Talk:Killing of Adam Toledo/Archive 1

Archive 1

If the police officer fired the strobe, the article should say so, and the Vimeo link should include a seizure warning.

The text currently reads that:

The officer points a strobe flashlight at him[17] and yells "Show me your fucking hands." Toledo then turns around with his hands up. As he does so, the officer yells "drop it," and Toledo is shot by the officer.[17][18][19]

I've heard and read that the police officer fired the strobe, as well as speculation that this may have made it harder for the officer to see what happened, but I can't check the video because if he did fire it, then I'd risk a seizure. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not our job to analyze the video, we summarize what sources say. TAXIDICAE💰 21:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

In the video, the flickering light is turned on during the last part of the chase. The source used for the statement says he "flashes a strobe flashlight at Toledo", so we can definitely clarify in the text that the strobe is turned on. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've made this change. Of course, the speculation you mention cannot be in the article until a reliable secondary source says that as part of their analysis of what happened.

About your suggestion that the Vimeo link should come with a seizure warning... I'm not sure. I am reminded of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, but crucially the warning here would not be for Wikipedia content but external content, and watching it might result in physical harm for people with photosensitive epilepsy, which is something else than just a warning that the content is "graphic", "shocking" &c (which are also expected for a video of a shooting, whereas the strobe is not expected). Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bodycam "contradicting" statements

I do not think we should say (in the lead or body) that the bodycam "contradicted" (or "supported") police statements, at least without some RS that explicitly state that. The USA Today article cited in our article, which is the most in-depth RS I've personally seen so far about police statements, reports that the initial statement "armed confrontation" was changed only 12 hours after it was released. It also reports that multiple other statements, which say various different things, were issued, and some of them (like the prosecutor's initial statement that the victim was holding a gun when shot) were also later changed/corrected. We could lay all this detail out in the body, but in any event, we shouldn't just highlight the first police statement without also mentioning that it was changed 12 hrs later, and we shouldn't make it seem like there was only one statement. The bodycam footage contradicted some statements (that were later corrected), and supported others, but unless RSes say "contradict" or "support", we shouldn't say either in the body or the lead. So I suggest we remove this from the lead/body until/unless someone wants to write a full paragraph about all the statements reported in the RSes... so sort of an "all or nothing" approach is what I'm advocating for this. Thoughts? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's always neutral to say "X said Y", and then later say "the bodycam footage showed Z". It is also a WP:SYNTH issue to join the two with something like "however", as you're implying something novel about the conflict between the two facts. I think how the lead is now [1] avoids any of these problems and is fine in this regard. To whatever degree sources question/discuss the accuracy of the initial statements of police, such commentary may make sense somewhere in the body of the article, though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP regarding officer name + strobe

Hello. This article from Block Club Chicago gives a name for the officer, citing Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability. I am not very familiar with the practical application of the WP:BLP policy; I don't know if the source is reliable enough, whether WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPCRIME matter (I would think both not much?)...

Second thing: the news article also mentions that the officer pointed a strobe flashlight at Toledo. This can be seen in the bodycam footage. I figure that the use in such a situation would be to disorient? Our article on strobe lights does not mention such a use of strobe lights - it does mention law enforcement, but only concerning the light on top of a police car. I think I will try to find some sources about such use by police. Anyway, I will go ahead and mention the strobe flashlight in the description of the incident, as that seems like relevant enough information. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 00:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Without a reliable source on why the strobe function was used, it is best to leave it out. The flashlight is most likely multi-function, and has the option to strobe or not. It could have been entirely accidental. I didn't see any flashlight active for most of the video. He did activate it later to show where the gun was thrown and it was just a normal non-flashing light. -- Avanu (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu I do wonder why the strobe light was used, but I don't see why we would need to know why to include the information. I've seen the fact mentioned in multiple reliable sources' account of the incident. I don't see how the points that you make give reason to remove this information. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We don't know why or why not a light like this was used. Since Wikipedia forbids primary sourcing (like calling the Chicago PD and asking why such a light would be used, or checking the PD manual) we have to wait for Secondary Sources to do the research. Waiting for reliable secondary sources is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia in some way, considering that traditional encyclopedias would have on staff researchers who would just go get such an answer. -- Avanu (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu (please ping, by the way) The Wikipedia article does not state why, it just states that a strobing light was used, a fact for which it is quite easy to cite secondary sources. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 09:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Split second

