Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=21 April 2021 |result='''keep''' |page=Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant}}
{{Old AfD multi |date=21 April 2021 |result='''keep''' |page=Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{Talk header|archive_age=40|archive_bot=MiszaBot}}
{{WikiProject Black Lives Matter|importance=low}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=blp}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{BLP}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Black Lives Matter |class=start}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Crime |class=start
{{WikiProject Ohio|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject African diaspora}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
| blp=yes
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no>
| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no>
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no>
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no>
|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Current events}}
{{WikiProject Death |class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement |class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Ohio|class=Start}}
}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(40d)
|algo = old(40d)
Line 27: Line 22:
}}
}}


== I'm gonna stab the f*ck out of you b*tch ==
== Opposition and Support ==
Why is this not mentioned in the article?

:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83m3-c0oOnk
Opposition and support for Officer Reardon's actions are specifically mentioned in the lead. Per [[WP:LEAD]], this should be expanded upon in the body of the article. Without such a reference, the lead makes no sense. Describing such an addition as [[WP:OR]] is inherently dishonest. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
:https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/mwcyn7/in_new_video_makhia_bryant_can_be_heard_screaming/
:Aside from the OR, the proposed conclusions didn't fit with the text either. In both the support paragraph and the nonsupporting paragraph, the only politicians mentioned were democrats, so calling one situation bipartisan and the other partisan didn't make sense. (I didn't give much weight to Meghan McCain.) Also, we can't conclude bipartisan and partisan from just these small samples of people. That's one reason why a source is needed to present such conclusions. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 18:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 07:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
::Well, you've decided to negate one conservative "support" for unknown reasons when an opposition is included from the exact same show in the following paragraph. You also negated the fact that opposition IS one-sided; if it isn't, it should be easy to prove (simply find 1-2 [even moderately] conservative voices and we can simply label it as either "bipartisan" or "mixed". That isn't [[WP:OR]]. That's a statement of ''introduction'' for the ''facts'' presented. They were in here long ago. [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:1RR]] apply here. I resent the implication of malfeasance and would direct you to read [[WP:AGF]] before you cast aspersions. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
:::I've rephrased the second paragraph intro. If you don't like that, feel free to create your own lead into the paragraph. Leaving it without a lead into the paragraph fails [[WP:LEAD]] and paragraph writing 101. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
::::I created lead sentences for the two paragraphs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1025135918&oldid=1025124422] [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 22:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::I like where you're going with it. I tweaked it to remove the passive voice and re-include the fact that this is in reference to the ''political'' response to the incident. In the second, since the sources made broader statements about more than just this incident, I rephrased that one too. Tell me what you think. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::Since the two lead sentences are a source of contention, I removed them until there is consensus on this Talk page.

::::::There are various things to discuss and I'll start with the passive voice used in my lead sentences. First here's an excerpt from a discussion of the use of passive vs active voice.
::::::::"At the most basic level, the active voice emphasizes the person or agent who performs an action, in short, the “actor.” The passive voice emphasizes the recipient of the action or sometimes the action itself."[https://www.aje.com/arc/writing-with-active-or-passive-voice/]
::::::In my versions I wanted to emphasize the "recipient" of the action, which distinguished one paragraph from the other. Here are my versions for the lead sentences of the two paragraphs. (I've rewritten the first lead sentence.)
::::::::Support for the officer's actions came from the Columbus mayor, a congresswoman, and others.
::::::::Concern about systemic racism in policing was expressed by President Biden's press secretary and two U. S. senators.
::::::I thought that the paragraphs were mainly about the beginning parts of each of these lead sentences and the beginning parts also distinguished the two paragraphs from each other, so that is why I used the passive voice in order to put them first. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 22:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1025051681&oldid=1024950476 Well, you wanted to remove them entirely in the first place], so let's not try to pretend this is some sort of compromise or a "let's wait and see what we come up with"; this action is being cloaked in an aura of [[WP:AGF]] when, in fact, it's another way to get what you wanted all along.
:::::::# Per [[WP:LEAD]] "...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." You cannot write "Reactions from the public included support of the actions of the officer and protests against the killing." in the lead and then fail to mention that these are the reactions you're referring to.
:::::::#These two paragraphs, effectively encompass the range of political opinions nationwide. To remove that this is the political dialogue surrounding this event is absurd.
:::::::#The first paragraph contains more than the opinions of just those people you named in your introductory sentence; it only highlights the opinions of Democrats.
:::::::#The second paragraph contains more than the opinions of just those people you named in your introductory sentence; it too only highlights the opinions of Democrats (what a shock). It also encompasses WAY more than just allegations of "systemic racism"
:::::::#To remove all introductory statements and merely list "Person A said X, Person B said Y" fails basic paragraph composition writing in even grade school.
:::::::#Unlike what was stated in your edit summaries, to state that these statements aren't political opinions/commentary in support of or in opposition to the officer's actions is [[WP:OR]] is absurd and [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]]. It's already broken down in to two paragraphs pro and then con. That isn't coincidence. It's how we organize our thoughts. It's specifically mentioned in [[WP:WEASEL|WP:MoS]]: "The examples of weasel words above '''may be used in the lead section of an article ''or in a topic sentence of a paragraph'' only when the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution and accurately support that statement.'''" It's common to do so throughout Wikipedia for introductory statements.
:::::::#Lastly, passive voice in this case is just lazy writing and your logic isn't supported by the content of the paragraphs in question. Your supposed recipient of the support isn't even mentioned by name by the people in the paragraphs. The subject of these paragraphs are the people who expressed support/opposition and what they said/did.
:::::::In short ([[Clue (film)|"too late!"]]), the proposed solution doesn't solve/address ANY of these problems. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 04:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Regarding passive voice, I don't think you understood my point, so I'll just leave that as something we disagree on.
::::::::I disagree with most, if not all, of your other ideas and since your comments don't seem reasonable, I'll just let you pursue gaining consensus before you add any more lead sentence versions. So I suggest you make your proposal here for your versions of lead sentences and see the resulting comments opposing or supporting it. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 15:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::"''I'll just let you pursue gaining consensus before you add any more lead sentence versions''". That just validates what I said above. This removal isn't a good faith edit. It's a way to manipulate the situation to get what you want.
:::::::::Passive voice: I understood your point just fine, you just don't want it and you are manipulating the system to get what you want.
:::::::::"your comments don't seem reasonable" This is supposed to be a collaborative effort. You don't get to say "No, not that. We're doing it my way. You're unreasonable. I'm not going to listen to your comments". Collaboration requires that you address each others' concerns and come to a compromise. This isn't a compromise. This are [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] accusations and you yourself are being unreasonable. [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|I cannot address concerns you refuse to identify]]. "Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion". I'm following policy to the letter and explaining. You've just said "I disagree and we're keeping it out." You need to explain your actions and/or come up with alternatives. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::As I said in my message, make your proposal here for your versions of lead sentences and see the resulting comments opposing or supporting it. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 21:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm willing to discuss options, but not [[WP:BRD|"no not that" is not discussion]]. I HAVE offered multiple options, including tweaking yours. You've made it clear you aren't going to discuss them, so what's the point. If I hear nothing from you in 5 days, I'll start by putting back what was there a month ago and was not under dispute. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::So...continuing a lack of discussion? [[WP:BRD]]: read it...especially the "D" part... [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 06:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

