Talk:Sasha Johnson

Oxford's Black Panther

The citation is paywalled and the part visible doesn't support that claim. Secondly in British idiomatic English any comparison with a Black panther would invoke the idea of the big cat not an American campaign group most British people have never heard of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there was a British Black Panthers movement in the UK, although before Sasha Johnson's time. JezGrove (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the Black Panthers are well-known here. The source supports the claim—I was able to access it in full. — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

According to this piece in The Guardian already cited in the article (currently reference number 6):

In a new statement, published on Tuesday and signed by Imarn Ayton, of the Black Reformist Movement UK, Marvina Eseoghene Newton, of Black Lives Matter Leeds, Phoen!x Tha Rude Boii, of Black Music Movement, Sasha Johnson of the New Black Panther Party and Aima of All Black Lives UK, activists accused police of a campaign of persecution.

I knew I'd seen it somewhere that wasn't behind a paywall or in the tabloid press etc. JezGrove (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability?

Seems a quintessential WP:1E. She is not a politician who has been in any legislative body, nor held office; nor gained significant press coverage (but for her shooting), per WP:NPOL. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Solipsism 101: it wouldn't be unreasonable for you to AfD, but I think there's a strong chance it would be kept. When I wrote the article I was careful to make heavy use of sources that predate the shooting: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. The fact that another user edit conflicted with me in a rush to create the article (and won!) is anecdotal but could indicate strength of Wikipedian opinion. If you want to AfD, please make sure to give a rationale that addresses the previous coverage (including any which I've not managed to find and list in this comment). My claim of notability would be WP:GNG, not WP:NPOL. — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The refs which predate are cursory; at a march and then offered a quote, which the journalist attached. They are far from offering her individual notability. I think the two editors rushing to create the article, the day shooting was announced rather than any of these marches, tells us rather more. Will see if anyone else wants to offer comment. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

She wasn't notable until the shooting, yes, but I believe the prior coverage plus the shooting coverage is sufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

That argument makes more sense, although perhaps Shooting of Sasha Johnson would be more appropriate, until more info emerges about Johnson emerges? But admittedly it'd be awkward to include the background info and activism into an article which is meant to be directed at the single event. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What is it she is notable for? The article never actually says. Attending protests isn't notability. The majority of endnotes refer to articles about her shooting.198.161.4.48 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

She was born on October 23 1992. 86.15.59.85 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

First class degree?

While true (perhaps) that she got a first class degree, it gives the impression that it's something of distinction, which is false. A qualification that is dished out to 30% of students from a not very notable university, should it even be mentioned? Rustygecko (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This is special pleading. The information is not supposed to be there to impress you. It's just factual content, relevant because several high-quality reliable sources deemed it relevant. We'd say her birth month if we knew it, but no-one would argue it's "impressive". But on the 30% figure (where have you got that from?), the most recent data I can find is about 20% of OBU students getting a first in 2017. (In comparison—as I was expecting—it's about a third for Uni of Oxford, making it less interesting that someone gets a first from Oxford proper.) I don't know what you have against OBU but (as an Oxonian) I've visited the OBU campus a couple of times and it seemed lovely. — Bilorv (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you look at any article about a UK person who went to uni, it will include their degree classification if known. It's not because having a degree, or a certain classification, is impressive; it's just a standard piece of background info. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The degree classification was reported in reliable sources and should stay. The Guardian had now corrected its report to say that Johnson attended Ruskin College, not Oxford Brookes. JezGrove (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(I must admit I'm confused as to what Ruskin College is. Looking into it, I think I've cycled to the campus there but confused it with the Ruskin School of Art. But it's associated with the Uni of Oxford somehow?) — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Which would mean her degree is from the Open Uni, as Ruskin is an FE/HE college without degree-awarding powers. But I won't add as it's obviously WP:OR. As for the relationship with Oxford, the college allows its students to visit the libraries etc, which I think all unis do to local colleges in the area, but it sounds better when it's Oxford. Solipsism 101 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If that's true, I think that is an agreement of substance. I never quite understood the situation but we've had issues with our own students not being allowed to use the (university, not college) libraries—it was something about foundation year students not having a matriculation ceremony and therefore not being given Bod cards. — Bilorv (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As to the confusion about the degree, Sky have reported she's an "Oxford graduate" as TTIP say "Sasha is an Oxford graduate with a First in Social Care" on her bio. We now know from the Guardian correction and the FT that this is not true: Johnson is not an Oxford grad, didn't study social care, and given TTIP is wrong about both these things, it cannot be relied upon for the first-class claim. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we AGF then TTIP mean that she's a university graduate who studied in Oxford, misleading but true, but I'm fine with the removal of the class (though I imagine it's probably true). — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Shouldn't her notability be outlined in the lead? At present, the lede says this:

Sasha Johnson (born 1993/94)[1] is a British Black Lives Matter activist and member of Taking The Initiative Party (TTIP). A graduate of Ruskin College, she has been involved in Rhodes Must Fall, Black Lives Matter and Kill the Bill protests. On 23 May 2021, Johnson was shot in the head.

