfew was 8pm and the event shortly after. https://buffalonews.com/opinion/columnists/a-video-links-martin-gugino-and-wbfos-mike-desmond-so-did-canisius-high-school/article_306db037-d516-5111-bc97-2bcd81feb74f.html I do not update the article. Martin | talk • contribs 12:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe the link to the "argument from ignorance" page should be removed on the anchor text of "prove the story was false." This is not an argument from ignorance. The network believed that the story was true based on their research and evidence. The protesters gathering outside of the network claimed the story was false. The challenge to prove the story false, therefore, would logically fall on those claiming it was false and disregarding the evidence presented by the network. At no point does the network claim "this is true because you can't prove it false" which is what an argument from ignorance REALLY is (i.e. "there's no evidence God does not exist, therefore He does."
Using this link is simply incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:3900:12:F19C:A6D5:6274:37F6 ( talk) 18:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
There are two smaller items I'd like to point out:
The structure of the article is a bit confusing. I think the two most important aspects are:
(a) describing what has happened exactly
and
(b) the aftermath situation.
I believe (a) is ok, although a bit more information could be useful. Perhaps a table overview, but that's a detail, so not the main issue.
(b) however had is a bit annoying. Take the "Trump comment" subsection. That one is really huge compared to the overall incident. So I think this is not fair. If you have say 10 sentences describing the main events, then you should not have 20 sentences merely focusing on what Trump (or anyone else for that matter) says. The aftermath situation is important, e. g. from a legal point of view and accountability, but it should happen in a "fair" way. Right now it appears to me as, for whatever the reason, the Trump subsection got by far the biggest part of the article. Perhaps it would be better to restructure that part a little, either expand on it in general and try to make it more objective, or shorten the Trump subsection.
It's hard to explain why, but I think those involved in the incident are the primary people, and EVERYONE else is secondary to these ~3 or so involved. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:FA9F:8D5F:B40F:A65A ( talk) 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=external&v=1087844035050426
I found this a really interesting insight into the case from a very reliable source. I don't know how to reference a video so well but if anyone else would like to please feel free as I think some important missing information can be added to the current article to make it a fuller account of the events.
'Lets be honest, Gugino committed a crime that day. He violated a curfew. He had no business approaching these police officers. He had no business being on those steps at all or there at city hall. There was a curfew and he broke the law.
All that needed to be done was grab Mr Gugino, gently turn him around, put the handcuffs on him and walk him peacefully off the steps. He should have been arrested and peacefully walked off the steps. I still stand by it today, he should not have been shoved.
He’s not part of antifa, he’s not part of some left wing organisational movement, he didn’t have a scanner in a cellphone trying to scan radio waves or some nonsense I heard on somebody's social media site. He had his video on and he had a recording on. All he was trying to do was record a police officer. But, with all that said, he still violated curfew and should have been dealt with that way, he did not need to be pushed.
One of the criticisms, and its valid, as to the reason why we have a lot of the protest, we have a lot of anger in the social justice criminal movement is because police officers are not treated the same way as civilians. If these were two civilians in their late 20s early 30s at 2 o’clock in the morning on Shipperwall, in front of Soho, and some 75 year old guy who gets his kicks from hanging about Chipperwall at 2 in the morning, approached two civilians and they got into a beef and one of the civilians had a golf club in his car or a baseball bat or a whatever and they used it to push him, a 75 year old man, on the ground, falls down, cracks his head on the concrete and its all captured on Soho video in the middle of Chipperwall. I’m telling you now, there’s no grand jury investigation for that. They are arrested right on the spot. Immediately arrested. In my administration we treat everyone the same. … The officers were treated fairly, they were charged with an appropriate charge. The matter was fairly presented to the grand jury and the grand jury did their job. I do believe a crime was committed, I don’t necessarily believe it was a felony. Society makes these decisions, not one person.
