Talk:Killing of Laken Riley/RFC on Aftermath

RFC: Killing of Laken Riley and Political Impact

{{rfc}} Which of the following actions should be taken to provide neutral point of view in the Aftermath section of the article?

You may rank two or three alternatives in the order of preference, that is, with the preferred alternative first.

Option A - The Republican pov and counterarguments are both presented neutrally according to reliable sources.

Option B - Remove the section on the Laken Reily Act and make no reference to the politics.

Option C - The killing was used by Republicans to raise opposition to their claims of Biden's immigration policies.

Option D - A generalized statement and link to another article. Please specify the article or write the article if yo select this option.

Please select one to three options, in ranked order, with a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to the posts of other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for.

Please be aware that this article and so this discussion concern American politics in 2024 and are a contentious topic.

Discussion

Option C is confusingly written. The killing was not “used by Republicans to raise opposition to their claims”… It was used to raise support for their claims. I would suggest rewording along the lines of “The killing was used by Republicans to bolster their calls for more robust border security”. This is factual (the Rs do want more robust border security)… and Neutral. By intentionally focusing on what the Rs were FOR, there is no need to discuss the factual accuracy of what the Rs said they were AGAINST. I think this shift in focus avoids any need to explain what they were “opposing” (and whether their opposition was based on reality or not). It avoids the POV questions that come with all of that. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

But doesn't the wording imply that their "calls for more robust border security" are legitimate, and if not legitimate, then within the realm of normalcy? Imagine if the suspect were African American, and the Republicans were exploiting the murder to crackdown on "black criminals" based on erroneous, clearly racist, assertions, and nonexistent crime data. If we wrote "The killing was used by Republicans to bolster their calls for tougher crime measures" in such an article, and left it at that, similar NPOV issues would be raised, and rightly so. I mean think about it. The fact that we could write something as vague as "border security", and every single one of us knows what that means, despite the fact that the US has more than one border, is a sign that this wording is suggestive even for us, let alone the average reader who will be drawn to this article by political rhetoric. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether their calls for more robust security were legitimate or not… we are sticking to what is factual… and what is factual is that they did call for more robust border security. Blueboar (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)