Talk:St. Louis gun-toting incident

"Unarmed" Protestors allegation?

It seems partial and biased to claim the protestors "were unarmed" when there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. It cannot be denied that the police did not strip-search every protestor. If one owns a gun, it would be a reasonable assumption that one would bring it with them if they are participating in a large protest which covers a fiery and controversial subject...

Furthermore, the claim that the protestors were "unarmed" unfairly portrays the McCloskeys as aggressors, when in fact, many people agree that they were simply trying to defend their property against an uninvited mob of angry strangers (many of whom were shouting slogans of "EAT THE RICH" and other challenging ideals). At the very least, the nature of the mob being armed or not is a matter of contention, as Mr. McCloskey states in his testimony that at least one of the "protestors" brandished a handgun with a loaded clip.

So, to state with bias that the mob of people were ALL unarmed is to violate the level of objective quality which Wiki is recognized for upholding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:C80:EE00:0:0:0:2591 (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Creation

I am creating a dedicated Wikipedia article for the "St. Louis McCloskey Gun Controversy" because this incident and controversy is already spread across at least 3 Wikipedia pages with no quality control. Having it be on a dedicated page is better. It is currently being covered on the following 3 pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Gardner#2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Missouri#St._Louis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_and_Westmoreland_Places#2020_firearm_brandishing_incident KeenHorizon (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename?

This seems to be a forced, awkward article title. I think it is a category name at Huffpo [1]. There has got to be a more concise title. Maybe "St. Louis gun-toting controversy"? Does "McCloskey" need to be in the title per WP:BLP1E? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement. How about 'brandishing'-controversy? Toting seems to mean carrying somewhere with you. 154.5.84.161 (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The crowd was trespassing on private property

I have amended the first line to reflect this. There is no doubt that it was trespassing as the BBC source below says "About two hours into the demonstration on Kingshighway, the marchers began making their way towards Krewson's home. They walked north and made a left toward a street called Portland Place, which is blocked at both ends with imposing stone and wrought iron gates. Signs marked "Private Property" are posted at either end."TopGun1066 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of the 2013 bee incident to this article?

I'm not sure what the relevance of a 2013 dispute over a beehive is to this article about a 2020 incident involving firearms and BLM. I guess it is meant to go into the McCloskeys' characters prior to this incident but it just seems a little forced and unrelated. Like, someone who got into a dispute may have gotten into a completely unrelated dispute 7 years prior, but I don't see why that matters for the article about this dispute.2600:6C40:1900:166E:91D4:721D:4C02:9606 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)JMM

I made a small change

I edited the sentence that labeled Marjorie Taylor Greene as a QAnon believer. While true, this is WP:UNDUE. It sounds like we are trying to poison the well because the fact that she believes in QAnon is not relevant. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If a descriptor really has to be included, I would much rather prefer "far-right" or "conspiracy theorist." Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Is a gun still a gun if it can not function as a gun?

This article repeatedly says that Patricia McCloskey was “armed” with a “gun” but what Patricia McCloskey had in her hand at the time of this incident fails many definitions of the word “gun” Gun - a device that throws a projectile What she had in her hand was a hunk of metal that she was aware could not operate as a gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.13.57 (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Allegation that Cori Bush led a mob against the McCloskeys

I have a problem with this paragraph in the "aftermath" section (I already modified it to say "alleged in an op-ed"):

Allen West, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, alleged in an op-ed that "Democrat Congresswoman Cori Bush of Missouri... is someone speaking to condemn the violence of January 6th when she actually led a violent march against two people... Cori Bush is a BLM activist who led the mob that called for the rape, murder, and burning of the home of Patty and Mark McCloskey of St. Louis. I know this for a fact since my wife Angela and I hosted the McCloskey’s for an event here in North Texas, and they stayed at our home for two evenings." Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) repeated the accusation, quoting West, and "berated" Bush outside her office in the Longworth House Office Building, forcing Bush to change offices.

Sources

The reason I have a problem with this is I could find absolutely no news reporting of a mob calling for the "rape, murder and burning of the home" of this couple. You would think that such a thing would have been reported, wouldn't you? The couple has claimed they drew their guns because they were "in fear for their lives", but no reporting has mentioned anything about threats of murder, rape, or arson, or about protesters being specifically "led against" the McCloskeys rather than the mayor's house. In fact as far as I know, the McCloskeys themselves have never made any such claim publicly.