== Proposal for lead sentences of two paragraphs in Reactions section ==

Please consider the following lead sentences (indicated in bold type) for the corresponding two paragraphs (indicated in small type) of the Reactions section.

:'''Support for the officer's actions came from the Columbus mayor, a congresswoman, and others.''' <small>Mayor Ginther said that "based on this footage, the officer took action to protect another young [woman] in our community", calling the shooting a tragic day.[26][27] On Face the Nation, Democratic Congresswoman and former police chief Val Demings said, "But the limited information that I know in viewing the video, it appears that the officer responded as he was trained to do with the main thought of preventing a tragedy and a loss of life of the person who was about to be assaulted."[28] CNN commentators Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon agreed that if the officer did not react in the time that he did, Bonner could have been killed, resulting in two tragic deaths instead of one.[29][30] Conservative commentator Meghan McCain stated "she was about to stab another girl and I think the police officer did what he thought he had to do."[31]</small>

:'''Concern about systemic racism in policing was expressed by President Biden's press secretary and two U. S. senators.''' <small>Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary, told reporters that President Joe Biden had been briefed on the situation,[32] and that the shooting was tragic, underscored the systemic racism in policing, and made reference to higher rates of police violence experienced by Black and Latino communities and the particular vulnerabilities of children in foster care.[33] In addition to Psaki, Senators Cory Booker and Raphael Warnock voiced concerns that the killing pointed to the need for police reform to address "systemic racism and implicit bias".[34][35] Professional basketball player LeBron James posted a tweet of an image of Reardon captioned "YOU'RE NEXT", as a nod to the conviction of Derek Chauvin, with the hashtag "#ACCOUNTABILITY". After a "flurry of outrage and accusations", James deleted the tweet.[36] Liberal commentator Joy Behar stated that the police should have shot the air and there is "something wrong" if the only solution to someone potentially killing another human is to use deadly force.[30]</small>

Please give your comments below of '''support''' or '''oppose''' for these two lead sentences. Thanks. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 05:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I've said this before and you've done exactly zero to address these issues. The first sentence ''only'' mentions Democrats <s>by name</s> and everyone else into "and others". Likewise, the second paragraph lead ''again'' only mentions 3 ''more'' elected Democrats and doesn't address the comments of two of the people in the paragraph (neither mention "systemic racism" or mentioned in the lead. The balance of these sentences is exceptionally far-left. Thus far, you've done absolutely nothing to address these points I've repeatedly pointed out nor justified how they are appropriate via policies and guidelines instead insisting on your way or the highway. You do not [[WP:OWN]] this article. Stop acting as if you do. Instead, address the shortages in your sentences and fix them. Obviously I can do nothing right about them in your eyes as you've a) dismissed all criticism as unreasonable and b) refused discussion (see above). This whole process is quickly becoming [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] and needs to stop. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 06:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC) (edit struck)
::Re "The first sentence only mentions Democrats by name and everyone else into 'and others'." — That's a false statement because no one is mentioned by name in the first sentence. I used "the others" for conciseness in the lead sentence. The main point of the lead sentence was to show that the paragraph was about support for the officer. Also there was no bias in using "the others" because they consisted of two liberal CNN commentators (Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon) and a conservative daytime talk show cohost (Meghan McCain). Furthermore, I thought that the comments of the mayor of the city where the incident took place and a prominent African-American congresswoman, who was also a former police chief, were more significant and relevant in this paragraph about support for the officer.
::Re "Likewise, the second paragraph lead again only mentions 3 more elected Democrats and doesn't address the comments of two of the people in the paragraph (neither mention 'systemic racism' or mentioned in the lead." — First off, of the eleven people mentioned in the two paragraphs, only one is a republican (a daytime talk show cohost). I thought that the main topic of the second paragraph came from the comments about the systemic racism in policing mentioned by the presidential press secretary and two U. S. Senators. The other comments in the paragraph were a retracted tweet by a professional basketball player and comment by a liberal daytime talk show cohost about shooting in the air.
::The rest of your comment consists of false attacks, similar to those in a previous section, that I will be ignoring although I consider them disruptive. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 13:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:::For the sake of brevity, I'm going to refer to the introductory statement as the intro...
:::For para 1, re:"I thought that the comments of the mayor...and a prominent African-American congresswoman...were more significant" Whether someone is "more significant" or not is definitely [[WP:OR]] and saying that her skin color makes her more important to mention is called racial bias. What if someone else said Megan McCain's comments should be highlighted because she's white? There's no need to assign any weight to any one comment over another unless you have a [[WP:RS]] that says otherwise. The statement should be neutral, not biased.
:::For para 2, re:"I thought that the main topic of the second paragraph came from the comments about the systemic racism". Of the 5 sentences, only 2 mention "systemic racism". You've (again) decided to highlight the part you felt were important (and again with a bias) over writing a sentence that serves as an introduction to the entire paragraph.
:::Better, more concise options:
:::#There was wide ranging political and popular support for officer Reardon's actions. (Neutral, accurately summarizes the paragraph's contents without bias/highlighting what you think is more important)
:::#However, there was also vocal opposition to the officer's actions as well. (Contrasts with the previous paragraph, but still links it. Neutral, accurately summarizes the ENTIRE paragraph's contents without bias/highlighting what you think is more important)
:::[[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
::::Re 1, it's not clear and goes beyond what's in the paragraph and is about the views of society in general. This is an example of a reason why various editors have called similar versions OR.
::::Re 2, the comments about systemic racism didn't explicitly criticize the officer's actions. Saying they did is OR.

