This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Breonna Taylor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed, with the amendments suggested by BarrelProof. These moves will probably take a little while before I work through all of them - be patient, I'll get them moved. (non-admin closure) RedSlash17:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support The title of the article should infer the reason for its notability. It is not merely the fact that Breonna Taylor died which makes her case notable, but specifically the fact that she was shot and killed. FlipandFlopped ツ02:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for consistency and article navigability; we typically precede notable deaths with "Death of" not the mechanism of death (e.g. "Shooting of," "Stabbing of," "Drowning of," "Burning of," etc.) Chetsford (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support Taylor was shot, that is factual. It is how it was reported. In line with WP:WEIGHT and [[Npov|NPOV], the title should be "shooting of". To try and remove the reason for notability here is a political choice, and in my opinion would actually be a breach of NPOV because it would reflect a conscious choice to divorce the article from the coverage. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2020 (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.
Just because this article is about a woman does not make it part of women's history. It would much more appropriately be classified under some Wikiproject with bearing over subjects of racism. Ethan Parmet (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, she is definitely part of modern day African American women's history and part of US history. If desired, it could be switched out with the Women banner. I believe WH is more accurate here...especially considering her death and its societal impact. She is also properly listed in other Wikiprojects. TJMSmith (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion for inclusion of facts
I just read the first 3 paragraphs several times and keep mixing up the names and events. Maybe this can be written more clearly.
I suggest the following inclusion of facts. Below is a sentence from the "no Knock warrants" wiki page.
"No-knock warrants also conflict with the right to self-defense, "stand-your-ground" laws, and Castle Doctrine which explicitly permit the use of deadly force against intruders."
I would also include the following.
"Kentucky, where the incident occurred is a [Castle Doctrine] state, as well as a [Stand Your Ground] state. This means that Breonna and her partner had specific legal protections that allow them to use deadly use of force on home invaders."
Democracy Now! has covered the police's incident report from the shooting, which they report is almost entirely blank. The report claims Breonna Taylor had no injuries despite being shot 8 times. The report also claims that police did not use forced entry, even though they entered with a battering ram. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qNYXEKMunI (4:00 mark)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This article makes several misleading statements about the status of the main suspect in the investigation, such as
The LMPD investigation was searching for two people who were already in police custody
in the opening, and
allegedly unaware the men were already in custody.
in the 'shooting' section.
The only sources I've been able to find with an actual timeline indicate that one suspect was arrested the same night in a simultaneous raid at another residence[1][2][3][4], while the other may have still been at large as of mid-May[5]. Several other article repeat the claim that one or both were already in custody, but fail to provide further details. It looks as though the suspect arrested the same night might have been initially detained ~3 minutes prior to the shooting, but the the article is currently written in a manner that imply's a greater time separation. Raptor98k (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP(talk • contribs)21:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Change the way this article is formatted and worded. You're never to fire a weapon without identifying the target and what's behind it. By using the current wording you aren't being honest about the situation. "The officers were shot and then returned fire." Would be a neutral wording but as is you put all the responsibility for firing without "respect for life" on police officers who were being shot at. 2600:100E:B139:E8A2:4B25:B4BD:E7FB:76A9 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP(talk • contribs)21:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Subscription to Louisville Courier Journal
I have a subscription to the Louisville Courier Journal. They're doing some of the most in depth and up to date coverage of this case. I looked over the article and took out some of the older source that were written before the police released search warrants and other records to the media. Happy to answer any questions about my changes. Also I'm happy to be pinged if someone wants information that behind LCJ paywall. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight22:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Change "Brett Hankison is an LMPD plainclothes detective who is under investigation for numerous accusations of sexual assault." to "Brett Hankison is an LMPD plainclothes detective." as the other detective's is written below. Those accusations are immaterial to this article. 65.254.195.208 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Happy for other editors to take a different view on this, but I think the conduct and/or disciplinary records of officers involved are of relevance and of public interest. Therefore, not done. Best, Darren-Mtalk22:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"George Floyd, an African-American man who was killed in police custody" should read "George Floyd, an African-American man who died in police custody from a heart attack as noted in his autopsy." 173.46.206.122 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It's highly suspicious that the name Jamarcus Glover is glaringly omitted from this article. He was the target of the search warrants, he is Taylor's ex boyfriend (confirmed by her sister and niece), they broke up because she was aware he was a drug dealer (again, confirmed by sister and niece), he used Taylor's address for mail delivery and at least one package for him was known to have been left for him there. In fact, Walker has stated at first he thought it was Glover banging on the door.
