Talk:2016 Milwaukee riots/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge into Black Lives Matter

The following discussion 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.

---

Recommend this article be merged into Black Lives Matter. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree - Lots of media coverage on its own for this event, and now the U.S. National Guard is on standby because of what happened. As more details on the initial police shooting emerge, I can tell this is not going to go away and that this will continue to develop. Parsley Man (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree - Plenty of media coverage to warrant its own article. Severity of this incident does as well. Rossbawse (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Disagree This riot has not even been linked through media reports or anywhere in this article as having been in any way associated with the Black Lives Matter movement. With multiple buildings having been burned, police injured and both police and fire fighters attacked with bricks, this event is notable in its own right. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merger. While I disagree with everybody else about the notability of the riot, no reliable source that I have seen has tied the riot to Black Lives Matter. (There was a sly reference to Black Lives Matter in Russia Today, which is state-controlled and shouldn't be considered a reliable source for facts.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a single event with lots of information, and not every aspect of it is related to the organization Black Lives Matter. Mangokeylime (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I thoroughly dislike BLM but you can't pin this directly on them. This was a response to a (justified) police shooting, not the result of any direct action by BLM 142.161.98.46 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as inappropriate target. I am not, however, persuadeed that this meets notability as a riot.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2016 (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.

Video

"..video from the officer's bodycam showed..." - so, where is the video? --Itu (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath?

The heading Riot has subheads August 13, August 14, August 15. The following heading Aftermath details events of 14 Aug 2016. Since the info head says this event is "ongoing", isn't the heading Aftermath premature and don't the aftermath events belong under August 14? -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done I agree this did not make sense. I merged the content to August 14 and made Investigation an independent section. -- Dane2007 ^talk 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparent pro-gun sentiment behind edits

Per these edits ([1] [2] [3]), I believe this is a WP:POV effort to discredit the father's statement because he is criticizing state gun laws and seems to imply gun control as a solution. There is no need for that edit, because it's already a well-known fact for this topic and to keep mentioning it, especially where it's not needed, is like beating a dead horse. Parsley Man (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3 reverts on that without even attempting to discuss it, even claiming OR when you knew the gun was stolen as cited in that article. It's a perfectly valid point that the Washington times included in their article. It is certainly fair to include it at that point in the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Mind telling me exactly how that piece of information would contribute to that section? Parsley Man (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(3 edit conflicts there with your "Hello? are you there?" BTW). As I said it's a fair point that the gun laws were broken. I appreciate all the anti-vandalism and maintenance you are doing in the article, but ffs you should not be hitting the undo button 3 times on a good faith edit by established editors. My edit was not vandalism and was cited and you know it. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Mind telling me exactly how that piece of information would contribute to that section? Parsley Man (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it doesn't add to it, my opinion is that it does add to it. It is related since the allegation is that the laws are not strict enough even though they were strict enough to have been broken in this case. Your reason of supposed anti or pro gun bias justifying removal is no better. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I rather agree with Parsley Man here. Saying the availability of guns is a cause of crime is separate from how the gun was obtained. Some gun control laws and advocates of them suggest that limiting the supply of all guns would reduce their availability overall. I don't see why this comment is needed as a "though... " statement when the rest of the article makes it clear (from the lead onward) that the gun was stolen. State the father's position without trying to "shoot it down" (pun intended). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please offer your opinion of including or not including this content

I added the following content to the article:

Conservatives accused CNN of editing video footage of Sherelle Smith, Smith's sister, to change the meaning of her statement. Her full statement was, "Burnin' down shit ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it." However, CNN edited out the part where she said "Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down!" and CNN reporter Ana Cabrera said that she was "calling for peace."

User:Dane2007 erased it and commented, "Removing questionable content that I believe could violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV; Advise discussion on the talk page about this section."

What do other editors think of including or not including this content in the article?