::::The lead sentences I proposed don't have these OR problems, simply introduce the main topic of each paragraph, stick to what's in the paragraph, and are thus not biased. You've had your say, I responded, and It doesn't look like we're approaching agreement so I'll wait for other editors' comments. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 16:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::"it's not clear" What's not clear?
:::::"[it] is about the views of society in general" No it isn't. It states that there was a "wide range" and then mentions both political and popular views (which are both stated in the paragraph). It doesn't imply that this is a majority view or that this is the "correct" view, just a wide breadth and the fact that the opinions expressed are political and popular in origin. If you don't like them, modify them. Saying [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] isn't appropriate.
:::::"The lead sentences I proposed don't have these OR problems" I don't agree with your assessment about OR, but my point is that yours have bias and substantive problems.
:::::"It doesn't look like we're approaching agreement" you're not offering ANY compromise or alternatives, so that's impossible at this point. You either want intros phrased the way you want or none at all. Work with others; collaborate!
:::::Take mine and rephrase it. I'll take yours and rephrase it. This is how we'll reach a compromise. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

::::::Hell, I'll even go first
::::::"Nationwide, political opinions were mixed. Some voiced support for the officer's actions." The first sentence introduces both paragraphs and that there was not universal support/condemnation. The second shows that this is going to be about those that supported the officer's actions. While these are political opinions, we could easily remove "political"
::::::"However, others voiced concerns about the officer's actions and the implications on policing in general." This starts with "however" contrasting with the previous paragraph and introducing differing opinions and then follows it with a summary of what the paragraph will cover (3 sentences about critiquing the officer's actions and 2 about how this points to "systemic racism").
::::::How about that? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

== Lead sentence of a paragraph ==

[[Talk:WWGB|WWGB]], Your deletion of the lead sentence of the paragraph has been reverted by two editors. In your first edit summary you said that "no evidence that Psaki did not support the measures taken by police".[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1032399326&oldid=1032333042] The evidence was Psaki's statement. Here's the excerpt from the subject paragraph.
::Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary, told reporters that President Joe Biden had been briefed on the situation,[29] and that the shooting was tragic, underscored the systemic racism in policing, and made reference to higher rates of police violence experienced by Black and Latino communities and the particular vulnerabilities of children in foster care.[30
What did you see in Psaki's statement that supported the measures taken by police? [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 17:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bob K31416}} The absence of criticism is not the same as support. There is nothing in Psaki's statement that directly criticises Reardon's shooting of Bryant. This does not mean she supported the shooting, it is a neutral position on the actions of Reardon. Her comment about ''systemic racism in policing, higher rates of police violence experienced by Black and Latino communities and the particular vulnerabilities of children in foster care'' is not indicative of a lack of support for Reardon's actions, and should not be characterised as such. [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 02:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
::Here's the lead sentence that you deleted.
::::However, others did not support the measures taken by police.
::It looks like you are saying that Psaki did not support the measures taken by police, which agrees with the lead sentence. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 03:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
::Note that comments can either support or not support the police measures. If there is nothing in a comment that supports police measures, then the comment did not support the police measures. Would it help clarify for you if the lead sentence was changed to the following?
::::However, the comments of others did not show any support for the measures taken by police.
::[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 14:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

:::WWGB, I've asked for over a month for compromise or any alternatives. Your response has been silence and undoing of any attempt to make an introductory statement. I think it's pretty clear that Psaki said "the shooting...underscored the systemic racism in policing". She is specifically addressing this shooting. Unless you think she supports systemic racism in policing, the implication is pretty clear. If you contend that she isn't addressing this shooting in particular, then we should just remove her quote altogether (it can't be both). Likewise, if you have a better option other than "no, not that", let's hear it.
:::Bob K31416, thank you. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 22:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