Yes, I could find sources and do it myself, but I gave up a long time ago putting that much energy into editing wiki only to have some a-hole power-tripping mod delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.104.20 (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Breonna Taylor was an ER Technician not an EMT. There is a difference
Taylor joined the city as an EMT recruit in January 2016, became a full EMT by June and left the Metro Government in November 2016.
Local attorneys for Taylor's family have clarified that she was working as an ER technician at two area hospitals at the time of her March 13 death, with aspirations of becoming a nurse.
She was a licensed EMT but was not working as an EMT. ER Technicians do not need EMT Certification but can get away with CNA certification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.114.1.20 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Under the heading of Taylors Family the Article says "Taylor and Walker thought their home had been broken into by criminals and that "they were in significant, imminent danger."
The cops WERE wearing body cams despite police claims to the contrary -- proof provided
Photos taken the day of the shooting prove the cops in that county DO have bodycams(contrary to police allegations they do not), and one of them was wearing one the day of the shooting while the other clearly has the holding slot on his uniform --- it is not known if that second cop removed it for the photo, or if any of the bodycams were turned on during the raid (since that's definitely the sort of thing they are for).
https://www.tmz.com/2020/09/04/breonna-taylor-killing-one-police-officer-wore-body-cam-footage-shot/
I believe such an important revelation needs to be on the main page despite the usual lock on biographies of the recently deceased(?) that seem to be on. If the lock is intended to keep the protests down by hiding the truth, wikipedia DEFINITELY has lost its way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.74.112 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
" Specifically, the warrant alleges that in January 2020, Grover left Taylor's house with an unknown package, presumed to be drugs, and subsequently went to a known drug house with this package soon afterward."
"Neither Hankinson nor the two other officers involved in the raid were not indicted for Taylor's death." has a "not" too many. I'd have submitted a correction but the article's locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Kastrup (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
As a researcher, I just want to say that "we don't use primary sources, we wait for secondary sources" is the shittest research standard I've ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.69.190.69 (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
You are missing the point: Wikipedia does not do research, or host others' research (see WP:OR). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a Tertiary source which aims to only summarise what has been published in reliableSecondary sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:RS), and to cite those sources so that they can be checked if desired. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.158 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
"No-knock search warrant" in the lead
Our lead paragraph states, as fact in Wikipedia's voice, "Three plainclothes LMPD officers executing a no-knock search warrant entered her apartment in Louisville, Kentucky." It's true that many sources have called it a no-knock warrant, but the New York Times says While the department had gotten court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves."[1] I think we need to clarify this sentence in the lead somehow, rather than state unequivocally that it was a no-knock warrant. I think we should say "executing a search warrant" in the lead and go into the details in the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
We should remove "no-knock", and maybe add clarification that whether the police announced themselves is disputed by witnesses. - MrX 🖋11:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Breonna Taylor and Breonna redirect here part? It helps editors find the articles that they may have been looking for. – Thjarkur(talk)16:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Change
"Kenneth Walker was Taylor's boyfriend, who lived with her in the apartment."
to
"Kenneth Walker, Taylor's boyfriend whom was visiting her at her apartment." Cchase88 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
There are a few points in this article that I have found to be false.
There are a few points in the article that I have found to be untrue according other sources. As this is my first time helping with an article I am hoping this is how I am supposed to do it. Ill just list them in order as I found them along with what is the correct information is, along with a link to the source.
Breonna and Jamarcus were dating up until one month before the raid. There are recorded jail house calls from January 2020 that showed they were still dating then. [2][3]
The officers did knock and at least one witness has claimed to have heard them announce their selves. Which has a source that it already listed on the page. [4]
Regarding the number of times Taylor was shot, the USA Today article cited in the lead says "Taylor, 26, was shot eight times by officers before being pronounced dead at the scene." I see three other sources cited in the body of the article that say eight times. Maybe the New York Times made a mistake in their September 1 article?
Yumpu is not a source we can use. The New York Times source says they were dating on and off since summer 2016, but I don't see that it says that they "were dating up until one month before the raid."
