![]() | 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 |
In the beginning paragraph, the article reads "The white officers entered her apartment in Louisville, Kentucky..."
The fact that the officers are white is not relevant to the story, and seems kind of strange to include. Piece o Ham ( talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It is obviously not relevant nor is it contained in the sources cited in the lede despite "because sources use it to describe this event" It is based on SYNTH and POV pushing as race is lacking from the reports of the vast majority of sources. Our opinions are irrelevant and short of an DNA test so should be any other sources listing races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:684D:5F98:D2CF:E8E8 ( talk) 06:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@
Thor 212002:
Your change's edit summary was Removed the word "White" used to describe the police officers since it denotes racial profiling and rece does not condones the acts decribed in this article, the police actions and policy sould not be race diferentiated, also the addition of the "White" word in that location promotes racial hatred instead of just communicating the fact.
However, we apply
MOS:LEADREL to the lead and provide
WP:WEIGHT based on the how reliable sources present Taylor's shooting. Wikipedia does not
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The sources must reflect that first. The world is not color blind (yet).—
Bagumba (
talk)
07:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
It is still irrelevant-it may be relevant on the pages about motives behind the civil unrest that followed the shooting-but still has zero relevance to the shooting itself. The preponderance of RS still do not include race and of the ones that do few lead with it as WP has chosen. Besides it not belonging, it does not reflect the weight of the NPOV RS material. It is being used to create racial divisiveness. Zero of the RS cite race or racial animus as any factor in the actual shooting itself but want the implication out there regardless.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-invs/index.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/fact-check-debunking-7-widely-shared-rumors-in-the-breonna-taylor-police-shooting/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report-details-why-louisville-police-wanted-search-breanna-taylors-home/5706161002/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-what-we-know-about-kentucky-woman- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/breonna-taylor-kenneth-walker-911-call-police-shooting/ https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-09-24/q-a-what-were-the-results-of-breonna-taylor-investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:392C:97DA:349:E03B ( talk) 22:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Redent. Looking at this, I don't see people mentioning their race. Although you can see that kind of stuff in the pics. Saying pictures show their race sounds like OR to me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=breonna+taylor+police+officers&sxsrf=ALeKk01-jScr8EGxt9cEW6WX82WqGBqp7g:1601530816691&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifvbOb15LsAhULvp4KHepBDZUQ_AUoAXoECDMQAw&biw=1094&bih=474&dpr=1.25 Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"the significance of race in this incident". Please tell us—what is the
"the significance of race in this incident"? Bus stop ( talk) 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, and you're the one who's saying you can't come up with any reason why all of these sources would regard it as informative to mention race, who's then putting the question to me because you WP:DONTGETIT. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 16:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter what the skin color of the officers are. Anyone can look up the officers' names and see that for themselves. Isn't this considered racist?
And no, contrary to popular belief, this was not a racially motivated killing. MrVikipedia ( talk) 07:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"Perhaps you could provide an example of an officer-involved shooting where you would consider the respective races of the shooters and the deceased to be salient, and would not laugh to see those facts mentioned in the lede of the article?"Where the
"races of the shooters and the deceased [are] salient"they should be mentioned. The issue that I am raising, Struthious_Bandersnatch, is that the
"races of the shooters and the deceased"are of no known consequence in this particular incident. Should we just go about adding racial overtones willy-nilly whenever possible? There is no known racial component to this incident, therefore I am raising a question about the emphasis placed on a racial dimension in our coverage of the incident. We know the officers were white but why would we be mentioning that in the lede? Shouldn't we ask ourselves a few questions first? Was there a racial component to this incident? If so, can you tell me what that racial component might be? Bus stop ( talk) 13:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation.(my emphasis) If indeed there
is no known racial component to this incidentyou want to take it up with Fox News and the other sources. And if your gut instincts which can't be expressed as repeatable criteria allow you to see the truth past a Manichean delirium which confounds the rest of us, well désolé, monsieur but here it's Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"gut instincts", Struthious Bandersnatch. Only sources can guide us in writing an article on a given subject. We address a given subject in accordance with applicable facts as provided to us by reliable sources and sources simply do not provide us with any reason to believe that race was a factor in this incident therefore why should race be mentioned in the lede? Sources do not show us that there was any racial animus in what transpired. Perhaps you disagree, in which case I think you should be substantiating an argument for a racial motive in this incident based on material found in reliable sources. I look forward to that input and I would be glad to discuss this question with you. Bus stop ( talk) 16:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
animusor
racial motive—not any other editors in this talk page, not the article itself, and not any of the sources I've seen. You would appear to be tilting at windmills, some fearsome giants who are incorrigible in their desire to get content about "racial animus" and "racial motive" into the article, where there isn't any content like that at all in actuality. And there aren't any giants. But Bob here makes a fine Sancho Panza.
Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation.(my emphasis)
We're not here to promote narratives. Our purpose is to reflect sources.
"bizarro"leap in reasoning to conclude that all interactions between white people and black people are racially-tinged or racist. The year is 2020. Our article should not be implying that the year is 1968. You need sources supporting that the racial distinctions in this incident played a role in the tragedy that ensued. This is the way Wikipedia operates—we require sources. You have not been able to find any sources to support your contentions of a racial component to the incident the article is writing about. In the absence sources we should consider the racial distinctions of people in this incident to be of no known significance, unless of course you can find a source supporting a role for race in the Shooting of Breonna Taylor. Racial distinctions are worthy of inclusion in the body of the article but racial distinctions are not worthy of inclusion in the lede. Bus stop ( talk) 17:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
implying that the year is 1968?
laughable, and acting all confused as to why these many sources would point it out—
no known consequence!
no known significance!—to some kind of face-saving concession that it belongs in the body of the article.
warranted by the particular incident being addressedand the WP:TRUTH that an editor claims to know about it, they're warranted by the sources. Even, indeed, if those sources are all as atavistic as you and are actually implying it's 1968. Though to me it seems pretty obvious that is not the case; statistical analysis of the example phenomena I gave above—like shooting bias, racially disparate outcomes in the United States criminal justice system, and discrimination based on skin color in policing, arrests, and surveillance—were much more primitive in 1968, so I'd suspect if factors like those are involved sources are considering the 2020 versions of them. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 12:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"we go by reliable sources", and reliable sources provide us with no information on any racial motive. This should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. Undue emphasis results from placement in the lede. Bus stop ( talk) 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"systemic racism". Bus stop ( talk) 16:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"Everyone discusses this killing in terms of historical and systemic violence". But Wikipedia follows sources. We adhere to the findings of sources. No source supports that race played any role in this exceptionally sad incident. You are not at liberty to make more of racial distinctions than are warranted by the case. Bus stop ( talk) 17:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:DUE doesnt require that we question the motive of why a subject is covered the way that it is. We reflect the weight that race is given in reliable sources.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"question the motive". The sources provide no racial motive. This should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. Undue emphasis results from placement in the lede. Bus stop ( talk) 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.So race is a "possible problem" for you there as well.
... simply stated, is that no source is telling us that race played any role: See "Critics See Racism In Breonna Taylor Decision As Attorney Pushes For More Details" Forbes, for an example. Seach engines can help too.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Taylor, a black woman, was shot multiple times as officers stormed her home in Louisville, Kentucky, on 13 March. Two white officers have not been charged while a third, also white, was charged with endangering 26-year-old Taylor's neighbours.[2]— Bagumba ( talk) 17:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Back to the issue originally raised (race of the officers being mentioned), we follow what WP:RS say per WP:DUE. Here's what I found after a quick search:
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
AP | [4] | Yes | No |
CNN | [5] | No | No |
CBS | [6] | No | No |
USA Today | [7] | Indirectly | No |
NY Times | [8] | Yes | No |
BBC | [9] | Yes | No |
Courier Journal | Article body yes [10], Article body no: only on photo caption [11] | Yes/Indirectly | No |
NPR | [12] | Yes | No |
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
NY Post | [13] | No | No |
NBC | [14] | Yes | No |
CNN | [15], [16] | No | No |
Marietta Times | [17] | Yes | No |
Courier Journal | [18] | No | No |
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
ABC | [19], [20], [21] | Yes | Yes, but by Crump |
Fox News | [22], [23] | No | No |
NY Times | [24], [25] | Yes | Yes, in first link |
USA Today | [26] | No | No |
BBC | [27] | Yes | No |
I'm going to add to this a bit more Done
EvergreenFir
(talk)
18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: I had listed these above earlier:
This is a reflection of the announcement last week of no direct charges for Taylor's death. If not now, what is your criteria for it being WP:DUE to add the officers being white to the lead? Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
Reuters | [28] | Yes | Yes |
BBC | [29] | Yes | Yes |
The Guardian | [30] | Yes | Yes |
FoxNews.com | [31] | Yes | Yes |
Los Angeles Times | [32] | Yes | Yes |
The Washington Post | [33] | Yes | Yes |
Associated Press | [34] | Yes | Yes |
The Independent | [35] | Yes | Yes |
The Telegraph | [36] | Yes | Yes |
— Bagumba ( talk) 06:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The police chief should have successful experience in a multi-racial community and the ability to lead in an environment that is focusing on race relations, that a
review [of] tactics through a racial equity lenswas requested
by community member[s] or elected leadersand said that
some of the common themes that LMPD employees would like to see a new chief address are:...
