Talk:Death of Keenan Anderson

Keenan Anderson asked a motorcycle-riding officer to help

"Keenan Anderson running in the middle of the road, asking a motorcycle-riding officer to help"

There's no evidence for this, the video shows Anderson ignoring instructions and yelling "they're trying to kill me" and then running off. Going on videos of other such police stops, it is possible Anderson, in the hope of beating the original traffic accident rap, was trying to provoke the cop into exceeding his authority and then get off in court because of the ‘racism’ of the cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUuYxIb5mrs (01:08) 92.29.64.205 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From the source linked Bodycam video shows Anderson running in the middle of the street alongside a motorcycle officer. He tells the officer to help him and points in another direction. CT55555(talk) 02:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your speculation, nor for original research. We write in articles what reliable sources say. CT55555(talk) 02:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Aren't primary sources more important? You're bias is clearly showing especially considering "original research" is not even necessary to view a new primary source in direct conflict with your editorialized speculation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mneQY9plGRY&t=0s 73.10.249.188 (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, we firmly prioritise secondary sources for writing encyclopaedia articles. What news sites, who employ journalists to fact check, say about things is the important thing here. Your analysis or my analysis of a video is of lower relevance than what professional journalists wrote about it. And in the context of this being a crowd-sources encyclopedia, we are all editors, and so in that sense everything here is editorialised, but it's not speculation if it repeats what a reliable source says. CT55555(talk) 14:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

> "but it's not speculation if it repeats what a reliable source says."

...even if there is a direct contradiction with an actual primary source? Doesn't Wikipedia use primary sources and actual reports posted by authorities? That's insane. It's not "analysis" when you source from a primary source. Secondary sources that are in direct contradiction with a primary can provide the "contextualized fact-checked opinion." This is why commenting on current events sucks from every which angle and the media is the worst acting incentivized for "being first" and gaining clicks. Supplying half formed analysis that indicatively shape public opinion is obviously intentionally driven. Despite your opinion as natural as it gets and I use any and all information prioritizing primary releases provided by our representative government organization. I'm pro-establishment both right and left. The official releasing of information should always supersede journalists. There is a reason we are living in a growing low trust environment. This wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia dropped the ball with supporting information. 73.10.249.188 (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, in addition to my earlier points about the importance of secondary sources, it sounds to me like he says "please help me" 4 seconds into the video you linked. CT55555(talk) 22:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Toxicology report in lede?

The toxicology report was done by the police. The police are linked to his death. They are not a neutral source. I think who ever removed this from the lede was correct. Correct that it should be mentioned, but not given top tier prominence. I think we should err on the side of mild caution - i.e. include it, but not in the lede. I'm about to delete it from the lede and ask that anyone who disagrees or agrees discus here. CT55555(talk) 02:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Whether the police are neutral or not is irrelevant. We are not citing the police as a primary source, we are citing independent secondary sources in the media who think it is important enough to quote the police on this. All of the sources in this article at present has cited the police's toxicology result of Anderson having cocaine and marijuana in his system. We parrot what reliable sources say and this is something that a wide variety of reliable sources say. starship.paint (exalt) 02:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

But all the sources obviously go back to one not neutral source. It is clear that nobody but the police has done any toxicology. But I'm not arguing to exclude it from the article, just to not give it top tier billing. I understand why someone might disagree, but why do you strongly disagree? CT55555(talk) 02:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says we should which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If we do not represent this significant view, given the wide mention in sources covering this incident, we fail to adhere to WP:NPOV. starship.paint (exalt) 02:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

