Talk:Killing of Laken Riley

Title (Edit to add: and language in the rest of the article too)

Hello. I noticed this page was recently edited back and forth with the word "murder." It seems appropriate to title it "Murder of Laken Riley." That is what happened. It was not an accident or a natural occurrence. The article even describes the crime as a "murder by blunt trauma." To describe the crime accurately says nothing against the suspect. Of course he is to be presumed innocent, but that is of the murder, which occurred whether he did it or not. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Murder has a specific definition, and not all killings meet that definition (e.g., manslaughter), so we don't say "murder" unless someone has been convicted. Thanks for pointing out where "murder" is used elsewhere on the page to describe the crime though. I'll go fix that, except when talking about the specific charges filed. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace @FMSky

Well, which should it be? I expressed my opinion. It certainly doesn't make sense for the title to not reflect the article. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

After I replied to you, I changed most instances of "murder" in the article to say something else (like "killing" or "homicide"), but another editor reverted my changes. I then brought the issue up on their Talk page so I don't end up in an edit war, and I'm waiting for their reply. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace I added a suggestion there as well. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Below is a copy-paste of a discussion I'm moving from a FMSky's personal talk page so additional editors can contribute:

Hi! I'm having trouble understanding why you made this edit. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) says that if someone hasn't been convicted of murder, we shouldn't put "murder" in the title. Shouldn't that apply to the rest of the article too? Clearly she was killed, but murder has a legal definition and not all killings count as murder (e.g., manslaughter). The suspect has been charged with murder but not convicted. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder is basically a synonym for killing in common usage --FMSky (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace @FMSky

Perhaps it can be viewed this way. Wikipedia is not a court of law. While we have to assume innocent until guilt is proved, we can also use some measure of common sense. The death was obviously a murder. Whether the suspect did it or not, it was not an accident, nor is there any possible indication of self-defense on the part of the killer (whomever that may be). Now if the suspect does happen to be guilty, and pleads manslaughter in exchange for a lighter sentence, are we going to change the article to "The Manslaughter of Laken Riley," as if she was struck by a drunkenly driven car? I have wondered under what circumstances the "ignore rules" guideline is to be utilized. I think this is one such place. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Since this may turn into a lengthy discussion, can we move this to the Talk page of the article so other interested editors can chime in? Gottagotospace (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace Good grief, I hope it doesn't. I don't have any objection, however. I can copy my previous comment over there. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

[end of copy-pasted portion]

As part of WP:BLP policies and the sentiment of BLP policies as well, I think we need to be careful. If "killing" is basically a synonym for murder in common usage as User:FMSky says, and also the term "killing" ensures we follow Wikipedia policy, shouldn't we use the word "killing"? It doesn't make things more vague. If we just kept saying "death" instead of "killing" then I'd argue that's too vague, but we can say "killing" plenty, and the reader will get the point that there was a violent death inflicted by someone else involved. I don't think there's a good reason to not follow policy here. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace

Hopefully this isn't redundant, but here are my two cents. Murder is the illegal, unjustifiable killing of another person. I actually don't agree that it is synonymous with "killing." Saying "I killed a mosquito," sounds normal. Saying "I murdered a mosquito," will get some strange reactions. Now, the death wasn't a suicide, manslaughter or accident. There is absolutely no hint of justification, such as self-defense. The party who killed her (whether its the suspect or not) committed murder. We don't know if the suspect did it because there's an assumption of innocence until any conviction. So if he's innocent someone else still murdered her. But even if, for example, he did kill her and argues that he has a legal excuse (such as an insanity defense) the murder still occurred even if that argument is accepted and he isn't personally culpable for the crime. The murder happened regardless of the suspect's involvement or culpability. Above is my rationale on if the crime is pled down to say, manslaughter. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We are not the police or the court system, and we do not have all the details. The news does not release every possible detail of criminal cases, and there are surely things we do not know about what happened. We cannot make determinations of whether or not there is any justification (like self-defense) because we are not involved in this case, the trial has not occurred, and there has not been a verdict. And based on me looking into the term "manslaughter" more online, there are other kinds of manslaughter that don't involved accidentally killing people, such as some of those that involve a purposeful killing but without premeditation (like a "crime of passion"). The point is, we don't know what happened and it is not up to us to make those sorts of judgments. That's the court's job, not Wikipedia editors' job. Gottagotospace (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace I was just using that as an example of manslaughter. We certainly don't have access to any evidence since the trial hasn't even been scheduled yet. However, unlike a court we can use a bit of common sense assumptions. The death was due to blunt force trauma and asphyxiation, followed by multiple strikes to the head with a rock. There is no reasonable situation that this case could be self-defense. Now, a court would at least have to entertain that possibility, but we do not (at least until that is actually claimed by the defense during the trial). Also, while we certainly can't assume that the suspect is guilty, I think we can take the polices' word that he didn't know her to be true (once again until such time as the defense says otherwise) therefore negating a crime of passion. The circumstances of the death also render this idea absurd. I think it is reasonable to assume the murder was a "crime of opportunity" as has been reported (regardless of who committed it), unless this is later contradicted. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@TanRabbitry We as Wikipedians aren't supposed to be jumping to conclusions or making assumptions. We are supposed to present things in a neutral manner and follow the Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style. I would like to hear what other editors have to think about this as well. I am hoping we can come to a resolution soon. If it's not resolved within two days, I'd like to take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace I think there are already a reasonable amount of assumptions you have to make to be able to write anything. I wholeheartedly agree that neutrality is essential, however I think simply calling an obvious murder what it was aligns with that. Assuming guilt would be incredibly biased, not to mention libelous, but accurately describing a death as any rational person would given the available information is neutral. I don't see any other rational description of the crime, with the information we have. If, during the trial, something else is claimed, that would change things.

Certainly there have been biased edits. I saw on this "Talk page" references to egregious violations (that were removed) that explicitly described the suspect as having murdered her. However, someone did murder her (not necessarily the suspect) and it would make sense to describe the page likewise. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Obvious murders" resulted in lynchings in the past. (And there is a seeming mob out for blood against a class of people these days.) Murder is a legal term. We do not make legal rulings. There probably will be a murder conviction. But we do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:BLP applies, and there is no WP:DEADLINE. Patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, assumptions of guilt on the head of one individual or group did. I do appreciate your relatively measured tone, but bringing up lynching is highly inappropriate. Additionally, your charge of a mob "out for blood" is as well. What "class of people are you referring to? TanRabbitry (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to support this be moved back to "Killing of Laken Riley" (moving to "murder" only if/once a conviction is rendered) per WP:KILLINGS. I'd also note that the user who unilaterally moved this without consensus (SmashingThreePlates) seems to be having a hard time on their talk page as to a Policy based reason why they did so (see User talk:SmashingThreePlates#Laken Riley). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have moved it back to "Killing of Laken Riley". A move discussion needs to be started to change the title. Vpab15 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Beyond the issue of the title, I tried to change much of the language in the article to replace the word "murder" with other words (like "killing" and "homicide") in most cases (not in quotes from people or when talking about the charges filed against the suspect), but it was reverted (see diff) by @FMSky. That user and @TanRabbitry have given their opinion on the language throughout the article, but I would like some other opinions as well. @Objective3000 @Cakelot1 @Vpab15 What do you think about the issue of the language throughout the article? Gottagotospace (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Killing as per my previous comments. An encyclopedia should not be quicker than events, like trials. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I also support "Killing" to be used in the article for the same reasons that the title would be (WP:KILLINGS and WP:BLPCRIME) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, have you not read the page? It literally says it’s a “murder” in the Infobox of the page. SmashingThreePlates (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I changed that to say "homicide" yesterday, but that edit was reverted by someone else. The only reason I have not reverted it back is because I don't want to get in trouble for "edit warring". That's why I am asking people for their opinion about the rest of the language on the page too, not just the title. That was about a day ago. If this is not resolved within another day, I would like to take it to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Gottagotospace (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: I have submitted this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. It can be found here. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion above, I have edited the prose of the article to refer to a killing and the infobox to refer to a homicide by blunt trauma. The type field in the infobox is for the type of attack: it's reasonable to infer abduction, and the coroner has stated the death was by blunt trauma. I do not see a policy-based reason to refer to it otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

