Talk:Killing of Lindani Myeni

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Article contributors have come to an agreement that running the article at DYK is inappropriate at this time.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the April 2021 killing of Lindani Myeni by Honolulu police officers did not lead to mass protests? Source: Associated Press: No mass protests after Honolulu police shoot, kill Black man
  • ALT1:... that there was no mass protest locally after Honolulu police officers killed Lindani Myeni in April 2021, but Myeni's coffin was met in South Africa with a banner that read "Black Lives Matter"? Source: See ALT0, plus NYT: "When his plastic-wrapped coffin arrived at the airport in Johannesburg in May, a youth contingent from the African National Congress party waved a 'Black Lives Matter' banner emblazoned with his smiling face."
  • ALT2:... that after Honolulu police officers killed Lindani Myeni in April 2021, Myeni's body was sent to South Africa for his funeral, which was broadcast in South African media? Source: Same article as ALT1
  • ALT3:... that the Honolulu police officers who killed Lindani Myeni in April 2021 did not verbally identify themselves as police until after they had shot Myeni four times? Source: Same article as ALT1. Shot four times: "Mr. Alm said two other officers had tried to stop Mr. Myeni by tackling him and using a Taser before the officer who had been attacked shot Mr. Myeni once in the chest. Even after that shot, Mr. Myeni continued to punch the officer before another officer shot Mr. Myeni three times, hitting him in the chest and leg, Mr. Alm said." Did not verbally identify themselves: "a lawyer for Mr. Myeni’s widow [...] said that Mr. Alm’s investigation had failed to address the 'elephant in the room,' which was the officers’ failure to identify themselves as the police before they shot Mr. Myeni [...] Mr. Alm said the officers did not have to identify themselves as the police, saying they were easily recognizable"

• Reviewed: 1997 Ontario teachers' strike

Created by Ezlev (talk) and FormalDude (talk). Nominated by Ezlev (talk) at 18:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - There's an open citation needed tag, that should be taken care of
• Neutral: - Article has a "neutrality disputed" tag.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - earwig is picking up several similarities

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ALT0 is not cited inline, and ALT3 does not appear in the article—that should probably be cleared up
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Hi, ezlev! I'm sorry it's taken so long for someone to get to to your review—this nomination has quite a few issues, but I'm glad someone took the time to cover this topic; it's super important! Let me know when we're ready to move forward. Great work so far, just a bit more! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Theleekycauldron. I expected the article to remain somewhat stable for a while when I submitted it, but it's in flux now, as you likely noticed during your review – I hope it'll be in shape for DYK in the near future! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's definitely active at the moment—no worries, take your time! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ezlev, theleekycauldron, it's been over a week since the expansion was completed (I've added the expander's name to the DYKmake credits); can the review continue? Have the issues raised been dealt with? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• sure! The article is now sourced and neutral, but I'm not seeing that the Earwig similarities have been dealt with. I'm striking ALT3 as non-neutral, and ALT0 is still not cited inline. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Theleekycauldron, BlueMoonset, I'm not very familiar with the current state of the article, as I haven't had the time or energy to look at it after the major changes that have been made. Because of that, I don't think I want to proceed with the nomination. Maybe FormalDude or JackRayon1101 would be interested in doing so? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've sourced ALT0, but I also am not eager to proceed with the nomination. ––FormalDude talk 02:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• @FormalDude: for the same reason as ezlev or for other reasons? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Other reasons. This is the first DYK nomination I've been a part of, and now I'm not sure it's interesting enough to be worthy of DYK. ALT1 is slightly better than ALT0, I suppose. ––FormalDude talk 02:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly respect that, although I think this hook would be pretty interesting against the backdrop of other hooks at DYK. We'll let this nomination go, then. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a strong reason to push for a nomination. It is hard to put a neutral and engaging ALT, IMHO. It is a tragedy incident. There is a pending lawsuit. I would propose we put it off after the lawsuit got unfolded. Also I don't feel the proposed Alt reflects the article as a whole. JackRayon1101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

A few NPOV dispute concerns here

To whom it may concern,

1. The summary of the article down played the facts that he was trespassing and violently confronted the police officers. Please clarify why my changes on citing the medical examiner's report, Honolulu persecutor's report, New York Times article was revised?