Just now when I googled "Did Cori Bush lead a mob against the McCloskeys?", the first link I got was this, citing the accusation without qualification in Wikipedia's voice. Unless we can find some independent confirmation of any such incident, I think we should trim or remove the whole paragraph. I suppose we could add a note that there is no independent confirmation, but that would be Original Research - better to remove it entirely since it is unsourced except to a partisan op-ed. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove as you suggest would be my recommend. Feoffer (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I will remove it. Basically this is a giant BLP violation - a serious accusation against a living person with no reliable sourcing. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Crowd broke gates to get onto their property

There is now pretty clear evidence that at least some of the crowd members forced themselves through the gates at the house, whereas the article states they just came near it. I believe that’s pretty substantial to not be included. Derachu (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Derachu: Can you please provide links to reliable sources or the evidence that you're referring to? - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

There is video that shows the gate was intact and open at the start of the entry by the protesters into the subdivision, and no evidence exists that shows the gate is on the McCloskeys's property. The contentions otherwise may have been invented to legitimize that armed confrontation with the protesters. If editors here can't provide links that establish what is contended, the unaddressed, four-month-old request by Whisperjanes for the provision of RSS would seem to be the basis for removal of the text from this page, wouldn't it? Activist Activist (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Term "gun-toting" fails NPOV

"Gun-toting" is pejorative and carries a connotation of criminality, according to English dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster: "Carrying and using a gun usually for criminal purposes". Others state that the term is more commonly used to refer to the carrying of pistols than rifles. Equally concerning is its inaccuracy: the McCloskeys weren't "toting" or "carrying" guns—they armed themselves specifically in reaction to the protest march outside their home. One would never say "When they saw protestors outside their home, they went to the basement and began toting guns" or "to tote guns". While "gun-waving" seems to be common with a number of sources, it suffers from some similar problems regarding NPOV and accuracy. My suggestion would be a neutral one, something along the lines of: "Portland Place protest confrontation". Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the pardon, the connotation of criminality is appropriate. Feoffer (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect, a pardon is given to people who are guilty of a crime, the pardon only excuses them of the punishment, it doesn't overturn the prosecution. John Cummings (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Gun-toting is an awkward and loaded political phrase. "Portland Place protest confrontation" is a much more appropriate title Wthompson2009 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Mark McCloskey needs his own article

I feel like "Mark McCloskey" deserves his own article. At this point he is a well-known public figure actively running for U.S. Senate, with more notoriety outside of just the gun-toting incident.

I've created that article. He certainly did deserve his own article and the redirects had made things very confusing. Activist (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Activist, the page you created has been redirected again to the "gun toting" article. Can you recreate it please?

The article I created is not the problem. It is the redirect of a search and I don't know how to remove that, though obviously that's what needs to be done. Activist (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Activist, Mark McCloskey is currently a redirect to this page because that was the outcome of an AFD discussion in June, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McCloskey. At that time the article was just a few sentences with three references. I see that the new article you created, Mark Thomas McCloskey, has much more detail and would probably pass AfD. It would be possible to move it to Mark McCloskey, and I could do that. But I suggest waiting until the current article's name is decided.

I do have a suggestion for your article: it needs much more detail about the gun incident that brought them to national attention, which is barely mentioned. That needs a whole section, about the incident and about the legal outcome. Yes, it is in the lead, but it can't be just in the lead; it has to be supported by more detail in the text. Material for that section could be copied from this article, as long as you attribute where it came from in an edit summary ("Material copied from St. Louis gun-toting controversy, see that article's history for attribution"). Also, IMO there is way too much detail about his 13 year old client. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

We need a better title

This is a terrible title. Apparently the original title was “St. Louis McCloskey gun controversy,” which was inappropriate because it had the people’s name in it unnecessarily. It was quickly changed to the current title without any actual discussion. Let’s brainstorm about what we can say instead of “gun-toting”, which a) is slang and b) just means carrying (toting) a gun[2] - whereas the incident here was not that they were carrying guns, it’s that they were pointing them at people. We need a title which is descriptive, specific, concise, and neutral. Some offhand thoughts: “St. Louis confrontation with protesters”; “St. Louis gun incident”; either of these with “2020” added. What else can we think of? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed a better title is called for. Feoffer (talk)