NOTE: On the advice of a volunteer at the DRN, I have posted about this on the BLP noticeboard. It sounds like discussion at the DRN will be closed shortly since it's more suitable for the BLP noticeboard. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

As the discussion at the naming conventions has talked about, it seems that WP:COMMONNAME applies here, unless we fall back on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions due to disagreement. Therefore, here are sources using the word "murder:"

The last is good example of why "killing" is neutral. The author uses both in the first paragraph, showing that "murder" is a type of killing. Additionally, here is one using the word: "slaying:"

I will remind anyone potentially disagreeing, that "killing" has previously been said to be a completely neutral term, consequently, under that precedent, articles utilizing it cannot count in this discussion. "Killing," for the purposes here, is totally neutral. I move the article be changed to reflect these sources; using the more accurate, specific type of killing done. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TanRabbitry (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. And I disagree that this is where discussion at naming conventions is going. We do not know if it is murder. We have no way of knowing this. Therefore we must use the neutral term "killing". O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor's knowledge of events doesn't matter (except in allowing them to find valid sources). See Wikipedia:No Original Research. Additionally, murder is a type of killing. No sources have contradicted that the crime was murder. TanRabbitry (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

All murders are killings. All killings are NOT murders. Killing is known. Murder is not. We have been over this. No witness exists and no court has ruled. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The word "killing" doesn't contradict "murder" anymore than "death," "slaying" or "crime." Not responding to what was actually said isn't helpful. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The word murder may very well contradict what happened. Unlikely killing would. And I did respond to murder is a type of killing. Cut it out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, responding to a single sentence isn't helpful. Your relying on a "what-if" that hasn't been hinted at by any source.

What if none of it happened and it's all a hoax? That is at least possible, but it isn't reasonable or reference-able. Going against sources just because it is at least theoretically possible the crime was not as it has been reported (a murder) is silly. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to hear others' thoughts on my statement. It is, essentially: if sources use the word "murder" and we all agree "killing" is neutral, than it is acceptable to use it. In other words, if a murder is committed according to the police, court and reliable sources and other sources prefer to report in it using the word "killing," "slaying, "crime," " death," "offense," "homicide" et cetera, we can use the more accurate term. Homicide means any death caused by another, slaying isn't especially common and killing could mean a non-crime. Let's use the term that the sources actually describe, rather than the word that some use more than others. No one has directly disputed that the crime was murder, nor (far more importantly) provided sources agreeing with that sentiment. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If every homicide was a murder, the prisons would be filled with police and military and prison executioners and anyone claiming self-defense. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I still believe in the judicial system. I also believe in patience and getting it right the first time in an encyclopedia. We have no need to "scoop" any competition. WP:NOTNEWS WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for yoir words of agreement. That is something to start with.

1. "Homicide" does not necessarily mean murder.
2. Those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty.
3. We don't need to rush this debate. It is more important to be correct.

We all agree on these points. TanRabbitry (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine. Then don't insert the word murder into articles when no court has ruled there was a murder. As Gilbert Cannan wrote a century past: "Patience will out". Or was it Guns N' Roses. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That's the bit we don't agree about. We typically update pages based on news reports, not court decisions. As to the quotation, I can't help you there, I have no idea. Thanks, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we will add it when RS report the court decision. And Guns N' Roses was a joke. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of the essence of this discussion.

I figured it was, but I didn't know who actually said the quotation. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Be aware of (possible) twitter canvasing

Just to let everybody watching this page know, a screenshot of this page juxtaposed against the article "Murder of George Floyd", has been doing the rounds of right wing twitter ([1], [2], [3], [4]), so it's possible we see an uptick in people coming here to ask that this is moved.

