Jump to content

Talk:Buffalo police shoving incident

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.35.187.79 (talk) at 18:53, 21 October 2020 (→Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Martin Gugino’s biography does not represent a neutral point of view

His Twitter page portrays his as a far-left activist. Until today, his tweets were public, and displayed hate/violence towards the government and police officers. Abobeck11 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Abobeck11: get a WP:Reliable source, green colour from WP:RSP. starship.paint (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking further, it looks like this is actually mentioned in the Buffalo News article that is already cited as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abobeck11 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck claims until reliable source found. starship.paint (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint:: Editing the comments of other users this way is explicitly forbidden by WP:TPO, so I've removed the strike-out tags. If a talk page comment is libelous then it should just be deleted, but this doesn't cross that line. Smyth (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Why was my piece on Radio Frequency Aquisition Mode deleted? His phone was in RFAM and therefore is relevant to the discussion. My mom is a college lecturer and said that we shouldn't be deleting comments, but having open discussion. Can I repost about RFAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.5.79 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because it violated our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy, which includes talk pages. We cannot make baseless accusations like that. We go on what reliable sources say, we do not speculate or report conspiracy theories. P-K3 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck would anyone know what mode the victim's phone was on... ridiculous. starship.paint (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "ridiculous", even my mom agrees. You can tell by the way he waves his phone, that it's clearly in RFAM. Just because you don't understand science, my mom and I do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.5.79 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One's own analysis of the footage would qualify as original research, and that is against policy on Wikipedia. In order for a claim to go in an article, it needs to be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source. Armadillopteryxtalk 15:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I will email Wikipedia now. If if you look at the footage, you can see a small RED flashing light on his phone. That is the activation of the RADIO FREQUENCY ACTIVATION MODE!! It can be nothing else. I will email Wikipedia and ask them to investigate this. If they come back and support me, then I am going to write about RFAM in the article! Let's see what they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.147.5.79 (talk)
To what extent does "not a forum" apply. Because comments like "It can be nothing else." look suspiciously like misinformation to me, and allowing it to remain even on a talk page worries me. It's good that you guys have a strong quality control system in place for that though.Fearless lede'r (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we know: The origin of this nonsense is an anonymous blogger using the nickname "Sundance". He posted his claim on a far-right blog called "Conservative Treehouse", which describes itself as "a Rag Tag Bunch of Conservative Misfits".[1] The only "evidence" he cited was his own Twitter feed. The item was picked up by a "reporter" named Kristian Rouz (who also works for the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik). It was broadcast on the notorious cable news channel One America News Network.[2] Trump picked it up from there and amplified it in a tweet which has been condemned from all sides, Republicans as well as Democrats. Bottom line: We here at Wikipedia require Reliable Sources. That is about as far from reliably sourced information as it is possible to get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs)

Ah, sorry to disapoint your Melanie, but I am certainly not a blogger called "Sundance.". I am from Bundaburg Springs, Queensland, Australia. I didn't start the RFAM idea, I simply found it online and thought it was appropriate to post. Even my mom agreed with me. I am not sure what you are gaining by calling me Sundance and claiming that I started it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:d47c:dc00:815f:36cb:6c43:263e (talk • contribs)
Although you consider her as such, from what I understand, unless your mom appears on the list of acceptable reliable sources (WP:RS) for the purpose of this article she is not a reliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia for the purpose of this article. Fearless lede'r (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to make it known that I too feel the article does not have an equal amount of valid information from all sources as required by encycolopedic neutrality. There is no information on why the police pushed him for instance, despite him walking up to them and, from what I see, clearly touching his phone against an officer possibly up to three times. There are reports and video footage of this. There is also no detail on Martin Gugino's past arrests which he himself has declared on his own blog source (which, as he is the subject and those are his words is a valid source). I have tried to make two edits now adding what I am very sure are valid references but they have been reverted. Gu64rk g (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Byron Brown did not describe Martin Gugino as an "agitator"

Snopes has reported on this error which stemmed from a conflation of Mayor Brown's description of two different people: Martin Gugino and Myles Carter. From the transcript of this interview, it is clear that Brown's use of the word "agitator" is being applied to Myles (erroneously named 'Miles') Carter and not Mr. Gugino.

