Talk:Killing of Breonna Taylor

Information about the Breonna Taylor Protests - After Verdict

Louisville has Washington Post covering the Louisville aftermath riot interviewing residents like Neal Robertson, Erica Bowman, Carl Ford, and Mike Tracy who protested peacefully about the verdict of the jury.

Sometime later (messy timeline) two Louisville officers were shot and then after news reporters tried to interview a officer by the name of Robert Schroeder. (May be continue) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelm590 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Change to Article Summary

The summary states without a doubt that the police were executing a "no-knock" warrant at Taylor's home. Initial reports of the incident have police executing a warrant and announcing themselves before forcing their way into the home. "After repeatedly knocking and announcing their presence detectives utilized a ram to enter the apartment."

https://www.whas11.com/article/news/crime/man-charged-with-attempted-murder-after-detective-injured-trying-to-execute-search-warrant-one-woman-killed/417-108daa08-f4b0-4b52-ae8b-decd2c8b47f9

The reason for this edit is due to the discrepancy of reporting. The only source claiming the police executed a "no-knock" warrant comes from Kenneth Walker's attorney Rob Eggert. The warrants had the "no-knock" clause in them. This means the police may execute a no-knock warrant, but does not require them to. The officers claimed to have announced themselves before entering the building.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2020/05/20/breonna-taylor-shooting-lmpd-may-require-swat-serve-no-knock-warrants/5220354002/

""Eggert says police didn't announce themselves before entering the apartment and that Walker fired one shot when he and Taylor heard the door exploding open. "Had Mr. Walker known that police were outside he would have opened the door and ushered them in," Eggert wrote. Police acknowledge using a battering ram, but only after they said they identified themselves. Police have declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation."" https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2020/05/21/motion-to-dismiss-filed-in-breonna-taylor-casemotion-dismiss-filed-breonna-taylor-case/5237715002/

"Police had claimed that they knocked on Taylor’s door several times, and said who they were." https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/records-show-how-police-ended-up-raiding-breonna-taylors-home/

The only indication that the police did not announce themselves is from Kenneth Walker's attorney Rob Eggert. This is he-said-she-said dispute as there is no video evidence and both sides have their own reasons to dispute the facts of the case. This is an important clarification since the FBI investigation is not yet complete and the facts of the case are still disputed. Fisher321 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

^This is false, several of Taylor's neighbors have gone on record confirming that police did not announce themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.69.190.69 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The US Postal Service has since stated that enquiries by another police agency .. not the one enacting the house intrusion .. had proven negative and there was thus no evidence substantiating a link to drugs. The attorneys representing the Taylor family have pointed to real estate projects and the fact that Taylor's former partner, who was still a friend and visitor to her home, had taken action against attempts to clear the block for redevelopment. Two empty properties known to be used for the purpose of drug dealing in the same block were not searched. When writing about legal cases that have not been concluded it is misleading to cite only one side of litigation. The US police have come under scrutiny for racial bias and in this particular case none of the black participants have been linked with criminal activity. Breonna Taylor is, in any case, innocent: at very least innocent until proven guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.249.135.238 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"While the department had gotten court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves."[1] The police claim that they knocked and called out "police", but multiple neighbors said they did not hear any announcement. It appears they executed it as no-knock even though their orders had been changed, -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason for this edit is due to the discrepancy of reporting. -- There is no such discrepancy.

The only source claiming the police executed a "no-knock" warrant comes from Kenneth Walker's attorney Rob Eggert. -- That's a lie.

The officers claimed to have announced themselves before entering the building. -- Of course they claimed that; they always will. This a tautology and so is completely irrelevant. The fact is that they did not make it evident that they were police officers, instead battering down the door. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Two requests for clarification

Two requests for clarification to be made to this article:

1) A reference in this article is entitled "Woman shot and killed by Kentucky police who entered wrong home," yet there is no mention in the article's text of Taylor's apartment either being or not being the wrong home. Please add clarification of whether Taylor's apartment was indeed the wrong home.

2) "Walker, a licensed firearm carrier, shot first, striking a police officer in the leg"

To add to the article: was the door to the apartment open or closed at this time? When the door was broken down should be added to this paragraph in order that the narrative make sense.

Thank you

173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Taylor's apartment was indeed the home targeted by the warrant - apparently because of her past association with a boyfriend who was a drug dealer. The title of the reference is in error, but we should not correct it. It is what it is, as the saying goes.

What is your request regarding Walker?

Obviously the door was closed. They wouldn't have been breaking down an open door! -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(24 days later) It is ridiculous that these basic clarifications have not yet been added to this article. Please add the following:

• Mention that Walker, inside the apartment, fired through the closed door to the apartment (the bullet passing through the door before hitting the officer, who was standing just outside the apartment), and

• The fact that the apartment police broke into was not the "wrong apartment."

Members of the public are continuing to claim that Taylor's apartment was the "wrong apartment," so this clarification does need to be added to the article!

Thank you for adding these pieces of information promptly, and not continuing to ignore these issues. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that the public has been previously misinformed about Breonna's home being the wrong home that the police went to. All we can do is keep that misinformation out of the article and I think we have kept it out of the text. Now if it is in a source that is used for other information, what we can do is find a source that doesn't have that problem. Could you find such a source? Bob K31416 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

There are a few points in this article that I have found to be false.

There are a few points in the article that I have found to be untrue according other sources. As this is my first time helping with an article I am hoping this is how I am supposed to do it. Ill just list them in order as I found them along with what is the correct information is, along with a link to the source.

Breonna Taylor was shot 5 times not 8

Breonna and Jamarcus were dating up until one month before the raid. There are recorded jail house calls from January 2020 that showed they were still dating then.

The officers did knock and at least one witness has claimed to have heard them announce their selves. Which has a source that it already listed on the page.

IdleTimeIdleMind (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)IdleTimeIdleMind

References

Regarding the number of times Taylor was shot, the USA Today article cited in the lead says "Taylor, 26, was shot eight times by officers before being pronounced dead at the scene." I see three other sources cited in the body of the article that say eight times. Maybe the New York Times made a mistake in their September 1 article?

Yumpu is not a source we can use. The New York Times source says they were dating on and off since summer 2016, but I don't see that it says that they "were dating up until one month before the raid."

Whether the officers knocked or not is disputed. - MrX 🖋 11:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Here a few other sources that claim that she was shot five times. Maybe just change the wording in article to read that she was shot multiple times to give it more validity, since the amount is being reported in different numbers. 2604:6000:A0C2:6300:D89D:C101:F6F1:361F (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)IdleTimeIdleMind

References

She was shot five times, according to the The Courier-Journal, which has led much of the coverage on the story and acknowledges that they previously got it wrong (as eight) on numerous occasions. The articles claiming eight shots are from prior to the release of the coroner's death certificate in July—the USA Today article, for example, is from May. There is no excuse for insisting that Wikipedia include false information because a source claimed it prior to more information becoming available—this is just silly. I have updated the article—feel free to find a RS that states Taylor was shot 8 times after the above sources, as well as explains where they got the number eight from. Elle Kpyros (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

NFAC

Important to mention the members of NFAC accidentally shooting each other while gathering prior to their march. Gives context that NFAC members are clout chasing LARPers who were handed loaded weapons, rather than an actual militant group that should be taken seriously. FactCheck2Q2Q (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is NFAC, and why is it important to mention this in this article?

