This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Murder of Laquan McDonald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Murder of Laquan McDonald be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Chicago may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I think the statement on toxicology reports and PCP is a bit misleading as written. It is missing too much context or information. There are at least two open questions.
First, we don't know when the PCP was consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:
Most scientists believe that the half-life of PCP is three days, through effects on the central nervous system can last from seven hours to a week in chronic users. Detecting PCP in your system relies heavily on the type of test.
Second, we don't know the quantity of PCP consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:
Low doses tend to mimic the feelings of alcohol consumption. Higher doses increase the feelings of numbness and lead to more agitated behavior.
I also have not been able to locate information on testing for the presence of PCP in a corpse. I'm guessing - and it is just a guess - the toxicology results will be similar in a living person and someone newly deceased. This leads to a third question, when were the toxicology tests performed.
Chronology, quantity, and testing methodology affects the veracity of the statement. As written, the statement only appears to be present to provoke or bias readers.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 17:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says:
... McDonald was reported to have been behaving erratically while walking down the street, and holding a folding knife with a three-inch (7.5 cm) blade. Initially, internal police reports described the incident similarly and ruled the shooting justified and Van Dyke was not charged in the shooting at that time.
I believe the City of Chicago, the police department and the police union claimed McDonald lunged at police officers to cause the shooting. Later, when the dashcam video was released, the narrative was shown to be a lie.
Since the city, the department and the union all claimed McDonald lunged and caused the shooting, I believe it is an important detail that should be included in the opening paragraph.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The earlier comments referring to reverting the title to the earlier "Shooting ... " title requires some more discussion, rather than "This is the way I like it." Most people would look up "The shooting of ...," not "The murder of ... ," even though the judicial verdict stands and Van Dyke is serving 7-year sentence. It is more important how a reader will search for the article on Wikipedia, and what most viewers would type into the search bar. The use of arguments such as "I just like it" or "I just don't like it" WP:JDLI are not logical, and are best avoided on talk-page discussions. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 06:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Strikerforce Talk, thank you for your time. Verifiable proof as to what someone would look up to identify anything on any shooting would of course first look up the name ... Laquan McDonald, followed by what happened, which is a shooting. No one would look up the "verdict," that is, 2nd degree murder or murder. The title has made it more difficult for people to research the topic. Less people are aware of it, logically speaking. As far as the previous discussion, I was not aware of it at that time, so I confess, I am questioning it at the present time. Thank God for talk pages! With all due respect, Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Strikerforce Talk, thank you for responding while I have some time, between my day job ;) ... I hope you didn't interpret this as any impertinence, but I don't believe I mentioned arguing at all. Therefore, no need for counter-arguments. It was meant as a suggestion, for that is what is done on talk pages.
Regarding the title, I personally had a minor issue in 2018 when I began writing up an article on the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. As you are aware, it is linked to the essence of the Shooting of Laquan McDonald. Other wiki articles, like The Chicago Police Accountability Task Force, have written the title of the article as "Shooting." After I submitted the article in 2019, I was not aware that Shooting of Laquan McDonald had been changed. Besides, there are other Wiki articles linking to the Shooting of Laquan McDonald in addition to the one already mentioned. That was the driving force behind my post on this talk page. But since it all goes to the page as you mentioned, no worries. So there you have it. No "straw," edit warring, or playing confirmational bias as some blurt out before cognisant of all the facts. That is situational bias where, let's say, radiologists hone-in on one diagnosis — bowel obstruction on a KUB, but miss a lumbar compression fracture — or, provide medical advice "curbside" without knowing the entire history of a patient, these biases can result in patient diagnosis error and medical malpractice.
Incidentally, a Wiki deletion editor did not like the title of the article I wrote up and recommended that I change it to the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo from the "Shooting of Robert Rialmo." He wrote that more people would find it and that it is the essence of the story anyway. Eventually, that is what really happened: Rialmo was dismissed. The reader will find out, he wrote, that after digesting the article, and will know the history on their own. I did follow his advice, and changed the title. Please check my User talk:Bigeez page on the deletion editor's comments on Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. Maybe the title "Murder ... should be "Dismissal of Jason Van Dyke" or "Conviction ..." for that is its essence. Incidentally, one comment to the title change on this talk page was "remaining neutral," by another editor.
Lastly, perhaps the page views of the Murder of Laquan McDonald might reflect ease-of-use as verifiable data? They have dropped from a monthly high of 90k in early 2019, to 20-30k, down 75% in October, 2019. Analyse as you wish, for this might simply be due to relevance in the news, etc., but nonetheless, make any assessment you feel apropos. Please see my User:Bigeez/sandbox sandbox for my current work on an article subsection regarding "Collaboration/Resistance from World War II, the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo, as well as Eddie T. Johnson, (Superintendent of Police, Chicago) which I co-authored for any comments/suggestions.
