Talk:Death of Regan Russell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recentism, Advocacy and Memorial

I have removed content and citation about a fight between two other groups unrelated to Regan Russell. That they (or anyone) are exploiting a person's death to benefit their advocacy by flashing placards at demonstrations as fuel for their squabbles, doesn't have anything to do with Russell herself.

The two groups (At War For Animals and Locals For Carriages) have been fighting for years over horse-drawn carriages.[1] There has been no evidence/content/sources presented that indicate Regan Russell ever had anything to do with that issue. Also, there have been protests at Fearman's slaughterhouse for well over five years (see Anita Krajnc case). Russell's death is not notable in and of itself, and probably happened in an incident just like this stupid stunt at Fearman's street corner [2] where protesters jump in front of the tractor-trailer rig while he is negotiating a tight right-hand turn into a side street, or the earlier part of the video where protesters are seen sticking their arms inside the trailer while the driver waits at a red light. Either way, Russell's death was ruled accidental and as an event is no more notable than any other traffic fatality or pedestrian fatality that happens on a daily basis. Collectively, the Wikipedia community has so far failed to present sources showing that this woman was notable while living and was any different than any other routine activist/protester. The ongoing protesters will continue to exploit Russell's name by flashing placards as long as news coverage keeps mentioning it; but neither their actions, nor mentions of their actions in media, contribute to the notability equation of either Regan Russell or her accidental death.

This entire Wikipedia article is WP:RECENTISM, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:MEMORIAL of a non-notable woman, and an inappropriate use of Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic purposes.

— Normal Op (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's not relitigate the AFD discussion. The information about Locals For Carriages and At War for Animals seems relevant enough to me, as it gives an indication of Russell's legacy or the impact of her death. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Russell's death was neither cause nor effect in the many-years fight between those two groups. Normal Op (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This was voted AFD keep over the same objections raised above. Russell's death is being used by both of above listed groups in their ongoing fight. This is notable. Their ongoing fight is notable. Non-notable people can die and their death then makes them notable. See George Floyd Breona Taylor. BrikDuk (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm! You are not seriously comparing one protester accidentally smushed by a truck to George Floyd or Breona Taylor, are you?!?!? Advocacy, much? Normal Op (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

What is comparable is all three people were not notable until they were killed. BrikDuk (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You are using the logical fallacy of false equivalence. The deaths of the other two people are notable as representative of overreaching or racist police matters, and have become icons of nationwide protests for civil rights involving hundreds of thousands of people, and both cases have ongoing open investigations into the circumstances of the death which may well lead to criminal prosecutions. There's a big difference between those two and this pedestrian death (deemed accidental the following day, investigation closed) at the corner of a non-notable slaughterhouse where a small handful of animal rights activists stand to try to water some pigs. You will also note that the article on Taylor is labelled "Shooting of..." and is all about the incident, the investigation and the aftermath; not so much about the woman herself. For Russell, we don't even have a news article which says how she died, just that it was an accident, leaving us to assume she went under the tires of a heavy truck. Floyd's death spurred protests worldwide (in over 60 countries), including a spontaneous campaign leading to hundreds of Confederate monuments being torn down, universities renaming their Confederate-named buildings, and product brands being renamed away from African-American stereotypical images or names. I don't see any great rash of pig-watering occurring around Canada in the wake of Russell's death. Try as you might, there's not a WP:SNOWBALL's chance that Russell's death will come even close to comparing to a tiny hair on a wart on the little toe of the Floyd–Taylor notability colossus. So drop the false equivalence approach. Normal Op (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support page renamed Death of Regan Russell. We need NPOV on this article "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." News articles by reliable sources with Russell in the headline represent significant views. Those are the references that have been removed. Continuing to remove references with reliable citations can be sign of do not have [NPOV]] and possible DE. Wikipedia to work best needs consensus building and so as that needs civility and good faith. BrikDuk (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Renaming to Death of Regan Russell

