Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Citation needed in opening paragraphs due to racially-charged wording

While I'll give the writer the benefit of the doubt and assume that the first few paragraphs are, as far as they honestly believe, accurate, citation is needed especially when claims about motive are mentioned. Since motives for crimes don't always reflect the stated motive(which is often, itself, geared towards those to whom it is told), the idea that this event only occurred due to the suspect's desire to merely "kill white people" is very questionable for 3 reasons:

1) This was a military veteran with what appears to be combat experience in a non-segregated army. As such, blatant racism wouldn't make sense for the attack due to the comradely of soldiers in warfare who rely on each other for survival. As such, the motive as stated just doesn't seem water tight.

2) Such a motive would make sense if it was a school, mall, town, or neighborhood full of unarmed white people. Sandy Hook alone showed how a nobody with no combat experience could kill dozens of white people and only be stopped by a firearm mechanical failure. Due to the victims being armed, trained, professional members of law enforcement currently engaged in a setting of civil unrest, the stated motive fails to explain his actions. Killing dozens of blue-blooded white children would do 100X more damage to "white people" than a handful of riot police; 100% of which wouldn't go as far in life as the top 10-20% of the average white classroom. Adam Lanza killed people who would've otherwise become far more powerful than all those 5 police officers combined.

3) Considering wikipedia's inherent bias against Black people and willingness to let the bias of middle class African Americans - often descended of those on the northern side of the Mason Dixon line during the war and often holding different views on racial issues - be treated as official views of the entire African American community, its hard to trust blatant statements that evoke racial antagonism such as the statement implying that the shooter hated everyone reading this article who's racial identity is White/Caucasian. Such a statement is pretty powerful, kindles racism(remember, isms are products of fear or vulnerability), and shouldn't be openly stated(especially without citation) unless its not only the stated intent of the shooter but also congruent with his actions. Since such an objective doesn't match his actions(it would've been a school or a mall instead), then the accuracy of the statement is brought into question. When the bias of Wikipedia is brought into view, there becomes a clear and obvious intent to mislead especially when such a violent act can be used for political, social, and economic gain of many Whites and African Americans who don't share the grievances of the shooter towards the police nor the economic, social, and legal suppression of the shooter's demographic; suppression neither limited only to members of only one race in America nor directed at the entirety of any one race.

As such, the opening of this article needs sources and the conclusions must be brought into question. Not only is there a multi-racial motive for deception regarding this event, as class and (often ignored)ethnic identity are more important than race on such issues, the lack of citation nor even the request is troubling and brings into question the motives of the editors and their own commitment to neutral accuracy even at the cost of useful propaganda.


Lets be perfectly honest: a guy shot a bunch of cops during a time of civil unrest in a very premeditated attack. His target was law enforcement regardless of race(how would he know the demographics of the riot cops that day?). Hearsay and even stated motive - both being too unreliable for establishing motive - don't fit with the actions taken by the individual. When such self-evidently flawed explanations of motive are used, uncited, on Wikipedia for the whole world to see, which clearly evoke racial sentiments, then it's obvious that we have a problem here. What's more, such a problem couldn't be caused by obscurity, as this is an article about a major event, nor "White Nationalism", as fake, controlled, and worthless idea of racial nationalism is but a straw-man; publically beaten and berated but privately supported by the established class to suppress ethnic and class division and thus never allowed to plant racially-charged arguments in plain sight unless they're ceremoniously erased.2604:2D80:442D:8179:949D:610A:B30D:F197 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

IFS201 2 question critique

In this article there was nothing distracting me from the main point of the article and everything seemed to be relevant and up to date. I checked a few citations and out of the few I checked out the links worked well. --Hockey303752 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

New "racial hatred" RFC

A previous RfC was held nearly a year ago at [1], where the consensus was not to put "Racial Hatred" in the motive section of the perpetrator infobox. The major reasons cited was that at the time of writing, sources were not available on the nature of the motive of the perpetrator, and putting in any motive would be considered speculative. Since then, a year has passed, and reliable sources have called it racial hatred, including then president Obama. I therefore propose that we re-introduce the term "racial hatred", supported by the citations given in the lead infobox, in light of the advances that have occured since the last RfC. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 07:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Extended discussion

