Talk:Killing of James Boyd/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Protests

In the "Protests" section there is a paragraph about another shooting, that of Alfred Redwine. This shooting does not appear to have any connection to the incident under discussion except that, coincidentally, it occurred on the same day as a protest of this incident and that Redwine's death also resulted in protests.

I plan to delete that paragraph since it is completely off topic for this discussion. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it and so do the other shootings that should be in there. Albuquerque has a pattern of shooting people who are mentally ill.

If you want to do another article based on the DOJ Report, it certainly has a place there. It DOES NOT have a place in this article, under the "Protest" heading. I'm going to move the comments about Redwine to the section on the "History of APD Police Shootings" where it belongs. 06:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I have no problem with that, assuming you are just moving without editing. The article structure does need to change, as previously discussed.Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to check the article. I did some editing. Since there was only anti−LE material there, I had to provide some NPOV. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: there is nothing in the Article that says anything about Redwine being mentally ill. or are you going to claim that putting a gun to one's head constitutes mental illness? Are you going to broad brush EVERY shooting that APD has for the rest of your life, with this? Are you EVER going to realize that EVERY shooting needs to be judged on its own merits, or lack thereof? 07:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

assuming this is a rhetorical question. Don't have time to look at article, been too busy with walls of text. If *I* put it there it was in the source. If the source is not cited it should be, as BLP policy would apply. I'll check this out when I get to the article Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)!

Actually, there were THREE questions in that paragraph, NONE of them were rhetorical. Re your been too busy with walls of text comment – things would go much smoother between us if you'd refrain from cheap shots like this. I understand that you're frustrated because I keep posting material to balance to NPOV in this article, but that's how it should have been written in the first place. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any intention at all of entertaining the idea that your preonceptions might be mistaken? Elinruby (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What preconceptions are you referring to? 06:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

scroll up Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the sort of vague response that may make you feel good, but does nothing to further communication. I'll try again, What preconceptions are you referring to? }} Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with "anti-LE material" and your assumption that I am guarding it. I want this article to be factual and completely accurate. Period. I see *you*, in case you hadn't noticed, as trying to take out factual material that is not flattering. Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That's my impression based on many of your edits and your general comments here and on other Talk pages. When you claim that ... the people in Albuquerque still think he is guilty of first degree ... you display your feelings and your agenda. I doubt that you are any sort of spokesperson for the people in Albuquerque, yet you presume to tell us how the people there think.

If material is factual, I have no problem with it. But there was much material that is not factual that is only there to influence the readers against LE. A recent example was the false material that Boyd was "obese." In fact, his BMI shows that he was not and the coroner said that his abdomen was "flat." Yet someone, you said it was probably Activist, claimed that he was "obese." Someone, I'd bet it was you, put a "dubious" tag on the statement that there had been less shootings since the consent decree. In fact, the stats support it.

The comment "... but the shootings continue" overlooks the fact that until we develop technology that reliably allows LE to immediately and reliably stop someone 'in their tracks' there will be shootings involving LE. It's the human condition and it's hardly limited to Albuquerque. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

yep the dubious tag was me and I reverted your edit. As vandalism.

You calling my edit vandalism doesn't make it so. It was properly cited from a RS and two other RS, also ran the story. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't jusy disregard other editors' concerns like that. I explained why below.

And yet you disregard [my] ... concerns regularly. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The actual number is fuzzy. If you look at the list I compiled and linked to (the see also on the history of police violence setion) you will see that some of the incidents look, offhand, quite possibly justified, but this is again based on biased news coverage. BUT. If someone has "cop killer" tattooed on his knuckles it may well be entirely true that he was driving around the city shooting at police. It's worth noting that mental health care in NM has been decimated,

Nothing to do with LE, except that they are tasked with the 'after−action cleanup.' Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

but anyway, hmm, then there is the upstanding citizen who kidnapped his wife and locked her in the trunk of his car because she got a restraining order... but if I don't want to second guess those, well, are we counting bad shootings? On what basis? The review process says they are all good. That list is far from complete and anytime I look for a reference for some part of it I find more. It does not, for instance, include the infamous incident where they set a man covered in gasoline on fire by tasing him or the one where they tased off a man's ear. He got a $300,000 settlement and mysteriously wound up dead about about a week later. Probably coincidence, I am sure, heh. Anyway. Take a look at the links below please. When people riot about something it is objectively true that they are upset about it.

Not true by any reasonable standard. when people riot [protest] ... it is objectively true that they are upset about it. "Rioting" has little to do with protesting, although it is sometimes a spin−off from a protest. The latter is peaceful, legal and a completely appropriate part of the process. But "rioting" is obviously NOT peaceful, is ILlegal, and is a completely INapproprriate part of the process. Destroying public and private property, committing arson, throwing objects at the police, and stealing property from stores and other commercial property, are violations of the law and are not part of a protest, which is constitutionally guaranteed. I've been at several riots. Often the people involved don't even know what's going on other than a very broad view of some imagined wrong committed against them by the government. Usually it's just an opportunity to steal, burn, and act a fool with little fear of apprehension or conviction. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying so does not necessarily mean I agree with them, although I have already told you that it's my opinion that something is seriously wrong when this stuff happens. But that doesn't necessarily mean I am running around saying APD is evil. I do however note that the federal monitor says that the APD is not really trying to make changes

If there is a RS for that information then post it. I don't mind at all. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

and that the department leadership pronoted a "killology" class days after they signed the agreement you say they are following.

