Talk:2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers

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

Way too soon[edit]

The event is still "active" and there's no indication of enduring notability. I'll wait before going to afd until the duration is resolved and we know more, but come on... EvergreenFir (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your post, but 3 officers have been killed and several others injured. This is clearly notable.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the events of the summer, I can't imagine how this would not be notable. KConWiki (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
individual criminal acts like his typically do not have enduring notability. They make the news and then they fade out. There's no indication currently that this is anything me than just another shoot out. Even in the context of the summer, we cannot link this to other events (synth) unless sources do. That's why I'm waiting before going to afd but as of this moment there's no link. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Anyone is free to nominate this for AfD but I will bet a month's pay that it ends as a Speedy Keep. IMHO Notability is unquestionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How has enduring notability been established yet? To me this is a clear not news violation. What I see are editors assuming this is related to other events without any evidence. This article shouldn't have been created until such a connection is made, if ever. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple RS sources reporting that seven cops have been shot, three fatally. The event is receiving front page coverage on news websites all over the world. No event of this nature is going to be deemed non-notable. If you disagree send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this one is deleted, guess the recent Dallas shooting can be deleted as well. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the Dallas attack, the use of the robot bomb, the attack coordinated during a BLM protest, and the larger degree of violence made the attack notable. This attack and smaller targeted killings of the police may not be notable alone, but they come with the historical backdrop of perceived police brutality and BLM protest, so taken together they create a notable series of events. For these smaller and less notable targeted killings of the police it may be a good idea to create an article called Targeted killings of the police in 2016 or a similar name. I think there are enough sources to create an article that discusses these homicides as a series of events. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but three officers dead, three others wounded, and the gunman's motives all sound like evidence of lasting notability to me. Parsley Man (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs clean up (the lead should not begin with the words, "According to news reports") but with at least 3 and possibly 4 police officers killed, with several others injured, this is a notable incident with lasting notability. Juneau Mike (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had taken out the "According to news reports..." some time ago. If they were re-added they need to go and stay gone. That's what reliable source citations are for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took the words out again, they were re-added previously. We agree that "According to news reports" is no way to start an encyclopedia article.Juneau Mike (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple suspects[edit]

Live interview with a senior officer on MSNBC just claimed one suspect dead likely other multiple suspects at large. We need to be careful how this is integrated into the article. Remember that early reports in Dallas also reported multiple suspects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best just to leave that I'm the info box (like it currently is) and wait for more details. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been added by someone to the article. But it is a single sourced sentence and looks pretty discreet. I think that's fine for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, caution is very important on this point. KConWiki (talk) 17:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. BTW, just because I think this is TOOSOON doesn't mean I won't help out. I told E.M. Gregory on my talk page that I'm waiting to see how this is covered by sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Way too soon for motive but not for a simple narrative of the events[edit]

Way too soon for motives but not for facts. I had to come here just to find out what happened, after wading through yards of spin and pre-emptive strikes from the Washington Post and NY Times. I skipped Fox News. The Times ended its brief story with four full paragraphs interviewing some random gun nut in another town. I guess our gun laws are their story tomorrow. I'd like to know what happened today. Wikipedia told me that in three minutes. Wiki is becoming the Newspaper of Record for these things.Profhum (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Profhum Excellent comment. While we strive to be an encyclopedia and not a news service, the practical reality is that we are becoming something of no spin/no agenda source for information on major breaking news stories. And as long as we are not ignoring GNG or other relevant guidelines and policy I don't view that as necessarily a bad thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. KConWiki (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motives and possible group affiliations[edit]