This article isn't about NFAC. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Specificity of Taylor and Walker's actions prior to shooting

As the Courier-Journal, which has led reporting on this story, has made clear, "Various social media posts and media reports have said Louisville police gunned down Taylor as she was asleep in bed." For that reason, it seems important to specify that Taylor and Walker were in bed watching a movie when the police arrived, that they got out of bed when they heard banging, and that Taylor was killed in her hallway. I can see no reason not to include this information, especially as RS have taken pains to clarify numerous "rumors" that she was asleep and/or in bed when killed. Please let me know if there's any reason this information should be deliberately excluded. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

To add to article

To add to this article: exactly how was Mattingly injured (by a gunshot?); if by a gunshot, who fired that shot? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but like do you have a source showing how he was injured. To my knowledge it is either a shot by the bf or friendly fire. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions aren't the sort of things to be added to articles. If you have answers, provided by reliable sources, that can be added. Don't expect someone else to answer your questions.--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Article currently ties it to Walker's shot.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

NO KNOCK SEARCH WARRANT IS INCORRECT, IT HAS BEEN STATED TODAY BY THE JUDGE AND THE NEWS THAT THIS was NOT a "no-knock" warrant & officers announced their presence 104.218.82.241 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please cite a source as well as telling us where you want this new information inputted, also, there is no need to scream in all caps. HeartGlow ^(talk) 19:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to cite any source. The NY Times source quoted in the lede no longer reflects what is posted on the page. The NY Times article cited says went to execute a search warrant that was changed from no knock to knock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:8EF:C96F:3AD1:C8CA (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No knock warrant

The article falsely says there was a no knock warrant this is incorrect PatriotsTruth (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source? We sorta already mention what you are talking about. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the current version of the Shooting section of the article which I think addresses your point.

"The Taylor/Walker home was included in a "no-knock" search warrant, signed by Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mary M. Shaw, reportedly based on representations by police that one of the men used the apartment to receive packages.[14][15] The New York Times later reported that before the raid, the order had been changed to "knock and announce", meaning that the police were required to identify themselves.[16]"

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information propagated on this page

Incorrect information is be propagated on this page. Many people believe what they read on Wikipedia and it is the responsibility of Wikipedia to correct the information PatriotsTruth (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Point out specific things you think should be changed. Dumping a bunch of links here isn't helpful. Stavd3 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusing Quote

"While the department had gotten court approval for a 'no-knock' entry, the orders were changed before the raid to 'knock and announce,' meaning that the police had to identify themselves."

Who changed the orders? Was it the court? Was it the department? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:989:4401:3830:0:0:0:D005 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@2601:989:4401:3830:0:0:0:D005: We don't know, that's just what the New York times reported and they are considered a valuable source. I believe someone named Mealanie requested it's inclusion in the archives. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

"11 other witnesses deny that the officers announced themselves at all."

They didn't hear it? That's what it says later in the article, using that same ref. They know they would have heard it so it didn't happen? That's how the above quote is justified? This is a large part of what the case rests on, and its supported by a ref that can't easily be checked, and also looks like it's being misused or used differently in different sections of the article. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher:

I agree that the way it is written is not found in the source. I removed it for now. Joelaroche (talk)

What does the source say? I think that source should not be used unless quotes and timestamps are provided. I think it's being misused because you can't check it without listening to an hour podcast. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: Just press the transcription button. The NYT source thus is available in text and easily searchable with a Ctrl+F. BirdValiant (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The NYT says: In interviews with nearly a dozen neighbors, only one person said he heard the officers shout “Police!” a single time.[2] "Deny" might be WP:OR, as saying they did not hear it can be different than saying the police did not do it.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In a more recent NYT article, mentioned by BirdValiant above, the same reporter said:

Of the roughly one dozen people that I spoke to, I found only one neighbor, and it was the man who happened to be immediately on the staircase above Breonna Taylor’s apartment, who said that he heard the police announce themselves. (Go to [3] and click on TRANSCRIPT.)

In other words, the one who said he heard the police may have been the only one of the roughly 12 who was awake at 12:40AM and in a position to hear the police. The reporter also said in the NYT article:

Everybody else said that the first thing they heard were the shots.

Note that they didn't hear the banging on the door either. Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your speculations aren't relevant. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a large part of what the case rests on -- Wikipedia is not the place to litigate the case, so this concern is completely irrelevant. We go by what reliable sources say; editor opinions and concerns don't matter.--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

new article for Breonna Taylor protests

What do you guys think about a new article just for the protests, such as we did with George Floyd protests and Kenosha protests? It seems just as big of a story as the shooting itself, with a number of protesters arrested, injuries, and 2 police officers shot. Albertaont (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely would support based on the media coverage and scope of the protests, as well as similar precedents set by Kenosha unrest and George Floyd protests pages. JJonahJackalope (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Albertaont: I wrote a large part of the protest section of this article and stopped because it was getting too long. I agree that it needs to be summarized in this article and a new article started with more comprehensive details about the local protest and activists and also the other US and international protests. Do you want to start it? Or I can. Sydney Poore/FloNightUser talk:FloNight 03:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - This article is currently under 80kB. When this article gets over 100kB, we can revisit the issue at that time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

$12-million payout to Taylor family details needed

Was the $12 million a settlement that included clauses that the family would not file lawsuits? That's more than the average $1.8 million given to 9/11 families! --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:708E:2510:279C:4124 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

I would like to edit the statement on the top of the page because that part does not have importance to this page. Magodenm (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Breonna Taylor and Breonna redirect here part? It helps editors find the articles that they may have been looking for. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Magodenm: WP:HATNOTEs are common when redirecting from an ambiguous term. It helps readers avoid being shocked when they ended up at an article they are not looking for.—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"knock three times"

"A New York Times reporter talked to a dozen neighbors and found that only one of them, who was on the staircase immediately above Taylor's apartment, heard the officers shout "Police!" once and knock three times."

Where exactly in the source does it say that the neighbor only heard the police knock three times? Can someone provide the exact sentence that says this? Joelaroche (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in the source either. It was put in the article with this edit [4]. Maybe User:GreenFrogsGoRibbit can say where it came from. Bob K31416 (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Bob K31416, Hello, I got it from this source https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/breonna-taylor-police-killing.html?searchResultPosition=2 which says "Before they ordered him to go back inside, Mr. Sarpee said, he heard at least three loud bangs as they knocked on Ms. Taylor’s door, and heard one or more officers scream “Police!” — a single time. He is emphatic that they said it only once." Seems someone removed my citation. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

I know that Breonna Taylor was killed in an apartment complex, and when you click on the link it takes you to a parking lot.