So she's an activist (who isn't), graduated college (who hasn't), been involved in protests (not notable) and got shot in the head.

What are we missing? She's so notable no one knows when she was born? 198.161.4.48 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it's always the reference section (or, even better: the pool of potential references that exist) which outlines notability. In this case, if you think the sources in the article don't show WP:GNG then do a WP:BEFORE and, if that shows nothing, nominate for deletion. (I believe IPs can't actually start AfD requests, but leave me a message at User talk:Bilorv and I can proxy start it on your behalf.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've asked twice now and not received an answer - what is it she is notable for? Belonging to stuff isn't notability. Nor is "potentially" belonging to stuff, whatever that was supposed to mean. If you think she's notable you should probably include it in the article and the lede. Otherwise, she should get a speedy deletion.198.161.4.48 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

She's notable enough that she has been reported on in numerous reliable sources, including before her shooting. There are many articles of living and historical people for whom no date of birth is known; in the case of living people their DoB is only given if it is already in the public domain. JezGrove (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confusing notability with significance, the claim to avoid WP:A7 speedy deletion. This is a much lower bar and either that she's a Black Lives Matter activist or that she was shot recently would satisfy A7. — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Fake Twitter account

In response to this, the sentence under dispute is, in DeFacto's preferred version:

TTIP said that posts, including one calling for white people to be enslaved, from a Twitter account purporting to be Johnson, were not made by her.

and in mind:

TTIP reported that a Twitter account falsely purporting to be Johnson made numerous Tweets, including one calling for white people to be enslaved.

Putting aside the (easily-fixed) grammar issues in the first sentence, the source (Insider) says TTIP also said posts from a Twitter account purporting to be Johnson were circulating online. The party said the account @SashaJohnsonBLM was "not created by Sasha" and was "created to persecute her.". Insider aren't independently vetting even that there were posts, whereas the first sentence presupposes that there were (and that the nature of TTIP's claims are only in asserting the posts' falsehoods). It's a subtle difference but I don't really understand what's contentious about it. Based on DeFacto's latest edit summary, the word choice "reported" (in the second version)? Well change it to "stated" or "commented" or "said" or "wrote" then. — Bilorv (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, let me list the problems with your version:

1. From your version: "TTIP reported that...". That is an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice which is not supported by the cited reference. It wasn't TTIP that reported anything, it was the cited reference doing the reporting, and it reported that "TTIP also said posts from a Twitter account...".
2. From your version: "... a Twitter account falsely purporting to be Johnson...". that is also an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice which is not supported by the cited reference. The cited reference does not say that the account falsely purported, just that it purported.

See WP:WIKIVOICE for how not to use Wikipedia's voice. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto: the first problem can be changed by replacing "reported" with "stated", "commented", "said" or "wrote", correct? Per WP:SAID (Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate). And the second is a misreading on your point—the first ellipses hide the attribution. It should be "TTIP [stated] that a Twitter account falsely purporting to be Johnson ..." This clause makes it clear that TTIP are the ones describing the situation (we haven't described anything as false in wikivoice). Additionally, you seem to still not understand the main point I'm making: you say The cited reference does not say that the account falsely purported, just that it purported. But I've argued above that the reference didn't purport that the account exists. It's TTIP that made that assertion. This is my issue with version one. — Bilorv (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, the source does not say "falsely purporting", just "purporting". I'd be ok with "TTIP said that a Twitter account purporting to be Johnson made numerous Tweets, including one calling for white people to be enslaved". -- DeFacto (talk). 15:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that sentence missing the bit where TTIP claim that the Twitter account is fake? Your version makes no reference to that fact. Add some mention of that and we're in agreement. — Bilorv (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, it's a difficult source to parse, but how about this: "TTIP said that a Twitter account purporting to be Johnson, and which they characterised as fake, made numerous Tweets, including one calling for white people to be enslaved? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I'm fine with it because the factual content is there, so I've gone ahead and added it for the time being. But it really feels like you're dancing around the wording I had: TTIP said that a Twitter account falsely purporting to be Johnson .... The claim "falsely" is attributed to TTIP, not said in Wikivoice. This seems to me to be just a matter of prose quality rather than any factual change. — Bilorv (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want a counterproposal, maybe you'd like TTIP said that a Twitter account falsely purported to be Johnson and made numerous Tweets, including one calling for white people to be enslaved? — Bilorv (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems a non-story. It doesn't belong to her and it's undue to include it, unless reputable journalists investigate and find it credible. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, and I spent the two days following the Insider source choosing again and again to keep excluding mention, but we've seen numerous editors, including a couple likely in good faith, coming to spread this far-right character assassination attempt. I've read some internet forum discussions about Johnson and it appears this fake Twitter is one of the main things people know about Johnson—except that they don't, it's misinformation. I'm desperately awaiting proper coverage of this by a journalist actually willing to get to the bottom of it, but until then, we're just going to see people try to add the impersonated tweets again and again (whatever protection the article goes under) unless we include something on the matter. — Bilorv (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Solipsism 101, it's a notable and due weight non-story though, and there will be readers visiting the article to find out more about the Twitter account. We should cover it, but be careful to present it neutrally and stick to the reliably sourced facts and be careful to correctly attribute any notable opinions. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