Here a few other sources that claim that she was shot five times. Maybe just change the wording in article to read that she was shot multiple times to give it more validity, since the amount is being reported in different numbers.
[1][2]2604:6000:A0C2:6300:D89D:C101:F6F1:361F (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)IdleTimeIdleMind
She was shot five times, according to the The Courier-Journal, which has led much of the coverage on the story and acknowledges that they previously got it wrong (as eight) on numerous occasions.[1] The articles claiming eight shots are from prior to the release of the coroner's death certificate in July[2]—the USA Today article, for example, is from May. There is no excuse for insisting that Wikipedia include false information because a source claimed it prior to more information becoming available—this is just silly. I have updated the article—feel free to find a RS that states Taylor was shot 8 times after the above sources, as well as explains where they got the number eight from. Elle Kpyros (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Specificity of Taylor and Walker's actions prior to shooting
As the Courier-Journal, which has led reporting on this story, has made clear, "Various social media posts and media reports have said Louisville police gunned down Taylor as she was asleep in bed." For that reason, it seems important to specify that Taylor and Walker were in bed watching a movie when the police arrived, that they got out of bed when they heard banging, and that Taylor was killed in her hallway. I can see no reason not to include this information, especially as RS have taken pains to clarify numerous "rumors" that she was asleep and/or in bed when killed. [1] Please let me know if there's any reason this information should be deliberately excluded. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect information is be propagated on this page. Many people believe what they read on Wikipedia and it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to correct the information PatriotsTruth (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
NO KNOCK SEARCH WARRANT IS INCORRECT, IT HAS BEEN STATED TODAY BY THE JUDGE AND THE NEWS THAT THIS was NOT a "no-knock" warrant & officers announced their presence 104.218.82.241 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Please cite a source as well as telling us where you want this new information inputted, also, there is no need to scream in all caps. HeartGlow(talk)19:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
No need to cite any source. The NY Times source quoted in the lede no longer reflects what is posted on the page. The NY Times article cited says went to execute a search warrant that was changed from no knock to knock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:8EF:C96F:3AD1:C8CA (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Confusing Quote
"While the department had gotten court approval for a 'no-knock' entry, the orders were changed before the raid to 'knock and announce,' meaning that the police had to identify themselves."
Information about the Breonna Taylor Protests - After Verdict
Louisville has Washington Post covering the Louisville aftermath riot interviewing residents like Neal Robertson, Erica Bowman, Carl Ford, and Mike Tracy who protested peacefully about the verdict of the jury.
Sometime later (messy timeline) two Louisville officers were shot and then after news reporters tried to interview a officer by the name of Robert Schroeder. (May be continue) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelm590 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Two requests for clarification
Two requests for clarification to be made to this article:
1) A reference in this article is entitled "Woman shot and killed by Kentucky police who entered wrong home," yet there is no mention in the article's text of Taylor's apartment either being or not being the wrong home. Please add clarification of whether Taylor's apartment was indeed the wrong home.
2) "Walker, a licensed firearm carrier, shot first, striking a police officer in the leg"
To add to the article: was the door to the apartment open or closed at this time? When the door was broken down should be added to this paragraph in order that the narrative make sense.
Taylor's apartment was indeed the home targeted by the warrant - apparently because of her past association with a boyfriend who was a drug dealer. The title of the reference is in error, but we should not correct it. It is what it is, as the saying goes.
(24 days later) It is ridiculous that these basic clarifications have not yet been added to this article. Please add the following:
Mention that Walker, inside the apartment, fired through the closed door to the apartment (the bullet passing through the door before hitting the officer, who was standing just outside the apartment), and
The fact that the apartment police broke into was not the "wrong apartment."
Members of the public are continuing to claim that Taylor's apartment was the "wrong apartment," so this clarification does need to be added to the article!
I agree with you that the public has been previously misinformed about Breonna's home being the wrong home that the police went to. All we can do is keep that misinformation out of the article and I think we have kept it out of the text. Now if it is in a source that is used for other information, what we can do is find a source that doesn't have that problem. Could you find such a source? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Important to mention the members of NFAC accidentally shooting each other while gathering prior to their march. Gives context that NFAC members are clout chasing LARPers who were handed loaded weapons, rather than an actual militant group that should be taken seriously. FactCheck2Q2Q (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Who is NFAC, and why is it important to mention this in this article?
