Talk:George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Septegram in topic Description of Darrell C. Scott
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Does it have to say "white" police officer?
A1: Yes, because almost all reliable sources emphasize the significance of this fact. Q2: I read some information on the web that isn't in this article!
A2: When proposing anything to be added to the article you need to cite a reliable source; secondary sources are generally preferred over primary. Q3: This article is biased (for/against), or (whitewashes/blames), (Floyd/police)!
A3: See our neutral point of view policy. Complaints of bias must be accompanied by specific concerns or suggestions for change. Vague, general statements don't help. Q4: Why is this article calling it a murder instead of a death/killing?
A4: As a person was formally convicted for murder in a court of law, the article uses the term "murder", in line with the community guidance at WP:MURDERS. Q5: Wasn't Floyd killed near a store called Cub Foods, not Cup Foods?
A5: The store is Cup Foods, and is not affiliated with the Cub Foods store chain. Q6: Why does the article use such a graphic photo? Isn't it in poor taste?
A6: The lead image was determined by the community in a formal Request for Comment process. The RfC reached an "overwhelming consensus" that "...the image, despite it being traumatizing, should be kept per WP:NOTCENSORED, as it is an appropriate representation of the topic." Q7: Why was my request or comment removed?
A7: Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to describe Floyd's murder using other terms (e.g. "death", "overdose") or to change the name of the article accordingly will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines and essays, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and WP:Reliable sources. Anyone removing such requests should include a link to this FAQ in their edit summary. Q8: Why do we not call the protests riots?
A8: Because most reliable sources call them protests, not riots. Q9: Did he not die of a drug overdose?
A9: No, whilst fentanyl was a contributory factor, his death certificate lists his cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression". |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Description of Darrell C. Scott
editIn the "Committee Hearings" section, I had changed "Trump surrogate" to "conservative minister." @Neutrality: changed it back because the referenced source calls him a "Trump surrogate." I think calling him a "Trump surrogate" based on a passing comment in the source makes it seem as though WP considers him to be such. Politico is not governed by WP:NPOV, so they could call him a cranky ocelot if they wanted to, but WP shouldn't do the same just because they do. I'm not even sure what "Trump surrogate" means in this context, which is especially concerning if we're going to refer to him as one. Rather than get into an edit war, I'm bringing it here.
I think calling him a "conservative minister" is more NPOV than "Trump surrogate," and is unquestionably accurate. What do other editors think? Would it be an acceptable compromise to put quote marks around the term?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- The current language is good, and the proposed language would not be. Our article describes Scott as "a minister and Trump surrogate" and the source material describes him as "Pastor Darrell Scott of Illinois' New Spirit Revival Center, another longtime Trump surrogate." Thus, our text appropriately matches and summarizes the cited source. We follow what the reliable sources say; we don't water it down or change its meaning. Note also that being a "Trump surrogate" is not the same thing as being a conservative. The former is both more specific, and arguably quite different, from the latter. (Many conservatives are not pro-Trump.) Neutralitytalk 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I know what the source material says, but I question its appropriateness here. The WP definition is "substitute or deputy for another person in a specific role," but that hardly seems NPOV without something more substantial than a passing comment. The source, as I said, is not bound by NPOV, so we should be cautious about giving the appearance that WP is calling him a "Trump surrogate."
- I don't think calling him a "conservative minister" would be incorrect or "watering down" anything, nor would it be changing the meaning of anything. It would be eliminating what appears to be a mildly pejorative term with one that is undeniably accurate and 100% NPOV. Calling someone a "Trump surrogate" certainly implies being a conservative (or a loon); progressive Trump supporters are about as plentiful as Black Klansmen. I'm aware there are many conservatives who are not pro-Trump, but that's not the point here.
- Regardless, I'm going tweak the text slightly to make it clear that the term is quoted from the source material, which is undeniably true, whether the source material is accurate/NPOV or not, and leave it at that.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think my verbiage was fine, but @Neutrality:'s change to "ally" is entirely reasonable and NPOV.
- *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)