I added that Toledo was armed a "split second" before the shooting. WWGB removed this, saying it "is an exaggeration" and replaced it with "just prior". I won't revert this, but I think it's wrong. If you looked at timestamps, there is less than a second between Toledo having the weapon and being shot—hence "split second". And "just prior", to me, is vague and doesn't communicate to the reader the timeframe. It could mean 5 seconds, 20 seconds, a minute, a minute and a half. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking time stamps is WP:OR. We should use a term from a RS. WWGB (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Viewed as the totality of the sources provided in that line of the article, which indicate there was a gun in hand at some point in the encounter and the encounter was less than a second, I think it's fair to sum it up as a split-second difference between armed and unarmed. We don't have to use an exact quote from RSs, as this isn't Wikiquote. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not your job to provide an analysis of the footage, as that breaks the No Original Research policy. The reliable sources which are cited in this section directly contradict the evaluation that Toledo was armed either "a split second" or "just prior" to the shooting, and you are misquoting them by adding that information to the article under those citations.

• The footage does not show Toledo point or raise a gun at Stillman at the end of the chase. Toledo does not appear to be holding the gun as the officer shot him.
• That's when the officer ordered Adam to show his hands, according to his bodycam video. The officer shouts for Adam to "stop it" or "drop it." Adam turned toward the officer and put his hands up. The footage is grainy, but he did not appear to have a gun in either hand at that moment. The officer fired his weapon less than a second after Adam turned around to face him with his hands raised.

Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 13:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What the Block Club Chicago article does say is that he appears to toss the gun "moments before" being shot, in discussing the other video evidence. PJvanMill)talk( 13:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to go with "moments before" over complete removal. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I edited to include "moments before" in the sentence where they talk about him tossing the gun behind the fence, which is the same context as the Book Club Chicago article. Happy with that if you are.

• I added: "In footage taken from another angle, Toledo appears to throw a pistol behind a fence moments before turning to face the officer."
• Book Club Chicago verbiage: "Video from a different angle appears to show Toledo tossing the gun behind the fence moments before he is shot."

Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

To correctly inform the public, the page should include the following two pictures. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzMHjJIVEAQL5tA?format=jpg&name=900x900 and https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzMHqOwVcAgmo2W?format=jpg&name=large Oathed (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oathed In the first image, the text is basically entirely separate from the actual picture. The number of milliseconds in the text needs a source or it's WP:OR, and the text does not seem very neutral: the information is presented outside the context of the sequence of events; it says only that it was a "single shot" and leaves out, for example, that it was a fatal shot... The second image is an uncropped screenshot from a video where the original footage and the same footage zoomed in are side by side, with a big red arrow with text on it... all not very professional. Better would be just a screenshot without progress bar of the original footage, with a red circle highlighting the apparent firearm. But then again, there is the concern of WP:OR.

Also, these images have been modified, creating a copyrightable work... I don't suppose you are their copyright owner? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, there is a difference between No Original Research and blindness. We can all watch the bodycam footage and it is clear that the kid tosses the weapon and turns toward the officer in nearly one motion. Obviously we are supposed to wait for RELIABLE sources, but that reliability is based on more than just brand-name. It is on a case by case basis as well as that source's historic accuracy. In this instance it would be UNreliable to include a source that contradicts obvious primary source information. -- Avanu (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Providing this type of commentary is exactly what the No Original Research policy prohibits.

• "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"

It's also unclear what your issue is with the verbiage. The text under incident mentions that he throws a gun behind a fence, turns around, puts his hands up, and gets shot. If you have an issue with this sequence of events, which is presented this way by multiple RSs, then state your complaint specifically. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 19:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Change "Toledo appears to throw a pistol behind a fence moments before turning to face the officer" to "Toledo appears to throw a pistol behind a fence seconds before turning to face the officer". 108.53.222.173 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not seconds before, it's less than 1 second before. Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see that. I sawthe perpetrator grabbing a gun, concealing his armed hands behind a fence, then turning around and quickly raising both hands in the air, which appeared to be empty. I have no idea based on the footage alone what happened behind that fence. He could have given the gun to an accomplice for all I know. Francis1867 (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OR Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 20:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Ethnicity in the intro

Why is ethnicity/ancestry being mentioned in the very first sentence? How is it relevant, meaningful, and substantive to this article? Thank you, Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 07:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC).