Sorry but this is wrong, and I think is indicative of your issues with APD. the department leadership DID NOT promote this class. ONE lieutenant did. Had you said something like "a member of the department staff promoted the class" you'd have been correct and accurate. Instead, what you wrote, again betrays your agenda against the APD. This was one officer, promoting a class that his wife was sponsoring, NOT an endorsement by the department. Your statement here is HIGHLY misleading. BTW, do you even know what those classes are about? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the washington post reference (#4) in my answer under the shoot in the penis section. These don't exactly address numbers, no, but it makes me a little more adamant (heh) that any numbers from APD need careful scrutiny. Maybe they are correct. And probably not given this police chief's history. If you want you can say that *he* says so then ok perhaps, but then you need to include the people who beg to differ.

If you are skeptical about the numbers, it's apparent that you've already assumed they come from the Chief, without anything more than another feeling, then you are free to go find numbers that contradict what the source that I posted said. AGAIN, I don't need to post such information. I have no reason to believe that they came from the Chief so there is no need to find people who disagree with him. And, if they exist, they would have come up during my search for the comment that I posted. But they didn't. If you have some information from a RS please post it. And AGAN, there is no shortage of anti LE information in the article. I am merely providing the required NPOV. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to try to verify, well, good luck with that but we can certainly discuss. Elinruby (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across the Killology article again, putting it here for your convenience. The WaPo article below quotes and links to this Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, re the shooting continue, this may help you understand some of the cynicism on the subject of police pronouncements.

You've assumed, without any basis in fact, for that assumption, that the figures I posted are from the Chief. They may be, but making such an assumption, is flawed at best. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are still operating on assumptions based on you experience in some other city. Albuquerque has had an inordinate number of police shootings for years but it is increasingly hiring Army snipers and training officers at the Coyote Canyon facility, where the curriculum focuses on security for DoE facilities ie the the nuclear stockpile, which is in Albuquerque in case you didn't know. A lot of people think the militarization started here.

I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the militarization of the police." It's mostly an invention of the media and has nothing to do with anything real. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was in Albuquerque then and walked within feet of where those officers were shot every day so it hit close to home for me too. But these tragic events are not a reason not to try to avoid others. A factual account of this one shooting just maybe might shed some light on what exacty the problem(s) is/are. Maybe. That's the agenda you insist I am pushing. But inserting fluff is not trying for factual. If something is true, fine. I do insist it be true, though, and what Gordon Eden says usually isn't,

That last statement is an opinion and one that probably is not supported by the facts. But it does serve to again, show your bias. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

and accusing me of bias won't change that.

It's not an accus[ation], it's an observation. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally the Alibi is the local weekly, and the author is a professor of American studies at the University of NM. Elinruby (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

oh and alibi.com/news/50849/APD-Still-Not-Meeting-Requirements.html - March 2016 Elinruby (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

does.

I agree that this source is not reliable. Your description of him as a professor of American Studies at the UNM doesn't improve that at all. Heh. But the Patriot Ledger, PoliceOne.com, and Yahoo News, are. All of them picked up Hudetz' story on the AP wire. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You just WP:DONTLIKE it. I'm not suggesting we include this material, just explaining the context to you. The history can be sourced with sources off of JSTOR if it needs to be but I don't think it does. It's not going in the article; the fact that the shootings have been going on for forty years is a little out of scope for the article. WhatI am trying to get you to look at is the fact that time after time the shootings have been found to be justified and every single time the police chief held a press conference and praised the officer...and then the officer got a bonus from the police union... explains a certain cynicism among the populace. This is why I don't necessarily believe the spin sessions and neither does anyone else. All I am trying to get across to you is why we care about accuracy of this article even more than we do about most BLP articles. Also, I am not making any statements that the protesters were right or wrong, just that they protested, and that this received nationwide coverage and therefore meets Wikipedia's standard of notability. We can call it a protest if you want; that that's what I think it was. The police chief is the one who called it a riot. I am amused that you think a third-hand account of one of his spin sessions is reliable for a critical number but when a different spin session says something you don't like you no longer agree with him ;) Oh and what's a policeone? I need to see the written editorial policy for that one too. Yahoo News is... borderline. I think I am using it to reference something obvious. I need to know what you are trying to demonstrate with it. No matter, what there is almost definitely a better source out there at this point. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

just bizarre ideas about NPOV

more breakdown to separate topic:

elinruby wrote, you still say that because you see the prosecutor's remark at the preliminary hearing that Sandy and Perez were not seperated after the shooting as some sort of insinuation of collusion,

Please give us some other reason that the prosecutor's remark is in the article, than an insinuation of collusion

elinruby wrote, you therefore can add about 250 words on why the current thinking is that investigators suggest not to interrogate right away.