In any case where there’s an assault charge there is an intentional component to the assault charge and there is a reckless component to the assault charge. I need probable cause to arrest. If I go to trial though I need beyond reasonable doubt. At this moment in time in my mind it was 50/50 whether it was intentional or reckless, so if its 50/50 in my mind its not beyond a reasonable doubt. So that analysis factors in my mind but I cannot articulate what was going on in their mind.
I can’t tell you what evidence was presented to the grand jury. I’m not going to confirm or deny if that video was shown to the grand jury. All I can say is that video existed...beforehand. I will confirm that one of the officers after the incident happened obviously, said to himself ‘oh shoot’ and went down and went to try to help him out.
Reporter: ‘Are there any pardons against them?’, no.'
AdamThingy ( talk) 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Buffalo police shoving incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | A fact from Buffalo police shoving incident appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of George Floyd protests in New York (state) was copied or moved into Niagara Square police violence incident. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
His Twitter page portrays his as a far-left activist. Until today, his tweets were public, and displayed hate/violence towards the government and police officers. Abobeck11 ( talk) 02:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
After looking further, it looks like this is actually mentioned in the Buffalo News article that is already cited as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abobeck11 ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey! Why was my piece on Radio Frequency Aquisition Mode deleted? His phone was in RFAM and therefore is relevant to the discussion. My mom is a college lecturer and said that we shouldn't be deleting comments, but having open discussion. Can I repost about RFAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.5.79 ( talk) 10:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Just so we know: The origin of this nonsense is an anonymous blogger using the nickname "Sundance". He posted his claim on a far-right blog called "Conservative Treehouse", which describes itself as "a Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits". [1] The only "evidence" he cited was his own Twitter feed. The item was picked up by a "reporter" named Kristian Rouz (who also works for the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik). It was broadcast on the notorious cable news channel One America News Network. [2] Trump picked it up from there and amplified it in a tweet which has been condemned from all sides, Republicans as well as Democrats. Bottom line: We here at Wikipedia require Reliable Sources. That is about as far from reliably sourced information as it is possible to get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN ( talk • contribs)
I would also like to make it known that I too feel the article does not have an equal amount of valid information from all sources as required by encycolopedic neutrality. There is no information on why the police pushed him for instance, despite him walking up to them and, from what I see, clearly touching his phone against an officer possibly up to three times. There are reports and video footage of this. There is also no detail on Martin Gugino's past arrests which he himself has declared on his own blog source (which, as he is the subject and those are his words is a valid source). I have tried to make two edits now adding what I am very sure are valid references but they have been reverted. Gu64rk g ( talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Snopes has reported on this error which stemmed from a conflation of Mayor Brown's description of two different people: Martin Gugino and Myles Carter. From the transcript of this interview, it is clear that Brown's use of the word "agitator" is being applied to Myles (erroneously named 'Miles') Carter and not Mr. Gugino.
Xerotex ( talk) 10:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Xerotex
Sources
|
---|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CubkyIzygQ Title of the video is biased but a description of what is happening in it would be good for the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.117 ( talk) 10:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The article says "Officers in the line appeared to walk past Gugino, as he lay on the ground with blood pooling around his head. One officer attempted to check on Gugino but was pulled back by another officer and both continued to enforce the curfew." I don't see it like this, because the officer who pulled the other one back talks into his radio gear while he is staying near Gugino. To me it looks like he is calling for medical assistance. Didn't anybody else see this?-- Einar Moses Wohltun ( talk) 13:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to One officer attempted to check on Gugino, but was persuaded to move on by another officer
.
