Talk:Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Context

Basic information to add to this article: the context in which this event occurred (including who the others besides Bryant were, and what they were doing on the property). Also, didn't a male try to kick the girl who Bryant had pushed to the ground in the head? The current version of the article doesn't even say in which part of Columbus this incident took place, or on whose property it occurred. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of that info has been updated. The part about the guy appearing to kick the woman on the ground doesn't seem that important in the overall context. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not important enough for the lead, but it should be mentioned in the article because it's partly shown in the video & is a significant part of what happened as police arrived at the scene. Jim Michael (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Knife

She was holding a knife when she was shot. This information must be in the lead as it was a key factor in the shooting. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, obviously, it's a pretty central detail. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There are sources, e.g. CNN, that are careful to not say that, and adding details that imply that she may have been, e.g. CBS, simply because a knife was found next to her, particularly in the lead, and suggesting in an edit summary that this is "common sense" all seems to be excessive detail for the lead as well as possible original research. The news is still breaking, the event is under investigation, and we also have to abide by WP:NPOV, so especially right now, it appears that caution is especially warranted. A straightforward lead, with additional detail in the body of the article that attributes and qualifies the information currently available, seems most appropriate at this time. It does not appear to be appropriate to independently interpret body camera footage nor to write with greater certainty than multiple independent and reliable sources in any part of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the language right now is a lot better than it was earlier today, when the lead said "Bryant was attempting to stab two women". That seemed incautious and afoul of BLP policies (which still apply to the recently deceased) as inferring intent. I think we need to stay cautious. However, the question of whether or not Bryant was armed is central to understanding this event, as that information is necessary to understanding how and why things unfolded. I think her being armed is necessary for the lead. Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

From that CNN article you linked: a Black teen who charged two females with a knife., or the second source used in the article: [1] Bodycam footage released by police showed the teen was confronting another girl and wielding the knife as shots were fired. We are not doing our own original research and trying to interpret the video ourselves here, that would be you in this case. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The CNN article, outside of the image caption quoted above, uses more cautious language in the body of the article, e.g. " An officer arrived at the scene and opened fire when the girl appeared to attempt to stab a second woman." and "The video shows a teen quickly move toward another girl with what appears to be a knife, and the girl falls to the ground. The officer yells, "Hey, hey, hey, hey. Get down!" before she appears to lunge at a second girl with the knife, according to the video." While that USAToday article is less cautious, it appears the caution by outlets such as CNN, CBS, etc is the majority approach. It may also be helpful to add somewhere in the article the commentary from news sources, e.g. USAToday/Yahoo about the "unusual decision by the city and police" to release the bodycam footage; additional commentary may become available that further explores this issue. Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting the image caption, I was quoting the first line of the article. If CNN somewhere says "X is true" and later in the article says "it appears that X is true", we can use that as a source for X. Here's more sources that describe it as a matter of fact: Associated Press: [2] a Black teenager who charged at two people with a knife, Reuters: [3] Black teenage girl they confronted as she lunged at two people with a knife, etc. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As a side note to my point above, the AP states, "Officials with the Columbus Division of Police had released initial footage of the shooting Tuesday night just hours after it happened, which was a departure from protocol..." and as to your point about Reuters, it appears to clarify with an attribution: "The police chief said the video, which he said shows Bryant trying to stab the two other people..." So I continue to think that attention to WP:NPOV is needed, especially for an article like this, and that given the discrepancies in how this is being reported, an WP:IMPARTIAL tone is needed, e.g. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I must say I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. That it was a departure from protocol to release the bodycam footage that early invalidates AP's claims how exactly? And again with Reuters, describing what the police chief said invalidates their earlier claims how exactly? The tone is neutral – it describes (what reliable sources attest to be) facts flatly in wikivoice. I really don't understand what you mean. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. The departure from protocol in releasing the bodycam footage, and the POV of the police chief could help provide encyclopedic context, including because it appears there are discrepancies in how the event is being reported; excluding cautious sources, such as CNN and CBS, seems potentially problematic per WP:NPOV. When there are several POV of the event being reported, the WP:NPOV policy seems to urge caution, and for us to be careful to not select one POV and give it prominence over other POV, especially in the lead. Beccaynr (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Most sources state matter-of-factly that she was charging with a knife. Anyone can see the footage for themselves as well. To pick out phrasings from certain sources to water this down is deeply POV. See also: WP:FALSEBALANCE. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Deliberately misleading article as imbalanced on race

The article is deliberately misleading by identify the race of the dead attacker but not of her intended victims nor the police officers involved.

