Talk:Killing of Willie McCoy

Age?

How old was he, exactly? Different sources are saying 20 or 21. This unreliable source gives his birthdate as 4 April 1997. Muzilon (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It doesn't matter how old he was exactly. WP:BLP applies. Zazpot (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

Information to add to the article: what kind of gun did McCoy have in the car with him? Was the gun licensed? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

 Implemented. According to WP:RS, the police alleged that a gun was in the car, that it was a stolen gun, and that it had a 14-round clip. Also according to WP:RS, the family expressed doubt about that allegation. This is all covered in the article. Extra detail beyond that is likely to be WP:TRIVIA. Zazpot (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

problematic paragraph

"McCoy then moved in a manner that was interpreted differently by different sources. The police department expressed its interpretation in an annotation inserted into the bodycam footage: "hand reaches to gun on lap".[12] The Guardian disputed the accuracy of that interpretation, saying that the videos at that point are "blurry" and "show McCoy’s body moving slightly, but do not capture his hand moving to the firearm, which is not visible in the footage."[12] NBC News said, "McCoy then jerks up and appears to reach down. His face is obscured by the officer's arm, pointing his gun." KTVU said McCoy "seems to bend from the waist and move his left arm."[17]"

First off its not being interpreted in different ways and the guardian isn't disputing the annotations, only pointing out the bodycam doesn't show us the gun/his hands. There is also objective assessments which should be made clear. The video does show him move forward and the video also shows his left arm moving. I think it should be significant overhauled to be much more clear on which is objectively seen and what the police infer is going on.71.89.114.35 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done.

First off its not being interpreted in different ways Yes, it is. The subsequent sentences illustrate that, by showing a variety of interpretations from each of several WP:RS.

the guardian isn't disputing the annotations, only pointing out the bodycam doesn't show us the gun/his hands The cited Guardian piece says: "Vallejo police officials slowed down the video in the final seconds before the shootings, adding a caption that said "hand reaches to gun on lap". The videos of the 9 February incident, however, are blurry in that moment and show McCoy’s body moving slightly, but do not capture his hand moving to the firearm, which is not visible in the footage." (My emphasis.) This makes clear that what the police caption asserts about what the video shows is different to what The Guardian's journalist could see in the video.

There is also objective assessments which should be made clear. What?

The video does show him move forward and the video also shows his left arm moving. That is your interpretation. You are not a WP:RS. Zazpot (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. The way it is written implies that they are disputing that McCoy was reaching for the gun. They are not stating that he was not reaching for the gun, merely that the video does not make that clear. Emeraldflames (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Background Section Very Biased

″Background Victim biography McCoy lost both parents to cancer by the time he was 12 years old.[3][4] He did well at sports in school, and earned his GED before dropping out to pursue music.[3] Collaborators noted his work ethic and desire to succeed.[4] Under the stage name Willie Bo, he performed in the group FBG (Forever Black Gods).[3]

Police department background Around the time of McCoy's shooting, Vallejo Police Department had about 100 officers and served approximately 122,000 people.[5] In 2012, its officers committed fatal shootings at around 38 times the national rate, or 20 times the rate in nearby Oakland and San Francisco.[6] A third of the city's homicides were due to police.[6] Around that time, Vallejo residents asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate Vallejo officers' use of force as it had done in Albuquerque, New Mexico.[6] From 2015-2017, the department spent more per officer in fines or settlements for civil rights abuse claims than any other large police force in the Bay Area.[7] From 2016-2019, five of Vallejo's police officers shot multiple people.[8][5] [5][9]

At the time of McCoy's shooting, Officer McMahon, one of the officers who shot him, was under a civil lawsuit for shooting a man dead in February 2018.[10][5]″

