Jump to content

Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Motive section dispute over SPLC/Black nationalism

I argue that removal of detail regarding said groups with established relationship to current events leaves undue ambiguity to the motive and/or interests of the 2016 Dallas massacrer, the "shooter". Discussion might be appropriate to establish whether such detail is in fact necessary, as with all major events from my observation, detail goes to the background of the actors instead of the event itself, especially within a motive section. W124l29 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear that the content regarding the BLM likes is WP:DUE weight given the source. It is indeed pulled from a screen shot and apparently the source did not think it was important enough to mention it, suggesting that it may not be important enough to include in a WP article using them as a source. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
A source is a source. The groups were part of the screenshot. Without inclusion of said groups, the shooter's interest in BLM would be left ambiguous. They must stay. W124l29 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing "must stay" in any article. TimothyJosephWood 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how liking BLM pages is integral to understanding the motive, considering it was also said that the shooter was "upset" about BLM. Unless we get more clarification about how this played a part into his motive (like his liking of black nationalist groups), then that tidbit of information seems trivial at best. Parsley Man (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The shooter liked BLM, and so such is as relevant as his interest in black nationalist groups. How this is at all justified as discussion is beyond my comprehension. WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NPOV W124l29 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
How is BLM related to black nationalist groups exactly? Attempting to link them seems like synth to me. Also, you've been fond of tossing out those links, but you don't explain how you think they apply here. Last, we don't have to include something just because there's a source for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Parsley Man and Joseph here. Content based on a mere screenshot is not ideal and borders on original research. The SPLC's actual article dealt with the extremist groups that the shooter had "liked" on Facebook. Without more references and context, it would be undue weight for us to include the fact that he may have "liked" non-extremist groups on Facebook. Inclusion under the "motives" section also seems to imply that the shooter was inspired by Black Lives Matter (no proof of that, and BLM has actively condemned violence) or that BLM is an extremist group (not supported by SPLC or the sources). Neutralitytalk 18:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The shooter liked BLM, and so such is as relevant as his interest in black nationalist groups. Of course you would agree with them both, as they're already questioning the need for the material which I added, which you removed. You are the editor who removed them in the first place. Content based upon a screenshot embedded within an article regarding the 2016 shooting massacre of Dallas police officers, from one of the premier authorities on hate groups no less, is by no definition original research. Your opinion as to what is extreme or not extreme is irrelevant, as the BLM groups were included within the screenshot provided. There is no other evidence provided toward the shooter's interest in black nationalist groups from any source. They must stay. WP:NOTADVOCATE WP:NOTOPINION WP:NOTBLOG WP:NOTCENSORED WP:NPOV W124l29 (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I also shall add that WP:DUE is irrelevant, aswell, considering that the shooter's "liking" BLM pages on Facebook is not a viewpoint. It is a fact. W124l29 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @W124l29: That it is a fact does not mean DUE doesn't apply. We don't report trivia even when factual. Again, you appear to be trying to link BLM with Black nationalist groups, which is SYNTH. Johnson "liked" BLM, but was upset with it and critical of it ([1]). Mind you, BLM has 173,354 "likes" on Facebook... it's not a fringe group ([2]). You appear to be accusing an editor of liking Black nationalist groups, which can be considered a personal attack. Stop immediately. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The only personal attacks are coming from you, at this moment. I remind you of WP:AGF. Your lack of good faith isn't welcome here, I'd hope, and I am sure that whomever decides as to what happens shall see your behavior before my, from my perspective, valid edits & attempts at civil conversation. No synthesis was made. The facts are as they are. Any synthesis made was made by your own mind, which suggests a personal interest or bias to me. Shall I accuse you of attempting to censor this page out of personal interest, or should we remain civil in our discussion of absolutely nothing? W124l29 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@W124l29: Please identify where I made a personal attack. I've tried to assume good faith, but it's not a suicide pact. That said, you've casting WP:ASPERSIONS. This is your final warning. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Warn me again, please. Typing warnings is hostility. I have responded and offered civility to you repeatedly. I am going to wait for an hour, and when I return, if this is not settled, then I am going to seek dispute resolution with all three of you. W124l29 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You still refuse to identify the alleged personal attack... just like the "fabrication". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:DUE has almost nothing to do with whether or not something is true or false.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

The liking of BLM is given exactly zero prominence in the source provided. As was said above, it literally does not mention it at all. The solution here is, if you think it should be included, find reliable sources that do talk about it. Argument can only go as far as the sources, and this source is insufficient to justify inclusion at this time. TimothyJosephWood 18:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, BLM is absolutely mentioned in the source via primary evidence. When digital, aside from Facebook's servers themselves, a screenshot is considered primary evidence. That the shooter liked BLM pages on Facebook is not a viewpoint. It is a fact. Furthermore, BLM was mentioned by the shooter himself before his death. Whether this is irrelevant is your personal opinions, which does not bend to editor consensus. I repeat: that the shooter liked BLM pages on Facebook is not a viewpoint. It is a fact. WP:DUE is irrelevant. W124l29 (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's the way this works: find better sources. No one is disputing whether this is true. We are disputing whether this is relevant. Per the source provided, it isn't. WP:DUE is the reason this content is not in the article, and will continue to not be in the article unless better sources are provided. So you have three choices:
  • Find better sources
  • Move on with your life
  • Continue to edit war and most likely face a block for it
Up to you. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) re: W124l29 This is getting toward WP:IDHT. DUE applies. There is not "editor consensus" at the moment, hence this discussion. We are discussing if it should be added, and why or why not. Please stop repeating the same thing over and over and actually engaged in discussion. Why is this information that he "liked" BLM important here? I can see it's related, but stating that he liked the page without also explaining his anger toward the group would mislead readers. Focusing on the "like" of the page too much would be UNDUE as it would put too much emphasis on a factoid that the RS largely aren't talking about. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not to pile on too much, but just to add onto EvergreenFir's and Timothyjosephwood's comments above: Not all facts are worthy of inclusion; this is an encyclopedia. We're about context not just content. Whether a fact or a view is worthy of inclusion often depends on factors other than the fact or view's mere documentation somewhere. One such factor is the extent to which the reliable, authoritative, or significant sources report, examine, analyze, or give weight to the fact or view. Here, the SPLC does not discuss the BLM stuff at all. That is a strong indication that it is not worthy of inclusion, especially in a section entitled "motive." Inclusion does not convey much meaningful information to the reader and in fact might mislead. And when four or five editors disagree with you on this, and you seem to stand alone, you would be well-served to take this as an indicator that you might not be right. Neutralitytalk 19:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your, Timothyjosephwood, threat of a block nor your condescending attitude with regard to your statement that I find "better sources" or "move on with my life". There is no better source of the shooter "liking" those Facebook pages in question than a screenshot of his having "liked" those Facebook pages. I do not appreciate your, EvergreenFir, suggestion that I've fabricated this screenshot, or that I am attempting some unwarranted or untrue synthesis with threats of blocks & bans. Nor do I appreciate your, Neutrality, calling me a "new editor", "disruptive", & removal of attempts at civil discussions on Talk pages. You three have been obtusely insulting & combative, not I, and have harassed me, all-the-while not providing any valid or logical explanations in any comment of yours nor edit summary. I remind you of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. That isn't welcome here, I'd hope, and I am sure that whomever decides as to what happens shall see your behavior before my, from my perspective, valid edits & attempts at civil conversation. I don't believe that I need to cite each & every rule you've broken. If this continues, then I shall begin to seek conflict resolution with you. Do not threaten me.