1. NBC [1] A report by the police department's toxicology unit found that Anderson tested positive for cocaine metabolite and cannabinoids, Muñiz said.
2. CNN [2] A preliminary toxicology-blood screen of Anderson’s blood samples tested positive for cocaine and marijuana, police said
3. BBC [3] A toxicology report produced by the LAPD showed that Mr Anderson's blood tested positive for cannabis and cocaine.
4. NBC Los Angeles [4] - The LAPD said its forensic toxicology unit conducted a toxicology exam on Jan. 5 and determined Anderson had cocaine metabolite and cannabinoids in his system
5. CBS [5] - LAPD said that they discovered Cocaine Metabolite and Cannabinoids in Anderson's blood.
6. Guardian [6] The LAPD chief, Michel Moore, said in a news conference that Anderson’s behavior was “erratic” and he suffered a “medical emergency”. He claimed that a preliminary blood test revealed cannabis and cocaine in Anderson’s system.
7. Associated Press [7] (not in article yet) An LAPD toxicology test found cocaine and cannabis in Anderson’s body
8. The Washington Post (not in article yet) [8] Moore added that Anderson was in an “altered mental state” and claimed that a preliminary blood test from police showed that cannabis and cocaine were in his system.
9. USA Today [9] (not in article yet) A preliminary toxicology report from police found cocaine and cannabis in Anderson's body, according to Moore.
10. WUSA [10] (not in article yet) “Mr. Anderson’s specimens tested positive for cocaine and cannabis,” Moore said.

For my argument above. Also, the drugs may not have contributed to death, but may have contributed to "mental state" and "erratic" behaviour as quoted above. starship.paint (exalt) 02:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not propose to exclude the police's point of view, just not to repeat it in the most prominent place. But I am glad you are thinking about NPOV, because in this context, we're talking about the point of view of the group who are under scrutiny for being linked to the death. So I hope maybe you can see why NPOV might guide us away from emphasising one side's analysis? CT55555(talk) 03:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand NPOV. It doesn't mean Wikipedia must take a neutral position on every subject. It means we must neutrally reflect what reliable sources say in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. This is a prominent viewpoint. starship.paint (exalt) 03:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I would find this slightly more convincing if you were also arguing to add his family's comments to the lede. I'm going to pause here and let others opine. CT55555(talk) 03:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

His family’s comments aren’t even in the body, why should I argue to put them in the lede? I don’t really agree that a “both sides” approach is necessarily neutral. If both are covered in similar proportions in sources, sure. starship.paint (exalt) 06:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The toxicology report merits prominent position in the article insofar as NBC, CNN, BBC, etc., all confirm the perp was sky-high on drugs.XavierItzm (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Due to the concurrence of XavierItzm, the emergence of even more reliable sources (CTV and HuffPost) also mentioning this point, I will be re-adding this to the lede. starship.paint (exalt) 14:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

One person agreeing with you with the incredible claim "the perp was sky-high on drugs"

(nobody has claim that), making zero policy based arguments, is hardly community consensus. I would encourage you to ask for a neutral party to close this, if you think this discussion has reached its conclusion. CT55555(talk) 15:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

CT55555, you’re making inconsistent arguments. Down this page, you’ve stated that You pointing out that the police's claim should get more weight is fair. So we all agree that the police’s claim should get more weight than the ACLU Vice News claim, but that isn’t borne out by the body. The body devotes 16 words to the police’s claim, then the body devotes 40 words (2.5 times weight) to the ACLU Vice News claim that you clearly support. I have chosen not to remove the ACLU Vice News claim at this time. Thus, to grant the police’s claim more weight, it should be in the lede. TL;DR: you agree that it is fair for the police claim to have more weight than the ACLU Vice News claim, but to remove the police claim from the lede would result in the ACLU Vice News claim having 2.5x the weight of the police claim. starship.paint (exalt) 01:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being inconsistent, but I recognise the complexity, if you agree with my stance. I'll try to summarize how I see it:

1. More sources quote the police, so it is indeed a more important view of the two we are discussing
2. However, I object to it making the lede, as that prioritises only one view