==Reference kerfuffle about Behar==
Let's talk about the references used here. They include the ACTUAL video in one of them and commentary from multiple angles (political and professional). A primary reference is insufficient alone when secondary sources are available. I prefer primary references are included where possible, but not at the exclusion of secondary references. Your thoughts? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:The primary source is fine. Police Mag is, at best, a questionable source and clearly a [[WP:BIASED|biased source]] in this instance - and a blog from a biased source seems completely unnecessary. The Washington Times is a marginal, partisan source which should not be used for contentious claims or material about living people. As for FOX News, it, again, is at best a questionable source with regards to political content, and is unnecessary. Multiple editors have rejected them, and edit-warring to get your way is disruptive. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} Nothing about this statement is contentious in any way (if it is, please say what it is that is contentious, otherwise your objection is moot). She said it; the WT link actually shows a clip of the video. Ergo, WT and FN are appropriate. While the last one is a blog, Doug Wylie is an expert on the subject of training and use of force for police. This isn't a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination; it is documentation of a TV program and what was said; you're misusing BLP to justify removal. That's what these sources back up. It's really that simple. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:::What is your evidence that Doug Wylie is an "expert" on this topic? What are his academic credentials and work experiences? He appears to be a writer and editor of content for explicitly pro-law enforcement websites. That does not make someone an "expert" any more than someone who writes for ''Jacobin'' is an expert on economics.
:::You don't get to ramrod whatever you want into the article - the [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] for inclusion of content lies on the person proposing to use a source or include a fact. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 16:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:::#You don't need to inflame the discussion with remarks like this:
:::#:"You don't get to ramrod whatever you want into the article" - fails to assume good faith. Perhaps I just disagree with your assessment.
:::#:"the [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] for inclusion of content lies on the person proposing to use a source or include a fact." The facts presented don't seem to be in question in the slightest.
:::#:"Police Mag appears to be an '''industry mouthpiece''', not an independent reliable source." They are not an "industry mouthpiece", but you don't have to be so negative/condescending. They would probably best be described as a trade publication. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 19:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:::#He is indeed an editor for a law-enforcement magazine, but I wouldn't call it "pro-law enforcement". He's written plenty of articles that are critical of police as well. His [https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-wyllie-7a70741/ primary focus is training]. But if you don't like that source, we can use others as well. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
{{od}}
The fact that 4 separate editors have made 15 edits/reverts on this article over this exact issue over the prior 72 hours, and the resulting fights [[WP:ANI#Rogue Admin?|caused two editor blocks]], is sufficient to call this matter "contentious". [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 17:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:And those blocks were a) not pertaining to this discussion and b) overturned. You are mistaking a disagreement for a "fight". The phrase itself is not contentious. If it is, please explain why. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}
If {{u|Buffs}}' point is that it's unsafe and stupid to shoot in the air or to shoot a warning shot, then we get it. That point doesn't need to be driven home by a [[WP:REFBOMB|slew of citations without any text to make that point]]. (And such a point doesn't belong in ''this'' article.) It was one person's utterance, Behar's. If one thinks she needs to be excoriated over it, then stick it in ''her'' article, but it's tangential to ''this'' article and inserting it would be [[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE WEIGHT]].

Let's look at this. The text in the wiki article is {{tq|Liberal commentator Joy Behar stated that the police should have shot the air and there is "something wrong if the only solution to someone potentially killing another human is to use deadly force."}} However, if you watch the video seen in the Law Enforcement Today article<ref name=lawenforcementtoday />, you'll see that Behar was proposing ''several other'' ideas too, not just 'shoot in the air'. She mentioned in a stream of ideas: Taser, shoot in leg, shoot them in the [inaudible], stop them somehow, but if the only solution is to kill a teenager, there's something wrong with this, with the way these things are being conducted, even if the cop ''had'' to do it there's something wrong with it ... kids still keep getting shot." So to focus solely on the one single suggestion of 'shoot in the air' is [[WP:WEIGHT|undue weight]]. That is the reason I removed the text content (with the Daily Wire citation) in the first place. The entire comment about Behar is undue for this article, as is the earlier text in the article about Megan McCain. I mean, really, who cares what they "talk about" on The View?

I get it that the law enforcement people would want to press home the issue that 'we don't fire warning shots' and 'it's dangerous to shoot in the air', but that's ''their'' advocacy, and a necessary refocus point for society after heavy emotional coverage of a death involving a law enforcement officer. But that's not how it's being presented here in this article. It seems more of a [[WP:COATRACK|COATRACK]] to name-drop McCain and Behar. Like I already said, who cares what is said on The View. The View is ''all'' opinion and Wikipedia discourages using opinion or being a [[WP:NOTNEWS|news service]]. That there was a media firestorm after Behar's statement was more an issue about law enforcement shootings and less about ''who'' said the comment (in this case Behar). Of course ''they'' have to mention Behar. But do we... here in this article? [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

:This is the first time you have ''ever'' brought up [[WP:UNDUE]], so [[Historical negationism|let's not pretend that's the reason you removed it]]. You repeatedly cited [[WP:RS]]/[[WP:GUNREL]] and it's related pages. [[Moving the goalposts|Once sources weren't an issue, you then tried something else]]. Behar's statement was ''directly'' referencing this shooting, not "more an issue about law enforcement shootings".

:If you want to include the entire quote, I'm completely fine with that, but the quote/summary isn't inaccurate even if she said more. It isn't that "we don't fire warning shots" or "it's dangerous" it's a ''felony''. That's not advocacy. That's not just department policy. That's just plain following the law.