If we can agree to remain civil and apologise to eachother, all considered, then I would suggest that the wording of the section is revised so to allow for inclusion of these "likes" without possible confusion as to whether they are also listed as hate-groups--something which I had assumed was clear being as that they were listed within the paragraph preceding the mention of hate groups. I only repeat myself being as that there is no other way for me to convey this to you: they must stay. Anger inspired by interests of BLM with regard to recent police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile is listed as a primary motive, as cited, on this very page. General anger towards white people is a secondary motive, as cited, as listed on this very page. W124l29 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • This has been said more than once: The issue is not whether or not it is true, the issue is whether it is WP:DUE weight. You can say that the policy doesn't apply as many times as you want. You are wrong.
  • This has been said once prior: Nothing must be an any article.
  • This has been said once prior: Go find better sources. If there are no better sources to show that his liking the BLM facebook is "featured prominently in reliable sources" (Note: not whether it is true), then the content will not go into the article per WP:DUE. TimothyJosephWood 19:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@W124l29: Please show where I said or implied that you fabricated the screenshot? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Do you sincerely question whether the Southern Poverty Law Centre's website is a reliable source? W124l29 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
No. I question whether the content you want to add is featured prominently in secondary reliable sources which is the standard set up by WP:DUE. I have said this probably four times now. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Neutrality's, EvergreenFir's, Timothyjosephwood's comments fully reflect my own views about this. This seems to be a transparent attempt to use any and all means to link BLM and with hate groups. I say this in part because of the quote mining illustrated in the subsection below, including the vile attempt to link the rhetoric of a hate group to the comments of a living person (Valerie Castille) in blatant violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP.- MrX 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: I beg your pardon, good Mr X? No such vile attempt was made. I would ask that you please remain civil. I shall further add that there are (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) between my edit and the one previous as you linked. If you have no further evidence to your claim about me, then I suggest that you hold your suspicions until you can find more. All of my edits are in good faith, and to a reasonable eye, they entirely made sense when I made them. W124l29 (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: Yes, and what is your reasoning, without simply quoting WP:DUE? I repeat: if we can agree to remain civil and apologise to eachother, all considered, then I would suggest that the wording of the section is revised so to allow for inclusion of these "likes" without possible confusion as to whether they are also listed as hate-groups--something which I had assumed was clear being as that they were listed within the paragraph preceding the mention of hate groups. I only repeat myself being as that there is no other way for me to convey this to you: they must stay. Anger inspired by interests of BLM with regard to recent police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile is listed as a primary motive, as cited, on this very page. General anger towards white people is a secondary motive, as cited, as listed on this very page. W124l29 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You've said they must stay repeatedly, but clearly there's disagreement. Why do we need that info exactly? I've asked this before and you never answered. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
My reasoning is that is it not featured prominently in reliable sources. It is really that simple. The solution is equally simple: go find reliable sources that feature his liking BLM prominently in their coverage. TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Timothyjosephwood: So, you sincerely question whether the Southern Poverty Law Centre's website is a reliable source? The screenshot is a primary source, not a secondary source, and the website belongs to the organisation. You misunderstand the citation. W124l29 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
A screen shot is not featured prominently. They literally don't even mention BLM in the article. So...go find a source that does. TimothyJosephWood 20:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@W124l29: In your edit you wrote "The NBPP website furthermore provides a "Nationalist Manifesto" which "claims that white men have a secret plan to commit genocide against the non-white races", words echoing Valerie Castile, mother of Philando Castile, following his shooting death at the hands of a law enforcement officer.", referenced to this source, which does not support that sentence in the slightest. Not only is that a wanton WP:BLP violation, it's an ugly attack on the character of living person who just lost her son in a violent hail of bullets. Your edit is entirely indefensible, and it tells me that you have no business editing this article per WP:CIR or WP:ADVOCATE. - MrX 20:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: One could argue the same about yourself, considering that you quoted my edit out-of-context, are name-calling, and so clearly have some sort of emotional attachment to this article per WP:CIR or WP:NOTADVOCATE. I remind you personally for the second or third time of WP:AGF. W124l29 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@W124l29: If you have complaints about my editing, support them with evidence. Context won't fix your edit, and my ability to assume good faith where you're concerned was exhausted hours ago.- MrX 20:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@MrX: I quote, for your personal comprehension: "Castile's mother Valerie on Thursday told CNN her son was a law-abiding citizen who worked as a school cafeteria supervisor. 'They say there is no (racial) profiling but there is,' Valerie Castile said. 'We are being hunted every day. It's a silent war against African Americans as a whole'. " W124l29 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