For those people the title has nothing to do with politics or race, but our rule-of-thumb (WP:KILLINGS) which generally requires a conviction before we move to "Murder of". If you want other examples of this, may I point you to the articles on the Killing of Breonna Taylor,Trayvon Martin and Freddie Gray as but 3 killings where no conviction of murder exists, being at the title killings. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Gottagotospace (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that those articles are good examples of why this is different. Those were irrefutable homicides, the question was their justification. Murder charge were either not filed, or the party was found innocent. They were controversial, but it was whether the death was legal, not the circumstances that were in question. In this case, there is no rational argument that victim wasn't murdered. That's not to suggest that the suspect is guilty, we haven't seen any evidence even, much less a conviction. But the circumstances rule out any reasonable doubt that the victim was murdered. The question is by whom, and that is not our place to say until a conviction. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

"right wing twitter". surprised it's not "far right". Fsckwiki (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Saying that would be needlessly inserting personal subjective opinion in an inappropriate place. In fact, I think just saying " it has been receiving attention on Twitter," would be better. TanRabbitry (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The attention it's receiving from the likes of "End Wokeness" and "Catturd" is specifically about trying to show that Wikipedia is in some way treating Laken Riley differently from the George Floyd, to imply political bias or bias against white people. You only have to read the replys on the above linked twitter posts to see who this content is targeted at.

Not that any of that matters because, this was just a note about the attention from a particular community and not an invitation to use this talk page as a WP:FORUM to discuss the political views of internet influencers. If you have any further problems with the way I phase my comments, I ask you discuss it on my talk page and not here. Many Thanks Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

So when does the alien became a convicted murderer? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwiz1338

Upon conviction. You know, innocent until proven guilty? Have you seen any evidence that he committed, or didn't commit the murder? We'll find out during the trial what evidence is to be presented. Until there us a conviction for the crime, he is merely the suspect. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The glove not fit eh. Thank you, Kiwiz1338 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The "killing" vs "murder" complaint was well addressed here and thanks for helping provide the context.

The other concern, which has since been corrected, was that this article's lead had not (at the time) described the perpetrator. This comes up a lot in the discussion of news coverage. Tonymetz 💬 17:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 True. If he is convicted then it can be changed to "Murder of Laken Riley". Alexysun (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of my point on the "murder" language: the article reads "was killed while she was jogging." It had formerly also had "abducted and." However if she was abducted (since a corpse can't be kidnapped) than she wasn't killed "while jogging." So I guess if you're going to remove "abducted" it shouldn't say "while." Because that implies there was no abduction. I guess " killed after jogging?"

Second question: should the motive in the box say "crime of opportunity?" That's said elsewhere in the article.

TanRabbitry (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this case Wactor was murdered in downtown Los Angeles, at the age of 37. in Johnny_Wactor, a recent murder not yet gone to trial. Tonymetz 💬 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. RS don't even use murder. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have more formal examples of proper murders. The 3 examples here are in principle manslaughter cases. These ones don't seem to be a good example of a "not yet convicted" murder. Tonymetz 💬 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thinking more broadly, the conviction bar for "murder" is far too stringent (and crude). A murder conviction means "this suspect murdered this victim beyond a reasonable doubt". There are thousands of murder cases where circumstances may not ever lead to a conviction. This case meets the bar for murder according to all RS. I gave my reasoning here and updated the flow chart too Tonymetz 💬 16:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edits are contentious and keep getting reverted. You have no consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Who are you speaking to here? TanRabbitry (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviously Tonymetz, the editor above my edit who just posted that he edited a flowchart. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I only asked a question. There's no need to be short. That comment was days ago, your comment was not addressed and sometimes comments go at the bottom, even if they are intended to answer a certain person. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Objective3000, (this isn't the right place to put here, but you have forbidden my writing on you page and you dislike "pings")

