Talk:Killing of Duncan Lemp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Missing background

There's much more to this event than the article currently covers. In specific, Lemp was a part of the "Boogaloo" militia movement that seeks a second civil war and targets police officers.[1] I don't think we should ignore this, especially given that reliable sources consider it relevant. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and included some of this material, as well as referencing an ADL article on the Boogaloo movement. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted a good-faith edit [2] because it was contrary to our sources. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There've been some changes since, but they were contrary to our sources. Please discuss such changes here first, to get consensus. There was also some blatant vandalism, which I guess I should follow up on now. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Occupation

The cited source says Lemp was an activist. It does not say that was his occupation. Unless you can find a source that says that he was a professional, it is an activity, not an occupation. It says he was a "was a little-known right-wing activist." I'm a beer drinker, but it's not my occupation. Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove it from the infobox. FollowTheSources (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Background

I'm unsure as to the reasons for the "He also "frequented the 4chan and Reddit message boards, sites popular with internet trolls"" quote in the background section. Why is this important to include? It seems to be disparaging his character, and i worry that it colors the rest of the article to view him in a negative light.

That, and the "A week before the raid, Lemp posted a picture of two people armed with rifles on Instagram, with text referring to "boogaloo", a term used by the boogaloo movement as coded language for an anticipated "war against the government or liberals."" sentence. These don't really add any information to the case, and color the perception of his shooting as a justified one since he was associated with an unpopular group.

Contrasting it with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor shows a really different writing style between these two. While there are differences in the cases, the style and tone change is vast. Shinymetalcrow (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shinymetalcrow: I agree with you on the 4chan/Reddit sentence, and have removed it. However I think the sentence about the boogaloo movement is important—as mentioned later on in the article, Lemp came to be considered a "martyr" among the boogaloo movement, and part of the reason for that is that he was believed to be a supporter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thats reasonable, thank you. I would like to register my opinion that there seems to be a tone difference here compared to other police shootings, but i don't have a suggestion for other changes at the moment.Shinymetalcrow (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to hear any suggestions you have, if you think of them—either specific changes, or just comments about where you think the tone differs. I'm not sure I see the tone differences that you do—both sources describe what happened, police's statements around the shooting, and claims contradicting police statements. Taylor's article certainly has more details around protests, lawsuits, and other such aftermath, but I think that's because there has been much more of a widespread outcry around her killing. The sourcing is certainly far more substantial around Taylor's death. There is background in this article about the groups Lemp supported (3%ers, boogaloo, etc.) which does not exist in Taylor's article—that is because without it the statements around Lemp becoming a martyr for the boogaloo movement make little sense. There also hasn't been similar information about Taylor's involvement in controversial groups like these, at least that I've heard of. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't the only portion of the article which appears to violate WP:NPOV by impugning Lemp's character. Another is this sentence: Lemp had also made an Instagram post with a caption referring to the Three Percenters and a post captioned with the phrase sic semper tyrannis, which was used both by Abraham Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, and the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh. Why connect the phrase sic semper tyrannis with the assassin John Wilkes Booth and the terrorist Timothy McVeigh instead of with George Mason and the official motto of Virginia? This appears to be a case of editorial bias carried over from the referenced NYT article. Rishodi (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rishodi: You've answered your own question -- the term's meaning needs to be explained for the reader, and I used the NYT source to cite the explanation. If the NYT had said "Lemp captioned the photo with sic semper tyrannis, the motto of Virginia", then we could as well, but the reliable sources are suggesting he used it with a different meaning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Trtbasnbi: Please see this conversation. It is improper synthesis to take from the New York Times source that Lemp used the phrase "sic semper tyrannis" in his Instagram post, but then use an unrelated source to imply that he was using the phrase in reference to the state motto of Virginia. If a reliable source makes the connection, then we can too, but we should only stick to what the reliable sources say. Currently the one reliable source I've seen discussing Lemp's usage of the term is the NYT, which says nothing about Virginia's motto: In another post, which appears to be a screenshot from a website, hands thrust rifles in the air. Below are the words of Abraham Lincoln’s assassin, “sic semper tyrannis” — thus always to tyrants — the same words that adorned Timothy McVeigh’s T-shirt the morning in 1995 that he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks; I didn't know about synthesis.Trtbasnbi (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

[snark]How people feel about the slogan "Sic Semper Tyrannis" depends a lot on whether they self-identify with King George the Third and Colonial Loyalists or with General George Washington and Colonial Revolutionists.[/snark] Or not: there is a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration going on. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Far-Right" Boogaloo Movement

There have been several edits over the last few months of users (some who self-identify with the "Boogaloo" Movement) who have repeatedly tried to remove the descriptor "far-right" from the first paragraph: "Lemp has since been described as a "martyr" for the far-right anti-government extremist boogaloo movement..." The most recent seems to have been today by a user who tried 3 times to remove the phrase but was reverted by Roxy the dog and GorillaWarfare. I've noticed over the months that some try to remove the phrase but it keeps getting reverted to include that descriptor and I've wondered why it's so important to either keep or remove that key-phrase. There's already 2 other adjectives ("anti-government" and "extremist") that sum up the "Boogaloo" movement fairly well, so why is "far-right" so necessary?

Under the wiki page Far-right politics, members of the far-right fall under these categories: anti-communist, authoritarian, extremist nationalist and nativist. The following paragraph goes on to note that the term has been "used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism...neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, white supremacism, white nationalism...ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views." With this in mind, it seems that to label a movement "far-right" is about as much as labeling it racist, at lease at a surface level.

My question is: is it necessary to keep the phrase "far-right" when there is little evidence that members of the Boogaloo Movement are racist and because there are 2 other key descriptors ("anti-government" and "extremist") that describe the movement accurately enough?

@GorillaWarfare, you seem to be the one to ask.

Cjslade917 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was formally established at Boogaloo movement to describe it as far-right ([3]), and we should be consistent with the descriptor at that article. We label movements according to how reliable sources describe them, not according to whether we personally think they meet the definitions of our own Wikipedia articles. The descriptors anti-government and extremist are also accurate, but without "far-right" that could just as easily be describing a leftist group. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)