![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ John2510: I am a bit mystified by this minor disagreement we seem to be having over this Reason magazine piece... even if it's just repeating the contents of the Washington Post opinion piece rather than doing its own reporting as your most recent edit comment would appear to convey—though I would note that Reason has incorporated the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy since 2017 and does not lack for its own journalistic legal resources, and the sentence linking to the Richards v. Wisconsin ruling full text, which you did not appear to initially notice, is written in Reason's own voice to my eye—isn't it just as much a reliable secondary source as the New York Magazine article I also cited that sentence with?
I don't understand why you keep deleting the Reason citation but leaving the New York Magazine one put. I checked for all the facts you added in your re-write of the sentence and they're also present in Reason. I'd actually regarded Reason as the more substantial source between the two of them.
...and okay, I'm now seeing that your rewrite of the sentence was a nearly wholesale cut and paste from New York Magazine, punctuation and spacing and all. What the shit, this is an AE page. Great, WP:COPYVIO... I was just about to go to bed, the last thing I wanted to do was surprise mandatory paperwork. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Shooting of Breonna Taylor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Instead of plainclothes police officers, it should be noted the officers were clearly wearing body armor with police and department identification. This is evident in the released body camera footage when one of the officers involved in the shooting re-enters the scene while SWAT is on station. 75.174.58.39 ( talk) 04:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: Walker's statement (made to CBS News's Gayle King) that the police did not identify themselves:
173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That information is not relevant, prominently near the top of the page despite such detail lacking from 99.99percent of the RS material and ofc says zero of the proliferation of that misinformation for divisive purposes. It is UNDUE not relevant and five paragraphs worth before the truth is posted in one sentence.
Also, the sentence in the lede according to officials.......shot by Walker. According to officials should be removed or less preferred replaced by according to ballistics' tests. This is no longer an unsubstantiated claim that should have doubt cast upon it with the dubious according to officials.
2601:46:C801:B1F0:548E:DC6:8037:BCE5 ( talk) 00:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I see zero that addresses the explicit WP guidelines this material violates cited above. It is WP/UNDUE and in no way, shape or form balanced with the complete absence of any mention of it being used for months as misinformation. I also see zero that has anything to do with the shooting of Breonna Taylor. Go start an article on the warrant if it is that notable and needs such depth to cast doubt on the topical fact that they executed a knock and announce warrant. The oversell is a weak tell that WP which is supposed to be encyclopedic is going to extraordinary length for some cause beyond presenting a NPOV encyclopedic page. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:D46F:33D4:5507:FAE3 ( talk) 01:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
used for months as misinformation, exactly, IP? Note that you can't have it both ways—you can't claim that the fact that the raid was conducted under a no-knock warrant is
lacking from 99.99percent of the RS materialand simultaneously say that it was repeated and repeated for months and months. Contrary to the impression you're trying to give, all RS did not simply jump to change their story in late August as the NYT did.We still pretty much have only the word of Mr. “I condone violence in all of its forms” Cameron (an exclamation which, again, he disavows as a misstatement, but it seems more like an archetypal Freudian slip) and the officers, contradicting all other witnesses except for the one who changed his story two months after the initial interview, that some unspecified, undocumented authority or internal process changed orders so as to serve the no-knock warrant as knock-and-announce.Interestingly, the one bit of physical evidence that might corroborate the governmental narrative, which I'd added to the article—the photograph of the planning white board—has been removed. Probably because the source was actually one of Walker's legal team's court filings, but if we can find an acceptable source that confirms it I'd support re-adding the fact to the article. But of course—the officers didn't have the white board out in the field with them, they had the paperwork which said "no knock" on it. Or if there was paperwork saying "knock and announce", it has not to my knowledge been produced, not even as part of Cameron's "internal investigation" which did not bother to answer how the orders were supposedly changed. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Since
Bueller 007 wrote the following as the edit comment for
this edit, this claim that he was hit by friendly fire should probably just be removed. it seems pretty clear that it is likely to be untrue
, I want to say here that I disagree. If you look at the sources which interview Walker's legal team and at their court filings, the narrative they're sometimes implying and sometimes openly stating seems plausible to me—hardly a closed case, but plausible given the other facts and evidence established in relation to the case.
I think the friendly fire claims should not be removed until at least the litigation is resolved. Only the ballistics evidence and forensics and pathology expert opinions should be discussed in the article or here, though—the complete theory is of a nature that shouldn't even be mentioned in a talk page governed by WP:BLP.
(I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that all individuals mentioned in this article are covered by BLP: Taylor as a recently deceased person, Walker, the people who were actually the subjects of the drug trafficking investigation, etc.—not just the officers.) -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
sources which interview Walker's legal team and at their court filings? Because those sources definitely do not show them proposing quantum tunnelling or any of your other suggestions.I further take it that your position isn't really merely that the truth in this matter
seems pretty clearas you said in your edit comment, but rather than Wikipedia should take a specific editorial stance that Kenneth Walker shot a cop and that friendly fire is not among the many mistakes the officers made—and should take that editorial stance ahead of the outcome of the legal process? Not only is expressing that kind of certainty in its own voice not how Wikipedia works, not when there are reliable sources documenting opposing viewpoints, but it does not seem particularly prudent given previous revelations in connection with this incident—which have demonstrated a lack of complete honesty and transparency, shall we say, on the part of the LMPD. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ John2510: I am a bit mystified by this minor disagreement we seem to be having over this Reason magazine piece... even if it's just repeating the contents of the Washington Post opinion piece rather than doing its own reporting as your most recent edit comment would appear to convey—though I would note that Reason has incorporated the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy since 2017 and does not lack for its own journalistic legal resources, and the sentence linking to the Richards v. Wisconsin ruling full text, which you did not appear to initially notice, is written in Reason's own voice to my eye—isn't it just as much a reliable secondary source as the New York Magazine article I also cited that sentence with?