:There was indeed a media firestorm over it and, if you'll read above, these were the views chosen by the community to represent that firestorm. It's hardly a [[WP:COATRACK]]. If you want to change those and cite someone else, fine, let's talk about it. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

::{{Reply|Buffs}} UNDUE ''is'' the reason I removed the content (along with the dailywire cite) in the first place. Whether or not I mentioned it before on ''this'' article is irrelevant, especially since you had me busy writing these dang treatises on the ''other'' articles where you were reverting my work. [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 20:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:::You chose to write small dissertations. That's on you. If [[WP:UNDUE]] is the primary reason, it's ''very'' odd because you never voiced it, so pardon me for being more than a little skeptical. You were clearly much too busy reverting my work <!--statement made for illustrative purposes only...I do not actually believe this statement-->(see how hollow that argument sounds? [[WP:OWN|No one "owns" the work on Wikipedia]]. This is one the components of exhibiting a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality). [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

::::{{Reply|Buffs}} Your continued [[WP:UNCIVIL|incivility]] is [[WP:DISRUPTIVE|disruptive]] and is not helping resolve the matter about citations in this article. Stick to the issues. [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 23:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::Discussion, by definition, is neither uncivil nor disruptive. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 06:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

{{od}}Please continue further discussion [[#beharcontinued|in the section below]]. [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 23:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

===List of citations===
This is a chronological list of the additions/offerings of citations, with some notes on each. (Apologies if I've missed any. And this summary isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of edits and reverts.)

Platonk removed the original citation:
* Daily Wire<ref name=dailywire>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dailywire.com/news/cuomo-lemon-double-down-in-defense-of-officer-who-shot-makhia-bryant|title=Cuomo, Lemon Double Down In Defense Of Officer Who Shot Ma’Khia Bryant|website=The Daily Wire}}</ref> — This source is considered [[WP:GUNREL|generally unreliable]] per [[WP:RSP|RSP]].

Buffs reverts, and adds 8 more:
* Daily Wire<ref name=dailywire />, restored in revert

* Fox News 1<ref name=foxnews1>{{Cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/the-view-cnn-don-lemon-joy-behar-sunny-hostin-makhia-bryant-shooting|title='The View' pushes back against CNN's Don Lemon over Ma'Khia Bryant shooting: He's 'wrong about this'|first=Joseph|last=Wulfsohn|date=April 22, 2021|website=Fox News}}</ref> — Per RSP, "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims". This link has 'behar' in the URL and is used elsewhere in the article in the CITEBOMB after the Cuomo and Lemon mention.

* Washington Examiner<ref name=washingtonexaminer>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/the-view-joy-behar-police-warning-shots-immediately-crushed|title=Fraternal Order of Police tells Joy Behar to &#39;have the decency to educate yourself&#39; before weighing in on police-involved shootings|date=April 26, 2021|website=Washington Examiner}}</ref> — Per RSP, "there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims", and "statements from this publication should be attributed".

* Law Enforcement Today<ref name=lawenforcementtoday>{{Cite web|url=https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/the-view-host-shoot-the-gun-in-the-air-as-a-warning/|title='The View' host on what police should do to stop would-be killers: “Shoot the gun in the air as a warning”|date=April 23, 2021|website=Law Enforcement Today}}</ref> — This is an editorial which cites Breitbart News (blacklisted on Wikipedia) and Twitter posts. They do provide a video which includes the clip from The View of Behar talking, but

* Washington Times article<ref name=washingtontimes>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/joy-behar-columbus-cop-should-have-fired-gun-in-th/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422194437/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/joy-behar-columbus-cop-should-have-fired-gun-in-th/|archive-date=April 22, 2021|date=April 22, 2021|title=Joy Behar: Columbus cop should have fired gun 'in the air as a warning'|first=Jessica|last=Chasmar|website=The Washington Times}}</ref>, mobile device version. Note: This article appears 16 times in the Wayback Machine over 9 days in April of this year and now the content is deleted. [https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/joy-behar-columbus-cop-should-have-fired-gun-in-th/] Could it be that they retracted the article? — Per RSP, "it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims" and "statements from this publication should be attributed".

* Fox News 2<ref name=foxnews2>{{Cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/behar-columbus-bryant-gun-air|title=Joy Behar: Columbus police officer who shot Ma'Khia Bryant could have just shot 'the gun in the air'|first=Cortney|last=O'Brien|date=April 22, 2021|website=Fox News}}</ref> — Per RSP, "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims".

* Fox News 3<ref name=foxnews3>{{Cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/fraternal-order-of-police-vp-blasts-joy-behars-comments-about-policing-not-grounded-in-any-facts|title=Fraternal Order of Police VP blasts Joy Behar's comments about policing: 'not grounded in any facts'|first=Fox News|last=Staff|date=April 23, 2021|website=Fox News}}</ref> — Per RSP, "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims".

* The Hill<ref name=thehill>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/550088-the-difficult-realities-of-lethal-force|title=The difficult realities of lethal force|first=Anjelica|last=Tan|date=April 24, 2021|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]}}</ref> — Per RSP, generally reliable. However, this article is about lethal force and only mentions Behar in passing in a single sentence. Also this is in The Hills' OPINION section.

* Police Mag<ref name=policemag>{{Cite web|url=https://www.policemag.com/604791/talking-about-warning-shots|title=Talking About Warning Shots|first=Doug Wyllie •|last=Bookmark +|website=www.policemag.com}}</ref> — Article on 'warning shots' sarcastically mentions Behar in passing. However, the statement made in the article doesn't support the text offered in this article (when and how was it said, for example).

