![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Magnolia677, the Associated Press is a reliable source, so I would appreciate further clarification on your removal of this information [1]. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable.Do you have any other basis to not use the Associated Press reporting? Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
with special careand err on the side of leaving it out of the article for now. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Magnolia677, I attempted to add the following to the Reactions section: According to Rob Doar, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, "Mr. Locke did what many of us might do in the same confusing circumstances, he reached for a legal means of self-defense while he sought to understand what was happening."
but you removed it
[2] with the edit summary "Non-notable person; non-notable group. Not every opinion should be added, including those of other gun groups who criticized Doar for saying this." From my view, this article is in the process of being developed, and if there is further reaction and commentary, this could be added to the article from reliable sources. Also, per
WP:NOTEWORTHY, The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles
, and the information is not from a primary source, but instead 'worthy of notice' per the AP. I am hoping we can continue to discuss how to develop the article, per Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content, so please explain if there is a policy-based reason to exclude the reliably-sourced information. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 01:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
stating opinions as facts, and states,
Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. In the Talk section about the Associated Press above this one, you expressed concerns about the Associated Press based on a WP:NYPOST article and in opposition to Wikipedia consensus related to reliable sources, and I found a non-AP source here to help support the 'significance' of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. I think the significance appears supported per policy and including it with attribution makes it clear it is an opinion. I had tried to add one attributed opinion that appeared to fit well in the prose of the article. If you think it would be helpful to request a Third Opinion, please let me know. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Also reported in the BBC: Amir Locke: US gun group defends armed man killed by police. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC) And ABC News: Amir Locke's death highlights perils for Black gun owners: Advocates. I think a "Community groups" subsection could be added to the Reaction section, and include reactions from the NAACP, the Minnesota ACLU [4] [5], and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC) The local police union, the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, is also receiving coverage, e.g. What to know about no-knock warrants, following Amir Locke's fatal shooting (ABC News). Beccaynr ( talk) 14:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dropping a link here to some possible images that could be used in this article:
DirkDouse ( talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Magnolia677, you have twice deleted what appears to be pertinent, reliably-sourced information from a
Star Tribune article that features
Esther Agbaje because she resides in the apartment building where Locke was shot
[6]. The information twice deleted is: "was at home when Locke was shot in her apartment building, and told the
Star Tribune
" before her quote, and for the second deletion, your edit summary states, "it doesn't matter where she was...she could have been out golfing or watching Netflix...all that is encyclopedic is what she said"
[7]. According to the
Star Tribune article, it does matter, which is why it is a featured part of their article and why it was included in the Wikipedia article. Part of my editorial judgment to include her quote is because it is featured in its own article, because she resides in the same building. I hope you can review the article and this explanation and then undo your deletion. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk) 13:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Magnolia677, I have erred on the side of reverting your repeated attempts to add what appear to be violations of WP:BLP policy to this article [8], and I think this should be discussed here before it continues to be added. Please review WP:BLPREMOVE, the poor sourcing for the allegation that the individual is included in the warrant, as well as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and its emphasis on high-quality secondary sources, as well as WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.The name of this private individual has not been widely disseminated, and it appears that reliable sources are reporting the warrant remains sealed, so if the individual is named in the warrant, it is currently intentionally concealed. The Fox9 article reported on "police say" allegations, and the MSN reprint was vague about how these allegations translate into convictions, so it does not appear to be appropriate, including per WP:SYNTH, to connect the allegations made in one poorly-sourced source, to another poorly-sourced article, to make a statement neither source clearly states. We appear to be left only with a list of convictions for someone who resides in the apartment, and no significant loss of context from exercising the recommended caution in excluding the name of the individual. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies, because this seems to support leaving the name out, especially for now. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Magnolia677, whom I know as a very careful editor, asked me to weigh in here. I heard an extensive report on the radio this morning which touched on these matters as well. Given the current situation, especially the sealed warrant, I favor excluding the name. It may be that the name becomes more widely reported and the person more drawn into the inquiry, at which time it may be more acceptable to include that name, but for now, I think it should be left out. Things may be different tomorrow. As for "convicted felon", I support Ban the Box. Magnolia, that may not be what you wanted to hear, but I do appreciate you asking me. Drmies ( talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