Source says One officer leans down to check on the injured man before he is urged along by another officer, the video shows.
starship
.paint (
talk)
15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure the cops called for medical assistance. I have seen reports that it was bystanders who did so. See here, for instance: "People can be heard shouting in the video that the man was bleeding from his ear, and that medics were being called. An ambulance arrived soon after." Of course it's possible that both the police and the bystanders did so. And as for "while he is staying near Gugino", that's not what I see. He starts to bend over but is immediately pulled back into line by the officer next to him. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Our main image is being described as unnecessary; Defense of its usage is welcome at: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_June_10#File:Assault_on_Martin_Gugino.png Feoffer ( talk) 19:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the titles of the (currently) 30 sources used as reference in this article:
My issues with the current article title:
Proposing Buffalo shoving incident as a replacement article title. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively Buffalo police shoving incident ("police" appearing in 23 of the sources' titles), but less WP:CONCISE as an article title; also, I suppose it best the article title neither singles out the person being shoved, nor the party doing the shoving. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I am OK with a move - I never did like having his name in the title - but I wonder if "Buffalo police" is a little unclear? Will people, not familiar with the names of U.S. cities, wonder what in the word are the buffalo police? Maybe we should say "Buffalo, New York police shoving incident" since Buffalo is not one of those U.S. cities where the state can be omitted. And the city is certainly not the Primary Topic for the word buffalo. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to how a shoving incident benefits from obscuring the victim of the shoving. Searching for Martin Gugino redirects to the article, but the sought after conciseness suffers from an inconspicuous vagueness. Where the shoving incident took place is subordinate to who was being shoved. There's also a redundant focus on taking sides when there is no debate being had. I think that's lending to overthinking how to title the shoving incident (of Martin Gugino.) The title as it is assumes there would never be a future shoving incident in Buffalo. This is 'the one'. Thehappypoet ( talk) 22:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I removed the sentence about the twitter account & am preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "not relevant; WP:AVOIDVICTIM". The policy says 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. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. The material is off-topic as the Twitter account did not precipitate the incident. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, if included (about which I have no strong opinion) it should be moved to the "Aftermath" section. It doesn't belong in any other section than "Aftermath". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
”Drew scrutiny” is indeed supported by the source. This is in fact the exact language that is used by the source. I think putting it under “Aftermath” definitely makes more sense. Can we achieve a consensus here? Abobeck11 ( talk) 04:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Should the article reflect Version A: Trump made several false claims in his response to the incident on Twitter
or Version B: Trump has made baseless or false claims in his response to the incident on Twitter
? Taking this issue to talk due to
User:JimKaatFan's revert.
[5]. I refer you to the sources below.
starship
.paint (
talk)
14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Source 1 (globalnews.ca) [6]: U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday claimed, without providing evidence, that a 75-year-old man who was shoved to the ground by police during an anti-Black racism protest in Buffalo, N.Y., was an Antifa provocateur.
Source 2 (BBC News) [7]: We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices. It is also not clear how police equipment could be interfered with in this way. There are plenty of apps claiming to be able to listen into police audio that have been popular during the recent wave of protests in the United States. But these apps wouldn't allow you to interfere with a police device - or to "black out police equipment" as the president suggested.
Source 3 (CNN) [8]: the President of the United States suggested -- without offering a shred of evidence -- that the entire episode was the result of a broad scam involving Antifa, a protest organization "whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform." [...] In the segment, footage is shown that suggests the man, Martin Gugino, 75, "was appearing to use common Antifa tactics" when he approached the officers." That tactic? Using his phone to "scan" police communication. The OAN reporter claims that Gugino was using police tracking software on his phone. But there's absolutely no way of telling that from the clip; what's on the screen of Gugino's phone is not visible. And he could just be gesturing with the phone. Again, there's simply no way of knowing. [...] What we also know is that Gugino is a longtime activist and peaceful protester. There is no evidence that he is part of Antifa.
Source 4 (Associated Press): [9] President Donald Trump ignited fresh controversy over his hard-line “law and order” push Tuesday by peddling yet another unfounded conspiracy theory, this time trying to raise suspicions about a 75-year-old protester who was hospitalized after being shoved by police and falling. Trump tweeted without evidence that the confrontation in Buffalo, New York, may have been a “set up” as he once again sided with police officers over protesters and demonstrated anew his willingness to spread and amplify bogus charges cooked up by far-right outlets. [Tweet] There is no evidence to suggest that anything of the sort took place. As for the substance of the tweet, the president’s claim is “so technically incomprehensible, I’m not even sure where to start,” said Matt Blaze, a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University. It is possible to disrupt police radio —an illegal action often called “jamming”— but hackers can only do that by attacking receiving stations, not with handheld devices that target an individual police officer’s radio, Blaze said. “Any radio system is subject to interference, but it doesn’t work by pointing some sort of ray gun and interfering,” Blaze said.
