Talk:Killing of Andrew Brown Jr.

The headline is prejudicial
Page should be named "Shooting of Andrew Brown Jr." Killing presents the connotation that it was intentional and murderous and we do not have enough information to make that judgement yet. -153.26.178.60 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Naming conventions (violence and deaths) - if he was shot dead by someone else, it's a killing. Whether the shooting was intended to kill or not, doesn't matter, still killing.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 09:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the IP. This type of language in this atmosphere is inflammatory, and may unintentionally stoke the tensions. Seems like a perfect time to ignore the normal naming conventions, and name it something as neutral as possible.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp  11:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we were trying to suggest it was intentional and murderous, we would have named this "Murder of Andrew Brown Jr." (as we have with articles including Murder of Botham Jean or Murder of Jordan Edwards). If we did not know how Brown had died, or if the cause of death was unknown, natural, or accidental, we would go with "Death of Andrew Brown Jr." Since we know that Brown was killed by a gunshot, we use "Killing". As Starship.paint already pointed out, the naming conventions are quite clear, and to TrueCRaysball, I see no reason why we would ignore them. Many of the discussions that led up to the formation of those naming conventions involved contentious killings, but did not result in a different convention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're understanding. That may be technically correct, but it's not how the public sees it in the current racially stoked tensions the US is in right now.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp  14:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those naming conventions were determined in the context of the racial unrest in the US. The RfC was held in December 2020 and included discussions of some very contentious US law enforcement killings including those of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Stop killing unarmed Black Men" or "STOP Killing Unarmed Black Men"?
One of two AP reporters describes a protestor holding a sign styled the first way, but the splash image preceding his or her claim strongly supports the alternative emphasis. Granted, maybe the writer and photographer are conveying two completely different placards. I personally find that unlikely, and believe we need to choose between what this overall RS shows and what it tells. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've "boldly" chosen the latter format. Also made it clear that a period was not part of that black man's reaction! Revert, discuss, consent through silence? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , your format is fine, thanks! And thanks for dropping the period, we are allowed to use common sense.....  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  21:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

To clarify...
An edit of mine was reverted with this summary:


 * Undid revision 1020574250 by Gandydancer (talk)So the police told the lawyer there were no drugs, and Wikipedia is going to quote the lawyer instead of the police? Painfully sloppy editing; our readers deserve better.

To be clear, the article already stated that the police were conducting a raid related to a number of drugs. We commonly also state what the accused's lawyer had to say, in fact, we should include the accused's lawyer's statements to avoid bias. That is what our readers deserve as long as we use good RS for the statements. I assume that we all agree that The New York Times is acceptable and if it's not sloppy editing on their part it is not sloppy editing on mine to repeat what they had to say about the incident. All that said, perhaps it is best to wait a few days and see what develops as more information is released. But I did need to defend my reputation around this place. } Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am confused. We are supposed to summarize RS. WP is not supposed to decide what is true, only what is verifiable. I had read the same NYT article earlier in my day, and was surprised that the information was missing from this article. I added it, then checked talk and saw your comment. A charge of "sloppy editing" should be explained. As for quoting police, vs lawyers, we can look at the original report regarding Mr. Floyd's death. Yes, we may obtain a more open comment from the police, in future days, but we have to go with what we have now, which is the New York Times. Your reputation is fine by me!  Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  03:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Even if he did turn out to have drugs in his house or car, do we now shoot unarmed people in the back of their head for that? Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead information
Lead information should include a short version of the article. I added the Brown family's comments to avoid bias--it should be obvious that we do not include only one-sided versions. Gandydancer (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How is the official interpretation of the video, provided by the district attorney under oath, biased? How does the interpretation of the victim's family "avoid bias"? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Trying to understand you here, am I correct in that you believe that the family attorney's version should not be included in the lead while the "official" one should? Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a controversy concerning Brown's death. This should be summarized in the lead, as it is stated in the text of the article. It is absolutely biased to state only one side of this controversy.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  22:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll answer yours after you answer mine. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean how do we avoid bias? We avoid bias by giving the opinion of both sides.  I would think that is obvious.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The opinion of a hired lawyer should not be given the same weight at those of a district attorney testifying under oath. The opinions of lawyers, politicians, and other commentators should not appear in the lead. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh? Which WP guideline are you referring to here?  Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The DA is also a "hired lawyer", hired to represent the local government/state. That's not really the point. We are summarizing what the sources have stated. The text reflects two narratives and the lead must reflect that.  was absolutely correct to add this to the lead, and I have restored it.  Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  22:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the DA's going to oppose someone in court, it'll be a police officer's lawyers, not the victim's family's. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides that, the two claims in the lead don't seem mutually exclusive or contradictory; you can have your hands on a steering wheel when you're shot in your driveway regardless of whether you hit an officer, are going to hit an officer or neither. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , agreed. However, per sources, we have two attorneys making statements. The attorneys disagree on the timing of the initial gunfire, as noted in the text. Shouldn't this be summarized in the lede? That was the point I wished to make, however clumsily. Thanks for the cleanup editing you did earlier, btw....  Tribe of Tiger  Let's Purrfect!  01:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead says nothing of timing, though. It's pitting the location of his hands and vehicle against whether he posed a threat to officer safety. That's almost as absurd a non-argument argument as the Chewbacca defense. I have faith you, Magnolia and Gandydancer can tweak this lead to better express the exact point of contention, but recuse myself from pointing out anything further, four's a crowd. You're welcome for earlier, though, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems there's been more dispute over what to include in the lead. I'd like to call to attention this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Andrew_Brown_Jr.&oldid=1023855402

Wikipedia has a responsibility to maintain a neutral point of view, and currently, the prosecution and defense in an ongoing criminal case have contradictory interpretations of the evidence. It isn't an encyclopedia's responsibility to pick one version or another to put in the lead of the article. If the user who made this edit took issue with including "rubbish from the lawyers" in the lead, as the edit summary stated, then they should've also deleted the contentious (and as yet unverifiable) claim from the DA that the officers acted reasonably. In the interest of NPOV, either the defense lawyers' interpretation of the evidence should be included in the lead, or the DA's claims should be kept to the body of the article. I'm not going to make the edit myself, since clearly there's been some back and forth and I'm not trying to start an edit war, but some definitive resolution is needed here. 2600:8806:4205:9000:DDE:9DF4:427D:5BAB (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago, after viewing the bodycam video, Andrew Womble described the family and their lawyer's interpretation of the video as "patently false". Today, after stating that none of the police would be charged (and some of the suspended officers are back to work), it seems pretty clear that the video--which was shown to media--makes the lawyer's interpretation of an "assassination" seem a bit...what's the word I'm looking for?  Why keep "their interpretation" it in the lead, when anyone who reads the article will quickly see it is irrelevant? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but as the footage hasn't been released, there's no way to verify it. "Anyone who reads the article will quickly see it is irrelevant" may be your personal assessment on the matter, but clearly there are many people who do find the defense attorney's account relevant, and wikipedia isn't in the business of taking sides in a pending trial. 2600:8806:4205:9000:7147:DB14:E84A:D326 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)