I am late to this discussion, but are there any good arguments not to rename the page? It seems clear that the notability, established through the AfD discussion, is in the event of death. This seems like an uncontroversial case of WP:BLP1E. Renaming has been mentioned by others, but it seems to have been lost in the discussion of notability and other issues. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability was NOT "established through AfD". But there is probably no opposition to renaming the page. It was, after all, discussed during AfD and there didn't seem to be any opposition to a renaming. Normal Op (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I just meant that since people seemed to have moved on from the discussion of notability, I think we can go ahead with a renaming. Jmill1806 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now moved the page. Jmill1806 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@PKT: You have undone this renaming without any discussion on the talk page as far as I can tell. There was lengthy discussion about the notability of the subject outside of WP:BLP1E in the AfD, and you can see the decision about to move the page. Could you please explain your reasoning? Jmill1806 (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I moved the page again based on the discussion of WP:BLP1E here and in the AfD. Jmill1806 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Death similar to deaths of other animal activists

The Death of Regan Russell has been compared to the deaths of other animal rights activists who have been killed as they are protesting or because of their protesting, who do include Jill Phipps, Chico Mendes, Karel Van Noppen, Stuart Fairlie, Mike Hill, and Tom Warby. Different editors have added versions of this context to this one article in a similar way to how these comparisons and related information have been included on other articles under See Also sections or within the body of the said article. One editor continues to remove this information from this article in a manner that I am concerned may be WP:Censor for WP:CRITOFSOC. Russell's death remains controversial and the transport company whose driver hit Russell has been alleging death threats against the company and having fund-raised over $100,000 for driver. This is relevant information of interest to students and researchers. BrikDuk (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: This fact that Jill Phipps keeps getting removed demonstrates a bias. It is essentially the same incident years later. Someone has a problem with reality and I want them off this article.

-Joshua Powell — 104.195.156.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:04:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

As her Stepson...

Can confirm she was involved with At War for Animals Niagara, at least in the capacity of protesting with them and supporting them on occasion.

Ultimately, this discussion appears to say these advocacy groups are taking advantage of the incident for promotion, and I can clarify some of that.

Regan would absolutely want these groups mentioned, these events mentioned, and for the movements to fight in her name.

The attempt to wipe away the fact that she was a protestor, killed exercising her rights, is disgusting and the editors suppressing that should be ashamed of themselves.

In fact, the Niagara on the Lake incident was directly related to Regan's death. Carriage supporters attempting to upset their opposition and utilize bill 156 to advance their goals dragged Regan's name through the mud and came to the Pig Save protests to antagonize those people and smear Regan's and the incident that lead to her death.

So, out of respect to Regan herself, I would expect an article about her to mention all of this and expose the bigotry her name has endured since her passing.

Pheonix was in LA not Montreal, reading the articles would clarify that for you dipshits. Jesus Christ if you edit Wikipedia read the fucking source material and actually get it right. I can tell from the discussions none of you have read anything, because then the protests and actions taken since her death would be listed as they are relevant and in the fucking articles you have attached over time.

I'll be keeping an eye on this and expect to see some erroneous edits fixed, as well as more information about the struggle to advance the cause she died for as well as the efforts to scrutinize the treatment of her death by the opposition, government, et al.

Essentially all I am asking is for you to read the source material. If you had, you'd know her family has been involved in the interest of supporting the community helping us seek justice. We were at NOTL. Read the damn material, stop making assumptions based on your personal biases and actually make a factual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Pardon my above tone, just frustrating to see facts omitted when they are present in the source material. Just very sloppy, clear failure to state the facts in the interest of appearing neutral. Just because the facts make one side look bad, doesn't make them any less factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Sincerely,

Joshua Powell — 104.195.156.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:53:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

PS: Can we have NormalOP off this article? He seems to have a bias, he has been making most of the edits that clearly are an attempt to diminish the relevance of this article.

