Talk:Killing of Amir Locke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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) 17:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into Minnesota police/state government licensing for images and was unable to find anything definitive on the subject. Seems like this would be Fair use, but I am not sure what license it would fall under, or what Wikipedia's policies are here. DirkDouse (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Helpdesk thread here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Use_of_screenshots_from_Minnesota_police_bodycamera_footage — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkDouse (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information from the Associated Press[edit]

Hi Magnolia677, the Associated Press is a reliable source, so I would appreciate further clarification on your removal of this information [1]. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: "Communities United Against Police Brutality" is not a reliable source. It's just more AP bias. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677, that citation about the AP is to the WP:NYPOST, which is considered generally unreliable per Wikipedia consensus. WP:RSP also states, The Associated Press is a news agency. There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable. Do you have any other basis to not use the Associated Press reporting? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that edit was in reference to the AP getting this information from Communities United Against Police Brutality (https://www.cuapb.org/), they seem to be a political advocacy group. I'm not seeing that open complaint in the info released from the police department (https://www.minneapolismn.gov/resident-services/public-safety/police-public-safety/police-reports-and-data-requests/frequently-requested/critical-incidents/feb-2-2022-officer-involved-shooting/) -- employee complaint summary PDF just lists the three closed complaints (https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/documents/MPD-Employee-Complaint-Summary---Hanneman,-Mark.pdf). A number of news outlets reported that CUAPB reported this, but if that's the original source it seems partisan. I tried to find the original page on CUAPB here https://www.cuapb.org/search?q=Mark+Hanneman, but the page seems to just load forever, or at least after waiting a few minutes still no results. DirkDouse (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here's the original page: http://complaints.cuapb.org/police_archive/officer/10665/ Complaint #18-05200 -- maybe someone can dig up more info on this somewhere, but that would be kind of WP:OR. DirkDouse (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, DirkDouse, and I agree on avoiding original research - I think it would be fine to just include the information reported by the AP. Beccaynr (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the AP is reporting information contained in an unreliable source. If you can confirm this at an official source, then sure, but just because AP sucks from a dirty barrel does not make it needs to be reported on Wikipedia. Let's at least try to keep this project at a level higher than AP. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677, I am concerned about your characterization of the AP when there is consensus that it is considered a reliable source. It is also unclear as to why the fact of a complaint being made to a community organization is rendered unreliable due to the organization it was made to. All the AP is reporting is that the complaint was filed in 2018, it is open, and that it appears on the website. In the context of the WP:RSP explanatory supplement that does not support the reliability of the New York Post but does support the Associated Press, I think the information can be included. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up -- tried to find the complaint here https://www.minneapolismn.gov/resident-services/public-safety/complaints-and-compliments/police-officer-complaint-process/officer-complaint-history-search/, but only showing the other three. Maybe the complaint was retracted by the complainant? Or it otherwise never proceeded to the point that the record still exists? Seems like CUAPB may have out of date info. Even if referenced by AP, the original source is CUAPB. Seems weird that a complaint would still be open after four years and more likely that something just out of date w/CUAPB records. I would lean toward leaving in the three that are verifiable and omit the supposedly open one, unless a better source can be found. DirkDouse (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After further thought, I think despite the multiple news outlets reporting on this allegation, per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, we should treat this information with special care and err on the side of leaving it out of the article for now. Beccaynr (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More information from the Associated Press[edit]

Hi Magnolia677, I attempted to add the following to the Reactions section: According to Rob Doar, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, "Mr. Locke did what many of us might do in the same confusing circumstances, he reached for a legal means of self-defense while he sought to understand what was happening." but you removed it [2] with the edit summary "Non-notable person; non-notable group. Not every opinion should be added, including those of other gun groups who criticized Doar for saying this." From my view, this article is in the process of being developed, and if there is further reaction and commentary, this could be added to the article from reliable sources. Also, per WP:NOTEWORTHY, The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles, and the information is not from a primary source, but instead 'worthy of notice' per the AP. I am hoping we can continue to discuss how to develop the article, per Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: Many people will voice opinions about this event, but not all those opinions deserve a place on Wikipedia. Regarding this incident, Rob Doar of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus said: "Mr. Locke did what many of us might do in the same confusing circumstances, he reached for a legal means of self-defense while he sought to understand what was happening". This is an opinion, which in the absence of an autopsy report or final investigation, only shows Mr. Doar's lack of understanding of Minnesota's gun laws. This is a State-approved syllabus for the mandatory course required for a handgun permit in Minnesota. Look at page 24, "Deadly Force and its Aftermath", and you will quickly conclude that sleeping with a loaded handgun and reaching for it 9 seconds after police yell "search warrant" probably isn't "what many of us might do in the same confusing circumstances". Moreover, Mr. Doar is not a sleep expert. I'm ok with elected officials, forensic experts, representatives of the police union, and family of the victim having a say, but all the agenda-driven folk with an opinion to share are not appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677, I respect your opinion, but for Wikipedia purposes, I think it is important to avoid WP:OR and instead work with the secondary sources that are providing context to help expand this article. In your edit summary, you mentioned criticism from other groups, so my suggestion stands as to finding reliable sources to help expand the article, such as the reporting by the Associated Press, instead of removing content based on WP:OR. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677, as a quick additional note, the section is for reactions of 'Community and family', not 'Experts', and the quote I attempted to add is from a community group. Information from other community groups could also be added, and I think it can be helpful to include community reactions as reported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content, so please explain if there is a policy-based reason to exclude the reliably-sourced information. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus is also quoted by the Star Tribune here, and Doar is quoted by the Star Tribune here, which seems to help support the notability of this community group. Beccaynr (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr: WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, and it specifically cautions against presenting opinions as facts, and airing every minority opinion. This is an unnecessary and unencyclopedic addition of an agenda-driven opinion not based in facts, made by an organization with no direct involvement in this event. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:WIKIVOICE section cautions against stating opinions as facts, and states, Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. In the Talk section about the Associated Press above this one, you expressed concerns about the Associated Press based on a WP:NYPOST article and in opposition to Wikipedia consensus related to reliable sources, and I found a non-AP source here to help support the 'significance' of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. I think the significance appears supported per policy and including it with attribution makes it clear it is an opinion. I had tried to add one attributed opinion that appeared to fit well in the prose of the article. If you think it would be helpful to request a Third Opinion, please let me know. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, please also note the Tennessee Star also cites the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus chair [3] in an article about responses to the killing of Locke. Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "fact" is not so much that this representative from this pertinent organisation made a pertinent timely statement so much as that many respectable news organisations chose to select it and report it. Magnolia667 may have lots of beliefs and feelings but they do not count on WP. Leave it in the article.— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tumadoireacht put it very well and I agree that it should be included in our article. Sectionworker (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also reported in the BBC: Amir Locke: US gun group defends armed man killed by police. Beccaynr (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC) And ABC News: Amir Locke's death highlights perils for Black gun owners: Advocates. I think a "Community groups" subsection could be added to the Reaction section, and include reactions from the NAACP, the Minnesota ACLU [4] [5], and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC) The local police union, the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis, is also receiving coverage, e.g. What to know about no-knock warrants, following Amir Locke's fatal shooting (ABC News). Beccaynr (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible images w/relevant licenses[edit]

