Talk:2019 Tacoma attack

Spokane?

Wasn't the attack in Tacoma, at the other end of Washington state? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

Hopefully this article is deleted soon and this is a moot issue, but this is a gentle reminder that WP:BLP applies to recently deceased people. As such this article must comply with WP:BLPCRIME which requires that articles not say in wikipedia voice that individuals committed crimes for which they have not been convicted. As Van Spronsen was killed by police at the site it's unlikely he will ever have his day in court, but we should not be convicting him of these actions on the website. It is worth noting that there are plenty of recent examples of police misconduct with regard to officers making false statements in North America in recent years (the quick drying cement thing in Portland, the death of Sandra Bland, the arrest of Cedar Hopperton in Hamilton, etc. etc. etc.) As such, it behooves us not to make statements of fact based only on an account provided by police officers absent any sort of due process or presentation of evidence within a court of law. Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON

Since the PROD has been removed, I think we need to consider whether this article should be deleted under WP:TOOSOON - remember WP:NOTNEWS. So far is there any indication of WP:LASTING significance? Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@A.Jacobin: as article creator would you care to please speak to how it lines up with these policies? Especially WP:NOT. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• This was a violent attack on a government facility carried out by an individual with an record of having made a previous violent attack on an officer of the law. It has received national and international attention. Quite a number of editors have worked on the page. I see not justification for deletion. A.Jacobin (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but none of that actually speaks to the policies I cited. Is there evidence of WP:LASTING significance, especially protracted indepentent international coverage of the event, or any significant changes to the law as a result of the incident? Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and an anarchist getting gunned down by cops in Washington doesn't actually constitute WP:GNG independently. Even if more than one editor edited the page. I mean I'm editing it, because I found it in an awful state vis WP:BLPCRIME and I want to delete it, so... Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We keep many articles started soon after the thing happened. Poway synagogue shooting, YouTube headquarters shooting, Washington cougar attack, Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP:OSE is explicitly not to be used as an argument in deletion discussions. Look I'm talking to you here before going to AfD in case I'm missing something obvious, but this article, as it stands, doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTNEWS criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@A.Jacobin: Still no word on my WP:TOOSOON question beyond WP:OSE shall we take this to WP:AfD or do you have additional information on WP:LASTING coverage? Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, since you're mute on this question, let's take it to WP:AFD. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Just noting it looks like this article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet of EM Gregory, who created it in violation of a topic ban. I see it's already been to AfD, though, and I suspect that wouldn't change anything.

As an aside, it's disturbing how many people go with WP:RAPID as opposed to WP:DELAY with these articles. With some topics I get it, but when people commit crimes like this, it's often for the media coverage, so why do we err on the side of giving it to them?? Topics we cover are supposed to show lasting significance. WP:RAPID opts to give notability the benefit of the doubt that it will achieve lasting significance, while at the same time (Wikipedia being what it is) contributing to that lasting significance. I just don't get why people's priorities are with "maybe it'll be notable, so let's not delete it" rather than "it's not notable yet, so let's not add to its publicity". Sigh. While I was writing this, remembering how many times I've seen people invoke WP:RAPID in these circumstances, I decided to draft an essay: User:Rhododendrites/Don't assume lasting significance for crime articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with you entirely. Simonm223 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Here it is in September and the last ref was from July. I have a feeling this article is destined to be about something of entirely no lasting significance. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. While I think WP:RAPID is a sensible guideline and the AfD decision wasn't necessarily in error at the time, with two months of hindsight it's clear that WP:EVENTCRIT is not met. I'd welcome another AfD, or perhaps a merge proposal (to Northwest Detention Center). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a merge proposal is a reasonable course of action here, all things considered. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, merge discussion is up and running. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Material that should be added

Material that should be added to the page includes the celebration of van Spronsen's violent attack on a government facility and his previous violent attack on an officer the previous year. Yes, I am aware that the detention center was subcontracted to a private facility, but ICE cars, ICE personnel regularly arriving and departing - the distinction is real, but the attack was on a federal agency. And there is a discussion covered in WP:RS about the fact that it is being celebrated by his fellow antifa.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources that make these claims? Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, do you have a link to the discussion at WP:RSN with regard to him being celebrated by people who oppose fascism? Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Because I am a regular contributor on that board and I don't recall seeing anything about anarchist and leftist sources lately. And like, I'm generally all over those discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@A.Jacobin: I'm still waiting for the link to the WP:RS conversation you mentioned yesterday. Please provide it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So at this point I'm assuming you were mistaken about there being a discussion about van Spronsen's manifesto at WP:RS/N? Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The one source added primarily describes them as antifascists. Also, it's only one line in one source, so it seems a bit WP:UNDUE for the lead right now. --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The reliable source is The Washington Post. Willem Van Spronsen identified himself, "I am Antifa," in his written manifesto.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/19/ice-detention-center-attacker-killed-by-police-was-an-avowed-anarchist-authorities-say/

The group Seattle Antifascist Action described Van Spronsen a "good friend and comrade" who "took a stand against the fascist detention center in Tacoma" and "became a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism." "He was kind and deeply loved by many communities; we cannot let his death go unanswered," the group wrote in a Facebook post. "... [T]oday we stand strong in our support for yet another martyr in the struggle against fascism. May his death serve as a call to protest and direct action."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/washington-man-killed-at-ice-detention-center-manifesto

So please, let's not pretend this man was not a member of Antifa. There's your reliable source, Simon223. The Washington Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.76.99 (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur with 69.197.76.99. This is well-sourced and critical to add for balance. Adding POV flag to this page to get more viewpoints in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source for anything to do with antifascism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Manfesto

We don't publish manifestos Besides, it's a copyright violation unless it was released by the author. O3000 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, as somebody who has taken it down a couple of times, the link it was at doesn't appear to be a public-facing URL which makes it difficult to verify the provenance of the document. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding this has been CU-blocked. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to question the conclusion reached here. I can imagine there might be ethical and procedural arguments against publishing some manifestos, but I'm not aware of any policies or guidelines which flatly prohibit linking to anything called a "manifesto" on Wikipedia. As for the verifying the document, one of the presumably (and apparently) reliable sources for the existence of the manifesto links to this document, and another states that

[a]sked if the club could verify that the so-called manifesto being circulated online is from Van Spronsen, the club’s attorney said one member got a letter after Van Spronsen’s death. [...] She said, from what was visible through the envelope without opening the letter, that it appeared to be consistent with what’s been widely publicized.

I'm not sure that further independent verification is Wikipedia's responsibility. As for the argument for inclusion, the manifesto is very salient to understanding why this event took place, which seems like a relevant question any reader might have. I can surmise that the user trying to add it was including the full text of the document in the body of the article, which obviously reduces the quality and focus of the article, but I think there's good cause to link directly to it, either as an external link or as an additional source on the quotes currently present. 73.164.9.46 (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Him and John Brown are got-damn Murican heroes and I wanna read his stuff! Lothar76 (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Undocumented/illegal

@Wereon: Could you expand on your edit summary here? I can't claim to know whether "undocumented" is "politically neutral", but it seems at least factually accurate, while describing a person (rather than a deed) as "illegal" seems potentially inaccurate and needlessly confusing. This, as far as I can see, is why we have Undocumented immigrant population of the United States but Illegal immigration to the United States, and perhaps also why the Washington Post article cited uses "undocumented" rather than "illegal". I'd be interested to know what others think too. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)