There is a lot of chatter, some of which is being alluded to by mainstream media/press sources that the suspected gunman may have had ties to the sovereign citizen movement. This may in fact prove to be the case. But we need clear and definitive statements from multiple RS sources before we put that into the article per WP:BLP (which does apply to the recently deceased). -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a report that Long may have been affiliated with the Nation of Islam and that he posted some racially charged videos on YouTube. I don't think this is enough of a basis to post on, but it is worth keeping an eye open to see if this is backed by other sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that both here and Dallas have black men who were veterans... EvergreenFir (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I am not overly surprised. A lot of young black men enlist in order to get out of what may be a socioeconomic environment with few opportunities and a lot of potential dangers. The military has a reputation as a meritocracy when it comes to advancement and racism is not generally tolerated in its ranks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University of Alabama[edit]

I added that he attended the U of Alabama based on a Washington Times article but that may be a mistake (a man with the same name) because on his (possible) own website he says he attended "After completing an Associate’s degree in General Studies at Central Texas College, Cosmo then attended Clark Atlanta University to further his education." after being in the United States Marine Corps.

https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/754806684720177152 http://www.cosmoglobal.org/#!about/cjg9

Should I remove the U of Alabama sentence? 208.44.84.138 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the statement, or for that matter any other statement in the article it should be removed until certainty, backed by RS sources, is established. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I removed it. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black separatist?[edit]

What does this even mean? It makes no sense. Beejsterb (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black separatism 208.44.84.138 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would be in line with report linked above that Long may have had some connection to the Nation of Islam. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read that article you linked to. Good mainstream explanation of the term as used in ethnic studies these days, across the board. Profhum (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gangstalking "targeted individual"[edit]

He thought he was a victim of gangstalking. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/17/baton-rouge-gunman-gavin-e-long-cosmo-setepenra-marines 208.44.84.138 (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound like something of note, but I am currently unsure if it could fit anywhere in the "Perpetrator" section. We will see when the article is more developed. Parsley Man (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another article says Gavin Long thought he was a "targeted individual": http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article90330817.html 208.44.84.138 (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's already been added... Parsley Man (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Washitaw Nation" a black power sovereign citizen group / Moorish American[edit]

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/754828743403864064 "Investigators found on the body of the dead shooter Gavin Long a card suggesting he was a member of the Washitaw Nation"

http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/2016/07/17/baton-rouge-shooter-may-have-embraced-bizarre-outlook/87234938/ "Shimon Prokupecz, a reporter for CNN, said a card was found on Gavin Long suggesting he was a member of the Washita Nation, a peculiar sovereign citizen movement group..."

208.44.84.138 (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. :) Parsley Man (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-07-18-baton-rouge-suspect-was-marine-who-served-in-iraq/#.V4xL07w0lR1 "Name change -A Jackson County, Kansas court document showed that Long successfully applied to have his name legally changed to Cosmo Ausar Setepenra. His application, which cited the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, was approved in May 2015. Long said he was a member of the Washitaw Nation, a group of African Americans claiming to be a Native American nation in the United States." 208.44.84.138 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of motive: recent killings of black folks by police[edit]

"His history of rambling postings indicated that the attack was motivated at least in part by killings by police of black Americans in recent years and the resulting unrest. " from The Guardian EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) Parsley Man (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Would normally do it myself but I'm on my phone and the citation templates are tricky. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :D Parsley Man (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates changes[edit]

Explaining my changes to the coordinates, which were modified in this edit.

  • Per WP:OPCOORD, coordinates precision should decrease as object size increases. It suggests a resolution of 10% of the object size. At this latitude, six decimal positions gives a resolution of ~10 cm, suitable for an object of ~1 m. This event did not occur within a 1-meter circle. I am decreasing precision to four decimal positions, suitable for an object of 100 m, roughly an American football field. Five decimal positions would give an object size of 10 m, too small to encompass the entire event.
  • The region, US-LA, was removed with no rationale and I am re-adding it.
  • The type was changed from "event" to "landmark". This article is not about a landmark, so the coordinates do not refer to a landmark. I'm changing this back to "event".
  • The default map scale for events is fine in my opinion, and there is something to be said for consistency, but one is free to try to get that default changed. Regardless, this is only the initial scale, and all online maps are easily zoomable. Removing the scale parameter. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times has now published a graphic showing the location of the Hair Crown beauty supply shop, here. That new information shifts the center of the event in that direction, and I am adjusting the coordinates accordingly. To reiterate, the coordinates point to the approximate center of a ~100-m circle that encloses most or all of the event. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 shooting of Almaty police officers[edit]

