Talk:Killing of Walter Wallace

Pickup trick in lead
Does the pickup trick incident warrant inclusion in the lead? It doesn't really add much to what's already there and from what I can tell, it wasn't heavily covered as an isolated incident. Benmite (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, since its already mentioned in lead that police officers were injured. If 30 of them were injured per the reports, why call out that specific incident from the rest of the 30? I'm assuming some other injuries were also serious. Albertaont (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, not just pertaining to the pickup truck incident, the lede should be more thorough. It is not just the shooting this article is about. This article is also about the response by local citizenry which necessitated the deployment of the Pennsylvania National Guard. I made this edit which reflects some of what transpired in response to the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * My edit has been reverted with the argument in the edit summary reading "Not an improvement, talking about one police officers injuries when there were 30 is WP:UNDUE, keep this in body instead" I therefore suggest the following wording: I believe this is quite adequately sourced. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think outside of the female officer, the rest is fine. I just dont think that incident goes in the lede. How is this: "Violent demonstrations in response to the shooting took place, including setting vehicles on fire, throwing rocks and bricks at police, and the looting of several local businesses. Approximately 30 officers were injured. The Pennsylvania National Guard was deployed in an attempt to quell the violence." Albertaont (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that keeping the lead more vague is the best way to go, since the protests appear to be ongoing and this description only covers those demonstrations which took place on October 26, and . Benmite (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, feel free to make it more general. Albertaont (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Here we have reverting with the edit summary "Undid revision 985936190 by Bus stop (talk) Discuss change on talk page". That is what I have been trying to do—"discuss on Talk page". Bus stop (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you made the edit before coming to a consensus with other editors. Benmite (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, pinging . Benmite (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I posted 3 hours ago. You did not respond on the Talk page. Instead you continued to edit the lede, which is the portion of the article under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , next time, please ping me if you want me to see your response. Benmite (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rapper
I am currently banned from editing these kinds of articles but I would strongly suggest that the mention of being a rapper be changed to correctly reflect that some of his lyrics mentioned killing and shooting police. This seems necessary to include if we are going to mention him being a rapper because otherwise it falsely makes him seem innocent. Core2012 14:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs)
 * We dont know what sources you are looking to, but if you can provide the specific sources as well as your proposed changes, may help other editors decide whether to include or not. Albertaont (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/us/walter-wallace-philadelphia-police-rap-cops Core2012 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs)

Knife
"The Philadelphia police on Monday fatally shot a 27-year-old Black man who they said was armed with a knife" "Police say they shot him because he would not drop a knife he was holding."
 * The New York Times
 * BBC

"Police spokeswoman Tanya Little told AP news agency that a man, later identified as Mr Wallace, was holding a knife when the officers approached..." "Police said Walter Wallace Jr., 27, was wielding a knife..."
 * Associated Press

"It is unclear in the video whether Wallace had a knife. Witnesses said he was holding one."
 * USA Today

Very few of the sources actually confirm that he was holding a knife. Almost all confirm that police and some witnesses claim that he had a knife. Most of what can be confirmed by news sources at this time comes from the video, which according to most sources, does not explicitly show a knife. Benmite (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Umm, no. Here's just a small sample of sources that explicitly say "he had a knife", not just that the police claimed he had a knife (and/or that the police could be heard telling him to put the knife down in the video), which includes CNN, the NYT, ABC, WSJ, NPR, and the WaPo:   Here CNN explicitly says that the video shows him carrying a knife: . It is widely accepted by reliable sources that he was in fact carrying a knife.  Bueller 007 (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional locations
Additional protests were added based on Fox News, is there other WP:RS sources we can use? I've just tagged them with for now until someone can provide a better one.


 * , as per WP:FOXNEWS, Fox News is considered a RS on topics outside of politics, with no consensus in regards to articles on political subjects, due to consistent bias. I would leave the source there, maybe with a better source needed tag, but I think it would be best to look for other sources which either support or refute their claims. Benmite (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That article is from the Fox News "News" section--not the politcs section. As such, it's a RS. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Editorializing
An editor has repeated added commentary to a quote, violating several concepts of WP:NPOV. The quote by Donald Trump says:
 * "Last night Philadelphia was torn up by Biden-supporting radicals...30 police officers, Philadelphia police officers, they were injured, some badly. Biden stands with the rioters, and I stand with the heroes of law enforcement.”