News update

The BBC's latest news report names the 18-year-old suspect (and has a courtroom sketch of him) and also mentions that one of the other guests at the party was shot in the foot. The Beeb also manage to get Johnson's educational background wrong, repeating the "Oxford Brookes" error. The report is here. JezGrove (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

JezGrove, how do we know that is an error, and that sources giving another institution are correct? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto, The Guardian published a correction at the bottom of one of their articles after they amended it the other day. I assume that they don't do that lightly and that they only did so after investigating further? The link to their corrected article, with the amendment noted at the bottom, is here. JezGrove (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

JezGrove, when there's a contradiction like this we shouldn't favour one RS over another, we need to wait until it's corroborated or the consensus amongst RSs tips one way or the other. So I think, for now, we need to note in the article that the institution she attended isn't agreed between sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the BBC themselves cited her alma mater as Ruskin College earlier, e.g. here. Unfortunately, they haven't been as transparent over corrections. JezGrove (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a very silly situation and not really our fault. I hope the matter becomes clearer, but for now maybe we should say "earned a degree from an institution in Oxford" or something and put a footnote saying that sources don't agree between the University of Oxford, Oxford Brookes and Ruskin College. If we are to name somewhere specific, I agree with JezGrove that Ruskin College has the most credible sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I can see in a Google search that the Financial Times added a similar correction notice to one of their reports, but because it's behind a paywall I don't have access to it. JezGrove (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As to it being who's incorrect about the college/uni, the correction (Brookes to Ruskin) came from the Guardian and also the Financial Times. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, see FT has been acknowledged. It said This article has been amended to clarify that Sasha Johnson attended Ruskin College Oxford. I support Ruskin being included, as two papers noted for factual reporting independently corrected from Brookes to Ruskin. The Guardian also corrected the degree. If Guardian and others re-correct it, then we can always change it. Solipsism 101 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I just looked to see whether Ruskin or Oxford Brookes had put out a statement about the shooting of their former student, which would have settled the matter, but neither has as far as I can tell. JezGrove (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Page is strongly biased towards TTIP

On several places TTPI views are taken at face value while police reports are condemned or portrayed as false or unproven. 62.90.12.25 (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you list these places? It should be that all information from TTIP or a police report that was not independently checked or described in a reliable newspaper's own words are attributed to those sources. TTIP criticise the police report, yes, but their claims are attributed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I moved the TTIP response to the response section, as it was removed from the shooting section for not being "balanced" by User:Mr Miles. It is certainly a response, it was covered extensively by reliable sources: it led to the FT publishing a story about the MPS headlined "Police accused of playing down shooting of Black Lives Matter leader".[7] The targeted attack speculation also, likely, played a part in the emphasis of the story in RSs. It probably should be trimmed down, but the TTIP response was a significant story and should be included in the article. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I note the TTIP's denial of a "black-on-black" narrative and alternative assertion that the shooting was targeted and conducted by people wearing balaclavas (presumably white supremacists) seems to be unsupported by any evidence at all. It certainly seems to be in denial of the ethnicity of the guy who appeared in court and, as far as I'm aware, the mainstream media have not commented on that so far? JezGrove (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

TTIP should not be under "Responses", but moved back to where it was, as the current situation privileges the police statement as authoritative, which—particularly in the context of a Black Lives Matter activist who has alleged police harassment against her—is not neutral. Additionally, putting it in "Responses" could give the impression that TTIP are neutral or not directly related to the situation, when they are only involved in the situation because of Johnson's role there. — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The mere allegation of police misconduct is not significant, I would add. But the fact it was covered by RSs in a non-critical way is significant and the reason it should be added, making it beyond the scope of our personal opinions. I comment this to prevent a future argument that a possible conviction is not "authoritative" simply because some people suspect the police of a cover-up. That could only be added if it were covered by RSs in a non-critical way.Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's the fact that the allegation was covered in RSes that makes it relevant. But is that agreement or disagreement on moving it back to the section it was in? — Bilorv (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