  • Question: BrxBrx, what are the reliable sources you're referring to? I'll note that Obama isn't a reliable source, and he issued his statement calling the shooting a hate crime on July 11, 2016, the day the last RfC was started, so if that's what you're referring to then it's not a proper basis for a new RfC. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I refer to "The Year of the Ballot or the Bullet", by Powell [2], where the suggestion that the attacks were targeted based on racial motivations, similar to Malcolm X several decades ago. The subtext of racial hatred as a motivation is explored, and apparently given credence. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}}) 23:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't have access to the full source. Can you please quote the passage that explicitly says Johnson's motive was racial hatred? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"Can you please quote the passage that explicitly says Johnson's motive was racial hatred? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)" You're kidding, right? 2604:2000:9046:800:8C8B:7B5F:16FD:E8E8 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

I discovered vandalism on this page which added the term "hero" before the name of the perpetrator of the event discussed on this page. I undid the edit but this sort of subtle editing can be a problem on controversial events especially when it has the capacity to portray wikipedia as taking a stance on these issues, sullying the reputation of this website. Addendum: Due to a chrome plugin, I had accidentally edited the article in an unprofessional manor, thanks to NewEnglandYankee for noticing and correcting this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer2150 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Presidential video statements

These are usually removed as being WP:PRIMARY material, and I would struggle to see how this would be any different. It's fine to include a few secondary-sourced quotes in the article, as that's what we do. We do not generally host primary material. Does anyone have a good reason other than longevity for keeping this here? --John (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't see anything fundamentally wrong with including this. Articles don't usually have videos due to WP:YOUTUBE but the White House is exempt because its videos are in the public domain. My only complaint would be that the video is 3:53 long and a person might not watch all of it. A news broadcast would typically show a clip from the video.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, CNN would maybe play 10 s of this, not the full whack. We should (probably) link to it but it should not be displayed in full. Just as we don't reproduce source articles in full but summarise them, even when there is no copyright concern. --John (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's the most recent similar discussion I can find. InedibleHulk, would you agree the same arguments would pertain in this instance? --John (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
There's an obvious parallel here with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, because John removed the video of Barack Obama's White House response in October 2017. I'm not sure if this was necessary, but at 3:57 it was rather long and could have been summarized with a clip. I could edit the video with a bit of spare time. 30 seconds would be enough.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely; as all good Wikipedians should do, I summarise and/or remove all disproportionate primary material wherever I see it. Wikipedia is not a rag bag of quotes and video clips. A summary of what Obama said in his speech is fine, if reliable secondary sources reported on it as I'm sure they did. We could use a link to the original footage to facilitate those who were interested in viewing the thing. I don't think 30 s would be much better than four minutes for our purposes. --John (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In the absence of any rationale for keeping this, I have removed it again. --John (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

