Open main menu

Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers

not Brent Thompson but Lorne AhrensEdit

during the main street shootings the officer shown is not Brent Thompson but Lorne Ahrens — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


Tagging this article for WP:NEUTRALITY. The reasons why Micah Xavier Johnson performed such an act has not been discussed in detail in the background section as per sources, but simply glossed-over. In fact, it is left right towards the middle of the article under "perpetrator:motive" (Mr. Johnson's section) and briefly touched on before telling us about his online activities, etc. It is irrelevant whether one believes those reasons are justifications for his act, but those reasons are material to this article in order to give the reader a balanced background of this incident from the start as per our policies. To simply gloss-over them is totally unacceptable for such a sensitive and racially charged incident like this. I would advise that those reasons (see below) are summarised in the lead and detailed in the background section. I have noticed a big difference in how this article is edited compared to the Dylann Roof article - which I commented on in January 2019. Unlike Dylann who was a White Neo-Nazi domestic terrorist who wanted to kill Black Americans (even the ones who welcomed him and treated him well) for no other reason other than the fact that they were Black, Micah Xavier Johnson on the hand target White police officers after numerous brutal killings of Black Americans by White police officers which can only be described as "shoot now and cover up later". Not only, that, but those White officers where exonerated by the racist American judicial system, leaving victims' families to pick up the pieces without justice for the brutal killing of their Black children/relatives. This, coupled with the historically and presently racist treatment of America's Black citizens by the dominant White American society are material facts and cannot be glossed-over. I have observed a big difference in the Dylann Roof article compared to this one. In the Roof article, the reader is groomed from the outset to have sympathy for him, be telling us about his difficult childhood and coming from a broken home etc (see the link to the talk page tread I started in that article). The perpetrator section of the Charleston church shooting (Dylann's section) appears more balanced. It simply provided us the facts. The same cannot be said here. I would also advise that the perpetrator section of this article (Mr Johnson's section) be split into a stand-alone article and titled Micah Xavier Johnson, and that section be summarised with a link to the main Micah Xavier Johnson article and the redirect removed as per the Dylann Roof article. I would also advise that Micah's main article be edited in a neutral way as per our policies. Some of the trivial nonsense presented in this article under his section should not be added back to his article as per policy.Tamsier (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about this, mainly because two wrongs don't make a right. The infobox gives the motive as "Anger about recent police shootings of African Americans, racial hatred" which is broadly correct. I wouldn't want to go down the road of stating or implying that the shootings were somehow justified because the victims were white police officers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this has anything to do with two wrongs not making anything right. I think this is about adhering to our policies.Tamsier (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
What reliable sources hold the viewpoint that this shooting was justified because of racial inequality in the American judicial system? What specific edits, in your opinion, would resolve this article's neutrality problems? VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not exactly what I wrote or implied in my post above. I suggest you read again what I've written which clearly states what my concerns are, which sections are affected, what and how to fix them.Tamsier (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
For the record, please note that after my comment above, @VQuakr: made this revert in order to remove the tags I placed on this article as discussed above. I reverted him and then left him a message on his talk page asking him to discus the issues here before removing tags. He removed the message I left for him. He has not made any attempt to address the issues other playing ruse as per his comment above. WP:TANTRUM is not welcomed here, neither is POV pushing.Tamsier (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── And those are the facts. So far, you have not debunked what I have stated. I will give you another try to "tell" me or debunk what I've stated. Hate is a strong word. To hate something or someone I must have an emotional investment or connection to it/them, which I don't. I'm indifferent, but that is a topic for another day. Back to the topic! Wikipedia has policies in place that we should all abide by, not just the selected few. I have sat here for years and watched numerous American related articles used as POV pushing/propaganda without regard for our policies by some determined editors. Most of our editors come here to make a difference and do great work. However, there are those who have used Wiki for years to advance their racist agenda in-light of the historical and current race related issues in the United states. Many of our American articles especially those relating to race or racism have been infected. This will not be one of them. For your information, I am neither a United States citizen nor do I live in the U.S, but I am well versed in the dark history of that nation especially on matters pertaining to