71.182.237.218 (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you for bringing this to the talk page, 71.182.237.218! My main problem with this addition is the sourcing and point of view as stated in my revert. I am not against having it in the article if other editors can review and check this to ensure it complies with those policies since i'm on the fence about them. I'm concerned that we're using mostly (not entirely) one-sided sources that lean conservative vs. multiple neutral sources. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Include it. It's typical CNN modus operandi. Editing the "real" story so as to fit their leftist agenda. Perfect example. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - In a WP:BOLD move, I have put that content back in and worded it in a more WP:NPOV manner, using only the Washington Times source, because it's pretty much the most reliable source out of the bunch provided. I also made good use of the online CNN article in question. If the shooting of Trayvon Martin article could mention similar journalism ethics, I don't see why this cannot be applied here (outside of unreliable sources being used as justification, of course). Parsley Man (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: Thank you, I think you formatted it perfectly and phrased it in a great way to maintain NPOV. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done via this edit by Parsley Man. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Tone tag for Background section

What exactly is it about that section that deserved a tone tag? Are there any suggestions on how to change it up? Parsley Man (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I do think that the first to paragraphs of the section aren't particularly relevant. Incidents that happened two years ago have a direct relevance, but the regional history going back 60 years and an attempt at broad commentary on race relations in the midwest are probably not WP:DUE, and probably belong on their own related articles. TimothyJosephWood 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Image for Infobox

I can't find an image online that isn't taken by a major media outlet or AP/Getty Images etc....tried to find something that was fair use. Closest I got was a picture on the official twitter feed of the Milwaukee Police but it doesn't explicitly state the licensing and they haven't responded to other media requests for permission. Any idea's on an image for the infobox to enrich the article? -- Dane2007 ^talk 08:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: Hmm.. What about one of the pictures of person that was originally killed by the officer? Could we use one of the photos in this video? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: I'm not sure if we can claim fair use from that video? -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dane2007: Revent, the master of images told me that the easiest way would be to request an image from the family. Unless someone wants to volunteer to call the family (which I highly doubt), I guess we could ask Revent or Mark Traceur (the WMF employee on media in the IRC channel) if we could claim fair use of one of those images in the video as they don't look like mugshots. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, one that either only shows him, or one where the other people are either unrecognizable or redacted. Revent^talk 21:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: @MShabazz:

Uses of the word claim should be generally avoided, because it casts doubt on the veracity of the statement. Using the word claim intentionally to cast doubt on a statement is not an exception to the rule, it is a violation of it, and exactly the reason why it is a rule. If you would like to cast doubt on a statement, find a source that does so. TimothyJosephWood 17:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

OK. You read the quote from WP:CLAIM in my edit summary. If that does not suffice then I accept your judgment. Quis separabit? 17:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Timothyjosephwood, for starting this discussion. I had intended to do so myself, but I was called away for a few hours. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the racism of the rioters

Two Wikipedia contributors have taken the liberty to remove content from this article regarding the rioters chanting "black power!" and looking for white drivers to attack. See here.

I will leave this up for discussion here, if you all feel it should be present in the article or not.

On August 14, a video depicting the riot was posted to Twitter, showing African-American rioters chanting "black power" and targeting white people to attack. In the video, the rioters can be heard screaming, "Is they white?" - "Yeah they white, get they ass!" One person, presumably the recorder of the video, shouts a few times: "hey, they beating up every white person!".