Questions aren't the sort of things to be added to articles. If you have answers, provided by reliable sources, that can be added. Don't expect someone else to answer your questions.--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's an excerpt from the current version of the Shooting section of the article which I think addresses your point.
"The Taylor/Walker home was included in a "no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men used the apartment to receive packages.[14][15] The New York Times later reported that before the raid, the order had been changed to "knock and announce", meaning that the police were required to identify themselves.[16]"
"A New York Times reporter talked to a dozen neighbors and found that only one of them, who was on the staircase immediately above Taylor's apartment, heard the officers shout "Police!" once and knock three times."
Where exactly in the source does it say that the neighbor only heard the police knock three times? Can someone provide the exact sentence that says this? Joelaroche (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't find a source for the exact location of the shooting, but the coordinates that were in the article, which were added in May without a source, were clearly incorrect, so I've removed them. Those coordinates corresponded to a location in downtown Louisville, whereas according to this Taylor's apartment was on Springfield Drive on the south side of Louisville. I haven't found any reporting that gives the address on Springfield Drive. Deor (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure we would want to give the precise location because it may cause trouble for other residents there from unwanted visitors who may even cause destruction or harm. Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline on this? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
In the news Sept. 27, 2020
In the news Sept. 27, 2020:
Walker claims the single shot he fired was a "warning shot"
A forensics report concluded that Walker did not fire the shot that hit Mattingly
From the article, here's an excerpt that is at the heart of a claim that Hankison may have shot Mattingly. It's based on a statement from Steven Romines, Walker's lawyer, about Hankison having a 9mm gun.
"The KSP report says “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9-mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun.
Cameron said Hankison had been eliminated as the shooter because the three officers were all carrying .40 caliber handguns, while Walker had a 9.
But appearing later that night [Sep 23] on CNN, Steve Romines, one of Walker’s attorneys, said he had obtained a LMPD record showing Hankison had been issued a 9-mm weapon as well.
Romines declined to share the record from Hankison’s personnel file with The Courier-Journal, and LMPD spokeswoman Jessie Halladay said she could only release it in response to an open-records request."
"11 other witnesses deny that the officers announced themselves at all."
They didn't hear it? That's what it says later in the article, using that same ref. They know they would have heard it so it didn't happen? That's how the above quote is justified? This is a large part of what the case rests on, and its supported by a ref that can't easily be checked, and also looks like it's being misused or used differently in different sections of the article. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the way it is written is not found in the source. I removed it for now. Joelaroche (talk)
What does the source say? I think that source should not be used unless quotes and timestamps are provided. I think it's being misused because you can't check it without listening to an hour podcast. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The NYT says: In interviews with nearly a dozen neighbors, only one person said he heard the officers shout “Police!” a single time.[3] "Deny" might be WP:OR, as saying they did not hear it can be different than saying the police did not do it.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
In a more recent NYT article, mentioned by BirdValiant above, the same reporter said:
Of the roughly one dozen people that I spoke to, I found only one neighbor, and it was the man who happened to be immediately on the staircase above Breonna Taylor’s apartment, who said that he heard the police announce themselves. (Go to [4] and click on TRANSCRIPT.)
In other words, the one who said he heard the police may have been the only one of the roughly 12 who was awake at 12:40AM and in a position to hear the police. The reporter also said in the NYT article:
Everybody else said that the first thing they heard were the shots.