Only "positive" things mentioned about the "victim" (itself a biased descriptor). Only "negative" things mentioned about the Police Department. Emeraldflames (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done It is unclear what you are asking. Zazpot (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking that the background sections not be POV, listing exclusively positive things about one party, and exclusively negative things about the other. Emeraldflames (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Emeraldflames: the background sections state what is WP:VERIFIABLE and otherwise in accordance with Wikipedia guidance, not what is "positive" or "negative". If you see the material as "positive" or "negative" rather than "factual" and "encyclopaedic", then please consider the possibility that, despite your presumably good intentions, your comment above may be effectively a request for what is known as WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Also, please do not persist in WP:EDITWARRING or WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Several of your edits have already been reverted and reasons provided in the corresponding edit summaries. If the explanations did not satisfy you, please explain your dissatisfaction here on the talk page so that we can address it and seek consensus without edit-warring. Thank you, Zazpot (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There is reliably sourced, factual information about the decedent, but it's discarded with reasoning that isn't applied to the other parties in the event. A civil law suit and a year-old investigation, neither of which have been resolved or have any direct relevance to this specific event. That remains, along with identifying the decedent as a "victim", when the police allege that he reached for a firearm. That would preclude him being seen as a "victim" of the police, or of "circumstances", or of anything other definition you might use. The shooting of Trayvon Martin page doesn't refer to Trayvon Martin as a "victim". It simply uses his name. Simply using McCoy's name seems to avoid all of the issues you have raised, and yet you still insist on using the word "victim".

It is inserted in the article that he was fatigued and fell asleep in his car, as though this were an established fact. Regardless of what any particular RS has stated, this is absolutely is NOT an established fact. No encyclopedia would list this as a fact at this point. What the RS ACTUALLY says, by the way, is: "He had recently returned from a tour with his group and was likely fatigued that evening, said David Harrison, Willie’s cousin." Basically, his cousin said it, and so it is now included as fact in this article? Is this really how an encylopedia works? I think not.

There are also included information about the police chief announcing his retirement (which other sources indicate had been in the works for a while) with the obvious implication that this event had something to do with it. There is no indication that this is the case other than a RS (the media) making that same specious implication.

Finally, regardless of whether the police KNEW it was an extended clip, the fact is that it WAS an extended clip. It is relevant to understanding what the situation actually WAS. An extended clip being in the gun vs no clip being in the gun is a big factual difference in what happened. It's not germane to what the police's PERCEPTIONS were, no, but it's germane to what ACTUALLY happened. It's a fact, and not merely a "reaction".

The article is filled with POV, and "He was fatigued and fell asleep in his car" is very much a dubious statement. If we are to apply consistent logic, THAT belongs in the REACTION section, since it essentially just amounts to something somebody who knew him *said* about the incident. And, again, to use the logic you applied, it isn't something the police would have known, and so I presume you think that also should not be in the shooting section.

I won't continue to debate it or whip out links to Wikipedia Policy. It's pretty clear this article is POV and contains several misleading and dubious claims, reported as fact. Perhaps another editor will fix it at some point. Emeraldflames (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC) — Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would also add, regarding your comments reverting my edits, that it's very easy to find a RS that refers to him as unconscious. Second, the article does NOT, as you say, state that he was fatigued or otherwise establish this as a fact. It just says that his cousin said he was fatigued. That is nowhere close to the same thing. Third, "McCoy, fatigued after returning from tour and spending the day recording music, fell asleep in his car with the engine running" absolutely and completely implies that he fell asleep due in part to fatigue. But neither him "falling asleep" nor his being "fatigued" are established as facts by the RS that you reference. This is "stuff his cousin said." To insist on reporting either thing as a reliably sourced fact is absurd in my opinion. Emeraldflames (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I wonder if it's the same cousin as in the video linked here  ? If so, he also says "We're at war.. it's these mother fucking pigs is your mother fucking enemy" towards the end of it. Ya know, you're right, I think he is a very reliable source of information. And, applying the same sourcing procedure used to establish that he was fatigued and had fallen asleep, I think we should include somewhere in the article "The motherfucking pigs are our enemy", followed by the citation. Wherever you think it fits in best. Use your best judgment. Emeraldflames (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Confirmed that it IS the same cousin. It's in a video from a RS, so let's roll with it. He also makes reference to making [the pigs] "pay". So, we should probably just state that the pigs need to pay, followed by the citation. This video is a goldmine of reliable information and it's in a Reliable Source so it's a done deal! Emeraldflames (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here I'll help you out. I'm guilty of WP:SARCASM Emeraldflames (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"He was fatigued and fell asleep in his car" ... belongs in the REACTION section, since it essentially just amounts to something somebody who knew him *said* about the incident. And, again, to use the logic you applied, it isn't something the police would have known, and so I presume you think that also should not be in the shooting section. That is an interesting point, thank you. I will give it some thought.