not Brent Thompson but Lorne Ahrens

during the main street shootings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb-mtjN9q8 the officer shown is not Brent Thompson but Lorne Ahrens https://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-07-13-1468370777-3604307-LorneAhrensIronCrossTattoo-thumb.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.79.158 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Tagging this article for WP:NEUTRALITY. The reasons why Micah Xavier Johnson performed such an act has not been discussed in detail in the background section as per sources, but simply glossed-over. In fact, it is left right towards the middle of the article under "perpetrator:motive" (Mr. Johnson's section) and briefly touched on before telling us about his online activities, etc. It is irrelevant whether one believes those reasons are justifications for his act, but those reasons are material to this article in order to give the reader a balanced background of this incident from the start as per our policies. To simply gloss-over them is totally unacceptable for such a sensitive and racially charged incident like this. I would advise that those reasons (see below) are summarised in the lead and detailed in the background section. I have noticed a big difference in how this article is edited compared to the Dylann Roof article - which I commented on in January 2019. Unlike Dylann who was a White Neo-Nazi domestic terrorist who wanted to kill Black Americans (even the ones who welcomed him and treated him well) for no other reason other than the fact that they were Black, Micah Xavier Johnson on the hand target White police officers after numerous brutal killings of Black Americans by White police officers which can only be described as "shoot now and cover up later". Not only, that, but those White officers where exonerated by the racist American judicial system, leaving victims' families to pick up the pieces without justice for the brutal killing of their Black children/relatives. This, coupled with the historically and presently racist treatment of America's Black citizens by the dominant White American society are material facts and cannot be glossed-over. I have observed a big difference in the Dylann Roof article compared to this one. In the Roof article, the reader is groomed from the outset to have sympathy for him, be telling us about his difficult childhood and coming from a broken home etc (see the link to the talk page tread I started in that article). The perpetrator section of the Charleston church shooting (Dylann's section) appears more balanced. It simply provided us the facts. The same cannot be said here. I would also advise that the perpetrator section of this article (Mr Johnson's section) be split into a stand-alone article and titled Micah Xavier Johnson, and that section be summarised with a link to the main Micah Xavier Johnson article and the redirect removed as per the Dylann Roof article. I would also advise that Micah's main article be edited in a neutral way as per our policies. Some of the trivial nonsense presented in this article under his section should not be added back to his article as per policy.Tamsier (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about this, mainly because two wrongs don't make a right. The infobox gives the motive as "Anger about recent police shootings of African Americans, racial hatred" which is broadly correct. I wouldn't want to go down the road of stating or implying that the shootings were somehow justified because the victims were white police officers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this has anything to do with two wrongs not making anything right. I think this is about adhering to our policies.Tamsier (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
What reliable sources hold the viewpoint that this shooting was justified because of racial inequality in the American judicial system? What specific edits, in your opinion, would resolve this article's neutrality problems? VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not exactly what I wrote or implied in my post above. I suggest you read again what I've written which clearly states what my concerns are, which sections are affected, what and how to fix them.Tamsier (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
For the record, please note that after my comment above, @VQuakr: made this revert in order to remove the tags I placed on this article as discussed above. I reverted him and then left him a message on his talk page asking him to discus the issues here before removing tags. He removed the message I left for him. He has not made any attempt to address the issues other playing ruse as per his comment above. WP:TANTRUM is not welcomed here, neither is POV pushing.Tamsier (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