2600:8801:9501:8500:9DB9:6254:C73:2B8D (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure we need the actual coordinates but if they’re going to be on there they should be correct. Hayleyj325 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't find a source for the exact location of the shooting, but the coordinates that were in the article, which were added in May without a source, were clearly incorrect, so I've removed them. Those coordinates corresponded to a location in downtown Louisville, whereas according to this Taylor's apartment was on Springfield Drive on the south side of Louisville. I haven't found any reporting that gives the address on Springfield Drive. Deor (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure we would want to give the precise location because it may cause trouble for other residents there from unwanted visitors who may even cause destruction or harm. Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline on this? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Shot 6 times not 5

Breonna was shot 6 times, not 5, according to the 2nd citation (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2020/06/16/breonna-taylor-fact-check-7-rumors-wrong/5326938002/). This conflicts with the first citation (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2020/07/17/breonna-taylor-lay-untouched-20-minutes-after-being-shot-records/5389881002/) from the same website but it is more recent (updated sep24). Akshit Aireddy (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

221.254.158.62 (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Police Officers did announce they were Police before entering. Their body cams clearly shows this.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 02:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020

The second point under Persons Involved is incorrect. Kenneth Walker did not live with her in the apartment according to the second paragraph in https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/breonna-taylor-police-killing.html.

Change "Kenneth Walker was Taylor's boyfriend, who lived with her in the apartment." to "Kenneth Walker, Taylor's boyfriend whom was visiting her at her apartment." Cchase88 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I should've caught most instances where the article implies Walker lives there, let me know if I missed any. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 23:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

title

This article really should be titled "Killing of Breonna Taylor". I know an IPposter doesn't carry much weight, but there it is. 172.58.230.206 (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. "Shooting of" strongly implies that it wasn't fatal.--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree - 72.138.195.10 (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Changing the main/title image

The image should be changed to maybe a photo of her Superpotateo (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

Change "Also shown is it's location within Kentucky" to "Also shown is its location within Kentucky" Rightmire (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Already done.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"but how the officers announced their identity before forcing entry is in dispute" should be "but how or if the officers announced their identity before forcing entry is in dispute"

I added "or if" to the police possibly announcing themselves. Taylor's attorney claims the police didn't, and multiple witnesses including Walker didn't hear the police announce themselves. Therefore, whether they even announced themselves at all is disputed.

Someone undid the edit claiming "An investigation that included a corroborating witness recently concluded that they both knocked and announced themselves. See shooting section. If you disagree then we can discuss on the talk page." That investigation hasn't released any evidence that shows why they said the police announced themselves. For all we know, Daniel Cameron could be lying. The Police have lied about this case before. In Walker's phone call, he acts as if the police never announced themselves. Multiple witnesses said they never heard the police announce themselves. In addition, Taylor's attorney claims the police did not announce themselves. Thus, whether or not the police even announced themselves is in dispute. Pineapple4321 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's some info on the corroborating witness.

"Only one person, a truck driver coming off his shift, said he heard the officers shouting. Aaron Julue Sarpee had left his 2-year-old in the care of the woman living directly above Ms. Taylor. Before the police lined up, he had run upstairs and picked up his sleeping toddler. He had just stepped out onto the exterior staircase when he saw the officers. Before they ordered him to go back inside, Mr. Sarpee said, he heard at least three loud bangs as they knocked on Ms. Taylor’s door, and heard one or more officers scream “Police!” — a single time. He is emphatic that they said it only once."[5]

Here's a picture of the scene [6] (from the previous source). The apartment of Breonna Taylor, #4, is on the right. The stairs that the corroborating witness Sarpee was on are on the right too. Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources describe whether an announcement took place as being disputed, so Wikipedia should do the same. That may or may not change even if state evidence is released.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:

Which source says that it's still being disputed? Joelaroche (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Joelaroche, every reliable source that I can recall has said "police said this ... Walker said that." As recent as Sept 26: "Police said they announced their presence before using a battering ram to break in the door shortly before 1 a.m., but Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, said they didn't hear anyone say anything and fired a warning shot at what he thought was someone trying to break in."[7]—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:

Yes and this dispute between the police and Walker has been resolved by an independent investigation, whose findings were presented to a grand jury. [8]. Note that the article you cited is referencing the dispute between the police and Walker, not between the independent investigation which includes a corroborating witness, and Walker. Joelaroche (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Joelaroche: Yes, the investigation results are an official response. However, as long as sources preface the announcement as "according to officials" or similar, Wikipedia should do the same per WP:DUE.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:

I'm not sure what you mean by "as long as sources preface the announcement as 'according to officials' or similar". Also, which source? You need to be more specific. So far you haven't shown me sources that say that there is an ongoing dispute between Walker and the investigation with its recent findings. -- Joelaroche (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Joelaroche: The dispute is not with an inanimate investigation. The dispute is with the facts. We describe what sources say. If sources preface findings from the investigation, than Wikipedia does to. We don't necessarily take the AG's findings as the undisputed truth. If you have changes you want to propose, feel free to establish consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:

These sources [9][10] including the one you cited earlier [11] all say that Walker did not hear the police. This is not the same as him saying that they did not announce themselves. Therefore, he is not disputing whether they actually announced themselves. Also, I did not say that the AG's findings are the undisputed truth, but if no source is saying that they are being disputed then wiki should not be saying that either. So, again bring up sources that say this and I will leave this issue alone. Joelaroche (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Joelaroche: Sources do not say the "police announced themselves" unqualified. They say "according to police" or "according to the investigation", etc. I'd be fine with saying that that the police said they announced themselves, but Walker said he never heard them.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Bob K31416 reworded the lead to present what both sides instead.[12].—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post "Moreover, in a CNN interview Wednesday night, Walker’s attorney, Steven Romines, said the witness to whom Cameron was referring initially said he did not hear the police announce themselves. And he repeated that assertion in a second interview. It was only after his third interview that he finally said he heard an announcement. That’s critical context that Cameron neglected to mention." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/ Pineapple4321 (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You can hear the witness say the police did not identify themselves here https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/24/correcting-misinformation-about-breonna-taylor/ Pineapple4321 (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't find it. I only found the CNN video of the interview of Walker's lawyer Steven Romines where Romines said there was such a recorded statement. Could you be more specific about where it is in the Washington Post article or elsewhere?