There are also included information about the police chief announcing his retirement (which other sources indicate had been in the works for a while) with the obvious implication that this event had something to do with it. There is no indication that this is the case other than a RS (the media) making that same specious implication. This concern has already been addressed here.

regardless of whether the police KNEW it was an extended clip, the fact is that it WAS an extended clip. This is not established as a fact. At the moment, it is just an allegation made by the police some time after the shooting. (The earliest source currently cited in the article, for that claim, was published on March 29, 2019; though perhaps the claim was publicly made earlier than that.)

It's not germane to what the police's PERCEPTIONS were. I am glad you agree.

it's very easy to find a RS that refers to him as unconscious. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Vallejo-police-release-body-camera-footage-in-13727056.php. That source only refers to unspecified "reports that McCoy was unconscious". It does not use the term in its own voice.

I wonder if it's the same cousin... It's in a video from a RS... I'm guilty of WP:SARCASM. Indeed. Please see the notice at the top of this page. Thank you, Zazpot (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think my sarcasm was on topic. Since you are a fan of identifying fallacies, I would suggest looking up "argumentum ad absurdum", which is what this was. Same with the Ted Bundy comparison.

You are making some progress with your removal of the factual statement that he was fatigued, but it still remains in the article as fact that he was "asleep". That is not a fact. It has not been established. Even if you find an RS or 10 that use the word "sleeping", it will remain not established. I'm sure there is some wiki policy I could track down that would explain this better. The toxicology reports have not been released and, other than his family saying he was sleeping, there is no compelling reason to believe that is the case. I'm certain there are plenty of RS that will refer to him as unconscious or unresponsive and not use the word sleeping. Perhaps I can waste some of my time finding some of them so that we can move on from this specious argument that 3 "RS's" said he was asleep and so that's what we should use.

You are correct that the extended clip information is just a statement from the police, however, it is a statement that they made that is germane to the event itself. The title of the section is the shooting, not 'Police Perceptions of "the shooting".' It is not merely a "reaction" but an official statement from a government organization about the facts. It doesn't belong in the reaction section.

I mentioned that in the Trayvon Martin article victim was not used in the descriptor. The same can be said in the Michael Brown article. No, I am not talking to you about these articles, I am pointing out that in other "shooting" situations the consensus was to avoid using "victim" as the descriptor. It is POV, and, IMO, obviously so. Regardless of whether you can find an RS or 3 that also improperly use the term.

You did not respond to my question as to why RS information (his arrest history and the police's statements about finding guns at his house) about McCoy is off-limits, but the civil law suit and the investigation into the police department are OK. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Took me less than 10 seconds. Note the use of the term unresponsive. I can quite easily find more. But I don't think it's matter of who can find the most RS's using a term, but choosing the most appropriate term to use. In this case unresponsive, or unconscious are far more appropriate than sleeping. Emeraldflames (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think my sarcasm was on topic. In the face of this sort of attitude, assuming good faith is hard to sustain. If you are WP:NOTHERE, then the door is easy to find. Zazpot (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest looking up "argumentum ad absurdum", which is what this was. Same with the Ted Bundy comparison. If it was an attempt at argumentum ad absurdum, it was not a successful attempt.