See:
Different person from the 22 year old discussed in the other thread, although they are related. Not sure what is best here in regards to BLP. The suspect is a minor, but is also directly related to the case. I haven't included the name in my last edit to the article; seems like we should come to a consensus here first. DirkDouse ( talk) 00:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
Is there a reason as to why the individual officer is not named as part of the introduction paragraph, and only their police affiliation? I don’t know what standards may exist for article of this nature, but it comes off as a form of shielding the officer from being transparently implicated in the events. As they are a key member of the story it would seem pertinent to make their contributions clear in the initial outline of the events. I made a recent edit to change this, and brought that information up from the lower body paragraph, but it has been reverted. Can I get some guidance here? Cpieper23 ( talk) 04:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.From my view, there is currently not a lot about Hanneman in the article body or the majority of sources I have reviewed. It is possible that as investigations develop, and more information is added to the article, Hanneman will become more prominent, and more significant to include in the lead. Also, when most of the information about Hanneman that was in the article was removed, which may not have been your intent but is what happened in your edit, this undermines the case for inclusion in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 04:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Beccaynr continues to edit war over additions to this article. In this case, text which provides readers with background and context to the shooting. It was Amir's mother who was first to say her son was at a "sleepover". Indeed he was, and new information has been published about what led to a SWAT team to appear un-invited at that sleepover. This is an encyclopedia. Providing readers with details about the shooting is not a BLP violation. No names were mentioned. The input of others would be appreciated. Text removed:
Proposed text
|
---|
"Background" Locke was shot while police were executing a search warrant in relation to a murder that occurred in nearby Saint Paul, Minnesota, in January 2022. [1] Surveillance video showed two men at the scene of the murder, one of them a 17-year-old who allegedly shot the man. [1] The 17-year-old was on probation for shooting a man in 2020, and was Locke's cousin. [1] [2] The stolen vehicle they were driving was traced back to the Bolero Flats apartment building, where three males—two believed to be at the shooting—were observed getting out. [1] The Saint Paul Police Department applied for a warrant to search three apartments in the building, [1] and the Minneapolis police department asked that they be no-knock warrants: [3]
Police had "probable cause pick up and holds" to arrest the 17-year-old for murder, and two others for aiding an offender afterward. [1]. Amir Locke was not named in the search warrant. [2] References
|
Magnolia677 ( talk) 14:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I have made reversions that reflect this pending discussion and the BLP concerns, as well as other concerns noted in the edit summaries. I also added for higher-quality sources than the ones that were added. I think discussion would be helpful per WP:ONUS about the scope of this article, particularly in the context of WP:BLP policy and WP:NOTNEWS. My hope is for us to carefully consider how to add content from the best sources and in a conservative manner, so we exercise caution about BLP issues and avoid quickly adding breaking news. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)I have also added a comment collapse template for easier reading of this discussion, and request that you refactor your comment about me. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.This context, i.e. the details of why the warrant was obtained, and various details that appear to imply conclusions that do not appear to be stated by any source, also does not appear to be directly related to the article topic of the killing of Amir Locke. There are multiple pending investigations about the killing of Amir Locke, and more information will become available that is directly related, i.e. whether the police officer met the threshold necessary to use deadly force. It does not appear that any source is currently describing the recent information as relevant to this issue, so it appears outside the scope of the article topic, and therefore it seems as if the most conservative and BLP-compliant approach is to proceed cautiously about adding breaking news and tangential information and allegations about other people. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This smacks of midirection and cherrypicking. Antagonistic readers may hear "but he did have criminal records elsewhere", supportive readers may hear "so the police were unjustified...". I suggest the sentence (referenced though it is) be removed or replaced with "had no criminal record at the time". Fish or cut bait.