BTW, my previous message contains a report of an interview with the witness by a NY Times reporter where the witness also told the reporter that he heard the police announce. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The clip is here. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bv8qyd/breonna-taylor-investigation-witness-changes-story Also the only proof for the police announcing themselves is the police claiming so (keep in mid the police have lied about this case before) and one witness. The other witnesses say they never heard the police. Also we don't know everything about what the grand jury was shown, and one grand juror is suing over it, so we should not necessarily view what the grand jury and Daniel Cameron said as definitive proof of what happened. Pineapple4321 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As a sort of corollary to the grand juror lawsuit, and given the unanswered questions, we should keep an eye on whether the previous consensus among RS that the police were executing a no-knock warrant should really have been overturned by the change to the currently-cited NYT article (which, from spot checking the Internet Archive for the NYT, seems to have been changed some time in late August.) It's great that Mr. “I condone violence in all of its forms” Cameron (I mean he disclaims that statement as a slip of the tongue but really? Really?) held a press conference definitively stating it wasn't a no-knock warrant but if it turns out he's made other misrepresentations this should be revisited. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 05:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch: Can't change much unless new found sources contradict it.—Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It's only one source, though, that appears to have changed what it says without issuing an explanatory correction. (The text of the Wikipedia article kind of makes it look like some sort of correction has been issued, but is actually still citing sources that say it was a no-knock warrant.) Have any other sources confirmed it, besides the press conference?

At the very least a WP:INTEXT clarification of how diametrically the sources, including Cameron, vary, seems appropriate. Though given that the documents responding to the grand juror lawsuit are supposed to come out later today I'm in no hurry to make changes that may all need to be rewritten and re-cited anyways. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 08:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch: There's actually a lot of wiggle room. The WP article currently says that "the order had been changed to 'knock and announce'", with intext attribution to the NYT. It's vague if that means the actual warrant was changed, or just the internal orders on how it would be executed. It's not in the article, but Cameron only said "In other words, the warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant"[13] Let's see what happens as more evidence is released/leaked.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post talked to the witness's lawyer also. I've add some more background on the witness here.—Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

- Some suggestions: Instead of "in dispute", suggest to write "conflicting statements from... (e.g. witnesses and police)". Also, this [www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/us/breonna-taylor-grand-jury-audio-recording.html Oct 1 NYT article] affirms that they interviewed exactly 12 witnesses, which should clarify "nearly a dozen" as stated in the wikipage currently. Also, suggest to add a new "Background" section with the very thorough background information in this Aug 30 NYT article and other sources which are already referred to in the wikipage currently. - 72.138.195.10 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Black, or black?

I'm sure this has been asked a zillion time, but what is the consensus on the capitalization of the word black? Thanks  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 21:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I guess everyone is still argueing about it: [14]  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 21:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Its use is definitely inconsistent within the article. There are three instances of capital B in the article but many more of lowercase B. One is a direct CNN quote and would best remain unaltered (perhaps with sic added), but I feel like we should make a choice for the other instances. -- sarysa (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to follow the lead of the AP and NYT, who have both recently switched to "Black", but it would probably be good to have a wiki-wide MoS guideline here. No need to use [sic] in any quotes with either capitalization. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a NPOV or a bipartisan view. Sources like Fox News capitalize both black and white [15], while sources like the AP and the NYT have idealogical reasons for capitalizing the "b" in black but not the "w" in white. As it says in Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, we need to remember that reliable sources are not always neutral. Our main goal is to use them to provide information with the least amount of bias as possible WP:NPOV. I think to keep things neutral, it'd be better to just not capitalize both words for now, as editors have always been doing on wiki, until a consensus has been reached to change this. - Joelaroche (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not up to us. The consensus is irrelevant, it is entirely up to the RS. If the material was properly sourced this question would not exist. Race is not included in the vast majority of reports nor in any of the cited sources for the lede. Leaving POV pushers to go with what makes the least amount of objective sense. Race does not belong on the page. The lede is supposed to reflect the preponderance of the RS, in this case almost none of it explicitly lists race. According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:684D:5F98:D2CF:E8E8 (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Y Article is now consistently lowercase black.—Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Race of the officers

In the beginning paragraph, the article reads "The white officers entered her apartment in Louisville, Kentucky..."