race; its current situation, and how those issues have affected many of our articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool to be used by certain quarters. I went through this entire article twice and was dumbfounded by what I've read. Some of the key concerns have been raised above. Wikipedia has policies in place and we should abide by them.Tamsier (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AXE. We get it. VQuakr (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't give two hoops what you think of me. All I care about is that you follow Wikipedia's policies as an editor. If that is too difficult for you to do, then this is not the right project for you. Leave the project, and let people who are here to help it continue to do so. Comment on edits, not the editor. And for you information, if you are going to WP:REDACT you comment (as you did above) which led to my last reply (see above), it is best practice to do so using the WP:STRIKE through mark up, and leaving your signature intact so we know who wrote what. This is especially true when another editor has replied to your comment or quoted you. Deleting or redacting your comment without abiding by this simple policy may be viewed as trying to deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. I suggest your familiarise yourself with our policies before you start telling me whether I have an axe to grind or involved in tendentious editing. If anything, you are the one involved in tendentious editing here and I'm here to stop it it as per policy.Tamsier (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I invited you to defend your argument with sources; you declined to do so. You overestimate the amount of influence your unsupported opinion holds. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
EDIT @VQuakr: has brought to my attention on my talk page that it was not them who redacted the comment I was referring to above (see my previous comment). They were right. They neither made that comment nor did they redact it. And for that, I apologise. I have struck through that comment which was right underneath their comment. However, the general advise for anyone redacting their "own" comments as performed here remains the same. I did not create that from the top of my head. That is actually a Wikipedia policy that everyone, regardless of what country they come from/their political affiliations must abide by. Plain and simple! I emphasise the word "own" because after going through the edit history after the comment left on my talk page, it has come to my attention that, that remark was made by @Mysticair667537: as seen here, and edited here by the same user. However, instead of Mysticair667537 editing or redacting their own comment, it was edited and redacted here by @EvergreenFir:. Why would anyone (especially a non-admin) change or redact somebody else's comment? To me, that might be viewed as someone who is abusing multiple accounts which is against our policy. I will report this to one of our Checkbusters straight away and if there are no merits to the allegation or the edit was a genuine mistake (which is possible), then I take that back and sincerely apologise. However, if this was indeed someone trying to game the system by abusing multiple accounts, then the Checkbusters will take the appropriate action. As far as I can see, the only alternative account that EvergreenFir has disclosed on their userpage is User:EvergreenFir(mobile) — which is different from Mysticair667537. Even if Mysticair667537 was another one of EvergreenFir's alternative accounts (and was disclosed as per policy), it would still be considered ill-advised to use both accounts on the same discussion tread in order to sway decision. I will be reporting this to one of our Checkbusters so that they can investigate, and if there are any merits to this, take the appropriate action against the individual concerned. @VQuakr, I will reply to your last comment separately after this and before I file a report with our Checkbusters.Tamsier (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe sleep on it before starting the SPI. VQuakr (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@VQuakr: We all know the general premises of my argument is not necessary about sourcing, but about Wiki policy. We do not use sources when talking about Wiki policies, we use Wiki policies. For example we do not use third party sources when referencing our neutrality policy. We use our neutral policy guidelines. In any case here are some pointers for your info [1] ; [2] ; and even in some of the sources stated in this article. However, those were simply glossed over as stated above. A good article is one that reports both sides. And not that I express any view one way or the other on the death of this officer, but according this piece, this police officer was a white supremacist Neo-Nazi. As per filing the SPI, I'll file it and leave it in the good capable hands of our Checkbusters. If they believe there are grounds for investigating this, they will. If on the other hand they believe it was an innocent mistake, then no harm done, but at least give them the opportunity to look into it as that redaction was somewhat strange, unless of course @EvergreenFir: comes here and address that strange redaction before I start filing report to our Checkbusters. Just going by my basic checks using our user interaction tool, there appears to be a connection between user Mysticair667537 and EvergreenFir as evident here. Perhaps EvergreenFir would care to comment on this before I start filing. As a matter of courtesy, I will leave both users a note on their talk pages. I will give both users one day to explain their positions otherwise I will report this.Tamsier (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
This is not WP:SPI.