To take "We are being hunted every day. It's a silent war against African Americans as a whole" and say it echos "claims that white men have a secret plan to commit genocide against the non-white races" is beyond SYNTH... it's a mischaracterization. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Very well, then. I question as to whether there is WP:DUE weight given to New Black Panther Party, considering that the statements made by the organisation head Quanell X as they stand serve only to mislead with a façade of peacekeeping from my perspective. That, from my perspective, is an appropriate application of WP:DUE. Do you disagree? Are we going to be able to come to a compromise as to where the BLM "likes" go on this Wiki article, considering that you four are holding such adamant resistance to such a sentence being included under the Motive section? Perhaps we could include within a different section? Can we agree to some sort of a compromise? W124l29 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, here is the compromise: find sources that feature his liking BLM on facebook prominently. TimothyJosephWood 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Currently there's comments from Quanell X regarding Johnson's membership and expulsion from the group (that's the part you're referring to, right?). As the investigation is specifically looking into those groups, info about Johnson (time in groups, current status as member, etc.) from those groups seems relevant to me, especially given the coverage by other news orgs. The BLM like really hasn't been covered by the news orgs, which is why I and others are saying focusing on that is UNDUE. I'm not sure how it speaks to the motive that he liked a popular group on Facebook. We do mention already that he was upset with BLM in that same section though. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
If you've already mentioned that he was upset with BLM in the same section, then why not include that he was following the pages? Would you please explain your thought instead of dancing about it? "Liking" that movement's pages qualifies as affiliation, literally. You nor any other editor are in the position to qualify whether his "liking" that movement's pages is sincere or noteworthy, as it is clearly within a cut-frame screenshot where the Southern Poverty Law Centre did not need to include it, as the "liked" pages within the screenshot are not as they would appear on Facebook. W124l29 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
So yeah, from the looks of this search, literally no one is talking about him having like BLM on facebook. The Guardian talks plenty about his Fb likes, but mentions BLM only to say that "Activists with Black Lives Matter, whose peaceful march police were guarding as he opened fire, repudiated the shootings, and it wasn’t immediately clear if Johnson had any connection to the movement, which has disavowed violence." The CBC talks about him liking AADL and NBPP but says noting about BLM. Same thing with The New York Post and The Daily Beast. Even Breitbart doesn't mention him liking BLM. The mentions of BLM that I'm seeing are all about how they've disavowed him, how he was angry with them, and how its not clear that they were connected. The Daily Beast (not exactly the gold standard in sources), only says that he mentioned BLM in a conversation he had with someone a week prior, but gives no indication of why or how he mentioned them.
Seems pretty open and shut that people are talking about him liking certain groups, and no one is talking about him liking BLM. They aren't even mentioning in passing. I haven't found a single other source saying that it happened. TimothyJosephWood 21:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
It's still a fact that he was affiliated with BLM, regardless as to your "Google test", which is by no means Wikipedia policy except by tradition in some arenas. My statements all stand per WP:WikiVoice. You claim that BLM is 100% non-fringe and should not be included due to your personal opinion, which leads me to WP:NPOV WP:WikiVoice. That the shooter liked the pages is a fact. Whether you disagree with the association is irrelevant, as the shooter associated with those groups, affiliated with those groups, by following them on Facebook. Considering that Black Lives Matter is not a formal organisation, then it would be fair to argue that the shooter is just as much a member as anyone marching that day. There is clearly a negative large minority of fringe opinion within the BLM movement, and the shooter represents that negative portion, where I call it a negative portion of course being as that what is "fringe" is not generally considered "positive"--the same to mass-murder for that cause. To remove any insinuation that the shooter murdered for BLM, until shown otherwise, I would suggest that the article be refined & reformed; after all, this is a new article. Subsequent to this entire debate, in addition to dispute resolution which I am already seeking with one editor, I am considering adding a NPOV-section tag. Good day. W124l29 (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@W124l29: I cannot make heads or tails of this sentence of yours: "There is clearly a negative large minority of fringe opinion within the BLM movement, and the shooter represents that negative portion, where I call it a negative portion of course being as that what is "fringe" is not generally considered "positive"--the same to mass-murder for that cause." Can you please explain what you mean? Ask we have sources that are clear that Johnson did not shoot on behalf of BLM. I'm not entirely clear, but it seems that you suggest he was indeed doing that? Or am I mistaken? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: You mistake me. What I meant in that sentence is that BLM as a movement does not subscribe to any specific ideology or set of beliefs, as it is not a formal organisation. Subsequently, that lack of formal structure allows for pervasive negative elements to arise and so pervert the more benevolent voice of the majority. Where the majority may cry "that doesn't represent us", it might not to them as individuals or as a faction by association, but the negative element regardless remains unaddressed. In linguistics, an analogy if I may, even in English, if there is a group of more than one female, with even one male, then the group itself is automatically male however the entire group is not male individual-to-individual. With regard to BLM, there maybe a large negative minority of fringe opinion within the movement itself, but being as that they do not hold majority opinion, they so do not hold sway over the public image of BLM itself. I'm certain that no person can speak for 100% of BLM, and to dismiss them outright is absurdly biased from my perspective, my perspective here being a very frustrated attempt at objectivity. I admit that I do not feel well-received, and that editors feel stronger about what they want to be read than what is real. Considering that the BLM has only been spoken to by the shooter himself, but to provide objective context, as I attempted to argue before, I would suggest that this article be refined & reformed to more appropriately give background to the shooter himself without any possible confusion or synthesis. It would be a good writing project. How are the shooter's "likes" of racist pseudo-academic organisations anymore relevant at this point than his "likes" of the BLM movement? I do not suggest that BLM is "fringe", though the earlier example of how many "likes" it has on Facebook is not a good retort to the misunderstanding that I meant to insinuate so much, considering the numbers for the Nation of Islam. The BLM "likes" did not need to be included in that screenshot, as I myself have seen his profile and I myself use Facebook. That is a cropped screenshot with a specific selection of his interests. W124l29 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

