Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Benjamin Marconi

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Shooting of Benjamin Marconi edit

(
)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Global Dilemma: Guns or Butter
  • Comment: Article was created at 21:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC) by Chief Red Eagle, and the three authors I named have added most of the text (what I added was mostly reverted). Article as kept at an AfD, which delayed my starting this nomination. @Chief Red Eagle, Parsley Man, and E.M.Gregory: As the three authors who I have named, do you have any comments on this nomination?

    Source for ALT0 is an article in Independent Journal Review, titled "Suspect in San Antonio 'Cop Killing' Got Married Hours After the Shooting...And It Could Change the Trial." Both the text and the time line in the report supports the hook fact.

    Sources for ALT1 and ALT2 are, firstly, this Huffington Post article titled "Texas Judge Suggests Lynching Black Suspect, Denies It's About Race." Relevant text includes: A Texas judge is under fire over a comment he posted to Facebook suggesting that a black man suspected of killing a local police officer should be lynched. “Time for a tree and a rope,” he posted on Monday to the San Antonio Police Department’s Facebook page ... The article he posted contained news of an arrest made in Sunday’s shooting death of San Antonio Police Detective Benjamin Marconi. Otis Tyrone McKane, who is black, was arrested on suspicion of murdering Marconi one day after the detective, who was white, was fatally shot inside his patrol car. The article also reproduces the Facebook post made by the police, which contained the mug shot. The New York Post article titled "Judge apologizes for suggesting ‘cop killer’ be lynched" confirms Oakley saying: "It is for that reason that I deleted it soon after posting and apologize for not being more thoughtful and comprehensive in my expression."

    The judge is James Oakley (judge) but I have not include a wikilink out of concern for the overly negative aspect of covering BLPs, though this could be changed if it is thought desirable. I prefer ALT1 or ALT2 over ALT0, but have included all as I recognise that ALT1 and ALT2 might not be found acceptable for the main page. The Oakley article is also new and I would fold it in here if that was found acceptable, otherwise I will make a separate nomination for it.

Created by Chief Red Eagle (talk), Parsley Man (talk), and E.M.Gregory (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 04:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC).