Some news outlets prefaced the quote with, "Without providing any proof of a link, Donald Trump sought to tie the protestors to Biden". Such commentary is unnecessary and adds bias to the article. The quote should remain, without speculation about where Trump has proof or not. Wikipedia does not report on what is does not know, per WP:SPECULATION. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not speculation that the link was made without any evidence. He didn’t provide any, nor does any exist (specifically as of when he made the comments) to prove that anyone who caused violence supported Biden or that Biden in any way stood behind those who committed acts of violence. Without clarification of this, it gives validity to his claims, creating undue weight. Benmite (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Correction: Even if evidence is out there to prove that people who caused violence were supporters of Biden, little to none is publicly available to prove Trump's claims, hence why RSs focused on the lack thereof, and again, Trump did not provide any, . Benmite (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump gave his opinion about the riots (a primary source), and we added this primary source to the article.  When some news outlets go a step farther and state "but we cannot prove Trump's opinion is true (or not true)", this is not notable because it is journalistic opinion, and Wikipedia is not a purveyor of speculation or opinion.  To advise Wikipedia's readers how they should interpret the rhetorical comments of a politician a week before an election is extremely biased and the sloppiest of editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How is a lack of proof behind his comments a "journalistic opinion"? The truth of the matter is that nothing he said was backed up by any facts that he was willing to provide, let alone any that are publicly available. It would be different were he to state an opinion such as, "These riots are horrible," but he made a clear connection between Biden and the riots in a factual manner. Saying that he did not provide evidence is not akin to saying that he was undoubtedly lying, nor is it an interpretation, but merely clarifying that this factual claim is not necessarily true, which is absolutely necessary as Wikipedia relies on verifiability. If his claims can't be verified, this should be emphasized. Pinging Benmite (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Donald Trump's quote being used as a primary source does not mean that secondary sources can't be used to expand upon it. In fact, I would argue that quite the opposite is the case as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Benmite (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you are going to RV my edits on the basis that there is a discussion happening you have to continue to actively participate in said discussion. Benmite (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would Trump state something as insipid as "These riots are horrible"? I don't think it matters if Trump has proof or not. This isn't a science experiment. This is commentary. Are we going to have commentary on commentary on commentary in an infinite regress? Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, his exact words were "It's a terrible thing, what I'm witnessing is terrible", which is arguably the same thing, just worded differently, and in turn, it's arguably just as "insipid". But I digress. I was giving an example of the difference between what he said and something that wouldn't warrant an explanation. There is a difference between an opinion and a false factual claim. Saying "Philadelphia was torn up by Biden-supporting radicals" goes beyond simply making commentary because it is stating a claim: the people involved in these marches unequivocally supported Biden. Without clarifying that this, in fact, unsubstantiated, people could see this page and take it as an immutable truth. It's also not original research, since the fact check shows up within the reference used to quote Trump in the first place. Benmite (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need to include that quote in the first place? We already have a lengthy Trump quote in the sentence before, and this quote is not even a reaction on the rioting--it's more so an attack on Biden. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The president commented on the riots. It's notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

A van stopped by police
User:Pokelova is edit warring over inclusion of following:
 * Video footage from the protests also showed a slow-moving SUV being surrounded by police. Officers with batons surrounded the vehicle, smashed its windows, yanked its driver and a passenger, Rickia Young and her teenage nephew, from the car, threw them onto the ground, and then pulled Young's 2-year-old son from the backseat. Young had to be taken to the hospital for injuries sustained in the arrest and was later released without charges. The National Fraternal Order of Police posted a photo of a policewoman holding Young's son to Twitter and Facebook, claiming that the child had been found wandering the streets. The posts were later deleted.

