Talk:2015 Minneapolis shooting

Untitled

Be very careful making any strong statements about the motivations or character of any of the people involved in this shooting. Information that has not been widely disseminated may change the media narrative very soon: Video from shooters' perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc3c6cK9p_w First part of this video is before the shooting, second part after: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgpfvwNEwg 38.75.57.92 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

User:TheTruthTeller4 has recently been edit-warring, apparently to preserve their preferred version of this article, which includes a miscapitalized heading and several statements that are non-neutral or wholly unsupported by the sources. I ask TheTruthTeller4 to please discuss these issues on the talk page rather than edit warring, and other editors to consider removing some of the unsourced and non-neutral material. (I can't do so myself, at least not today, because I have already made three reverts today.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-Defense

Reference for self defense. Was hard to find given media's history of being one-sided on issues such as this, but imagine the surprise of me finding it at SPLC. It should be in the motive section listed as a possiblity. "Authorities are trying to determine whether the men fired in self-defense, or whether the matter should be investigated as a hate crime." https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/11/25/three-men-who-shot-black-lives-matter-protesters-emerged-internet%E2%80%99s-racist-swamps Quisp65 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Please remain neutral. I have been watching this page and I see that people have removed info they dislike and add biased language.Mangokeylime (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced claim in "shooting" section

I am going to remove part of the claim in the "Shooting" section: "a group of Black Lives Matter protesters acting as a security team attempted to remove the men from the protest site". Specifically, I will remove phrase, "acting as a security team". First, I seen no reliable source establishing this, which is obviously an attempt to make those events sound more "official" than they probably were. Second, it appears to be improbable: Based on BLM's own people and their reports, a running mob was probably a better description. (But we will have to await a further edit.) Third, the protest was on public property, so no group of BLM protestors (even one designated as a "security team") would have had the authority to forcefully remove the visitors, attack them, or otherwise threaten them. Fourth, a video has been found http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/video-proof-5-black-lives-matter-protesters-shot-after-repeatedly-beating-white-videographers/ where a BLM protestor was filmed admitting that BLM protestors attacked, struck, and then ran after the fleeing visitors, seemingly a far more probable outcome. Lurie2 (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit by Granger, inviting him to discuss the issue on the Talk page here. There is plenty of NPOV violation in this article, but in the opposite direction to what he implies. The article repeatedly refers to what the protestors said, did, or believed, even when that contradicts what the videos available clearly show. We should not be promulgating falsehoods merely because the protestors want people to believe them. Lurie2 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have also just removed the claim that the "three white men" began to use "racial slurs". A look at the video cited above in this Talk Page (the one made by the visitors) has no sound, but for minutes the BLM protestors surrounded them, and the faces of those protestors were not angry or outraged. They were talking, seemingly without anger. Eventually, it appears that an altercation began. It is illogical to believe that if the visitors were using "racial slurs" during the beginning of this video, the BLM protestors wouldn't be angry. The only other logical theory is that after a few minutes, surrounded by many BLM protestors, the visitors BEGAN to use racial slurs. Why??? Therefore, the news reports were reporting deliberately false information provided by the BLM protestors. In any case, if any of the BLM protestors were making a recording (audio or video) we will eventually hear the truth. Lurie2 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the article pending the outcome of this discussion. These edits are not justified by the evidence given so far. Eye witness testimony cannot be presented as fact, apparent lack of anger on the faces of people cannot be used as proof that racial slurs were not used, etc. I'm not saying that changes don't need to be made, but lets base any changes on WP:RS, not WP:OR or opinion. Meters (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC).