On that, I personally support the inclusion for the above reasons. Editors seem to have an issue with our presenting it as an alternative narrative with the same degree of emphasis as the police account (note the RSs overall consider the police account authoritative, even if they have included snippets of TTIP criticism): perhaps we could say TTIP dispute police findings (in a sentence or two) in the shooting section, and have more detail about their position in the response section? Ultimately, even if there is a conviction which is accepted by all RSs, that supports gangland shooting, I think the criticism is significant as a response along the same lines of Abbott's comments: for historical context explaining the prominence of the event. Solipsism 101 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting up TTIP statements is confusing and unintuitive, so I don't support that. I don't really understand what you mean by the RSs overall consider the police account authoritative, even if they have included snippets of TTIP criticism—to me, that would mean "they repeat police statements in their own voice". But in Sky News it says "... police have said" and "police believe ...". Insider even says "The police say they believe the attack was not targeted at Johnson" (not "police believe"). So I'm not sure how RSes could be considering police accounts less authoritative, other than by not reporting them (in which case there wouldn't be anything they could say), or reporting someone else's account first in the article (which isn't possible, as much of the TTIP statements are a response to the police statements). — Bilorv (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

We should not give the TTIP argument the same weight as the MPS investigation, in my opinion. Others, feel free to offer your opinion. And my vague statement. I don't mean in their voice (or they'd perhaps face civil liability). I mean, since the arrests and charging decision, we have seen the MPS account offered without criticism and without any foonote of "TTIP have disputed the provisional police findings", in contrast to how TTIP was initially covered. The Beeb, for example, simply state the suspect was charged.[8][9], and the same from Sky News, The Guardian, ITV News, CNN, The Independent. Recent stories, i.e. after 25 May, have the MPS account uncritically. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for expanding: I see your point now. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Naming defendants

I've reverted this edit by JezGrove on the grounds of possibly violating WP:BLPCRIME, which asks that we "seriously consider" not including names in a situation like this. I don't have a strong view myself but think we should err on the side of not naming while discussion takes place. — Bilorv (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should add it only if the name would be significant were the person found not guilty or not prosecuted: Derek Chauvin had a Wikipedia article before he was convicted, and George Zimmerman still has one after being found not guilty, owing to the significant biographical coverage they both received in RSs. In 10 years, would we still find the person's name significant simply because they were charged, without more? I doubt it, if it were simple a gangland shooting (as opposed to an assassination attempt). We can always add the name if the person is convicted; there's no rush. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if my edit was inappropriate - I assumed that if the name was published by reliable sources then adding it would be permissible. I'm perfectly happy with the reversion and to wait for the justice system to take its course. JezGrove (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Severe critical condition as of 7 June

I've just seen this update on Johnson's medical condition. According to the BBC,

Det Ch Insp Richard Leonard told the BBC Ms Johnson remained "under sedation" but is "still very, very much in a severe critical condition".

He said she had undergone two operations to release pressure on her brain but "it's still going to be a number of weeks before we know the full extent of the injury".

He added nobody who was at the party had yet provided information to police and her family were "concerned people are not coming forward to help us".

The full report is here. JezGrove (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, seen critical condition reported in The Times and The Daily Telegraph as well, from the police statement. Also used phrases like "fighting for her life". Support adding the update clarifying under sedation and in critical condition. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think this can replace the "As of 28 May ..." line. — Bilorv (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the date and added a source with brief coverage of the extent of injury (before even knowing this was on the talk page), feel free to go over and revise it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I added under sedation as well; also removed DCI name, "police statement" places the quote. Although feel free to amend. Solipsism 101 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Two children or three?

Article says she has two children, but many news sources call her a "mother of three". 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:D26:2B22:4C96:A65E (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

To clarify this, the family have confirmed she had two children. There was a lot of confusion in initial reporting. Solipsism 101 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity of Shooters

I think it's worth mentioning the ethnicity of the people who shot her...especially since Diane Abbott falsely asserted that it was a "racially motivated" crime. If it had have been a "racially motivated" crime, no doubt this article would have been full of hysterical references to "white supremacists" and "institutional racism". The fact that it wasn't seems strangely muted by comparison.

Come on, Wikipedia...let's have a bit of balance. Surely you remember "balance" from your early days when you presented factual, unjaundiced articles? 86.14.43.73 (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which states the ethnicity of the shooters? Sweet6970 (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Present tense?

I doubt that Sacha still "serves" TTIP in any capacity. I'd edit myself, but I lost my login details a while back and I dislike even commenting anonymously on the Talk page never mind edit the article. 82.144.247.98 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I have changed 'serves' to 'has served'. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)