As well, the article beings in political subjects that are not connected to the death.

(A lesser matter is that I question the term 'African-American, there are other origins of black-skinned people in the USA such as South Pacific islands.)

While the general subject is appropriate for Wikipedia which lists many individual persons who were newsworthy, it is irresponsibly written. Thus it should either be rewritten to proper journalistic standards or deleted.

RationalKeith (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off what is published in reliable sources, and reliable sources find her race to be important enough to mention. I also don't think reliable sources report much (or at all?) on the race of the officer, so we don't either. If you think this is biased/misleading/imbalanced/etc that would be on news media and not on us; our neutral point of view guidelines require us to characterize things as reliable sources do. You're kind of shooting the messenger here. As a side note I think I also support the term "black" because that's what sources called her, but I'm not particularly fussed. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a good balance between deleting and keeping the article would be to rename it from "Killing of..." to "Police involved shooting of..." which would be a perfectly neutral title but allow the article to survive given the newsworthiness and its close association to the Officer Chauvin trial. What say everyone? Reply with either "leave the same" or "change to Police involved" ‑‑mrbill66 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No. See the flowchart at WP:DEATHS. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with (talk that the "killing of" is not accurate to describe a police-involved shooting in which both the mayor and police chief and evidence released show that the events were a police response to an attempted murder in progress. The current headline is deliberately inciting violence. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Striking sock comment –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No one here is "deliberately inciting violence." Please keep personal attacks to youself. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman There have been 3 days of riots and protests in Columbus about the alleged accusation that the white police officer "killed" an "unarmed" black 16 year old girl. Wikipedia is the most popular source of information for the general public so using the phrase "killing" of an accused attempted murderer does not fit the FBI use of OIS. The definition of "personal attack" means I would be deliberately writing something that is directed on the personal life of another. That does not fit in this situation. Truthfactsmatter (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Striking sock comment –dlthewave ☎ 15:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Lives Matter

A user has now violated 3RR to remove this content from the article, calling it undue "trivial": "Following Bryant's killing, a police officer at the scene shouted "Blue Lives Matter" to bystanders. Another officer was seen wearing a Blue Lives Matter face mask."

References

Bringing to the talk page for further discussion, as I initially advised them to do. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a relevant valid addition. I tried to restore it previously but someone beat me to it. Removers comment was that Blue Lives Matter was common belief among belief, I was going to say that might be true, but police shouting it after a police killing isn't something common at all. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:3RR - it was not broken. Please see WP:ONUS as it is on you to gain consensus for inclusion (The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.). Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my belief. I didn't say it was "undue" as you claim I did. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6]. And I was paraphrasing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think 'paraphrasing' is, but it certainly doesn't mean putting words in others' mouths. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Struck and moved on. Why did you go past 3RR? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read WP:3RR? It clearly states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. I performed three. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyhow, consensus is against you, so please dont remove again. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this verifiable, though? If it is it warrants inclusion, but I'm not at all sure that it is. It is for now breaking news from less reliable sources. For instance, Snopes (entry at RSP): [7] calls the claim "unproven": One reputable news outlet reported that a police officer at the scene of Bryant's death donned a "blue lives matter" face mask, and a bystander's Facebook Live video recorded someone using the phrase, but it was unclear who said it If a preponderance of reliable sources report this to be a fact (note that the WaPo source didn't actually claim the officer said "blue lives matter) then it should be included, but until then? No. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. How about "Allegedly"? Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Copying and pasting it as above and inserting "allegedly" is probably not good enough (who's alleging it?), especially given it's about living people. Although I feel a bit uncomfortable about it, we could try to summarize something like "social media users have said x and some sources have picked up on that and agreed, though fact checkers say it is still unproven". Given it's still breaking news though I think I'd prefer to wait until we find out what's actually true (remember, it is not our job to be news), but it's probably not the end of the world if it was included as e.g. Snopes describes it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Support inclusion - the incident has been reported by multiple RSs, which include video of the incident. If some RSs are couching the incident by saying "it's unclear who said it," then we should use similar phrasing in the article. Since multiple RSs have deemed this significant enough to report, I see no reason for its omission. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 23:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content on Reardon