2. There are more balanced articles coming out. The article didn't reflect those changes.

4. I have reserved opinions on citing the house owner and the couples' names here, as it was confirmed for a class C felon to commit a home invasion therefore they are victims as well. Their names were not mentioned by reputable sources like New York Times. Please clarify why Wikipedia should do otherwise.

5. The civil law suite portion where comes from the civil beats article was clarified as "not accurate". It is also an echo of Bickerton's opinion than an independent new source.

6. More detailed, specific concerns:

1. multiple source said Meyni was said to the couple "I have videos on you, you know why I'm here" in the first encounter, that was deliberately ignored by this article. source 12
2. The Honolulu persecutor did emphasize "no evidences showing that he was looking for the temple", this should be mentioned after Bickerton's claims in the previous section
3. His strange behavior demonstrated before the incident was not mentioned in the article.
4. Police did attempt non lethal force before shot him, that was not mentioned in the summary, and I believe it should be there.
5. There are public available photo showing him punching the police officer, we can discuss further if government released photos are cc-by licensed and if we could put it here in the article. But there are clearly more evidences than "Alm said", this was not reflected as well.
6. The city's medical examiner put on comments on his condition (toxicity and refused CET consultation), they were not mentioned.
7. The persecutor's response section used half of the ink on the criticism but I don't see the same ink being put to the other side.
8. In background, only cited his widow's interview, but in the persecutor's report, he told a friend that he was going through "crazy spiritual stuff" and there were interviews from his neighbors that was not cited.
9. In star advertiser article source , the couple mentioned they were afraid of the anti-Asian hate crimes but in this article, it only cites them as Chinese tourists, I'm worried this could further incite anti-Asian sentiments. Just look at the comments and see how many hate speeches against the Asians are there on the star advertiser's website.
10. Also Wikipedia is known to have a bias against women. I wonder the if 911 caller being female added the imbalance of this article.

Overall,It showed a selective presentation of facts. I had tried to put a more balance story but my edits was revised. There were articles from the same news source: civil beats 1 2 that tells the other side of the story was not mentioned. I therefore want to raise this NPOV dispute concerns here. I don't think it is a political issue, it is a tragedy to anyone who were involved in this. I do urge actions being taken to make it fair for everyone. Thanks for your attention. And hope we can get this figure out soon. JackRayon1101 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Jack

Courtesy ping: Ezlev. ––FormalDude talk 23:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I want to respectfully pointed out, although no constructive discussions were carried here, my edits to the page was revised multiple times during the day. I hope that we can have a productive conversation instead of waging edit warring. We should address to a border audiences if no constructive conversations could be carried. I propose that we first agree on reliable sources and then work together to present a balanced version of the story in light of a good faith. JackRayon1101 (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

JackRayon1101, thank you for laying out your concerns in such detail. I'm hoping for a productive collaboration on this. I first want to clarify that my position on the report released by Alm's office: I believe it to be a self-published source which should not be used without attribution and should not (on its own) be used to support claims about living people. That is, I believe if we use it we should say something like "according to the Honolulu Prosecutor's office, [whatever]".

Another important point is that the "Shooting" section currently includes only what was reported as fact, and that's on purpose. If it was reported as something Alm said after the event, it's in the "Prosecutorial response" section. If it was related to the wrongful death lawsuit, it's in the "Wrongful death lawsuit" section. I'm open to changing that, but I believe the current structure is the best way to achieve both due weight and neutral point of view. For example, you've suggested that the article should say Myeni violently confronted the responding police officers, but the NYT article you've used to support that claim doesn't state it as fact – it only says that's what Alm said. So we can't say it as fact on Wikipedia based on that source, we can only say that Alm said it. However, one of the Civil Beat articles you linked states it as fact and cites the bodycam footage to support it, so I've added it to the "Shooting" section based on that source.

Moving along through your list:

• If you believe there are newer articles which have content that should be added, please feel free to share them (or WP:BOLDly add the content and cite them).
• the quote you used to support the removal of the couple's names is from an essay, not a policy or guideline; Wikipedia is not censored and they have been named in reliable sources. A third opinion on this one would be great though, since I don't believe there's any reason to remove them but I'm not entirely sure.
• What is the "civil law suite portion"? What was later clarified as inaccurate, and where was that clarification made? Also, I'm pretty sure any part of the article that's Bickerton's opinion is attributed clearly to Bickerton, but if that isn't the case then it should be fixed.
• And the more specific concerns:
  1. One of the two sources you linked supported the quote you've mentioned; it's attributed very clearly as a claim by the lawyer representing the couple and the house owner. I've added it and related content to the article, attributed accordingly.
  2. Where did the prosecutor emphasize that? I agree that that should be added where you've suggested, and clearly attributed to him.
  3. Yes, the claims that Myeni was exhibiting strange behavior before the incident and his killing aren't yet included in the article. You might note the to do list at the top of this talk page. Those need to be added, and once again, clearly attributed.
  4. If there is sourcing to support the claim that police attempted nonlethal force as a fact, it should absolutely be included in the "Shooting" section. If it's a claim by the prosecutor, it belongs in the "Prosecutorial response" section where it currently is.
  5. Stating this based on photos would be original research or at least synthesis, no? That said, if photos that can be used on Wikipedia have been released, that's definitely worth discussing.
  6. Are there reliable sources that have reported on them? If not, how can they be due?
  7. Is there reliable sourcing to support criticism of the "other side"? See WP:FALSEBALANCE
  8. Yes, content from the prosecutor's report should definitely be added and clearly attributed.
  9. Wikipedia is not censored. If you think more information should be included about the couple, like the claim that "they were afraid of the anti-Asian hate crimes", those could potentially be added and attributed.
  10. What? That's not at all what gender bias on Wikipedia refers to.

This was a lot to respond to – I'd like to go through the prosecutor's report and see what might be added to the article from it as a next step, but I honestly don't have the energy right now. I hope that as we continue to collaborate on this, we can respect the fact that this is a difficult topic and energy & motivation are low at times. Now that we've had a go-around on this whole list, it might be ideal to focus on a specific claim or source or section of the article at a time to make it easier for both of us to engage and for other editors to potentially join in. Again, thank you for being willing to discuss this and I hope we can improve this article together! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

One more note: I don't want this to feel like it's just the two of us on "opposite sides" arguing. If no other editors are joining in here and you feel like outside perspectives would be appreciated, I think it would be appropriate to leave a brief note at the NPOV noticeboard asking for more eyes on the article. I might do so myself at some point , we'll see. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Response to Ezlev

Thanks for taking your time to address some of my concerns here. I agree Alm is a self-sourcing content and should be properly attributed. I assume so for the scope of the article. I skipped some items that we have aggreged upon, that might look like I'm arguing but I'm glad that we had so much agreements in the first round. And replying to some of your questions.

• the quote you used to support the removal of the couple's names
  • My concern is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. We need to ensure the police officiers, house owners' and the couple's rights are respected when citing Bickerton.

• Where did the prosecutor emphasize that?
  • source

• If there is sourcing to support the claim that police attempted nonlethal force as a fact
  • Please see sources that citing the police injuries a fact: source:12

• Stating this based on photos would be original research
  • Agreed, how about putting the photo without comments?

• Are there reliable sources that have reported on them? If not, how can they be due?
  • Yes, They are included as last pages in the persecutor's report. The full report was linked in this article. I note Officer-Involved Shooting Report No. 2021-02 as Alm's report and Powerpoint Officer-Involved Shooting Report No. 2021-02 as Alm's slides.

In alm's report:

• • Last page for comments on CTE consultation, page 45 for Toxicology in Alm's report
  • page 5 for strange behavior prior to shooting
  • Page 7 for GPS data from phone showing that he was following the couple
  • Page 3 for interviews with his friend and neighbor

In his slides:

• • Page 20 and beyond for he committed unauthorized entry in a dwelling in a second degree and offense of assault against a law enforcement officer in a first degree

• Is there reliable sourcing to support criticism of the "other side"? See WP:FALSEBALANCE
  • Everything I just listed above. The other attorney, persecutor have both dismissed the claims on the temple claim. And the persecutor's allegations. Citing those facts should properly balanced the article.
  • Lindani was shot in the front yard of the property, that is legally speaking "within premises of the property", the full article keeps using "outside the residence"
  • Same concerns for the summary: "was confronted and killed by police in the dark outside the residence after a woman inside called 911 and said that he had broken in." vs "was confronted and killed by police in the premises of the property after trespassing into a home and attacked the police officers" We should ask for a third eye on this if we can't reach agreement. Reference to Wikipedia policy: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

• What? That's not at all what gender bias on Wikipedia refers to.
  • The caller being female was a key in this matter, in many articles Bickerton used the term "hysterical" on the 911 caller, I wonder if the same term would be used if the 911 caller being a male. As someone stayed in Hawaii for a long time, I would honestly bring this concern of gender bias on the island. The bill was always given to male no matter who called for it. I want to respectfully raise concerns on this, and we should all reflects on our own bias before moving forward. The article does cite a lot of Bickerton's statement. Given that this article directly / indirectly cited what Bickerton said and that was a "judgement" on the caller's conduct. Even the prosecutor felt the need to mention and defend the caller: source , see in bold: "“Her reaction to this sounds totally reasonable to me.”. Alm said in the conference to a reporter, "what would you do if a large male followed you home? " Simple question, would people pay so much attention to the caller if the spouse had made the phone call?