The edits I made WERE justified. In most cases the original material itself was not "justified by the evidence given so far" so I removed it. By reverting, you falsely vouch for the original, without providing evidence. Further I did not provide "eye witness testimony". I referred to a video. The original video itself is a primary source. But it was also published on YouTube, which is analogous to a newspaper or magazine. YouTube publishes videos, not simply text. Therefore, a video which gets published by YouTube is in that form, a secondary source, which we can always cite. I should also point out that the original texts were probably violations of WP:BLP, which must be removed immediately. The claim that the "three white men" yelled "racial slurs" is libelous, the three are apparently still alive. Therefore, I will re-edit all examples where libelous information is alleged in the article. You would be violating WP:BLP if you attempt to restore that material. Lurie2 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed some violations of WP:BLP in the article. Claims that the visitors used "racial slurs" is clearly libelous. There is no evidence that anyone used racial slurs. Further, the article appeared to reverse the order of the events involved just before the shooting. Clearly, from the video made by the visitors published on YouTube, the "altercation" began while the two groups were standing a foot or two apart, not after the visitors began running away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurie2 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Meters: edits need to be based on reliable secondary sources, not original research. With respect to the specific issue of racial slurs, the article attributes this claim to the protesters, rather than stating it as fact, and cites a reliable source. Mention of the claim is appropriate, so I have restored it. I have also removed the statement about "minutes of discussion seen on a video", because this is both confusingly stated and sounds like original research. Lurie2, please gain consensus before reverting this edit, per WP:BRD. I have not restored the "white supremacists" claim because of the potentially serious BLP issue, but I note that it is clearly attributed to BLM, not stated as a fact, and is well sourced, so I tend to think it is appropriate in the article. I would appreciate other editors' comments on whether the "white supremacists" claim should be mentioned. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Granger you can "agree" all you want with Meters, but don't imply I used "original research". Instead I cited a secondary source that publishes videos and text, YouTube, and videos published there. It does not matter that the article "attributes" the claim to the protestors, because the claim itself was libelous, and merely citing a libelous claim does not absolve anyone of liability for that. This is from: http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=273 "What if the publisher just reporting what someone else said? The rule is: whoever reports it is liable for it. Even if it’s from an apparently reputable and knowledgeable source, such as the police. The publisher has to prove the truth of the sting of the article, remember. That’s what the readers or viewers will take it to mean. It’s not enough for the publisher to prove that it has reported the accusation accurately. It must be able to prove that the accusation itself is true." Thus there is no excuse for merely referring the libelous material to someone who said it: People who repeat it are just as guilty. Further, the evidence in the YouTube video actually goes to disproving the claim of use of racial slurs, at for 2 minutes and 30 seconds into the close discussion between the groups. Where would you say the video provides evidence of racial slurs prior to this time, based on the behavior of the people seen? I will revert your reversion of the violation of the WP:BLP rule, because you didn't bother to notice the contradictions in the secondary-sourced evidence available to you. As for the claim of "white supremacist" involvement, there was an admission by a BLM protestor in the Wikipedia-published video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgpfvwNEwg (the one made by BLM protestors) at 0:59 that they were "debating" among themselves as to whether the visitors were "white supremacists". If they KNEW they were white supremacists, at that point, they wouldn't have been admitting after the shooting that they were still "debating" the issue. Therefore, the claim that they were white supremacists must go; until proven otherwise that is a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. The fact that some of their public-relations people later decided to state the "white supremacists" assertion as fact does not change what the actual participants said and believed in the video in the reliable secondary source, YouTube. Lurie2 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

REFERENCE 11. This reference claims, in part: "Alexander Dewan Apprentice Clark, who said he chased the attackers, said one of the men fell and when Clark helped him up, he felt what he believed to be a bulletproof vest under the man's clothing." There is a bad internal-consistency problem in this quotation. It said Clark "chased the attackers". Problem is, it doesn't identify who "the attackers" are. Presumably he was referring to the visitors, but a careful look at the article, prior to the reference, doesn't explain why the visitors engaged in any activity which would classify them as "the attackers". According to reports, the visitors showed up, and according to their video, they stood across the street from the BLM protestors. After less than a minute, the BLM protestors walked across the street and surrounded them. Talking occurred for well over 2 minutes, with no anger or heated arguments. However, for at least 2 minutes and 30 seconds, nobody "attacked" anyone. Why, then, would anyone refer to the visitors as being "the attackers"? Evidently, the article is biased and unreliable. There is also no explanation as to why the BLM protestors, who wanted the visitors to leave apparently, would have "chased" them after they began to leave. Something is unstated. It would make much more sense if the BLM protestors were attacking the visitors, and then when the latter ran, they were chased by the BLM people. Lurie2 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The legal website you've cited appears to be discussing New Zealand law, so I don't see how it is relevant to Wikipedia, which is hosted in the United States. But I don't really want to get into a legal argument—if you believe that mentioning the racial slur claim or the white supremacist claim violates WP:BLP, I suggest asking for the opinions of other editors, perhaps at the WP:BLP noticeboard since not many people seem to be watching this page.