[1]

[2]

Xerotex (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Xerotex[reply]

You are correct [3] and I have removed it from the article. The reference that was supporting the claim was a dead link anyway. P-K3 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree and Xerotex: - I think it would better serve our readers to note the incorrect information, rather than have others coming around and saying: "hey you didn't mention agitator". starship.paint (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: I thought it was better to just get rid of incorrect information as soon as possible, but your addition is fine with me.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/09/trump-gugino-tweet/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.snopes.com/notes/buffalo-press-conf/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

More detailed description of Martin's activities while approaching police officers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CubkyIzygQ Title of the video is biased but a description of what is happening in it would be good for the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.117 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, not Youtube videos. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you slow a video down, everything looks suspicious, no? starship.paint (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there has been no acknowledgement of the fact he approached police with his iPhone on RADIO FREQUENCY ACTIVATION MODE, it;s been very depressing for me to see that this has not being acknowledged. It is used by people to jam police radio.
Stop with the damn conspiracies for god's sake. That is not a thing.  Nixinova   T   C   20:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See above for the origin of this nonsense. As for "Radio Frequency Activation Mode" and its supposed ability to jam police radio, I could find no such thing as "Radio Frequency Activation Mode" in a Google search.[4] -- MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description of officers walking by

The article says "Officers in the line appeared to walk past Gugino, as he lay on the ground with blood pooling around his head. One officer attempted to check on Gugino but was pulled back by another officer and both continued to enforce the curfew." I don't see it like this, because the officer who pulled the other one back talks into his radio gear while he is staying near Gugino. To me it looks like he is calling for medical assistance. Didn't anybody else see this?--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree except this is the essence of WP:OR. We go by what reliable sources say. --Malerooster (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to One officer attempted to check on Gugino, but was persuaded to move on by another officer. Source says One officer leans down to check on the injured man before he is urged along by another officer, the video shows. starship.paint (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure the cops called for medical assistance. I have seen reports that it was bystanders who did so. See here, for instance: "People can be heard shouting in the video that the man was bleeding from his ear, and that medics were being called. An ambulance arrived soon after." Of course it's possible that both the police and the bystanders did so. And as for "while he is staying near Gugino", that's not what I see. He starts to bend over but is immediately pulled back into line by the officer next to him. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't talk about the officer who is pulled back. I talk about the officer who pulls the bending one back. He appears to be staying four feet next to Gugino, because he seems to be the one who gives instructions to the other officers. However he is not standing still, but rather walking in an half-circle looking around. He can be seen up to second 0:17 of the clip (in the last few seconds before he cannot be determined anymore, he can be seen on the left-hand side of the screen).--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo deletion discussion

Our main image is being described as unnecessary; Defense of its usage is welcome at: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2020_June_10#File:Assault_on_Martin_Gugino.png Feoffer (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Looking at the titles of the (currently) 30 sources used as reference in this article:

  • Two sources have a title containing "assault", in both cases as part of the "charged with assault" expression
  • Two sources have a title containing "Martin Gugino"
  • 21 sources have a title containing "Buffalo"
  • 8 sources have a title containing "shoved"
  • 7 sources have a title containing "shoving"
  • 5 sources have title containing "tweet"
  • 10 sources have a title containg "Trump"

My issues with the current article title:

  • Clearly not the "common name" of this topic (WP:AT)
  • POV ("charged with assault" is not the same as an assault having taken place – can still take a considerable amount of time before the qualification is exactly defined, and Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance on that)
  • Most of the press articles don't concentrate on Martin Gugino (from a WP:BLP1E viewpoint we shouldn't have this article if it's mainly about this person): there are more articles concentrating on the Trump tweet than on the Martin Gugino person; and many more that concentrate on the incident.