• What is the "civil law suite portion"?
  • The 911 audio section was inaccurate, [|citation 7] was describing a ring video footage, the article stated "The video comes from attorney James Bickerton". The whole video should attributed to Bickerton as a self-publishing source, not the descriptions.

I understand that you are being busy, I'm happy to excise bold and I'm looking forward to improving this article together with you.

I don't think that we are fighting, it seems that we agreed on the point that persecutor's report should be cited with attributions. I see this article as an article written based on stories emerged from early state of the incident, where was only the wrongful death attorney talking on the media but not everyone else. Now as time goes, more voice from every side has emerged and more articles / reports have been out, it makes more sense to reflect all the voices. I echo on a third eye for a better presentation of the story. I think we can cooperate on presenting the full sets of facts / citations and then ask for a review of the wording if that makes sense? Thanks again for your willing to communicate and collaborate. Ezlev JackRayon1101 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sync on work progress

For transparency, I'm showing my edits to the page here and share comments on my edits. Edits done from my side:

• Added interviews in the background section
• Added Alm's description of the incident and his point of view on Bickerton's temple claim
• Included the medical examiner's report
• Included more detailed description of the shooting
• Split Criticism under the persecutor's repones section to increase the visibility to show a more balanced two sided story.
• Added anti Asian sentiment cited by couple's attorney
• Added what happened in Kewalo Basin
• Added back da blue movement in the public response source.Could add to Killing_of_Iremamber_Sykap as well

Todo:

• Add a section for the temple theory to show both sides
• need to settle the summary part and shooting parts

Thank you, JackRayon1101 (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

JackRayon1101... try to practice some brevity please. ––FormalDude talk 22:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude Sure thing, I would clean up the format of my previous posts. Thanks for the heads up. Was trying to get all the sources noting down for potential discussions. JackRayon1101 (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You've practically written another article here. Please, out of respect for other editors, make it shorter. ––FormalDude talk 01:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope this is good enough for now. Felt the need of mentioning every source. JackRayon1101 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 04:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

JackRayon1101, it's clear that you've been putting in a lot of work here – I appreciate that! Two notes: I've left a brief note at WP:NPOVN hoping to get more eyes on this article to further improve it, and you should review the Manual of Style guideline for references and punctuation – the citation almost always goes after the punctuation. Thanks! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev Thanks for your notice. Will fix this. And thanks for being supportive. I think the article is balanced in most of its part and contains citations from all parties. In light of settling the dispute and for other authors' to read:

• The house owner and the couple's name:
  • Option A: Remove them
  • Option B: In light of the hysterical women concern, mention their names in the info table but use Gender neutrality 911 caller in subsequent text.

• The summary of the incident
  • The current way ""was confronted and killed by police in the dark outside the residence after a woman inside called 911 and said that he had broken in"" has a strong POV from the contrast of "inside" and "outside". I'm open to other propositions.
  • option A: was killed in the dark in the driveway of a residence after fighting with Honolulu police officers responding to a 911 call source, "after fighting with Honolulu police officers" is a fact citation.

• The tile of the article
  • Precedents used title like Shooting_of_Patrick_Harmon. I propose that we follow the precedents to Shooting of Lindani Myeni

JackRayon1101 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we should remove the residence owner's name, which adds very little to the reader's understanding. I lean toward removing the tourists' names as well. I think the current title is the best, with my reasoning covered by the essay WP:DEATHS. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Firefangledfeathers for the external review. Per your advice, We will keep the title, and I removed the owner and the couple's name. I'm going to remove the dispute tag as my previous concerns have been properly addressed. I'll keep fixing the styling issue in citations. Thanks Ezlev for you support and openness and Thanks FormalDude for hosting.

JackRayon1101 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)