Talk:Killing of Laken Riley/RFC on Aftermath

RFC: Killing of Laken Riley and Political Impact
hist Which of the following actions should be taken to provide neutral point of view in the Aftermath section of the article?

You may rank two or three alternatives in the order of preference, that is, with the preferred alternative first.

Option A - The Republican pov and counterarguments are both presented neutrally according to reliable sources.

Option B - Remove the section on the Laken Reily Act and make no reference to the politics.

Option C - The killing was used by Republicans to raise opposition to their claims of Biden's immigration policies.

Option D - A generalized statement and link to another article. Please specify the article or write the article if yo select this option.

Please select one to three options, in ranked order, with a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to the posts of other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for.

Please be aware that this article and so this discussion concern American politics in 2024 and are a contentious topic.

Discussion
Option C is confusingly written. The killing was not “used by Republicans to raise opposition to their claims”… It was used to raise support for their claims. I would suggest rewording along the lines of “The killing was used by Republicans to bolster their calls for more robust border security”. This is factual (the Rs do want more robust border security)… and Neutral. By intentionally focusing on what the Rs were FOR, there is no need to discuss the factual accuracy of what the Rs said they were AGAINST. I think this shift in focus avoids any need to explain what they were “opposing” (and whether their opposition was based on reality or not). It avoids the POV questions that come with all of that. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * But doesn't the wording imply that their "calls for more robust border security" are legitimate, and if not legitimate, then within the realm of normalcy? Imagine if the suspect were African American, and the Republicans were exploiting the murder to crackdown on "black criminals" based on erroneous, clearly racist, assertions, and nonexistent crime data. If we wrote "The killing was used by Republicans to bolster their calls for tougher crime measures"  in such an article, and left it at that, similar NPOV issues would be raised, and rightly so. I mean think about it. The fact that we could write something as vague as "border security", and every single one of us knows what that means, despite the fact that the US has more than one border, is a sign that this wording is suggestive even for us, let alone the average reader who will be drawn to this article by political rhetoric. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how my suggested wording implies anything. It’s a simple factual sentence (they did call for more robust border security - regardless of whether their calls were legitimate or not).
 * Anyway… If you think you can word it better, feel free to present your own draft option. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The killing was a flashpoint in the debate over illegal immigration. Proponents of stricter border security used Riley's homicide to bolster their claims of a migrant crime wave (or, alternative wording -used Riley's homicide to tie undocumented migrants to violent crime), while others stressed analyses of crime data that show no increase in migrant crime compared to US citizens.
 * The wording can be tweaked but the points cover three crucial aspects of the subect:
 * 1. its notability
 * 2. some specific context of exactly what's being claimed by one side
 * 3. academic-based counterarguments to maintain NPOV (which appear in RSes covering the Riley killing) Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok… thanks for suggesting actual language. I can’t support your suggestion because I think it shifts the focus of the section from being about how Riley’s death was viewed… to being about crime rates. But we can argue about all that if/when the RFC goes live.  Hopefully more suggestions will come in. Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, and you don't need to support my draft and certainly don't have to endorse it in an Rfc. I believe we are just drafting some options, with specific language, for Rfc consideration.
 * I left a message on the article's talk informing editors that we've begun the drafts. So, waiting for someone else to jump in. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)