Buffs adds primary source reference (no link):
*The View<ref name=theview>''[[The View]]'', Apr 22, 2021, ABC</ref> (primary source)
* reinserts Washington Examiner, Law Enforcement Today, Washington Times, Fox News 2, The Hill, Police Mag

Buffs reverts to:
* The View, Washington Times, Fox News 2, Police Mag

Current version: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&oldid=1044894190]
* The View


I think that's all of them. [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:Probably because it is not published in a reliable source. What you think you hear on a video is original research. [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 08:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
:: https://news.yahoo.com/footage-columbus-shooting-released-neighbor-233941158.html [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}
:: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/04/23/neighbor-explains-video-of-teen-yelling-im-gonna-stab-the-fk-out-of-you-before-being-shot-1064011/ [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/im-gonna-stab-the-fck-out-of-you-garage-camera-captures-new-video-in-makhia-bryant-shooting/ [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:: https://www.dailywire.com/news/makhia-bryants-life-mattered-black-lives-matter-release-statement-say-another-black-life-stolen [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-footage-of-columbus-shooting-released-from-neighbors-security-camera/ [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:: https://heavy.com/news/makhia-bryant-body-cam-video/ [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:: https://theohiostar.com/2021/04/27/blm-doesnt-mention-attempted-stabbing-on-official-page-about-police-shooting-of-ohio-girl/ [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/52712b49-9d11-4d9d-905a-f156270f4ca5/Interview-with-Jhamia-Towler.aspx [[User:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|Tondelleo Schwarzkopf]] ([[User talk:Tondelleo Schwarzkopf|talk]]) 22:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
[https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/makhia-bryant-lunges-at-women-in-shooting-footage-released-by-neighbour/news-story/8d2274c637b3983d750227fc2e2845dc This is a RS.] [https://web.archive.org/web/20210424051351/https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/makhia-bryant-lunges-at-women-in-shooting-footage-released-by-neighbour/news-story/8d2274c637b3983d750227fc2e2845dc Archived version.] Added to article. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 16:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


==Please do not add non existent categories to this article==
{{Anchor|beharcontinued}}
:Yeah...you kinda left out that the DailyWire article was a citation for <s>5</s> 4 months before you removed it... [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Per [[WP:CatDD]]. [[User:UnitedStatesian|UnitedStatesian]] ([[User talk:UnitedStatesian|talk]]) 18:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


==Self defense==
::{{Reply|Buffs}} 'Length of time' is irrelevant. I've cleaned up articles with blatant violations of wiki guidelines that have remained for over 15 years and dozens of editors didn't fix it before I did. Per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]], no editor is ''required'' to evaluate whole articles, check all citations, and fix someone else's bad edits. Five months, you say? Maybe I should see if it was you who inserted dailywire in the first place. Oh my! Yes, it was Buffs. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=1023151559 diff] and [https://ibb.co/nkZy4vt screenshot from Who Wrote That]. [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 20:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Why was the category "Self defense" added? Reardon shot Bryant while defending Bonner, not himself. [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 01:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
:::"Per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]], no editor is ''required'' to evaluate whole articles" - is a straw man argument. I never said you had to evaluate whole articles
::::Length of time is not relevant as a barrier to make changes, per se. However, length of time ''is'' a factor for [[WP:BRD]]. Per that technique (which was cited in the process), you made a bold change. I objected. At that point we could/should have discussed. Likewise, [[WP:BRD]] states: "when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion". The idea that the addition of sources is somehow nefarious/improper is absurd; it's standard practice. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::Not so. The addition of a whole string of citations (9 in this case) to support a single sentence is covered under [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill]]. tldr={{tq|"When citing material in an article, it is better to cite a couple of great sources than a stack of decent or sub-par ones."}} [[User:Platonk|Platonk]] ([[User talk:Platonk|talk]]) 23:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1044888585&oldid=1044421897 Which is why I pared it down to 4] as requested...and you are continuing to ignore it. You wrote this whole list of sources with editorial comments that don't apply ''after'' I removed some of them. You're acting as if those sources still exist. They don't. Your complaint above is moot.
::::::So far, you have cited
::::::*[[WP:GUNREL]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1044379338&oldid=1044031506 to remove both the neutrally worded statements/quotes ''and'' the sources] rather than [[Wikipedia:Citation_needed#When_to_use_this_tag|replacing the sources with a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag]] or [[WP:SOFIXIT|replacing it yourself]]
::::::*[[WP:ANI]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1044899468&oldid=1044898508 to claim the words used (not the sources and not specifically the content cited) are contentious] without describing how it is so and misleadingly using that discussion as criteria to cite [[WP:BIASED]]. In fact, the ANI thread deals with behavior on my talk page, not this article (and certainly not the content of the statement(s) in question).
::::::*[[WP:CIVIL]] to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1044954414&oldid=1044935298 reference discussion/any dissent from your opinions/any criticism of points you discussed as uncivil]
::::::*[[WP:REFBOMB]] citing that I added a "slew of citations without any text to make that point" but simultaneously omitting, by your own admission, that one of the sources includes a link to the specific video clip (and was one reason I included it)
::::::*[[WP:VOLUNTEER]] as an excuse to violate [[WP:BRD]]
::::::*[[WP:NOTNEWS]] when the whole point of these few sentences is to cite the media coverage (3 is NOT hyperextensive).
::::::*and most recently [[WP:UNDUE]], which you'd never brought up prior nor have you explained why it applies. I've explained that we (not just I) decided to add it as it was indicative/representative of the media firestorm that ensued. You've never once said that was incorrect or explained how that statement is inaccurate in any way. You implied that it wasn't notable, when, in fact, it was typical of the media reactions.
::::::*and repeatedly describing a quote of a person as a "contentious claim" (see numerous references in your list of sources above). A quote/accurate summary is not a "contentious claim". Repeatedly describing it as such doesn't make it so and [[WP:GASLIGHT|is not appropriate behavior]]
::::::*and repeatedly outdenting for no apparent reason [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1044954414&oldid=1044935298] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&diff=prev&oldid=1044917242] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1044899468&oldid=1044898508]
::::::*and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1044954414&oldid=1044935298 trying to stop discussion with others to force the discussion to be with you]. Just because someone wants to continue another discussion [[WP:OWN|doesn't mean you have the right to try and shut it down]]
::::::*and selectively editing the above list of citations/chronology and leaving out pertinent details
::::::And every time I point out how you're incorrect, [[Moving the goalposts|you ignore that your point is invalid and simply move on to a different perceived flaw]] without addressing the flaws I pointed out in what you previously brought up. At this point, it seems pretty clear this falls under [[WP:TE]] and I'm going to ask you to stop.
::::::[[WP:DDE|Propose an alternative if you don't like what I proposed]]. [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] is a nonstarter. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 06:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