Riventree ( talk) 03:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.Beccaynr ( talk) 04:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Should be added as a person involved. Jacob805 ( talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
His name has been released by the DA and it is had been reported in dozens of nedia outlets including his past conviction for shooting someone. Jacob805 ( talk) 01:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
[9] Jacob805 ( talk) 01:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
How about now. since Amir Locke cousin who lived at the apartment admitted in open court that he shot and killed the man during a drug robbery? https://apnews.com/article/amir-locke-police-shootings-minnesota-minneapolis-fd39d6869ba127c66dd6a6776eaf3467 ~~
− — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no back ground from the police point of view, the cousin that listed this place as a residence has bearing on why the police were there. The drugs, illegal gun and evidence found at the apartment have been omitted... the warrant affidavit has been released to the public and is available. It would seem that persons are using this wiki page for their agenda to mislead the public... of course, this is my opinion based upon what I have seen being removed. Jacob805 ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Beccaynr! I recommend creating a Background section to separate further the St. Paul homicide investigation context from the actual police shooting on Feb. 2. The first paragraph under "Killing of Amir Lock" could go into a background section. Also, the subheader, "Killing of Amir Locke" redundantly refers back to the subject of the article (see MOS:HEADINGS) and could be simplified. I might suggest a article structure as:
What are your thoughts? Thank you for keeping the article up to date and within the Wikipedia project's scope. Minnemeeples ( talk) 18:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the article is lacking the background, it only has one view point and therefore lacks npov. Any other thoughts on this matter. This page is incomplete and biased in my view Jacob805 ( talk) 17:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Are we going to have this false narrative by excluding the background of what they found in the apartment..(Redacted). It seems this page should be tagged bias. Numerous news outlets have published the cousin's name, prior convictions including shooting a person with an illegal gun, and his arrest for the murder in direct connection to the search warrant. What has Wikipedia become, when you can't post facts 🤔 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Would the administrator of this page please address the problem of npov ... I have brought your attention through the talk page the problems I see with this article. There is no npov. When we have numerous facts on the background of this article that you continue to leave out or remove You site living person rules. But no less the 3 govt agencies and countless reputable news outlets have published the story. If you don't wish to resolve this. Let's take it to a board discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I have contacted oversight in regards NPOV . Jacob805 ( talk) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I propose to add to the incident paragraph, to include the conclusion of the warrant, list items found and the reacted arrests. Of course no names would be included. Any objection please use the talk page jacob805 Jacob805 ( talk) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
fails to give a truthful impression of the subjectbecause the tangential information would be presented as if it is directly related to the killing of Amir Locke. This seems to be a WP:NPOV issue, because we need to avoid misinforming or misleading readers. It seems misleading to imply information unknown to the police officer at the time of the shooting is relevant. Based on the sources I have reviewed, it does not appear accurate to imply items found or unrelated arrests after the shooting are relevant or related to the decision of the police officer to use deadly force.
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.From my view, the lack of direct relevance to the article subject and related WP:SYNTH/ WP:NPOV issues weigh in favor of not including information about arrests of people who were not directly involved in the killing of Amir Locke.
explanations referenced to independent sources, we appear to lack the context necessary to create encyclopedic content with this news for this article subject.
The page needs to be updated abd should include the murder chatges of the cousin that libed at that address. 100.38.247.202 ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Locke was shot while police were executing a search warrant in relation to a homicide that occurred in nearby Saint Paul, Minnesota, in January 2022.As per my comment in the section immediately below, I am concerned about the use of unrelated information, and as noted in discussions above, we also have WP:BLP considerations related to allegations in the form of arrests, as well as a need to consider what is WP:DUE (as discussed in the section immediately above), based on how this information is discussed in the sources. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The page is written from one point of view and parties involve have had an agenda in keepimg it that way. I dont agree the wikipedia should be used for social juctice or for any other political agenda. It should be based upon facts. 100.38.247.202 ( talk) 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
it is easy to misuseprimary sources, and to
be cautious about basing large passagesof an article on primary sources. As noted in the WP:OR policy,
this policy reinforces our neutrality policy.According to the Neutral point of view policy, in the WP:IMPARTIAL section,
Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized.From my view, based on sources that discuss the focus of the investigations into the killing of Amir Locke, an inappropriate tone could be introduced to this article if primary sources are presented in a way that essentially prosecutes the police officer based on the warrants that preceded the entry, or the few items found afterwards, or later arrests, even though we do not appear to have secondary sources directly connecting these events as relevant to the culpability of the officer. If independent and reliable secondary sources identify the warrants, items found, or later arrests as relevant to the decision of the police officer to use deadly force, then we can rely on such sources to make
analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.Until then, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and subject to WP:BLP policy, so we wait. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This article fails to say that the police were at the wrong address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.123.115 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Serious discussion needs to happen how this pages was used to further a false narative by anit police activists. The page contains more information about protests and who's who's in the narative then what actually took place. How shameful to allow people to control the narative on Wikipedia for so called social justice, circumventing the truth because it doesn't support there verison of events. Jacob805 ( talk) 14:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
A new page will be created about murder that Amir Lockes cousin has been convicted of. It will outline why the police were given a no knock warrent. I would lile to add a link on the killing of Amir Locke so that readers can combine the scope of this incident. Any suggestion on where or how we can link the two articles? Jacob805 2600:4040:9963:3100:6CB3:E153:37FB:988F ( talk) 17:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.This article is about the killing of Locke, so including information specifically identified by all sources as unrelated to his killing, particularly something that appears to be non-notable per the WP:EVENT guideline (i.e. per WP:NOTNEWS), does not appear appropriate for this article. That there was a later conviction has not been documented by reliable sources as germane to the no-knock warrant, or the killing of Locke, or the WP:LASTING effects from the killing of Locke. We are including sources that continue to report on the actual aftermath of Locke's killing, which includes political activity related to no-knock warrants. The conviction of his cousin does not appear to be reported as directly connected to the subject of this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The initial coverage, as tends to happen with breaking news, was later revised and is now allegations without a clear connection to this event or the related protests - the initial possible connection appears to be sensationalism. I have reviewed the coverage related to Normandale Park shooting, and there does not appear to be support for inclusion in this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
There also does not appear to be much coverage of the protest, which is what seems relevant for the section of this article. I am wary about relying on sources that we are discouraged from using per the guidelines and policy, and in this instance, extra caution seems needed based on the coverage that appears to be available. There was a planned protest, and a shooting happened nearby, with a protestor killed and several injured, and based on sources I have reviewed, there seems to be a risk of WP:SYNTH in implying a connection between the protest itself and the nearby shooting. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Magnolia677, the Associated Press is a reliable source, so I would appreciate further clarification on your removal of this information [1]. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable.Do you have any other basis to not use the Associated Press reporting? Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
with special careand err on the side of leaving it out of the article for now. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Magnolia677, I attempted to add the following to the Reactions section: According to Rob Doar, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, "Mr. Locke did what many of us might do in the same confusing circumstances, he reached for a legal means of self-defense while he sought to understand what was happening."
but you removed it
[2] with the edit summary "Non-notable person; non-notable group. Not every opinion should be added, including those of other gun groups who criticized Doar for saying this." From my view, this article is in the process of being developed, and if there is further reaction and commentary, this could be added to the article from reliable sources. Also, per
WP:NOTEWORTHY, The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles
, and the information is not from a primary source, but instead 'worthy of notice' per the AP. I am hoping we can continue to discuss how to develop the article, per Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content, so please explain if there is a policy-based reason to exclude the reliably-sourced information. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 01:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
stating opinions as facts, and states,
Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. In the Talk section about the Associated Press above this one, you expressed concerns about the Associated Press based on a WP:NYPOST article and in opposition to Wikipedia consensus related to reliable sources, and I found a non-AP source here to help support the 'significance' of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. I think the significance appears supported per policy and including it with attribution makes it clear it is an opinion. I had tried to add one attributed opinion that appeared to fit well in the prose of the article. If you think it would be helpful to request a Third Opinion, please let me know. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Also reported in the BBC: Amir Locke: US gun group defends armed man killed by police. Beccaynr ( talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC) And ABC News: Amir Locke's death highlights perils for Black gun owners: Advocates. I think a "Community groups" subsection could be added to the Reaction section, and include reactions from the NAACP, the Minnesota ACLU [4] [5], and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC) The local police union, the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, is also receiving coverage, e.g. What to know about no-knock warrants, following Amir Locke's fatal shooting (ABC News). Beccaynr ( talk) 14:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Dropping a link here to some possible images that could be used in this article:
DirkDouse ( talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Magnolia677, you have twice deleted what appears to be pertinent, reliably-sourced information from a
Star Tribune article that features
Esther Agbaje because she resides in the apartment building where Locke was shot
[6]. The information twice deleted is: "was at home when Locke was shot in her apartment building, and told the
Star Tribune
" before her quote, and for the second deletion, your edit summary states, "it doesn't matter where she was...she could have been out golfing or watching Netflix...all that is encyclopedic is what she said"
[7]. According to the
Star Tribune article, it does matter, which is why it is a featured part of their article and why it was included in the Wikipedia article. Part of my editorial judgment to include her quote is because it is featured in its own article, because she resides in the same building. I hope you can review the article and this explanation and then undo your deletion. Thank you,
Beccaynr (
talk) 13:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Magnolia677, I have erred on the side of reverting your repeated attempts to add what appear to be violations of WP:BLP policy to this article [8], and I think this should be discussed here before it continues to be added. Please review WP:BLPREMOVE, the poor sourcing for the allegation that the individual is included in the warrant, as well as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and its emphasis on high-quality secondary sources, as well as WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.The name of this private individual has not been widely disseminated, and it appears that reliable sources are reporting the warrant remains sealed, so if the individual is named in the warrant, it is currently intentionally concealed. The Fox9 article reported on "police say" allegations, and the MSN reprint was vague about how these allegations translate into convictions, so it does not appear to be appropriate, including per WP:SYNTH, to connect the allegations made in one poorly-sourced source, to another poorly-sourced article, to make a statement neither source clearly states. We appear to be left only with a list of convictions for someone who resides in the apartment, and no significant loss of context from exercising the recommended caution in excluding the name of the individual. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies, because this seems to support leaving the name out, especially for now. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Magnolia677, whom I know as a very careful editor, asked me to weigh in here. I heard an extensive report on the radio this morning which touched on these matters as well. Given the current situation, especially the sealed warrant, I favor excluding the name. It may be that the name becomes more widely reported and the person more drawn into the inquiry, at which time it may be more acceptable to include that name, but for now, I think it should be left out. Things may be different tomorrow. As for "convicted felon", I support Ban the Box. Magnolia, that may not be what you wanted to hear, but I do appreciate you asking me. Drmies ( talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
See:
Different person from the 22 year old discussed in the other thread, although they are related. Not sure what is best here in regards to BLP. The suspect is a minor, but is also directly related to the case. I haven't included the name in my last edit to the article; seems like we should come to a consensus here first. DirkDouse ( talk) 00:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
Is there a reason as to why the individual officer is not named as part of the introduction paragraph, and only their police affiliation? I don’t know what standards may exist for article of this nature, but it comes off as a form of shielding the officer from being transparently implicated in the events. As they are a key member of the story it would seem pertinent to make their contributions clear in the initial outline of the events. I made a recent edit to change this, and brought that information up from the lower body paragraph, but it has been reverted. Can I get some guidance here? Cpieper23 ( talk) 04:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.From my view, there is currently not a lot about Hanneman in the article body or the majority of sources I have reviewed. It is possible that as investigations develop, and more information is added to the article, Hanneman will become more prominent, and more significant to include in the lead. Also, when most of the information about Hanneman that was in the article was removed, which may not have been your intent but is what happened in your edit, this undermines the case for inclusion in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 04:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Beccaynr continues to edit war over additions to this article. In this case, text which provides readers with background and context to the shooting. It was Amir's mother who was first to say her son was at a "sleepover". Indeed he was, and new information has been published about what led to a SWAT team to appear un-invited at that sleepover. This is an encyclopedia. Providing readers with details about the shooting is not a BLP violation. No names were mentioned. The input of others would be appreciated. Text removed:
Proposed text
|
---|
"Background" Locke was shot while police were executing a search warrant in relation to a murder that occurred in nearby Saint Paul, Minnesota, in January 2022. [1] Surveillance video showed two men at the scene of the murder, one of them a 17-year-old who allegedly shot the man. [1] The 17-year-old was on probation for shooting a man in 2020, and was Locke's cousin. [1] [2] The stolen vehicle they were driving was traced back to the Bolero Flats apartment building, where three males—two believed to be at the shooting—were observed getting out. [1] The Saint Paul Police Department applied for a warrant to search three apartments in the building, [1] and the Minneapolis police department asked that they be no-knock warrants: [3]