References

Ghoul flesh talk 06:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include - Most of these sources are unreliable, and the content in itself sounds like a WP:POV push to paint the protesters as black supremacists. The Fox citation that mentions white motorists being attacked has been already used in the "August 14" section. Parsley Man (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Include: sources (especially FoxNews) appear reliable and the deletion attempt can equally be seen as " a WP:POV push"; POV goes both ways. Quis separabit? 19:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Really? InfoWars and TheLibertarianRepublic are considered "reliable"? I am pretty sure others can contend otherwise... Parsley Man (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man: Fair enough -- of the three sources, at least one is reliable (Olaf Eckberg, FoxNews), whether or not you like CNN and hate Fox News. Again, your deletion attempt can equally be seen as leftist censorship and "a WP:POV push". If it happened, it happened; it is not for you to be an arbiter to decide that the rioters are being unfairly portrayed by being accurately quoted. Quis separabit? 19:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Who says I like CNN and hate Fox News? For your information, the Fox News tidbit that mentions protesters attacking white motorists is actually mentioned in the "August 14" section of the article, with no sign of anyone contending against it. And you say my effort to censor this edit is "leftist censorship"? Parsley Man (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but your bias, especially in the "Background" section you created, is fairly obvious. Quis separabit? 19:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mind enlightening me exactly how that material is biased? Parsley Man (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And you're not going to address what I had just said? "For your information, the Fox News tidbit that mentions protesters attacking white motorists is actually mentioned in the "August 14" section of the article, with no sign of anyone contending against it." Parsley Man (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Give me a chance. Jeez, I was doing that when I hit an edit conflict. It is a de facto attempt, by using unfortunate past history (to the extent that it is accurate; almost every story has two (or more) sides but that's another issue for another day), to justify current criminal, reverse racist, and uncivilized behavior. Wisconsin is not Mississippi nor is it a citadel of reactionary white supremacy. Quis separabit? 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it was being covered by WP:RS in a number of articles that have been talking about the riots. It has nothing to do with justification. I will admit Timothyjosephwood is right in the fact that I overdid the content, but I do see some relevance in the fact that Milwaukee is being called one of the most segregated cities in America today. Parsley Man (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(The threading is a bit confusing...) I would say maybe move the first para to some lower racism type section, and delete the second para entirely. The others should do fine for a background. The eidts being discussed here, regarding racism by blacks v whites may belong in some fashion in a lower section dealing specifically with the influence of racism. TimothyJosephWood 20:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Perhaps some more changes are in order, though. Parsley Man (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Off topic, prejudicial, and borderline. This has no place in this discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah, I won't be shedding any tears. In New York City, where I am from, whites were ethnically and often violently cleansed from large swaths of Brooklyn and the Bronx by blacks, regardless of age, disability, relative poverty, etc. for decades. (Some of these areas, ironically, are now being gentrified.) My mother and her mother were threatened in Crown Heights, and my father was shot and almost killed by a black mugger in 1987 in a "safe" neighborhood. There is a reason whites were/are afraid of living near blacks. Perhaps that explains the Milwaukee city council's votes on "fair housing". Quis separabit? 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC) ...Not sure why you're telling me this... I swear I wasn't trying to justify anything. Parsley Man (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Article talk pages are not a forum for general discussion. Please refrain from discussion not directly relevant to article improvement. TimothyJosephWood 20:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sources for this original proposition here are highly questionable aside from FOX News. As the article stands right now, I don't personally think it needs further revision in regards to the edit that Parsley Man completed as that is a very NPOV section now. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It still remains excluded from the article. My last edit contained Fox News and Daily Caller which even Shabazz agreed was an acceptable source. I don't see why we have to give in to Parsley Man's biases. (Edit:Okay I see the targeting white people is mentioned under August 14, but not the protesters chanting "black power". That's almost more notable.) Ghoul flesh talk 22:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not a contest between you and PM. You know. There are others around. Based on the Fox source I would be ok with saying something about targeting whites. But their source seems to be LiveLeak, so it would probably need more reliable sourcing for anything more than a sentence. TimothyJosephWood 00:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Again with me being biased! I would be perfectly fine with inclusion of any kind of material as long as it's written in an WP:NPOV way and with reliable sources! Parsley Man (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that any inclusion is welcomed as long as we're adhering to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. I believe that your accusations are out of place in this discussion, Ghoul flesh, especially based on Parsley Man's willingness to support inclusion with better sources and adherence to the key policies. -- Dane2007 ^talk 00:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no "Fox News" source. Fox Nation reprinted a column from The American Mirror, another fringe right-wing site that is no more reliable than InfoWars or The Libertarian Republic. Please read WP:IRS, people, and look at the credibility of these "sources". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What if we say it was a group of rioters that chanted "black power". 'Cos you know, it was. Is that neutral enough for ya, Parsley Man? Ghoul flesh talk 06:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's supported by reliable sources, then yes, that can definitely work. Don't underestimate me. But what you've been giving so far has been supported by unreliable sources, hence my persistent efforts against that content. Parsley Man (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears the content we settled on has been removed from August 14 in the article. Ghoul flesh • talk 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Read Malik Shabazz's latest comment above. Parsley Man (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