The details of this incident were sensationalized by The Philadelphia Inquirer, and have little relevance to the article. Moreover, the accusations of wrongdoing were made by a lawyer hired by the people in the van. Hardly a reliable source. Perhaps User:Pokelova can explain why "Rickia Young" needs to be added to this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Your evidence of it being senationalized is...?--Pokelova (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some sources:


 * The Hill
 * USA Today
 * The Daily Beast
 * BBC News
 * The Washington Post
 * The Independent
 * The Week
 * Slate
 * Vice
 * It's being covered nationally and even internationally. It deserves inclusion. Benmite (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the differences between this and the instance of a stolen washing machine from Walmart is sourcing and notoriety. Nearly all of the sources listed above, with the exception of Vice and The Week, are listed as confirmed RS's on WP:RSPSOURCES. On top of that, most of these articles focus specifically on this isolated incident. The washing machine story was covered by New York Post, which was deemed generally unreliable; The Sun, which is deprecated; The Washington Times, which is "considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations"; and Fox News, which is "perceived to be biased or opinionated for politics". There are other sources, like The Mix and News.com.au, but the former used heavily opinionated language throughout and seems to only use a local news station and tweets as a source, and the latter cites The Sun as a source. Finally, a chunk of these stories are focused on the looting in general, not just that of the Walmart. Benmite (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Tear gas ban
, thank you for adding the information about the tear gas ban. However, the ban was not the direct result of the protests. The bill was introduced in June in the wake of the George Floyd protests after victims of tear gassing spoke to a City Council committee. The bill gained renewed interest in the wake of these protests, though, so I am wondering whether or not that means it should be included on this page. Benmite (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, here are some sources:, Benmite (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. Feel free to delete if it's not relevant.  Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Criminal record
What does specific information about Wallace's criminal record have to do with the shooting? You can see in other articles (Shooting of Breonna Taylor, Shooting of Michael Brown) about police shootings that the section outlining the people involved merely consists of biographical information such as their age, their profession, their schooling, and any background information which pertains specifically to the killing being discussed. For example, the page for the Shooting of Philando Castile includes information about Castile's prior traffic violations solely because the incident the page is covering took place during a traffic stop. The page on the Shooting of Tony McDade outlines prior events which led up to the shooting. I would argue that his criminal record has no bearing on his killing. I only think that it makes some sense to include on the basis that his criminal record is brought up later in the article in regards to whether or not officers were aware of it, but even that seems like very iffy rationale. Benmite (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think WP:OTHERCONTENT is a very strong argument, but no matter. I won't go through all the pages, but Michael Brown did not have a criminal record (only undisclosed stuff when he was a minor), and he was not facing any charges during his arrest . Breonna Taylor had no criminal record whatsoever . For the Killing of Rayshard Brooks, we did include his criminal past. Same deal for the Shooting of Jacob Blake. It's completely appropriate to include references to a criminal record in the biography--only, of course, if the person had a criminal record and RSs were reporting on the person's criminal record.  Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The main issue here is that including this is a violation of WP:NOTWHOSWHO, since no direct connection between the event and his criminal record has thus far been made, and Walter Wallace falls under WP:BIO1E. In the article for the killing of Rayshard Brooks, the contents of his criminal record are not specified ("In a February 2020 interview he discussed the two years he spent in prison and his difficulties after being released, such as difficulty finding work,") and it's made clear that the reason for making mention of it in the first place is that, immediately before the shooting, he was under suspicion of driving under the influence, and "A driving under the influence conviction could have led to revocation of his probation and a return to prison."


 * Similarly, in the article for the shooting of Jacob Blake, his criminal record is touched upon specifically because, at the time of the shooting, there was an active warrant for his arrest, and it is clarified that officers were made aware of this prior to their arrival. Furthermore, the woman who made the criminal complaint that led to the charges responsible for the warrant was the same woman who made the 9-1-1 call that led officers to Blake.


 * Even in the article for the killing of Eric Garner, his criminal record is connected to the incident in that most of his arrests were due to allegations of selling "loosies", which is what officers accused him of the day of his killing, and to establish that Garner and the NYPD had a history with Garner, which is pertinent as it was brought up by Garner during the altercation ("Every time you see me, you want to mess with me. I'm tired of it. It stops today. Why would you...? Everyone standing here will tell you I didn't do nothing. I did not sell nothing. Because every time you see me, you want to harass me. You want to stop me [garbled] selling cigarettes.")