The fact that the officers are white is not relevant to the story, and seems kind of strange to include. Piece o Ham (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADREL, race belongs in the lead because it reflects that most sources use it to describe this event.—Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It obviously is relevant and isn't at all strange. But our opinions are irrelevant; it's based on the reports from reliable sources.--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It is obviously not relevant nor is it contained in the sources cited in the lede despite "because sources use it to describe this event" It is based on SYNTH and POV pushing as race is lacking from the reports of the vast majority of sources. Our opinions are irrelevant and short of an DNA test so should be any other sources listing races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:684D:5F98:D2CF:E8E8 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• This Reuters article today mentions Taylor being black, the officers being white, and even says the attorney general is black.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
• BBC.com: "A police officer has been charged over the narcotics raid that resulted in the fatal shooting of a black woman at her home in the US state of Kentucky ... Mr Cameron, a Republican who is the state's first black attorney general ... Ms Taylor's relatives and activists for whom her death has become a rallying cry had been calling for the three officers, who are all white, to be charged with murder or manslaughter."
• The Guardian: "Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency room technician, was killed when three white police officers entered her apartment in the early hours of 13 March."
• FoxNews.com: "Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation."
• Los Angeles Times: "A day after grand jurors declined to charge officers for killing Breonna Taylor — a Black woman who was shot dead at night inside her own apartment six months ago ... Taylor was killed in March by white officers who used a “no-knock” warrant filed under a narcotics investigation to barge into her apartment."—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Thor 212002: Your change's edit summary was Removed the word "White" used to describe the police officers since it denotes racial profiling and rece does not condones the acts decribed in this article, the police actions and policy sould not be race diferentiated, also the addition of the "White" word in that location promotes racial hatred instead of just communicating the fact. However, we apply MOS:LEADREL to the lead and provide WP:WEIGHT based on the how reliable sources present Taylor's shooting. Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The sources must reflect that first. The world is not color blind (yet).—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It is still irrelevant-it may be relevant on the pages about motives behind the civil unrest that followed the shooting-but still has zero relevance to the shooting itself. The preponderance of RS still do not include race and of the ones that do few lead with it as WP has chosen. Besides it not belonging, it does not reflect the weight of the NPOV RS material. It is being used to create racial divisiveness. Zero of the RS cite race or racial animus as any factor in the actual shooting itself but want the implication out there regardless.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-invs/index.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/fact-check-debunking-7-widely-shared-rumors-in-the-breonna-taylor-police-shooting/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/04/report-details-why-louisville-police-wanted-search-breanna-taylors-home/5706161002/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-what-we-know-about-kentucky-woman- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/breonna-taylor-kenneth-walker-911-call-police-shooting/ https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-09-24/q-a-what-were-the-results-of-breonna-taylor-investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:392C:97DA:349:E03B (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Of the four links above which aren't 404ing for me, all four present photographs or video which make it manifest that Taylor has dark skin, CNN and USAToday present photographs and video that show the three involved police officers have light skin, and the CBS video only presents police and government officials speaking on the matter who have light skin. Race is definitely relevant to this topic and should be attributed in the article text as described in RS that deal with that aspect in their own coverage. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 02:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Redent. Looking at this, I don't see people mentioning their race. Although you can see that kind of stuff in the pics. Saying pictures show their race sounds like OR to me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=breonna+taylor+police+officers&sxsrf=ALeKk01-jScr8EGxt9cEW6WX82WqGBqp7g:1601530816691&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifvbOb15LsAhULvp4KHepBDZUQ_AUoAXoECDMQAw&biw=1094&bih=474&dpr=1.25 Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This does not seem like an objection meant to be taken seriously, linking to a non-News non-Scholar general Google search with no search terms mentioning race and saying you can't see anyone mentioning race, when it is placed beneath Bagumba's bulleted list of links to RS−including Fox News−with quotes pointing out where each has mentioned the race of participants in the incident. (Also, in case you don't realize it: a Google search will not necessarily show you and me the same thing, and on top of that in the case of an ongoing news story like this the results will change from minute to minute, so although it can save time to paste a search URL into a talk page discussion it is not a particularly good way of demonstrating anything.) --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 06:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede is laughable: "Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old black woman, was fatally shot in her Louisville, Kentucky apartment on March 13, 2020, when a search warrant was executed by white officers Jonathan Mattingly, Brett Hankison, and Myles Cosgrove of the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD)." Why is it mentioning that the "search warrant was executed by white officers"? That the officers were "white" is irrelevant. Mention of the officers being "white" does not warrant a place in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that the fact you're laughing about that series of facts is very specific to you. Perhaps you could provide an example of an officer-involved shooting where you would consider the respective races of the shooters and the deceased to be salient, and would not laugh to see those facts mentioned in the lede of the article? And the criteria you make the distinction with. Because if you simply personally think that race should never be prominently mentioned in articles documenting officer-involved shootings no matter what the reliable sources say, what you're expressing here isn't relevant to Wikipedia. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 07:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if a reliable source was found that said there was evidence that the killing was racially motivated, or at least in part. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be relevant if this article discussed motivations anywhere. But it doesn't. You might also notice that the words "motive" and "motivation" also don't appear in our articles shooting bias, race in the United States criminal justice system, discrimination based on skin color § Policing, arrests, and surveillance, or even police use of deadly force in the United States. Observing the significance of race in this incident does not involve hypothesizing some dastardly visceral hatred and malice aforethought on the part of the officers who did the killing. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 13:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—you reference "the significance of race in this incident". Please tell us—what is the "the significance of race in this incident"? Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Struthious_Bandersnatch OK, then what's the purpose of putting in "white" for the officers? How is it informative for the Shooting of Breonna Taylor? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop and Bob K31416: I have some level of tolerance for trolling but I'm done here, when you're both acting like you just can't think of any reason why Fox News and the other sources would highlight the race of the individuals involved, in response to a comment in which I linked to several possible reasons they might. If it's really just beyond your mutual imaginations how any of this stuff could be connected, or any other possible reason why race might be a factor in an officer-involved shooting in the United States of America of all places and you can't fathom why any of these sources would say the things they're saying then sorry, I'm not here to hold your hands and lead you through American History 101 or Criminology 101 and describe every possibility and bit of context that might lead to those many separate journalistic decisions arriving at the same end point of mentioning race. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I note that you didn't answer my question but instead chose to make a personal attack. It looks like you don't have a good answer. That's OK, I can live with that.Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I've got lots of good answers for for what I personally think could have happened and how it could fit into all of these other well-documented topics—but again, not here to hold your hand, and what you or I personally think has nothing to do with what this Wikipedia article should say. And if you feel attacked by me saying I won't hold your hand, feel free to haul me up on not-holding-your-hand charges: WP:NPA, if it really has any bearing, concerns accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, and you're the one who's saying you can't come up with any reason why all of these sources would regard it as informative to mention race, who's then putting the question to me because you WP:DONTGETIT. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 16:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It does not matter what the skin color of the officers are. Anyone can look up the officers' names and see that for themselves. Isn't this considered racist?

And no, contrary to popular belief, this was not a racially motivated killing. MrVikipedia (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@MrVikipedia: I moved your comment here because it's an existing thread on the topic.—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious_Bandersnatch—you say "Perhaps you could provide an example of an officer-involved shooting where you would consider the respective races of the shooters and the deceased to be salient, and would not laugh to see those facts mentioned in the lede of the article?" Where the "races of the shooters and the deceased [are] salient" they should be mentioned. The issue that I am raising, Struthious_Bandersnatch, is that the "races of the shooters and the deceased" are of no known consequence in this particular incident. Should we just go about adding racial overtones willy-nilly whenever possible? There is no known racial component to this incident, therefore I am raising a question about the emphasis placed on a racial dimension in our coverage of the incident. We know the officers were white but why would we be mentioning that in the lede? Shouldn't we ask ourselves a few questions first? Was there a racial component to this incident? If so, can you tell me what that racial component might be? Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice try at dodging the question, but of course if you can't even articulate your own alternative criteria for consistently deciding when race should be prominently mentioned in relation to an officer-involved shooting incident, your gut instincts are of course not going to supersede the Wikipedia policy of reporting what reliable sources say about a topic.

If you look at the Fox News article above it's not about the shooting itself but rather a protest-related incident a few days ago, and even in their one-sentence summary of the shooting they mention the race of the officers: Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation. (my emphasis) If indeed there is no known racial component to this incident you want to take it up with Fox News and the other sources. And if your gut instincts which can't be expressed as repeatable criteria allow you to see the truth past a Manichean delirium which confounds the rest of us, well désolé, monsieur but here it's Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest idea why you are referring to "gut instincts", Struthious Bandersnatch. Only sources can guide us in writing an article on a given subject. We address a given subject in accordance with applicable facts as provided to us by reliable sources and sources simply do not provide us with any reason to believe that race was a factor in this incident therefore why should race be mentioned in the lede? Sources do not show us that there was any racial animus in what transpired. Perhaps you disagree, in which case I think you should be substantiating an argument for a racial motive in this incident based on material found in reliable sources. I look forward to that input and I would be glad to discuss this question with you. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you seem super confused and foggy, because you, Bob K31416, and that random IPv6 address are the only ones in this who have mentioned animus or racial motive—not any other editors in this talk page, not the article itself, and not any of the sources I've seen. You would appear to be tilting at windmills, some fearsome giants who are incorrigible in their desire to get content about "racial animus" and "racial motive" into the article, where there isn't any content like that at all in actuality. And there aren't any giants. But Bob here makes a fine Sancho Panza.

To be clear, though I probably should know better than to expound—I'm saying this stuff about racial animus or racial motive is all you guys, it's not in the sources and it's not in the Wikipedia article and it's not in the other editors working here. The normal Wikipedia research and editorial processes should continue gathering content from the sources and writing content for the article, without adding or subtracting details based on hypotheses or theories involving "racial animus" or "racial motive" not existing nor existing. The Wikipedia article should stay the way it is, not discussing motive in any way whatsoever, unless the sources start to talk about motive. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 16:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—simple question: did race have anything to do with this incident? Can you show, by reliable sources, that race played any role in the incident which is the subject of this article? I assume not, or you or someone else, would have provided such a source by now. And if you are going to link to some citation, please be so kind as to cut and paste an excerpt of what you feel is relevant material from that citation. We're not here to promote narratives. Our purpose is to reflect sources. The role of sources can't be overstated. If race played no role—as seems to be the case—why are we stating races in the lede? You are not at liberty to make more of racial distinctions than are warranted by the case. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha. You have not responded to the question I put to you, Bus stop, but sure, I'll answer yours and even repeat the same source quote you ignored from two comments up. I welcome the opportunity to repeatedly showcase the RS basis for the article in this talk page.

