Talk:Killing of John Crawford III

Citation overkill
The list of 14 references at the end of the third paragraph is more an attempt to establish notability of the subject than to verify statements in the article. WP:CITEKILL comes into play here, especially the invocation of "The lady doth protest too much". Also note this article was briefly nominated for deletion, supported by another editor, before it was loaded up with citations and the deletion template removed. – JBarta (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remove a WP:PROD without issue. The article meets GNG given the span of the coverage which will likely escalate now. WP:AFD would be the option to try and delete this now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to use whatever I can from these sources (and others) to expand the article, the rest I will most likely cull. Artw (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Retention
In 2014, police shooting unarmed civilians, especially those of color, is a critical issue. In most instances, authorities have not charged any of the police officers. Questions linger. In a number of cases, the unarmed victim has had a non-lethal weapon, e.g., a toy, a souvenir, etc. How people perceive events has as much impact as the actual facts in a case. Retain this and similar pages. A body of work is developing. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Comment should have been entered on deletion discussion page per JBarta's comment below. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You may wish to offer your thoughts here. – JBarta (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"toy" rifle
Yes, it does seem that some sources have referred to it as a "toy"... though it's arguably not. It's an airsoft rifle. Doesn't look like a toy, nor does it have an orange tip. According to our article on Toy weapons, "In the United States since 1992, toy guns are required to have an orange plug or be entirely brightly colored to signify them as toys." And before someone says "we only report what the sources say", that's only half the requirement. It would be a good idea to determine if in fact a preponderance of reliable sources refer to it as a toy, or as simply an airsoft/BB/pellet gun. WP:VERIFY is more than just plugging refs. It's also about due weight, editorial judgement and consensus. – JBarta (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The rifle was not in the "toy" section either, walmart in general, and that walmart specifically, keeps the air rifles about 10ft. from the real guns. The statement about the gun being in the toy section needs to be removed and replaced with "sporting goods" 98.28.193.244 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do the sources say? This one, which was removed, calls it a toy. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. – JBarta (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still see your comment above. You suggest to go with the preponderance of the sources, but no source has been presented that calls it anything but a toy. Editorial judgment does not extend to applying your judgment that the air gun was not a toy to the article and then removing all sources that call it a toy because they are at odds with your assessment. So, what do the sources say? VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean.... the references there now seem to say "toy"... probably loaded up there because I brought up the "toy" issue earlier. At the time, just as many sources, if not more, seemed to simply call it an airsoft/pellet/bb gun. That may or may not still be the case. I'll leave that up to you. At this point in time, I really don't care anymore. You can change it to "candy" gun for all I care. Have fun with it. – JBarta (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The gun was a Crossman MK177, an air rifle, consistent with the article on air rifles this would make it a pneumatic weapon, despite what news sources are calling it 98.28.193.244 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * it's a BB gun - you'll have your eye out! Artw (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We follow the sources, not our own articles, per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SYN. If there are any reliable sources that refer to what Crawford was holding as anything but a toy, it would make sense to communicate the more complex description in the article rather than attempting to simplify it to one or the other. VQuakr (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo
Looks like we lost the photo - does anyone know enough about wikipedia commons to know how to go about getting it back? Artw (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-uploaded as fair use. – JBarta (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Artw (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional Content for Review
The following are newer articles which discuss the events of the shooting and the following interviews/investigations. Most are secondary sources, and some have conflict others. These may be worth review by people more experienced than myself, to be assimilated into this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/walmart-ohio-shooting-charges-911-calller-john-crawford

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2894862/Girlfriend-man-shot-dead-holding-BB-gun-Walmart-dies-crash-just-weeks-accusing-police-harassing-shooting.html

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cops-shoot-and-kill-man-holding-toy-gun-walmart

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/source-walmart-gunman-was-carrying-toy-rifle/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/feds-probe-fatal-police-shooting-black-man-ohio-wal-mart-n210646 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.222.232 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Shooting of John Crawford III
Cyberbot II has detected links on Shooting of John Crawford III which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * https://www.change.org/p/u-s-attorney-carter-m-stewart-justice-for-our-son-john-crawford
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this editorializing?
The words "According to Crawford's mother, ..." precede "the video shows the officers fired immediately without giving any verbal commands and without giving Crawford any time to drop the toy even if he had heard them". It may or may not be the case that Crawford's mother says that the video shows that. But whether she says that or not, the video shows it. You can find it on YouTube to cite the unbiased sentence "The video shows the officers fired immediately without giving any verbal commands and without giving Crawford any time to drop the toy even if he had heard them". Wikipedia can I think state that the video shows what the video shows without this qualifying nonsense of "someone says that the video shows that". The video shows that the officers ran into the store and opened fire on the victim as soon as they saw him. That's what it shows. It's not matter of being someone's opinion that that's what it shows. I can say "The New York Times article stated xyz" without having to type, instead, "I have a letter from my brother Jack that says his friend Steve sent him a letter asserting that text stating xyz which he found on an envelope was attested by Susan to be an accurate transcription of the New York Times article". If what I need is the article, I should just cite the article. Not?2604:2000:C682:B600:A807:61E2:2FF5:9A88 (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Article omits fate of Ritchie
I have some familiarity with a case that is remote from but has one parallel to this case. In that case, a 2nd party person did not responsibly relay information from a 1st party to a 3rd party, with the result being that a 4th party became the victim of a crime. Every quantum of information relayed by the 2nd party was an accurate retelling of the 1st party's account, but the 2nd party omitted 1 quantum of information from the 1st party's account, and omitted significant information about who the 1st party was. Had that information been properly and responsibly relayed, the 3rd party would have considered the information lacking in credibility, and would not have proceeded against the 4th party. Therefore, the 2nd party was added to the list of civil and criminal defendants. So as I read this article I'm looking for the ways in which Ritchie was held to account, either civilly or criminally, for his malevolent actions, and I find that missing. If he was not prosecuted or sued, the article should have the sentence "Ritchie was not prosecuted criminally or sued civilly" and something about the procedure by which each occurred should be stated, i.e. it was the Prosecutor's decision, or the grand jury, or the civil lawyer of the estate/survivors, or a state law relating to 911 callers, whatever. 2604:2000:C682:B600:A807:61E2:2FF5:9A88 (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Article is ambiguous as to whether DoJ investigation is concluded
"The Justice Department is conducting its own investigation.[23][24][25] The officer who shot Crawford was removed from normal duties until the DoJ investigation was complete.[26]" The article suggests that the the DoJ investigation was completed, but none of these citations are more recent than 2014. The article should be updated to confirm or deny or at least be consistent as to whether the DoJ investigation was completed, and, if so, describe the outcome of that investigation. 72.33.2.100 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * John Crawford III - Mother Tressa Sherrod & President Foward.jpg

Requested move 13 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  04:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Shooting of John Crawford III → Killing of John Crawford III – Per WP:DEATHS: 'Shooting of' should be used when the person in question did not die. Replacing it with 'Killing of' more accurately represents the notable part of this event. Reliable sources frequently use the same terminology. Moikvin (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DEATHS and previous discussions such as Talk:Killing of Alton Sterling and Talk:Killing of Andy Lopez. 162 etc. (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DEATHS. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DEATHS. I would also support moving Shooting of Michael Brown to Killing of Michael Brown. cookie monster   755  00:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: Michael Brown; that move was requested back in late 2020, and closed "no consensus". I suspect that it may pass if requested again. 162 etc. (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2022 (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.