In my reading of the above sources, the only claim the sources say is false is the theory that Gugino was trying to "black out communications" (Source 2 & 4). Every other theory is not stated as false, but as baseless / without evidence / unfounded / unknowable - these theories are him being Antifa (Source 1 & 3), this being a setup (Source 4), him scanning or tracking the police (Source 2 & 3). Therefore, we should use Version B "baseless or false", instead of Version A of just "false". starship .paint ( talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
11:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Fuzheado ( talk), Starship.paint ( talk), Leaky.Solar ( talk), and Fram ( talk). Nominated by Starship.paint ( talk) at 03:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC).
New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count.(It it had been over seven days old, then the expansion would be required.) So in this case, the copied characters, being duplicated from from George Floyd protests in New York (state)#Niagara Square police violence incident in Buffalo police shoving incident are excluded from the total count of the latter, but that total count of the rest of the article just needs to hit the 1500 minimum. At this point, it's large enough regardless of the counting method, but had it not been expanded, it would still be long enough. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
Earwig throwing up some stuff but it's direct quotations and the Trump tweet so no copyvio. Since there are pics, do you want to add one? Just a thought. As another comment, I find it a bit jarring that some quotations are wikilinked eg "serious but stable condition" →
Medical state and "were simply following orders" and "simply doing their job" →
Superior orders. This seems a bit like editorialisation, in contrast to "Black Lives Matter" →
Black Lives Matter which seems like a straightforward link.
Mujinga (
talk)
18:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Will ping when I get back to this! starship .paint ( talk) 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
the Buffalo police department issued a false claim, or that
President Donald Trump spread false and unfounded conspiracy theories in his response to the incident on Twitter, using news outlets as verification, is unacceptable. There has not been a criminal trial, but I don't see the word "allegedly" being used anywhere except in the headline of The Washington Post. (It is absolutely mandatory in the hook.) I think you can tone down the inflammatory language in the hook without losing clicks. Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that the
Buffalo, New York
police shoving incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with
assault? Source:
NBC News
ALT2 ... that the
Buffalo, New York
police shoving incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with
assault, to which they pleaded not guilty? Source:
NBC News
ALT3 ... that the
Buffalo, New York
police pushing incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with
assault, to which they pleaded not guilty? Source:
NBC News
The idea is good Yoninah, except that it misses the significance of the shove, which was that somebody was seriously injured. How about something like:
pushing a 75-year-old man to the ground, and using news sources to prove that this is what it happened, is unacceptable. They were charged with assault, but pleaded not guilty. This is clearly a case of trial by newspaper. Yoninah ( talk) 16:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Two Buffalo officers charged with assault over police shoving 75-year-old man to ground-- evrik ( talk) 00:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
ALT0? good to go. The hook and title are fine and certainly within
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The backbone of Wikipedia is
Wikipedia:Verifiability backed by
Wikipedia:Reliable sources and this article and its hook are above and beyond compliance.
Djflem (
talk)
17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
two Buffalo, New York, police officers. Yoninah ( talk) 22:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe the waving and scanning video I have uploaded forms is required to form an unbiased part of this story. Omitting this information will make the article one sided.