 * In each of these scenarios, the victims' criminal records are brought up because of a direct connection to the event being described in the article. In this case, there is no real rationale for including his criminal record since, again, no connection has been established between his criminal record and what played out during his killing. If someone can make a case for why his criminal record is directly related to the incident being described in the article, then I think it would make more sense, but thus far, all I've seen is that since it's reliably sourced, which is not enough to justify its inclusion, let alone the fact that it is described with such specificity, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pinging . Benmite (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Direct connection"? More like tangentially connected. For Eric Garner, we state some of his charges include "assault" and that he was on bail for "driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation"--this has nothing to do with selling loose cigs. Don't we later say in the article that we are unaware if the police knew about Wallace's very lengthy criminal record? Don't you think if the police knew about his past charges, or didn't know, then they would have approached the scenario differently? Again, as of now, we don't know what the police knew, but Wallace's record may have had a direct connection to the shooting. Please don't throw WP:INDISCRIMINATE at me. That's just what people say when they want to remove information b/c they don't like it. His past charges are 10X more important than the fact that he was a rapper, or that he was recently got married. Also Magnolia677 makes a valid point. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, my point was that those charges are mentioned within the article to illustrate Garner's history with the NYPD, which is related to the case as Garner discussed their history during the altercation; this is a connection made within the sourced article. I would assume the other charges are meant to describe his circumstances at the time of his killing, which is why I think it makes sense to include in that case and I also think including that Wallace was awaiting trial makes sense, but both could be contested. Even if you don't buy that, the point is that the article in question is this one, not any of the ones I mentioned. Like you said before, WP:OTHERCONTENT is not an airtight argument, so I apologize for making it in the first place. I was merely trying to show that most articles on police shootings don't identify any prior criminal history of the victim unless it is directly tied to the article because those articles follow the same policies that I am trying to discuss here. The policy that I mentioned before reads as such:
 * "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."
 * Your rationale is predicated on the notion that responding officers being aware or unaware of his criminal record had some effect on the shooting, which has yet to be established by any sources, meaning that it is original research (see "Sourcing" and "Subjects are connected" under WP:RSF.) You said, "Don't you think if the police knew about his past charges, or didn't know, then they would have approached the scenario differently?" What I think, what you think, or what any editor thinks about this situation has no bearing on the article. That's POV. Also, I don't know where your assessment of his charges being "more important" than his profession or his marital status came from, but that is another discussion entirely. If you can find a reliable reference wherein a connection between Wallace's past criminal charges and his killing is made, then put it, but otherwise, there is no reason to believe that this information is realistically proportional to the event of his killing. The reference used to explain that officers did not know of his criminal record also makes no connection between that and his killing: "Court records also reveal Wallace’s extensive criminal history...Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said she was unsure if the officers who responded Monday had ever interacted with Wallace before." As I said earlier, the single reference used in the bio section makes no connection between these two things either. Benmite (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also note Alton Sterling's bio: "He had a criminal record that included violent offenses, and had been sentenced to serve 5 years following a 2009 incident that stated he had resisted arrest. He was a registered sex offender who was accused of having sex with and impregnating a 14 year old girl when he was 20 years old. At the time of the 2016 shooting, the arresting officers were not aware of Alton Sterling's prior record."--in this case, his criminal record had nothing to do with his shooting, yet we still included it.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Benmite Here's one more example for the Shooting of Walter Scott: "An arrest warrant had been issued since a January 16, 2013 court hearing regarding his child support payments. Scott had previously been jailed three times because of the child support payments. Scott previously served two years in the U.S. Coast Guard before being given a general discharge in 1986 for a drug-related offense."--again, nothing to do with the shooting, yet it was still included Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , again, I don't want to stick to using WP:OTHERCONTENT as an argument, although since we are, this is, yet again, another case where a reliable source was used that draws a direct connection from the arrest warrant to the shooting. In the sourced article from NBC News, it reads:
 * "Scott's parents have suggested they believe their son fled from the officer, Michael Slager, because he owed back child-support payments and did not want to be arrested again."
 * So, even in that case, that information is proportional to the case itself. Benmite (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are other examples where we include the criminal history in the bio: Killing of Eric Garner, Shooting of Alton Sterling. I am restoring the information Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Many biographical details about Wallace have already been included, so a mention of previous legal or criminal issues is not undue, per WP:WEIGHT. Wallace is also a "public figure", per WP:BLPCRIME. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I find inordinately greater effort put into keeping information out of the article than compiling relevant and reliable material into an article that is informative for the reader. I don't believe the reader should have to look elsewhere to find out who the decedent was in life. The person has a past, as we all do, and the past tends to have some relevance to the present. Here I'm encountering the argument that the article doesn't need the "length of time in prison". Why not? Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Unless he was sentenced for like 20+ years, I don't think the length of time in prison reflects the severity of the crime. There are a lot of factors that go into a prison sentence, and sometimes the felon gets a good plea deal, and sometime they don't. In this case, 11-23 months isn't really a long time, considering what he did, so I think it's best to leave it out and let the crime speak for itself. Obviously, this is just a personal preference. However, if we can find a source that collectively tallies the amount of years he was in prison, then I think that would be highly relevant for his bio. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * An entirely sound argument can be made that this individual should have been in confinement on October 26, 2020 for his own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of others, either in a conventional prison or a psychiatric hospital. I'm not making a medical analysis. He was given a sentence of 11-23 months incarceration in 2017 for putting a gun to a woman's head after forcing his way into her apartment. He apparently approached 2 cops with a knife in his hand on October 26, 2020. I don't see the 2 incidents as being terribly dissimilar. This background information should be readily available to readers of this article. It is incomprehensible that the argument should be made that we should omit background information on the person whose death unfortunately occurred in the incident this article addresses. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It sounds like your reasoning for including the length of his sentence is that "[He] should have been in confinement on October 26, 2020," which is not a reason. That's just introducing POV to the article. The connection that you've made between these two incidents is also original research since the referenced article does not make that connection (All it says is: "He was sentenced to 11-23 months behind bars And in 2013, he pled guilty to assault and resisting arrest after punching a police officer in the face. Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said that it was unclear what officers who responded to yesterday's call knew about Wallace.") Finally, as I mentioned in a previous message, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Walter Wallace falls under WP:BIO1E, and therefore, the argument that any and all "background information" on Walter Wallace should be included is a moot point if it the info is not directly pertinent to the article. Benmite (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course he should have been in confinement. Who deleted that he was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation? That seems much more relevant than the estimated amount of time in prison. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Why would you want to remove the length of time in prison? (You say "Who deleted that he was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation?" It was not me. In principle I support including that information, although I have not looked into the details.) Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You deleted details about the psychiatric evaluation here. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, my mistake. Feel free to correct it. Or I will when I get a chance, . Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Benmite—you say "That's just introducing POV to the article." How would including the length of a prison sentence introduce POV to the article? Bus stop (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it would be introducing POV based on your reasoning for including them: "[He] should have been in confinement on October 26, 2020 for his own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of others...I don't see the 2 incidents as being terribly dissimilar." Both of these arguments are based on personal opinions, and not only that, but if we included the latter based on your reasoning, it would be original research since no reliable source exists directly connecting the two. Even if you feel this is necessary information for other reasons, a brief summary of his criminal record is outlined in his biography anyway. There is no good reason for including the minutiae of this particular case, especially since it's not the subject of the article and those details don't seem to be focused on in many articles to begin with. Benmite (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * —why are you removing background information on the people in this incident? A concern is: who are the people involved? That would be the man who was shot and the 2 police who shot him. Everyone except a newborn baby has a background, and even arguably they too have "backgrounds". The sources are providing us with information pertinent to backgrounds. I am adding that information and you are removing that information. Why are you removing background information on the people in this incident? Here you are adding that the police are "white". That information is removed here by another editor. But my question to you is: why do you think it is relevant and important that we inform the reader that the officers are "white"? If there were blemishes on the history of the officers, would you want to add those? Supposing the officers had past infractions as police officers on their record and this was reliably sourced. Supposing one or both of the police officers was accused of using excessive force in an incident prior to this incident. Would you want it added to the article, assuming it was reliably sourced? Would you want to inform the reader that one or both of the police officers was charged in years gone by with a serious offense committed in the line of duty, assuming it was reliably sourced? The background information on the people involved is important. We have a section called People involved. The reason for that is because the people involved are an important component of the incident being addressed by this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It's getting too messy up there. Listen, we're discussing his biography. Readers would want to know info. about his criminal record. If we had it your way, then explain to why we included the fact that's he was a rapper, an Uber Eats driver, and a father to 8 kids?? Show me a RS that alleges that anyone of those things had anything to do with his shooting. The quote you brought up from the Police Commissioner suggests that his record may have had something to do with the shooting. As of now, it's tangential, so we include it--just like for others. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you say, "Listen, we're discussing his biography". Except- that this is not a biographical article. It's an event article. I seriously considered all the arguments here, before deciding to weigh in. But... Unless there's some contextual reason for this content to be there, I don't see how it's actually due. Some of the argument for inclusion even seem to ultimately boil down to personal preference. already states this far more eloquently and exhaustively than I could, but... None of the reliable sources used in the article state that the information had any bearing on the killing itself. As Benmite says, this is all relevant information for a biographical article. But when no reliable sources correlate this with the shooting, it's borderline synthesis. Honestly, I'm not even sure why there's any need for an arbitrary "people involved" section. As of right now, it sorta looks as if it's only serving the stylistic purpose of shoehorning this information in. If we just go with prose rather than a list section, the disputed content aside, there's absolutely nothing there that couldn't be easily integrated into the article prose, which seems to be what the MOS recommends we do anyway. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So what exactly are you proposing? That we completely remove the 'People Involved' section? We have one of these sections for almost all of these types of shootings or killings. It seems rather important that readers know who exactly was involved in the killing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * :: So what exactly are you proposing? That we completely remove the 'People Involved' section? We have one of these sections for almost all of these types of shootings or killings. It seems rather important that readers know who exactly was involved in the killing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * These are the 3 key figures, in my opinion. I am reading "Honestly, I'm not even sure why there's any need for an arbitrary 'people involved' section. As of right now, it sorta looks as if it's only serving the stylistic purpose of shoehorning this information in." Obviously there is more than one way to write the article and those different ways would be "stylistic" differences. But "shoehorning this information in"? How so? You refer to "borderline synthesis". Please explain. What might be "synthesis"? I am aware of the policy of WP:SYNTHESIS. Do you think it applies here? Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The same information can easily be conveyed in standard prose rather than a bulleted list. For example:

"Two Philadelphia police officers were dispatched to respond to the call: Sean Matarazzo, 25, who joined the department in 2018, and Thomas Munz, 26, who joined the department a year earlier. Upon arriving, the officers..."
 * A lot of what's in the list is unnecessary redundancy, i.e., labeling each officer "_____, a Philadephia police officer.... _____, a Philadelphia police officer..." In an article that's otherwise completely prose, having a section that mostly consists of formulaic identical fill-in-the-blanks seems a bit... Odd. It's filler. My point: The odd one out here is Wallace, whose entry consists of several sentences containing a number of somewhat disparate and otherwise somewhat unrelated items, and seems to drastically depart from the style of the rest of the list, as well as what I suppose is the presumed point, which is introducing him. On his bulleted entry, we have: mental diagnoses, the coroner's post-mortem toxicology analysis, a detailed criminal history, and... his funerary arrangements? Any information that's due here could easily be conveyed in the relevant sections where it would be, well... actually relevant to that section.


 * , I believe this answers your question(s) as well. As to how it's 'semi-synthesis'... look at it. I think the old adage introduced by children's television programming is relevant here: "one of these things is not like the other; one of these things just doesn't belong". To a casual observer, it does indeed seem as if a lot of unrelated information is shoehorned into this section, because a bulleted list naturally allows for becoming a coatrack. Whether intentional or not, it does seem to suggest a "point". It's not classical synthesis I suppose, and while one could make the perfectly reasonable argument of style, it's conveying very little about the officers that couldn't be introduced in prose. And it's not incorporating information about Wallace that wouldn't logically fit elsewhere within the rest of the article, except his criminal history--- which isn't relevant to relaying the events and details of the shooting (which is what the article is about), or even the protests that occurred as result. Do you see what I mean? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents. Take from it what you will. I now also see that a bit of this has been discussed elsewhere, which I missed. Generally, I'll just say I agree with some of Benmite's points; while I know it was they were the one who adopted the list format, and while I haven't compared selected versions, I'm quite sure the original form was more abbreviated, in line with the other two items. I had this article watchlisted; when I visited the page, it did look odd, and pointy. But eh. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I was just about to address this point. Other users have pointed out that the bullet point form is awkward, and it's fine with me if we remove it. Also, other users have pointed out that we simply don't have a lot of information on the officers--all we is their names and ages. If you can find more information on the cops, feel free to add it. And I agree with you that we shouldn't list Wallace's funeral arrangements in the People Involved section. However, Wallace's criminal record is due so it stays. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing this a year later, I would just like to add that the decision to keep the criminal record is right also from another angle, as the sister mentioned his "rap sheet" and convictions for violence when she called and requested police, this was part of the information the officers had when responding and so is relevant.