Proposing Buffalo shoving incident as a replacement article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively Buffalo police shoving incident ("police" appearing in 23 of the sources' titles), but less WP:CONCISE as an article title; also, I suppose it best the article title neither singles out the person being shoved, nor the party doing the shoving. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and moved the article – if not OK, I suppose we should have a WP:RM to determine the title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to Buffalo police shoving incident, as that's what it's about, and nearly all sources have "police" or "officers" in the title. No objection to moving it back to the "assault" title and having a proper RM if people disagree of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
"Assault" raises questions of objectivity. (For the record, I do consider it assault.) But since the officer has yet to be convicted of assault, more neutral language should be used. JakeDapper (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with a move - I never did like having his name in the title - but I wonder if "Buffalo police" is a little unclear? Will people, not familiar with the names of U.S. cities, wonder what in the word are the buffalo police? Maybe we should say "Buffalo, New York police shoving incident" since Buffalo is not one of those U.S. cities where the state can be omitted. And the city is certainly not the Primary Topic for the word buffalo. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken, Fram, and JakeDapper: Any thoughts about this? Or other possibilities, such as "Police shoving incident in Buffalo" or simply "Police shoving incident"? (It's not like we need to distinguish it from other police shoving incidents.) -- MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd keep to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and its recommended When–Where–What sequence in article titles: the "Where" (=Buffalo) after the "What" (=shoving incident) doesn't conform to that format. Neither do your other proposals seem an improvement (the first unnecessarily long, thus falling way short of the "conciseness" criterion of WP:CRITERIA and the last falling way short of the "precision" criterion of that same policy – my first 3-word proposal had a better precision with the same amount of words). In short, I'd keep to what it is now, and if you have another idea, WP:RM is thataway. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not just Police shoving incident, during the same protests in the country we have had other such incidents. starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victim's Twitter account

I removed the sentence about the twitter account & am preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "not relevant; WP:AVOIDVICTIM". The policy says When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. The material is off-topic as the Twitter account did not precipitate the incident. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand how you can say the material is off-topic. Do a search for “Martin Gugino” on Twitter and you’ll see his tweets and how much controversy they are spreading among the media. I don’t see a problem with stating it was deleted when it’s backed up by two reliable sources. Abobeck11 (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this Wikipedia policy is ultimately about neutrality, including it makes sense. The entire source obviously did not investigate both sides of the situation entirely. Abobeck11 (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the policy says. If there are concerns, they can be taken to WP:BLPN. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ready the policy. The policy says material should be on-topic, and it’s on-topic. Abobeck11 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this again. I told you this once on your user talk page, but don't restore material challenged on a policy basis without obtaining consensus. Re-read WP:BLP, because your summary of the policy is incorrect. In fact, it's the opposite of what the policy says: BLP (like other policies, including NPOV/WEIGHT) more or less expressly rejects the idea that all sourced or relevant ("on-topic") material should be included. In any case, the "drew scrutiny" phrase is not supported by the cited WaPo source. Neutralitytalk 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if included (about which I have no strong opinion) it should be moved to the "Aftermath" section. It doesn't belong in any other section than "Aftermath". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Drew scrutiny” is indeed supported by the source. This is in fact the exact language that is used by the source. I think putting it under “Aftermath” definitely makes more sense. Can we achieve a consensus here? Abobeck11 (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you post here a quote containing the few sentences around the "drew scrutiny" quote? The Buffalo News source is paywalled, so I cannot read it in context. I remain very concerned by the due-weight and BLP issues and around the vagueness of this. Neutralitytalk 15:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last 3 paragraphs of the article are as follows: “It has since been taken down along with his Twitter account which has drawn intense scrutiny. On June 3, the day before the pushing incident, Gugino retweeted Emma Gonzalez, one of the survivors of the Parkland school shootings who has herself become an activist. She wrote "(expletive) the police." And he commented on the retweet the same words. The phrase has been repeatedly used during the protests here in Buffalo and across the nation. Gugino's Twitter account was taken down as of Tuesday.
Bisson said about the tweet: "He was more likely to echo something someone said. ... It was atypical," Bisson said. "Like an answer to a cry started up in a protest." If you can’t view the article, you can copy and paste the text into Google and see the link to the article come up with the text in the meta description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abobeck11 (talk • contribs)
It is still unclear to me what is the relevance of the victim's Twitter account is to the shoving incident. Can someone elaborate? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s related to the shoving incident because it was taken down right after it occurred and became a national news story. The media is making him out to be this “Catholic peace activist” which is true, when his tweets show a different side of the story. Since they were taken down so quickly, the media was never able to tell the full story beyond “intense scrutiny.” There are still screenshots of his tweets circulating on Twitter. Abobeck11 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's claims - just "false", or "baseless and false"?

