Talk:Murder of Botham Jean

Pronunciation assistance
Some readers could probably use help with the pronunciation of "Guyger" (which I take to be homophonous with "geiger" as in "counter"), and most would probably benefit from help with "Botham Jean". Local broadcasters here in Seattle, and at least some national ones, are pronouncing "Jean" as "John", but it is not clear to me whether this is how those who knew him said it (I would have given it a bit more French, myself). IPA, classic M-W, and/or an OGG file would be better than the nothing now provided. --Haruo (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Jean sounds like the on CBS. Botham sounds like  in that clip. Guyger sounds like .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of the skin color of Jean and Guyger
At least two editors are trying to remove or minimize - through language like "It has been reported" - the skin color of Jean and Guyger. The racial aspects of the murder have been reported in a wide range of reliable sources including those in the article. Removing or minimizing this aspect of the case is a clear violation of our requirements to write articles from a neutral point of view based on the cited reporting. Please do not remove or minimize this part of the article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we are permitted to include factors cited by good quality sources such as The New York Times. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That is a straw man argument; nobody is disputing it. Mfwitten (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion. You are engaging in an edit war; as there is a dispute about the nature and location of the information in the text, that information has been preserved, but moved elsewhere for elaboration. If you want to add more information or clarifications about this aspect of the case, then please expound upon it in a relevant, dedicated section, rather than trying to promote this aspect in a way that other editors seemingly disagree. Please work with other editors to be mutually constructive. Mfwitten (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with your edit. First saying "It has been reported that..." is trying to minimize this aspect of the case. They *are* black and white. We don't use weasel words like "it has been reported" in Wikipedia articles. Second, removing this information from the lede to a trailing sentence is another way for you to minimize one of the central aspects of the case: the race of the perpetrator and victim. The reporting of the case in reliable sources like the New York Times, puts that front and center, as should this article. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the individuals in question identify as black or white; it has merely been reported that that they are black or white&mdash;so, my edit is much more factual than yours.
 * Secondly, Aranya failed to revert the edit to the pre-edit war version of the article; rather, Aranya reverted it to the very start of the edit war. In contrast, my edit preserved that information in a way that could be expounded more productively, and so I will now revert it to that form, not as a continuation of an edit war, but rather as an attempt to end the edit war that you began and that you are fueling with other editors.
 * If you disagree with the fact that "it has been reported", then I invite you to change the language there, but do not revert the article to the version that other editors find disagreeable. You must work with other editors; your version doesn't get to be the specially chosen one. Mfwitten (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mfwitten—you are saying "It has been reported that Guyger is white and that Jean is black." The whole article "has been reported". Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point is. That's how I'd write the information; if you disagree with that way of writing the information, then feel free to change it, but do not revert to the version in dispute. I suggest creating a section dedicated to the racial aspect of the case if that is an aspect that interests you; nobody is disputing that there may be a racial aspect to the case, but rather there seems to be a dispute about the emphasis of this aspect, when and where it is presented in the article, etc. Mfwitten (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mfwitten—the first sentence of the first paragraph of the NY Times articles says "A former Dallas police officer who shot her unarmed black neighbor in his own apartment was found guilty of murder on Tuesday". The first sentence of the second paragraph of the NY Times article says "The former officer, Amber R. Guyger, who is white, was charged in the death of her 26-year-old neighbor". Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with anything I've said? Mfwitten (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mfwitten—you wrote "there seems to be a dispute about the emphasis of this aspect". Isn't the NY Times showing us "the emphasis of this aspect"? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this Wikipedia article should say "The New York Times has emphasized the racial aspect of this case"? Certainly, you are not suggesting that the New York Times dictates Wikipedia articles. Mfwitten (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources dictate what is written in Wikipedia articles. The Times is one such reliable source, but you could also look at NBC News or Fox News or BBC News or Time, all of whom make it clear in their reporting that race is a central aspect of this case. Whereas, apparently, you do not. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By all means, discuss these facts. Create a section dedicated to a discussion of the racial aspect of this case. Your original version started an edit war, and is therefore not acceptable; find a more agreeable way to present the information you think should be presented.