So that leaves the issue of how to give one a bit more weight, but not lots of weight. I think mentioning it first is a good middle ground. A longer quote would be another way. I might summaries by saying, I think we can give the police a little more space, but not lots more. CT55555(talk) 01:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point you don't even have majority support, never mind community consensus. Adding it back in was premature and I request that you self revert that. CT55555(talk) 21:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Relevant: "LAPD’s Release of Drug Tests Is Smearing Keenan Anderson, Groups Say: The Black teacher died hours after being tasered six times by the LAPD. Police later released preliminary drug tests, which experts say mean little more than a public relations tactic. CT55555(talk) 01:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

...and also perhaps helpful, because we can now show both sides (weighted accordingly, I've not reached an opinion on that yet), and if we do, I'm more comfortable about all of this. CT55555(talk) 01:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Vice is yellow rated on WP:RSP, no consensus on general reliability. If you have a better source, this can be included in the body (unless many more reliable sources produced). starship.paint (exalt) 02:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Clearly CBS, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the aforementioned NBC, CNN, BBC citing the perp was DUI with cocaine and marihuana cannot be compared to one mention in dubious media (Vice).XavierItzm (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The suitability of Vice News is a slightly different topic, I've started a new topic below about that. CT55555(talk) 13:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We should mention the tox report in the body but not the lead. The sources provided by starship show that the report is something that reliable sources typically mention briefly, usually past the halfway mark into the stories. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing it from the lede at this point. Abeg92contribs 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In what world is there a "consensus" here to leave it in the article? Gonna try and bring in some outside opinions. Abeg92contribs 20:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

... which I guess is accomplished by (rfc attempt removed) maybe? Abeg92contribs 21:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What the heck kind of RfC statement is maybe? WP:RFCBRIEF it certainly is, but it tells us absolutely nothing about the matter in hand. See WP:RFCST before trying again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the rfc tag. Abeg92, could we hold off a bit on starting an RfC? You've said you support removal from the lead, but not why. Could you let us know? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that the RFC statement was incorrectly placed in the middle of a sentence, that ended with "maybe" accidentally making it look like that was a statement, rather than just the last word of a sentence. I welcomed the RFC, I did wish for wider input. So I thank Abeg92 for this and support any effort to get more input here, but I've never started a RFC before and I am not sure enough about the process to start one today. CT55555(talk) 15:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend starting a subtopic with a heading like RfC on toxicology report in lead. Right after that comes the RfC tag, with the relevant topic areas. Three possibilities are Biographies; Politics, government, and law; and Society, sports, and culture (it's ok to pick more than one). Then we need a brief, neutral statement of the choice at hand. I think it could be as simple as "Should the lead mention the preliminary police toxicology report and its finding of cocaine and marijuana in the blood samples?"

I'm not dramatically opposed to running an RfC, but I'd love to see if we could get this done with less community effort investment. My first thought is: starship.paint, do you still support inclusion in the lead? Are we at least at a "no consensus" point, where the safe move is removal? If not, could we post a neutrally-worded message at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, since this is mainly a dispute over WP:DUE? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: personally my position is to keep it until the independent coroner report is out, at which point that independent coroner report can be included and this LAPD report can be removed. I anticipate this will happen within a month, and an RFC usually takes a month, anyway. That is my view. starship.paint (exalt) 09:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with @Firefangledfeathers that there is no consensus to keep this in the lede and hope that @Starship.paint will agree to err on the side of caution, despite wanting it in the lede. CT55555(talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555, Firefangledfeathers, Abeg92, and XavierItzm: - at this point I'm inclined to agree provided that we commit to put in the independent coroner report once there is ample reliable source coverage. starship.paint (exalt) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we should separate the two issues. We don't even know if the independent coroners report will make the news, never mind reliable sources. Hypothetically, I'd assume it will, and I'd assume it will to some degree confirm or reject the police's claims and I assume that will be notable and newsworthy information and I assume reliable sources will give that lots of coverage, but I think it would be strange to commit to adding future details before they even exist.