Even if you find an RS or 10 that use the word "sleeping", it will remain not established. This is tendentious.

You are correct that the extended clip information is just a statement from the police, however, it is a statement that they made that is germane to the event itself. I refer you to my previous statements on the matter.

You did not respond to my question as to why RS information (his arrest history and the police's statements about finding guns at his house) about McCoy is off-limits, but the civil law suit and the investigation into the police department are OK. Yes, I did. Zazpot (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't agree with your statements. Victim is obviously a POV descriptor that you have chosen to use rather than a neutral term such as decedent or simply using his name. "Sleeping" is obviously a POV descriptor, not established by the facts, that you have chosen to use rather than a neutral term such as unresponsive. Tendentious, indeed. Unless there is something in Wikipedia that gives you the right to control this article, I would like some neutral, objective editors to weigh in on these issues. Emeraldflames (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, reliably sourced information characterizing the content of the lyrics of the group mentioned in the background sectio is removed because you've decided it's "out of context". How is it out of context? If you would like to provide additional context then please do so, but simply removing reliably-sourced information doesn't seem appropriate. You didn't seem interested in any information that might put the negative information about the police department (questionable information at best) into context. As I stated from the beginning, the "Victim" (itself an unnecessarily POV descriptor) background contains only flattering information while the police department's background onl contains negative, unflattering information. It's not "False Balance", it is simply the result of a very POV-written section. I find it hard to believe that any objective encyclopedic editor, familiar with the facts of this event, would not cringe reading this section. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word "Victim"

Here, Emeraldflames replaced the common word "Victim" with "Decedent". This was reverted as WP:JARGON.

Here, Emeraldflames claimed, without any evidence, and in the context of this article, that "Victim is a POV word. The police certainly don't view him as a victim."

Let me address comprehensively the appropriateness of using the word victim to refer to McCoy, in the context of this article, to avoid any further edit-warring.

• First of all, the linguistic perspective. This article is written in American English. It is titled "Shooting of Willie McCoy". In conventional American English usage (and also in British English, incidentally), the victim (or victims) of a misfortune is the person (are the persons) most grievously harmed by that misfortune. E.g.:

• Webster's Dictionary (1913) provides the following sense of victim: "A person or living creature destroyed by, or suffering grievous injury from, another, from fortune or from accident; as, the victim of a defaulter; the victim of a railroad accident."
• WordNet 3.0 (2006) provides the following sense of victim: "an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance."

The shooting of Willie McCoy was a calamitous misfortune in which one and only one person was clearly harmed far more than anybody else involved: Willie McCoy. As such, referring to Willie McCoy as the victim of the shooting is entirely appropriate in American English, and as such is not POV-pushing.

• Secondly, the WP:RS perspective. At least three RS refer to McCoy as the "victim" of the shooting: [1][2][3].

Therefore, on this basis as well, referring to Willie McCoy as the victim of the shooting is entirely appropriate, and as such is not POV-pushing.

I rest my case. Zazpot (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

By that rationale, we should have an article called the Electrocution of Theodore Bundy, and we can give a bio of the "victim" Ted Bundy, and maybe list some of the civil suits that the executioner had been involved in. After all, Ted Bundy did suffer grievous injury from another. And that's a pretty adverse outcome for Mr. Bundy, don't you think? Being strapped to an electric chair and being electrocuted. Those are some REALLY unfortunate circumstances.

McCoy MIGHT be a victim, but it's also possible that he was reaching for the weapon to shoot and kill these officers. In which case, his death would not be due to "misfortune" or "accident", but as a direct result of his aggressive action. Victim would not apply.

Just because a RS says something doesn't automatically make it appropriate. If I go find three RS that do NOT refer to him as a victim does that mean we don't refer to him as a victim?