Yes, race had something to do with the incident which is the topic of this article, and that's why when Fox News gives a one-sentence summary of the event they write, Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation. (my emphasis)

You appear to be operating on the theory that the only possible reason to prominently mention race when describing this topic, the way Fox News and the other sources are doing, is if a conclusion has been reached that there was a racial motive and racial animus on the part of the killers, and that this is being signified by neutrally stating the races of the parties involved. This theory seems to me to come from a bizarro alternate universe where Fox News, when editorially certain that visceral malicious heartfelt racial animus is involved in a story but government officials are denying it, mentions it only mildly and timidly rather than in high-dudgeon sensational language like this story about mistreatment and murder of Africans in India where they drop phrases like "daily indignities", "fear and insecurity", "strictly observed social hierarchies", "Prejudice is open in India", and "the worst kind of discrimination is reserved for the Africans."

And even were your hypothesis to be valid that all of these different sources have chosen to neutrally emphasize race as a way of expressing a conclusion about motivation and racial animus, the course of action you are urging is that Wikipedia must form its own, separate, conclusion asserting the absence of racial motivation and racial animus, and based on our own conclusion disregard and not include in our article the parts of all these sources which prominently mention the race of the individuals involved in the incident. Which obviously is the diametric opposite of We're not here to promote narratives. Our purpose is to reflect sources.

So in summation (which, to be clear, is repetition of points I've already made but you and other editors are WP:NOTGETTINGIT, they are points which you are avoiding acknowledging or responding to)

1. Mentioning the race of the individuals involved in this incident is not expressing any conclusion about motives on the part of the killers or racial animus and
2. Even if it were, your personal feeling that no conclusion of racial motivation or animus can be drawn in this particular case would not be a reason to elide the material from the sources mentioning the races of Taylor and the officers, which you are saying is evidence of such a conclusion on the part of the sources

--▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 07:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch—I asked you if race had anything to do with this incident. Despite your wordiness you are in effect conceding that race played no known role in the tragic death of Breonna Taylor. We should not emphasize, for instance by placing in the lede, factors that play no known role. The lede is for summarizing the article, but that does not mean repeating in the lede everything that is found in the body of the article. Many things found in the body of a well-written article are omitted in the lede. You are not at liberty to make more of racial distinctions than are warranted by the particular incident being addressed. There are black people and white people in this world but Wikipedia would not make the "bizarro" leap in reasoning to conclude that all interactions between white people and black people are racially-tinged or racist. The year is 2020. Our article should not be implying that the year is 1968. You need sources supporting that the racial distinctions in this incident played a role in the tragedy that ensued. This is the way Wikipedia operates—we require sources. You have not been able to find any sources to support your contentions of a racial component to the incident the article is writing about. In the absence sources we should consider the racial distinctions of people in this incident to be of no known significance, unless of course you can find a source supporting a role for race in the Shooting of Breonna Taylor. Racial distinctions are worthy of inclusion in the body of the article but racial distinctions are not worthy of inclusion in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: So I guess your hypothesis is that all these sources are prominently mentioning the race of the victim and the killers... what, for no reason at all? Or because they're all implying that the year is 1968?

The gambit was patently obvious, this rhetorical thing you've been trying to pull off—elicit something from me to position as supposedly the real, reduplicative rationale why this Wikipedia article would mention race, rather than our policy to present what RS say, and then try to bat whatever I've said down like a straw man (and you furthermore seem to have the simplistic expectation that there would have to be a solitary, uniform reason for each of these sources to have individually made the decision to mention race, which is why you also ignored it when I linked to articles on several possibly related phenomena above—that answer didn't suit your rhetorical purposes—when in reality for each source it's probably a different lengthy array of possible reasons)—that rhetorical gimmick was not going to work anyways, but now you've given it all away by skipping the essential part where you trick me into claiming to know what the sources were thinking—and just launching into a screed where you're claiming "You don't have any sources!" in the face of repeated direct quotes and in which you resentfully refer to the twentieth-century Civil Rights Era. I guess you just couldn't wait to get that off your chest.

It's also too late to try to smoothly go from claiming that observing the respective races of the participants in this incident is laughable, and acting all confused as to why these many sources would point it out—no known consequence! no known significance!—to some kind of face-saving concession that it belongs in the body of the article.

Our Wikipedia policies are the actual reason to present the races of the participants and other details from the sources; each source's internal rationale to prominently mention race, like Fox News's internal rationale to mention that the officers are white in its one-sentence summaries of the event, need be no more than a black box to us in most cases.

Statements in the article are not warranted by the particular incident being addressed and the WP:TRUTH that an editor claims to know about it, they're warranted by the sources. Even, indeed, if those sources are all as atavistic as you and are actually implying it's 1968. Though to me it seems pretty obvious that is not the case; statistical analysis of the example phenomena I gave above—like shooting bias, racially disparate outcomes in the United States criminal justice system, and discrimination based on skin color in policing, arrests, and surveillance—were much more primitive in 1968, so I'd suspect if factors like those are involved sources are considering the 2020 versions of them. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 12:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason to include race here. Bus stop, once you're done laughing over a sentence that describes yet another killing of a Black person by white policemen, maybe you have a moment to consider that, again, it isn’t about intent. Or about whether officers were “racially motivated”. Bob K31416, this goes out to you too. You’re just going to have to accept that we go by reliable sources, even if that presents a different picture of the world then what you had constructed. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, "we go by reliable sources", and reliable sources provide us with no information on any racial motive. This should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. Undue emphasis results from placement in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You keep talking about "motive" as if that is the important thing. It may not be. I don't understand this obsession with motive--as if all racist acts have to be explicitly motivated. That is not how systemic racism works. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Drmies—can we discuss one topic at a time? You are widening the scope of this discussion to Institutional racism, also known as "systemic racism". Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh. It's the same topic. Everyone discusses this killing in terms of historical and systemic violence on the part of (white) police officers against Black people. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Drmies, "Everyone discusses this killing in terms of historical and systemic violence". But Wikipedia follows sources. We adhere to the findings of sources. No source supports that race played any role in this exceptionally sad incident. You are not at liberty to make more of racial distinctions than are warranted by the case. Bus stop (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE doesnt require that we question the motive of why a subject is covered the way that it is. We reflect the weight that race is given in reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—I didn't "question the motive". The sources provide no racial motive. This should be in the body of the article, not in the lede. Undue emphasis results from placement in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: It's not an overt hate crime, if that is what you expect by "motive". Race is as oft-mentioned in this case as in the killing of George Floyd, where race has long been in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—I have to refer you to the essay other stuff exists. I happen to be discussing the Shooting of Breonna Taylor article. I'd rather not get into addressing possible problems at the other article to which you link. If we can stay on topic perhaps we can reach a rational conclusion on this question: should race be mentioned in the lede of this article? I say no. My reason, simply stated, is that no source is telling us that race played any role in what transpired. If you disagree then tell us, based on sources, how how race had any part in what transpired. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: WP:OSE says: When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. So race is a "possible problem" for you there as well. ... simply stated, is that no source is telling us that race played any role: See "Critics See Racism In Breonna Taylor Decision As Attorney Pushes For More Details" Forbes, for an example. Seach engines can help too.—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, In the first ref [16] in the lead of the article, it treated the race of the officers in the same way that I think Bus stop is proposing. It didn't mention it at the beginning but mentioned it farther down the page. Here's the excerpt.