Police had "probable cause pick up and holds" to arrest the 17-year-old for murder, and two others for aiding an offender afterward. [1]. Amir Locke was not named in the search warrant. [2] References
|
Magnolia677 ( talk) 14:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I have made reversions that reflect this pending discussion and the BLP concerns, as well as other concerns noted in the edit summaries. I also added for higher-quality sources than the ones that were added. I think discussion would be helpful per WP:ONUS about the scope of this article, particularly in the context of WP:BLP policy and WP:NOTNEWS. My hope is for us to carefully consider how to add content from the best sources and in a conservative manner, so we exercise caution about BLP issues and avoid quickly adding breaking news. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)I have also added a comment collapse template for easier reading of this discussion, and request that you refactor your comment about me. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.This context, i.e. the details of why the warrant was obtained, and various details that appear to imply conclusions that do not appear to be stated by any source, also does not appear to be directly related to the article topic of the killing of Amir Locke. There are multiple pending investigations about the killing of Amir Locke, and more information will become available that is directly related, i.e. whether the police officer met the threshold necessary to use deadly force. It does not appear that any source is currently describing the recent information as relevant to this issue, so it appears outside the scope of the article topic, and therefore it seems as if the most conservative and BLP-compliant approach is to proceed cautiously about adding breaking news and tangential information and allegations about other people. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
This smacks of midirection and cherrypicking. Antagonistic readers may hear "but he did have criminal records elsewhere", supportive readers may hear "so the police were unjustified...". I suggest the sentence (referenced though it is) be removed or replaced with "had no criminal record at the time". Fish or cut bait.
Riventree ( talk) 03:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.Beccaynr ( talk) 04:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Should be added as a person involved. Jacob805 ( talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
His name has been released by the DA and it is had been reported in dozens of nedia outlets including his past conviction for shooting someone. Jacob805 ( talk) 01:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
[9] Jacob805 ( talk) 01:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
How about now. since Amir Locke cousin who lived at the apartment admitted in open court that he shot and killed the man during a drug robbery? https://apnews.com/article/amir-locke-police-shootings-minnesota-minneapolis-fd39d6869ba127c66dd6a6776eaf3467 ~~
− — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
There is no back ground from the police point of view, the cousin that listed this place as a residence has bearing on why the police were there. The drugs, illegal gun and evidence found at the apartment have been omitted... the warrant affidavit has been released to the public and is available. It would seem that persons are using this wiki page for their agenda to mislead the public... of course, this is my opinion based upon what I have seen being removed. Jacob805 ( talk) 01:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello Beccaynr! I recommend creating a Background section to separate further the St. Paul homicide investigation context from the actual police shooting on Feb. 2. The first paragraph under "Killing of Amir Lock" could go into a background section. Also, the subheader, "Killing of Amir Locke" redundantly refers back to the subject of the article (see MOS:HEADINGS) and could be simplified. I might suggest a article structure as:
What are your thoughts? Thank you for keeping the article up to date and within the Wikipedia project's scope. Minnemeeples ( talk) 18:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the article is lacking the background, it only has one view point and therefore lacks npov. Any other thoughts on this matter. This page is incomplete and biased in my view Jacob805 ( talk) 17:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Are we going to have this false narrative by excluding the background of what they found in the apartment..(Redacted). It seems this page should be tagged bias. Numerous news outlets have published the cousin's name, prior convictions including shooting a person with an illegal gun, and his arrest for the murder in direct connection to the search warrant. What has Wikipedia become, when you can't post facts 🤔 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Would the administrator of this page please address the problem of npov ... I have brought your attention through the talk page the problems I see with this article. There is no npov. When we have numerous facts on the background of this article that you continue to leave out or remove You site living person rules. But no less the 3 govt agencies and countless reputable news outlets have published the story. If you don't wish to resolve this. Let's take it to a board discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I have contacted oversight in regards NPOV . Jacob805 ( talk) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I propose to add to the incident paragraph, to include the conclusion of the warrant, list items found and the reacted arrests. Of course no names would be included. Any objection please use the talk page jacob805 Jacob805 ( talk) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
fails to give a truthful impression of the subjectbecause the tangential information would be presented as if it is directly related to the killing of Amir Locke. This seems to be a WP:NPOV issue, because we need to avoid misinforming or misleading readers. It seems misleading to imply information unknown to the police officer at the time of the shooting is relevant. Based on the sources I have reviewed, it does not appear accurate to imply items found or unrelated arrests after the shooting are relevant or related to the decision of the police officer to use deadly force.