Much of what you've said in these comments is original research. It is not our job to analyze and infer based on the sources we can find; rather, we should simply report what reliable sources say. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Be more specific and detailed about what you mean when you say, "original research". Doing a Google search, finding a source, and referring to it might be labelled "research", but that is apparently not what is not allowed under the WP label "original research". Keep in mind that there is a difference between using facts to support the addition of text to WP, and using facts to show that text shouldn't be in WP. In other words, if we discover that a seemingly-authoritative source is wrong and biased, there is nothing wrong with using that information to decide that source should not be cited. Do you understand the distinction here? Lurie2 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We should be cautious about claiming that we have found an inconsistency in a source that is generally regarded as reliable, especially when the apparent inconsistency is as convoluted and confusing as the one you described above. Based on your comment, I am not convinced that there is an inconsistency at all. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't defined what you meant by "Original Research". I don't mean to just repeat the WP definition (but you didn't even do that!). I mean, if you are going to label my commentary as "original research", I think you need to explain how it qualifies, in your opinion. Lurie2 (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The lack of response here to my challenge to Granger to explain why he thinks I did "original research" shows that he isn't serious about using this Talk page to discuss the issues. Lurie2 (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Rather, I think this discussion is no longer productive. If you want to understand what the term "original research" means on Wikipedia, I suggest you read WP:Original research. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

USE OF CLAIM THAT ONE BLM PROTESTOR HEARD "THE N WORD" IS MEANINGLESS AND DOES NOT CONVEY ACTUAL INFORMATION

I will remove the claim that one BLM protestor claimed that that he heard "the N word". That claim would be somewhat more significant if he had alleged he was certain that the word was uttered by one of the three whites, surrounded by a few dozen blacks. But apparently he doesn't. Could it have been spoken by one of the blacks there? Blacks are by far the most prolific users of "the N word" of any race, certainly in America, as surprising as that may seem to people with little experience around them. In fact, that use causes controversy: The argument goes that unless the blacks themselves are willing to give up using that word, that implicitly requires that they tolerate its use by others. Further, there might have been many people speaking at the same time: How certain could it be if a person claimed to be able to detect a single word uttered simultaneously to dozens of others? It's hard enough to follow the simultaneous speech of 2-3 people; to try to do so for 10 people speaking would be exceedingly difficult. In addition, it is plausible that that word amounted to a deliberate trigger by the blacks, and having spoken it, the crowd was indeed set off onto the whites. After all, since the allegation isn't that the person knew it was not spoken by one of the whites, then that leaves open the possibility that the person deliberately recalled something that was technically true (yes, he heard the word) but was misleading: That it was actually spoken by a black, not a white. Another reason is that according to the video made by the visitors, it appears that all the blacks apparently weren't using their cell phones to record the meeting. If even one of those protestors had been recording audio, the record could have been uploaded to YouTube, and the world could have verified the accuracy of this claim. In fact, the video made by the BLM protestors included an instruction to a camera-user to turn off the recording: Why? Presumably, it was because they (all the BLM protestors) didn't want to see a recording made of what was about to occur: Evidence of bad intent? But since there is a lack of evidence, we should not grant the benefit of the doubt to the people who tried to keep the evidence sparse. Lurie2 (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Lurie2, it is not our job to analyze and infer the reasons why something happened, but simply to report what reliable sources say. You might find it helpful to read WP:OR, which discusses this. In the meantime, please stop edit-warring. You have already broken WP:3RR, and based on the page's edit history, there appears to be rough consensus for including the "N-word" comment. Please do not remove it again until you have gained consensus for its removal. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You falsely claim that I have "already broken 3RR". I demand that you be very specific in that claim. Include the specific examples. Further, there is no "consensus" for including "the N-word comment". That edit was just made, and nobody else has commented about it. Lurie2 (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to Granger's request, I have just removed the reference to "the N-word". This is my first revert for today, Thursday. I haven't violated 3RR, and I have challenged him to prove his claim that I previously violated 3RR. (WP: Edit warring says: " There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy; see below for details.") I am following WP:BRD. Somebody BOLDLY inserted the quote; I then REVERTED it, and now we will DISCUSS it. The person who made the edit-war was the person who un-reverted my revert of that original edit, despite the fact that no signficant discussion had occurred, and no consensus had been subsequently reached. My original revert was legal; the revert of my revert began the edit-war. Granger's instructions to me to "Please do not remove it again until you have gained consensus for its removal." That would be contrary to the WP:BRD. It would be as if there was a rule, Be BOLD, DON'T REVERT, and only if you get "consensus", remove. That's NOT WP:BRD. So, I say to Granger, "Stop misrepresenting WP policy!". A claim that somebody LATER said he 'heard the N-word spoken' is not credible enough to be present in an encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and certainly not yet. Without a claim that the person heard the word from one of the visitors, a false impression is still left that it was indeed one of the visitors who said that. In today's world, that is libel, and in WP, that violates WP:BLP. Let's continue to discuss this, put to re-place that statement in the article without actual consensus (rather than Granger's mere false claim that there is "consensus") would be a violation of the WP:BRD rule. Lurie2 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint on the WP:BLP Noticeboard, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:BLP_Violations_in_2015_Minneapolis_Shooting Text follows: "Two editors are trying to put a violation of WP:BLP in the article, "2015 Minneapolis Shooting", named Mangokeylime and Mr. Granger. The first editor made the addition; the second, Granger, is trying to back him up. They want to include a statement that a BLM protestor later claimed to have 'heard the N-word' during a confrontation between apparently dozens of Black Lives Matter protestors and three white visitors to the protest. The person who was reported to have heard "the N-word" didn't say who, he believed, spoke that word. Yet, the reader would be left with the impression that the person who spoke the word must have been one of those three whites, rather than those dozens of BLM protestors: If it had been one of the BLM protestors, that usage wouldn't have been especially remarkable or significant, let alone controversial. So, the only purpose of including this statement in the article would be to give a false impression of what happened. So, I feel that has crossed the line into libel, or at least "False Light". Since those three visitors are still alive, and identifiable, I think WP:BLP applies. Further, Granger stated: "there seems to be consensus for including this. Please gain consensus for removing it before you do so again" But the edit had just been made by Mangokeylime, then reverted by me (following WP:BRD). Nobody else had spoken up to defend it. Clearly, nothing had happened for Granger to conclude "there seems to be consensus". I believe an edit-war was committed by Granger, when he immediately reverted my revert of the initial edit. Following WP:BRD would require that he begin with a discussion of the issue, rather than reverting my revert. Lurie2 (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)" Lurie2 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You violated 3RR with these four edits: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Thus far, two editors have clearly indicated that they think the "N-word" comment should be mentioned, and only one (you) has indicated that they think it should not be mentioned. This is not a clear consensus, but it is a rough consensus—certainly, it is clear that your position does not have consensus at this time.