A police officer has been charged over the narcotics raid that resulted in the fatal shooting of a black woman at her home in the US state of Kentucky.

Breonna Taylor, 26, a hospital worker, was shot multiple times as officers stormed her home on 13 March.

Brett Hankison has been charged, not with Ms Taylor's death, but with "wanton endangerment" for firing into a neighbour's apartment in Louisville.

Two other officers who were involved have not been charged.

Under Kentucky law, someone is guilty of wanton endangerment if they commit an act that shows "an extreme indifference to the value of human life".

This lowest-level felony offence can come with a five-year sentence for each count. Mr Hankison was charged on three counts.

What happened to Breonna Taylor?

Timeline of US police killings

Ms Taylor's relatives and activists for whom her death has become a rallying cry had been calling for the three officers, who are all white, to be charged with murder or manslaughter.

Bob K31416 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Writing an encyclopedic article is different than a news article, where the news provider writes to an extent expecting that readers have some background knowledge of an ongoing event. In any case, here's the beginning of a sports article from BBC, where it doesn't assume any background: Taylor, a black woman, was shot multiple times as officers stormed her home in Louisville, Kentucky, on 13 March. Two white officers have not been charged while a third, also white, was charged with endangering 26-year-old Taylor's neighbours.[17]—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If I understand your point about the example article I gave, it didn't mention that the officers were white until later in the article because it was expected that the reader knew they were white. Was that your point? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you can find news coverage back in the day that didn't (immediately) mention that Rodney King was black or that the officers that beat him were white. Still his article at Brittanica.com begins "Rodney Glen King ... was an African American construction worker whose videotaped beating by white Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers ..."[18]—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I can see that you're having to go far afield to find anything that might support your position, which for me shows it's weak. So that's enough for me since I don't expect that we will come to a meeting of the minds. No hard feelings. Bob K31416 (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I dont understand your "having to go far afield" comment. You found a source that didn't mention race in the immediate beginning, I gave you the counter BBC example where it was. I conclude that its position in a given news article is not a good measure, and used a non-recent case like King as a representative example. Yes, it's ok if we don't agree.—Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Stick to the sources

Back to the issue originally raised (race of the officers being mentioned), we follow what WP:RS say per WP:DUE. Here's what I found after a quick search:

News from late May and June 2020

Publisher	Link	Race of Taylor mentioned	Race of any officer mentioned
AP	[19]	Yes	No
CNN	[20]	No	No
CBS	[21]	No	No
USA Today	[22]	Indirectly	No
NY Times	[23]	Yes	No
BBC	[24]	Yes	No
Courier Journal	Article body yes[25], Article body no: only on photo caption[26]	Yes/Indirectly	No
NPR	[27]	Yes	No

July 2020

Publisher	Link	Race of Taylor mentioned	Race of any officer mentioned
NY Post	[28]	No	No
NBC	[29]	Yes	No
CNN	[30], [31]	No	No
Marietta Times	[32]	Yes	No
Courier Journal	[33]	No	No

August to today 2020

Publisher	Link	Race of Taylor mentioned	Race of any officer mentioned
ABC	[34], [35], [36]	Yes	Yes, but by Crump
Fox News	[37], [38]	No	No
NY Times	[39], [40]	Yes	Yes, in first link
USA Today	[41]	No	No
BBC	[42]	Yes	No

I'm going to add to this a bit more Done EvergreenFir (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

My takeaway is that we should mention the race of Taylor, but it appears WP:UNDUE to mention the officers' race(s). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I had listed these above earlier:

• Reuters "The other two officers who shot Taylor were not charged at all after Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, a Black Republican, concluded their use of force was justified ... The lack of charges against any of the three men, all of them white, for Taylor’s death triggered a new wave of the protests against police brutality and racism."
• BBC.com: "A police officer has been charged over the narcotics raid that resulted in the fatal shooting of a black woman at her home in the US state of Kentucky ... Mr Cameron, a Republican who is the state's first black attorney general ... Ms Taylor's relatives and activists for whom her death has become a rallying cry had been calling for the three officers, who are all white, to be charged with murder or manslaughter."
• The Guardian: "Taylor, a Black 26-year-old emergency room technician, was killed when three white police officers entered her apartment in the early hours of 13 March."
• FoxNews.com: "Taylor, an emergency medical worker, was shot multiple times in March by white officers who entered her home during a narcotics investigation."
• Los Angeles Times: "A day after grand jurors declined to charge officers for killing Breonna Taylor — a Black woman who was shot dead at night inside her own apartment six months ago ... Taylor was killed in March by white officers who used a “no-knock” warrant filed under a narcotics investigation to barge into her apartment."—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a reflection of the announcement last week of no direct charges for Taylor's death. If not now, what is your criteria for it being WP:DUE to add the officers being white to the lead? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Hm... sorry I missed that. But that's a good point about how the media have added that. Based on the overall sources, I'm still not sure that it belongs in the lead sentence. Later in the lead might be appropriate though. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir: If I understand correctly, your concern is WP:RECENTISM given the previous coverage from March through mid-September. Are you expecting 6–7 months of followup coverage mentioning the officer's race to balance that, or could observing over a shorter period be possible? It begs the question that if we accept that it's notable to the shooting that Taylor was black, why do we delay introduction of the officers' race when readers will generally then want to know the race of the involved parties, which is now prominent in sources.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Publisher	Link	Race of Taylor mentioned	Race of any officer mentioned
Reuters	[43]	Yes	Yes
BBC	[44]	Yes	Yes
The Guardian	[45]	Yes	Yes
FoxNews.com	[46]	Yes	Yes
Los Angeles Times	[47]	Yes	Yes
The Washington Post	[48]	Yes	Yes
Associated Press	[49]	Yes	Yes
The Independent	[50]	Yes	Yes
The Telegraph	[51]	Yes	Yes

—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note that 8 out of the 9 articles in Bagumba's list did not use "white" when first mentioning the officers. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

  Bob K31416: Are you open to "white" being mentioned later in the lead?—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—should we just go about adding racial overtones willy-nilly whenever possible? Do you have a source supporting that race played any role in the Breonna Taylor shooting? Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop: You might have missed my previous response to your same question.—Bagumba (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—you linked to a Forbes article. Absolutely nothing in that article would support that race played any role in the shooting of Breonna Taylor. Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you spelled Forbes correctly.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba—if you genuinely feel that anything in the linked-to Forbes article supports a contention that race played any role in the Breonna Taylor shooting—could you please cut-and-paste such material? Bus stop (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, Since you asked, I looked for where it would be appropriate and noticed the last sentence of the lead, like XavierItzm did. A pattern I found in the sources is that they mentioned "white" sometimes when they were talking about protests. I don't think that the source currently used for the last sentence uses "white" in any way, but a source that uses white in that way when it is talking about protests should be findable. So in that case I would be fine with "white" being used in the last sentence of the lead with a source cited that uses it in the same way.