Let's stay focussed on the question in front of us. And I think we have consensus to remove from the lede, but I also dislike the pattern of people rushing to assume consensus and make rapid edits, so I'll stall and wait for a second person to comment on that before taking any action. CT55555(talk) 03:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we go by the sources. When domestic and international sources NBC, CNN, BBC, CBS, The Guardian, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, USA Today and pretty much everyone else have reported on the fact Anderson was high with cocaine and marihuana, it stands to reason that they all do so because it is not only a relevant fact, put a prominent relevant fact in the story; i.e., one that needs be presented on the lead. It would be quite arbitrary to remove prominent relevant facts from the lead. What's the rationale for removal of prominent, widely reported facts from the lead? XavierItzm (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

As above: the lack of prominence of the detail in the sources, and the sources all coming from one source, who has a conflict of interest. CT55555(talk) 04:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That the fact is prominent is manifest by local, national, and international coverage. The facts that the perp is the suspect of a hit-and-run and that he died of a cardiac arrest 4.5 hrs later, what's the source for that? Isn't the police the ultimate source of that? Do you have other ultimate sources? Are those facts going to be also deleted from the lead? Finally, the source is the police, a government institution. The toxicology report was performed by a toxicology lab, not by the policemen on the beat and not by the Chief of Police. Are you suggesting the Chief of Police is tampering the evidence or falsificating the report? The way on Wikipedia we avoid such pointless WP:OR is that we go by the sources. The numerous sources cite the toxicology report as a salient fact; we merely go by the sources.XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, the toxicology report should be part of the lede. The vast plurality of reputable secondary sources includes the preliminary toxicology information in their articles, and typically do so very early in their reporting.47.197.37.230 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondly, I assert: this CT55555 user is editing in bad faith and their opinion as presented in this talk page should be disregarded. My evidence is their attempt at attacking the provenance of primary sources when all other avenues of argumentation failed. That tactic is clearly disingenuous within the context of this discussion. We trust reliable secondary sources to do their due diligence, that is why we use them. This was previously explained in part by CT55555 themselves. As CT55555 is comfortable making authoritative references to our editorial guidelines in the comments above, it is safe to conclude that if they are disregarding those guidelines, that it is intentional. That is bad faith editing. I speculate: the reason for wanting to bury the toxicology information in the article is to deny readers easy access to the (accurate) narrative that Mr. Anderson's death may not have been the result of police use of force. There are plenty of organizations who seek to propagandize any death in police custody. I believe here that CT55555 is editing this article in service of the ideological or political goals of those sorts of organizations and their supporters, and not in service of the truth. I therefore recommend we disregard CT55555's assertions and add that data point back to the lede. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith, CT55555(talk) 23:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, but as per my argument above, you disproved that assumption with your choices and words. Your rules lawyering does not absolve you from the consequences of editorial bias, namely that people will know you edit in bad faith and your integrity / reputation will suffer. But that's entirely on you for being disingenuous on this talk page. Do better. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

...cont, as I was eating dinner: It is the case that AGF is 1) not an absolute rule, and 2) has explicit exceptions for "deliberately trying to hurt" Wikipedia. Your obvious experience and rhetorical skill with the WP guidelines actually works against you here. If you scroll up on this page you will see that others have called you out for being inconsistent in your assertions of WP's cultural/editorial guidelines. You've pulled out every rules lawyering gambit to try to bury the fact that Mr. Anderson was high on drugs at the time of his arrest and death. However, when you attempted to reinterpret how we weigh secondary sources, you stepped across the line into clearly disingenuous argumentation. Pointedly: You obviously know better. The founding mission of Wikimedia is to "collect and develop educational content". You are here intentionally trying to suppress pertinent knowledge on this page, and more to the point: you have succeeded in doing so to the detriment of the truth. You have buried the lede. So you have transgressed our norms and my comments on the matter are hereby claimed as a good faith exception to AGF. Your intentional disingenuous argumentation succeeded at "deliberately trying to hurt" Wikipedia, and therefore you edited in bad faith. I'm making this exception to AGF because I believe it is important that people know this about you. Otherwise, they might give undue weight to your opinions/edits in the future. 47.197.37.230 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware also that casting aspersions is forbidden. So I politely ask you to cease doing so, and also please stay off my talk page. CT55555(talk) 04:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I can say, maybe tautologically, that if there's "ample reliable source coverage" of the independent report, I'd support putting it in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm a firm believer in due balance, but in instances such as this, until the courts or other authoritative entities rule in, we should not be adjudicating articles on the basis of the number of sources, only in terms their specific reliability. IOW, objectivity requires giving the benefit of the doubt to both sides, as opposed to basing inclusion on a "head count" which normally applies in determining the prevailing view. Thus, the "other side(s)" should also be reported as long as multiple (two or more) reliable sources can be provided, which happens to be the case here.