Include training on systemic racism and better implicit bias training.-- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 18:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
racial distinctions" you mention are precisely what make this event notable; but for race we'd not have an article about this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"It might help if you could give an excerpt from a reliable source and suggest how info from that excerpt could be used in the article."We are quintessentially reliant on reliable sources. Bus stop ( talk) 15:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
very simplereasons why this editor is ignoring it every time they are presented with a quote from a source mentioning race the way they don't want to see it mentioned in this article: sources, and this article, mentioning that the officers are white does not conclude anything about their motives in the killing and does not conclude that they are personally racist. And mentioning that the officers are white does not conclude that whiteness equates with racism or that
all people [are] in a perpetual state of hatred towards people who don't look like them.
no known significanceor of
secondary importanceor of
little known significanceor any of the dismissive epithets you've been bestowing on this aspect of the topic. It's enough that sources like Fox News give one-sentence summaries of the event mentioning the race of the officers like this:
Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation.(my emphasis)
We don't assume that just because they are white that they must be racist—a source would be required to support such a contention.
If reliable sources say an individual is black, we dutifully convey that information to the reader. If reliable sources say an individual is white, we dutifully convey that information to the readerregarding George Floyd. [38]. They made a WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:OSE earlier [39], but did not respond further regarding how Taylor's case is different.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ms. Taylor’s name and image have become part of the national movement over racial injustice since May, when her case began to draw national attention. Celebrities have written open letters and erected billboards demanding that the white officers be criminally charged for the death of a young Black woman."
Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency room technician, was killed when three white police officers entered her apartment in the early hours of 13 March."
national outrage" is "
over police killings of unarmed Black people." It also noted that the police were White.
the most passive way in to serve the warrantbut the statements of Walker, the surviving black participant in the incident, were taken within hours. Walker waived the right to a lawyer, but who knows what sort of representations were made to him to gain his compliance in contrast with Mattingly; maybe they gave him the impression that he had a constitutional right to defend himself with a firearm and a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, whereas in reality he was about to be charged with attempted murder. The president of the Fraternal Order of Police of the city, who one would expect represents the officers, called Walker a "danger to the community" and one of "the most violent offenders."
On September 23, 2020, a state grand jury indicted Hankison on three counts of wanton endangerment for endangering a neighboring white family of three when shots he fired penetrated their apartment. Bullets also entered the above apartment of a black family, but no counts were filed.If the prosecutor, who does stuff like issue press releases in response to Facebook comments, decided based on his own knowledge that Hankinson is a white officer that he didn't like the possible publicity impression that charging a white officer with wantonly endangering a black family might give, that is yet another reason for the reader to know up-front that Hankinson and the other officers are white.
where it mattersto also mention race, then go on to mention implicit bias in passing in the context of the shooting as though it doesn't matter in that respect. However things like implicit bias and other aspects of systemic racism are absolutely huge here. The University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law is now teaching a course entitled "Breonna Taylor's Louisville: Race, Equity and Law" overseen by the dean, there's so much material and so many interrelated topics. I'm of course not saying that we should reproduce the entire content of a graduate-level university course in this article but to write the article as if these aspects don't matter or are of marginal significance would not be encyclopedic.
I don't know of any RS that said racial animosity played a role in the shooting itself, I have to reiterate that no revision of this article has made any claim about racial animosity, nor has any proposed wording, so this is not a valid counterargument to anything that has been said in this talk page nor a policy-based or "stick to the sources" reason to change the article. Furthermore I have to point out that the editors who have been variously urging removal of the word "white" from the article, or its relegation to the body text or one specific facet of the topic, have actually been making a have-it-both-ways argument in which they openly state or imply that any wording indicating that the officers are white in connection to the shooting event itself expresses that the officers had a motive involving racial animosity, by which logic also all of the reliable sources mentioning that the officers are white would be documentation by Wikipedia standards that racial animosity played a role in the shooting. Hence the refusal to acknowledge the existence of all the sources using the word "white" and the repetitive demands for quotes they've already been furnished with.