Your comments are indispensable. I do value your time and advice. With all due respect, cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Should the title of this article be "Shooting of Laquan McDonald" or "Murder of Laquan McDonald"? — Mudwater ( Talk) 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
References
References
See WP:CRITERIA As Bigeez states: "Eventually, it will boil down to the most appropriate and least volatile title that is found to be within Wikipedia guidelines that must take precedence among other editors" List of articles that are titled "Murder of" - there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles with 'Murder of" in the title. "Shooting of" used far less often and almost only when there is no conviction. End of discussion. "Murder of" is clearly the appropriate prefix as per title guidlines.
I also noted some arguments made about consistency, that other articles are titled "shooting of" rather than "Murder of", so this articles title should too, however that is a furphy. Most articles use "Murder of" which seems to be the obvious and better choice, I mean what do we do in the case of Agathocles of Syracuse who was murdered by use of a poisoned toothpick? "The toothpick poisoning of Agathocles of Syracuse" sounds rather stupid, I'm sure there are plenty of murder methods that would make a jarring title. In regards to consistency of titles, Murder of is the correct prefix - there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles with 'Murder of" in the title. The courts decreed they were murdered, the title should reflect that fact, not the method of murder. Looking through articles titled "shooting of" it seems this title is used far less often and almost only when there is no conviction. Bacondrum ( talk) 21:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to let everybody know, I have posted about this Request for Comment at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, inviting interested editors to join in the discussion here. You can see what I said at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Murder of Laquan McDonald. (It's possible that some editors will comment there, but I've requested them to comment here instead, to keep the discussion all in one place.) — Mudwater ( Talk) 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
So a simple (yes I know about whatboutism and otherstuff) question how do we treat other cases where there was a conviction for murder? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 15:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
So (to the other side) is there an example of a murder we do not call a murder in the articles title (note one off murder, not terrorist attack)? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum ( talk) 20:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''!vote'''
.
—DIYeditor (
talk)
05:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)This is done. The 3 people advocating "shooting" just don't like the murder title. MartinezMD ( talk) 02:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I started this Request for Comment 27 days ago. I'm going to go ahead and end it now, because I think the discussion has more or less run its course. The point of an RfC is to try to persuade other editors of one's point of view, and not to vote on a result, but, for whatever it's worth, here is my reading of the article title preferences of those who have posted here. Apologies if I've omitted or misrepresented anyone.
— Mudwater ( Talk) 01:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Although I was not able to persuade a majority of editors to agree with my opinions, I definitely think that having this discussion as a formal Request for Comment was both appropriate and worthwhile. Thanks to everyone who participated. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Murder of Laquan McDonald article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Murder of Laquan McDonald be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Chicago may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I think the statement on toxicology reports and PCP is a bit misleading as written. It is missing too much context or information. There are at least two open questions.
First, we don't know when the PCP was consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:
Most scientists believe that the half-life of PCP is three days, through effects on the central nervous system can last from seven hours to a week in chronic users. Detecting PCP in your system relies heavily on the type of test.
Second, we don't know the quantity of PCP consumed. According to long does PCP stay in your system: blood, urine, and saliva:
Low doses tend to mimic the feelings of alcohol consumption. Higher doses increase the feelings of numbness and lead to more agitated behavior.
I also have not been able to locate information on testing for the presence of PCP in a corpse. I'm guessing - and it is just a guess - the toxicology results will be similar in a living person and someone newly deceased. This leads to a third question, when were the toxicology tests performed.
Chronology, quantity, and testing methodology affects the veracity of the statement. As written, the statement only appears to be present to provoke or bias readers.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 17:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says:
... McDonald was reported to have been behaving erratically while walking down the street, and holding a folding knife with a three-inch (7.5 cm) blade. Initially, internal police reports described the incident similarly and ruled the shooting justified and Van Dyke was not charged in the shooting at that time.
I believe the City of Chicago, the police department and the police union claimed McDonald lunged at police officers to cause the shooting. Later, when the dashcam video was released, the narrative was shown to be a lie.
Since the city, the department and the union all claimed McDonald lunged and caused the shooting, I believe it is an important detail that should be included in the opening paragraph.
Jeffrey Walton ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The earlier comments referring to reverting the title to the earlier "Shooting ... " title requires some more discussion, rather than "This is the way I like it." Most people would look up "The shooting of ...," not "The murder of ... ," even though the judicial verdict stands and Van Dyke is serving 7-year sentence. It is more important how a reader will search for the article on Wikipedia, and what most viewers would type into the search bar. The use of arguments such as "I just like it" or "I just don't like it" WP:JDLI are not logical, and are best avoided on talk-page discussions. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 06:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Strikerforce Talk, thank you for your time. Verifiable proof as to what someone would look up to identify anything on any shooting would of course first look up the name ... Laquan McDonald, followed by what happened, which is a shooting. No one would look up the "verdict," that is, 2nd degree murder or murder. The title has made it more difficult for people to research the topic. Less people are aware of it, logically speaking. As far as the previous discussion, I was not aware of it at that time, so I confess, I am questioning it at the present time. Thank God for talk pages! With all due respect, Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello Strikerforce Talk, thank you for responding while I have some time, between my day job ;) ... I hope you didn't interpret this as any impertinence, but I don't believe I mentioned arguing at all. Therefore, no need for counter-arguments. It was meant as a suggestion, for that is what is done on talk pages.