 * That is to say, try to write it in a way that doesn't trigger some other editor to dispute your edits. It's that simple. Mfwitten (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We can hash out the wording, fine, but to remove it seems silly. Other than "don't edit war", I don't see any strong reason to keep this info out of the article. Given that now 3 editors support, I am WP:BOLDly adding it back.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The information has not been removed from the article; therefore, I'm reverting your erroneous reversion. Mfwitten (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add that Wikipedia is not a democracy; it's emphasis is consensus, especially as determined by the lack of a dispute. Ganging up on people is not a solution; please find a solution such that other editors won't feel required to dispute&mdash;otherwise, this warring will just continue. Mfwitten (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Mfwitten—we follow sources. Our aim is to adhere to the general outline provided to us by sources. We should endeavor to reflect sources. You aren't bringing any sources of your own to support your argument. I just showed you, please read above, the emphasis that the source—the NY Times—is placing on the information pertaining to one person being "black" and the other person being "white". Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note User:Mfwitten has now been blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring. Meanwhile an IP user has removed the mention of color altogether from the article along with the sources. Could someone else restore them? Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure not going to restore the thing that was there. "It has been reported that Guyger is white and that Jean was black." It's not in the least bit important that it has been reported. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I wasn't asking anyone to restore that version. I was proposing this version which was the article before User:Mfwitten and various IPs edited it. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lets work on a consensus for this. I'm not sure the racial aspect needs to be mentioned in the very first sentence. I'd state the simple fact in the first sentence (a police officer killed a person). Then we expand on who the people involved were. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. I thought I was following sources, and I thought I was being succinct, when I wrote in the very first sentence "On September 6, 2018, off-duty Dallas patrol officer Amber Guyger, who is white, entered the Dallas apartment of Botham Jean, who is black and a 26-year-old accountant and native of St. Lucia, and shot and killed him." I think you are being overly-sensitive but that's cool with me—please feel free to rephrase the sentence so as to deemphasize the factor causing all this dissension. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A super rigorous review of news sources (I googled "Botham Jean" and went to the news tab) gives the following from the first two pages (focusing most on national sources): Note that paragraphs in news coverage are usually 1 or two sentences each. If the title of the article mentioned race, I included it in the link.
 * NBC - First ¶ mentions "racist texts" and 4th ¶ says "Guyger is white and Jean was black, and his death stoked protests, led to Guyger's firing and renewed conversations about police use of force and racial bias."
 * Fox4 News - Race of jury and "black lives matter" are mentioned. Race and the context of this case within the police/BLM issues are mentioned.
 * "‘Not racist but …’: White police officer who killed innocent black man in his home sent offensive texts" from WaPo - First ¶ says "When a white ex-Dallas police officer recounted her thinking as she fired the two shots that killed an innocent black man in his own living room last year, she told a jury it was fear, not racism, that drove her to pull the trigger."
 * NY Times - First ¶ says "Amber Guyger killed an unarmed black man, Botham Jean, in his own apartment on a different floor from hers. She faces up to 99 years in prison."
 * CNN - First ¶ says "Former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger insisted on the witness stand that her shooting of an unarmed black man in his apartment was "not about hate" but about her fear that he would attack her."
 * NPR - 4th ¶ says "Prosecutors maintained that Guyger, who is white, committed murder when she overlooked signs that the apartment she entered wasn't her own — the wrong floor, the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment, a bright red doormat — and shot Jean, a 26-year-old black accountant who was sitting in his living room eating ice cream when Guyger killed him last September."
 * CBS - 2nd ¶ says "Guyger, who is white, was returning home from a 13 ½ hour shift and was off duty but still in uniform when she shot Jean, a black St. Lucia native who worked as an accountant. Guyger parked on what she believed to be the third floor of her apartment building's garage, but she had actually parked on the building's fourth floor, where Jean lived directly above her. Jean, 26, was sitting on his couch and eating ice cream when Guyger found the door ajar and opened fire."
 * "A white cop shot an innocent black man in his own home. The ‘castle doctrine’ nearly protected her." from WaPo says in 1st ¶ that "A Texas jury ruled Tuesday that a white police officer who shot and killed an innocent black man in his own home is guilty of murder. The conviction came even after a widely criticized last-minute decision from a judge, which allowed jurors to take into account a controversial law that could have cleared her of wrongdoing."

