Talk:Bryce Dejean-Jones

BLP status change
Due to the death of this person, the BLP status of this article has changed. This does not mean that unsourced material that would contravene the Biography of Living Persons rules can be added to this article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"First active NBA player to die since Eddie Griffin"
Griffin was released, and had no contract, five months before his death. Surely that means he wasn't at the time an active player? &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're probably correct, but that's what the source says, so for now it's WP:V until it falls into its proper category of WP:TRIVIA. MSJapan (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Circumstances of death paragraph
Maybe it's just me but I find the current wording of this paragraph confusing and difficult to un-parse: "On May 28, 2016, Dejean-Jones died when he was shot after breaking into a Knox Park, Dallas apartment. He was visiting his former girlfriend, who lived on the floor above, for their child's first birthday. At 3:20 a.m., the resident of the apartment, who had been sleeping, retrieved a handgun and fired when Dejean-Jones began kicking at the bedroom door." Seems fairly difficult to understand from this paragraph whose apartment he broke into. "At 3:20 a.m., the resident of the apartment..." Which apartment? His girlfriend's? How did Dejean-Jones get in the apartment? Seems to me that an expansion an a clarification of this paragraph is needed. Nsk92 (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He smashed in the front door and bedroom door of an apartment that he wrongly thought was his ex-girlfriend's. The resident of the apartment he broke into shot him dead. Jim Michael (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He did not merely enter the wrong apartment, then knock on the bedroom door. He deliberately broke down both doors. Only then was he shot. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The police of Bryce Dejean-Jones death already stated that it was a mistake not a robbery. He thought he was entering his ex-girlfriend's apartment where his daughter is cause apparently it's clear he didn't realize where he was going which numerous reports have been stating as this situation was investigated. According to the investigation by the police, He went to the wrong floor mistakenly thought was his former girlfriend's apartment. It was reported that he thought she locked him out which that wasn't the case. He was at the wrong floor and wrong apartment. Pmaster12 (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one's disputing that he went to a different apartment than he intended to. The issue is that you're claiming he innocently walked in - using 'entered' rather than the much more accurate broke in. All the sources cited in the article state that he used force to break down the front door and the bedroom door of a neighbor's apartment. Whether his ex-gf's apartment was locked is immaterial. He used force to break down doors which were locked - a person who does that does not have good intentions. It's a basic law and rule of society that you don't break people's doors in - regardless of whether or not you think you're at a different apartment than you actually are. He definitely broke into an apartment, then broke down the bedroom door - why are you claiming that he merely entered the apartment and knocked on the bedroom door? Jim Michael (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's what he did entered. Who the cares how he entered. The problem is that you Jim Michael are the only one that cares on how innocent or how looks or what his intent was. You don't know what was going on. So stop trying to fill in the blanks on how this situation should look like because this is not the place. This is an encyclopedia where people go to read articles not a place where you express how the subject of the article looks. It's seems like you Jim Michael have personal reasoning on your behalf. You Jim Michael are sitting here trying to measure what his intent was and I'm trying to tell you that is impossible to tell. The police didn't not say this was a home invasion this was a mistake. Pmaster12 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an encylopedia, not a fan page. An encyclopedia is about accuracy. Readers should know what happened, according to reliable sources. It's you alone on this article who is trying to make it seem like he had innocent intentions, by removing from the article the well-sourced fact that he deliberately smashed in the front door and bedroom door. There are laws against that for good reason - there's no exception to the law that you're allowed to break in if it's your ex-girlfriend's apartment or you wrongly think it is. The sources, and the police, made it clear that he deliberately broke down the two doors. He most certainly did break in - that's relevant to his life and death and therefore should be in this article. I didn't state in the article what his intent was - I merely stated the fact that he broke in. Jim Michael (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not FOX News, IT's YOU Jim Michael that want to go back and forth whether he's innocent and I'm telling you I could care less because that's important. What's important is death not whether he's innocent. This is not the place for that. You are keep bring up laws which that's not the issue. You want to put information based on the sources that benefit your personal feelings about this situation. If you want details go watch television or read all the sources from all parties but don't complain about how it looks when it's the same thing just worded differently and appropriately. Pmaster12 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The manner in which Dejean-Jones entered the apartment is certainly important to the story and must be reflected in the article. Jim Michael is absolutely correct about that. To omit such an essential point of the story would be a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. At a minimum, the article needs to mention in some way that he broke through the front door of the apartment. So how about we actually try to stick to some language that the sources use on the matter? I have not seen "smashed in" being used, but most news articles describe what happened as him having "kicked in" or "kicked open" the front door of the apartment. We should probably use similar language, perhaps even as a quote.  The current wording "Dejean-Jones began to enter the bedroom door while yelling for his ex-girlfriend assuming it's her apartment" is not supported by the source cited. The actual text of the source (rather than the headline), says: " He stated he called out to the individual, but was not answered. As the individual kicked the bedroom door, the resident fired his gun."  