And those are the facts. So far, you have not debunked what I have stated. I will give you another try to "tell" me or debunk what I've stated. Hate is a strong word. To hate something or someone I must have an emotional investment or connection to it/them, which I don't. I'm indifferent, but that is a topic for another day. Back to the topic! Wikipedia has policies in place that we should all abide by, not just the selected few. I have sat here for years and watched numerous American related articles used as POV pushing/propaganda without regard for our policies by some determined editors. Most of our editors come here to make a difference and do great work. However, there are those who have used Wiki for years to advance their racist agenda in-light of the historical and current race related issues in the United states. Many of our American articles especially those relating to race or racism have been infected. This will not be one of them. For your information, I am neither a United States citizen nor do I live in the U.S, but I am well versed in the dark history of that nation especially on matters pertaining to race; its current situation, and how those issues have affected many of our articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool to be used by certain quarters. I went through this entire article twice and was dumbfounded by what I've read. Some of the key concerns have been raised above. Wikipedia has policies in place and we should abide by them.Tamsier (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AXE. We get it. VQuakr (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't give two hoops what you think of me. All I care about is that you follow Wikipedia's policies as an editor. If that is too difficult for you to do, then this is not the right project for you. Leave the project, and let people who are here to help it continue to do so. Comment on edits, not the editor. And for you information, if you are going to WP:REDACT you comment (as you did above) which led to my last reply (see above), it is best practice to do so using the WP:STRIKE through mark up, and leaving your signature intact so we know who wrote what. This is especially true when another editor has replied to your comment or quoted you. Deleting or redacting your comment without abiding by this simple policy may be viewed as trying to deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. I suggest your familiarise yourself with our policies before you start telling me whether I have an axe to grind or involved in tendentious editing. If anything, you are the one involved in tendentious editing here and I'm here to stop it it as per policy.Tamsier (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I invited you to defend your argument with sources; you declined to do so. You overestimate the amount of influence your unsupported opinion holds. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
EDIT @VQuakr: has brought to my attention on my talk page that it was not them who redacted the comment I was referring to above (see my previous comment). They were right. They neither made that comment nor did they redact it. And for that, I apologise. I have struck through that comment which was right underneath their comment. However, the general advise for anyone redacting their "own" comments as performed here remains the same. I did not create that from the top of my head. That is actually a Wikipedia policy that everyone, regardless of what country they come from/their political affiliations must abide by. Plain and simple! I emphasise the word "own" because after going through the edit history after the comment left on my talk page, it has come to my attention that, that remark was made by @Mysticair667537: as seen here, and edited here by the same user. However, instead of Mysticair667537 editing or redacting their own comment, it was edited and redacted here by @EvergreenFir:. Why would anyone (especially a non-admin) change or redact somebody else's comment? To me, that might be viewed as someone who is abusing multiple accounts which is against our policy. I will report this to one of our Checkbusters straight away and if there are no merits to the allegation or the edit was a genuine mistake (which is possible), then I take that back and sincerely apologise. However, if this was indeed someone trying to game the system by abusing multiple accounts, then the Checkbusters will take the appropriate action. As far as I can see, the only alternative account that EvergreenFir has disclosed on their userpage is User:EvergreenFir(mobile) — which is different from Mysticair667537. Even if Mysticair667537 was another one of EvergreenFir's alternative accounts (and was disclosed as per policy), it would still be considered ill-advised to use both accounts on the same discussion tread in order to sway decision. I will be reporting this to one of our Checkbusters so that they can investigate, and if there are any merits to this, take the appropriate action against the individual concerned. @VQuakr, I will reply to your last comment separately after this and before I file a report with our Checkbusters.Tamsier (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe sleep on it before starting the SPI. VQuakr (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@VQuakr: We all know the general premises of my argument is not necessary about sourcing, but about Wiki policy. We do not use sources when talking about Wiki policies, we use Wiki policies. For example we do not use third party sources when referencing our neutrality policy. We use our neutral policy guidelines. In any case here are some pointers for your info [3] ; [4] ; and even in some of the sources stated in this article. However, those were simply glossed over as stated above. A good article is one that reports both sides. And not that I express any view one way or the other on the death of this officer, but according this piece, this police officer was a white supremacist Neo-Nazi. As per filing the SPI, I'll file it and leave it in the good capable hands of our Checkbusters. If they believe there are grounds for investigating this, they will. If on the other hand they believe it was an innocent mistake, then no harm done, but at least give them the opportunity to look into it as that redaction was somewhat strange, unless of course @EvergreenFir: comes here and address that strange redaction before I start filing report to our Checkbusters. Just going by my basic checks using our user interaction tool, there appears to be a connection between user Mysticair667537 and EvergreenFir as evident here. Perhaps EvergreenFir would care to comment on this before I start filing. As a matter of courtesy, I will leave both users a note on their talk pages. I will give both users one day to explain their positions otherwise I will report this.Tamsier (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is not WP:SPI.