Should the article reflect Version A: Trump made several false claims in his response to the incident on Twitter or Version B: Trump has made baseless or false claims in his response to the incident on Twitter? Taking this issue to talk due to User:JimKaatFan's revert. [5]. I refer you to the sources below. starship.paint (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 (globalnews.ca) [6]: U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday claimed, without providing evidence, that a 75-year-old man who was shoved to the ground by police during an anti-Black racism protest in Buffalo, N.Y., was an Antifa provocateur.

Source 2 (BBC News) [7]: We've seen no evidence to suggest he was trying to scan police devices. It is also not clear how police equipment could be interfered with in this way. There are plenty of apps claiming to be able to listen into police audio that have been popular during the recent wave of protests in the United States. But these apps wouldn't allow you to interfere with a police device - or to "black out police equipment" as the president suggested.

Source 3 (CNN) [8]: the President of the United States suggested -- without offering a shred of evidence -- that the entire episode was the result of a broad scam involving Antifa, a protest organization "whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform." [...] In the segment, footage is shown that suggests the man, Martin Gugino, 75, "was appearing to use common Antifa tactics" when he approached the officers." That tactic? Using his phone to "scan" police communication. The OAN reporter claims that Gugino was using police tracking software on his phone. But there's absolutely no way of telling that from the clip; what's on the screen of Gugino's phone is not visible. And he could just be gesturing with the phone. Again, there's simply no way of knowing. [...] What we also know is that Gugino is a longtime activist and peaceful protester. There is no evidence that he is part of Antifa.

Source 4 (Associated Press): [9] President Donald Trump ignited fresh controversy over his hard-line “law and order” push Tuesday by peddling yet another unfounded conspiracy theory, this time trying to raise suspicions about a 75-year-old protester who was hospitalized after being shoved by police and falling. Trump tweeted without evidence that the confrontation in Buffalo, New York, may have been a “set up” as he once again sided with police officers over protesters and demonstrated anew his willingness to spread and amplify bogus charges cooked up by far-right outlets. [Tweet] There is no evidence to suggest that anything of the sort took place. As for the substance of the tweet, the president’s claim is “so technically incomprehensible, I’m not even sure where to start,” said Matt Blaze, a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University. It is possible to disrupt police radio —an illegal action often called “jamming”— but hackers can only do that by attacking receiving stations, not with handheld devices that target an individual police officer’s radio, Blaze said. “Any radio system is subject to interference, but it doesn’t work by pointing some sort of ray gun and interfering,” Blaze said.

In my reading of the above sources, the only claim the sources say is false is the theory that Gugino was trying to "black out communications" (Source 2 & 4). Every other theory is not stated as false, but as baseless / without evidence / unfounded / unknowable - these theories are him being Antifa (Source 1 & 3), this being a setup (Source 4), him scanning or tracking the police (Source 2 & 3). Therefore, we should use Version B "baseless or false", instead of Version A of just "false". starship.paint (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nom