Dropping a link here to some possible images that could be used in this article:

DirkDouse (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Residence of Esther Agbaje[edit]

Hi Magnolia677, you have twice deleted what appears to be pertinent, reliably-sourced information from a Star Tribune article that features Esther Agbaje because she resides in the apartment building where Locke was shot [6]. The information twice deleted is: "was at home when Locke was shot in her apartment building, and told the Star Tribune" before her quote, and for the second deletion, your edit summary states, "it doesn't matter where she was...she could have been out golfing or watching Netflix...all that is encyclopedic is what she said" [7]. According to the Star Tribune article, it does matter, which is why it is a featured part of their article and why it was included in the Wikipedia article. Part of my editorial judgment to include her quote is because it is featured in its own article, because she resides in the same building. I hope you can review the article and this explanation and then undo your deletion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: I have self-reverted. My apology. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Magnolia677, I very much appreciate your review and consideration of my comment. Beccaynr (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP[edit]

Hi Magnolia677, I have erred on the side of reverting your repeated attempts to add what appear to be violations of WP:BLP policy to this article [8], and I think this should be discussed here before it continues to be added. Please review WP:BLPREMOVE, the poor sourcing for the allegation that the individual is included in the warrant, as well as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and its emphasis on high-quality secondary sources, as well as WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: What part of BLP prohibits naming a convicted felon, whose name appears in multiple reliable sources? Also, would you agree that once a person has been convicted of a crime, their crimes are no longer referred to as "allegations"? Also, this source says "The man in question was listed on the search warrant". Why did you remove it? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:BLPNAME, it states, Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. The name of this private individual has not been widely disseminated, and it appears that reliable sources are reporting the warrant remains sealed, so if the individual is named in the warrant, it is currently intentionally concealed. The Fox9 article reported on "police say" allegations, and the MSN reprint was vague about how these allegations translate into convictions, so it does not appear to be appropriate, including per WP:SYNTH, to connect the allegations made in one poorly-sourced source, to another poorly-sourced article, to make a statement neither source clearly states. We appear to be left only with a list of convictions for someone who resides in the apartment, and no significant loss of context from exercising the recommended caution in excluding the name of the individual. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I can see why his name might be excluded, since despite his extensive criminal record, it's unclear if he's actually related to the homicide investigation or just there incidentally. But, on the other hand, I am seeing his name in a number of sources (a few linked below), and he may be a central part of this story. Seems like this will become more clear over time. DirkDouse (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be relevant to note WP:BLPBALANCE, e.g. The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies, because this seems to support leaving the name out, especially for now. Beccaynr (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the MSN article listed above is a reprint of the local CBS article listed above, and The Hill article only briefly includes the name of the individual as 'named in the incident report', not the search warrant. Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, whom I know as a very careful editor, asked me to weigh in here. I heard an extensive report on the radio this morning which touched on these matters as well. Given the current situation, especially the sealed warrant, I favor excluding the name. It may be that the name becomes more widely reported and the person more drawn into the inquiry, at which time it may be more acceptable to include that name, but for now, I think it should be left out. Things may be different tomorrow. As for "convicted felon", I support Ban the Box. Magnolia, that may not be what you wanted to hear, but I do appreciate you asking me. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The warrant has been released.... your thoughts on it now? 100.38.247.202 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and (17-year-old cousin)[edit]

See:

Different person from the 22 year old discussed in the other thread, although they are related. Not sure what is best here in regards to BLP. The suspect is a minor, but is also directly related to the case. I haven't included the name in my last edit to the article; seems like we should come to a consensus here first. DirkDouse (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be cautious, I edited the section heading to remove the name, because WP:BLP applies here as well. Beccaynr (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Applicable policies appear to include:
  • WP:BLPCRIME, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
  • WP:BLPNAME, Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
From my view, per WP:BLPNAME, there is no significant value to the article topic from inclusion of their name, and there is no significant loss of context from exclusion, so the name should not be added. Per WP:BLPCRIME, the individual is not a public figure as discussed in the policy, they are presumed innocent, so we also need to seriously consider whether to include this information at all. The arrest is not directly related to the killing of Amir Locke, and inclusion appears to raise serious BLP issues. I think it should all be removed pending discussion about whether to include it at all. Beccaynr (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Per WP:ONUS, because this is a WP:BLP issue, I have removed the subsequent police activity section for now, pending discussion and consensus about its inclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the warrant for his arrest was the reason why the shooting occurred in the first place, the section referencing the subsequent arrest of Locke's cousin is definitely relevant enough to be included. The only question as far as I am concerned is whether the name should be there. Seems highly likely that the cousin's name will end up receiving substantial media coverage, but that is kind of speculative at this time, so I could go either way on mentioning the name. Also tagging a few people who may be interested in commenting here: Magnolia677, Drmies DirkDouse (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that a no-knock search warrant was executed, not an arrest warrant, and regardless, the article topic is about the killing of Amir Locke. Further investigations into his homicide will be directly related to the article topic, and if there are arrests for his homicide, these will also be directly related. The BLP issue connected to an arrest not related to anyone charged with killing Amir Locke gives me serious pause about how far this article should develop past its central topic, and I think BLP policy cautions us against it. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD, I have made reversions that reflect this pending discussion and the BLP concerns, as well as other concerns noted in the edit summaries. I also added for higher-quality sources than the ones that were added. I think discussion would be helpful per WP:ONUS about the scope of this article, particularly in the context of WP:BLP policy and WP:NOTNEWS. My hope is for us to carefully consider how to add content from the best sources and in a conservative manner, so we exercise caution about BLP issues and avoid quickly adding breaking news. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Magnolia677, just in case you missed this pending discussion before your latest additions and recent reversion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Names included in introduction paragraph[edit]

Is there a reason as to why the individual officer is not named as part of the introduction paragraph, and only their police affiliation? I don’t know what standards may exist for article of this nature, but it comes off as a form of shielding the officer from being transparently implicated in the events. As they are a key member of the story it would seem pertinent to make their contributions clear in the initial outline of the events. I made a recent edit to change this, and brought that information up from the lower body paragraph, but it has been reverted. Can I get some guidance here? Cpieper23 (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging Magnolia677, because I know they disputed the addition previously per MOS:LEAD, and may have a perspective to share. This guideline includes, As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. From my view, there is currently not a lot about Hanneman in the article body or the majority of sources I have reviewed. It is possible that as investigations develop, and more information is added to the article, Hanneman will become more prominent, and more significant to include in the lead. Also, when most of the information about Hanneman that was in the article was removed, which may not have been your intent but is what happened in your edit, this undermines the case for inclusion in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't necessary to mention Hanneman's name in the lead. This was a police shooting. Specific details have been added to the article. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not vehicle for "transparency". Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More removal of sourced content[edit]

User:Beccaynr continues to edit war over additions to this article. In this case, text which provides readers with background and context to the shooting. It was Amir's mother who was first to say her son was at a "sleepover". Indeed he was, and new information has been published about what led to a SWAT team to appear un-invited at that sleepover. This is an encyclopedia. Providing readers with details about the shooting is not a BLP violation. No names were mentioned. The input of others would be appreciated. Text removed:

Proposed text

"Background"

Locke was shot while police were executing a search warrant in relation to a murder that occurred in nearby Saint Paul, Minnesota, in January 2022.[1] Surveillance video showed two men at the scene of the murder, one of them a 17-year-old who allegedly shot the man.[1] The 17-year-old was on probation for shooting a man in 2020, and was Locke's cousin.[1][2] The stolen vehicle they were driving was traced back to the Bolero Flats apartment building, where three males—two believed to be at the shooting—were observed getting out.[1]

The Saint Paul Police Department applied for a warrant to search three apartments in the building,[1] and the Minneapolis police department asked that they be no-knock warrants:[3]

  • Apartment 1402, where the 17-year-old lived with his mother.[1]
  • Apartment 1403, where another person identified in the surveillance video was believed to be living.[1]
  • Apartment 701, the unit where Locke was shot.[1] The 17-year-old had a key to this unit, and his 22-year-old brother—Amir Locke's cousin—lived there.[1][4][5] The 22-year-old living in this unit had threatened and attempted to assault officers during a 2018 arrest,[6][7] and had ten prior convictions including sales of cocaine and marijuana, assault, and obstruction of the legal process.[7][8] There had also been "a list of calls to that apartment" since July 2022 to investigate threats, disturbance, narcotic activity, and domestic abuse.[7]