Adding a few points:

• It places undue weight. WP:DUE mentions "prominence of placement". Specifying ancestry upfront is giving ancestry prominent placement. How is it proper, for this article? It would be fine to mention it in a biographical section, but it does not make sense to place it in the very first sentence, and give it such undue weight.

• I personally discern the underlying goal of specifying ethnicity to undervalue the significance of this killing. In general, people who are white nationalists / racists (which are a significant number of Republicans / conservatives in the U.S.) place far lower value of the life of a non-white person, and as a result, they generally don't care about the deaths of non-white people. The goal of specifying race upfront seems to be to signal to such people that is yet another killing of a non-white person to be dismissed cavalierly. (As such, it is in furtherance of a racist goal to place race/ancestry/ethnicity upfront in the intro.)

Thanks, Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail).

Because it is how the media reports it and in relation to police brutality against black and brown people. TAXIDICAE💰 12:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The media is in the buisness of sensationalism to sell papers, we are in the buisness of spreading knowledge. Lots of white people get killed in police interactions, not all police related death are unjustified, not all police related death are the result of faulty actions on the part of the police. Lets stick to simple fact, without trying implying things we do no know about intent. Francis1867 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You greatly misunderstand Wikipedia. We report what reliable sources say and reliable sources consistently refer to him as Mexican American. Therefor, we do. TAXIDICAE💰 13:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that "reliable sources consistently refer to him as Mexican American" is patently and demonstrably false. See the subsection below. Thanks, Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 08:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC).

Please read and internalize WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 17:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the sources routinely include he was Mexican-American, and that the sources tie this in to the wider issue of police violence against Black and brown people in this country, I see no reason not to include it and find its inclusion in the lead to be DUE. As to why it is meaningful, again, this being covered as part of the wider issue of police violence against Black and brown people in America, which strikes me as the reason one might want to not include that because they do not want to discuss that wider issue. So rather the removal to me is in furtherance of a racist goal here, at least that is what I discern. nableezy - 17:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Race is relevant, meaningful, and substantive to this article because - as the leader puts it - "[Toledo's] death has been connected by some analysts to a broader pattern of disproportionate police violence against Latinos, and occurred as the United States was grappling with several other high-profile cases of police killing unarmed people of color." This analysis is not OR, and is mentioned by multiple RSs cited in the leader, therefore the connection to race in the first sentence is given due weight. Erasing the issue of race in the killing of Adam Toledo would violate NPOV as the article would fail to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by RSs" as is required. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Search results (that are highly ranked) where Reliable Sources state race/ancestry/ethnicity

There are several claims here stating that "reliable sources always mention race", so Wikipedia must also do so.

The funny thing is that the first time I'm reading about Adam's ancestry/race is through this Wikipedia article.

Well, I took the liberty of googling and doing text search for "mexic" on the results. Here are the results:

I first googled for "adam toledo" and "adam toledo story". After that I further googled for "adam toledo npr". I then googled for "adam toledo nytimes". Undeterred, I lastly, googled for "adam toledo cnn" as well. Here are all the results (in that order):

None of these search results has the word "Mexican" in them in reference to Adam Toledo's race. There are 40 sources listed above, and nearly all of them count as WP:RS. These sources contradict User:Praxidicae's claim that "reliable sources consistently refer to him as Mexican American", and similar suggestions in the comments above.

If there isn't compelling evidence that reliable sources emphasize race as much as Wikipedia does, then the qualifier must be removed from the intro (and optionally perhaps moved to somewhere lower in the article, i.e. to a location that is less prominent).

Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 08:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you read these articles, and did you also search for 'Latino' or 'Hispanic'? I stopped doing so after five of your first six links contained one of these words in connection with his heritage. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There's probably a limited amount we can learn by going through google and tallying what articles do and don't mention a word, but even doing so – yeah, heaps (probably even a majority?) of those articles in the list above mention his ethnicity. Clearly reliable sources find it important to mention, so it's noteworthy for us. Of note though is that it seems all the sources describe him as 'Latino', rather than 'Hispanic' or 'Mexican-American', I don't know what if anything that means for our description of him though, as Mexican-American is I guess more precise. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly gone ahead and changed it to Latino since that has the most use over Mexican or Hispanic (more than double either!) TAXIDICAE💰 14:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Page to "Shooting of Adam Toledo"

Undecided- The name on this page doesn't match precedent with other certain Wikipedia pages on police shootings, such as the one for Breonna Taylor, and the name could appear somewhat biased. May not be necessary, but certainly worth discussion.aaronneallucas (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Support - Problem right now is that Article "Shooting of Adam Toledo" also exist and is currently nominated for Deletion (or better merged). CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

oppose as per our dozens of other articles on similar matters, he was killed. See Killing of George Floyd, Killing of Aiyana Jones, Killing of Greg Gunn, Killing of Ahmaud Arbery which is our current standard. TAXIDICAE💰 16:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a great explanation of why: Talk:Killing of George Floyd/FAQ, point 4. TAXIDICAE💰 16:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - he was killed, the sources say he was killed, there is no doubt his cause of death was homicide, and the idea that killing is somewhat biased is based on nothing at all. nableezy - 16:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - See WP:DEATHS. The Cook County Medical Examiner's Officer ruled the death a homicide ([2]) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - per TAXIDICAE💰's comment, the claim that this title name breaks precedent is unfounded. There are plenty of articles titled "the killing of..." Killing of Rayshard Brooks, Killing of Eric Garner, Killing of Duante Wright just to add to the list. This is a made up problem. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 23:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DEATHS. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral "Shooting death of Adam Toledo" would be ideal. 108.53.222.173 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Alternate Pages about these types of incidents, especially active ones which have not had a trial or for which the trial isn't concluded, and thus it has not yet been ruled a crime or not, should be called "The death of…" Saying "the killing of" is a loaded weasel word/phrase which is biased and implies a crime and is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV. Saying "the death of" is neutral and doesn't prime readers before they've even read the article.

  In my understanding, a "killing" is merely when human kills human, without implying wrongdoing or a crime. In other words, the word "killing" is rather different from the word "murder". I would consider "death" more appropriate for simple accidents, not incidents where someone was shot dead with a gun. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Does this exact same argument really need to be hashed out again and again after every police killing? We could follow the advice at WP:DEATHS, or understand that deaths ruled to be homicides are accurately and in fact neutrally described as "killings", or follow the existing consensus implied by the naming convention used in every other article of this nature, Killing of. It's silly to rehash this debate over and over again when the result is always the same for articles of this nature. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose — He was killed. It's not a loaded word and doesn't violate NPOV. "Killing" is used so matter-of-factly in the article and the English language in general that I fail to see how it "implies a crime", as an above editor has noted. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral on changing to "shooting of", but it's better than "killing of". Agreed with other comments that this topic shouldn’t need to be covered on every discussion about these events. However, aspects seem unaddressed, like that most discussion on this topic interchanges the concepts of being “killed” and “the killing of” as the same thing. But they are different. Consider that “the killing of” implies more in terms of intent or culpability, than being "killed". As a thought experiment, if I title an article/webpage/blog “the killing of the cat”, my family would surely initially conclude “what the hell have you done?!” and likely assume I purposefully killed the cat (or wanted the cat killed). As opposed to using the other less implicating versions like “the cat was killed” or “the death of the cat”. Additionally, most dictionaries include further qualifications in their definitions of “killing” with things like “especially deliberately”, “the act of” , “causing”, “caused by”, etc., all seeming to imply more than is warranted before a thorough determination is made in a legal proceeding. Wikipedian’s first instincts with the myriad of other similar articles over time titled “the death of” seems more objective and correct than this latest trend of implying any level of intent in the title. Even when it might seem obvious. Digihoe (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If you had, intentionally or otherwise, shot the cat and the autopsy determined the cats died by homicide and the newspapers covering your shooting of the cat routinely referred to the cats killing or having been killed then our article on your cats death would Killing of Digihoe's cat. nableezy - 03:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In this scenario, let’s assume the cat was killed completely accidentally, or it was uncertain, or I was maintaining I did not. I just would not title an article on this event “the killing of the cat” without wanting others to for sure implicate me. I realize that others who felt I was culpable and/or wanted me implicated, would feel different. Digihoe (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Adam Toledo was killed. This article is about that killing (i.e., the killing of Adam Toledo). Doctormatt (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• support Adam Toledo died. Its common knowledge that waving a handguns while of after being chased by police can result in getting shot. We should use a neutral encyclopedic tone, instead of trying to be activist or sensationalists journalists. Francis1867 (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, his cause of death was homicide. Therefor, he was killed. There is nothing sensational about this despite your clear ideology clouding your judgement, WP:DEATH is very clear about this. TAXIDICAE💰 17:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Do not make personal attacks or use this talk page as a soap box. Of 19 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not using it as a soapbox and that wasn't a personal attack. The official cause of death per the ME is homicide, therefor he was killed. Read the FAQ, q4 here and WP:DEATH as I linked above. Our own standard consensus dictates how this should be named. He was killed. It does not imply criminal or legal guilt against an individual. TAXIDICAE💰 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Being "killed" and "the killing of" are not the same thing. The latter has more implications in standard definitions and in common use. I don't think anyone is debating that he was killed. See my note above under Neutral. Digihoe (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ME ruled the death a homicide. Wikipedia policy is to use "Killing of..." in cases of homicide ("Murder of..." and "Execution of..." also acceptable in certain contexts). See WP:DEATHS. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 03:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well yes, they arent the same, one is the result of the other. The killing of Adam Toledo resulted in his being killed. Thats how verbs work. nableezy - 03:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