Mattplaysthedrums, I do not understand this revert [8] either; perhaps it would be better for you to clarify your reasoning here. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

A mistake on my part. Apologises. Mattplaysthedrums (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Where was Bryant shot?

This is probably a stupid question, but does anyone know where she was shot and has a source on it? I can't find anything explicitly stating it. I can't really tell from the bodycam video, and I wouldn't want to go against WP:NOR. I think it would be relevant to include. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Reardon and Bryant Biography?

My details giving the background of Nicholas Reardon were deleted because they are not relevant to the shooting. Should we include a Reardon and Bryant biography in the People Involved section, or does it go against WP:ROC? I am asking because George Floyd and Derek Chauvin have biographies. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WWGB, as you were the user to remove this, perhaps you would like to explain your reasoning to all here. Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I was not the first editor to revert that stuff. That was done with this edit. The contested material was then re-added by the author which was against WP:BRD. I came along about four hours later and removed it again. My reasoning was made clear in the edit summary, which was "this is NOT a Reardon biography, none of this is relevant to the shooting". I stand by that argument. What has the cop being a high school wrestler got to do with the shooting? WWGB (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That editor you're referring to admitted here that his edit was made in error. This is typical background information that exists at most similar pages; I'm sure you'd find it preferable to the alternative of spinning it out into another page altogether. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I do not find it preferable in any article at this time. Should Reardon gain his own article, I would then reconsider my position. High school wrestler? Come on! WWGB (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we also not have a biography on Bryant then? Also, I think him having a military background and being an expertly trained marksman is relevant, and some articles have explicitly mentioned it (I wouldn't be surprised if activists/public figures have also mentioned it), such as this one: [9]

I also think his father also being a police officer is relevant. In addition, there was something else I found in an article about a former classmate alleging that Reardon had anger issues, which might be relevant to include. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What you "think" is relevant is not a decisive factor here. We include relevant content that is published in multiple reliable sources. Refinery29 (your source) is an entertainment website focused on young women, and its reputation for fact-checking is far from clear. WWGB (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That was just an example of an article to illustrate my point about it being explicitly mentioned as something noteworthy. Even if the article itself isn't reliable (and I wouldn't use it as a source), the fact that that factor is seen as noteworthy is, perhaps even more so (since it is sensationalized). Here's another one: [10] I'm new, but as far as I'm aware (and as I would assume from common sense), we don't need a source to explicitly state that something is relevant (although in this case regarding the military background aspect, sources literally did); that is more up to editor discretion, although I may be wrong. His father being a police officer and his personal connections are relevant, in my opinion, because it ties into the wider societal concerns about the blue wall of silence, police misuse of force, and police accountability, which is ultimately why the case is notable in the first place, and gives context. His father being a police officer is, in fact, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Their biographies are generally important to the protests and context of what led up to the shooting (their perspectives are relevant). However, I think they could be incorporated into the narrative more than a separate entry. I added in some blanks to include the others directly involved in the incident, but commented them out until we have something to fill them with. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The other officers?