and as-is right now, it is looking more like this page is going to need a bias tag. W124l29 (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

And that tag will be removed. TimothyJosephWood 22:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, this doesn't seem a lot like a dispute resolution issue. It seems a lot like a clear consensus that this content shouldn't be added, and despite multiple calls to produce better sources, you have provided none. TimothyJosephWood 23:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
May I ask as to why you continue to use a snappy tone at me? Southern Poverty Law Centre is one of the most reliable sources on the entire Internet, and I don't believe that you have the authority to remove such a tag. W124l29 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Because I have explained myself to you, said exactly the same thing, a half dozen times. And the fact that you are still arguing over the reliability of the source shows that you have almost certainly not taken the time to read WP:DUE, which has been linked to a half dozen times, but I'm not even entirely sure that you are reading my comments.
I do have the authority to remove the tag, as does anyone else, and I will remove it. These tags are not consolation prizes when you fail to reach a consensus for a preferred edit. TimothyJosephWood 23:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not too sure that you are allowed to remove such a tag, considering that I question whether your edits to this article are level-handed, whether conscious or not. I'm not accusing you of being malicious, don't misunderstand me. That, I reserve for the user with whom I am undergoing conflict resolution. W124l29 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Take some advice. You may have a long and productive editing career here, but if you don't at least take the time to read when people point you to policy, you are most likely going to have a short and tumultuous one. We don't link to these policies because they make us feel better. We do it so that if you don't already know what's there, you can immediately go and read them. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Neither side comes out good here. Move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
My IQ is above 160. W124l29 (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Shame you don't use it. EEng 06:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The shooter may have "liked" Coke or RC Cola, but it wouldn't be relevant to the article. What makes this relevant? Sources, of course! Provided sources can be given that talk about the shooting and the motive and the stuff he liked, then it is relevant to the article and should stay in. And the primary sources referenced by these sources should be cited and can be fairly summarized, though the usual WP:Primary cautions apply. This shouldn't be rocket science. Wnt (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt:, user currently indeffed. So I wouldn't expect much of a response. TimothyJosephWood 23:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Motive section looking a little COATRACKish

This edit to the Motive section, most of which I removed, has been reinserted by the same editor strikes me as drifting of topic by going into detail about the various groups and using cherry picked quotes to really drive a point home. For example,

"The NBPP, according to the SPLC, was "formed in Dallas, and its leaders have long expressed virulently anti-[Indo-European] and anti-Semitic opinions [blaming] Jews for the 9/11 terrorist attacks and for the slave trade". Late former NBPP chairman Khalid Abdul Muhammad is quoted as having said that "there are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes"."

Note: While I was writing this another editor removed the material, but I'm leaving this section open in case the original editor decides to BRRR instead of WP:BRD.- MrX 18:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This apparently new editor - User:W124l29 - is disruptive. He's restoring some material not supported by the sources - for example, the "Black Israelites" don't appear in any of the three sources mentioned. He's also changing text back to his own, inferior version—he reinserted "He also posted critiques against white people" when the source reflects that the post was not a "critique" but a rant, and when the article refers to one post rather than several (my revision is "On Facebook, Johnson posted an angry and "disjointed" post against white people in the days before the attack.")
Is it time for extended confirmed semi-protection here? Neutralitytalk 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That quote is coatrackish. We don't need to explain the group itself in detail. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You can respond within the section which I made for us to discuss this. W124l29 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter which section the discussion occurs in. Just engage in discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an ANI posted related to this discussion. See here. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Police are changing the story

Quote:

The Dallas police chief says the shooting suspect was killed by a remote-controlled robot on the second floor of a community college, not a parking garage as authorities previously described.
Chief David Brown said at a news conference Monday that the department has misspoke for days, and that 25-year-old Micah Johnson died inside El Centro Community College in downtown Dallas. Brown did not provide more details, including the location of negotiations that came before the bomb.

-- GreenC 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed that when the event was happening. We had a reporter near the college itself when the explosion happened and the area/amount of damage was not near any garage. Seems he was shootin' and a scootin' as fast as he could. Goes back to Rule #1: Cardio until he met up with the robot Killy McBombface and then got blown up. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
At this point we actually know very little for certain. Police are keeping information right, or intentional misinformation to draw out collaborators. -- GreenC 23:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The police will release misinformation and withhold details for days to allow them to sort out false confessors or false accusers. It will take time for all the details to come out. ---Naaman Brown (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Grunt talk

This is probably uncontroversial but couldn't hurt to outline here. I changed the wording so it doesn't sound like he went to basic training (IET) in order to deploy to Afghanistan. That only happens in a time of war where you are drafted specifically in support of a contingency operation, and that hasn't happened since Vietnam. Soldiers go through IET regardless, with few exceptions such as some ROTC officers and officers that direct commission to AMEDD.

I also removed the National Defense Service Medal because current interpretation of regulations is that this is awarded to soldiers who complete IET. IET is technically active duty (Title 10 active duty orders), and so they qualify even if they are never deployed. It's not related to his "service in Afghanistan" but the fact that he is "serving" while there are operations like Afghanistan happening. The language in the source is very tentative and doesn't actually say that he got it for his deployment, which he didn't. TimothyJosephWood 22:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I added all that info in because it was specified in the source, and also because I heard from a news report (not article, mind you) that it is required to have training on an M-16 rifle in order to be deployed to Afghanistan. I think. I'm not going to argue against your edits, though. Just wanted to point that out. Parsley Man (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the Army Service Ribbon as it is one of those ribbons everyone gets upon completion of AIT, not for going to Afghanistan. BTW, one does not have to qualify or even know what an M16 or M4 is in order to deploy, I met some clueless troops before. My last deployment had State Department security people getting instruction while in-country at one point, oh the envy with their shiny new toys and up-armored and AC SUVs. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, looks like the news report I saw was sadly inaccurate, then. It was on a national level too. :'( Parsley Man (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Parsley Man: Just curious, were citations given for the removal of this information or are we assuming that Timothyjosephwood is an expert source? W124l29 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Have you read his message and his summaries? Parsley Man (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is the relevant regulation per NDSM, page 24. TimothyJosephWood 00:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

More grunt talk

This may be more controversial. I have removed "The awards are frequently issued to military personnel who served in a war zone". This is literally verbatim in the CNN source...but...it's wrong. The relevant regulation is the same linked to above, AR 600-8-22.

The Afghan Campaign Medal is only awarded to those serving in that theater and is ipso facto not "frequently issued [re:] war zone". The NATO medal is only authorized for six specific campaigns, of which Afghanistan is one. The reserve medal is weird, because deployment is not required, but it is required to display the M device.

