Talk:Killing of Latjor Tuel

Notability of comments

Hi User:Magnolia677 I see you edited out comments because you considered them non notable because the person was a friend, not any sort of authority figure. I think the litmus test for if that person's comments were notable was if they made the news of not, and they did, so I disagree with that edit. CT55555 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: Could you point to a consensus, policy, or guideline that supports this? It seems to conflict with the consensus of editors who wrote WP:BALASP, WP:GEVAL, and WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Magnolia677, for the speedy reply. I was more expecting you to justify removing, rather than ask me to justify including something that is notable and verifiable, which, as I see it, is really the core of Wikipedia. I'm open minded to be persuaded wrong, this isn't normally the type of thing I write about, but to address the policy you've linked:

1. WP:BALASP My analysis is to give balance coverage approximately matching what the citation/sources did. I think the original version did that, balancing the public reactions of two groups, who both have an interest in the event (the subject's friends and the employers of the organization that killed him)
2. WP:GEVAL This is a policy about minority viewpoints on matters where there is majority and minority opinions, like vaccine denialism and stuff like that. Critiquing a killing is not a minority view point comparable to flat earthism or faked moon landings, this policy is not so relevant here.
3. WP:NOTNEWS Is very relevant to the existence of the article, but not this specific point. I considered it carefully before creating this, having debated AfD's for killings and murders, and my analysis is that it's policy about not including routine events, or even unusual events of the content is simply what happened, i.e. it needs public commentary, analysis of the events, etc etc. This is not a routine event and nor is the content just a reporting of facts, it already contains analysis and public commentary about mental health responses beyond the event.

So I think WP:BALASP is the key thing here, and I think to remove reliable, secondary sourced material about what friends said and to leave in the commentary of the people who killed him, is to deviate from that intention, so please consider that.

To your point about my justifying including it, I'd point to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Scope which really says it's about consensus and relevance, which is why I'm here, trying to persuade you. I think it's relevant, but again, really point to the news being a helpful barometer of what is important, you'll note several news sources quoted the friend who's comments you deleted. CT55555 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: Heaven help us if everything published in a newspaper is considered suitable for Wikipedia. In my experience with these articles, those who are typically included are officials, family, their lawyer, local politicians, and notable community groups. Please do not add every opinion, by every single person, published in some newspaper. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Magnolia677 I think it's called a straw man argument when you say something that I didn't say (everything in newspapers should be on Wikipedia) and then tell me it's wrong. You've so far removed:

1. Perspectives that were shared (indeed by a friend) at and event organized by Calgary African Community Collective (this appears to match even your opinion on who should be included, Calgary African Community Collective are surely a community group).
2. Analysis of the event by a lawyer who works at a Prison and Police Law, who was quoted in the Calgary Herald twice
3. A Professor of justice studies, also quoted in mainstream news

It is impossible for me not to notice that what these three edits all have in common is criticisms of those who killed the subject of the article, and I would ask you to reflect on WP:NPOV and cease from removing any more content from this article, perhaps accept we both disagree and it would be good to pause and let others comment. CT55555 (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: I won't revert you if you add them back. Others may have another opinion. Thanks for being reasonable. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your approach User:Magnolia677. I believe in consensus, so I will not revert right now, as I tend to make better decisions with the benefit of refection. I am hoping that someone else might see this and add their comments, which will help guide me if I want to re-add the comment, also noting this is not my usual topic. CT55555 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)