Feoffer, MelanieN You're both correct: It needs to be changed for the cited reasons. There are other titles that work, but we need consensus on which to use. I'd note that we need to avoid confusion with the 2017 St. Louis protest, perhaps by including "2020" in the new title. Activist (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the point about including the year, Activist. Overall, my thought was to start out by simply brainstorming here about possible titles. Any suggestions? I'm beginning to suspect there aren't many people who have this page on their watchlist. But if we can get consensus for one suggestion among whoever does participate here, we can do the move. I think I will post a note at Wikipedia talk:Article titles to see if the folks there have any suggestions for how to title this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)::::

MelanieN I thought it might be useful to come up with say, half a dozen potential names for the article, then Google each. If one gets way more hits than others, an indication as to how Wikipedia readers might search for the article using the browser box, we might best go with that. Every time I start to do that search, though, I get a phone call or an email I need to answer. I did find a very high return for different potential titles that included the word "controversy." Another editor, above, suggested that Wikipedia readers searching for "Mark McCloskey" are redirected to the protest article, instead of to the article about him. Do you know how that might be fixed? Thanks! Activist (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the redirect; Mark McCloskey now redirects to Mark Thomas McCloskey. As for the title of this page, "2020 St. Louis gun-pointing controversy" isn't great, but it seems better than "...gun-toting..." I also considered "...incident" but that would suggest a narrower focus on the actions of 6/28/20, while the article is as much about its aftermath. PRRfan (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"Brandishing". I think brandishing might be a good word to consider here. Herostratus (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'd go for that. PRRfan (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think you don't need "gun brandishing incident", just "brandishing incident". "Brandishing" by itself is the name of the misdemeanor I think, and "the guy was brandishing" is a common enough alternative to "the guy was brandishing a gun" in common speech. Probably not as common, and not as clear (many ESL readers won't get the full meaning), but conciseness in titles is a virtue, so I dunno. Herostratus (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we ought to keep "gun-". Not that this is the final word, but the first three dictionaries[3][4][5] that popped up when I googled "brandish" all used knives (or swords) in their example sentences. PRRfan (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. "Toting" certainly isn't the right word here. That being said, gun-wielding sounds better to me than gun-brandishing. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does "gun-wielding" seem to suggest that they actually did something with the guns, like hit someone over the head with them? PRRfan (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Both Brandish and Wield imply an object is held in a ready-to-use manner. Brandish suggests additionally an implied threat to use, which would be unnecessarily inflammatory here. Wield is completely factual. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. From Merriam-Webster: 1) brandish: "wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement." 2) wield: "to handle (something, such as a tool) especially effectively // wield a broom". This backs up the idea that "wield" connotes actual use, while "brandish" just means waving it around—and not even necessarily as a threat. PRRfan (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• McCloskey gun case InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  I like this; more specific than "St. Louis"; removes verb conundrum. PRRfan (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe "McClosky gun incident"? This is parallel in structure with Rust shooting incident and seems more accurate as the article is about the event as a whole, not a legal proceeding specifically (as with "D.C. gun case", which redirects to District of Columbia v. Heller. -Mockingbus (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have altered the title to McCloskey home defense incident. Any substitution or removal of these words, denotes a generic situation. The arguments that the McCloskey’s name not be included have no basis it is obvious we must list the names of the people so that others may be made knowledgeable of the situation at hand. Secondly, the word toting S has been mentioned here is definitely not applicable as they were defending their home they were not walking back-and-forth in the yard, waving the guns, putting the guns at peoples heads, etc. there was an incident and guns were brought out because of fear of the group, becoming violent and storming the gates which they had already breached. Iciggs (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly ! Here, here ! 2600:8806:3303:2800:6DB5:2944:CC14:326B (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  REVERTED! REVERTED? Show thyself gun hating Democratic coward! 2601:243:CD81:680:6055:28EC:2379:F671 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove Coordinates

I think it's inappropriate to have the coordinates because it's leading to what appears to be a residence and it's possibly a good idea to remove them to avoid the people who live there from getting harassed, plus in the likely events that the people there either have moved or deceased it creates a risk for future residents of being harassed. I'm not taking sides or anything, it just doesn't seem right. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)