Nobody wants to dieand that this
applies equallyto more than one race
of cops(my emphasis), ignoring like the prosecutor and so many others that Kenneth Walker's actions were in self-defense, and XavierItzm's related exclamation that
Per WP:BLP, cast no aspersions on living people condemned of no crime: WP:BLP also applies to Breonna Taylor as a recently deceased person—a person who not only was never condemned of any crime, but whom the prosecutor explicitly did not even charge with a crime, nor did a grand jury deliberate about charging her with crimes as one did the officers and then get advised to only charge a single one of them with endangering a white family. Yet this article mentions
an investigation into drug dealing operationsin the lede and is stuffed full of details insinuating that Taylor was involved in drug dealing operations, many of those details being conflicting statements from an individual who was charged, who also contradicts himself and denies involvement on her part.
"There are certainly multiple places the race of the officers could be mentioned". I think the question is not where the race of the officers could be mentioned but where the race of the officers should be mentioned. We should not go around adding racial overtones willy-nilly wherever possible. You say
"Although it sure as hell is not our job to exonerate these officers of racism as you appear to believe you're trying to do by overriding Wikipedia policies to control with your own personal preferences how this article mentions race."It would only be possible to
"exonerate these officers of racism"if these officers were previously accused of racism but they were not. Neither you nor anyone else has been able to present a reliable source which supports an accusation of racism. We mention they are white. But their whiteness is not known to have had any bearing on the shooting death addressed in this article. "Whiteness", "blackness", etc., only arises in events subsequent to the shooting—namely protests and legal argumentation. Here you are adding "white" to the first sentence of the lede. The police were white but that descriptive term does not belong in the first sentence of the lede. Race (human categorization) had no bearing on the shooting. There is no reliable source supporting that race (human categorization) had any bearing on the shooting. Bus stop ( talk) 13:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
protests and legal argumentation...and disparate treatment in regards to having injuries documented, and disparate treatment in regards to being charged, and disparate treatment with regards to being interviewed, and legislation, and yes, race bears on the shooting itself, because even if you keep pretending with doe-eyed innocence that you have no idea why anyone would think so, as EvergreenFir pointed out above there's implicit bias, and there's a whole host of other factors.
________________ format to separate old from new.
Bob K31416 (
talk)
14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Good job Evergreen. As posted originally the majority of sources do not cite race and even less lead with it. The article needs to be fixed to reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A ( talk) 03:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
XavierItzm ( talk) 07:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Taylor's death, who was black, and the non-indictment of the police officers, who are white, led to protests across the United States.
Protests have erupted in Louisville, Ky., after the grand jury declined to charge officers in the fatal shooting of Taylor, who was shot multiple times March 13 after her boyfriend fired at officers who had entered her home during a narcotics raid by white officers, authorities said.
Hankinson was fired on June 23. A termination letter sent to him by interim Louisville Police Chief Robert Schroeder said the white officer violated procedures by showing 'extreme indifference to the value of human life' when he 'wantonly and blindly' shot 10 rounds of gunfire into Taylor’s apartment.
________________ format to separate old from new.
Bob K31416 (
talk)
14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
"Andy Griffith Show"and
"PBS Newshour"are intended to symbolize? Bus stop ( talk) 15:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
So I was explaining to Bus stop below that I don't regard their personal preferences sufficient reason to override the status quo ante of the lede for this discussion and that's why I partially reverted a series of edits they made which changed all race-related details in the lede. Further discussion up above where I announced it after I made the change.
Furthermore, as I've said above, the arguments Bus stop has made are based on ignoring Wikipedia policy and ignoring what sources say, as far as I'm concerned, and hence are not material to Wikipedia editorial consensus in my view. So the question is, how do we move forward?
Seems to me we could ⑴ keep slogging it out, ⑵ hold an RfC, or ⑶ pursue a Dispute Resolution option. There are quite possibly other options; I don't get to this particular part of the process much. So do any people still reading this have a preference for one of those options or a new idea?
Bus stop—do you have a preference for one of those options, or a different idea on how to move forward? -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
"there are entire articles I've created in a single edit". As has been pointed out to you by another editor in the Edits versus rewrite section, this is a
"relatively-mature page". Bus stop ( talk) 06:30, 12 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 |
In the beginning paragraph, the article reads "The white officers entered her apartment in Louisville, Kentucky..."