People involved
The first section of the article had been a biographical section about Walter Wallace. User:Benmite has changed (and reverted) the section to "people involved", and added the names of the police officers, their ages, and when they joined the force. Other people involved, such as Wallace's mother, have not been included. This editor has also included this information in bullet form. I feel that details about the police would be more appropriate in the last paragraph of the "shooting" section, and that this section should remain a biographical section about Wallace. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I really don't have strong feelings on it one way or the other. Are you just objecting to the stylistic aspects of it? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this section should be about Walter Wallace. Information about his mother, the police, the witness, and everyone else involved can be included in other sections.  Injecting random information about the two police officers into this section is unnecessary, and disrupts the integrity of the section. Look at the previous version (which was reverted) to see what I mean. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It does look slightly cleaner when it was just about him. But, then again, Benmite makes a good point here: . It's pretty common when we group the suspect together with the cops. This article is about The Killing of Walter Wallace, not just about Walter Wallace. Readers may want to know which cops were involved in the shooting. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is that there were multiple people involved both before, during and after the shooting (mother, wife, witness), yet only three people are included in this section. The details about the police can easily be moved to the next section, where it discusses them being moved to desk duty.  Regarding the inclusion of bullets, a consensus of editors have agreed at MOS:LISTBASICS that prose is preferred in articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Outrageous opinions by uninvolved family members
User:Benmite has twice added the following: "Wallace's father stated his belief that the officers 'had it in them to kill him'". Wallace's father was not involved in the shooting; his outrageous personal opinions are irrelevant. "Significant" viewpoints should be included, per WP:UNDUE, and personal opinions should not, per WP:NOTOPINION. This is an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. The input of others is welcomed. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I already explained my reasoning for including this quote in the article in the edit I made, but I will reiterate. This quote is relevant to the article because it describes how the father, an immediate relative of the decedent, viewed the motives of the officers. As someone who is a part of the family who will be involved in legal action against the officers, his beliefs about the situation are pertinent to the "Family response" subsection underneath the "Investigation" section of the article, as they are part of the family's response to the killing. On top of that, the family's lawyer also made a statement which similarly expressed a belief that officers were shooting with the intent to kill, and regardless of whether or not that is true, it makes it clear that this viewpoint is significant as far as the family's response is concerned. It is not included in the article as though it were it factual and it is made clear that it is an opinion through its being stated as such and not posited. It's also not presented with any indication that it's a viewpoint held by any majority of people.
 * Your reasoning for why it should be removed is unclear, as finding it "outrageous" on a personal level is not a valid reason for its removal. Furthermore, the idea that this quote is not "significant" enough also conflicts with other material on the page. We have an equally opinionated quote from the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police President (who is arguably even further removed from the shooting than Wallace Sr.) which merely states that the officers involved were being "vilified for doing their job and keeping the community safe". There are also several quotes from Donald Trump and Joe Biden about the protests despite any direct connection between them and the killing. If the consensus becomes that we should leave out any opinions from anyone who wasn't directly involved in the killing or its investigation, then we should be removing any quotes of this nature as well. However, I think these quotes and beliefs are valuable in providing perspective into the responses from high-ranking officials, including police officials, as well as Wallace's family, but if you don't, then we shall remove them. Benmite (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How do you reconcile your reasoning with this edit:. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the opinion of a high-ranking Philly police officer, retired or not, is not relevant. Arguably, his opinion is more important than the father's, since the officer is more of an expert on the matter. Similarly for this edit:. You claim it "does not not objectively describe footage" yet we still have this statement under Body Camera Footage: "According to District Attorney Krasner, who called the footage "traumatic" and "painful" in a press conference before its release." Is that an objective statement of the footage? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right about the Krasner quote. It can be removed. However, the quote from the retired officer still has no place in the article. The operative word here is "retired". He has no authority on the happenings of the current department nor is he still a part of said department. Whatever expertise he has from having been a police official in Philadelphia does not make him more connected to the killing. His opinion on what happened is akin to the opinions of commentators on a news show insofar as even if they are informed by "expertise", they are still not connected to the subject of the article in a significant enough way so as to warrant any inclusion of any of their quotes in the article. Wallace's father and the lawyer for the family are directly connected to the situation itself and the legal proceedings taking place. Benmite (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also how is this statement 'objective': "Johnson stated that, based on the footage, Wallace was suffering from an "obvious mental health crisis" and he was incapacitated after the first shot."? Objectivity is not a realistic standard. I think it is best if we restore the quote from John McNesby back into the Body Cam section. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That was a shitty explanation for the edit on my part, I'm sorry about that. My main reasoning for not including the quote from McNesby but leaving in the quote from Johnson has less to do with objectivity and more to do with who is saying it. My qualm with including a quote from McNesby is mainly that, despite the fact that he is a high-ranking police officer, as far as I know, he is not involved in the legal proceedings or investigative process surrounding this case, whereas Johnson very much is, so leaving a quote from him making statements about what happened in the footage in the "Investigation" section doesn't make much sense to me. I think a quote from Commissioner Outlaw or DA Krasner would be more valuable, since they are directly involved in the investigation of the case.
 * However, regardless of your thoughts on these edits, I should remind you that none of the edits that you've brought up thus far are what's being argued about here. The main argument is about whether or not statements from Wallace, Sr. and Johnson regarding their beliefs about the officers' motives are worth mentioning in the "Family response" subsection. I think an argument can be made that it would be good to wait for information about the investigation or the wrongful death trial to become public before adding info about what anyone believed the officers' motives for shooting were, but I think that the opposite can be said too, since I doubt the opinions of the lawyer and father about the motives are subject to change in the near future. Benmite (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