:@[[User:WWGB|WWGB]], would you prefer [[:Category:Defensive gun use|Category:Defensive gun use]]? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
== Black or African-American ==
I opened up this section for editors to discuss whether to use black or African-American in two sentences [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1045274890&oldid=1045270762]. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 22:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


== Quality Scale ==
:We need to take care, as not all Blacks are African American. Many Blacks have Caribbean ancestry. In this case, we should follow sources, which describe her as Black. [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 00:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


This article is more or less complete, I believe the rating should be at least increased to C. What do we all think on this? [[User:Wikiexplorationandhelping|Wikiexplorationandhelping]] ([[User talk:Wikiexplorationandhelping|talk]]) 13:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
::I strongly suspect the person making these edits is doing so simply to annoy/entrap me/use to say I'm edit warring ("brand new" IP account suddenly starts quoting policy = suspicious). I concur with WWGB. The sources call her black and she should be described as the sources do. If there is a source/policy that states otherwise, cite it. Otherwise I'll revert in 24 hours. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


:@[[User:Wikiexplorationandhelping|Wikiexplorationandhelping]], the [[Wikipedia:ORES]] system estimates it to be B-class. (You can access ORES ratings through [[User:Evad37/rater]].) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:::Additional note: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant/Archive_1 this has been brought up before] [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] thanks, I'll upgrade it. Appreciate the advice on [[Wikipedia:ORES|ORES]]. -- [[User:Wikiexplorationandhelping|Wikiexplorationandhelping]] ([[User talk:Wikiexplorationandhelping|talk]]) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:Here are some sources that use Black:
:::ORES isn't perfect, but it's sometimes handy to have an "objective" measurement when you aren't sure. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
::Ma’Khia Bryant, a Black teenager [https://apnews.com/article/columbus-ohio-police-shooting-girl-bd579b69e19abf5a93722986ee78c957] Associated Press
::Black teen [https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/21/us/ohio-columbus-police-shooting-15-year-old/index.html] CNN
::Black teenage girl [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ohio-police-kill-teenaged-black-girl-say-media-family-2021-04-21/] Reuters
::Black teenage girl [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/20/columbus-police-shooting-16-year-old/] Washington Post


== The picture for the entry needs to be changed ==
:I couldn't find any sources that use African-American. I think Black should be used. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
::I'm going to be bold and revert. If anyone disagrees, they are welcome to revert (no malice thought of) and discuss further here. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