Side note: the article's text needs to be cleaned up. A fair amount of the wording is sub-par, as is the positioning of sources. The lead sentence, for example, is jumbled, and others suffer in terms of syntax. And what's a citation doing next to Anderson's name at the beginning of his bio? Allreet (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

The title of this article should be changed to "Murder of", not "Death of". Keenan Anderson was clearly murdered by LAPD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Keenan_Anderson Jvalli (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you shares likes to the reliable sources that confirm this please? CT55555(talk) 19:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Since "Murder" is the result of a tried crime, I'm guessing such a title would be improper at this time. There may be guidelines or precedent to naming conventions here? --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more complicated than we say what reliable sources say. And I don't think they say murder, because for legal liability reasons, newspapers are cautious about calling things murder. That said, I think this case is far form clear. If murder was obvious, I might be on the other side of the argument here, but the circumstances of his death are absolutely not clear. CT55555(talk) 20:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Even George Floyd’s article wasn’t changed to Murder until the trial delivered a murder verdict. starship.paint (exalt) 02:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  100% correct. The title should not be changed until the alternative word applies per official rulings. Allreet (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Current events tag

Given that details are only just coming out of his death, it may be appropriate to add a {{Recent death presumed}} tag or otherwise appropriate marker. GuardianH (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent death presumed is inappropriate, he is definitely deceased. Perhaps you meant Template:Recent death confirmed, but I don't think the article is being very heavily edited at the moment. No new information has emerged yet since the initial wave of news reporting. starship.paint (exalt) 05:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Starship.paint CT55555(talk) 13:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of Vice News

User @Starship.paint deleted my content (diff link) because it cited Vice Media. Note: WP:VICE. I think they have a mistaken understanding what to do when Wikipedia lacks consensus if a source is reliable or not. Vice News is not a perennial source. WP:MREL guides us what to do for such sources. I quote that sources of this typoe may be usable depending on context. The general guidance for sources of this type is that it is necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis. My assessment is that we need to be cautious about Vice, but my edit was a quote from the notable American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. We can reasonably conclude that if Vice misquoted American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (an organisation notable for litigation) would loudly correct them and possibly litigate against them, so people are unlikely to falsely quote American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. I would probably avoid opinion from Vice, but I think we can reasonably use quotes they provide in an article that done by the following journalist who specialises in this topic, see https://www.vice.com/en/contributor/manisha-krishnan. I am therefore reverting the edit and kick starting this chat in the hope of convincing @Starship.paint and getting wider input and consensus. CT55555(talk) 13:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is WP:UNDUE and even WP:FALSEBALANCE. If a marginally reliable outlet is the only one directly quoting the ACLU, then that viewpoint is of little significance. XavierItzm has argued somewhere along these lines as well. I would urge you, CT55555, to rely on reliable sources for your self-described toxicology rebuff. starship.paint (exalt) 13:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

On WP:UNDUE: My assessment is that there is indeed more coverage of the police's toxicology report than the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. In the context of our job being to 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 police's view deserves more weight.

On WP:FALSEBALANCE, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California does not hold a minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim and to quote that guideline here is very wide of the mark.