All these awards except for the Army Achievement Medal, you pretty much get because you either touched Afghan soil or you served in the Reserve for a period of time. You can be particularly bad at those things and still qualify. Even the AAM is a relatively low level award and is given for lots of silly things that don't necessarily make you a good soldier; you were just a good soldier in one particular instance. It seems what they mean to say is that he didn't get any particularly prominent awards like the Bronze Star. But I'm not sure how we can say this without getting into WP:OR. TimothyJosephWood 01:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking he got the AAM for helping setup the stage area and prepped for Obama's visit to Bagram in 2014. Usually they give out COAs or coins. Had a Battalion commander that was cheap/tight with coins so he would rather hand out AAM. On staff duty and you kept the recycling bin in compliance when DPW came for a visit? Here's a medal.....that type of shit. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Misconceptions

There is old/outdated info about the sequence of events. I will begin redoing it with new sources and information, and deleting old sources that are wrong or misleading about what happened. -- GreenC 16:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A group of people

I realize that in current event articles of this nature that the lead often undergoes changes, tweaks and other corrections. But the current wording in the lead sentence, specifically the passage - "a group of people", just doesn't quite cut it. It doesn't sound encyclopedic and it doesn't follow the sources either, WaPo, CNN, FOX News, nor is it consistent with the article title. I will concede that, yes, police officers are people, but is this wording the best we can do? What do other's think about this wording?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favor of better wording. I don't really have a good suggestion though. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed; it does seem inadequate, given that his stated target was specifically police officers. I would suggest something along the lines of "On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and shot a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five and injuring nine. Two civilians were also hurt." Anyone have any other ideas? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Approve of 'Colonel Klink' only suggestion being to substitute 'civilians' with 'bystanders' or similar, bypassing the 'police are civilians' argument.Pincrete (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree that bystanders is better. We still have the "group" problem. (I'll have you know that a group of police officers is called a flock.) I would also prefer "fired upon" to "shot". Shot is more of a colloquialism, like "gun". TimothyJosephWood 13:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright, so then: "On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five and injuring nine. Two bystanders were also hurt." (Also, maybe change "hurt" to "wounded".) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I like it, but do prefer wounded as you seem to have anticipated. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Just changed it, but feel free to raise any other concerns. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 18:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

All references to "Lemar Street" need to be changed to "Lamar Street". Pdlane43 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. — Strongjam (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sexual relationship with female soldier?

Why are we speculating about whether the relationship was sexual or platonic? She is borderline BLP as 'tracable' and what difference would it make if they were?Pincrete (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC) I've removed the speculation about the relationship, retaining the 'aggrieved' and 'unfairly treated by army' claims.Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead describe the shooter as Black, African-American, or neither?

The consensus is that the lead should describe the shooter as Black because that terminology is what most reliable sources describe him as. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead describe the shooter as Black, African-American, or neither?- MrX 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • Neither for now per WP:DUE. His race is important for context, but not a defining aspect of the event itself. Leave that info for the section on the perpetrator. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - But not for any anti-black reasons, mind you. Looking at this story, I can tell the shooter was specifically motivated by rage against whites and especially white police officers. At least one source (The Daily Beast, mind you) also states that he was a black nationalist. Given the racial angle, plus the fact that it occurred in the middle of a new flurry of police-officer-kills-unarmed-black-man controversy, I think such a mention will be important in the case. Parsley Man (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait until further information comes out clarifying his motives. We should err on the side of caution here - take, for example, the reports that Omar Mateen was gay and committed a mass shooting because of sexual problems. This has been scrutinized and now appears dubious. GABgab 22:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Black or African-American are synonymous to me. This appears to have been a race-related shooting. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait This isn't CNN, being correct is far more important than being first. Until his motives are confirmed, we can't really assess what information is relevant.
Regarding black vs. African-American, they are roughly interchangeable, but Wikipedia appears to generally prefer to use "African American" when discussing the ethnic identity of black Americans (ex1, ex2, ex3). Black People directs to an entry on the black "race", "African Americans" redirects to the entry on the American ethnic group, and notable black Americans are covered in lists of African-Americans. For the purposes of consistency, we should follow suit. Nblund talk 23:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Welp, we've got sources specifically describing the guy's support for black nationalist groups (which I have put in). It might not exactly be it, but it seems like we are indeed getting closer and closer to an anti-white motive... Parsley Man (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
If and when a reliable report comes out, then we ought to put the motive in. Until then, it's just extrapolation. GABgab 00:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Not saying it's the exact motive and we must put it in now, just voicing my suspicion that we may be getting there. Parsley Man (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, racial hatred had been in the Motive field of the infobox for some time now... Parsley Man (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. ampasound, you wrote (two times) "all reliable sources have been saying this", so I thought I would check. I searched for dallas shooting and selected the first news source, this one. Oddly, I did not see where this source calls the the shooter black or African-American. - MrX 00:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Neither, unless and until a majority of mainstream sources also describe the shooter as black or African-American in the ledes of their articles. Wikipedia is not a source of original thought, and we should not be out in front on this.- MrX 00:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
"The ledes of their articles"? That's quite a stretch, because I doubt we'll be seeing that in sources at least for now. I did find an article clearly saying Johnson was black, but elsewhere in the body, not in the lede. I forgot what the source was and can no longer find it (it's not Daily Mail or Daily Beast or any of the unreliable sources, though, I can assure you). Parsley Man (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
This way we can glaze over any idea that a black person can (do) something racist or wrong. It helps maintain the media narrative that all black people are victims, and all white people are part of some kinds of racially oppressive power structure (or somehow benefit from it even if they don't know it exists). It seems obvious to me that he was motivated by racial hatred of white people, which was likely influenced by the fact that he was black skinned. But maybe that was makeup and he is not really black skinned? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
So your logic is, that by emphasizing that the shooter is black, you can level the playing field? Oddly, I didn't realize that was Wikipedia's purpose.- MrX 19:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For the lede, the most important thing to say is that he was motivated by black nationalism. The race will readily be inferred from that. For that matter, "black" or "African American" is not very specific anyway; that continent is a big place and much has happened since those mostly distant ancestors. Wnt (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Black I am very surprised we are even discussing this and not simply reporting on the obvious. Frankly it is disappointing, especially given the blatant racial motivation of the perp.... I think African-American seems to invite the idea of someone who came from Africa (ie. an African in America). Black is the correct descriptor because it reflects the skin colour of the perp. Not all black people are African. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by bot. Agree with Wnt that motive is more important than actual race of perpetrator, which is currently noted in the article. Simply not necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Black These recent sources all describe him as being black - Washinton Post, July 8, New York Times, July 8, Los Angeles Times, July 8, The Wall Street Journal, July 8, Chicago Tribune, July 9.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Black the sources are recording that and it is a notable part of the coverage, though any emphasis of that or extrapolation of motive should be kept in check for now. Pincrete (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Black (should it be put in the leade) The two terms are not the same, the AP style guide for example explicitly says the two "are not necessarily interchangeable". One is an ethnic group, the other is a racial group. African American refers to a specific ethnic group, the extent is a little disputed in style guides (Bloomberg, for example, says Michelle Obama would not be African American as her African ancestors are so far removed, but others, like), but always people of African descent living in America. Black refers to a skin color and is a racial classification. It refers to any person of African descent living in the United States, including Afro-Caribbean, Afro Latinx people, and Africans who immigrated to the United States. For example, 40% of the population of Trinidad and Tobago are of Southeast Asian descent so a Trinidadian in the US would not be African American, neither would Aboriginal Australians in the United States, but they would be considered Black. Since we don't really know the ethnicity of the shooter it would be a little presumptious to use African American since we have no clue if he is of African descent. All we really seem to have is classifications based upon what he looked like, so we should probably go with the one that only refers to skin color: "Black" (IFF there is consensus to put it in the lead; I have no opinion on that question). Additionally, disregarding all of that for argument, stylistically we should be parallel in our references: if we are referring to White people as "White", we should refer to the shooter as "Black". If we were to refer to White people as "Caucasian", it would be better to use "African American". Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 23:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Black", "bomb" and "police" are better than "African-American", "explosive device" and "law enforcement" because they are shorter. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Black African-American Skin color is only skin deep, and geographic origin is something that changes every time you move. I have friends who are black Irish, and they are really black and really Irish. The original Irish migrated into Ireland from the Iberian peninsula, and they all were black. The European white skin mutation appeared later and spread all over northern Europe. The red-heads in Ireland are mostly descended from Viking invaders. OTOH Melanesians are the blackest people on Earth but are unrelated to black Africans. Just to keep people confused, some of them are blond. Many Africans have lighter skin and some have blue eyes because of the central Asian hordes who occasionally invaded. Some people in southern Africa have light skin from different mutations than the European white skin mutations. Skin color is only vaguely related to geographic origin. It's all about solar exposure.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good point: Australian aboriginal people, for example, are not nearly as African as Queen Elizabeth. But since my main interest is the motive, it would be worth considering: does anything shed light on whether the sort of organizations this shooter commented in favor of have Melanesian members? There are some different ideas like pan-Africanism that are explicitly tied to the continent, but I don't know if they make any showing in these groups' ideologies. Wnt (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motives