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Fuzheado (talk), Starship.paint (talk), Leaky.Solar (talk), and Fram (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 03:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi @Starship.paint: what I'm saying is that on my calculations the article was begun with text from another article and therefore would need to have been expanded fivefold from the begin point of 1820 characters. I'm drawing on rule 1b: "Former redirects, stubs, disambiguation pages, and other pages in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles." Mujinga (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Will expand and ping you. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mujinga: The 7-day rule doesn't apply here. Many times we ask nominators to improve articles during the course of the review, and sometimes they even add other articles that have just been created during the review process. You pointed out that the article must be 5x longer than the part which was copied. If it now meets this criteria, you can go ahead and do the review. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mujinga, Yoninah, I don't believe that a 5x expansion of the copied material is necessary, because the copied material itself was new (written June 5 and 6, and copied June 9). Per WP:DYKSG#A5: New text seven days old or less can only count toward the 1500 character minimum in one article; if it is duplicated in other nominated new articles, it is ignored for the purpose of character count. (It it had been over seven days old, then the expansion would be required.) So in this case, the copied characters, being duplicated from from George Floyd protests in New York (state)#Niagara Square police violence incident in Buffalo police shoving incident are excluded from the total count of the latter, but that total count of the rest of the article just needs to hit the 1500 minimum. At this point, it's large enough regardless of the counting method, but had it not been expanded, it would still be long enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The source is online and good but needs to be on the relevant sentences, which I would say are "By June 4, 11:05 p.m., the two officers who had pushed Gugino were suspended without pay, with the Buffalo police chief ordering for an investigation of the incident." and "On June 6, officers Robert McCabe and Aaron Torgalski were charged with second-degree assault, a felony"
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Earwig throwing up some stuff but it's direct quotations and the Trump tweet so no copyvio. Since there are pics, do you want to add one? Just a thought. As another comment, I find it a bit jarring that some quotations are wikilinked eg "serious but stable condition" → Medical state and "were simply following orders" and "simply doing their job" → Superior orders. This seems a bit like editorialisation, in contrast to "Black Lives Matter" → Black Lives Matter which seems like a straightforward link. Mujinga (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think MOS:LINKQUOTE applies here—links within quotations should be avoided if at all possible. In the cases noted above, there would seem to be neutrality issues, and neutrality is a requirement at DYK for both articles and hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will ping when I get back to this! starship.paint (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Starship.paint: Great, we are nearly there now. I just noticed "75-year old" should be "75-year-old" in the hook and I'd still like the sentence "On June 6, officers Robert McCabe and Aaron Torgalski were charged with second-degree assault, a felony" to have the Acevedo reference on it, I know it's on the following sentence but it's good to have it on the specific claim about being charged with assault. Then the nomination will be good to go. Mujinga (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I just took a look at this article and find it lacks neutrality. As I said on a similar nomination, this is a very volatile issue and must be handled in a completely neutral manner. Stating in Wikipedia's voice that the Buffalo police department issued a false claim, or that President Donald Trump spread false and unfounded conspiracy theories in his response to the incident on Twitter, using news outlets as verification, is unacceptable. There has not been a criminal trial, but I don't see the word "allegedly" being used anywhere except in the headline of The Washington Post. (It is absolutely mandatory in the hook.) I think you can tone down the inflammatory language in the hook without losing clicks. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • starship.paint, Yoninah: With respect to the Trump comments: "Trump spread false and unfounded conspiracy theories in his response to the incident on Twitter" is perfectly fine because this is directly supported by numerous, high-quality sources that are properly cited. We do not need to water down "false and unfounded," nor should we include in-text attribution. The WP:WIKIVOICE section of WP:NPOV says, "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." The WP:EVALFRINGE section of WP:FRINGE says, "Claims that are uncontroversial and uncontested within reliable sources should be presented as simple statements of fact." The fact that Trump's comments were false is not seriously contested among the reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 14:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 ... that the Buffalo, New York police shoving incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with assault? Source: NBC News

  • Thank you, Starship.paint. I have done some editing on the article to try to remove the POV tone, but more work needs to be done. I left a note on the talk page. Your ALT1 hook is not much of an improvement in terms of sensationalism. Let's talk again after you rewrite the lead and deal with that WP:UNDUE paragraph. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoninah - exactly which part of the hook is sensationalism? We have (a) the location of the event, (b) the title of the article which summarizes the event, (c) the victim, (d) the consequences suffered by the officers. That's all. starship.paint (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that the Buffalo, New York police shoving incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with assault, to which they pleaded not guilty? Source: NBC News