Unless he can cite some expertise in this I want him to stop editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Finally, the counter protests only started after she died so all information regarding them is relevant to this article. Get the relevant information on this article before I start bother admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.195.156.43 (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Uncollapsing to discuss with COI editor. Hey, Joshua, I've left a message for you at the talk page for your IP address, which is at User_talk:104.195.156.43. FTR, it's best to discuss edits, not editors. —valereee (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Starting a discussion to hopefully stop the edit war. @OPP64: Why do you keep removing the information about the July 30 demonstration? —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Trucker220 (who I believe to be coordinating edits with OPP64) has stated that "there is many biased statements making driver sound guilty". Yet I fail to see how the driver was charged with the Highway Traffic Act offence of careless driving causing death, with authorities stating there was no indication of intent or crime in his action is biased or alludes to the driver being guilty of an offense. On the other hand, they've failed to cite reliable sources to back up their claims that the "driver attention was on the other 6 protestors, he was watching for their safety on right side of trailer" and that "Many tickets were issued to these protestors". The term "illegal" was being added an excessive number of times (it already says that the bill which prohibits activists interfering with animal transport without the consent of transporter drivers, was granted royal assent the day before); the word "accident" was being used definitively while the case has yet to be taken up in a court of law; and information that was backed up by reliable sources was removed repeatedly (because apparently I don't know how to read Canadian sources as I don't live in Canada). Both editors have ignored warnings and requests to back up their claims with reliable sources. Linguist111^talk 17:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of your sources are website run by animal activists. They are not credible sources. Both those documentarys were also made and produced by animal rights activists. And the reason for counter protesters is wrong. The reason they came was to encourage police to enforce the law and stop these illegal protests. They never had a legal right to stop trucks or water pigs. This whole wikipedia article is slanted to make driver sound guilty. When in reality the case hasn't even been through court yet and most of "credible sources" are just biased animal activists websites and witnesses Trucker220 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with using the word "vehicular homicide". Or the word "ag gag". Neither of those is even close to fact. Why is there nothing about the multiple charges laid to these protestors for illegally blocking traffic? And illegally interacting with farm animals? Trucker220 (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The part mentioning which lane the truck was in, isn't relevant either. The truck Stopped on the road because the gateway blocked. Trucks use the left lane because the gateway in narrow and 53ft trailers need to use left lane to make the right turn. Mentioning the lane used for turn is just trying to make it sound like driver was turning from illegal lane, which he wasn't. Trucks can turn from any lane. And the reason Regan was hit is because the drivers eyes were on the right mirros watching the other 6 people on the right side to make sure the trailer would miss them, and driver did not know Regan was going to walk in front of the truck hood while he was watching the right rear wheels of trailer with right mirror Trucker220 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Another comment on the part that says "activists requisted trucks stop for 2 minutes". Thats completely false, trucks were forcefully stopped and illegally held for sometimes close to 10minutes. Without drivers consent and animals were also fed foreign liquids and foods without drivers permission. Which is a massive food safety risk and also blocking trucks is danger to the people blocking the trucks and a danger to all traffic around, forcing trucks to stop in middle of intersection. There was no "asking for 2 minutes" they forced driver to stop for much longer and forcefully tampered with the hogs Trucker220 (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Trucker220: Many of your sources are website run by animal activists. They are not credible sources. – so Inside Halton, CBC, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Halton Police, the Union Journal, Giornale del Cliento and In Halton are unreliable sites run by animal rights activists?

Both those documentarys were also made and produced by animal rights activists. – Yes, but they contain footage of the event, and the article says According to witnesses... authorities stating...

The reason they came was to encourage police to enforce the law and stop these illegal protests. – How is that not indicated by tried to prevent the activists from giving water to pigs?

This whole wikipedia article is slanted to make driver sound guilty. – there was no indication of intent or crime in his action is equal to "the driver probably committed an offense"? And your edits are not making the article slanted to make the driver sound completely innocent?

