Talk:Shooting of Charles Kinsey

RT source for hospital name

Multiple RfCs have concluded that RT may be used for simple and uncontested statements of fact. Here I have used RT to source the name of the hospital to which Kinsey was taken for treatment. I have restored the source after Neutrality removed it, leaving the hospital name unsourced. Neutrality, please bring to talk if you have a problem with this. -Darouet (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I was able to find an alternate, local source (WJXT) that includes the name of the hospital, and have put that in. Thus, we can avoid RT altogether here. Neutrality^talk 18:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I appreciate your adding a second source, "News4JAX." But I strongly object to your removal of RT as a source for a simple fact, on the principle that you don't like it. Last year I took quite a bit of time to assess various discussions about RT on Wikipedia, and assembled them on RSN here. When I see people remove RT as a source without good cause it leads me to doubt their "neutrality." Obviously you're a longtime editor of good standing so I am not questioning your competence or intentions, but I think your action is uncalled for.

One of the reasons I went to RT is because they have a record of following police brutality cases in the United States, and because I wanted to get international perspectives on this particular issue. That is also why I intentionally went to consult German and French media in writing this article. It is not appropriate for you to maintain that American, French and German media are reliable, but Russian media is not. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

"International perspective" may be valuable for surveying opinion, but it is rather irrelevant for facts (since facts by definition are not really "a matter of perspective").

My stance is not that "Russian media is not reliable" (nor is it "I don't like it") — it is that RT is not editorially independent and has a poor record of fact-checking. This is particularly true for stories that reflect poorly on the U.S. As you know, RT is a state-sponsored outlet, and the Columbia Journalism Review identifies it as "The Kremlin's propaganda outlet."

To the extent possible, we should use the highest-quality sources we can find - which can be domestic (Associated Press, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Miami Herald, local and regional newspapers and radio stations, etc...) or international (BBC News, AFP, Reuters, Yonhap News Agency, etc...).

While RT might be useful in some contexts, where there is a better source that is not open to dispute, we should use that. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I did not find any "perspective" in the piece, just facts like those reported elsewhere. I love CJR and the piece you link documents problems at RT, many of the same being found in big western outlets. But this case is simple: there's no Wiki policy against RT for attributing simple statements of fact, and you removed the source anyway, only adding another (very local) source when I pressed you. It's still not appropriate. -Darouet (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think our discussion is mostly academic at this point, since the Miami Herald cite and the others seem to satisfy us both. But I would say that there is almost no real comparison between, say, the "big western outlets" (take Washington Post/BBC News as examples) and RT. The former are highly reliable, editorially independent, reasonably transparent, and known for fact-checking and issuing retractions when appropriate. The latter is not. This is not to say that "RT is always wrong" — only that it is, as a general matter, inferior to other sources. Neutrality^talk 19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Though we may not agree, I appreciate your scrutiny and improvement of the article. -Darouet (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your work as well. Happy editing! Neutrality^talk 19:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference 10 is a bad link

The URL does not correspond to the content it points to. I wrote the outlet about this and tried an alternative, ABC news I think, but they had the same problem.Lewis Goudy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

the article has changed and I don't think you're referring to number 10 any more. Can you be more specific?MartinezMD (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Death of his nephew

Would this be relevent to the events in question? https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/medical-examiner-confirms-miami-dade-boy-drowned/2238839/ Atomic1fire (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

My initial inclination is no, but I am open to discussion if someone thinks it's applicable. MartinezMD (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits introducing bias into the article

Edits in the last few months introduced a long third paragraph into the lead explaining the officer's shooting of Kinsey, and deleting references to the well-reported fact that Kinsey worked in various ways to protect the community where he was shot. These changes 1) made the article imbalanced and 2) added a ton of unnecessary bloat to the lead. I therefore condensed the lead paragraph to a sentence with the essentials and restored background info on Kinsey [1].

@MartinezMD: you reverted [2] and explained yourself by writing "revert to last reliable version. please use talk page." However, you didn't make a talk page post and have not explained how the version you prefer is "more reliable." The article was stable for years before these recent edits imbalanced it. If you'd like to implement those changes I'd like to hear why first. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: your edit changed more than the content I'd edited myself, and so I'm partially reverting — I apologize for the misunderstanding. -Darouet (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the additions that I reverted included the claim that Aledda was "proven to be lying" and no actual proof was given. This was before your subsequent changes. Your changes included Kinsey's family and work not related to the shooting or client. So reverted back to the version right before these. MartinezMD (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@MartinezMD: I have no problem with your removal of statements that Aledda was "proven to be lying:" I have not seen sources state this. However, information about Kinsey's community work is relevant to the article because 1) the very most basic biographical information (e.g. children) is often provided in these articles, 2) as Kinsey may have been perceived as a threat, it's worthwhile to note that he was involved in education and safety in the community. Of course officers couldn't have known that at the time. However, we're writing an encyclopedia, not a description of what officers knew when they responded to the 911 call. As support for the notion that this material is relevant, it was published in many newspaper articles at the time, including large and international papers: [3][4][5][6]. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)