Police had "probable cause pick up and holds" to arrest the 17-year-old for murder, and two others for aiding an offender afterward.[1]. Amir Locke was not named in the search warrant.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Forliti, Amy (February 9, 2022). "Youth arrested in homicide tied to fatal police shooting". Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette.
  2. ^ a b "Amir Locke's cousin arrested in probe that led to fatal raid". FOX 40. February 9, 2022.
  3. ^ Sawyer, Liz; Jany, Libor; Walsh, Paul (February 5, 2022). "Minneapolis police insisted on 'no knock' warrant that led to Amir Locke's shooting death; city announces moratorium". Star Tribune. Retrieved 8 February 2022.
  4. ^ Dress, Bradley (4 February 2022). "Video shows police fatally shooting Black man while serving no-knock warrant". TheHill. Retrieved 8 February 2022.
  5. ^ Basu, Malini (2022-02-06). "Amir Locke, 22-year-old killed by Minneapolis police during no-knock warrant, was set to move to Dallas". WFAA-TV. Retrieved 2022-02-06.
  6. ^ "Amir Locke shooting: Records show another man living in apartment previously threatened officers". Fox 9. February 9, 2022.
  7. ^ a b c "Amir Locke Killing: Police Still Searching For Homicide Suspect In Case That Led To Fatal Raid". MSN. February 7, 2022.
  8. ^ Feland, Haley (February 5, 2022). "Minnesota Democratic Politicians Respond to Death of Amir Locke". The Tennessee Star.

Magnolia677 (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677, as I stated above: Per WP:BRD, I have made reversions that reflect this pending discussion and the BLP concerns, as well as other concerns noted in the edit summaries. I also added for higher-quality sources than the ones that were added. I think discussion would be helpful per WP:ONUS about the scope of this article, particularly in the context of WP:BLP policy and WP:NOTNEWS. My hope is for us to carefully consider how to add content from the best sources and in a conservative manner, so we exercise caution about BLP issues and avoid quickly adding breaking news. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I have also added a comment collapse template for easier reading of this discussion, and request that you refactor your comment about me. Beccaynr (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You made 10 edits in a row, and in the process destroyed the edit above. The discussion about BLP violations involved using names, and none were mentioned. You don't own this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to edit incrementally and carefully. Some of the content added again had already been discussed on this Talk page here. From my view, WP:BLP policy is concerned with much more than names, and we need to be careful with allegations, poor sourcing, WP:SYNTH, and how we handle breaking news. One of the major concerns I am trying to raise in the discussion above is the scope of this article, essentially a WP:COATRACK issue, but in this context, there are other policy issues that appear implicated by adding content not directly related to the article topic of the killing of Amir Locke. Beccaynr (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the comments by Jerome Treadwell, executive director of MN Teen Activists, are pertinent? This appears to be cherrypicking. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comment is a summary I found about the nature of a recent protest directly related to the killing of Amir Locke, from a protest organizer, so it appears pertinent and WP:DUE per the reliable sources. If there are concerns about the Protests and activism section of the article, I suggest opening a separate Talk section about it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside any person-naming discussions here, which others seem to be covering, I am concerned as to why the three individual apartment numbers need to be listed in the proposed text above. It's excessive detail and intrusive - possibly a BLP issue in itself. The article (in its current station (16:11 UTC 10th February) states "the Saint Paul Police Department applied for a warrant to search three apartments in the building". Surely that is sufficient detail? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that past two days, since the arrest of Locks's cousin, police are providing a context to the reason they entered the apartment, and sent in a SWAT team on a no-knock warrant. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the BLP issues appears to be that this context includes various allegations, which is problematic per WP:BLPCRIME, which includes, For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. This context, i.e. the details of why the warrant was obtained, and various details that appear to imply conclusions that do not appear to be stated by any source, also does not appear to be directly related to the article topic of the killing of Amir Locke. There are multiple pending investigations about the killing of Amir Locke, and more information will become available that is directly related, i.e. whether the police officer met the threshold necessary to use deadly force. It does not appear that any source is currently describing the recent information as relevant to this issue, so it appears outside the scope of the article topic, and therefore it seems as if the most conservative and BLP-compliant approach is to proceed cautiously about adding breaking news and tangential information and allegations about other people. Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr seems to have looked at using WP instructions on how to handle the situation at hand and IMO is offering some good advise for us, at least for me, on how to handle our efforts to present a good, unbiased article at this time. We are advised to not attempt to be a "breaking news!!!" source. People come here for solid background sort of knowledge. Sectionworker (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "he had no criminal record in Jurisdiction X[edit]

This smacks of midirection and cherrypicking. Antagonistic readers may hear "but he did have criminal records elsewhere", supportive readers may hear "so the police were unjustified...". I suggest the sentence (referenced though it is) be removed or replaced with "had no criminal record at the time". Fish or cut bait.

Riventree (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence. It also does not appear to be pertinent to the article topic, and does not appear to be verified - every report I have found is based on statements by his family, and per WP:FAILV, Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, that statement was not from his family, but you are right that a lot of other things were from family. But I don't remember where it was from. DirkDouse (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(17-year-old cousin)[edit]

Should be added as a person involved. Jacob805 (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His name has been released by the DA and it is had been reported in dozens of nedia outlets including his past conviction for shooting someone. Jacob805 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[9] Jacob805 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob805, this is currently discussed in open discussions on this Talk page: BLP and (17-year-old cousin) and More removal of sourced content. Per WP:ONUS, please do not continue to add the name (Redacted) to this article unless there is consensus about the scope of this article and the BLP issues discussed above. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about now. since Amir Locke cousin who lived at the apartment admitted in open court that he shot and killed the man during a drug robbery? https://apnews.com/article/amir-locke-police-shootings-minnesota-minneapolis-fd39d6869ba127c66dd6a6776eaf3467 ~~

− — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be tagged bias[edit]

There is no back ground from the police point of view, the cousin that listed this place as a residence has bearing on why the police were there. The drugs, illegal gun and evidence found at the apartment have been omitted... the warrant affidavit has been released to the public and is available. It would seem that persons are using this wiki page for their agenda to mislead the public... of course, this is my opinion based upon what I have seen being removed. Jacob805 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Officials subsection of the Reaction section, there are statements by the police chief, and I have proposed on this Talk page adding the perspective of the local police union in a Community groups subsection. The discussions above about the scope of this article and WP:BLP policy related to allegations may address some of your concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background section[edit]

Hello Beccaynr! I recommend creating a Background section to separate further the St. Paul homicide investigation context from the actual police shooting on Feb. 2. The first paragraph under "Killing of Amir Lock" could go into a background section. Also, the subheader, "Killing of Amir Locke" redundantly refers back to the subject of the article (see MOS:HEADINGS) and could be simplified. I might suggest a article structure as:

Background
St. Paul homicide investigation
People involved
Incident
Investigation (for autopsy report, BCA investigation, charging decision, etc.)
Reaction
Protests

What are your thoughts? Thank you for keeping the article up to date and within the Wikipedia project's scope. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minnemeeples, thank you for fixing the header issue - I made the change when there was a more active discussion about the scope of the article and had not considered the MOS. I also just made a few minor edits (added an investigation, formatting, wikilink, and changed the Investigation section title to "Investigations", although I do not have strong feelings about a plural title), but I think the organization you added to the article works well (including by keeping a focus on the search warrant instead of the larger homicide investigation), and the structure will help with an orderly expansion of the article as the investigations develop. I expect the state/county attorney investigations will generate news in the future, so I think it is a great idea to anticipate this. Beccaynr (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is lacking the background, it only has one view point and therefore lacks npov. Any other thoughts on this matter. This page is incomplete and biased in my view Jacob805 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Locke cousin[edit]

Are we going to have this false narrative by excluding the background of what they found in the apartment..(Redacted). It seems this page should be tagged bias. Numerous news outlets have published the cousin's name, prior convictions including shooting a person with an illegal gun, and his arrest for the murder in direct connection to the search warrant. What has Wikipedia become, when you can't post facts 🤔 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob805, I have redacted a portion of your comment that appears unsupported by reliable sources, e.g. CBS4. Please also note that this article Talk page is not a general discussion forum about Wikipedia, and your repeated questions about the article are already addressed in other sections of this Talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Npov problem[edit]

Would the administrator of this page please address the problem of npov ... I have brought your attention through the talk page the problems I see with this article. There is no npov. When we have numerous facts on the background of this article that you continue to leave out or remove You site living person rules. But no less the 3 govt agencies and countless reputable news outlets have published the story. If you don't wish to resolve this. Let's take it to a board discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight[edit]

I have contacted oversight in regards NPOV . Jacob805 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the incident paragraph[edit]

I propose to add to the incident paragraph, to include the conclusion of the warrant, list items found and the reacted arrests. Of course no names would be included. Any objection please use the talk page jacob805 Jacob805 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above in discussions on this Talk page, there are several policy issues with this proposed addition:
1. None of that information appears to be noted as directly relevant to the killing of Amir Locke by reliable secondary sources, so it appears to be impermissible WP:SYNTH to imply conclusions not otherwise stated in the sources. The decision of the police officer to use deadly force is directly relevant, because there are multiple pending investigations that focus on this issue, clearly reported as directly related. Including information unknown at the time of the decision appears to imply it is relevant to that issue, but we do not appear to have independent and reliable secondary sources to support this connection.
2. Inclusion also seems to create a WP:COATRACK, i.e. an article that fails to give a truthful impression of the subject because the tangential information would be presented as if it is directly related to the killing of Amir Locke. This seems to be a WP:NPOV issue, because we need to avoid misinforming or misleading readers. It seems misleading to imply information unknown to the police officer at the time of the shooting is relevant. Based on the sources I have reviewed, it does not appear accurate to imply items found or unrelated arrests after the shooting are relevant or related to the decision of the police officer to use deadly force.
3. Per WP:BLPCRIME, A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. From my view, the lack of direct relevance to the article subject and related WP:SYNTH/WP:NPOV issues weigh in favor of not including information about arrests of people who were not directly involved in the killing of Amir Locke.
4. It may also be generally helpful to consider how Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, because without explanations referenced to independent sources, we appear to lack the context necessary to create encyclopedic content with this news for this article subject.
Beccaynr (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your in background in Activism is appreciated, but Wikipedia is to be factually based and not used to used for a personal platform or agenda. This page has excluded facts that are directly related to why the police where there. I suggest that page be created based upon facts not just the ones you chose to allow. The reason listed in the police request for the no knock warrant specifically notes:
A 10-page application for a no-knock warrant for the apartment Locke was sleeping in said officers believed this was the safest option and that their "investigative activities" supported a no-knock entry. That's because police had reviewed the suspects' criminal histories and "reports relating to crimes" they were allegedly involved with and saw social media videos "where the suspects (were) posting videos and pictures while holding various firearms," Zebro wrote.
Zebro also wrote that rounds from a .223-caliber firearm -- what was used in the St. Paul homicide -- can penetrate police body armor, arguing it would be safest for officers not to alert suspects inside when entering.
That application asked for an unannounced entry between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. and a nighttime search outside those hours, saying that was necessary to "prevent the loss, destruction, removal of the objects of said search, or to protect the safety of the searchers or the public."
Police believed they would find evidence tied to blood staining, firearm use, electronic devices, clothing and more and that some of the property police would find was used as a means to commit a crime or "tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime," the application says.
Both no-knock and standard search warrants were requested and approved, not just for the apartment in which Locke was shot, but two other apartments in the building authorities believed were related to the St. Paul homicide.
No where on the killing of Amir Locke does it state why the no knock was issued and what policed feared going in. That is bias plain and simple. 100.38.247.202 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not "bias", that's WP:DUE. Reliable sources (which you've not provided) need to cover that information and say that it's germane to the killing. Otherwise we don't consider including it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page needs to be updated[edit]