Gu64rk g ( talk) 15:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Edit: my edit keeps being reverted without entering into logical discussion.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gu64rk g ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Good God, are you still promoting this nonsense - that he was up to some kind of mischief when he waved his phone around? You used to say he was “scanning” the officer with his phone, which he had set on “Radio Frequency Activation Mode”, but RFAM does not appear to exist. [11] So it looks like you have now dropped that, but you still think there is some significance to what he was doing with his phone? We have disproven and dismissed this at least twice already at this page, see #Martin Gugino’s biography does not represent a neutral point of view and #More detailed description of Martin's activities while approaching police officers. To summarize, this is a rumor that has been circulating on the internet. You didn’t start it, you “simply found it online” and decided to believe it. (“I saw it on the internet so it must be true.”) This has no credibility and no place here, so please stop wasting our time with it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I feel Martin Gugino's own Blogger account should be admissible as a source because he wrote it and it shows his account of his life such as his arrests and his health problems which have been disputed. This is a valid source as he is writing about himself. Wikipedia says as for blog posts as reliable 'Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used. There are three major policies, guidelines, and pages that cover this. '. Further details: 'Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.' WP:BLPSELFPUB] The key words here are 'unless written or published by the subject of the article'. Martin Gugino is the subject of the article and the blog has been written and published by him therefore I feel it should be allowed. Gu64rk g ( talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Really don't like the way this section is worded here. While I personally don't necessarily disagree with the section's claims, it is a massive violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. I'm honestly considering just blanking the entire sub-section out until a proper subsection with a proper impartial tone can be drafted and written. -- letcreate123 ( talk) 04:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I actually came to the talk page to see what people were saying about that part. Reading it, I thought that the chunk of stuff about OANN seemed to drift a bit off-topic into general criticism of OANN which, while entirely valid criticism, made the whole section feel a bit slanted. I think that last paragraph could be condensed down into a more simple description that they are highly partisan source who have acknowledged that they have zero evidence for the claims that they made. Maybe also the bit about the protesters, although even that feels a bit gratuitous to the topic. I could also see an argument for slightly condensing the paragraph of responses to Trump's response -- it looks a bit long, but I can also see why all four of the people quoted are quoted. Maybe just trim the word count a bit. That said, I think the first half is a great example of impartial, properly documented reporting on a figure of controversy, I wouldn't change a word there. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.113.201.237 (
talk)
17:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I keep wikilinking the police union's claim that they "were just following orders" to superior orders but someone keeps removing it. This is a real wiki article and legal defense, but it keeps getting removed (possibly because it doesn't portray police in a good light to be using Nazi rhetoric). I will add it again for a 3rd time but everyone keep an eye out for this censorship. -- Converting to insanity ( talk) 01:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the article for POV language and tone. There have been no trials or convictions, so we cannot state outright that the officers pushed the man and caused his injuries. I also tagged the lead for being insufficient and one-sided. It needs to summarize the whole article, which would include the various reactions and opposing viewpoints of what happened. That whole paragraph about the One America News Network looks WP:UNDUE and sounds like Wikipedia is trying to discredit it. Yoninah ( talk) 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There have been no trials or convictions, so we cannot state outright that the officers pushed the man and caused his injuries.This is a misunderstanding of the relevant policies, and of the facts of the case. The absence of a conviction of course prevents us from asserting, even implicitly, that a crime was committed – we can't say they assaulted him – but doesn't prevent us from reproducing widely reported facts. If the cops' lawyer was to claim that they didn't push him they would be laughed out of court; what's in question isn't whether they pushed him but whether doing so was within the limits of their legal powers. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The incident has been defined as "pushing" in the lead, but the page name is using a harsher and more deliberate term: "shoving". What about changing the page name? Yoninah ( talk) 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 ( talk) 03:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In President Trump's response, remove the "without evidence", since unfounded = without evidence. 108.35.187.79 ( talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The curfew was 8pm and the event shortly after. https://buffalonews.com/opinion/columnists/a-video-links-martin-gugino-and-wbfos-mike-desmond-so-did-canisius-high-school/article_306db037-d516-5111-bc97-2bcd81feb74f.html I do not update the article. Martin | talk • contribs 12:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I believe the link to the "argument from ignorance" page should be removed on the anchor text of "prove the story was false." This is not an argument from ignorance. The network believed that the story was true based on their research and evidence. The protesters gathering outside of the network claimed the story was false. The challenge to prove the story false, therefore, would logically fall on those claiming it was false and disregarding the evidence presented by the network. At no point does the network claim "this is true because you can't prove it false" which is what an argument from ignorance REALLY is (i.e. "there's no evidence God does not exist, therefore He does."