The fact that the officers are white is not relevant to the story, and seems kind of strange to include. Piece o Ham ( talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
It is obviously not relevant nor is it contained in the sources cited in the lede despite "because sources use it to describe this event" It is based on SYNTH and POV pushing as race is lacking from the reports of the vast majority of sources. Our opinions are irrelevant and short of an DNA test so should be any other sources listing races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:684D:5F98:D2CF:E8E8 ( talk) 06:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
@
Thor 212002:
Your change's edit summary was Removed the word "White" used to describe the police officers since it denotes racial profiling and rece does not condones the acts decribed in this article, the police actions and policy sould not be race diferentiated, also the addition of the "White" word in that location promotes racial hatred instead of just communicating the fact.
However, we apply
MOS:LEADREL to the lead and provide
WP:WEIGHT based on the how reliable sources present Taylor's shooting. Wikipedia does not
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The sources must reflect that first. The world is not color blind (yet).—
Bagumba (
talk)
07:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
It is still irrelevant-it may be relevant on the pages about motives behind the civil unrest that followed the shooting-but still has zero relevance to the shooting itself. The preponderance of RS still do not include race and of the ones that do few lead with it as WP has chosen. Besides it not belonging, it does not reflect the weight of the NPOV RS material. It is being used to create racial divisiveness. Zero of the RS cite race or racial animus as any factor in the actual shooting itself but want the implication out there regardless.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-invs/index.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/fact-check-debunking-7-widely-shared-rumors-in-the-breonna-taylor-police-shooting/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report-details-why-louisville-police-wanted-search-breanna-taylors-home/5706161002/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-what-we-know-about-kentucky-woman- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/breonna-taylor-kenneth-walker-911-call-police-shooting/ https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-09-24/q-a-what-were-the-results-of-breonna-taylor-investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:392C:97DA:349:E03B ( talk) 22:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Redent. Looking at this, I don't see people mentioning their race. Although you can see that kind of stuff in the pics. Saying pictures show their race sounds like OR to me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=breonna+taylor+police+officers&sxsrf=ALeKk01-jScr8EGxt9cEW6WX82WqGBqp7g:1601530816691&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifvbOb15LsAhULvp4KHepBDZUQ_AUoAXoECDMQAw&biw=1094&bih=474&dpr=1.25 Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"the significance of race in this incident". Please tell us—what is the
"the significance of race in this incident"? Bus stop ( talk) 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, and you're the one who's saying you can't come up with any reason why all of these sources would regard it as informative to mention race, who's then putting the question to me because you WP:DONTGETIT. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 16:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter what the skin color of the officers are. Anyone can look up the officers' names and see that for themselves. Isn't this considered racist?
And no, contrary to popular belief, this was not a racially motivated killing. MrVikipedia ( talk) 07:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"Perhaps you could provide an example of an officer-involved shooting where you would consider the respective races of the shooters and the deceased to be salient, and would not laugh to see those facts mentioned in the lede of the article?"Where the
"races of the shooters and the deceased [are] salient"they should be mentioned. The issue that I am raising, Struthious_Bandersnatch, is that the
"races of the shooters and the deceased"are of no known consequence in this particular incident. Should we just go about adding racial overtones willy-nilly whenever possible? There is no known racial component to this incident, therefore I am raising a question about the emphasis placed on a racial dimension in our coverage of the incident. We know the officers were white but why would we be mentioning that in the lede? Shouldn't we ask ourselves a few questions first? Was there a racial component to this incident? If so, can you tell me what that racial component might be? Bus stop ( talk) 13:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation.(my emphasis) If indeed there
is no known racial component to this incidentyou want to take it up with Fox News and the other sources. And if your gut instincts which can't be expressed as repeatable criteria allow you to see the truth past a Manichean delirium which confounds the rest of us, well désolé, monsieur but here it's Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"gut instincts", Struthious Bandersnatch. Only sources can guide us in writing an article on a given subject. We address a given subject in accordance with applicable facts as provided to us by reliable sources and sources simply do not provide us with any reason to believe that race was a factor in this incident therefore why should race be mentioned in the lede? Sources do not show us that there was any racial animus in what transpired. Perhaps you disagree, in which case I think you should be substantiating an argument for a racial motive in this incident based on material found in reliable sources. I look forward to that input and I would be glad to discuss this question with you. Bus stop ( talk) 16:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
animusor
racial motive—not any other editors in this talk page, not the article itself, and not any of the sources I've seen. You would appear to be tilting at windmills, some fearsome giants who are incorrigible in their desire to get content about "racial animus" and "racial motive" into the article, where there isn't any content like that at all in actuality. And there aren't any giants. But Bob here makes a fine Sancho Panza.
Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation.(my emphasis)
We're not here to promote narratives. Our purpose is to reflect sources.
"bizarro"leap in reasoning to conclude that all interactions between white people and black people are racially-tinged or racist. The year is 2020. Our article should not be implying that the year is 1968. You need sources supporting that the racial distinctions in this incident played a role in the tragedy that ensued. This is the way Wikipedia operates—we require sources. You have not been able to find any sources to support your contentions of a racial component to the incident the article is writing about. In the absence sources we should consider the racial distinctions of people in this incident to be of no known significance, unless of course you can find a source supporting a role for race in the Shooting of Breonna Taylor. Racial distinctions are worthy of inclusion in the body of the article but racial distinctions are not worthy of inclusion in the lede. Bus stop ( talk) 17:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
implying that the year is 1968?
laughable, and acting all confused as to why these many sources would point it out—
no known consequence!
no known significance!—to some kind of face-saving concession that it belongs in the body of the article.
warranted by the particular incident being addressedand the WP:TRUTH that an editor claims to know about it, they're warranted by the sources. Even, indeed, if those sources are all as atavistic as you and are actually implying it's 1968. Though to me it seems pretty obvious that is not the case; statistical analysis of the example phenomena I gave above—like shooting bias, racially disparate outcomes in the United States criminal justice system, and discrimination based on skin color in policing, arrests, and surveillance—were much more primitive in 1968, so I'd suspect if factors like those are involved sources are considering the 2020 versions of them. -- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 12:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"we go by reliable sources", and reliable sources provide us with no information on any racial motive. This should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. Undue emphasis results from placement in the lede. Bus stop ( talk) 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"systemic racism". Bus stop ( talk) 16:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"Everyone discusses this killing in terms of historical and systemic violence". But Wikipedia follows sources. We adhere to the findings of sources. No source supports that race played any role in this exceptionally sad incident. You are not at liberty to make more of racial distinctions than are warranted by the case. Bus stop ( talk) 17:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:DUE doesnt require that we question the motive of why a subject is covered the way that it is. We reflect the weight that race is given in reliable sources.— Bagumba ( talk) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
"question the motive". The sources provide no racial motive. This should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. Undue emphasis results from placement in the lede. Bus stop ( talk) 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.So race is a "possible problem" for you there as well.
... simply stated, is that no source is telling us that race played any role: See "Critics See Racism In Breonna Taylor Decision As Attorney Pushes For More Details" Forbes, for an example. Seach engines can help too.— Bagumba ( talk) 16:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Taylor, a black woman, was shot multiple times as officers stormed her home in Louisville, Kentucky, on 13 March. Two white officers have not been charged while a third, also white, was charged with endangering 26-year-old Taylor's neighbours.[2]— Bagumba ( talk) 17:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Back to the issue originally raised (race of the officers being mentioned), we follow what WP:RS say per WP:DUE. Here's what I found after a quick search:
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
AP | [4] | Yes | No |
CNN | [5] | No | No |
CBS | [6] | No | No |
USA Today | [7] | Indirectly | No |
NY Times | [8] | Yes | No |
BBC | [9] | Yes | No |
Courier Journal | Article body yes [10], Article body no: only on photo caption [11] | Yes/Indirectly | No |
NPR | [12] | Yes | No |
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
NY Post | [13] | No | No |
NBC | [14] | Yes | No |
CNN | [15], [16] | No | No |
Marietta Times | [17] | Yes | No |
Courier Journal | [18] | No | No |
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
ABC | [19], [20], [21] | Yes | Yes, but by Crump |
Fox News | [22], [23] | No | No |
NY Times | [24], [25] | Yes | Yes, in first link |
USA Today | [26] | No | No |
BBC | [27] | Yes | No |
I'm going to add to this a bit more Done
EvergreenFir
(talk)
18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir: I had listed these above earlier:
This is a reflection of the announcement last week of no direct charges for Taylor's death. If not now, what is your criteria for it being WP:DUE to add the officers being white to the lead? Thanks.— Bagumba ( talk) 02:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Publisher | Link | Race of Taylor mentioned | Race of any officer mentioned |
---|---|---|---|
Reuters | [28] | Yes | Yes |
BBC | [29] | Yes | Yes |
The Guardian | [30] | Yes | Yes |
FoxNews.com | [31] | Yes | Yes |
Los Angeles Times | [32] | Yes | Yes |
The Washington Post | [33] | Yes | Yes |
Associated Press | [34] | Yes | Yes |
The Independent | [35] | Yes | Yes |
The Telegraph | [36] | Yes | Yes |
— Bagumba ( talk) 06:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The police chief should have successful experience in a multi-racial community and the ability to lead in an environment that is focusing on race relations, that a
review [of] tactics through a racial equity lenswas requested
by community member[s] or elected leadersand said that
some of the common themes that LMPD employees would like to see a new chief address are:...