This is a large part of what the case rests on -- Wikipedia is not the place to litigate the case, so this concern is completely irrelevant. We go by what reliable sources say; editor opinions and concerns don't matter.--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done: See the above thread #In the news Sept. 27, 2020. Also, the source cited on the page attributes it to officials: Officials say Mr Walker's bullet struck a police officer, Jonathan Mattingly, in the leg - an injury for which he later required surgery.[5]—Bagumba (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the change not being warranted, that's not grammatical English. (And the original language is wrong too; it should say "the round hit ..."--the gun surely didn't hit his leg.)--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
"On September 23, the night after the grand jury verdict was announced, protesters gathered in the Jefferson Square Park area of Louisville, as well as many other cities in the United States, including Los Angeles, Dallas, Minneapolis, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Denver, Nashville, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Portland.[89][90]" Please change "as well as many other cities in the United States" to "in addition to many other cities in the United States" becuase the sentence structure sounds better. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done. "In addition to" is a preposition, but it doesn't make sense to put "many other cities" before "Louisville". The problem here is the comma after "Louisville". ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
new article for Breonna Taylor protests
What do you guys think about a new article just for the protests, such as we did with George Floyd protests and Kenosha protests? It seems just as big of a story as the shooting itself, with a number of protesters arrested, injuries, and 2 police officers shot. Albertaont (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Albertaont: I wrote a large part of the protest section of this article and stopped because it was getting too long. I agree that it needs to be summarized in this article and a new article started with more comprehensive details about the local protest and activists and also the other US and international protests. Do you want to start it? Or I can. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight03:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now - This article is currently under 80kB. When this article gets over 100kB, we can revisit the issue at that time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
"but how the officers announced their identity before forcing entry is in dispute" should be "but how or if the officers announced their identity before forcing entry is in dispute"
I added "or if" to the police possibly announcing themselves. Taylor's attorney claims the police didn't, and multiple witnesses including Walker didn't hear the police announce themselves. Therefore, whether they even announced themselves at all is disputed.
Someone undid the edit claiming "An investigation that included a corroborating witness recently concluded that they both knocked and announced themselves. See shooting section. If you disagree then we can discuss on the talk page." That investigation hasn't released any evidence that shows why they said the police announced themselves. For all we know, Daniel Cameron could be lying. The Police have lied about this case before. In Walker's phone call, he acts as if the police never announced themselves. Multiple witnesses said they never heard the police announce themselves. In addition, Taylor's attorney claims the police did not announce themselves. Thus, whether or not the police even announced themselves is in dispute. Pineapple4321 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Here's some info on the corroborating witness.
"Only one person, a truck driver coming off his shift, said he heard the officers shouting. Aaron Julue Sarpee had left his 2-year-old in the care of the woman living directly above Ms. Taylor. Before the police lined up, he had run upstairs and picked up his sleeping toddler. He had just stepped out onto the exterior staircase when he saw the officers. Before they ordered him to go back inside, Mr. Sarpee said, he heard at least three loud bangs as they knocked on Ms. Taylor’s door, and heard one or more officers scream “Police!” — a single time. He is emphatic that they said it only once."[6]
Here's a picture of the scene [7] (from the previous source). The apartment of Breonna Taylor, #4, is on the right. The stairs that the corroborating witness Sarpee was on are on the right too. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Sources describe whether an announcement took place as being disputed, so Wikipedia should do the same. That may or may not change even if state evidence is released.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Joelaroche, every reliable source that I can recall has said "police said this ... Walker said that." As recent as Sept 26: "Police said they announced their presence before using a battering ram to break in the door shortly before 1 a.m., but Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, said they didn't hear anyone say anything and fired a warning shot at what he thought was someone trying to break in."[8]—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes and this dispute between the police and Walker has been resolved by an independent investigation, whose findings were presented to a grand jury. [9]. Note that the article you cited is referencing the dispute between the police and Walker, not between the independent investigation which includes a corroborating witness, and Walker. Joelaroche (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Joelaroche: Yes, the investigation results are an official response. However, as long as sources preface the announcement as "according to officials" or similar, Wikipedia should do the same per WP:DUE.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "as long as sources preface the announcement as 'according to officials' or similar". Also, which source? You need to be more specific. So far you haven't shown me sources that say that there is an ongoing dispute between Walker and the investigation with its recent findings. -- Joelaroche (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Joelaroche: The dispute is not with an inanimate investigation. The dispute is with the facts. We describe what sources say. If sources preface findings from the investigation, than Wikipedia does to. We don't necessarily take the AG's findings as the undisputed truth. If you have changes you want to propose, feel free to establish consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
These sources [10][11] including the one you cited earlier [12] all say that Walker did not hear the police. This is not the same as him saying that they did not announce themselves. Therefore, he is not disputing whether they actually announced themselves. Also, I did not say that the AG's findings are the undisputed truth, but if no source is saying that they are being disputed then wiki should not be saying that either. So, again bring up sources that say this and I will leave this issue alone. Joelaroche (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Joelaroche: Sources do not say the "police announced themselves" unqualified. They say "according to police" or "according to the investigation", etc. I'd be fine with saying that that the police said they announced themselves, but Walker said he never heard them.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't find it. I only found the CNN video of the interview of Walker's lawyer Steven Romines where Romines said there was such a recorded statement. Could you be more specific about where it is in the Washington Post article or elsewhere?