Does anyone know anything about the other officers and has a source on them? I can't really find anything. Apparently Reardon wasn't the only one there. From the bodycam video, it appears that Reardon was the first one to get there, but I'm not sure. When did they get there and what were they doing? I think it is pretty important for context. From what we've written, it kind of sounds like we're bringing them up out of nowhere. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes they arrived later so were not exactly complicit in the shooting. Still should get a clearer mention. AFAIK, the other names haven't been released yet. ɱ (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

9 seconds from Reardon arriving to the shooting = many were probably not yet CLEARLY on the scene. Buffs (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about lead broadness

My edit in the lead giving examples of celebrities who condemned the killing was deleted because the lead should be broad, which makes sense. Does this mean we should also delete the examples given in the lead of other people of color shot by police recently (Daunte Wright and Adam Toledo)? Forgive me for my cluelessness; I'm new. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As the editor who removed that part of the edit, I'll explain my reasoning here. There have been many, many people who have given responses to this, including current officeholders. As such, I don't know how important in the context of all of those a comedian's and an athlete's are. I'm also concerned about the two that were highlighted, as Kathy Griffin was not listed later in the article, and LeBron later deleted his tweet. I think the way it is currently, describing the range of responses, is appropriate. The only individual reactions I would consider maybe adding to the lead would be from the family or the police or if Biden were to directly comment on this. However, I invite further discussion from other editors. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Biden's press secretary commented on it the same day it happened. So did his Press Secretary. Buffs (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Girl or young woman?

Should we use "girl" or "young woman" for both Bryant and the victims? I feel that if we use either for one of them we should use the same for all of them. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Most RSs say girl, and many activists have noted that "young woman" inaccurately portrays her to be older/an adult. ɱ (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Are the ages of the victims known? I'm assuming that they are around Bryant's age, and they appear to look young in the video of the incident, but I haven't heard exactly. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Biggest Fan, Bryant is a girl. The other two people involved in the altercation are women, as they are in their 20s. Enwebb (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Should I include the "young" then, since they are legally adults? Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Biggest Fan, I think it's fine to call them women or young women, as both are accurate. It is not accurate to call them "girls", just as it is not accurate to call Bryant a "woman". Enwebb (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

At least per our page, "young woman" in its typically use tends to refer to someone a bit older. While I think it would be technically correct, they would be on the younger age of that range to be sure and as such I worry that term may be misleading. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Bryant was a girl (underage; 16). The other two were 20 and 22, legally adults. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo

Seems like the well publicized photo should be added. Its public domain, and crucial to the understanding of the shooting. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What well publicized photo adds crucial understanding to the event? Do you have a link? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The one with Bryant about to stab to death the girl in the pink jumpsuit would be the photo which comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5b02:703c:21aa:e0ec:d880:63e1 (talk • contribs)

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/8b26cc1689f547adb88ef950cfde7172/3000.jpeg ResultingConstant (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be okay with adding that photo, seems most news articles use it. Seems similar to the photos used at e.g. Killing of Adam Toledo or Murder of George Floyd. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we include a "normal" photo of Bryant or the officer (as in taken outside of the incident)? I'm not sure how these things work; I'm new. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Any images we use would need to comply with our copyright guidelines. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The photo likely wouldn't be free, but if anyone's interested, I could upload it under a fair use rationale. ɱ (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Upload a low res version; fair use definitely applies here. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Are we allowed to quote/paraphrase the video?

This is more of a question on Wikipedia in general and content rules, but are we allowed to quote or paraphrase the video of the incident in the Incident section as a source, or do we need another source to do that? Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Best to use another source. The George Floyd video and the "drugs" comment is a good example of how deciphering words can be a problem and, if done by an editor, basically WP:OR. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You can also consult Wikipedia:Video links. WWGB (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure how that worked. Knowing now that that we aren't allowed to quote the video's audio, are we allowed to visually use the video as a source to what happened, or is that also a no? Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend you find a news source reporting on exactly whatever you are adding to the article. See also our policy on due and undue weight. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Ma'Khia Bryant's parents

User:WWGB, Thank you for your interest when you deleted [11] from the section Ma'Khia Bryant the names of her parents with the edit summary "does not improve readers understanding of the attack". Mentioning them and giving a reference that has a current picture of them shows that they are alive and physically well and were separated from Ma'Khia, which could contribute to Ma'Khia's state of mind before and during the attack. It helps the reader understand her situation.