The revised version of the last sentence could be,

"The shooting of Taylor by white police officers led to protests across the United States, and the grand jury not indicting the officers for her death led to more protests."

All that's needed is a source that uses "white" in a similar statement. Bob K31416 (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I started looking at Bagumba's list and found that the first source in the list, Reuters [52], was useful for the above proposed sentence. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Reuters article.

"The lack of charges against any of the three men, all of them white, for Taylor’s death triggered a new wave of the protests against police brutality and racism."

Bob K31416 (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Good job Evergreen. As posted originally the majority of sources do not cite race and even less lead with it. The article needs to be fixed to reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C801:B1F0:F5BB:3B86:E159:625A (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at the May/June table, we can see that the no/indirectly are about 1/2 and the yes are about 1/2. We can also see that only the NYT, BBC and NPR lead with Taylor's skin color; the other media either don't mention it or mention it half way down/a bit down.
  
  This raises the question: does Wikipedia need to open up with skin color as the 5th word of a 7,000-word article? Currently the lead section ends as follows: «Taylor's death and the non-indictment of the police officers for it led to protests across the United States». How about race is mentioned in this last sentence of the lead section, like so:

  Taylor's death, who was black, and the non-indictment of the police officers, who are white, led to protests across the United States.

  XavierItzm (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointed out above, even Fox News is now mentioning the race of the officers when it provides a one-sentence summary of the event (emphasis mine in all cases)

• here is another example: Protests have erupted in Louisville, Ky., after the grand jury declined to charge officers in the fatal shooting of Taylor, who was shot multiple times March 13 after her boyfriend fired at officers who had entered her home during a narcotics raid by white officers, authorities said.
• here Fox News identifies Hankinson as white when discussing him individually: Hankinson was fired on June 23. A termination letter sent to him by interim Louisville Police Chief Robert Schroeder said the white officer violated procedures by showing 'extreme indifference to the value of human life' when he 'wantonly and blindly' shot 10 rounds of gunfire into Taylor’s apartment.
• here, in June, Fox News wrote a story entirely about black protesters protecting a white police officer during a related protest, though it did not mention the race of the officers involved in the incident itself.

But the racial identities of the people involved hasn't just been related to protests; it's of course been an element in national and international journalism on and public interest in the topic, which we're discussing, it's been an aspect of lawsuits related to the incident, it's been a focus of legislative action mentioned in the article responding to this and other incidents, I'm noticing it's a topic discussed in legal and criminal justice journal articles... one of our sources in this article even says that the European Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile decided to not even investigate a Tuscan Grand Prix race driver for making disallowed political statements, when he wore a t-shirt saying “Arrest the cops that killed Breonna Taylor" to an FIA-sponsored anti-racism event and then during the race itself.

So, the lede should not give the impression that the races of Taylor and the officers are relevant only to protests.

Also I'm noticing that EvergreenFir's tables, in addition to not including the links from the bulleted list in the above discussion already shown through quotes to include the race of the officers, are doing things like linking to this Fox News page in which it's clearly visible from both still photos and video footage that the officers have light skin, but the table shows a big red "No" for whether the race of any officer is apparent. Did you compile all the tables while leaving that aspect of their coverage out?

Furthermore, WP:DUE does not attach to this: that Taylor is black and the officers are white is not a minority view or a fringe theory and sources which don't mention those things in their text, or which convey them by showing photographs or video, are not arguing against those facts. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 09:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In the news Sept. 27, 2020

In the news Sept. 27, 2020:

• Walker claims the single shot he fired was a "warning shot"
• A forensics report concluded that Walker did not fire the shot that hit Mattingly

173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Here an article from Louisville Courier Journal, "Ballistics don't support AG Cameron's claim Breonna Taylor's boyfriend shot officer".—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

From the article, here's an excerpt that is at the heart of a claim that Hankison may have shot Mattingly. It's based on a statement from Steven Romines, Walker's lawyer, about Hankison having a 9mm gun.

"The KSP report says “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9-mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun. 

Cameron said Hankison had been eliminated as the shooter because the three officers were all carrying .40 caliber handguns, while Walker had a 9. 

But appearing later that night [Sep 23] on CNN, Steve Romines, one of Walker’s attorneys, said he had obtained a LMPD record showing Hankison had been issued a 9-mm weapon as well. 

Romines declined to share the record from Hankison’s personnel file with The Courier-Journal, and LMPD spokeswoman Jessie Halladay said she could only release it in response to an open-records request."

Bob K31416 (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I put WP:INTEXT attribution that him shooting Mattingly is according to officials.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Change Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, thought they were intruders and fired a gun at them. According to officials, it hit Mattingly in the leg.

To Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, thought they were intruders, fired a gun at them which hit Mattingly in the leg.

I suggest this because the fact that the officer was hit is not in question. 2600:8802:3200:AA7:50E7:7307:73C4:46D1 (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See the above thread #In the news Sept. 27, 2020. Also, the source cited on the page attributes it to officials: Officials say Mr Walker's bullet struck a police officer, Jonathan Mattingly, in the leg - an injury for which he later required surgery.[53]—Bagumba (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the change not being warranted, that's not grammatical English. (And the original language is wrong too; it should say "the round hit ..."--the gun surely didn't hit his leg.)--72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

"On September 23, the night after the grand jury verdict was announced, protesters gathered in the Jefferson Square Park area of Louisville, as well as many other cities in the United States, including Los Angeles, Dallas, Minneapolis, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Denver, Nashville, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Portland.[89][90]" Please change "as well as many other cities in the United States" to "in addition to many other cities in the United States" becuase the sentence structure sounds better. Thank you! 73.167.238.120 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. "In addition to" is a preposition, but it doesn't make sense to put "many other cities" before "Louisville". The problem here is the comma after "Louisville". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

May we change the archive period to 7 days?

Now that the talk page is creeping over 100kB, may we change the talk page archive period to 7 days? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

CAN we get a consensus over here please?

Thx much. 172.58.228.89 (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)