Using this link is simply incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:3900:12:F19C:A6D5:6274:37F6 ( talk) 18:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
There are two smaller items I'd like to point out:
The structure of the article is a bit confusing. I think the two most important aspects are:
(a) describing what has happened exactly
and
(b) the aftermath situation.
I believe (a) is ok, although a bit more information could be useful. Perhaps a table overview, but that's a detail, so not the main issue.
(b) however had is a bit annoying. Take the "Trump comment" subsection. That one is really huge compared to the overall incident. So I think this is not fair. If you have say 10 sentences describing the main events, then you should not have 20 sentences merely focusing on what Trump (or anyone else for that matter) says. The aftermath situation is important, e. g. from a legal point of view and accountability, but it should happen in a "fair" way. Right now it appears to me as, for whatever the reason, the Trump subsection got by far the biggest part of the article. Perhaps it would be better to restructure that part a little, either expand on it in general and try to make it more objective, or shorten the Trump subsection.
It's hard to explain why, but I think those involved in the incident are the primary people, and EVERYONE else is secondary to these ~3 or so involved. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:FA9F:8D5F:B40F:A65A ( talk) 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=external&v=1087844035050426
I found this a really interesting insight into the case from a very reliable source. I don't know how to reference a video so well but if anyone else would like to please feel free as I think some important missing information can be added to the current article to make it a fuller account of the events.
'Lets be honest, Gugino committed a crime that day. He violated a curfew. He had no business approaching these police officers. He had no business being on those steps at all or there at city hall. There was a curfew and he broke the law.
All that needed to be done was grab Mr Gugino, gently turn him around, put the handcuffs on him and walk him peacefully off the steps. He should have been arrested and peacefully walked off the steps. I still stand by it today, he should not have been shoved.
He’s not part of antifa, he’s not part of some left wing organisational movement, he didn’t have a scanner in a cellphone trying to scan radio waves or some nonsense I heard on somebody's social media site. He had his video on and he had a recording on. All he was trying to do was record a police officer. But, with all that said, he still violated curfew and should have been dealt with that way, he did not need to be pushed.
One of the criticisms, and its valid, as to the reason why we have a lot of the protest, we have a lot of anger in the social justice criminal movement is because police officers are not treated the same way as civilians. If these were two civilians in their late 20s early 30s at 2 o’clock in the morning on Shipperwall, in front of Soho, and some 75 year old guy who gets his kicks from hanging about Chipperwall at 2 in the morning, approached two civilians and they got into a beef and one of the civilians had a golf club in his car or a baseball bat or a whatever and they used it to push him, a 75 year old man, on the ground, falls down, cracks his head on the concrete and its all captured on Soho video in the middle of Chipperwall. I’m telling you now, there’s no grand jury investigation for that. They are arrested right on the spot. Immediately arrested. In my administration we treat everyone the same. … The officers were treated fairly, they were charged with an appropriate charge. The matter was fairly presented to the grand jury and the grand jury did their job. I do believe a crime was committed, I don’t necessarily believe it was a felony. Society makes these decisions, not one person.
In any case where there’s an assault charge there is an intentional component to the assault charge and there is a reckless component to the assault charge. I need probable cause to arrest. If I go to trial though I need beyond reasonable doubt. At this moment in time in my mind it was 50/50 whether it was intentional or reckless, so if its 50/50 in my mind its not beyond a reasonable doubt. So that analysis factors in my mind but I cannot articulate what was going on in their mind.
I can’t tell you what evidence was presented to the grand jury. I’m not going to confirm or deny if that video was shown to the grand jury. All I can say is that video existed...beforehand. I will confirm that one of the officers after the incident happened obviously, said to himself ‘oh shoot’ and went down and went to try to help him out.
Reporter: ‘Are there any pardons against them?’, no.'
AdamThingy ( talk) 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)