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.From my view, the lack of direct relevance to the article subject and related WP:SYNTH/ WP:NPOV issues weigh in favor of not including information about arrests of people who were not directly involved in the killing of Amir Locke.
explanations referenced to independent sources, we appear to lack the context necessary to create encyclopedic content with this news for this article subject.
The page needs to be updated abd should include the murder chatges of the cousin that libed at that address. 100.38.247.202 ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Locke was shot while police were executing a search warrant in relation to a homicide that occurred in nearby Saint Paul, Minnesota, in January 2022.As per my comment in the section immediately below, I am concerned about the use of unrelated information, and as noted in discussions above, we also have WP:BLP considerations related to allegations in the form of arrests, as well as a need to consider what is WP:DUE (as discussed in the section immediately above), based on how this information is discussed in the sources. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The page is written from one point of view and parties involve have had an agenda in keepimg it that way. I dont agree the wikipedia should be used for social juctice or for any other political agenda. It should be based upon facts. 100.38.247.202 ( talk) 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
it is easy to misuseprimary sources, and to
be cautious about basing large passagesof an article on primary sources. As noted in the WP:OR policy,
this policy reinforces our neutrality policy.According to the Neutral point of view policy, in the WP:IMPARTIAL section,
Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized.From my view, based on sources that discuss the focus of the investigations into the killing of Amir Locke, an inappropriate tone could be introduced to this article if primary sources are presented in a way that essentially prosecutes the police officer based on the warrants that preceded the entry, or the few items found afterwards, or later arrests, even though we do not appear to have secondary sources directly connecting these events as relevant to the culpability of the officer. If independent and reliable secondary sources identify the warrants, items found, or later arrests as relevant to the decision of the police officer to use deadly force, then we can rely on such sources to make
analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.Until then, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and subject to WP:BLP policy, so we wait. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
This article fails to say that the police were at the wrong address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.123.115 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Serious discussion needs to happen how this pages was used to further a false narative by anit police activists. The page contains more information about protests and who's who's in the narative then what actually took place. How shameful to allow people to control the narative on Wikipedia for so called social justice, circumventing the truth because it doesn't support there verison of events. Jacob805 ( talk) 14:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
A new page will be created about murder that Amir Lockes cousin has been convicted of. It will outline why the police were given a no knock warrent. I would lile to add a link on the killing of Amir Locke so that readers can combine the scope of this incident. Any suggestion on where or how we can link the two articles? Jacob805 2600:4040:9963:3100:6CB3:E153:37FB:988F ( talk) 17:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.This article is about the killing of Locke, so including information specifically identified by all sources as unrelated to his killing, particularly something that appears to be non-notable per the WP:EVENT guideline (i.e. per WP:NOTNEWS), does not appear appropriate for this article. That there was a later conviction has not been documented by reliable sources as germane to the no-knock warrant, or the killing of Locke, or the WP:LASTING effects from the killing of Locke. We are including sources that continue to report on the actual aftermath of Locke's killing, which includes political activity related to no-knock warrants. The conviction of his cousin does not appear to be reported as directly connected to the subject of this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
The initial coverage, as tends to happen with breaking news, was later revised and is now allegations without a clear connection to this event or the related protests - the initial possible connection appears to be sensationalism. I have reviewed the coverage related to Normandale Park shooting, and there does not appear to be support for inclusion in this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
There also does not appear to be much coverage of the protest, which is what seems relevant for the section of this article. I am wary about relying on sources that we are discouraged from using per the guidelines and policy, and in this instance, extra caution seems needed based on the coverage that appears to be available. There was a planned protest, and a shooting happened nearby, with a protestor killed and several injured, and based on sources I have reviewed, there seems to be a risk of WP:SYNTH in implying a connection between the protest itself and the nearby shooting. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)