Believe it or not, I believe we both have respectable positions on this. We simply have an honest disagreement. I have no intention to accuse you of anything at the "ANI" page and I appreciate your reticence to do the same. I will say here that if I did twist your words or attack your character, (unintentionally, and unknowing I assure you) nevertheless I apologize. I should have assumed a better interpretation of your words, especially considering how long you have been editing. That was a mistake. I genuinely think I am in the right here (about the language of the article) and I believe you think the same, respectively. I will say I do not understand why you said I have attacked you for weeks. I hadn't spoken to you a week ago. Maybe that was a mistake, rather than a lie. I should have assumed it was. I hope this discussion can resolve itself on friendly, rather than hostile, terms. As you said, there isn't a deadline. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional Charge

Should we include the "peeping tom" charge? It's in basically every recent article on the subject. Additionally, we have repeated mentions of "10 charges" and it is one of them. For the purposes of consistency, I think it needs to be explained somewhere in the article. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

Since requests to add important context to this article -ie that the case was nationally significant only because it was exploited by anti-immigrant activists -have been ignored, I opened a section on the NPOV noticeboard which is now underway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Laken_Riley_Murder

Anyone who wishes to defend the 'aftermath' section -how it's organized, what information was included and what was left out -is encouraged to join the discussion. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The sentences about Trump definitely need to go. Ideally the entire section. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Another editor said the same thing -that the whole 'aftermath' section should be removed. Happy Friday. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This was a highly publicized case that led to the passing of the Laken Riley Act. Some sort of aftermath section is definitely needed, however i've removed the trump part --FMSky (talk)

Acts are mostly named for political reasons (e.g. The Patriot Act). Add me to the list of those who would like to see the entire section go. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing the section is the same as removing the context of why the murder is of national notability, rather than a local crime story. Removing it mainly because you disagree with one side's concern over it and the broader issue shows heavy (though perhaps unintentional) bias. SeeWikipedia:Right Great Wrongs. It isn't our place to "correct" information we disagree with, either directly or through others opinions. The fact that taken as whole, illegal aliens are less likely than American citizens to commit crimes isn't justification for removing what you disagree with. That's attacking a straw man, as well. TanRabbitry (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Long list of wild accusations there which I will not respond to. Nor will I throw the accusations back at you. My only point, which you did not respond to, was that acts are mostly named for political reasons. For all we know, she would have hated having the act named in this manner. Let us keep the article about her as opposed to politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000

I was speaking generally speaking about this issue. If anything I was speaking to the editor who originally proposed removing the section. Why are you assuming I'm speaking to you? TanRabbitry (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? And for the fifth time, do not ping me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much in the listed references that make it seem particularly notable. One person mentioned it in a Forbes article, and another mentions how a congresswoman shouted something about it. I'm not really sure that meets wiki's guidelines. I remember this event, so it's likely there is a greater volume of discussion within say... legitimate newsmedia, but that's not what the current list contains. Lostsandwich (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The current list was carefully selected to include a Forbes article about a "historic surge in illegal border crossings" and the shouty congresswoman. This content is related to the subject and can stay in the article, but there are other perspectives that are also related to the notability of the subject and discuss it in the context of immigration/crime data. CNN and NPR got their data from legit, non-partisan academic studies, so there's no reliability issue here, nor should there be any problem with establishing relevance.

The problem is that it's been a Herculean task getting other editors to see it this way. And now all this section is left with is the shouty congresswoman and The Surge.

So, I apologize to anyone who thinks this section is absolutely necessary, but I'm going to add my name to the list of people who want it removed. Also, the girl's parents don't want their daughter used as a political prop. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You are highly confused about what "Right Great Wrongs" means yet continue to wield this rule like a blunt instrument:

"While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources"

It does not mean you can't "right great wrongs"; it means that if you do right a wrong, it had better be information "that is verifiable using reliable sources." The problem for you is that the information I requested in this article appears in multiple relevant RSes yet you refuse to compromise. You might also want to read the rest of that page on tendentious editing -pushing one-sided, partisan political views in articles is against the rules, and that's the real issue we're dealing with here.

