Talk:Killing of Tortuguita

Merge and redirect

WP:BLP1E, WP:CFORK, WP:NOTABLE this easily succeeds at WP:AFD please don't make me go through the trouble of starting a discussion --71.199.188.9 (talk) 71.199.188.9 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly you can nominate it for speedy deletion, see WP:SPEEDY MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Irrelevant POV-pushing. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this event has gotten widespread coverage, enough to meet GNG in my opinion. --Thriley (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Agreed, it just needs some additional work from editors to fill it out more and expand the content with available sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC) The individual has no notability outside being killed during the "Stop Cop City" anti-terror operation and clearly fails WP:BLP1E but that's fine, I like long bureaucratic processes so I'll take it to a regular WP:AFD thanks for making the inevitable slightly harder than it needed to be --FlameRetardant (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Who are you saying is making things more difficult for you? An admin declined your CSD tag, not the people on the talk page here. Reminder that there's no need to be combative, especially if you actually do like long beauracratic processes. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC) I understand this is an article about an event, and not a living person. Jay 💬 16:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC) User:FlameRetardant seems to be POV pushing. On the Stop Cop City page, they have continually attempted to describe the killing of Rayshard Brooks as "objectively reasonable" and "justifiable homicide", which they were warned for. They also revised an entire section of the page so that "police raid" read "police operation" despite the sources referenced describing it as a raid. And of course, the combinative response and misuse of WP:BLP1E. Since they seem to have at least a cursory understanding of Wikipedia policies but their account is new and only has (so far) edited pages related to the campaign, I think WP:SOCK is possible if not likely. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 15:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) WP:BLP1E states "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." which is what this WP:CFORK is, putting "death of" in front of it to try to pretend it's about an event is transparent. I live in Atlanta, this article came up in my feed, I saw the "Death of" article, googled "wikipedia articles about people" and BLP comes up as the second link. So that, plus the fact that I can read and comprehend. Your other objections, while nonsense, should be addressed in a separate section at the target article. --FlameRetardant (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC) As per the very policy you linked, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article, not nominate it for WP:SD or WP:AFD. Further, while WP:BLP1E does list being a low-profile individual as necessary criteria for a merge or deletion under that policy, it does not list it as sufficient criteria. In particular, the page doesn't meet the third and final criteria: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The event is notable and well-documented; the question is not whether it should be included but rather whether it warrants a separate article. The title, which refers to the killing, is in line with WP:1E: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Lastly, I've made no other objections, I've just tried to key in User:Jay to what appears to be a pretty clear case of POV pushing -- here bordering censorship to a certain degree -- which would explain your combative, borderline disruptive behavior on this talk page as well as your misuse of WP:BLP1E. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 14:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Cool so you agree with a merge. I thought a one-line stub POV CFORK was an easy CSD, I was wrong, but since you agree with the merge and redirect it's problem solved. If you have a problem with my other, constructive edits, at the SCC page go ahead and start a thread there. --FlameRetardant (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC) User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo wrote "they (User:FlameRetardant) have continually attempted to describe the killing of Rayshard Brooks as 'objectively reasonable' and 'justifiable homicide', which they were warned for..." Well, guess what: that is precisely what has been determined -- that the shooting of Rayshard Brooks was justifiable. Why you averred that it wasn't says more about your tendentiousness than it says about User:FlameRetardant's assertions of the time. The article on Brooks should never have claimed that Brooks' killing was or wasn't justified; that was up to the authorities to determine. Bricology (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC) As User:Doug Weller explained to User:FlameRetardant: “Justified” is not in the source [they] added out to nor is a word used in the original article. And “objectively reasonable” is ambiguous. I did not warn them, that was Wller; and what I said was factually correct: they were warned for continually attempt[ing] to describe the killing of Rayshard Brooks as 'objectively reasonable' and 'justifiable homicide'. As you said, the article on Brooks should never have claimed that Brooks' killing was or wasn't justified. By the way, maybe admitting that resisting "political correctness" whatever that happens to mean for you isn't the best thing to put on your userpage. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 07:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Hey thanks for reminding me about this story. The state attorney general appointed special prosecutor Peter Skandalakis who determined "Both acted in accordance with well-established law and were justified in the use of force regarding the situation.". So there you have it. Brooks' killing was justified. Nothing "ambiguous" there (which "objectively reasonable" is not) just a straightforward determination from the court that the killing Rayshard Brooks was "justified". I'll put that back into the lead when I get back from my ride since juxtaposing the lawful killing of someone who stole a police weapon with an unlawful killing of someone in police custody without clarifying the former reeks of NPOV. Thanks! [1] --FlameRetardant (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC) @FlameRetardant What a wild thing to claim. That the killing of rayshard brooks is somehow justified. The government doesn't get to decide whether something they did was "justified" and has no relation whether something is NPOV or not. It's based largely on general consensus. Of which for rayshard brooks there was massive outcry over. Nor does it allow you to claim something's is broadly "reasonable". (and also if you are making that argument. The family received a settlement by the city for the killing, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/us/atlanta-rayshard-brooks-lawsuit.html) LoomCreek (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, the killing of Rayshard Brooks was justified. I have it right here from CNN. No charges against the officers, and the special prosecutor agreed "justified". That's a justified killing alright. I'd say Atlanta should get their money back but I moved to Cherokee so I don't actually care. What I do care about is that the killing of Rayshard Brooks was justified. A justified killing alright. That's what it was. Justified. --FlameRetardant (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC) @FlameRetardant wow LoomCreek (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Geez. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry you're upset that the killing of Brooks was justified. --FlameRetardant (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Being deemed justified by a particular party and being actually justified in objective fact are two different things. On Wikipedia we would say that the special prosecutor deemed the killing justified, not that the killing of Brooks was justified. The former is neutral, the latter is a WP:NPOV violation. Anyway, your current behavior on the wiki is bordering on disruptive editing and I'd advise you to calm down and stop the very clear POV pushing. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 03:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusive language