Better. But the bolded link is saying they did it. Why "shoving" as opposed to "pushing"? Perhaps you could pipe the link. And I'm wondering why you keep suggesting a hook that describes the incident, rather than rework it to focus on another aspect of the case, such as the responses from the police and government? Yoninah (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah:, do a CTRL-F, there are 25 references in the article which use "shoving/shoved". Even Trump himself used "shoved". As to why I keep suggesting a hook that describes the incident, that's because the incident itself has proven to be interesting. Were it not interesting, a video of the incident would not have garnered 70 million videos. I simply don't believe that responses from the police or from the government are more interesting than the incident itself. Now, if the below will satisfy you: starship.paint (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 ... that the Buffalo, New York police pushing incident of a 75-year-old man resulted in two police officers being suspended and charged with assault, to which they pleaded not guilty? Source: NBC News

The idea is good Yoninah, except that it misses the significance of the shove, which was that somebody was seriously injured. How about something like:

ALT0 is better than fine: Factual, neutral, interesting and hooky.Djflem (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, evrik, calling it a "police shoving incident", saying pushing a 75-year-old man to the ground, and using news sources to prove that this is what it happened, is unacceptable. They were charged with assault, but pleaded not guilty. This is clearly a case of trial by newspaper. Yoninah (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm, I'm sorry, but I came by here to approve the hook. "police shoving incident" is part of the name. NBC news said, Two Buffalo officers charged with assault over police shoving 75-year-old man to ground --evrik (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. There's a problem with the page name. The whole article is tainted by POV reliance on media reports. It's too bad no one thinks to insert "alleged" anywhere, not least in the hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The courts will determine if the shoving of the man was assault, but the FACT that he was shoved is not alleged.

ALT0? good to go. The hook and title are fine and certainly within Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The backbone of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability backed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and this article and its hook are above and beyond compliance.Djflem (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" makes no sense in the given context. It's not an "alleged" shove, it's a demonstrable shove which millions of people have viewed on video. The allegation is that the shove constituted the crime of assault. So ALT0 simply makes no sense. Gatoclass (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i think you must mean Alt0b here? Mujinga (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. I meant the original, which I assumed was ALT0, tho, the below Alt0c is fine: more or less same thing, different wording.Djflem (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for confusion Djflem, I was actually talking to Gatoclass, I think they must have meant ALT0b not ALT0, because there's no "alleged" in ALT0. Yes I still like ALT0 myself too, I'm also fine with ALT0c as a proposed compromise. Mujinga (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, succinct, verified by RS Djflem (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok, would it read better with "Buffalo Police Department officers" replacing "Buffalo, New York police officers"? The comma between Buffalo and New York trips me up a bit. Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ALT0c reads better to me. I don't mind the two Buffalo, New York, police officers. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phone waving / scanning

I believe the waving and scanning video I have uploaded forms is required to form an unbiased part of this story. Omitting this information will make the article one sided.