Again, the shooting of Trayvon Martin page doesn't refer to Trayvon Martin as a "victim". It simply uses his name. This would appear to be a reasonable solution to the issue. Instead you are advocating identifying him as a victim.

Emeraldflames (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC) — Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

By that rationale, we should have an article called the Electrocution of Theodore Bundy, and we can give a bio of the "victim" Ted Bundy, and maybe list some of the civil suits that the executioner had been involved in. This article is not about Theodore Bundy, it is about the shooting of Willie McCoy. I do not know anything about Theodore Bundy.

If there is some person called Theodore Bundy who was executed by electrocution, and if Wikipedia has an article about that event, then the improvements you proposed above should instead be proposed on the appropriate article's talk page. Alternatively, if you saying that in your view, McCoy was executed, then make that plain in this conversation, and provide RS to support your view.

If I go find three RS that do NOT refer to him as a victim does that mean we don't refer to him as a victim? Short answer: not if multiple RS exist that do refer to him as a victim and no policy or guideline exists against using those RS. Longer answer: the proposal of yours that I quoted at the start of this paragraph is a variant of the logical fallacy called denying the antecedent.

the shooting of Trayvon Martin page doesn't refer to Trayvon Martin as a "victim". It simply uses his name. This would appear to be a reasonable solution to the issue. Instead you are advocating identifying him as a victim. I have made no statement here about Trayvon Martin. That said, if Wikipedia has an article about the victim of a shooting, and especially if that person is referred to as the "victim" of that shooting by multiple RS, and if the article fails to identify the victim of the shooting as such, then that article would seem to be in need of improvement in that respect. But this talk page is not about other articles, so please let us keep it on-topic. Zazpot (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Go to the wiki search bar and enter Theodore Bundy. Then look up "argumentum ad absurdum" and you'll understand the point I was making. Again, just because several RS's use a POV term, does not mean Wikipedia should follow suit. It is not as simple as you are suggesting. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — Emeraldflames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Go to the wiki search bar and enter Theodore Bundy. Be courteous.

Then look up "argumentum ad absurdum" and you'll understand the point I was making. No joy.

Again, just because several RS's use a POV term, does not mean Wikipedia should follow suit. You may believe the term is POV, but the evidence suggests otherwise and besides, you are not a WP:RS. Zazpot (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't interpret your evidence the same way. We obviously aren't going to reach consensus on this, so I would like for some neutral, objective editors to weigh in on this. Since you are more familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, perhaps you can steer us in the right direction on how to make that happen. Emeraldflames (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: "Victim" jumped out at me as a loaded word that implies no case could be made the person did anything to cause their own demise. For comparison, look at the article on the Shooting of Daniel Shaver -- the word "victim" does not appear. Under "Background", the heading simply lists his name. I think the police were at fault in both the McCoy and Shaver cases, but it is better to just state the facts and let the reader decide if they were a victim. In the case of McCoy, he had a gun in his lap and did not put his hands up as quickly as the police thought he ought to. In the case of Shaver, he reached to pull up his pants, and an officer says he thought he could be reaching for a gun. There are two sides to both stories, even if the police sides are weak IMO. Go to the YouTube clips of the Shaver shooting and you'll find plenty of comments from people saying he's not a "victim" because he'd be alive if he "simply followed police instructions". Calling them a "Victim" is taking a side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7c0:c500:3540:d43:fafd:eae0:28dc (talk • contribs) 04:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say. As mentioned above, the sources say "victim," as in victim of an unfortunate incident. User-generated content sites like YouTube are not considered reliable. That is especially true for user comments. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I can point you to local TV clips where the news anchors state Shaver was killed because he made moves that police experts say were justifiable cause for his shooting. I'm sure I could also cherry-pick "Reliable Sources" that use the word "victim". This is precisely why an article like this should avoid using the word -- it takes a side -- the word is loaded and very easy to cherry-pick from RS by wiki authors pushing a POV. And don't wave "this article isn't about Shaver" BS at me -- this is about how this type of article should be handled, and Shaver is a very good comparison. There's also George Floyd -- note his article only uses "victim" in the context of discussing legal definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7C0:C500:3540:C4A0:304C:E12A:9EA6 (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The excerpt about FBG's lyrics