I am not @EvergreenFir:. The reason why I edited my comment was because I felt that the last part of my comment was inappropriate, if I was a sock then why did he say that he will block me if I made any more personal attacks?. Mysticair667537 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So you Ignored my comment I posted below and now your making false accusations about @EvergreenFir: and @VQuakr:. Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Edit clash): Sorry Mysticair667537, but EvergreenFir's warning on your talk page on 1 April 2019 at 17:26 (UTC) does not necessarily mean anything. An editor abusing multiple accounts might simply leave such comments on another SOCK's talk page in an attempt to throw off or deceive the community so that we would not suspect anything, and therefore, linking the two accounts would be the last thing on the community's mind. Also, note the date and timing EvergreenFir left the warning on Mysticair667537's talk page and the date and time they redacted Mysticair667537's comment from this talk page. It was exactly the same date and time (1 April 2019 at at 17:26) without allowing the warned to remove or delete their own edits. Ordinary editors do not generally remove other editors' comments on talk page discussions, unless they are admins with the tools, especially if the edit is very sensitive i.e. outing etc. Even some vulgar language is generally not removed by admins although editors are encouraged to strike off their own remarks. But for another editor to redact someones's edits like what happened here, I find rather strange. Sorry, but you have not convinced me Mysticair667537. Perhaps we should wait for EvergreenFir to provide a more clearer explanation, as my SOCK detector (in collaboration with our user interaction tool) is running high at the moment. If there is something to this, it is best to come clean here, apologise, stop using the sock account and disclose it as per policy so that we can all move on with the main point of this discussion. Failing that, one may prefer to take their chances at SPI.Tamsier (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So your saying that a well respected member from 2013 used a sock puppet account from 2018 for a comment posted on 2019?. Mysticair667537 (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, please note that Mysticair667537 has now just added back his edit that was redacted by EvergreenFir.Tamsier (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tamsier: Go file an SPI if you really think I am socking. But tossing out accusations of it is WP:ASPERSIONS. Please stop. It is inappropriate and disruptive. I redacted the comment by Mysticair667537 because they accused another user (you) of "hat[ing] White police officers" ... that's a personal attack and an unacceptable thing to do on Wikipedia. Per WP:REFACTOR and WP:TPO, editors are allowed to remove such personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There are no aspersions. I am commenting on your ill-advised edit and what our user interaction tool is showing me. Further, refactoring is not a policy but an aid. In any case, both our refactoring essay and our WP:TPO guideline made it quite clear that we "never edit or move someone's comment", and when we do so in exceptional circumstances, certain procedures must be abided by such - as getting permission from the editor who added it or the editors here, etc. You did not even leave an edit summary as evident in the diff above. And although you left a redaction notice, you did not explain the reason for the redaction, neither was it signed as per policy. Further, I did not view Mysticair667537's comment as a personal attack. Invective maybe but not a personal attack as far as I was concerned. The editor quoted a text I've written above then made their remark. The most appropriate thing to have done if you were so concerned was to ask them to strike off their own comment or sought their permission to do so if they do not know how to. I notice you've commented on the redaction part but not on what our user interaction tool have shown? I am all for editors being bold but we also have policies here that must be followed to prevent problems from occurring. Let's hope this is a lesson learned, and due care would be taken next time. Besides, we have derailed the main purposes of this tread long enough.Tamsier (talk)
Please get your facts correct before lecturing others. There was an edit summary in that edit. Bullet point #3 of WP:TPO clearly mentions the removal of personal attacks (note I acted no further after the OP reverted it). I did not "edit or move" someone's comment; I used the {{redacted}} to hide it from view. Also see WP:RPA. That you did not find the comment a personal attack is fine but that does not make it appropriate.
I am in no way related to Mysticair667537, regardless of edit overlaps shown by Earwig's tool. If you continue to push this without filing an SPI, I will ask an admin stop you. Accusing others of sockpuppetry repeatedly like this is inappropriate and most certainly WP:ASPERSIONS. Please review bulletpoint #5 of WP:NPA if you are unclear. Please also note that NPA (which contains RPA) is policy and not "an aid". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I did not see the NFA edit summary you left, and for that I apologise. In any case, I have made myself clear and don't want to be going back and forth with this. I am more concerned about the problems in this article than anything else.Tamsier (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Tamsier: We all know the general premises of my argument is not necessary about sourcing, but about Wiki policy. No, that is not correct. WP:NPOV brings up the importance of sources in practically every paragraph, particularly the sections WP:WEIGHT and the related sections just after it, WP:PROPORTION and WP:GEVAL. Without expressing specifically how this article fails to match the underlying sources, your concern is indistinguishable from "this article does not adequately match my personal worldview". VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Nothing actionable proposed by way of neutrality and I don't see an issue; do we have consensus to remove the tag? VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

  • As per my recommendations above.Tamsier (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support removing the tag as there are no obvious NPOV problems. Micah Xavier Johnson was a troubled person who committed a crime described by President Obama as a "vicious, calculated, despicable attack" There is little scope for expressing sympathy, however indirect, with Johnson's actions simply because he had perceived grievances with the police and the justice system.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split of "Perpetrator" sectionEdit

  • Oppose; nothing of note beyond the commission of crimes on July 7-8. Trim the bloated section instead. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support split to a stand-alone article and titled Micah Xavier Johnson - with this redirect removed as per the Dylann Roof and Charleston church shooting articles. The subject is notable with plenty of independent reliable third party sources covering Micah Johnson in detail. There is also a huge bundle of text about him in that section which can be transferred to his own article and edited for neutrality as per our policies.Tamsier (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Tamsier's arguments. Dimadick (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "2016 shooting of Dallas police officers" page.