McNesby is a lot more than some high-ranking cop (i'm not even sure he is a cop). He's the president of the Faternal Order of the Police in Philly--i.e, the police union that represents the two cops who were involved in the shooting. He may not be a lawyer himself, but his union will represent the two cops in court. His opinion is of equal importance to Johnson's. As for the quote from Wallace Sr., your response below is basically correct. I don't have a solid reason for excluding the quote, other than the fact that I find it absurd and somewhat undue. I think you are correct that it's best to wait for what the family officially alleges in the wrongful death suit. Also, you may have alluded to this already, but once all the investigations are over, that information should take precedent over the opinions of the lawyers (from both sides). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a wild accusation. The taser comment was fine, but this is a bit much. The only way this should be included if we say something like "Wallace's father stated, without evidence, that the  officers 'had it in them to kill him.'" But I would rather not include the comment at all since he was not involved in the shooting, nor is he some sort of expert in criminal matters. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is a "wild accusation", if it is made clear that it is an accusation being made by select individuals involved in the situation and not by Wikipedia itself, then there should be no issue. Again, a quote being deemed "wild" or "outrageous" by individual editors is not a real reason for its removal (see WP:NOTHARMINGANYONE and WP:JDL.) The reason that there is no inclusion of "without evidence" in the quote is because none of the sources suggest a presence or lack of evidence, whereas in the quote from Trump, several articles make it abundantly clear that it was a claim made without proof. If you can find a source which clearly states that Wallace Sr. and Johnson's statements are without merit, you can add it. Also, I would like to know what makes this quote "a bit much" relative to the taser comment or any other comments. Benmite (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)