This is the paragraph from the reliable source. "McCoy clung to the mostly black neighborhood of squat homes and dead-end streets known as The Crest. He went by the stage name Willie Bo, and performed with cousins in the group FBG (Forever Black Gods). Their songs permeated with lyrics about money, guns and street violence — familiar themes that often attract attention from local law enforcement."

It does go on to include his video music director opining that they were trying to conform their lyrics to look cool. ("What it sounded like is that they needed to conform their lyrics, to look cool," Welch said. "I saw it more as a cool thing — kids see you on YouTube like you have all this money.") His video music director cannot be assumed to be objective on the matter, and so his opinion shouldn't have a lot of weight. I don't object to his opinion being included, however.

That his raps were "permeated" with lyrics about guns and street violence is not only highly relevant to his background, but highly relevant to the shooting. Since, after all, the police allege he had a gun, and that he reached for it. To NOT include this, and to NOT include the fact that the police reported that guns had previously been found at his residence during a criminal investigation of him (also highly relevant to the situation since, after all, he is alleged to have had a gun in his lap) is nothing short of a white-washing of his background.

All of that is actually RELEVANT to the situation. Instead, the background talks about his "work ethic" and his "desire to succeed", which really has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Their songs permeated with lyrics about money, guns and street violence..." Here (reverted here), here (reverted here), and here, Emeraldflames inserted, out of context and therefore against WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and evidently against another editor's concerns, an excerpt about FBG's lyrics from an NBC News piece.

In the NBC piece from which the excerpt was copied, it is immediately followed by another statement that places it in context and essentially implies that the lyrics should not be taken literally.

However, the excerpt, out of context and by itself, is liable to give readers the impression that NBC thinks that the lyrics described were intended to be taken at face value, which would be misleading. That in turn risks readers being led to believe that FBG (and consequently McCoy) held views that they may not in fact have held. Because this article is subject to WP:BLP, the inclusion of the excerpt as performed by Emeraldflames seems to me to be therefore both a WP:BLPSTYLE violation and a WP:BLPBALANCE violation.

(The excerpt as currently included is also ungrammatical, but that is a minor issue by comparison.)

I therefore ask Emeraldflames to remove that excerpt. Zazpot (talk) Zazpot (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I added the quote from the video director. I cut and pasted the quote about their characterization of the lyrics. The missing comma is in the original source as well, but I don't see any harm in fixing that. Emeraldflames (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand why you made the stylistic changes you did to my inclusion (which I know you oppose), to make it more concise but, ironically, I now think it inadvertently *overstates* what NBC was saying.

"Under the stage name Willie Bo, he was part of the group FBG (Forever Black Gods), performing songs about what NBC News described as "money, guns, and street violence," which a collaborator suggested was because "they needed to conform their lyrics, to look cool. I saw it more as a cool thing — kids see you on YouTube like you have all this money."[3]"

I don't think they characterized all of their songs that way. Just that their lyrics were "permeated" with these topics. This change implies to me that these were the only things they rapped about. They had other lyrics and topics as well. I would support modifying that to reflect this. Emeraldflames (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

[Expressed concisely, the material] inadvertently *overstates* what NBC was saying.

Including the material without context has all the problems I described above (and, arguably, also violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM).

Including the material is anyhow possibly WP:UNDUE, and is even more likely to be so if covered expansively. The biography is currently a short summary provided to make an event understandable for readers, not an article about FBG's music and how people interpreted it.

I can't say I understand why you think the material should even be included.