Gu64rk g (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: my edit keeps being reverted without entering into logical discussion. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gu64rk g (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're blocked now, but it's clear that you're trying to promote a conspiracy theory about "scanning," whatever that's supposed to mean. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gu64rk g: The claim that Gugino was attempting to "scan police communications" when he was attacked is a baseless conspiracy theory. This is explained in this article, where reliable sources are cited. If you believe that a slow-motion video can be used as evidence for a claim of that sort (on Wikipedia or anywhere else) you have been misled. Wikipedia cannot be used to propagate conspiracy theories or to make baseless claims about about living persons. I would very strongly advise you against continuing to attempt to add such claims to this article after your block expires. If, however, you're convinced that it belongs in the article, you need at the absolute minimum to understand WP:BRD, which makes it very clear that you have an obligation, when trying to add contentious material to an article, to engage in discussion rather than continue trying to add the material after others have reverted your initial edit. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Arms & Hearts: I removed 'appeared to show Martin Gugino pass his phone over the police officer's equipement' in the next edit [10]. It didn't say anything about scanning but I can see that it could be seen as a view. I then altered the text to say 'Close up video footage of Gugino with his phone in his right hand.', I was careful to remove anything that mentioned a view whilst adding correct information fundamental to encyclopedic neutrality. Video footage shows the 'scanning' or 'waving' or nothing at all; it is now up to the readers to make their mind up what it is. I personally feel it is not clear of either activity but it is important to the article as controversy has centered on why the police felt the need to push him. The photographic recording is a factual recording of events which has no bias. I still feel it is important to add this. I categorically deny that I was claiming "scan police communications", that is incorrect, I never mentioned the words scanning and the second post mentioned nothing other than 'Close up video footage of Gugino with his phone in his right hand.'. I did not write those words you have accused me of writing. I feel strongly that it was not contentious material as it is a video recording of a key moment during the event. I strongly claim that the animated gif is important in ascertaining why the police officer's pushed him and that is fundamental to the story. Gu64rk g (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity I include the gif here for others to assess it's suitability. (Redacted) I personally feel it is an important piece of information that is required in the article. It is factual and does not show a view. What it does is show the actual event as it happened and as the video recording shows it. I cannot see how this is at all promoting a conspiracy theory. My thoughts as to why this is important is because (as I said above) it could provide information in a neutral way as to why the police officer's pushed him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gu64rk g (talk • contribs) 19:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, are you still promoting this nonsense - that he was up to some kind of mischief when he waved his phone around? You used to say he was “scanning” the officer with his phone, which he had set on “Radio Frequency Activation Mode”, but RFAM does not appear to exist.[11] So it looks like you have now dropped that, but you still think there is some significance to what he was doing with his phone? We have disproven and dismissed this at least twice already at this page, see #Martin Gugino’s biography does not represent a neutral point of view and #More detailed description of Martin's activities while approaching police officers. To summarize, this is a rumor that has been circulating on the internet. You didn’t start it, you “simply found it online” and decided to believe it. (“I saw it on the internet so it must be true.”) This has no credibility and no place here, so please stop wasting our time with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: It seems you have got me mixed up with someone else! I have never said anything about scanning! Nor about RFAM! Many apologies for the exclamation marks but I have had to deny that I am promoting consipracy theories about 4 times now. I am not. If you look at the above and read it through I made no mention of scanning. The edit that I would like to add is the animated gif (of the event as the video captured it) with the text 'Close up video footage of Gugino with his phone in his right hand.' That is all. I think this is valid information that helps add to the neutrality of the article. Gu64rk g (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize, I did mix you up with some others. The previous nonsense was promoted by someone called Abobeck11 and at least three IPs. You just chimed in at that discussion today, which is why I picked up your name. In any case, there is still no credibility to the claim that he was waving his phone around in some significant way that might have been taken by the police as a reason to shove him to the ground and leave him injured. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not mixing you up with anyone else - you started this thread, stating "I believe the waving and scanning video I have uploaded ...", and posted this [12] in the article, with accompanying commentary. This isn't a forum for original research or conspiracy promotion, and you'll be blocked for BLP violations if you keep it up. Acroterion (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed Gu64rk g's actions since the block ended, and don't see that they have taken my warnings into account, nor am I impressed with their gaslighting in this thread. I've blocked them indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Gugino's own Blogger account

I feel Martin Gugino's own Blogger account should be admissible as a source because he wrote it and it shows his account of his life such as his arrests and his health problems which have been disputed. This is a valid source as he is writing about himself. Wikipedia says as for blog posts as reliable 'Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used. There are three major policies, guidelines, and pages that cover this. '. Further details: 'Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.' WP:BLPSELFPUB] The key words here are 'unless written or published by the subject of the article'. Martin Gugino is the subject of the article and the blog has been written and published by him therefore I feel it should be allowed. Gu64rk g (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gu64rk g, how have you verified that the writer is, in fact, him? Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd the blog links to a number of his other blogs. The dates go back to years in the past and have his pictures in them. There is a lot of detail. Having a quick look through them it seems like they correspond to some of the reported information about him. There are a lot of posts there (in the linked blogs) so I think this would be incredibly unlikely that the blogw were from anybody else. Gu64rk g (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We rarely cite to blogs because it leads to cherry-picked WP:OR. We never cite to unverified blogs. Neutralitytalk 20:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy WP:IMPARTIAL violation in "President Trump's response" subsection