The page needs to be updated abd should include the murder chatges of the cousin that libed at that address. 100.38.247.202 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion a while ago about this. I added something about this a while ago, but there was some discussion over whether it was relevant to the scope of the article and changes were reverted pending discussion. I agree that it should be mentioned what the warrant was for/why they were there. Most people reading this article would want to know this information. DirkDouse (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states, Locke was shot while police were executing a search warrant in relation to a homicide that occurred in nearby Saint Paul, Minnesota, in January 2022. As per my comment in the section immediately below, I am concerned about the use of unrelated information, and as noted in discussions above, we also have WP:BLP considerations related to allegations in the form of arrests, as well as a need to consider what is WP:DUE (as discussed in the section immediately above), based on how this information is discussed in the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinon. Page has multilple hints of an agenda.[edit]

The page is written from one point of view and parties involve have had an agenda in keepimg it that way. I dont agree the wikipedia should be used for social juctice or for any other political agenda. It should be based upon facts. 100.38.247.202 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the No original research policy, we are warned it is easy to misuse primary sources, and to be cautious about basing large passages of an article on primary sources. As noted in the WP:OR policy, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. According to the Neutral point of view policy, in the WP:IMPARTIAL section, Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. From my view, based on sources that discuss the focus of the investigations into the killing of Amir Locke, an inappropriate tone could be introduced to this article if primary sources are presented in a way that essentially prosecutes the police officer based on the warrants that preceded the entry, or the few items found afterwards, or later arrests, even though we do not appear to have secondary sources directly connecting these events as relevant to the culpability of the officer. If independent and reliable secondary sources identify the warrants, items found, or later arrests as relevant to the decision of the police officer to use deadly force, then we can rely on such sources to make analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Until then, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and subject to WP:BLP policy, so we wait. Beccaynr (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article[edit]

This article fails to say that the police were at the wrong address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.90.123.115 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I have reviewed say the police had a warrant to enter the apartment, and there is no source that says the police made a mistake about which residence they were authorized by the warrant to enter. The police had obtained three warrants, e.g. [10] Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Beccaynr -- sources I have seen indicate that it was his cousin's house, and that the warrant was for/included for his cousin/his cousin's address. DirkDouse (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki page used to further anti police narative.[edit]

Serious discussion needs to happen how this pages was used to further a false narative by anit police activists. The page contains more information about protests and who's who's in the narative then what actually took place. How shameful to allow people to control the narative on Wikipedia for so called social justice, circumventing the truth because it doesn't support there verison of events. Jacob805 (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob805, from my view, discussion has been ongoing on this Talk page about these issues, including at:
The article includes a description of how and why no charges were filed against the police officer, as well as a statement from the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis. It continues to appear that we do not have secondary sources to identify what additional information, if any, would be WP:IMPARTIAL to include. Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