Thank you for opening the discussion at the BLP noticeboard; hopefully that will allow us to reach a resolution on this issue. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

From article 3RR: "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Interpreted literally, this would mean that a person should not make more than three text removals/changes on a given page within 24 hours. All material in any article was, by definition, written at some point in the past: Hours, days, weeks, months, or years ago. So, to remove or change any text "reverts" it, even if the original text was placed years ago. Do you believe that this is a valid interpretation of the rule? Or should that statement be clarified somehow? Lurie2 (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been interpreted that way and this is considered a legitimate reason to block someone. Ken Arromdee (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger with Shooting of Jamar Clark

In my opinion these pages should be merged together into one page. Other editors are supporting it on the other talk page here... Talk:Shooting of Jamar Clark.

Don't think so. The section above, "Untitled", which cites two videos, indicates that this issue will soon take an entirely different turn. People who want to merge these subjects are probably ones who want the upcoming scandal to go away. It's way too early to make such a decision. WP has plenty of very large hard disks to store this stuff on. Lurie2 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Too bad, because a single editor's opinion doesn't really matter against eight other editors' opinions. People who don't want to merge are the people who do not know about the ten-year test. And obviously this is not going to be remembered in even a year. epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, in ten years, information about Jamar Clark will be considered irrelevant. (2 years is closer to reality.) Let's drop it now, both articles. Hmmmm? 75.175.70.162 (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Citing the videos.

I am placing a reference in the "Shooting" section, referring to the two videos that have been mentioned in the "Untitled" section above. This is no longer a "he said/she said" issue. I would put the cites the in form of references, but I'm relatively new to this and don't know how to do that. The place the videos are published from, YouTube, can be considered analogous to a magazine or a newspaper, except that YouTube publishes videos and a little text, rather than mostly text. I anticipate that some people will resist this, because those videos put the issue into an entirely different light. I should also mention that I have seen evidence of a short video, about 15 seconds long, made from across the street from the location of the meeting of the BLM protestors and the visitors, although it cuts off at just about the time the first 2-3 BLM protestors approach the visitors. That video may have been cut off deliberately, or edited from another existing video, because it doesn't continue to show many more BLM protestors further approach the visitors. Of course, there may be (and should be, given the ubiquitous nature of video today) other videos which will eventually come to light, some of which may include sound. There was a claim that at some point, the "N-word" was uttered during or after that meeting. Lurie2 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)