I don't understand why you keep deleting the Reason citation but leaving the New York Magazine one put. I checked for all the facts you added in your re-write of the sentence and they're also present in Reason. I'd actually regarded Reason as the more substantial source between the two of them.
...and okay, I'm now seeing that your rewrite of the sentence was a nearly wholesale cut and paste from New York Magazine, punctuation and spacing and all. What the shit, this is an AE page. Great, WP:COPYVIO... I was just about to go to bed, the last thing I wanted to do was surprise mandatory paperwork. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 02:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Shooting of Breonna Taylor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Instead of plainclothes police officers, it should be noted the officers were clearly wearing body armor with police and department identification. This is evident in the released body camera footage when one of the officers involved in the shooting re-enters the scene while SWAT is on station. 75.174.58.39 ( talk) 04:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
To add to this article: Walker's statement (made to CBS News's Gayle King) that the police did not identify themselves:
173.88.246.138 ( talk) 03:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That information is not relevant, prominently near the top of the page despite such detail lacking from 99.99percent of the RS material and ofc says zero of the proliferation of that misinformation for divisive purposes. It is UNDUE not relevant and five paragraphs worth before the truth is posted in one sentence.
Also, the sentence in the lede according to officials.......shot by Walker. According to officials should be removed or less preferred replaced by according to ballistics' tests. This is no longer an unsubstantiated claim that should have doubt cast upon it with the dubious according to officials.
2601:46:C801:B1F0:548E:DC6:8037:BCE5 ( talk) 00:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I see zero that addresses the explicit WP guidelines this material violates cited above. It is WP/UNDUE and in no way, shape or form balanced with the complete absence of any mention of it being used for months as misinformation. I also see zero that has anything to do with the shooting of Breonna Taylor. Go start an article on the warrant if it is that notable and needs such depth to cast doubt on the topical fact that they executed a knock and announce warrant. The oversell is a weak tell that WP which is supposed to be encyclopedic is going to extraordinary length for some cause beyond presenting a NPOV encyclopedic page. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:D46F:33D4:5507:FAE3 ( talk) 01:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
used for months as misinformation, exactly, IP? Note that you can't have it both ways—you can't claim that the fact that the raid was conducted under a no-knock warrant is
lacking from 99.99percent of the RS materialand simultaneously say that it was repeated and repeated for months and months. Contrary to the impression you're trying to give, all RS did not simply jump to change their story in late August as the NYT did.We still pretty much have only the word of Mr. “I condone violence in all of its forms” Cameron (an exclamation which, again, he disavows as a misstatement, but it seems more like an archetypal Freudian slip) and the officers, contradicting all other witnesses except for the one who changed his story two months after the initial interview, that some unspecified, undocumented authority or internal process changed orders so as to serve the no-knock warrant as knock-and-announce.Interestingly, the one bit of physical evidence that might corroborate the governmental narrative, which I'd added to the article—the photograph of the planning white board—has been removed. Probably because the source was actually one of Walker's legal team's court filings, but if we can find an acceptable source that confirms it I'd support re-adding the fact to the article. But of course—the officers didn't have the white board out in the field with them, they had the paperwork which said "no knock" on it. Or if there was paperwork saying "knock and announce", it has not to my knowledge been produced, not even as part of Cameron's "internal investigation" which did not bother to answer how the orders were supposedly changed. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Since
Bueller 007 wrote the following as the edit comment for
this edit, this claim that he was hit by friendly fire should probably just be removed. it seems pretty clear that it is likely to be untrue
, I want to say here that I disagree. If you look at the sources which interview Walker's legal team and at their court filings, the narrative they're sometimes implying and sometimes openly stating seems plausible to me—hardly a closed case, but plausible given the other facts and evidence established in relation to the case.
I think the friendly fire claims should not be removed until at least the litigation is resolved. Only the ballistics evidence and forensics and pathology expert opinions should be discussed in the article or here, though—the complete theory is of a nature that shouldn't even be mentioned in a talk page governed by WP:BLP.
(I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that all individuals mentioned in this article are covered by BLP: Taylor as a recently deceased person, Walker, the people who were actually the subjects of the drug trafficking investigation, etc.—not just the officers.) -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 03:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
sources which interview Walker's legal team and at their court filings? Because those sources definitely do not show them proposing quantum tunnelling or any of your other suggestions.I further take it that your position isn't really merely that the truth in this matter
seems pretty clearas you said in your edit comment, but rather than Wikipedia should take a specific editorial stance that Kenneth Walker shot a cop and that friendly fire is not among the many mistakes the officers made—and should take that editorial stance ahead of the outcome of the legal process? Not only is expressing that kind of certainty in its own voice not how Wikipedia works, not when there are reliable sources documenting opposing viewpoints, but it does not seem particularly prudent given previous revelations in connection with this incident—which have demonstrated a lack of complete honesty and transparency, shall we say, on the part of the LMPD. -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 06:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)