A new page will be created about murder that Amir Lockes cousin has been convicted of. It will outline why the police were given a no knock warrent. I would lile to add a link on the killing of Amir Locke so that readers can combine the scope of this incident. Any suggestion on where or how we can link the two articles? Jacob805 2600:4040:9963:3100:6CB3:E153:37FB:988F (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be relevant for an Aftermath section. We don't simply just add links. What reliable source(s) are you referring to where BOTH the killing of Locke and this particular case outcome are discussed in the same article? Minnemeeples (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the "no-knock" information to the "no-knock" section and removed what appears to be unrelated information, including because source added in the Aftermath section indicates Locke was not involved. This article is about the Killing of Amir Locke, so we should consider what is WP:DUE weight in this article, such as the WP:PROPORTION of reliable sources connecting the events, including to avoid the creation of a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minnemeeples, I think it would be better to discuss instead of reverting, especially because I tried to move relevant information to the relevant existing section instead of deleting it entirely. There does not appear to be a reliable connection between the conviction of his cousin and the Killing of Amir Locke, which happened much earlier than the conviction. The lack of sources finding the conviction relevant to the Killing of Amir Locke seems to create a WP:NPOV problem for this article, and potential WP:SYNTH, because the article now implies a connection even though no reliable source has stated that the later conviction is at all relevant to the circumstances that led to the killing of Locke. Beccaynr (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to again read the Associated Press article on July 25,2022, that you removed from the article as it explains the Otis Elder homicide case in the context that it led to the series of events when Locke was shot. The article states, "The teenage cousin of Amir Locke was sentenced to more than 16 years on Monday for his role in a January murder that prompted police to execute a no-knock warrant on the Minneapolis apartment where Locke was killed by a SWAT team officer.... As St. Paul police were investigating Elder’s murder, they identified Speed as a suspect and obtained search warrants for Minneapolis apartments associated with him. Locke, Speed’s cousin, was not a target of the investigation and was not named in the warrants, but he was in one of the apartments as a Minneapolis SWAT team entered the unit without knocking on Feb. 2."
The killing of Amir Locke AND the outcome of the Elder homicide case is also discussed in a variety of other reputable national and local sources, too. See articles in US News & World Report, CBS News, KARE-11, Star Tribune, etc.
Nearly all substantial media coverage of the killing of Amir Locke ends with news articles on or about July 25, 2022 by discussing Mekhi Speed's criminal sentence. The Wikipedia article should follow the context of reliable sources and include it, too. Trying to omitting it violates NPOV, not the other way around. Also, it can't be SYNTH if highly reliable sources such as the AP are the ones making the connection. The article should follow how sources have covered it and not just end with sources as of April 2022. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that we should include WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:COATRACK information in this article, i.e. that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. This article is about the killing of Locke, so including information specifically identified by all sources as unrelated to his killing, particularly something that appears to be non-notable per the WP:EVENT guideline (i.e. per WP:NOTNEWS), does not appear appropriate for this article. That there was a later conviction has not been documented by reliable sources as germane to the no-knock warrant, or the killing of Locke, or the WP:LASTING effects from the killing of Locke. We are including sources that continue to report on the actual aftermath of Locke's killing, which includes political activity related to no-knock warrants. The conviction of his cousin does not appear to be reported as directly connected to the subject of this article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The killing of Breonna Taylor article discusses the fate of Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker, the persons who were the subjects of the botched investigation/search that resulted in Taylor being fatally shot. The article notes Glover was offered a plea deal for certain charges and rejected it. It also mentions that Walker was later fatally killed by an unknown shooter.
It's not a coatrack to include the outcome of the case that led to Locke's killing if numerous, reliable sources covering topic have discussed that exact context. Wikipedia follows how it is covered in reliable sources. As it stands now, the article provides an incomplete perspective of how the event was covered by reliable sources. Including it does not in any way justify the shooting, but excluding gives the appearance Wikipedia editors are picking how they want the article to cover the event, instead of following the sources.
Here's an excerpt from the Associated Press article by Steve Karnowski, "No charges filed in no-knock warrant killing of Amir Locke", on April 6, 2022:
In their applications for search warrants of the Minneapolis apartment and other locations, authorities said a no-knock warrant was necessary to protect the public and officers as they looked for guns, drugs and clothing worn by people suspected in a violent killing. Authorities asked that officers be allowed to conduct the search without knocking, and outside the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., because the suspects being sought in the Jan. 10 killing of Otis Elder had a history of violence.
Although Locke was not named in the warrant, his then-17-year-old cousin, Mekhi Camden Speed, was named and has been charged with two counts of second-degree murder in Elder’s killing.
Here's an excerpt from Mara Gottfried's article, "Amir Locke’s cousin pleads guilty in St. Paul homicide that resulted in search warrants" in the Pioneer Press on May 13, 2022.
An 18-year-old pleaded guilty Friday in the homicide of a 38-year-old man on a St. Paul street, in a case that led to police carrying out search warrants in Minneapolis and an officer fatally shooting Amir Locke....
During the investigation, St. Paul police identified Speed as a suspect. He lived in an apartment building in downtown Minneapolis, where police served search warrants on Feb. 2.
Amir Locke, 22, was not named in the search warrants and was staying on a couch in Speed’s brother’s girlfriend’s apartment when police carried out a no-knock warrant and a Minneapolis officer shot him. Speed lived in a different unit with his mother, but had access to the other apartment, according to the criminal complaint.
It seems reasonable that this article give at least a 1-2 sentence explanation about the outcome of the investigation that resulted in Locke's death. Minnemeeples (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Killing of Breonna Taylor article is both different and similar. The subsection of what appears to be poorly-sourced and contradictory "Jamarcus Glover's statements" from after the killing is a similar POV problem that the COATRACK essay warns against. It does not appear appropriate to include that information as "Background", because it appears misleading to suggest that poorly-sourced and contradictory information obtained later is relevant to what was known at the time of the killing. From my view, it should be removed from the article after BLP policy is considered, because the policy against including poorly-sourced contentious information likely still applies to Taylor.
As to Walker, he was present at the time of Taylor's killing and faced charges for shooting at police entering the apartment, so this appears to be directly related to the event and relevant to the encyclopedia article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normandale Park shooting[edit]