Include training on systemic racism and better implicit bias training.-- ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 18:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
racial distinctions" you mention are precisely what make this event notable; but for race we'd not have an article about this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"It might help if you could give an excerpt from a reliable source and suggest how info from that excerpt could be used in the article."We are quintessentially reliant on reliable sources. Bus stop ( talk) 15:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
very simplereasons why this editor is ignoring it every time they are presented with a quote from a source mentioning race the way they don't want to see it mentioned in this article: sources, and this article, mentioning that the officers are white does not conclude anything about their motives in the killing and does not conclude that they are personally racist. And mentioning that the officers are white does not conclude that whiteness equates with racism or that
all people [are] in a perpetual state of hatred towards people who don't look like them.
no known significanceor of
secondary importanceor of
little known significanceor any of the dismissive epithets you've been bestowing on this aspect of the topic. It's enough that sources like Fox News give one-sentence summaries of the event mentioning the race of the officers like this:
Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation.(my emphasis)
We don't assume that just because they are white that they must be racist—a source would be required to support such a contention.
If reliable sources say an individual is black, we dutifully convey that information to the reader. If reliable sources say an individual is white, we dutifully convey that information to the readerregarding George Floyd. [38]. They made a WP:VAGUEWAVE at WP:OSE earlier [39], but did not respond further regarding how Taylor's case is different.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ms. Taylor’s name and image have become part of the national movement over racial injustice since May, when her case began to draw national attention. Celebrities have written open letters and erected billboards demanding that the white officers be criminally charged for the death of a young Black woman."
Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency room technician, was killed when three white police officers entered her apartment in the early hours of 13 March."
national outrage" is "
over police killings of unarmed Black people." It also noted that the police were White.
the most passive way in to serve the warrantbut the statements of Walker, the surviving black participant in the incident, were taken within hours. Walker waived the right to a lawyer, but who knows what sort of representations were made to him to gain his compliance in contrast with Mattingly; maybe they gave him the impression that he had a constitutional right to defend himself with a firearm and a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, whereas in reality he was about to be charged with attempted murder. The president of the Fraternal Order of Police of the city, who one would expect represents the officers, called Walker a "danger to the community" and one of "the most violent offenders."
On September 23, 2020, a state grand jury indicted Hankison on three counts of wanton endangerment for endangering a neighboring white family of three when shots he fired penetrated their apartment. Bullets also entered the above apartment of a black family, but no counts were filed.If the prosecutor, who does stuff like issue press releases in response to Facebook comments, decided based on his own knowledge that Hankinson is a white officer that he didn't like the possible publicity impression that charging a white officer with wantonly endangering a black family might give, that is yet another reason for the reader to know up-front that Hankinson and the other officers are white.
where it mattersto also mention race, then go on to mention implicit bias in passing in the context of the shooting as though it doesn't matter in that respect. However things like implicit bias and other aspects of systemic racism are absolutely huge here. The University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law is now teaching a course entitled "Breonna Taylor's Louisville: Race, Equity and Law" overseen by the dean, there's so much material and so many interrelated topics. I'm of course not saying that we should reproduce the entire content of a graduate-level university course in this article but to write the article as if these aspects don't matter or are of marginal significance would not be encyclopedic.
I don't know of any RS that said racial animosity played a role in the shooting itself, I have to reiterate that no revision of this article has made any claim about racial animosity, nor has any proposed wording, so this is not a valid counterargument to anything that has been said in this talk page nor a policy-based or "stick to the sources" reason to change the article. Furthermore I have to point out that the editors who have been variously urging removal of the word "white" from the article, or its relegation to the body text or one specific facet of the topic, have actually been making a have-it-both-ways argument in which they openly state or imply that any wording indicating that the officers are white in connection to the shooting event itself expresses that the officers had a motive involving racial animosity, by which logic also all of the reliable sources mentioning that the officers are white would be documentation by Wikipedia standards that racial animosity played a role in the shooting. Hence the refusal to acknowledge the existence of all the sources using the word "white" and the repetitive demands for quotes they've already been furnished with.