While that point is taken... that's not the distinction I was making. In all these discussions, those not liking "the killing of" are not disliking it because they think the person wasn't killed, seemingly. They seek a word/phrase this early-on that conveys less intent/culpability than the phrase "the killing of" which by most standard definitions and common use, implies a level of it. I also realize the current policy per WP:DEATHS and it will remain as-is as a result or until that is changed. However, I don't think the creation of that factored in this or points like the ones I am making above in Neutral. Digihoe (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Francis1867 To avoid confusion, are you arguing for "shooting of" or "death of"? Regardless, I fail to see how your argument, which I think can be summarised as "It's his own fault that he was killed" ("bold" is the politest thing I can call it), actually makes a case for not calling it a "killing". Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 09:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Suicide by cop is a form of suicide. He may have lack intent, but a reasonable person would definatly conclude that acting like he did would result in the police shooting you. Homicide requires mens rea, which no evidence suggests in this case. Its an accidental death. Shooting of describes the means of death accurately. As for the ME standards, the United States is not the only country in the world, and other country have other stardards on what to put on death certificates, I don't see why we would be bound to abide by the US standards. Accidental deaths and homicide are not the same, and some would argue one or annother. Simpler to avoid implying one or annother in the title. Francis1867 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea that a trained professional shooting somebody in the chest is an accidental death is a non-starter and seemingly thrown in there for no apparent reason. Absent reliable sources saying Toledo died by suicide by cop that entire argument is WP:OR and verges quite aggressively in to WP:NOTFORUM territory. Kindly stick to discussing what the sources say, and not your personal opinions on what a reasonable person would conclude. This is not a grand jury, we are not here to make any conclusions. nableezy - 03:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: for the same reasons that others have clearly enumerated above. If anything, the title should be amended from the “Killing of ...” to the “Murder of ...”. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 02:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

We typically only use "murder" when there has been a criminal conviction. nableezy - 03:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean I understand that, but considering the incredibly broken and emphatically unfair nature of the judicial system in most US states, it implores us (ie Wikipedia) to make that judgement call ourself. Note that the conviction for George Floyd’s murder is the first time a police officer has ever been convicted as such, in Minnesota history. Note also that the individual who murdered Daniel Shaver walked scott-free and got a $30k/yr pension due to it as well. No one with the tiniest conscience or sense of justice would deny that Daniel Shaver was brutally murdered. But a broken judicial system said the man who murdered him did nothing wrong. Wikipedia’s choice to elevate the results/outcomes that come out of the incredibly broken justice system in most of the US as “reliable” or “factual”, is in my opinion, incorrect. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 13:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC).