The bottom line is, though, you included it, and if it turns out that its inclusion cannot be achieved while meeting Wikipedia's policies and guidance, then the responsibility is yours to either make it meet them or to remove it. Zazpot (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. I DID provide context, and included the statement from the video director that was in the original article. In attempting to make it more concise, I think *you* inadvertently presented NBC's statement out of context.

First of all, the fact that a RS mentioned this information in their biography of McCoy indicates that *they* thought it was relevant to understanding his background. *If* there is going to be a background section (which I question the usefulness of), then we need to include ALL relevant information about his background. Not just identifying him as a rapper, praising his work ethic and desire to succeed, and the group he was a part of. That includes the lyrics that he wrote.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't seem applicable for several reasons. One, these are his lyrics. These are the lyrics he wrote, and publicly performed for the world. How can there be an expectation of privacy for something you literally perform in videos for publicity? And, again, particularly the parts of that policy that reference "of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions."

The way this background section has been set-up, and the way that information is being excluded from it, seems to presume that he is a "victim". Once again, I do not think it is clear at all that he is the victim of other's actions, of circumstances, or of anything else. I maintain that labeling him as a victim, in any context, is a very POV assumption. Our goal is to make this article NPOV.

I'm not sure how the relevance of these lyrics to the background section can be called into question. He is identified as a rapper. The sources say that music was his life. His music is how he chose to project himself to the world.

Additionally, even outside of a "background", it can be argued that someone who raps extensively about guns and street violence just might be more likely to *have* a gun (as the police allege), and more likely to reach for it (which the police allege.) In the same sense that (referring to the Police Department Section) a Police Department with a history of complaints by some residents of using too much force might be more likely to have police officers on duty that might use too much force. In the same sense that someone who has a civil suit against them already for improper use of force, might be more likely to have used force improperly during this encounter. That is, after all, why those lines are included about the Police Department, right? Surely, it works both ways, right? Emeraldflames (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a Gish gallop. Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT, and then WP:REDACT your above monologue until it is concise, grounded, and, ideally, devoid of assertions previously addressed. Then maybe we will approach an understanding of one another. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I disagree that it's a Gish gallop. It may be a wall of text to you, but it is a very complete answer to your inquiries. There are valid, non-specious arguments in there that you have not adequately addressed. I'll give another example of one you haven't addressed. You provided the English definition of victim and I explained why that definition did not fit, and then you ignored that and responded to other arguments I had made. I agree that I could make things more concise. Emeraldflames (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Bio?

The piece reads as a bio. However, its title suggests it relates to an event (a shooting).

It would make more sense to lead with the information about the shooting, rather than biographical information. (I would make these edits myself, but I see the previous debate on here and don't wish to go against consensus.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.50.87 (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus below that policy is in favor of the proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Shooting of Willie McCoy → Killing of Willie McCoy – Per WP:Deaths. Inexpiable (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Support -after discussion below - On a quick search of the headlines of all the sources used in this article: 10 RS's describe this as a shooting, 4 as a killing.---Avatar317^(talk) 02:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, per Wikipedia policy, the article needs to be labeled as a killing, not a shooting. See WP:Deaths. Inexpiable (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

From WP:DEATHS: "Before using the flowchart, editors should make a good-faith effort to determine whether a COMMONNAME for the event can be determined from reliable secondary sources. Editors should only resort to this flowchart when such efforts fail or a consensus cannot be reached on what the COMMONNAME is from among the reliable secondary sources."

And WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be killing of. Per WP:CONSISTENT as well. I'll link a similar move request for the Killing of Michael Brown, I think @Muboshgu: summed it up nicely as to why any page where the subject died and was not injured should be titled killing of as opposed to shooting of. Please look at these similar examples for my justification: [4], [5]. Inexpiable (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, yes, more consistent, and more concise than "Fatal police shooting" and since the person died, more specific than "shooting of". I changed my opinion above.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.