I'm surprised the sentence "Terán was a 26-year old Venezuelan environmental activist. They were non-binary and used they/them pronouns" is allowed in Wikipedia. Specially the word in bold letters. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, "They/them pronouns are always acceptable in article space for subjects who have stated that they prefer them." Many of the sources about the person, who didn't become notable until after being killed, describe them as non-binary and preferring they/them pronouns. Part of the notability of the person was that they were a queer environmental activist. The article simply follows the cited sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This article quotes the mother as saying, "Manuel loved the forest...It gave them peace. They meditated there." I think it's reasonable to assume, based on that, that "they/them" were the pronouns he preferred. -- Hux (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

new sources for article

Atlanta police release body-camera video from raid after fatal shooting of activist — The Washington Post, Feb. 9, 2023

Atlanta Police Release Body Camera Footage of Activist Killing at 'Cop City' — Vice News, Feb. 9, 2023

Officer in Cop City Bodycam Footage Suggests Fellow Cop Was Shot by Friendly Fire — The Intercept, Feb. 9, 2023

Body-Cam Footage Raises New Questions in Deadly ‘Cop City’ Shooting — The Daily Beast, Feb. 9, 2023

Atlanta Police Release Bodycam Video Amid Growing Outrage over Activist’s Killing and "Cop City" — Democracy Now!, Feb. 9, 2023

Both the Exchange of gunfire and Body camera footage sections need updated, and could possibly be reworked and merged. (Update: looks like someone took care of that.) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First of a Kind Killing?

This article states that this death was the first of its kind, and cites the Guardian article “first environmental activist killed by police in US history, experts said”

Can we confirm that no other environmental activists have been killed by US law enforcemen? (eg standing rock, historical protests etc) Pxsarkany (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't know how the claim can be confirmed, but I agree it should be discussed further. I would support changing the current wording from "Terán was the first environmental activist to be killed by police in United States history." to "Terán '''is believed to be''' the first environmental activist to be killed by police in United States history.

StalkerFishy (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns in quote

@DigsForWorms: The square brackets are there to indicate that something was changed. Per MOS:GID: Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be fine if the original quote wording was still there and [their] was added next to "his" but to completely remove the original wording is an issue. DigsForWorms (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The relevant guideline tells us to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I and many others are strictly against editing quotations. We think direct quotations should be stated exactly how they were said regardless of an editor's or reader's feelings (including mine) or their need to correct a mistake. However, I will yield. I have reverted my undoing of your edit. *Tips hat* DigsForWorms (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 April 2023

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: WP:SNOW self close. (closed by non-admin page mover) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán → Murder of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán – This is obviously a murder, akin to the murder of George Floyd. Nobody in their right mind sees a bunch of police officers shooting 57 bullets in someone and calls it an accidental killing, as the current title implies. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:KILLINGS, the appropriate article title for a homicide is "Killing of ..." until there is a conviction. That's why the article Murder of George Floyd was titled Killing of George Floyd until the date of the Derek Chauvin's guilty verdict (April 20, 2021). SilverLocust (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2023 (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.