I would like to hear any further thoughts you may have and any thoughts that other editors may have on whether or not to restore the deleted names of the parents and the corresponding reference that has a current picture of them. Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's relevant info, but not for the reasons you're providing, which sounds to me like WP:OR psychoanalysis. The fact is, the parents are obviously germane to the story, and have been vocal following the shooting (as one would expect). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from the article that Bryant was in foster care. Her parents have already been subjected to vilification in the media, such as [12]. Adding their names to a perpetual encyclopedia does not assist the readers' understanding of the situation in any way, and exposes them to ongoing identification and condemnation for the rest of their lives. In any statements about them, they can be referred to as "the parents" or "mother" and "father" without any loss of accuracy or identity. According to WP:BLPNAME, "the presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". WWGB (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

According to the article you gave, Bryant's father was the one who kicked the girl in the video, so he seems relevant enough to include his name. After all, why include the names of the two girl victims but not the parents, especially if the father was present and participating in the incident? That seems strange. If anything, Nicholas Reardon will be the one (probably even more than the parents) to be exposed to ongoing identification and condemnation for the rest of his life, and likely threats and the risk of violence, even if the investigation finds no wrong doing on his part, but we still find it relevant to give his name, as he's involved in the incident. Wikipedia's Biggest Fan (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do not speculate about living people's futures or alleged actions. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't speculation. It's paraphrasing exactly what was stated in the article. Given that information, the father was indeed involved in the incident and the mother has been highly vocal about criticizing the police officer, their relationship to the deceased is relevant and should be in the article; they are highly involved in the incident and aftermath. Excluding them makes no sense. Likewise, characterizing Ma'Khia Bryant as the "victim" is absurd. Buffs (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The parents have chosen to publicize their names and pictures, as indicated by their presentation in the given major media reference (Associated Press story in The Seattle Times). Here's the item that was deleted from the Ma'Khia Bryant section of the present Wikipedia article.

Ma'Khia's mother is Paula Bryant and her father is Myron Hammonds.

Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate and natural-sounding place to reference this information would be later in the text, i.e. "Bryant's parents, Myron Hammonds and Paula Bryant, said x". Given that they have spoken out against this shooting I reiterate my stance that this is relevant info; parents of killed children have taken a leading role in BLM, see Mothers of the Movement. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I added an item [13] to the Reactions section per your suggestion. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion was to have the article report "Bryant's parents, Myron Hammonds and Paula Bryant, said x". Your addition does not have them saying anything, so inclusion of their names has no purpose. WWGB (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Re satisfying User:AllegedlyHuman's suggestion, maybe that editor will offer thoughts on the issue. Bob K31416 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, in case you're interested, here's the video of the press conference [14]. Paula Bryant and Myron Hammonds speak at 10:00 and 11:40 respectively, and introduce themselves again at 15:15. Since the parents are taking an active role in the story, it's natural to mention their names. You may have a different style of editing, and that's OK, but so far you are alone here in that preference so that shouldn't be imposed on the article. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added in some information I feel is pertinent to the article about her parents' reactions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Protect the privacy of people and children

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Per Wikipedia:BLP, caution must be given to protect private individuals, especially children. It does not matter if certain details about the event are reported in a reliable source. Non-notable names do not belong in the article, nor does a descriptors about the status of children who might live at a particular residence. The editor wishing to include potentially sensitive information on private persons must seek consensus to include it if challenged. Minnemeeples (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