Contrary to what you said on the NPOV board, I find this subject boring (especially the groundhog day political debates) and there are at least 100 other articles I'd rather be helping with on here, that have nothing to do with immigration or politics. I stumbled on this article, noticed some seriously one-sided, partisan coverage in the aftermath section, tried to add balance and was met with fierce resistance. My next step, probably tomorrow, will be to file a DRR. You can explain your case there, if you want. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

See also

The see also section includes links to two Wikipedia articles about alleged killing by immigrants. This would seem to border on prejudice. If the suspect was a Jew, would we link to articles about killing by Jews? What does the reader learn from this? That immigrants are killers? Yes, certain people are trying to push the narrative that immigrants are rapists, murderers, drug pushers, and released from prisons and asylums in South America and Africa. Let us not be part of that. What's worse, is that this article is about a killing with no witnesses and no trial date. Yet we are associating it with alleged killings by immigrants. WP:NPOV WP:BLP O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetically, I'm imagining an alleged killing by a Jewish person for which almost all reliable source coverage focuses on the controversy that has arisen because of the alleged killer's ethnicity. I would think in such a case that we would indeed link other articles that prompted the same sort of controversy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due, yes antisemitism exists and if a Jewish person kills someone and a presidential candidate had spent years accusing Jews of killing, raping, and pushing drugs on US citizens, and that they are "poisoning our blood" as the same presidential candidate keeps repeating -- originated by a person that I cannot mention without be accused of Godwin -- then hypothetically that could occur and we would be very wrong to dignify it in an encyclopedia. (Although that would be highly unlikely outside of neo-Nazi sites.) Why can we not wait for the dust to settle? Why must we promulgate and feed hatred? What is gained by linking such articles? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Illegal aliens are not a race. A better comparison would be if the suspects in three different murders were all con men or counterfeiters or jaywalkers. But such a comparison is silly because the reason they're connected is not due to the criminal status of the suspects, but due to the national conversation about Illegal immigration in general. The sooner we all stop immediately thinking of race in situations like this, the better off we will be. TanRabbitry (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The "conversation" is all about immigrants from countries with largely non-white populations. Trump recently added Africa. Is there some surge of African immigrants we don't know about? I don't see Trump saying white immigrants, legal or illegal, are "poisoning the blood of our country". Ignoring that, no we would not have see also links to jaywalkers killing people if the suspect was a jaywalker. That also would not provide useful information to the reader as neither jaywalkers nor immigrants are more likely to commit crimes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that is due to the fact that illegal aliens from Europe and Canada combined make up a tiny fraction of the total. I also said that the example was silly, because the premise is flawed. It isn't the criminal status, but the coverage and discussion that connects them. TanRabbitry (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe the majority of new illegal aliens are actually visa overstayers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes by about 2 -1 most illegal immigrants (or "aliens", as TanRabbitry loves saying) overstay visas and don't physically run the border. Your analogy was sound and while it's true a hypothetical article about a politicized murder by a Jew would link to related articles, the articles would include more context than we find here. The editors here seem to want this article to state one anti-immigrant pov and then link to other murders by illegal immigrants that do the same thing. If this isn't an NPOV violation I don't know what is. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't "love" saying it. It is just the proper, legal term. Don't try to counter by referencing executive orders that directed internal language of departments and/or their press statements. The relevant regulations and statutes utilize the term. It is not pejorative or improper. If you or I travel to a foreign country, then we would be aliens, if we do so outside of legal methods, we would be illegal aliens. As far as there being no conviction for the suspect, that may be so, but his entering the country illegally has been reported as fact. If a conviction is required, why does the Wikipedia article describe him as entering the country illegally? TanRabbitry (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. We should add alleged. The article goes on to say: It was part of a broader push by Republicans to deride immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally and tie them to violent crimes. Disgusting guilt by association tying millions of innocent people to killings, for the Republicans and for Wikipedia to follow the Republicans for adding killings by other people in the See also section. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

We've begun to draft paragraphs for the aftermath section on the Rfc talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley/RFC_on_Aftermath Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Please keep your personal opinions on a personal blog. Ap201 (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)