The initial coverage, as tends to happen with breaking news, was later revised and is now allegations without a clear connection to this event or the related protests - the initial possible connection appears to be sensationalism. I have reviewed the coverage related to Normandale Park shooting, and there does not appear to be support for inclusion in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources are from the Washington Post and New York Times, which are reliable. Even sources months after the shooting described its relationship to the Amir Locke protests. In fact, the affidavit of [the suspect]'s arrest explains the connection.
Kirsch, Jeffry (September 1, 2022). "Plea agreement may be in the works for suspect in deadly mass shooting at Portland protest". KATU-TV. Retrieved February 5, 2023. Minnemeeples (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sensationalized early coverage regurgitated by the Washington Post and New York Times was later corrected by further sensationalized coverage in The Guardian [11]. These are allegations, speculation, and clickbait, not coverage that supports relevance [12]. Also, I am going to redact the WP:BLPCRIME issue from your comment, because the policy applies on Talk pages, and to poorly-sourced accusations against nonpublic figures. Beccaynr (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The context of the Normandale Park shooting and Amir Locke protests was covered in several perennially reliable sources. Calling such media coverage "sensationalized", "regurgitated", or "clickbait" are your personal views of it. Even how the news media described the official court document explained the relationship between the shooting and the Amir Locke protests. Consider KGW8 on February 23, 2022:
"On Feb. 19, demonstrators came to Normandale Park for a planned rally and march in honor of Amir Locke, a Black man who was shot and killed Feb. 2 by Minneapolis police serving a no-knock warrant in which he wasn't named.
"According to court documents filed in Multnomah County Court on Tuesday, [name redacted] confronted demonstrators, yelling at them and demanding that they leave the area. Demonstrators responded by telling [name redacted] to leave, at which point he told demonstrators to "make" him and approached someone "aggressively." The demonstrator pushed him back while [name redacted] continued to yell, the affidavit states. [name redacted] drew a handgun, according to the affidavit, and fired into the crowd."
The news media coverage supports the relevance. It's not a synth or a coatrack. The shooting occurred during protests of the killing of Amir Locke. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my personal opinion - I linked to the WP:SENSATIONAL section of the WP:EVENT guideline and reviewed the content of the sources. And the source cited above is allegations that also do not appear to clearly connect the shooting to the protest itself. To imply otherwise seems to be synth, and to add what appears to be a sensationalized correlation appears to be a coatrack for this article. I can speculate on hypothetical circumstances, such as those outlined in the Guardian coverage, that could more clearly connect this planned protest and this shooting, but we do not appear to have secondary support available for the connection. Beccaynr (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of support in multiple media sources over time. It was part of the article for months. You need consensus BEFORE you keep removing it. Minnemeeples (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That this was in the article for months is not a basis for keeping poorly-sourced content after a policy-based dispute has been raised. Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on those seeking to include the disputed content, not to remove it. That it took me some time to review the sources and apply policies and guidelines is not a basis for edit-warring the disputed content back into the article, including content that may contravene WP:BLPCRIME, and content that says the protest occurred when it is not clear from sources that it actually did. I encourage you to remove this disputed content until there is consensus based on the sources to include it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There also does not appear to be much coverage of the protest, which is what seems relevant for the section of this article. I am wary about relying on sources that we are discouraged from using per the guidelines and policy, and in this instance, extra caution seems needed based on the coverage that appears to be available. There was a planned protest, and a shooting happened nearby, with a protestor killed and several injured, and based on sources I have reviewed, there seems to be a risk of WP:SYNTH in implying a connection between the protest itself and the nearby shooting. Beccaynr (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"There also does not appear to be much coverage of the protest". That statement is false. The Normandale protest has substantial media coverage and the media source said it was an Amir Locke protest. You are editing with an agenda and are not following reliable sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few examples of sources describing Normandale Park event was an Amir Locke protest (bold added):
Minnemeeples (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be a synth when many reliable sources describe it as an Amir Locke protest. Minnemeeples (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my view, coverage of protests is directly about the protests, e.g. Hundreds in Minneapolis protest police killing of Black man in raid (Reuters), ‘We Need Something Different’: Protesters March in Minneapolis After Police Killing (NYT), and coverage that mentions a planned protest in passing is not coverage of the protest itself, so it appears problematic to synthesize these limited mentions into a connection to this article topic. I also think it is noteworthy that less-sensationalized coverage is more careful about distinguishing the planned protest from the shooting. Also, I have redacted the suspect's name per WP:BLPCRIME from the comment above. Beccaynr (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Limited mentions? There about 10 above, including from several perennially reliable sources. According to some of cited sources, the organizers of the Normandale event were the ones calling it a “Justice for Amir Locke” protest. The Normandale protest was an Amir Locke protest, according to reliable sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If your criteria is passing mentions, here is an article that the headline and lead sentence describe the shooting as taking place during a "Justice for Amir Locke" protest:
    "Shooting at Amir Locke rally in Portland leaves 1 dead, 5 injured." KMSP-TV (February 20, 2022).
    The lead sentence: "Police in Portland, Oregon are investigating after a woman was killed and five others were wounded in a shooting reportedly during a "Justice for Amir Locke" solidarity rally Saturday night."
    That's hardly a passing mention. Here's another....
    Roberts, Nigel (February 21, 2022). "One Person Fatally Shot During Portland Protest Of Amir Locke’s Death" BET.
    Excerpt from the third sentence: "According to OPB.org, the shooting happened near Normandale Park, where demonstrators planned on social media to gather for an event to demand justice for Amir Locke. On Feb. 2, police in Minneapolis fatally shot Locke, a 22-year-old Black man, in a botched no-knock police raid."
    There are examples of article headlines and lead content describing the shooting as occurring at an Amir Locke protest. Minnemeeples (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources may be generally reliable (but not WP:NEWSWEEK, of course), but this does not end our analysis of 1) the coverage, including the depth, whether it is based on allegations or other primary sources, whether it is WP:SENSATIONAL, such as early reporting later corrected (or Rolling Stone or The Stranger), and 2) how it is used in an article (e.g. to imply something that no source supports, or create a WP:COATRACK, or contravene WP:BLPCRIME, etc). The sources indicate the shooting happened near a planned protest and involved protesters, but based on the available sources, there does not appear to be an encyclopedic connection to support inclusion in this article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Amir_Locke&oldid=1207976564"