(1) Infowars is not WP:RS. (2) I'm not familiar with thelibertarianrepublic, but there seems to be agreement above that it's not very reliable. (3) The content at Fox Nation is largely not RS. According to Fox it's an opinion forum where the American people are the stars, and it has a reputation for very carelessly reposting random stuff with no responsible oversight. In fact Fox Nation has a very bad habit of running The Onion articles as if they were actual news stories. That nukes any presumption of reliability at Fox Nation. The content can be reconsidered if/when a news source covers it in their actual news. Alsee (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Parsley Man/@Malik Shabazz -- What about this YouTube channel? Quis separabit? 21:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Completely unsure if YouTube counts as WP:RS. I'm going to leave that judgment to someone else before I can post an opinion. Parsley Man (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That would constitute making an interpretation of primary source material, which policy states requires a reliable secondary source. However, this Washington Times article should qualify.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That article says nothing about the black power part. I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but you may have linked the wrong article. Parsley Man (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't intending for it to act as a source for "black power" or anything of that nature. I meant that it could be used to replace Fox Nation

as a source for the material that was removed from the August 14 subsection about the targeting of white motorists. Sorry if I wasn't fully clear.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Parsley Man (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

NOTFORUM. Incivility to boot. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Holy fucking shit you cunts have drunk the kool-aid. You can't even call a race riot a race riot. You had a communist chapter of a race-power organisation shouting black power and attacking people based on race, but it's not related to race and to say such is POV pushing? Sanity has departed this place. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC) I smell feet. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Contested Removal of Content

I reverted this addition to the article by 107.217.74.192 (talk · contribs) that cited a questionable source, in my opinion. The editor in question brought the issue to my talk page and stated that they felt it was not in violation of WP:NPOV (Due weight) and WP:RS. The source in question seems to publish extreme views and articles regarding the BLM movement. After evaluating only the source listed in the edit (DailyWire), I made the revert. The user linked me to a video from TMJ4 posted on YouTube. This was not cited beyond a Twitter video of the broadcast on the DailyWire website. As I am open to the possibility that I evaluated wrong or made a mistake, I am posting this here as a request for input and whether or not it should be reincorporated into the article? -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you made the right call on undoing that edit, and I would have done so myself if you had not. That the best argument for inclusion the editor can muster is "This is a local Milwaukee resident, giving his opinion about the riots, on a perfectly reputable news station" speaks to the unimportance of this "man-on-the-street" interview, which was cherry-picked by The Daily Wire to promote its own ideological objectives. We're just not talking about a reliable source. Please read WP:IRS#Overview—this recording satisfies none of the requirements we ask of our sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME

This edit of mine was reverted as vandalism. I edited out several names pursuant to WP:BLPNAME and mentioned it in the summary. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@StrokeOfMidnight: WP:BLPNAME states that "caution should be applied" when dealing with the names of the living -- it's not a reason for deleting names willy-nilly. Using the names of individuals who have publicly spoken out, been quoted and identified in the media is not a violation of WP:BLPNAME, IMHO. Quis separabit? 20:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: 1. I agree with your reasoning that "the presumption in favor of privacy" is negated by the fact that these individuals spoke publicly, thus making WP:BLPNAME inapplicable. 2. Thank you for the apology you left on my Talk page. 3. Please consider restoring this edit unless you disagree with that one, too. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Rms125a@hotmail.com/Quis separabit? and his interpretation of WP:BLPNAME, which states in relevant part:

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

How are the names of these individuals "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject"? I cannot see how the names contribute one whit to the reader's understanding of the riot. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I posit that some of the names can be dispensed with but some are needed (see here). Quis separabit? 00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It seemed that SoM started using BLPNAME when I cited it as justification for the removal of spouces' names like on Omar Mateen. In these cases, news outlets name the person, but they haven't publicly given an interview or comment. Compare that to Keith Lamont Scott's wife... in that case since she release video of the shooting from her own phone, her name make sense to mention. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see how the sisters' names are helpful (to avoid confusion), but how are Sharlen Moore's and Patrick Smith's names relevant to the reader's understanding of the riot? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

Don't get what's wrong with this edit (see diff here). The source is reliable. Quis separabit? 22:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

See my reply in the preceding section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)