Gunshot Residue

Why does the lede twice mention gunshot residue wasn't found without mentioning the fact that it was found in subsequent forensic testing? (see: https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/04/28/two-autopsies-of-atlanta-protester-killed-by-police-could-both-be-valid-expert and https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/autopsy-cop-city-protester-manuel-teran-death-gunshot-powder-residue.amp). 2600:100A:B125:25F:BCF8:FF42:CFC6:8CEA (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@2600:100A:B125:25F:BCF8:FF42:CFC6:8CEA It looks like it's probably just out date due to the recency (within the last week). Feel free to add it, I'm busy at the moment but when I have time I'll make the correction within a day or two.

Just keep in mind the presence gunshot residue like most forensic techniques is not foolproof. Especially since they were shot at a somewhat close range so the GSR has several possible sources (although the exact distance is unclear). LoomCreek (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

my initial thought is to simply remove the references to GSR from the lede? 2600:100A:B125:25F:BCF8:FF42:CFC6:8CEA (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@2600:100A:B125:25F:BCF8:FF42:CFC6:8CEA Okay, sounds good --LoomCreek (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

2600:1700:80F0:CA0:956E:CF03:721C:F4A2 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC) The autopsy report states that gunshot residue was "not seen" on his hands. This implies that gunshot residue was merely not visible to the naked eye, which is not substantial evidence either way. (source: https://static.fox5atlanta.com/www.fox5atlanta.com/content/uploads/2023/04/23-0126_Autopsy_Report_with_Body_Detail_Sheets-1.pdf )

@2600:1700:80F0:CA0:956E:CF03:721C:F4A2 It is definitely important.

It's context on the amount of residue present. If residue was visible it would be more substantial in terms of the possibility of Teran shooting.

However small amounts of residue are less conclusive as it's more likely to be from other sources such as nearby gunfire. This is why the two different tests exist. Neither is fully conclusive but a positive on one is more substantial than the other, and they both provide different crucial information. LoomCreek (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1700:80F0:CA0:956E:CF03:721C:F4A2 That's why both are listed in the lead for context. LoomCreek (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Were they indigenous?

I keep hearing them referred to as indigenous, but does anyone have any further information on the subject? And of what first nations (of Venezuela?) origin are they?

https://psr.org/psr-statement-on-the-murder-of-indigenous-forest-defender-manuel-tortuguita-esteban-paez-teran/ 2603:6011:A400:8A82:68AB:CE9F:B627:CC31 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Timing

I'm confused. "A handgun and shell casings were located at the scene" is associated with the statement "Forensic ballistic analysis has confirmed that the projectile recovered from the trooper’s wound matches Teran’s handgun." Should not this be mentioned before the statement that "Terán's hands were up at the time of the shooting"? If this is a sequential statement of events, how did Teran’s handgun project a bullet at or before the "time of the shooting"? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, the report's analysis have not been released publicly, so we have no way to actually confirm it. Which is why it goes after the publicly released autopsy of wounds in both hands indicating they were up.

All of these mentions are not sequential but rather claims about the overall event, hopefully that clears things up. - LoomCreek (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Does every person mentioned in the article identify as nonbinary?

Or did they, for persons now deceased? This is the most disjointed application of pronouns I've ever read. In some sentences the rhetoric gets so horribly mangled that it impacts comprehension. Is this all for the sake of inclusive language? I read a previous comment that asserted the subject of the article preferred "they" as their identifying pronoun so I can understand referring to that person as such, but why neutralize all٭ the gendered pronouns that are not referring to the subject? This style of writing leads the reader to assume that the Atlanta Police Department is staffed entirely with transexuals. While I find that personally hilarious, such inaccuracies are obviously not proper for an encyclopedia.

By self-restricting the inventory of usable pronouns, the author(s) have to take too much liberty with grammatical conventions. The human subjects of several sentences are invalidly replaced with common nouns so that each subject is converted to an object. Instead of clearly identifying the people involved, actions are misattributed to "reports", "offices", and "results". The hack-job quote where "his" is swapped with "[their]" is so painfully awkward to read that it comes across as sarcasm.

The grammatical confusion extends to the proper nouns as well. The subject is inconsistently identified by multiple different naming formats that randomly change throughout the article. "Terán", "Paez Terán", and "Tortuguita" are used interchangeably, sometimes omitting the accented vowel. I propose that the subject should be referred to exclusively by the same "little turtle" nickname displayed in the title of the article.

Additional issues requiring cleanup:

·The information about the number of gunshots sustained and the lack of gunpowder residue is stated two times, nearly verbatim.

·"Improvised Explosive Device" is unnecessarily capitalized.

·"Atlanta Police Department" is restated several times, despite "APD" being used near the beginning of the article.

·"DeKalb County" and "Stop Copy City" are redundantly hyperlinked throughout the article.

٭[DA Sherry Boston is identified as female, but likely unintentionally.] Nom de vileplume (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)