Regarding the title, I personally had a minor issue in 2018 when I began writing up an article on the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. As you are aware, it is linked to the essence of the Shooting of Laquan McDonald. Other wiki articles, like The Chicago Police Accountability Task Force, have written the title of the article as "Shooting." After I submitted the article in 2019, I was not aware that Shooting of Laquan McDonald had been changed. Besides, there are other Wiki articles linking to the Shooting of Laquan McDonald in addition to the one already mentioned. That was the driving force behind my post on this talk page. But since it all goes to the page as you mentioned, no worries. So there you have it. No "straw," edit warring, or playing confirmational bias as some blurt out before cognisant of all the facts. That is situational bias where, let's say, radiologists hone-in on one diagnosis — bowel obstruction on a KUB, but miss a lumbar compression fracture — or, provide medical advice "curbside" without knowing the entire history of a patient, these biases can result in patient diagnosis error and medical malpractice.
Incidentally, a Wiki deletion editor did not like the title of the article I wrote up and recommended that I change it to the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo from the "Shooting of Robert Rialmo." He wrote that more people would find it and that it is the essence of the story anyway. Eventually, that is what really happened: Rialmo was dismissed. The reader will find out, he wrote, that after digesting the article, and will know the history on their own. I did follow his advice, and changed the title. Please check my User talk:Bigeez page on the deletion editor's comments on Dismissal of Robert Rialmo. Maybe the title "Murder ... should be "Dismissal of Jason Van Dyke" or "Conviction ..." for that is its essence. Incidentally, one comment to the title change on this talk page was "remaining neutral," by another editor.
Lastly, perhaps the page views of the Murder of Laquan McDonald might reflect ease-of-use as verifiable data? They have dropped from a monthly high of 90k in early 2019, to 20-30k, down 75% in October, 2019. Analyse as you wish, for this might simply be due to relevance in the news, etc., but nonetheless, make any assessment you feel apropos. Please see my User:Bigeez/sandbox sandbox for my current work on an article subsection regarding "Collaboration/Resistance from World War II, the Dismissal of Robert Rialmo, as well as Eddie T. Johnson, (Superintendent of Police, Chicago) which I co-authored for any comments/suggestions.
Your comments are indispensable. I do value your time and advice. With all due respect, cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 20:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Should the title of this article be "Shooting of Laquan McDonald" or "Murder of Laquan McDonald"? — Mudwater ( Talk) 02:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
References
References
See WP:CRITERIA As Bigeez states: "Eventually, it will boil down to the most appropriate and least volatile title that is found to be within Wikipedia guidelines that must take precedence among other editors" List of articles that are titled "Murder of" - there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles with 'Murder of" in the title. "Shooting of" used far less often and almost only when there is no conviction. End of discussion. "Murder of" is clearly the appropriate prefix as per title guidlines.
I also noted some arguments made about consistency, that other articles are titled "shooting of" rather than "Murder of", so this articles title should too, however that is a furphy. Most articles use "Murder of" which seems to be the obvious and better choice, I mean what do we do in the case of Agathocles of Syracuse who was murdered by use of a poisoned toothpick? "The toothpick poisoning of Agathocles of Syracuse" sounds rather stupid, I'm sure there are plenty of murder methods that would make a jarring title. In regards to consistency of titles, Murder of is the correct prefix - there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of articles with 'Murder of" in the title. The courts decreed they were murdered, the title should reflect that fact, not the method of murder. Looking through articles titled "shooting of" it seems this title is used far less often and almost only when there is no conviction. Bacondrum ( talk) 21:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to let everybody know, I have posted about this Request for Comment at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, inviting interested editors to join in the discussion here. You can see what I said at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Murder of Laquan McDonald. (It's possible that some editors will comment there, but I've requested them to comment here instead, to keep the discussion all in one place.) — Mudwater ( Talk) 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
So a simple (yes I know about whatboutism and otherstuff) question how do we treat other cases where there was a conviction for murder? Slatersteven ( talk) 11:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 15:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
So (to the other side) is there an example of a murder we do not call a murder in the articles title (note one off murder, not terrorist attack)? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Bacondrum ( talk) 20:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
*'''!vote'''
.
—DIYeditor (
talk)
05:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)This is done. The 3 people advocating "shooting" just don't like the murder title. MartinezMD ( talk) 02:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I started this Request for Comment 27 days ago. I'm going to go ahead and end it now, because I think the discussion has more or less run its course. The point of an RfC is to try to persuade other editors of one's point of view, and not to vote on a result, but, for whatever it's worth, here is my reading of the article title preferences of those who have posted here. Apologies if I've omitted or misrepresented anyone.
— Mudwater ( Talk) 01:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Although I was not able to persuade a majority of editors to agree with my opinions, I definitely think that having this discussion as a formal Request for Comment was both appropriate and worthwhile. Thanks to everyone who participated. — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)