If the 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers is notable, then so is the 2016 shooting of Almaty police officers that happened a day later (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36823422). --Gerrit CUTEDH 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are adequate sources discussing it, there is no reason it can't be an article. Dragons flight (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Gavin[edit]

@Parsley Man: you keep writing the sentences like:

Gavin Eugene Long (July 17, 1987 – July 17, 2016), a black man from Kansas City, Missouri, had changed his legal name to Cosmo Ausar Setepenra in May 2015.

As an introduction to the shooter, that totally misses the point, since it never identifies him as the shooter. This is the first time the shooter is named outside the lead, and certainly makes sense to identify him as the shooter (especially if someone comes in through a redirect to the section). There is no requirement that the section literally start with his name, so I added "The shooter was identified as ..." to the front of the sentence which provides the necessary context. Incidentally WP:R#PLA allows for bolding his name, but doesn't require it. Personally, I don't find the use of such bolding to be necessary, but that is less important than providing the necessary context connecting him to the shooting in the sentence that introduces him. Dragons flight (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did he legally change his name, or did he just use Cosmo Ausar Setepenra as an alias? I'm just wondering which name is more correct.69.69.101.185 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gavin Long legally changed his name to Cosmo Ausar Setepenra.
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/baton_rouge_officer_shooting/article_aa22ff5e-4cf5-11e6-80c3-4fcddb044245.html
https://www.scribd.com/document/318534874/Gavin-Long-Sovereign-Citizen#from_embed
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article90183857.html 208.44.84.138 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The suspect in the killing of three Baton Rouge police officers changed his name and pledged affiliation to an African-American offshoot of the anti-government Sovereign Citizens Movement, documents show." http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-police-domesticsecurity-idUSKCN0ZY24V 208.44.84.138 (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times, 18 July: "(He never petitioned the court, so the name change was not legally binding, officials said.)"[1] - It's only one source, but it's a pretty good one, better than The Advocate or kansascity.com, and in a different league from scribd.com. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you. 208.44.84.138 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need exact dates of military service?[edit]

Re: [2]

Parsley Man's second revert, but at least he gave an edit summary this time. My contention is that we don't include everything that's sourced (WP:ONUS), so his edit summary doesn't hold a drop of water. The question is: Are the exact dates significant enough to include, or are the years alone enough? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He served a five year contract, standard for Marines. It is a bit odd that the dates don't match up exactly five years from each other. The most likely explanation would be that he had 21 days of terminal leave and 01 Aug was the day his duty ended, but he was actually discharged 22 Aug, and the source got the two confused. Either way, the only possible relevance I can see for the dates is whether he fulfilled his contract, which he seems to have done, so the exact days don't seem to matter terribly much. Compare this with the guy from the Dallas shooting, who was actually discharged prematurely and did not finish his contract. TimothyJosephWood 01:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I implemented the edits because they were sourced, plus this article wasn't exactly directly specifying Long served five years in the military. The previous version just said "from 2005 to 2010" (though I guess any simple-minded reader can just do the math). Parsley Man (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsley Man: I implemented the edits because they were sourced So you said in your editsum. Again, see WP:ONUS. Given that, and given your "simple-minded reader" comment (with which I whole-heartedly agree), any remaining objection to stating only the years? ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do need exactness, right? Parsley Man (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsley Man: I have already answered that question multiple times. I will try again with increased verbosity. We don't always need all the exactness available, per WP:ONUS. We include as much as is useful to readers, no more. If we feel that it enhances reader understanding to know the months and days, we include them. If we feel that the essential information is the approximate number of years (5) and approximate time period (late 2000s), we omit the months and days as unnecessary noise. Timothyjosephwood and I feel that the months and days do not earn their keep.
Seriously, I'm bending over backwards here, I could very reasonably remove those months and days on the basis of this 2-to-1 opinion. That becomes more likely if you ignore our arguments and simply re-state yours. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have and more than enough. ??? Parsley Man (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This is such a pedantic discussion. The dates don't add anything. The dates don't hurt anything. One of you should follow my lead, stop caring at all about whether they're included, and tell the other side to do what they want. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But shouldn't we offer as much complete information as possible? Parsley Man (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to go find you multiple examples of where we have elected to omit information that was available in reliable sources? You have probably done quite a bit of this yourself in your editing career. Wouldn't it be more complete to include that omitted information? Disagree that they "don't hurt anything", for the reason stated. Regardless, "it doesn't hurt anything" is not a rationale for including something. But I'll be patient and wait a little longer for more participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It makes absolutely no difference to me. The dates, as far as I can tell, provide no more useful information than it would if we found a source for his blood type, but neither do they obviously detract from the article. Why do you both care so much about this? TimothyJosephWood 18:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't care, don't comment. If you want to debate editing philosophy with me, my talk page door is always open. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well you pinged me here and put me in your camp on the issue. So the fact that I don't care suddenly became relevant. TimothyJosephWood 18:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I now get that you're not in my camp (despite a re-read of your first comment), and I wouldn't have pinged you had I understood that you don't care. My bad. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm the one who implemented the edit in question in the first place? Parsley Man (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