I am not @EvergreenFir:. The reason why I edited my comment was because I felt that the last part of my comment was inappropriate, if I was a sock then why did he say that he will block me if I made any more personal attacks?. Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So you Ignored my comment I posted below and now your making false accusations about @EvergreenFir: and @VQuakr:. Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Edit clash): Sorry Mysticair667537, but EvergreenFir's warning on your talk page on 1 April 2019 at 17:26 (UTC) does not necessarily mean anything. An editor abusing multiple accounts might simply leave such comments on another SOCK's talk page in an attempt to throw off or deceive the community so that we would not suspect anything, and therefore, linking the two accounts would be the last thing on the community's mind. Also, note the date and timing EvergreenFir left the warning on Mysticair667537's talk page and the date and time they redacted Mysticair667537's comment from this talk page. It was exactly the same date and time (1 April 2019 at at 17:26) without allowing the warned to remove or delete their own edits. Ordinary editors do not generally remove other editors' comments on talk page discussions, unless they are admins with the tools, especially if the edit is very sensitive i.e. outing etc. Even some vulgar language is generally not removed by admins although editors are encouraged to strike off their own remarks. But for another editor to redact someones's edits like what happened here, I find rather strange. Sorry, but you have not convinced me Mysticair667537. Perhaps we should wait for EvergreenFir to provide a more clearer explanation, as my SOCK detector (in collaboration with our user interaction tool) is running high at the moment. If there is something to this, it is best to come clean here, apologise, stop using the sock account and disclose it as per policy so that we can all move on with the main point of this discussion. Failing that, one may prefer to take their chances at SPI.Tamsier (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So your saying that a well respected member from 2013 used a sock puppet account from 2018 for a comment posted on 2019?. Mysticair667537 (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, please note that Mysticair667537 has now just added back his edit that was redacted by EvergreenFir.Tamsier (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tamsier: Go file an SPI if you really think I am socking. But tossing out accusations of it is WP:ASPERSIONS. Please stop. It is inappropriate and disruptive. I redacted the comment by Mysticair667537 because they accused another user (you) of "hat[ing] White police officers" ... that's a personal attack and an unacceptable thing to do on Wikipedia. Per WP:REFACTOR and WP:TPO, editors are allowed to remove such personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There are no aspersions. I am commenting on your ill-advised edit and what our user interaction tool is showing me. Further, refactoring is not a policy but an aid. In any case, both our refactoring essay and our WP:TPO guideline made it quite clear that we "never edit or move someone's comment", and when we do so in exceptional circumstances, certain procedures must be abided by such - as getting permission from the editor who added it or the editors here, etc. You did not even leave an edit summary as evident in the diff above. And although you left a redaction notice, you did not explain the reason for the redaction, neither was it signed as per policy. Further, I did not view Mysticair667537's comment as a personal attack. Invective maybe but not a personal attack as far as I was concerned. The editor quoted a text I've written above then made their remark. The most appropriate thing to have done if you were so concerned was to ask them to strike off their own comment or sought their permission to do so if they do not know how to. I notice you've commented on the redaction part but not on what our user interaction tool have shown? I am all for editors being bold but we also have policies here that must be followed to prevent problems from occurring. Let's hope this is a lesson learned, and due care would be taken next time. Besides, we have derailed the main purposes of this tread long enough.Tamsier (talk)
Please get your facts correct before lecturing others. There was an edit summary in that edit. Bullet point #3 of WP:TPO clearly mentions the removal of personal attacks (note I acted no further after the OP reverted it). I did not "edit or move" someone's comment; I used the {{redacted}} to hide it from view. Also see WP:RPA. That you did not find the comment a personal attack is fine but that does not make it appropriate.
I am in no way related to Mysticair667537, regardless of edit overlaps shown by Earwig's tool. If you continue to push this without filing an SPI, I will ask an admin stop you. Accusing others of sockpuppetry repeatedly like this is inappropriate and most certainly WP:ASPERSIONS. Please review bulletpoint #5 of WP:NPA if you are unclear. Please also note that NPA (which contains RPA) is policy and not "an aid". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I did not see the NFA edit summary you left, and for that I apologise. In any case, I have made myself clear and don't want to be going back and forth with this. I am more concerned about the problems in this article than anything else.Tamsier (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tamsier: We all know the general premises of my argument is not necessary about sourcing, but about Wiki policy. No, that is not correct. WP:NPOV brings up the importance of sources in practically every paragraph, particularly the sections WP:WEIGHT and the related sections just after it, WP:PROPORTION and WP:GEVAL. Without expressing specifically how this article fails to match the underlying sources, your concern is indistinguishable from "this article does not adequately match my personal worldview". VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Tagging

Nothing actionable proposed by way of neutrality and I don't see an issue; do we have consensus to remove the tag? VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  • As per my recommendations above.Tamsier (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support removing the tag as there are no obvious NPOV problems. Micah Xavier Johnson was a troubled person who committed a crime described by President Obama as a "vicious, calculated, despicable attack" There is little scope for expressing sympathy, however indirect, with Johnson's actions simply because he had perceived grievances with the police and the justice system.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split of "Perpetrator" section

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is no consensus for the proposed split.

Cunard (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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.
  • Oppose; nothing of note beyond the commission of crimes on July 7-8. Trim the bloated section instead. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support split to a stand-alone article and titled Micah Xavier Johnson - with this redirect removed as per the Dylann Roof and Charleston church shooting articles. The subject is notable with plenty of independent reliable third party sources covering Micah Johnson in detail. There is also a huge bundle of text about him in that section which can be transferred to his own article and edited for neutrality as per our policies.Tamsier (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Tamsier's arguments. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he is notable for one event, which is the killing of police officers. Nothing notable about him outside of the one incident. No reason to have discussion re his hobbies or family life. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Tamsier's argument. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers/Archive_4&oldid=1174720044"