BTW, my previous message contains a report of an interview with the witness by a NY Times reporter where the witness also told the reporter that he heard the police announce. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The clip is here. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bv8qyd/breonna-taylor-investigation-witness-changes-story Also the only proof for the police announcing themselves is the police claiming so (keep in mid the police have lied about this case before) and one witness. The other witnesses say they never heard the police. Also we don't know everything about what the grand jury was shown, and one grand juror is suing over it, so we should not necessarily view what the grand jury and Daniel Cameron said as definitive proof of what happened. Pineapple4321 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
As a sort of corollary to the grand juror lawsuit, and given the unanswered questions, we should keep an eye on whether the previous consensus among RS that the police were executing a no-knock warrant should really have been overturned by the change to the currently-cited NYT article (which, from spot checking the Internet Archive for the NYT, seems to have been changed some time in late August.) It's great that Mr. “I condone violence in all of its forms” Cameron (I mean he disclaims that statement as a slip of the tongue but really? Really?) held a press conference definitively stating it wasn't a no-knock warrant but if it turns out he's made other misrepresentations this should be revisited. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂05:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: It's only one source, though, that appears to have changed what it says without issuing an explanatory correction. (The text of the Wikipedia article kind of makes it look like some sort of correction has been issued, but is actually still citing sources that say it was a no-knock warrant.) Have any other sources confirmed it, besides the press conference?
At the very least a WP:INTEXT clarification of how diametrically the sources, including Cameron, vary, seems appropriate. Though given that the documents responding to the grand juror lawsuit are supposed to come out later today I'm in no hurry to make changes that may all need to be rewritten and re-cited anyways. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂08:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Struthious Bandersnatch: There's actually a lot of wiggle room. The WP article currently says that "the order had been changed to 'knock and announce'", with intext attribution to the NYT. It's vague if that means the actual warrant was changed, or just the internal orders on how it would be executed. It's not in the article, but Cameron only said "In other words, the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant"[14] Let's see what happens as more evidence is released/leaked.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Some suggestions: Instead of "in dispute", suggest to write "conflicting statements from... (e.g. witnesses and police)". Also, this [www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/us/breonna-taylor-grand-jury-audio-recording.html Oct 1 NYT article] affirms that they interviewed exactly 12 witnesses, which should clarify "nearly a dozen" as stated in the wikipage currently. Also, suggest to add a new "Background" section with the very thorough background information in this Aug 30 NYT article and other sources which are already referred to in the wikipage currently. - 72.138.195.10 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Its use is definitely inconsistent within the article. There are three instances of capital B in the article but many more of lowercase B. One is a direct CNN quote and would best remain unaltered (perhaps with sic added), but I feel like we should make a choice for the other instances. -- sarysa (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to follow the lead of the AP and NYT, who have both recently switched to "Black", but it would probably be good to have a wiki-wide MoS guideline here. No need to use [sic] in any quotes with either capitalization. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
This does not seem to be a NPOV or a bipartisan view. Sources like Fox News capitalize both black and white [16], while sources like the AP and the NYT have idealogical reasons for capitalizing the "b" in black but not the "w" in white. As it says in Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, we need to remember that reliable sources are not always neutral. Our main goal is to use them to provide information with the least amount of bias as possible WP:NPOV. I think to keep things neutral, it'd be better to just not capitalize both words for now, as editors have always been doing on wiki, until a consensus has been reached to change this. - Joelaroche (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not up to us. The consensus is irrelevant, it is entirely up to the RS. If the material was properly sourced this question would not exist. Race is not included in the vast majority of reports nor in any of the cited sources for the lede. Leaving POV pushers to go with what makes the least amount of objective sense. Race does not belong on the page. The lede is supposed to reflect the preponderance of the RS, in this case almost none of it explicitly lists race. According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:684D:5F98:D2CF:E8E8 (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
*Tip: It is simply a grammar issue. If the word is used as an adjective, then it should be lowercase. If it is used as a noun, it may be capitalized. Examples as adjective: "He is a black man," and "You said he was black." Example as a noun: "It was common for Blacks to be treated differently." Normal Op (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
If YOU have the answer to this, then post a link to a news article or something. Most settlements are private and we may never know the answer to your question. Also, Wikipedia is NOT a social media forum for discussions. This talk page is for improving the article. See WP:Talk page guidelines and WP:Wikipedia is not a forum. Normal Op (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Caution: that IS NOT the complete settlement agreement. The part that's missing is the "Exhibit 1" section on the police reforms required by it, which is missing from all of the copies I'm finding online. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂18:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
SB's OK here. I just noticed that Exhibit 1 is mentioned in the document but not given. I then noticed that SB correctly modified info in a cite in the Wikipedia article to reflect that. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. My source for replying to the IP editor's claim about the complete 12 pages of the settlement agreement is that section 9.1 of the settlement agreement refers to the document attached hereto as Exhibit 1 which isn't there. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂20:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The summary states without a doubt that the police were executing a "no-knock" warrant at Taylor's home. Initial reports of the incident have police executing a warrant and announcing themselves before forcing their way into the home. "After repeatedly knocking and announcing their presence detectives utilized a ram to enter the apartment."