Please note (as per WP:MREL) marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. You can urge me in any direction you want, but I'm following the guidelines here, using Vice News as I have done is appropriate. You pointing out that the police's claim should get more weight is fair, but suggesting Vice should not be used is incorrect. CT55555(talk) 13:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thus far, you have brought zero reliable sources that provide that explicit quote. Therefore, that quote is a minority view, since you have failed to prove your case. I've done a Google search and there is a total of three results for the quote: (1) Vice, (2) this Wikipedia page, and (3) some aggregator called Elfland.me that I'm not going to click on. This is as minority view as it gets. Super clear WP:UNDUE. starship.paint (exalt) 14:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Going to add on that HuffPost (more reliable than Vice) clearly read the Vice article due to linking to it, had the option of directly quoting the ACLU's response to Vice. HuffPost chose not to. That's exactly what we should reflect. starship.paint (exalt) 14:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The ref to Vice and its associated quotation in the last section is laughable P.R. spin / opinion by a political group. However, I am an extreme inclusionist, so I am not going to delete it. Let the reader make up his own mind or be duped if he doesn't have critical reading skills. As long as no-one takes it from the final section to another section, or worse yet, to the lede, I say live and let live with these low-quality opinions. But if someone else were to remove the spin, that would be fine as well.XavierItzm (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggest compromise @XavierItzm and CT55555: Paraphrase this sentence from HuffPost, which has been rated more reliable than Vice. Civil liberties groups criticized the release of a preliminary drug test as an attempt to smear Anderson’s character. Use the paraphrase in lieu of the Vice direct quote. starship.paint (exalt) 09:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel completed to remind everyone that we can use sources that are "no consensus" as per WP:MREL, however, I find your proposed sentence good. I find that in Wikipedia, when people say things like "civil liberties groups" someone quickly adds "vague" tags, so we should be specific. And actually, I think it is just one civil liberties group, so you might be overstating it. i.e. if we said "The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the release of a preliminary drug test as an attempt to smear Anderson’s character." it would be more accurate, less vague and still agreeable to me. CT55555(talk) 13:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555: (1) the brown text is not a proposed sentence, that is actually a direct quote from the HuffPost article. It needs to be paraphrased. (2) Vice News quoted Jeannette Zanipatin of the Drug Policy Alliance: “That's very unfortunate that they're trying to use this at the back end to sort of absolve themselves,” (3) Obviously green-rated sources are generally better than the no consensus ones. starship.paint (exalt) 14:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Replying to your three points:

1. Sorry for my misunderstanding. I would support any reasonable paraphrase. I'll do that myself if you prefer?
2. Because The American Civil Liberties Union is a notable organization, I think they are the more important once to quote, that is my opinion, not my strong opinion, I'm flexible on that, the more important thing is to me is to get the criticism of the police's use of the toxicology report in the article from any source.
3. Agreed

CT55555(talk) 15:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@CT55555: - yes you can paraphrase. Regarding Drug Policy Alliance, I’m not saying we must quote them, what I meant to say is that perhaps HuffPost considered Drug Policy Alliance as the second civil liberties group. starship.paint (exalt) 00:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional weight to the ACLU comment given by this Independent piece. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Keenan Anderson, Respected High School English Teacher

Mr. Keenan Anderson was a 10th grade English teacher at Digital Pioneers Academy, Washington, DC. He was a deeply committed educator and father of a six-year-old son. He had over eight years of experience as a teacher and leader. In less than six months at Digital Pioneers Academy, he established strong relationships with scholars and staff.

Mr. Anderson's students deserve to have strong role models, to live without fear, and to have the opportunity to reach their fullest potential.

https://www.digitalpioneersacademy.org/in-memory-keenan-anderson 2001:48F8:3029:3E0:0:0:0:DF21 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2022

It is a shame to see that Wikipedia has edited the Happenings to fit the Description of Los Angeles Police Departmeng. Very shameful. I am ashamed of myself that I paid 20 Euro to support Wikipedia. (unsigned comments by Special:Contributions/2A02:810B:4C0:664B:355E:4F06:628D:9018)

Coordinates are where he was tased and arrested, didn't die there

That isn't where he died. Mr JD Green (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)