Really don't like the way this section is worded here. While I personally don't necessarily disagree with the section's claims, it is a massive violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. I'm honestly considering just blanking the entire sub-section out until a proper subsection with a proper impartial tone can be drafted and written. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and blanked it. I considered trying to redo the section myself but I haven't really been keeping tabs on this incident so I'm not sure I'd do a great job. --letcreate123 (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see your blanking has been reverted, and I agree with that revert. Trump's response was well-documented in reliable sources. Feoffer (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted (another) attempt by letcreate123, on June 29, to water down or neglect what the reliable sources say. We state facts as facts here. WP:FRINGE comes into play, as does WP:BLP. Please don't touch this section again in the way you have been doing. Neutralitytalk 15:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I actually came to the talk page to see what people were saying about that part. Reading it, I thought that the chunk of stuff about OANN seemed to drift a bit off-topic into general criticism of OANN which, while entirely valid criticism, made the whole section feel a bit slanted. I think that last paragraph could be condensed down into a more simple description that they are highly partisan source who have acknowledged that they have zero evidence for the claims that they made. Maybe also the bit about the protesters, although even that feels a bit gratuitous to the topic. I could also see an argument for slightly condensing the paragraph of responses to Trump's response -- it looks a bit long, but I can also see why all four of the people quoted are quoted. Maybe just trim the word count a bit. That said, I think the first half is a great example of impartial, properly documented reporting on a figure of controversy, I wouldn't change a word there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.201.237 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I keep wikilinking the police union's claim that they "were just following orders" to superior orders but someone keeps removing it. This is a real wiki article and legal defense, but it keeps getting removed (possibly because it doesn't portray police in a good light to be using Nazi rhetoric). I will add it again for a 3rd time but everyone keep an eye out for this censorship. --Converting to insanity (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking to a court plea which is premature. Reverted until such time that defence is raised in court. WWGB (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this distinction matters in this case. But regardless that article deals with wider topics than just the specific plea. From the article in question:
Apart from the specific plea of superior orders, discussions about how the general concept of superior orders ought to be used, or ought not to be used, have taken place in various arguments, rulings and statutes that have not necessarily been part of "after the fact" war crimes trials, strictly speaking. Nevertheless, these discussions and related events help to explain the evolution of the specific plea of superior orders and the history of its usage.
AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink to superior orders is being deleted per the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Buffalo police shoving incident. MOS:LINKQUOTE says "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author" Mujinga (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I have edited the article for POV language and tone. There have been no trials or convictions, so we cannot state outright that the officers pushed the man and caused his injuries. I also tagged the lead for being insufficient and one-sided. It needs to summarize the whole article, which would include the various reactions and opposing viewpoints of what happened. That whole paragraph about the One America News Network looks WP:UNDUE and sounds like Wikipedia is trying to discredit it. Yoninah (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no trials or convictions, so we cannot state outright that the officers pushed the man and caused his injuries. This is a misunderstanding of the relevant policies, and of the facts of the case. The absence of a conviction of course prevents us from asserting, even implicitly, that a crime was committed – we can't say they assaulted him – but doesn't prevent us from reproducing widely reported facts. If the cops' lawyer was to claim that they didn't push him they would be laughed out of court; what's in question isn't whether they pushed him but whether doing so was within the limits of their legal powers. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

The incident has been defined as "pushing" in the lead, but the page name is using a harsher and more deliberate term: "shoving". What about changing the page name? Yoninah (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defined i don't know, it reads to me more using a different word to not keep on using the word "shoving". Regarding changing the page name, I'll just note that WP:POVNAMING states "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." Mujinga (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: - if you have an issue with the page name, start a requested move. Let's get a conclusion on this. starship.paint (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at A.C.A.B.

More comments are requested at Talk:A.C.A.B.#Request for comment on text removed from ACAB article. 71.178.129.13 (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

In President Trump's response, remove the "without evidence", since unfounded = without evidence. 108.35.187.79 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffalo_police_shoving_incident&oldid=984725971"