The reason for this edit is due to the discrepancy of reporting. The only source claiming the police executed a "no-knock" warrant comes from Kenneth Walker's attorney Rob Eggert. The warrants had the "no-knock" clause in them. This means the police may execute a no-knock warrant, but does not require them to. The officers claimed to have announced themselves before entering the building.
The only indication that the police did not announce themselves is from Kenneth Walker's attorney Rob Eggert. This is he-said-she-said dispute as there is no video evidence and both sides have their own reasons to dispute the facts of the case. This is an important clarification since the FBI investigation is not yet complete and the facts of the case are still disputed. Fisher321 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The US Postal Service has since stated that enquiries by another police agency .. not the one enacting the house intrusion .. had proven negative and there was thus no evidence substantiating a link to drugs. The attorneys representing the Taylor family have pointed to real estate projects and the fact that Taylor's former partner, who was still a friend and visitor to her home, had taken action against attempts to clear the block for redevelopment. Two empty properties known to be used for the purpose of drug dealing in the same block were not searched. When writing about legal cases that have not been concluded it is misleading to cite only one side of litigation. The US police have come under scrutiny for racial bias and in this particular case none of the black participants have been linked with criminal activity. Breonna Taylor is, in any case, innocent: at very least innocent until proven guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.249.135.238 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
"While the department had gotten court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves."[19] The police claim that they knocked and called out "police", but multiple neighbors said they did not hear any announcement. It appears they executed it as no-knock even though their orders had been changed, -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The reason for this edit is due to the discrepancy of reporting. -- There is no such discrepancy.
The only source claiming the police executed a "no-knock" warrant comes from Kenneth Walker's attorney Rob Eggert. -- That's a lie.
The officers claimed to have announced themselves before entering the building. -- Of course they claimed that; they always will. This a tautology and so is completely irrelevant. The fact is that they did not make it evident that they were police officers, instead battering down the door. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I inadvertently removed "plainclothes" from the lead. I don't mind if it's restored, but I was also reverted before by someone saying that sources conflicted on what the officers were wearing.—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I cited it in the first body paragraph where I added it and I've seen it mentioned in many more sources besides, including I think a reference to it being in the grand jury testimony from the officers. So I'll restore it and if people object we can gather more sources. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂08:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Edits versus rewrite
This edit is basically a rewrite of the article. I would submit it should be reverted and the many diverse changes approached as individual edits, so that they may be properly vetted, on a topic-by-topic basis, by the editors. John2510 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the point made by John2510 and I would like to add that I was contemplating commenting about this even before seeing the post of John2510.
@John2510: Reverting all thoroughly-researched thoroughly-cited changes to an article, which were to a single section of it apart from filling in some citation and footnote details, "just in case" as it were so that other editors don't have to do too much research or vetting on their own before challenging particular details, is not a use case contemplated by Help:Reverting or the various Wikipedia: namespace essays on reverting. Bagumba had no issue almost immediately reverting nearly all of my changes to the lede, which I didn't object to as they were uncited stylistic changes rather than substantive ones; there's no reason why you can't bring forward your own sources, if indeed they're out there, to challenge what I've written, rather than removing from the article the sources I added and the content from them as a supposed necessary step to vetting those sources and content.