Murder is a crime, for us to say a crime occurred there has to be a criminal conviction. And like it or not, the officer is also covered by BLP, so saying he "murdered" Toledo requires reliable sources saying he murdered Toledo. Most sources won't do that unless there is said criminal conviction for murder. nableezy - 03:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I am concerned that this article is not promoting a neutral point of view with regard to the body cam video. The reference given about this video states that Toledo appeared to toss his gun behind a fence. When I added this to the article, however, it was reverted. The article currently reads as if the body cam video calls into question the entire police narrative about Toledo being armed, but neither the reference nor any other primary source I have seen does so. 73.222.34.100 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fast-developing story, and Wikipedia does not need to keep up (WP:NOTNEWS). Wait for reliable sources to analyze the video, then put what they say into the article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree -- that's why I added the same language that was used in the USA Today reference.73.222.34.100 (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added a bit about the fence. Best to not bother to attempt to influence the outcome of this tragic incident by editing Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 22:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

User Jassihome1 added a clause to the Incident section claiming "body cam footage shows him with a gun for a split second before he turned around." Two of the three sources cited at the end of this sentence directly contradict this analysis. This breaks NPOV for stating a contested assertion as a fact, and giving undue weight to a particular view. I removed the clause for now, but feel free to edit with a fuller, more objective description capturing all relevant opinions on the footage as well as which parties are making which claims.

• The footage does not show Toledo point or raise a gun at Stillman at the end of the chase. Toledo does not appear to be holding the gun as the officer shot him.[3]

• The officer shouts for Adam to "stop it" or "drop it." Adam turned toward the officer and put his hands up. The footage is grainy, but he did not appear to have a gun in either hand at that moment. [4] Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 13:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a joke. The article is completely one sided. Why not mention the MS13 tattoos on Toledo's arm? That's a fact that you don't want people to know. What about the gun residue on his hands? Another fact. But make sure to mention prior use of force by Stillman, which is irrelevant to the conversation since the vast majority of officers have used force multiple times in their line of work. It's disgusting how people use platforms like this to promote agendas. Jimithing1980 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I second Jimithing 1980's assessment that this article is a joke. Took me two paragraphs to conclude it was seeing as they didn't mention this 'boy' was shooting at cars with a loaded gun (I'm sure he had a concealed carry for assault weapons though) Pro-tip: If everyone is telling you the article is biased, don't say it's being filled out in time because that's a lame excuse. Plenty of sources out there to get a NPOV on this article today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.146.181 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

These articles are filled out in time. If you have a reliable source which includes either of these two claims, have a go at adding them. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The irony here is palpable. Clearly you've got an agenda you're trying to promote. The complaints against Stillman (and more importantly, the fact that the police department initially lied about them) are relevant, which is why they're brought up in multiple reliable sources which are all cited in the article. Any tattoos that the victim had are not relevant; the officer didn't see the tattoo before shooting him, and it wouldn't be somehow acceptable to shoot someone because they have a tattoo anyway... which is why most reliable sources aren't including this detail. This is an online encyclopedia. Our job is to summarize and organize data from reliable sources, not to editorialize them. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk

I would agree that the article fails to be neutral. Waiting for reliable sources (in the face of bodycam footage that shows an armed suspect), ALSO means waiting for sources that report the incident in a more unbiased way OR synthesizing the best truth from multiple biased sources to create an article that is informational rather than persuasive. It is better to be slow and leave information out rather than be biased. -- Avanu (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu: for the purpose of verifiability, it is important that citations are correct. Your change has resulted in an inline citation (to USA Today) appearing to support a statement that it does not at all support (that the body cam footage partly supports the department's initial claims - nowhere in the USA Today article can I find a statement to that effect). If you want to say that, you'll have to find a reliable source which says that. But please make sure you do not misrepresent sources in such a way. Please self-revert for now. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu It's unclear what your complaints are. If you think any of the RSs cited in the article are biased, state which sources you think are biased and why. If you take issue with any of the facts or analysis published by the RSs, explain which ones and why you take issue with them. Without any specifics, you're not contributing anything to the discussion. It seems like you're not even sure what you want and would just like to put the article on hold until some news outlet publishes your preferred talking points (whatever they are). Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 05:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with any preferred talking point. It is about what MANY reliable sources have said and how the article WAS skewed from a neutral point of view. It absolutely sucks that a child was given a gun, and it sucks that the child was shot by a police officer, but it is also clearly true that he was carrying a gun and tossed it behind the fence. (This is supported by many RSs) Neutrality (aka factuality) requires that the article be presented in a light that gives proper weight to the various supportable facts. It wasn't. -- Avanu (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avanu The fact that Toledo tossed a gun behind the fence is currently mentioned multiple times in the article. Read the article before making complaints. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 20:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I suggest the lead paragraph should include these facts:

1. He had a gun
2. He threw the gun over the fence
3. He turned and put his empty hands up
4. The officer shot him
5. #1-4 happened "in a matter of seconds" or "over a few seconds" or similar
6. #1-4 is recorded in multiple videos

I think these six facts are crucial and basically supported by all the RS in total. Agree/disagree? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Broadly agree. The fundamental facts that are necessary to understand the article. You shouldn't have to read halfway through the article to understand we're talking about a tossed gun. Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I would also broadly agree, though for #2-3 I've seen sources give the caveat that this is from interpretation of low-quality video in which everything happens very fast. I've previously reinstated some language like "the video appears to show that..." because I saw sources saying it similarly. Also, in #2 "over" should be "behind", I think. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 21:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The version in the article now, "dropping a handgun", seems fine – whether it's over or under or behind a fence or that there was even a fence at all is probably not particularly relevant for the lead. Regarding "appears to show", the video is indeed grainy it's hard to make out what's going on at first glance, but people have had time to look at it and it seems everyone is in agreement over what happened, the doubt introduced through "appearing to show" is probably not necessary anymore. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Toledo throwing the gun behind through the gap in the fence is important enough for the lead, because the police couldn't see that he'd done that until they looked for the gun after shooting Toledo. The fence obscured the cop's view of the gun from the alley, so he didn't know that Toledo would be empty handed when he turned round with his hands up about a second later. Jim Michael (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Jim Michael WP:OR. Combefere (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Aggreed, we should avoid doing sensationalism and remain as factual as possible, so people can make their own judgments. Francis1867 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree - the sources say that he "appears to" drop the handgun. A jury would have to declare it to be absolute fact. Kire1975 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo in the lead

The lead photo is misleading since it's only showing him with his hands raised unarmed and not the image of him less than 1 second before with a gun in his hand. Can we have the two images side by side in the lead? 90.255.179.206 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? And do we have such a photo? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it'd give a more fair and accurate representation of what happened. I doubt there's any issue with getting an image a couple frames earlier than the current one. 90.255.179.206 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We have the full video in the article already. It's the norm on Wikipedia to show images of the event, not moments prior (e.g., Shooting of Walter Scott, Murder of George Floyd, Shooting of Alton Sterling). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

For those articles including an image from half a second earlier wouldn't change the reading at all. For this article it completely changes it and right now the chosen image is misleading. I don't have examples on hand but I've seen plenty of articles in which multiple images are used to give a more accurate depiction of events. The current image gives no indication as to why the shooting occured, which is that the suspect had a gun in his hand half a second earlier. 90.255.179.206 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We (Wikipedia) don't know why the shooting occurred. Surmising motive is WP:OR and making changes based on that is something we avoid. We know (according to WP:RS) that he was unarmed at the moment of the shooting. We do know he had a gun and tossed it behind the fence as well (as described in the article, referenced by RS). That's it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

He had a gun in his hand and he tossed it behind him then he was shot half a second later. That sequence is night and day different to what's depicted by just using that one final frame image. That's my last response and I'll leave it to others now. 90.255.179.206 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose - A number of RSs are using this still photo in the article as a lead photo or as the thumbnail in a lead video. Adding a comparison frame from the primary source is WP:OR and seems to serve no purpose other than to editorialize. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 23:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles show the image of him holding the gun, it's no more OR to include it as the image a few frames later. Seems editorial to give an incomplate picture of what happened by only including the final frame and not the critical gun in hand frame. 90.255.179.206 (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Of RSs that show a body-cam still in the lead, the vast majority show the still frame of an unarmed Toledo raising his empty hands immediately before he was killed. It's hard to find RSs that include the earlier still frame in the article at all, let alone in the lead - there are a few from biased sources and opinion pieces, but not from RSs. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 06:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to include it in the lead next to the current image, but at least include it in the body of the article? 90.255.179.206 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