For children's names? Yes, as per WP:BLPNAME, that is reasonable. The fact that the shooting occurred at a foster home? No, there is no BLP violation in that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times considered this info important enough to have it in the lede of one of their articles. I defer to their judgment. (I also don't think there's anything wrong at all with being a foster child – I sincerely hope no one disagrees with that, this is the 21st century after all.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s sharing private information about the legal status of children who live at a residence. This event involved several non-notable minors during an alleged crime. The article should be free of sensationalism and should strive to protect privacy. Minnemeeples (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As long as the names, addresses etc. of the people involved aren't stated, there's no problem in that regard. Jim Michael (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that she lived in a foster home, and had a dispute and attempted to stab former foster children, is central to this article. Otherwise, all we have is "someone tried to stab someone else at a house". WWGB (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I can accept that the consensus is to keep. I will not start an edit ward and will move on. But this event involved children, and it includes a link to video featuring violence between children, and it includes private information about the status of children who live at a home. The central facts to the event are why the existence of this article is problematic. Minnemeeples (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I see you've brought those points in the deletion discussion, a more appropriate place but where consensus is against you still. I appreciate you admitting this discussion here was to illustrate a point. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid characterizing and assigning motives to talk comments by other edits. Many editors are raising privacy concerns about content in the article. Minnemeeples (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Images?

Apparently this is contentious, so I'll open it up on the talk page here: should this article have more than one image/video? IMO, this [15] looks better than this [16]. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. For me the issue wasn't more than one image/video, it was more than one protest picture. BTW one picture that we need is the widely publicized one of Bryant a moment before she was shot. Anyhow, regarding the current issue, here's what I wrote in my edit summary, "As mentioned before in an edit summary, too many protest pictures before (3) and now there are 4. One protest picture is appropriate in the Reactions section since the main topic is the killing, not the protests." Bob K31416 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I added to the infobox the widely publicized picture of Bryant a moment before she was shot. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Background" section, why is it here, and what does it have to do with this incident?

The background section speaks of nothing about the background of the dead girl, the dynamics happening in the neighborhood, or at her foster care home, or about the officer who fired the shots. So, then why is it here? Whatever the statistics are about crime in that area, have nothing to do with the specific incident. Each incident like these need to be seen ONLY with the facts of the incident, not some other "history" which does not apply in anyway to any of the particular parties involved. Either remove this section, or apply "background" information to the various parties actually involved in the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5b02:703c:21aa:e0ec:d880:63e1 (talk • contribs)

I concur. The background section is entirely one-sided and appears to be an attempt at guilt-by-association. Whether police killings are more prevalent or not needs a LOT more context over a vague claim of "among the highest" (the article actually shows them as "18th of the top 100 metro areas"...so, top 20%, not exactly the "among the highest". Likewise, this case has nothing to do with the Chauvin trial or the fact that another police officer in the area, but not part of his unit, has been accused of murder are irrelevant to THIS instance. General protests directly related to this case SHOULD be included within reason (not every protest in every city is WP:NOTABLE).Buffs (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Description of incident

Specifically, this edit seems contentious. Perhaps it could just be better phrased. Describing the incident while omitting some of the relevant actions that took place is inappropriate. I'm open to other options for a description. Buffs (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content.

I don't see this as interpretive in any nature. The officer stated "Get Down" and she didn't. That doesn't imply malice on her part. I think it's possible/probable she didn't even know an officer was there. (editorial comment) She seemed completely channelized on these two individuals (the one she pushed over and the other she attempted to stab). But this isn't a statement of her state of mind or an opinion of whether she was doing the right thing or not. It's simply a statement of events. It's no different than saying she was wearing pink or black or jeans or wearing shoes. As such, the statement that she didn't comply is merely a descriptive statement and it can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. There's not a different interpretation of the facts of what happened (no one is attempting to imply a motive for such actions/inactions). Buffs (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's what was in the article, "Reardon ordered Bryant to "Get down!" four times". It's interpretive because it says that Reardon was directing the orders to Bryant. He could have been directing the orders to the woman in pink in front of Bryant so that she wouldn't be inadvertently shot. BTW, "drop the knife" seems like the usual order to an armed person, not "get down". In any case, a reliable source is required for any interpretation of who Reardon was directing the order to. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