And Bus stop, it's pretty rich for you to be giving advice on how I can help others "quibble over changes being made" right before you went ahead and ignored the entire extensive discussion of race in this talk page to change every single detail of race mentioned in the lede of this "well-developed" article on a topic subject to multiple ongoing investigations and lawsuits. Great rickroll linking to a mainspace article on collaboration btw. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂08:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
You're turning this into a personal issue. I have no idea what other individual editors have done to your edits or why, but overwriting the work of many editors, all of which also was thoroughly-researched and thoroughly-cited, with no more explanation than "extensive changes" is disrespectful of the work of the many editors on this relatively-mature page. The "extensive changes" should be reverted and approached as individual edits on individual topics. John2510 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Whose work did I overwrite? As far as making things personal, I would note that you started this thread by, rather than saying anything qualitatively about the encyclopedic content I added, claiming that an aspect of personal conduct or process flaw alone (a process flaw which you are not citing to any actual Wikipedia policy—you're asking me to take it on your personal cognizance that my edits simply must be reversed) is a reason to remove all the content. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂12:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Me oounting the number of people whose work you've overwritten wouldn't be productive. If you want to identify them, feel free. There are many. There was nothing remotely personal in my comment. You failed to summarize your edit or indicate why was appropriate, presumably because it defies summary - other than your offered "extensive changes." Why were your many edits superior to the similarly well-researched, encyclopedic, etc. edits of the many editors whose work you've dismissed? If you want to explain each aspect of the omnibus edit, that might be one approach to resolution. It would have been better, and would be better still, to revert and then to make/explain the edits individually by topic.John2510 (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
@John2510: If you didn't even look at the "basically a rewrite of the article!" diff you linked to closely enough to see that I almost exclusively added material, including using sources that the many editors who I've supposedly dismissed added, and moved paragraphs written by those supposedly-dismissed editors around, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to properly vet anything. @Bus stop: Nice try pitching a diff where I nearly maxed out the comment length explaining what I was doing while you're trying to hang on to John2510's coattails about an edit that "defies summary!"—which is also is able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, thank you for the compliment. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂01:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised you don't see this as a collaborate environment, but we all must treat at as one, even when we have our doubts. I submit that undoing the work of many uninvolved editors through a massive rewrite in an effort to impose your will isn't the appropriate response. If you have a problem with other editors, there are various appropriate remedies you can pursue.John2510 (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@John2510:Mentioning a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports any of the claims you're making about editing procedures, a problem with content I've written or a source I've added, or a user's contribution you believe I have unjustifiably overwritten, would also be conducive of a collaborative environment. Actually mentioning those things is, y'know, the appropriate remedy when you have objections about an edit, not handwavily demanding that other editors' edits be reverted because you couldn't be arsed to properly vet the edit—in the, what, 56 hours or so it's been since I made it? --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂01:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop: Nope, still not similar. In addition to explaining what I did in the edit comment you are directly linking to and acting as though you can't see it, I also announced my change in the talk page discussion up above which you had ignored to make your six edits in which you changed every racial detail in the lede. Then I even responded to your surreptitiously-edited comment about it. And then above in this thread when you brought it up again I re-explained that it's the edit comment which details the reasons I made the edit.
That's four explanations you've gotten; all I've had in response is you acting like you can't see any of the sources or any of my own arguments, as you've been doing for more than a week now with nearly everything I say and nearly everything I link to. So your personal preferences are no valid justification to override the concerns expressed in the (ongoing) talk page discussion above and the status quo ante of the lede. Y'know, this should really go in the other thread; I'm going to create a new subsection and continue up there. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡|℡|04:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Done EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Done I changed the wording slightly, but it's now correct. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 12:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Already done EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done: Happy for other editors to take a different view on this, but I think the conduct and/or disciplinary records of officers involved are of relevance and of public interest. Therefore, not done. Best, Darren-M talk 22:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done Typo corrected, thanks for spotting it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done – empty request This request is moot, because the problem no longer exists. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
![[7]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/25/multimedia/00breonna-apartment/merlin_175665789_f3806d83-1246-4271-bd70-88bfc295c704-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp){kind=link}
Article is now consistently lowercase black.—Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Tip: It is simply a grammar issue. If the word is used as an adjective, then it should be lowercase. If it is used as a noun, it may be capitalized. Examples as adjective: "He is a black man," and "You said he was black." Example as a noun: "It was common for Blacks to be treated differently." Normal Op (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)