I would still oppose putting it in the body, but less strongly. RSs don't seem to show that still frame image. My guess is that most RSs don't want to give false credibility to the CPD's initial characterization of the event as an "armed confrontation" - a characterization which was later rescinded by CPD, resulted in the removal of one of the prosecutors who made such a statement, and caused the opening of an investigation over why such a misleading characterization was ever presented. In this context, I would argue that including those very specific frames from the body cam video - which have been mostly cherry-picked out, editorialized with big red arrows and circles, and published by highly biased sources like lawenforcementtoday.com - would be to give WP:UNDUE weight to both an image and a narrative that have been mostly rejected by RSs. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 23:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Armed confrontation in lede

Just a quick Google search list of sources which mention the fact the shooting was first described as an "armed confrontation" (the list could really go on for awhile):

• Evolution of a city's account of a killing: How Chicago's narrative changed in the fatal police shooting of Adam Toledo, USA Today
• The police shooting of Adam Toledo and its aftermath, Chicago Sun-Times
• Adam Toledo: Everything we know about the police killing of a 13-year-old boy in Chicago, Independent UK
• What to Know About the Police Shooting of Adam Toledo, New York Times
• Adam Toledo remembered by family as kind, funny teen in wake of fatal police shooting, ABC News

It's not possible to understand outrage over the killing without including CPD's initial characterization of the event as an "armed confrontation" - it's been included in almost all major coverage of this story. Should be in the lede so the average reader understands why this has been a significant event. Garcia1865 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

First, since we're apparently using the WP:BRRRRD method here, I'm posting advance notice that I'm going to be restoring the version with "armed confrontation" as the mostly-stable status quo before the reversions started.

Secondly, I support the inclusion in the lead and mainly share Garcia1865's reasoning. Major coverage of the story identifies the "armed confrontation" report as being a key part of the timeline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Support putting this in the lede with context. RSs also mention that the phrase "armed confrontation" was later revised, and that Murphy was placed on administrative leave for 'failing to fully present the facts' in a similar statement that he made in court on April 10th - at least one of these details should be included in the lede as well. Just as it's not possible to understand outrage over the killing without including CPD's initial characterization, it's not possible to understand it without including the fact that CPD was later forced to admit that this characterization was misleading. By quoting CPD's statement that describes the event as an "armed confrontation" without including the post body-cam backlash and subsequent CPD revision of events, we give a false sense of legitimacy to the now-revoked initial characterization and leave the reader with the false impression that it actually was an "armed confrontation." Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 05:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. These sources all mention the fact, but most leave it at one sentence and what I don't see in particular is them connecting that fact directly to the outrage. If I were to theorise, I'd say the outrage is over the incident itself rather than over the fact that it was initially reported incorrectly. I also see it mentioned only 2 times in the "Reactions" section, with the many other reactions only talking about the incident itself. I certainly don't agree that It's not possible to understand outrage over the killing without including CPD's initial characterization of the event as an "armed confrontation". The function of the lead is to summarise the body, so only the most important stuff should make it in there, and I don't see this as quite important enough. The bit about Murphy should stay and be contextualised, I think, given that there's a subsection about the Foxx investigation. PJvanMill)talk( 09:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Rep. Gutierrez actually said it pretty well: "I would’ve spoken out earlier. I would've reached out. But you know what I thought? I said, the kid had a gun. He pointed it at the police officer. And then I saw the video." If I were to theorise, I'd say outrage was sparked both by the event itself, as well as by both Murphy's statement and the city's characterization of the episode as an "armed confrontation." As Prof. Kilgo explains, initial police statements give "police an opportunity to shape the initial version of the event – and [get] their version of the story into the public consciousness... [but] in a way that is incomplete." Even though the CPD's initial characterization was retracted within hours, most major news coverage (see links above) have included at least a line about the city's first description of the shooting as an "armed confrontation" - because it explains part of the reason why we all believed Toledo's death was a standoff at gunpoint (and thus even more outraged when the video was released). I agree, we might add a word or two about the statement's inaccuracy, as Combefere suggests, but I do feel it's important enough for understanding the full event to include it in the lede. Garcia1865 (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References