I notice that yesterday the lead mentioned the shooter's professed hatred of white people, especially white police officers, and the infobox listed racial hatred as one of the motives (the other being recent police shootings of black men). Now the lead/infobox only mentions the recent police shootings in connection with the shooting, as though this incident were solely an act of revenge or political action. It seems like the article is pushing a specific narrative here, and one which is not really supported by sources. News media are being very cautious about attributing specific motives to the shooter, and Wikipedia should be as well.

It seems like the best source of information on the shooters motives come from statements by the Dallas Chief of Police David Brown, summarizing negotiations with Johnson during the standoff. Here is what Brown said regarding these negotiations:

The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter. He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers. [...] The suspect stated he was not affiliated with any groups and he stated that he did this alone. (ABC News, Dallas Police shed light on gunman's possible motives, around 4:05)

This mentions three possible motives:

  • The Black Lives Matter movement overall
  • Recent police shootings
  • Anger towards white people, especially white police officers

The lead/infobox should mention all three, rather than focusing solely on the second. 2601:644:1:3E52:E9E3:B96A:E83A:A99E (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that the video came out the day after the attack and these points are based on statements the shooter made during the attack. More details have been discovered about the shooter's background, so I suspect we'll get more sources on the motive. I suspect the underlying motive is Black nationalism (which pretty much covers these three points). FallingGravity (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Be that as it may, this is currently the best information available. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYN. Updated the lead/infobox. Augurar (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The lead and infobox should be a summary. It's nonsensical to prominently list Black Lives Matter as a motive. Here is a quote from one of our sources: "The suspect "wanted to kill officers" and "expressed anger for Black Lives Matter," Brown said. "None of that makes sense," Brown said." Brown is saying that the two statements are seemingly contradictory. It's equally confusing to say that "he wanted to kill white people" as a motive. Killing is what he wanted to do, but the motive is the reason he wanted to kill.- MrX 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Wanting to kill white people isn't a motive, but anger at white people is. 2601:644:1:3E52:C415:789E:2F67:6DFB (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly there are a variety of overlapping motives, all of which are well sourced. The assassin was a Black nationalist or at least in deep sympathy with that movement. He had a long standing racial hatred for Europids, openly expressing his hatred and a desire to kill them, especially white police officers. And he was deeply angry over controversial police involved shootings of black men. The fact that only the latter of these motives is identified in the motive section of the info box is disturbing. Can anyone seriously believe that if a mass shooting occurred targeting Afro-Americans by a white person with a similar history of racial hatred, that the motive in the info box would not contain the word "racism" or some variation thereof? We need to fix this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
You make a lot of broad sweeping statements about the subject without sources. We know the police chief said he said he was angry at Whites (what the heck are Europids? From Europa?) But the investigation is ongoing and various RS are not uniform in their description of the motive. We do not know he was a Black nationalist, just that he followed some groups on Facebook. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is no shortage of RS sources that clearly state his sympathy for Black nationalism. He did not simply follow these groups on Facebook, he liked them. If our hypothetical white shooter had "liked" the Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan would we be having this debate? The man openly stated to the police he wanted to kill white people. How much evidence do you require? The double standard around here is starting to become blinding. (Europid is a widely accepted academic term for Euro-ethics i.e. white people.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I will have to agree with Ad Orientem on this one. An official involved in the investigation (the Dallas police chief) said this and with confidence too, a lot of reliable sources have gone with that narrative, and the shooter's online activity provides even more reinforcement to the chief's statements. At this point, it seems like we're delaying the obvious. And if the chief's claims somehow turns out to be wrong or whatever, then no problem; we'll call foul on our part, change it, and move on. It's not like this project isn't gonna go anywhere anytime soon. Parsley Man (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Wait, the police chief said that the motivation was racial hatred? Cite please
@Ad Orientem, you're engaging in original research, and more troubling is that you're doing it by using circular logic. Should we also refer to the Shooting of Alton Sterling and the Shooting of Philando Castile as racially motivated murders? There's a reason why we don't allow original research, and there's also a reason why sources are reticent about saying that this shooting was motivated by "racial hatred". This is shameful and flagrant disregard for policy.- MrX 00:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Here.[1] I understand that the quote doesn't outright confirm his absolute hatred of white people, but considering it's never made clear that the shooter hated any groups outside of white people and police officers, and the fact that the shooter explicitly stated he "wanted to kill white people", that really gives off the connotation that he was at least planning on singling them out during the shooting. And that suspiciously sounds like racial hatred. It just seems pretty obvious to me from that quote. Parsley Man (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This is bullshit wiki-lawyering at its worst. There is no OR and no Synth violation. If someone expressly states they want to kill people belonging to a specific racial/ethnic group (confirmed by pretty much every RS source covering this) it requires a deliberate suspension of commonsense to pretend that is not clear evidence of race hatred. If either of the officers in the police involved shootings openly stated they wanted to kill black men then it damn well should be called racist. I do not see how any reasonable person can say with a straight face that there is not clear evidence race hatred as part of the motive for the attack. This entire discussion is deeply disturbing and causing me to increasingly suspect some kind of bias in our coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to echo your last sentence, but I do agree that all of this does appear to be strong evidence for racial hatred as a motive and I strongly think we should start an RfC to settle the matter. Parsley Man (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What he said is true. Had the perp said he wanted to kill black people, the event would have been declared a hate crime based on a racial hatred motive with the AG Lynch parachuting to the location before the bodies were even cold. The fact that Wiki wants to ignore the fact is very disconcerning. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dallas Police shed light on gunman's possible motives". ABC News. July 8, 2016. Retrieved July 10, 2016. The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter. He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.
"Upset at white people" ≠ "racial hatred". If sources conclude that "racial hatred" was a motivation, they will say it in those words. We're not allowed to make that conclusion ourselves.- MrX 00:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure a number of other users would beg to differ. I feel like we should start an RfC to settle this matter once and for all. Parsley Man (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion appears to support the exclusion of the "ethnic hatred" motivation being included in the Motive section of the infobox, the very basis of which is also questioned. While there is evidence that some about of racial was likley at the root of what took place, I do not see sufficient published, reliable, secondary, supporting evidence for the use of this particular term for this incident (the presence of the "Motive" field in the infobox itself probably also warrants looking into, though not via this RfC). KDS4444 (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there sufficient evidence supported by reliable sources to add Ethnic hatred or Race hatred (both link to the same article) to the Motive section of the Info Box? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes

  • Yes per my comments in the above discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Per my comments in the above discussion. Parsley Man (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes as linked, from the Southern Poverty Law Centre: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/07/08/dallas-sniper-connected-black-separatist-hate-groups-facebook . I'll also add that I do not appreciate that many Talk sections from this page have been archived without conclusion to any of said sections. Whomever cleared the Talk page is liable. W124l29 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - there are multiple RS to confirm it was racially motivated. NYTimes quote: "The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.” And there are multiple RS that specifically use the term, such as "In Dallas, a black racist, Micah Johnson," [3] and "rampage fueled by racism and rage". Atsme📞📧 15:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Some things speak for themselves. If the perp killed only white people and then said he wouldn't talk to white people and didn't like white people, that's racial hatred. If he said he was "a bit cross" or "mildly annoyed" with white people, and then went and randomly gunned down white people, that would still be racial hatred. For that matter, this politico Chief Brown who keeps claiming that the man said he was merely "upset" about all these things, is probably trying to politically make a molehill out of a mountain. Where's my recording? Suicide-snipers do not talk about being "upset." The man's words were recorded, and I will bet anybody here money that the word "upset" never came out of his mouth. In any case, it hardly matters. Res ipsa loquitur. You can say whatever you like to a group you're trying to exterminate, including "Have a nice day." Your actions make your words into irony, not the other away around. SBHarris 04:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Why is this even up for debate? It's undeniable that it was a racially motivated shooting as per the vast quantity of RS. Any attempt to conceal this fact is a poor attempt at WP:POV.--Donenne (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes The article should acknowledge that there is controversy over this point, but it should include ethic hatred as a motivating factor in the attack. Andrew327 13:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No

  • God no - We don't draw conclusion from "evidence". WP:V and WP:OR are very clear that content must be directly supported by sources. There is a reason why reliable sources say nothing about "Ethnic hatred" or "Race hatred". - MrX 02:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No Wikipedia isn't a detective agency. If an actual agency comes to the same conclusion, pat yourselves on the backs for figuring it out, but keep it under your hats till then. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No or not yet. Being angry at white people is not the same as racial/ethnic hatred. Until a preponderance of reliable sources reports that racial hatred or some synonym thereof was the motive, we should not include it. The current version reflecting the police chief's quote is sufficient. Specifically I'm referring to the version that says "Anger about Black Lives Matter and recent police shootings of black men, anger towards white people". Iff the investigation concludes that racial hatred or bias was a motive, then it should be included. Until then, we should reflect the sources per policy at WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No, definitely not, there is a world of difference between our quoting what little information we have and interpreting it to decide on motive. We do quote the available info, when multiple RS say explicitly that this was the motive, then include. I agree wholeheartedly with MrX and 'Hulk'. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No No need to speculate. Comments below. Nblund talk 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet. As has been stated, nothing is known for certain yet; we should not be jumping to conclusions. If/when ethnic hatred is confirmed by reliable sources to be the motive, it should be changed accordingly. Now is simply too soon. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet Can Chief Brown be used as a reliable source? Why not leave what he said about the shooter as quotes? He is part of law enforcement that is directly involved in the incident. Why not wait for recordings of the negotiation with the shooter? 50.242.210.195 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No adding this as a motive would be a dubious claim contradicted by some RS at best, and synthesis at worst. At this time, while a discussion of claims of racial hatred as a motive may be appropriate in the section (with appropriate RS, contentiousness caveats, and even direct quotes), any language that suggests racial hatred as a motive is a fact with a wide margin of agreement among RS is inappropriate. Jhugh95 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Not yet For us to use this descriptor in the infobox, we'd need a preponderance of sources to use this term, or an equivalent. At the moment, there is clearly no such preponderance, despite the sources given in the "yes" section. Vanamonde (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No This is a big claim that needs big sources and broad agreement among them, not just for this sentiment, but for this wording. TimothyJosephWood 11:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No Too early to say definitively. ArishiaNishi (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No Lack of sources to substantiate that crime was racially motivated Isthisuseful (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Frankly, I find it to be editorially unsound that we even have a field in an infobox for such a nuanced issue as a motive for acts of violence. In fact, I question the wisdom of trying to summarize such events in an infobox at all. And I generally recognize a lot of utility in infoboxes in a majority of contexts. But here, trying to distill these deeply complicated and controversial matters down to a few talking point categorizations seems to me to be A) a deep disservice to our readers in trying to accurately describe and contextualize these events and B) a sure-fire way to foment deep disagreements and stoke ideological arguments amongst our editors. I think it's immensely short-sighted and counter-intuitive to try to detail such events in bit-size summary lacking full context. But all of that said, if I am to restrict my opinion to the more specific inquiry being made here, no I do not think the sources provided validate adding this description to the motive field of the box; let's reserve discussion of this man's ideology and motivating factors for the body of the text where we can describe what our reliable sources say on the matter in full detail. Race was undoubtedly a big part of the picture here, but utilizing the race hatred terminology and link in the manner suggested would be non-neutral, undue, loaded, and frankly, just ham-fisted. Snow let's rap 00:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