I do not agree with using the word "vehicular homicide". Or the word "ag gag". Neither of those is even close to fact. – "Traffic fatality" is okay. "Ag-gag" isn't a must as readers have access to the entire bill from the source and can determine what its aims are.

Why is there nothing about the multiple charges laid to these protestors for illegally blocking traffic? And illegally interacting with farm animals? – If there is a reliable source for this claim, please do add it.

The part mentioning which lane the truck was in, isn't relevant either. The truck Stopped on the road because the gateway blocked. Trucks use the left lane because the gateway in narrow and 53ft trailers need to use left lane to make the right turn. Mentioning the lane used for turn is just trying to make it sound like driver was turning from illegal lane, which he wasn't. Trucks can turn from any lane. – The statement about the transporter stopping in the inner lane is to give perspective and context, without which readers may mistakenly assume it simply drove through the entrance without ever having stopped. Not once is it alluded to that the driver stopped there illegally.

the drivers eyes were on the right mirros watching the other 6 people on the right side to make sure the trailer would miss them... trucks were forcefully stopped and illegally held for sometimes close to 10minutes – I haven't found any sources corroborating these claims, and you haven't provided any such sources. Sources need to be provided. Why am I still explaining this? Linguist111^talk 18:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

If Scotland Yard was making edits based on the police reports, would you be fighting with them? You live in the UK and are a vegan. The only true info you have is vegan propaganda. The truck driver has not even been to court yet. He could still be found innocent of all charges. I live in Ontario. I live in Halton. I have first hand information about what actually goes on at both the Pig Save and New Wave vigils. Are you aware that Pig Save now stand on the boulevard in the middle of the road? This puts not only their lives at risk but the lives and safety of other drivers. New Wave people were running in front of moving transport trucks, which BTW are a lot bigger than the trucks you have in the UK. The ARA stand in the truck's blind spots and they will impede traffic for up to 10 minutes. You do not live here, you have no clue. OPP64 (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

s for adding sources, Police reports, which I am privy too, security camera footage and witness statements are considered evidence in the trial, which again has not happened. My sources can not be posted. Linguist111 is that what you want? the charges to be dropped completely? The sources Linguist111 has posted are not credible sources, they are biased. Feelings and reactions are not facts. The counter protesters were not there to prevent the vigils, they were there to try and prevent another activist dying from the misadventure of the ARA actions.` OPP64 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@OPP64: The relevant policy here is WP:NOR. You cannot include your own personal knowledge in a Wikipedia article unless it is verifiable through reliable, published sources. Have I at any point written in the article that I believe the driver to be guilty of an offence? No. Have I at any point compared the driver's action to that of Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel? No. You on the other hand, in definitively describing Russell's death as an accident, are completely contradicting your correct point about the case having yet to be brought to court. Before you edited the article, it contained no statement at all along the lines of "The driver probably deliberately ran Russell over" or "The driver probably accidentally ran Russell over". Please explain to me how the statement authorities stating there was no indication of intent or crime in his action indicates probable guilt. Linguist111^talk 02:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about sockpuppetry not related to content dispute