My take is that the race of the murderer and her victim are clearly relevant and represented as important introductory information by most RS. I think we should do the same in our lead per WP:DUE.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with EvergreenFir. How about we include the above references WITH QUOTES after the white and black statements in the lead so that other editors will see that multiple sources did all mention the race issue.  We could split up the sources you cited above, and put half after the word "white" and the other half after the word "black". --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. That's was the point I was making upthread. All (or virtually all) coverage in reliable sources makes the racial aspect of the case a central paert of their coverage. I believe that means we should too. I like Avatar317 and EvergreenFir's suggestion. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There has been 4 days of WP:SILENCE, so I will WP:BOLDly add this information to the lead.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hidden quotes only visible in tooltips
Like, such as:

My concern is: I'd suggest: ―cobaltcigs 18:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (a) Very few readers will notice these are even here,
 * (b) The quoted text may be too long to be fully visible as a tooltip in some browsers, and
 * (b) the imaginary "page 1" parameter is inappropriate for an html webpage source.
 * (a) putting the quote in the  template's   parameters,
 * (b) actually displaying the quotes in separate  section, or
 * (c) summarizing important phrases from the quote into the main prose before the  tag.


 * Your concerns are valid, and to my understanding, are known "issues" with the standard functionality of the  function.  (Without a page number specified, the quote does not display at all, hence the 1).


 * I chose that format because it allows using different quotes from the same reference to support different statements throughout the article without duplicating the reference in the references section. Your suggestion a) would require duplicating the reference for different supporting quotes, or would display the same quote for every named use of that reference.


 * If you want to duplicate the reference with standard  format, I'm ok with that.  I like your suggestion b).


 * Lastly, I include quotes (especially on contentious content) so that editors can easily see specifically which statements in the reference MOST support the statements in the article, and so readers can have some confidence that the references are being reasonably summarized/paraphrased. It is much easier to see that the statement is supported by mousing over the reference (or the dashed-underlined page number) than clicking on the article and reading to find what quote supports the statement.--- Avatar317 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't recall seeing actual encyclopedic content being delegated to tool tips; could you show me some other examples of us doing that in Wikipedia? It in no way enhances the readability. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear/confused by what you are asking: ?


 * Please see the  template,[] it includes the quote parameter.  And "tool tips" seems to mean anything displayed on mouse-over...that includes the normal reference info displayed on mouseover of a superscript reference, like a news article's title, author, date, etc.  On mouse-over of a   reference with a quote, the quote is included there.  With the   function, the quote displays separately, over the page number; (only when page number is included).--- Avatar317 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging. The citations are working correctly, just appears wrong because of the tooltip thing.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. It's weird. My initial reaction is that I don't like it. It creates clutter in the page. Same thing with the citation after "which was two blocks away". Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I rather agree. I don't care for it either. I'd prefer we just use the  parameter in the cite web.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Apartment above not below
This article says Guyger was at the apartment above her apartment, not below. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/amber-guyger-trial-sentencing/index.html But as an off-topic question, I'm curious to know how she couldn't have noticed that the apartment should have looked different than hers (different furniture) and such, was she not drunk at the time? Guess not. 170.76.231.162 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC).
 * It's not off-topic for this article. It should explain how (even if she genuinely walked into the victim's apartment having believed it to be hers), that she claims that she didn't realise within seconds that it wasn't. Different things in it would have made that obvious - even if the size, decor & layout were identical. Another important point that the article should state is how she entered the victim's apartment. Her door key wouldn't have unlocked his door. Did she force entry, climb through a window, or was the door unlocked? Jim Michael (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see psychological studies addressed in relation to this incident that might cite factors that might facilitate such a mistake or that might help to prevent any such error. I've Googled this but thus far haven't found any sources approaching this incident from that angle. As for her key not opening someone else's door the explanation is that the door was slightly ajar. Thanks for pointing that out, and I've added the "ajar door" explanation to the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Joshua Brown
Deserves its own entry. I'll start it shortly if no one else does, but maybe someone can get it going. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a separate article on Joshua Brown? Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think Joshua Brown's murder belongs here unless it becomes independently notable. If, for example, he was murdered in retaliation for his testimony and a resulting trial occurs, I would support a separate article. But if his death is not "notable" other than that he was murdered shortly after the verdict and he was a witness in the Jean case, then it belongs here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2019
On October 8, Dallas Police announced that they had three suspects arrested in Brown's killing and stated that they were involved in a drug deal that turned deadly.

Please include that the suspects were from Alexandria Louisiana and that Brown was believed to have been dealing drugs to them. Two of the suspects have also not yet been arrested.

On October 8, Dallas Police announced that they identified three suspects arrested in Brown's killing and stated that they were involved in a drug deal that turned deadly. Police said that Brown was attempting to deal drugs to the three suspects, identified as Jacquerious Mitchell, 20, Michael Mitchell, 32, and Thaddeous Green, 22, and that they traveled from Alexandria, Louisiana to make the purchase. Jacquerious Mitchell has been arrested while the other two suspects remain at large. 137.70.164.141 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that they are suspects and not yet arrested, we should not name them. WP:BLPCRIME. Unless there's a warrant, but even then WP:BLPCRIME suggests we omit the names.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per EvergreenFir — IVORK Discuss 07:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Two of the three have been arrested. Not suggesting to name them, but the info does need to be updated. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joshua-brown-murder-arrest-made-death-witness-amber-guyger-trial-n1063836
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

lawyer
I've always been curious who paid Amber's legal fees. She grew up in poverty so it wasn't her family. She didn't pay over a million on a former cop salary. She was lawyered, had someone do a makeover, was coached how to speak etc. Where'd all the money for that come from? 72.110.18.135 (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 72.110.18.135, The Dallas Police Association funded Guyger’s defense — Jacona (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)