There is no reason to show a graphic image of Ma'Khia defending herself for the photo and I can't think of many entries on Wikipedia where a violent occurrence is put front and certain like that through imagery. There are plenty of neutral photos available of her that can replace the infobox photo. [[User:Kianaco22|Kianaco22]] ([[User talk:Kianaco22|talk]]) 01:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
===Capitalized "Black" or uncapitalized "black"===
:Many articles have graphic images in the infobox. See, for example:
Just an MoS note, current MOSCAPS consensus is to not capitalize any racial descriptors that aren't already natural proper nouns, see [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 32#Proposed update to MOSCAPS regarding racial terms]]. No comment on which descriptor to use here. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 22:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
*[[Murder of George Floyd]]
:From [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Peoples_and_their_languages]],
*[[Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém]]
::"[[Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity|Ethno-racial]] '[[Color terminology for race|color labels]]' may be given capitalized ([[Black people|{{xtn|Black}}]] and [[White people|{{xtn|White}}]]) or lower-case ({{xtn|black}} and {{xtn|white}});..."
*[[Execution by shooting]].
:[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 00:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is not censored. [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 05:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::I, personally, find such capitalization mildly disruptive when I'm reading, because it comes off as unnecessarily shouty (especially if only one is capitalized, it comes off as trying to prove... well something, just not important enough to simply spit it out I guess), but it's not that big a deal to me. I've been more focused on other MoS and [[WP:YOUDONTSAY|Principle of Some Astonishment]] copyediting. (Also wondering when that got inserted, because it rather clearly goes against the rather clear consensus from the discussion I linked above, but that's another matter) [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 03:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
:::It was added with this diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FCapital_letters&type=revision&diff=1015820535&oldid=1015071123] and supported by this RFC: [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_33#RFC:_representation_of_consensus_in_current_guideline]]. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 04:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Lowercase "black" should be used. "Black" seems to be used too often to push a political agenda. No other such descriptor is capitalized in that manner (i.e. white...except in white supremacy contexts). As such, I think it should be lowercase...by my count, that's 2v1. Anyone else? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 14:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::The four sources that I provided above in the main section describe Bryant using capitalized "Black". Would you care to provide sources that describe Bryant using uncapitalized "black"? [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::This isn't a matter of whether sources specifically discussing a certain topic capitalize it or not, it is a matter of [[MOS:RETAIN]]. Looking through the article's history, the uncapitalized "black" was the longstanding version, so it should not be changed. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Volteer1|Volteer1]] ([[User talk:Volteer1|talk]]) 16:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::[[MOS:RETAIN]] pertains to varieties of English and isn't relevant here, except possibly to support the use of capitalized "Black". From [[MOS:RETAIN]], "When an English variety's [[WP:MOS#Consistency within articles|consistent usage]] has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." From the link "[[WP:MOS#Consistency within articles|consistent usage]]" in that excerpt, "Within a given article the conventions of one particular variety of English should be followed consistently." [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 20:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::To the contrary, this is a VERY American view on the subject (but is largely isolated to the political left). [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|Bob K31416}} if you want, [[MOS:VAR]] is more broad, and says more or less the same thing. The established style was lowercase, as you can see in the page history: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&oldid=1036614313] You changed it two days ago, without consensus: [[Special:Diff/1045505608]]. There is no reason to do this. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Volteer1|Volteer1]] ([[User talk:Volteer1|talk]]) 03:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::[[User:Volteer1|Volteer1]], I've been giving the reason in this section, which is that "Black" (capitalized) is used in the sources to describe Ma'Khia Bryant. For example,
::::::::::Ma’Khia Bryant, a Black teenager [https://apnews.com/article/columbus-ohio-police-shooting-girl-bd579b69e19abf5a93722986ee78c957] Associated Press
::::::::::shooting of Black teen [https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/21/us/ohio-columbus-police-shooting-15-year-old/index.html] CNN
::::::::::kill Black teenage girl [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ohio-police-kill-teenaged-black-girl-say-media-family-2021-04-21/] Reuters
::::::::::shoot Black teenage girl [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/20/columbus-police-shooting-16-year-old/] Washington Post
:::::::::[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 13:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::This is irrelevant, "Black" and "black" mean the same thing, and both styles are acceptable. It is like finding a bunch of sources talking about this incident that report the date it occurred as "20 April" instead of "April 20" and repeatedly changing the date format to one that appears in the sources you have found. We don't need sources to tell us if Ma'Khia Bryant specifically is "Black" or "black" any more than we need sources to tell us if this event specifically occurred on "20 April" or "April 20". &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Volteer1|Volteer1]] ([[User talk:Volteer1|talk]]) 14:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's what I thought when I originally replaced "African-American" with "black" in July.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1035129849&oldid=1034950403] I wasn't aware of an issue between "black" and Black". In the discussion previous to this one about "African-American", I became aware that all the sources I found used capitalized "Black". So I simply used "Black" too. From what you say, "black" or "Black doesn't matter to you, so I presume your efforts here are to have the right process. I won't be reverting your edit without consensus and I'll wait to see if there is consensus to change to "Black", which is what the sources use for describing Ma'Khia Bryant. BTW, I was curious what the issue was about so I googled: [https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=uncapitalized+black+vs+capitalized+Black+when+describing+African-Americans&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 uncapitalized black vs capitalized Black when describing African-Americans], in case anyone is interested. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 16:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::They are both acceptable as long as there is consistency in the article. Trying to gain a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] by arguing that the existing community consensus in the manual of style is "push[ing] a political agenda" does not override it. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Volteer1|Volteer1]] ([[User talk:Volteer1|talk]]) 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::I was not arguing that the MOS is pushing a political agenda; if we choose to do so as a whole, then it is what it is. Right now, there is not a consensus. I'm arguing that pushing for capitalization is pushing a political agenda. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Someone could just as well argue that you're pushing a political agenda. I don't think either argument is productive. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 20:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::You're the one arguing for the change. Saying "no" and sticking with status quo is appropriate. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I've provided an argument based on reliable sources, which is the same argument we used together to change from African-American. Back then you wrote, "The sources call her black and she should be described as the sources do."[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKilling_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&type=revision&diff=1045422816&oldid=1045369391] Well, the sources call her "Black" (capitalized) and she should be described as the sources do. [[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 21:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::You've made your point. Let's see if others agree/disagree. Right now, it's still 2v1. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 22:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:14, 15 July 2024

I'm gonna stab the f*ck out of you b*tch

[edit]

Why is this not mentioned in the article?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83m3-c0oOnk
https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFreakouts/comments/mwcyn7/in_new_video_makhia_bryant_can_be_heard_screaming/

Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because it is not published in a reliable source. What you think you hear on a video is original research. WWGB (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://news.yahoo.com/footage-columbus-shooting-released-neighbor-233941158.html Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/04/23/neighbor-explains-video-of-teen-yelling-im-gonna-stab-the-fk-out-of-you-before-being-shot-1064011/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/im-gonna-stab-the-fck-out-of-you-garage-camera-captures-new-video-in-makhia-bryant-shooting/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dailywire.com/news/makhia-bryants-life-mattered-black-lives-matter-release-statement-say-another-black-life-stolen Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-footage-of-columbus-shooting-released-from-neighbors-security-camera/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://heavy.com/news/makhia-bryant-body-cam-video/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://theohiostar.com/2021/04/27/blm-doesnt-mention-attempted-stabbing-on-official-page-about-police-shooting-of-ohio-girl/ Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/52712b49-9d11-4d9d-905a-f156270f4ca5/Interview-with-Jhamia-Towler.aspx Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a RS. Archived version. Added to article. -- Valjean (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add non existent categories to this article

[edit]

Per WP:CatDD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Self defense

[edit]

Why was the category "Self defense" added? Reardon shot Bryant while defending Bonner, not himself. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB, would you prefer Category:Defensive gun use? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Scale

[edit]

This article is more or less complete, I believe the rating should be at least increased to C. What do we all think on this? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiexplorationandhelping, the Wikipedia:ORES system estimates it to be B-class. (You can access ORES ratings through User:Evad37/rater.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing thanks, I'll upgrade it. Appreciate the advice on ORES. -- Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ORES isn't perfect, but it's sometimes handy to have an "objective" measurement when you aren't sure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The picture for the entry needs to be changed

[edit]

There is no reason to show a graphic image of Ma'Khia defending herself for the photo and I can't think of many entries on Wikipedia where a violent occurrence is put front and certain like that through imagery. There are plenty of neutral photos available of her that can replace the infobox photo. Kianaco22 (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles have graphic images in the infobox. See, for example:
Wikipedia is not censored. WWGB (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Ma%27Khia_Bryant&oldid=1234710921"