OPP64 and Trucker220 are both the same person because they use the same arguments that the sources are "biased" or written by animal activists, they use the same terminology and are both editing from a mobile. Both accounts should be blocked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC) I only have one account. Trucker220 (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC) No, you have two accounts based on strong behavioral evidence and it is likely you will be blocked soon. Do you honestly want us to believe that OPP64 who joined Wikipedia on 25 December [3] one day after you created your account [4] and only has edits on the Regan Russell article and talk-page (like your account) and using the same arguments and posts only from a mobile is not you or associated with you in anyway? Lol. BTW your edit summaries have given the game away. You are definitely the same user because you have used the same word "facts" in your edit summaries which is an unusual thing to do. Compare [5] or [6] to [7], [8] etc. Please stop wasting our time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC) The accounts were actually only created a couple of hours apart, both on Thursday-to-Friday night my time, early Thursday evening Ontario time. But hey, looks like we'll just have to take their word for it, because any evidence against them is clearly "vegan propaganda". Linguist111talk 14:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC) I already said check the IP and it will prove we aren't the same person and i didn't direct them in anyway. I'm not sure why Posting facts of what happened it so controversial. Maybe whole thing should be deleted until trial is finished Trucker220 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure why Posting facts of what happened it so controversial. – I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: The relevant policy here is WP:NOR. You cannot include your own personal knowledge in a Wikipedia article unless it is verifiable through reliable, published sources. Linguist111talk 15:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC) I am NOT the same person as Trucker220. The very fact that you refuse to check the IP# that proves we are not the same person, shows that the WIKI is not about facts, it is NOT non biased and it is an unreliable source of information. OPP64 (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC) I am not editing from a mobile. I'm editing from a laptop. Linguist111 you really have no clue about what you are posting and you are not half as good as you believe yourself to be. OPP64 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC) The request for IP-checking is still pending, and has yet to be endorsed or declined by a sockpuppet investigations clerk. Only if it is endorsed can a CheckUser check your IP. I am neither a clerk nor a CheckUser and so I can't perform those tasks myself. Linguist111talk 16:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Demonstration on July 30

Getting back to the content issue: should this material (sourced to CBC.ca) be included in the article? I would say yes, it seems to be supported by the source, and the source appears to be reliable. Possibly it could be rephrased more clearly or neutrally. Could anyone who opposes including it please explain why, so that we can try to reach a consensus? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Statements from that source:

Protestors were yelling back and forth, and people went into the streets, either to give the pigs water or to prevent them from doing so.

When trucks drove up to enter the slaughterhouse, those with the banner would yell for the activists to get away from the trucks, saying "this driver does not want to stop for you."

Some also held signs with derogatory references to Russell.

Activists went up to the trucks to "bear witness" and give water to the pigs inside. At one point, the women tried to use their banner to push someone away from blocking the trucks.

Statement that was included in the Wikipedia article:

a pig-watering demonstration outside Fearman's Pork Inc. slaughterhouse was interrupted by counter-protesters, who tried to prevent the activists from giving water to pigs and held signs with derogatory references to Russell.

How does the above statement not reflect those in the source? Linguist111^talk 16:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Since no one has objected or given a reason for removal, I think this material can be restored. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I have now restored it. If anyone objects to it, I ask they give their reasons why in this section. Linguist111^talk 02:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Identifying Regan's killer

Regan's killer has finally been publicly identified. I added his name to the article with a reference. Another editor removed my edit on the basis that the killer has been accused but not convicted. I believe this was an error on that editor's part because the killer has not been accused of criminal responsibility in Regan's death. He will never be tried for her death (which was mentioned in my cited source). However her death is not in dispute, nor is the fact that he was driving the truck that killed her. I believe it is appropriate for him to be named in the article at this time. If no one argues with my reasoning I will revert the revert soon. 135.23.120.110 (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If WP:BLPCRIME is not the relevant policy, I'd point to WP:BLPNAME. Linguist111 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? I referenced a reliable source. The man is not accused of a crime. It is a very notable act. He isn't the subject of the article so a lot of it does not apply. I don't see the objection and I will revert the revert without further elaboration. 135.23.120.110 (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant part of the policy I am referencing is: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Linguist111 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Identity of the killer

Hi, ~linguist1111. I took a break because this is an upsetting topic but it is important and I would like to try again. The criteria are:

> When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...

The name has been disseminated from two national news desks (CBC and The Star) as well as at least one news wire (The Canadian Press) and a number of local newspapers.

The name has not been intentionally concealed. His lawyers may have made motions to that effect but it was ruled to be of public interest by the court.

If it is still your opinion he shouldn't be named, would it be acceptable to name the employer he was working for at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.120.110 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)