But you reverted ALL of it. I can see that point and I don't have an issue with it per se. I've since rephrased to just "ordered" without directing to whom (you correctly point out it's nebulous). My point was that we should keep "Bryant was non-compliant" or another similarly neutral phrase. Keep in mind, this all happened VERY quickly (like in 9 seconds, an officer exits his vehicle, two women are attacked by a girl with a knife, a man kicks one of those attacked, and an officer shoots someone 4 times...9 seconds...it happened VERY fast). Buffs (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Bryant would be non-compliant only if the order "get down" was directed at her. You need an RS. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If she didn't do as the officer ordered, she would be noncompliant, by definition, regardless of whether or not she thought it was directed at her. This doesn't imply any malfeasance on her part (it's irrelevant in terms of this sentence fragment). Anyone else want to weigh in here? Offer an alternative? Buffs (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We should use the same phrasing sources do, here and everywhere. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source added. Buffs (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The names of the two women involved

I'm on the fence here regarding including the names of the other two women involved in the altercation. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPPRIVACY, I could see the argument for not including their names: just because other sources have done so doesn't mean that we have to. Anyone else have thoughts? Enwebb (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I am always in favour of withholding the names of peripheral people, in accordance with WP:BLP1E. WWGB (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY is concerned with identity theft, as indicated by the lead sentence, "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private." The problem mentioned concerns the combination of name and date of birth, not just name.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM is concerned with including every detail about a person. Here's the lead sentence, "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced." It's not concerned with just the person's name.

WP:BLP1E is irrelevant because its concern is about creating an article about a person. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

These aren't peripheral people. They are victims of Ma'Khia Bryant's assaults/battery/attempted murder (the proximate reason for the shooting in the first place). Including details makes sense. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Victims? You mean the perpetrators of the fight? Plus they were grown women who did not live at that foster house anymore, whereas Bryant was defending herself while being a resident at the location. The owner of all ✌️ 01:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling them "perpetrators" doesn't align with the video. The video doesn't show everything that happened prior, but from what we HAVE seen, as the officer's were pulling up Ma'Khia Bryant emerges from the house brandishing a kitchen knife. She them pushes over one woman over and then turned around and pinned another to a car and swung back as if attempting to stab her (if she wasn't doing so, she certainly gave that impression). I'm not saying these women weren't causing problems, but it's pretty clear that she was not just "defending herself". She came OUT of the house (a place she was relatively safe) to confront these two women. Buffs (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

An editor is claiming and fighting to keep in an aside that Mike DeWine "plagiarized" a statement from Andrew Ginther. The source does not say this was plagiarism, so this is original research and should not be included as potentially defamatory about a living person. However, I also find it very unlikely that the two said the exact same thing, as the article says currently. Is one of these quotes incorrect? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. It's WP:OR. Buffs (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like for the user who reverted the "Failed Verification" tag to find the quote that is cited as footnote 28. Which is https://www.wtrf.com/news/ohio-headlines/gov-dewine-says-theres-a-clear-pathway-for-reforms-in-wake-of-makhia-bryant-shooting/ . I read that article and did not find the quote. Which makes me believe the paragraph above, that the mayor said it, and not the governor. The owner of all ✌️ 18:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Point taken; fixed. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Opposition and Support

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. Buffs (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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. Bob K31416 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2021 (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. 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. Buffs (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I created lead sentences for the two paragraphs. [17] 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. 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."[18]

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. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. These two paragraphs, effectively encompass the range of political opinions nationwide. To remove that this is the political dialogue surrounding this event is absurd.
4. 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.
5. 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"
6. 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.
7. 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 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: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.
8. 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 ("too late!"), the proposed solution doesn't solve/address ANY of these problems. 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. 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 uncivil accusations and you yourself are being unreasonable. 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. 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. Bob K31416 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss options, but not "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. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

So...continuing a lack of discussion? WP:BRD: read it...especially the "D" part... Buffs (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)