Nobody wants to dieand that this
applies equallyto more than one race
of cops(my emphasis), ignoring like the prosecutor and so many others that Kenneth Walker's actions were in self-defense, and XavierItzm's related exclamation that
Per WP:BLP, cast no aspersions on living people condemned of no crime: WP:BLP also applies to Breonna Taylor as a recently deceased person—a person who not only was never condemned of any crime, but whom the prosecutor explicitly did not even charge with a crime, nor did a grand jury deliberate about charging her with crimes as one did the officers and then get advised to only charge a single one of them with endangering a white family. Yet this article mentions
an investigation into drug dealing operationsin the lede and is stuffed full of details insinuating that Taylor was involved in drug dealing operations, many of those details being conflicting statements from an individual who was charged, who also contradicts himself and denies involvement on her part.
"There are certainly multiple places the race of the officers could be mentioned". I think the question is not where the race of the officers could be mentioned but where the race of the officers should be mentioned. We should not go around adding racial overtones willy-nilly wherever possible. You say
"Although it sure as hell is not our job to exonerate these officers of racism as you appear to believe you're trying to do by overriding Wikipedia policies to control with your own personal preferences how this article mentions race."It would only be possible to
"exonerate these officers of racism"if these officers were previously accused of racism but they were not. Neither you nor anyone else has been able to present a reliable source which supports an accusation of racism. We mention they are white. But their whiteness is not known to have had any bearing on the shooting death addressed in this article. "Whiteness", "blackness", etc., only arises in events subsequent to the shooting—namely protests and legal argumentation. Here you are adding "white" to the first sentence of the lede. The police were white but that descriptive term does not belong in the first sentence of the lede. Race (human categorization) had no bearing on the shooting. There is no reliable source supporting that race (human categorization) had any bearing on the shooting. Bus stop ( talk) 13:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
protests and legal argumentation...and disparate treatment in regards to having injuries documented, and disparate treatment in regards to being charged, and disparate treatment with regards to being interviewed, and legislation, and yes, race bears on the shooting itself, because even if you keep pretending with doe-eyed innocence that you have no idea why anyone would think so, as EvergreenFir pointed out above there's implicit bias, and there's a whole host of other factors.
________________ format to separate old from new.
Bob K31416 (
talk)
14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Good job Evergreen. As posted originally the majority of sources do not cite race and even less lead with it. The article needs to be fixed to reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A ( talk) 03:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
XavierItzm ( talk) 07:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Taylor's death, who was black, and the non-indictment of the police officers, who are white, led to protests across the United States.
Protests have erupted in Louisville, Ky., after the grand jury declined to charge officers in the fatal shooting of Taylor, who was shot multiple times March 13 after her boyfriend fired at officers who had entered her home during a narcotics raid by white officers, authorities said.
Hankinson was fired on June 23. A termination letter sent to him by interim Louisville Police Chief Robert Schroeder said the white officer violated procedures by showing 'extreme indifference to the value of human life' when he 'wantonly and blindly' shot 10 rounds of gunfire into Taylor’s apartment.
________________ format to separate old from new.
Bob K31416 (
talk)
14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
"Andy Griffith Show"and
"PBS Newshour"are intended to symbolize? Bus stop ( talk) 15:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
So I was explaining to Bus stop below that I don't regard their personal preferences sufficient reason to override the status quo ante of the lede for this discussion and that's why I partially reverted a series of edits they made which changed all race-related details in the lede. Further discussion up above where I announced it after I made the change.
Furthermore, as I've said above, the arguments Bus stop has made are based on ignoring Wikipedia policy and ignoring what sources say, as far as I'm concerned, and hence are not material to Wikipedia editorial consensus in my view. So the question is, how do we move forward?
Seems to me we could ⑴ keep slogging it out, ⑵ hold an RfC, or ⑶ pursue a Dispute Resolution option. There are quite possibly other options; I don't get to this particular part of the process much. So do any people still reading this have a preference for one of those options or a new idea?
Bus stop—do you have a preference for one of those options, or a different idea on how to move forward? -- ‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 04:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
"there are entire articles I've created in a single edit". As has been pointed out to you by another editor in the Edits versus rewrite section, this is a
"relatively-mature page". Bus stop ( talk) 06:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)