Discussion resolved, collapsing for readability for reviewer EdChem (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • concerned about ALT1 and ALT2 (I was flagged to come here because I expanded, sourced the article after happening on it at AFD). My concern is that this lede is highly misleading because this so-called "judge" is not a judge in the usual sense of the word, i.e. he is a County executive, an administrative job that has no jurisdiction in criminal matters. (they talk funny in Texas, where they do call his administrative position "county judge.") The bluelink does not allay the fact that these two hooks lay us open to being accused of promoting the kind of fake news/clickbait that was problematic in the recent American election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: I agree that County Judge is an odd title for what is actually mostly an executive governmental role, but it does retain judicial responsibilities and in some cases even in small criminal matters. I have added a note to the article on the role. However, "County Judge" is both the title of the role Oakley holds and the one he reportedly prefers. EdChem (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It might be misinterpreted, but it is accurate. County administrator is not a suitable alternative, the wiki-article notes it as referring to an appointed official, not an elected representative, and Oakley is the latter. EdChem (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Except that the distinction between "judge" and "not a judge" does not depend on whether the judge is elected or appointed or elected. There must be other interesting, accurate, but non-misleading) hooks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Notifying this page that I may have stepped over some sort of line, but I boldly moved James Oakley (judge) to James Oakley (County administrator) because this man is not a "judge" except in the unusual Texas usage (there may also be some similar archaic/historical usages of judge that way). Be that as it may, the page title is highly misleading. I have also proposed a merger to the article about the crime. I propose that we hold this hook until the discussion of that merger has concluded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @E.M.Gregory: On reflection, I agree that James Oakley (judge) does not have the best disambiguator as Oakley is not a judge in the generic understanding of that term. However, I am not comfortable with the article being at James Oakley (County administrator) for the same reason – he is not a county administrator. If we look just at the administrative side, in Australia the position Oakley occupies would be the Mayor or Shire President and the equivalent of the county administrator would be the General Manager of the Council or Shire, the highest permanent and appointed official with day-to-day management responsibility operating under the instructions of the Council. The general manager stays even when the Mayor / Councillors are replaced at elections.
    • The appropriate disambiguator (in my view) is James Oakley (County Judge) because that is his title and the name of his position, no matter how potentially misleading you may say it is. He is elected to a position called County Judge in Texas, and I think WP has to simply accept and defer to that verifiable fact. I made a comparison to a Mayor above, which is valid to an extent, but actually the position Oakley has was constructed deliberately with a mixture of executive and judicial roles. I think that is bizarre and a bad idea, but it is the situation. The move by the Texas legislature to create County Courts-at-law presided over by judges with qualifications in law was meant to relieve the County Judge role of much of its judicial aspects, but the role is only stripped of all judicial responsibilities if the County so decides. As a story I cited in the article notes, in 2011 around 85% of Texas' County Judges were drawing the additional stipend associated with exercising judicial functions, so in fact most Texas County Judges are acting as Judges some of the time, and few Counties have actually forced a transfer of all judicial responsibility.
    • Re alternative hooks, the original (ALT0) proposal has no mention of or allusion to Oakley, using the suspect's wedding for hookiness. I don't agree, however, that describing someone with the title "County Judge" elected to the position "County Judge" as a "County Judge" is prohibited just because readers might jump to the wrong conclusion. I tried to add an explanation of the term to the shooting article, and was reverted reverted by Parsley Man with the edit summary "This has absolutely NOTHING to do with this shooting." Parsley Man, FYI, I was trying to address E.M.Gregory's concerns for when the shooting article is on the main page that Oakley's title is potentially misleading. I'm sorry I didn't make my reasoning clearer, but I did have what I saw as a good reason for adding the explanation.
    • To any reviewer, I agree that no action should be taken here while the merge proposal and notability questions on the Oakley article are resolved. I don't support a merge and think a stand-alone article on Oakley is supported by policy, but I do recognise the right of others to make such proposals. EdChem (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It appears that I am not the first person to see this use of "judge" as a problem:
  • Note This text in "Texas" section at County Judge: "The blurring of roles and titles can lead to misconceptions. For example, following the shooting death of Detective Benjamine Marconi[11][12] and the arrest of the suspect,[13][14] and charged with capital murder.[13][15] County Judge James Oakley made a controversial and allegedly racist remark on Facebook which alluded to lynching; the event attracted considerable attention and criticism, with most comments emphasising they were made by a judge,[16][17][18][19][20] despite Oakley being essentially a politician."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
EdChem (talk · contribs) You wrote this paragraph; "essentially a politician." Can we agree on using "politician". E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
ALT4:... that a Texas politician apologised for implying on Facebook that the black suspect in the shooting death of white police officer Benjamin Marconi should be lynched? .E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory, if I was reviewing ALT4, I would require a RS in which Oakley was described as a politician. I understand you object to "County Judge" because it could mislead because the associations to the term "judge" do not apply, but it is the term used in every RS I have seen to describe Oakley since his election. My opinion is that he is essentially a politician, but DYK goes by sources and under policy without a source we can't justify using that term in a DYK hook. EdChem (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Follow up, I think this reference might solve the problem as an RS that gives a description which amounts to being a politician. EdChem (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Following discussion with E.M.Gregory, article on James Oakley has been move to James Oakley (politician). I have struck ALT1 and ALT2 based on E.M.G.'s objections, ALT3 on mine, and collapsed the above discussion as resolved. @E.M.Gregory: Please object / undo if you have a problem with this action. EdChem (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT0 is still an option, with no mention of or reference to Oakley. As alternatives, there are wordings which refer to Oakley, but not link to his article (out of concerns about unduly negative formulations), such as ALT4 from E.M.G. which I reproduce from the collapse box as ALT4a. The "a" ALTs are based on E.M.G.'s formulation describing Oakley as a "politician", which he is but not explicitly described as such in the article. The "b" ALTs use the sourced description of the County Judge position as "chief legislator and executive":
  • The other approach is to include a link to Oakley's article as a second bolded article, (which I recognise as the most likely to be judged to be unduly negative), which are included as "c" ALTs. Since the second bolded link does not count to the 200 characters, I think these are acceptable on length grounds. If these are not accepted, Oakley's article will be subject to a separate DYK nomination:
  • Ready for review (I think / hope!)  :) EdChem (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Why, exactly, is this James Oakley fellow identified by a job description in scare quotes? Why don't we identify him by his title, County Judge? If we had a DYK for Michael Higgins, we would presumably say "that Michael Higgins, the President of Ireland did such and such" not "that Michael Higgins, who takes precedent over all other persons in Ireland did such and such" even though the latter is how the office of President is described [1] in Irish law. LavaBaron (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
They are not "scare quotes", they are direct quotations of this source on the role of County Judge. And, E.M.Gregory objected to the use of the title as Oakley's role is essentially an executive / administration role rather than judicial. EdChem (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: The quotation marks could be removed without worrying me, and I originally favoured simply describing Oakley as County judge, and I have been expanding an article on that title / term, so the term could even be returned as a bold link... though E.M.Gregory would likely have objections. Anyway, it's up to the reviewer. EdChem (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Why aren't we just saying "local official" or "county official" or something? It seems unusual to identify someone by their job description. LavaBaron (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
My objection is to identifying him as a "judge," because it is seriously misleading even though his formal title is "county Judge." (click "show" to see my reasons in tan colored bar, above) old discussion above I'm good with "local official" or "county official" "county administrator" or "politician," which I proposed a while back. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I endorse E.M.Gregory's objection to using the term "judge" and I also reaffirm my objection to using the term "chief legislator and executive" as it has an unnecessary Judge Dredd quality to it. "Bulletproof" LavaBaron (Survivor of 4 DYK TBAN Attempts) (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Article was 6 hours past the limit for nomination, but that can be ignored. It is large enough. There are sufficient references, and it is neutrally written from my point of view. (Though the extreme point of view that police should be shot is not represented here). Copyvio check finds no problem. Correct person credited. QPQ done. There are so many alternative hooks, mostly dismissed, that I will stick with (alt0) saying that it is in the article, and is short enough. It has a reference that is confirmed. And I am ruling out ALT1c and ALT4c as there are too many links before the article link. If you make this a double DYK nom then it could be OK, but needs separate assessment. All those hooks about a retracted facebook post are making James Oakley (politician) sound like the focus. So with a bit of leniency it is good to go only with (alt0) (not original hook which is confusing). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shooting_of_Benjamin_Marconi&oldid=895144999"