So...yeah. Anyone want to pull the trigger on undoing the unilateral move with zero discussion or consensus? TimothyJosephWood 23:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the old title. The new title is ambiguous about who initiated the shooting. Clarity trumps conciseness. The old title is also similar to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Gap9551 (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Not sure why this wasn't discussed first... Parsley Man (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience link. The move was wrong on two counts: 1. It was predictably controversial and therefore should not have been done without prior consensus, and 2. It was not MOS-compliant. Fully appreciate the OP's commitment to collaboration but we don't really need discussion to pull such a trigger. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it would be quickly undone, but wanted to go ahead and put it on the books that whoever did it wasn't alone. TimothyJosephWood 11:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking convention for U.S. cities[edit]

Baton Rouge, Louisiana or Baton Rouge, Louisiana (for example)

The Wikipedia community may oppose a guideline that would put an end to the senseless back-and-forth editing in this area, but that doesn't mean we can't solve the problem at article level. This article is currently not even consistent on this point, the back-and-forth editing being very selective. I have my preference, but I'll gladly accept the opposite if it will put an end to this nonsense at one article. Going forward, I will probably do this at any article where I see any back-and-forth editing of this. I suggest others do that, too.

  • One link, omit state name when omitted from target article title - One city, one link. The state is almost always linked in the first sentence of the city article, for the few readers who want to learn more about the state. Further, for any city name that requires disambiguation, the two-link form requires messy code like [[Saint Paul, Minnesota|Saint Paul]], [[Minnesota]]. Use target article title to determine whether to show the state name; if Wikipedia deems the state name unnecessary there, it should also be unnecessary in linking content. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article is now at least consistent on this.[3] ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One link, city name only, There is no substantial clarity added by including the state when discussing a major city, that presumably, most readers will already be aware of. Those who are not, may see the main article. The state is useful when discussing Houston, Alaska, but not useful when discussing a major even that happened in Houston. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A new twist that I hadn't considered. Makes some sense for the largest cities on the planet (perhaps 10 or 20), and we're already using that form for two occurrences of Dallas. For anything but the largest, let's consider the rest of the English-speaking world, and the fact that articles sometimes end up in print form where links are not available. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you could just go by the target article title. Dallas omits Texas, San Diego omits California. Baton Rouge, Louisiana includes Louisiana. Kansas City, Missouri includes Missouri (obviously, for disambiguation). Updated my !vote accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 shootings of Des Moines police officers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers&oldid=1212405989"