The text of the article needs to be corrected both for accuracy and for WP:NPOV compliance. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What I'm saying is entering is the same as those other words. If you can't understand that sentence or sentences then it is what is. Pmaster12 (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the manner of entering the apartment is an important aspect of this story and must be reflected in the article. Omitting such an essential aspect of the story is a violation of WP:NPOV. Nsk92 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, What I'm saying here that nothing is being omitted. That's what I'm saying it's the same but worded differently and properly related to the subject. I hope you understood what I'm coming from. I hope that is resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. An essential element of the story is being omitted. To say that he "entered" the apartment is not at all the same as to say that he "kicked open the front door" or "broke in" the apartment, which is how all the sources describe what happened here. We do not need to ascribe motives or pass judgements, but we do need to describe what happened as fully and as accurately, as the available sources allow. The current version does not do that and is a pretty obvious violation of WP:NPOV. It must be corrected.  Nsk92 (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I totally disagree but good discussion again I hope that this resolved. Pmaster12 (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I do not think that this issue is resolved. I am not going to edit the article myself until there is a clear consensus on what to do. I have posted a note at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to try to get some extra eyes on this article and to hear additional opinions. Nsk92 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. Pmaster12 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, BD-J deliberately broke into an apartment's front door and bedroom door using physical force. It's very relevant to his life and death - and therefore this article - that he broke in. He broke the law by doing so, whereas the resident did not break the law by shooting the intruder dead in self-defense. The legality is relevant, otherwise the reader will think: "why isn't the shooter being tried for murder for killing an innocent man who merely walked into the wrong apartment by mistake?" Jim Michael (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is important to note that the broke into the apartment. As others have said that is an important element, mentioned by every source, that is not conveyed by saying he merely "entered". What his motives for breaking in were is something entirely independent from the fact that he did break in. The current version (I've corrected the grammar of it btw) seems to satisfy the need for neutrality and accuracy without sensationalism. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: please use edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia articles. This is especially important when you are dealing with controversial material and/or engaged in an editing dispute (as here), but you really should be using them with every edit you make. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that some things happened since I last logged in. The current version seems better, but it is still not quite OK. The sentence "After breaking down the front door of the neighbor's apartment, at 3:20 a.m., the resident, who had been sleeping, retrieved a handgun and fired when Dejean-Jones began to barge into the bedroom door while yelling for his ex-girlfriend" is somewhat problematic. The source cited to support the statement "while yelling for his ex-girlfriend" is this article. The headline there does say, "Bryce Dejean-Jones shot dead while screaming for girlfriend in apartment, NBA concludes". However, the actual text of the article says the opposite. It does not say that  Dejean-Jones was screaming for girlfriend or that he was screaming or saying anything at all. The crucial portion of the article says: "He [meaning the resident] stated he called out to the individual, but was not answered". Every single other news-story that I have seen says the same thing. So I think that the "yelling for his ex-girlfriend" bit needs to be removed and replaced by something closer to what the sources actually say on the matter. On the other hand, the phrase "barge into" in the current text does seem a bit too charged to me, and I would prefer to see it replaced by what the sources actually say: kicking at the bedroom door or something like that. I would also prefer to have the sentence "After breaking down the front door of the neighbor's apartment..." split into two sentences, to make it easier to explain what happened. I could try making these changes myself if there is a reasonable degree of agreement on them.  Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. In regard to the bedroom door, I've changed barged to kicked, because the source says he kicked it. Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Thryduulf. I just figure that out that edit summaries can help especially with this unnecessary edit dispute with this editor and this controversial subject. Hopely this can be avoidable.Pmaster12 (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary for you to have repeatedly removed the relevant, well-sourced fact that BD-J broke in to an apartment. You claimed that he didn't break in, but he definitely did. He broke in. Jim Michael (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, you Jim Michael are putting words in my mouth as usual so I'm not surprised you are coming with that weak argument. I said he enters which means going through the apartment. Like I said numerous times, that means the same just worded differently. You Jim Michael just can't help yourself. So I'm not surprised that you still going on. Pmaster12 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the views expressed by Jim Michael, Thryduulf, and Nsk92: the article should clearly state that the entry was a break-in. JerryRussell (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All but one of the people who've expressed their view on this matter agree that the article should state the relevant truth, which is that he broke in. It's not the same thing to merely say he entered. No-one would report a break-in as merely an entry. If you really believe it's the same thing then you wouldn't have a problem with the article saying he broke in - which is exactly what it's going to stay as. Jim Michael (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)