For Comparison:

  • The September 11 attacks article does not have a motive listed in the infobox, presumably because editors could not agree.
  • Benjamin Nathaniel Smith murdered 3 and injured 10 and his motive is listed as "racial hatred."
  • Mark Essex murdered 9 people, including 5 policemen. The motive is listed as "black power."

I think the infobox should say "racially motivated violence" without any wikilinks because this is broad enough to cover both "racial hatred" and "racially motivated terrorism." "Racial hatred" implies an ideology of racial supremacy, and I have not seen anything indicating Johnson was a Black supremacist. "Racially motivated terrorism" on the other hand would be fitting if Johnson, in theory, believed in equality, but believed tit-for-tat violence was necessary in order to reach equality. Until we get more facts on whether he was a Black supremacist I think we should avoid "racial hatred" as a listed motive. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I could live with that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the verbose but accurate version in the current article which states "Anger about Black Lives Matter and recent police shootings of black men, anger towards white people". To try to abstract it to something more without nuance is crossing into OR/SYNTH. Go with what the police chief said the perpetrator said. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
How about "a desire to kill white people, especially white police officers?" I believe that has been explicitly stated in in most if not all of the reliable source coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That's better than the racial hatred part, but still like current language better. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting removal of the current language, which is accurate in so far as far as it goes. My proposal is an addition to the existing language. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Ooops. I just saw that the section has been changed again overnight, without waiting for the results of the RfC. I am fine with most of the existing language, but the last bit does not seem to correctly reflect things. There is a marked difference in degree between anger at a given group and a desire to kill them. Given that the latter is clearly on record and attested to by innumerable RS sources, it should be stated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That does sound like a good compromise. Parsley Man (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Still synth/OR. We cannot stitch together pieces of info to come to our own conclusions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

After recounting the shooter's explanation, the very next words from that officers mouth are: "None of that makes sense. None of that is a reason, a legitimate reason, to harm someone. So the rest of it would just be speculating on what his motivations were" (source). The officer is declining to speculate further on his motive in that very quote -- which seems like a pretty good reason to refrain from speculating ourselves. Most "motive" sections seem to have a more detailed description of the motivation of killers. For instance: David Lane's killing of Alan Berg is listed as motivated by "white nationalism". Also note that there are racist elements in the Oklahoma City bombing and in the 2011 Norway attacks, but the core motives were far broader. We just don't know, and there's no reason to speculate. Nblund talk 20:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit: The police chief has told the Dallas News that the investigation suggests he was preparing for this attack long before the shootings of Castile and Sterling. but may have accelerated the plot after those deaths. Nblund talk 20:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources make it clear that the motive had something to do with ethnicity, but summarizing it as "ethnic hatred" seems misleading. True ethnic hatred could have led him to walk into a Gaelic festival in a city with a large white population and open fire on the civilians. Obviously he wanted to challenge police in particular. I think it would be more likely that you would find consensus for black nationalism than ethnic hatred; i.e. a more complex belief system where other races are seen as rival nations and police of their ethnicity as being their armies. Honestly, I am suspicious that isn't the real answer either ... the military decided to ruin his life over a goddamn panty raid, and the black power groups were officially blacklisting him over the "sex crime" implied by this petty theft. I wonder if the hostile reaction this has provoked toward black protesters was actually part of the motive. But alas, we must stick with what we have sources for, and we can definitely source the black nationalism. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, we're not really here to speculate about what his motives might have been, but rather discuss how to relate whats sources actually say, as you say at the end there. But I haven't seen any support in the sources (or media generally) for black nationalism, either--nor anybody else here arguing for that angle, unless I missed it. I don't see it as an either/or scenario, or either as a particularly feasible option, given the sources. If you have some in particular in mind, could you point me at them? Snow let's rap 07:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gun models again

We previously had a discussion about how to list the types of guns used in the infobox (see this archived discussion). There have been edits recently changing the make/model of the guns ([4], [5], [6], [7]). I'm starting this to renew discussion of this issue. @JBergsma1: pinging. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I saw a picture of the gun used in the attack and it looked like an AK/SKS type rifle, but it's indeed better to wait for police to confirm the type of rifle that was used.~ JBergsma1 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

nevermind, disregard.

Possible creation of Micah Johnson article

Just a suggestion, but I was thinking we could create a separate article on Micah Xavier Johnson now. There seems to be quite a lot of information on him, and there doesn't seem to be no WP:BIO1E issue anymore, since the separate circumstances behind his honorable discharge (and the investigation into it) has attracted considerable media coverage as well. I am beginning work on a separate article on my sandbox, but I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter before I make significant progress. Parsley Man (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good idea. Informant16 19 August 2016
I don't think there's any reason to. Everything notable about this individual can be fairly easily included in this article. A split would just atomize content needlessly. Neutralitytalk 13:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No reason to create an article on him as there is no real notoriety on him other than the shooting in Dallas and getting blown up by Killy McBombface. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I guess creation isn't possible at this moment. But I'm still going to keep the sandbox and work with what I have. There may not be enough information on Johnson that would warrant a separate article, but I suspect we will continue to get more as the investigation continues along. And there's only so much we could include in this article before the section gets too long for its own good. Thanks for responding. :) Parsley Man (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers/Archive_3&oldid=1136474470"