Yes, I can. And I did. it's called NPOV and is a requirement of Wikipedia. My word count for this addition to the article is 151 words, not 250 as you claim. You were off by a HUGE factor. Did you estimate? Did you miscount? Did you purposefully inflate the numbers to make yourself look good?

Dude.

• Maybe that editor wanted to quote the prosecutor's opening statement ;) The prosecutor alleges misconduct, that is the job.

Yes it is, and to provide a NPOV, it's my job as editor to provide the opposing viewpoint. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I can't believe you counted the words.

I didn't. My computer did. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Why in the world would you think that *I* think more words make me look better?

You said that I'd added 250 words, as if that some a massive tome that bogged down the entire article. In truth it was 151 words, 40% less than you claimed. This is ANOTHER example of your many exaggerations. I'm not good at brevity but I think it was (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) 'like a woman's skirt; long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to create interest.' Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mind-boggling.

Some minds are more easily boggled than others. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• STOP THAT.

Sorry but I'm unable to tell what will, and what won't, boggle your mind. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• You are very bad at guessing what I think and most of your guesses are insulting.

"Insulting?" You mean like you, calling me "dude"? Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You're insulted by "dude'??????Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• The point is, that all that stuff about sleep and so forth, I believe it is true. But that doesn't mean it goes here.

It should directly follow the prosecutor's statement alleging wrongdoing on the part of the APD in delaying the interviewing of the officers. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Did ANYONE at anypoint, in testimony or a press interview, ever make this point? If not it does not go in this article

Please show us a WP policy that requires that everything that's mentioned in this article be said in testimony or a press interview. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

that would be WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. Especially the part about:

::::Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

--Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not base an entire article on primary sources I was extremely cautious in my use of the sources. I do not consider 151 words to be a large passage but I guess that is a matter of opinion. But even if it was, it's still permitted as long as I was cautious, and I was. There was no unsourced material from [my] personal experience. It was not material about living people. So NONE of this applies. You keep posting WP Policy that misses the mark. This is just begging the question. 08:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• no matter how mean you think the prosecutor was.

I don't think that the prosecutor was mean. She's just doing her job as prosecutor. Same thing I'm doing as editor. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• You are a wiki editor here and don't get a redirect Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do get to respond with a statement that provides a NPOV to her statements. I'll wait for your response for a few days. If one isn't forthcoming, or it's not convincing, I'll revert this edit. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

NO NO NO You *have* to use secondary sources. You don't get to argue with what the prosecutor said, at least not in the article. If the defense attorney, or some commentator, said what you what to put in, that's another matter. I did see you put the link to that research in the External Links section and I have no issue with that -- that is where we put things that are possibly useful but not directly within the scope of the article. Elinruby (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I DO NOT HAVE TO USE SECONDARY SOURCES and it's troubling that you make this claim when the WP policy that you quoted a few paragraphs above CLEARLY says that primary sources CAN be used, but there are limitations on it. IT CAN BE USED if an entire article is not based on it and one needs to be cautious about using large passages. The material I've used is EXACTLY on point, and that shows the necessary caution. If you can show me a WP policy that requires that that I have to get a defense attorney, or some commentator to provide the statement, please do so. Otherwise I'm going to replace the material. WP does not seem interested in replying to your Noticeboard messages, I think they want us to work it out. Given that I've not touched any of your material that is OR that is based on your interpretation of what witnesses are saying on video from cameras in the courtroom, as a compromise, you should allow this material to stand. ESPECIALLY since, contrary to your opinion, it IS allowed per WP policy. Your references to WP policy continually are not on point, as I've shown repeatedly. 08:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong in a number of ways but to address the actual issue here the above was carelessly stated. You cannot, in the voice of wikipedia, say "the prosecutor said this but what she said is wrong." NOW. If the defense attorney refuted whatever it was you are arguing with (been so long I forget) then you can quote him to your heart's content. Ditto if some commentator took issue, then go to town. Well, within due weight, but we've been so busy with NPOV that we haven't really gotten to that yet. Elinruby (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you've failed to do as I requested, "... show me a WP policy that requires that that I have to get a defense attorney, or some commentator to provide the statement " Instead you've given me what seems to be your opinion on the matter. My opinion is different. The comments are pertinent and I think they belong. I'll give you couple more days to find the WP policy that I requested, then I'm going to revert your edit.

I'm not the one who is saying that the prosecutor is wrong, it's experts who have done appropriate research and authorities such as the IACP and the Force Science Institute. 06:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

OK? Did *they* comment on the topic of this article? If not then it should stay in the See also section.

Indirectly, they did. But you STILL have not provided support for this opinion, that they must comment on the "Shooting of James Boyd," and so I'll disagree. They commented on a statement made during the trial. I still see no reason not to include it in the body of the Article. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a page on wikipedia that talks about this? If so a link might be possible. I'm sort of sympathetic to your point, but you still are advocating.

Providing NPOV when only one viewpoint is presented, is hardly advocating. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion. You feel like the prosecutor was insinuating something. I say that's what prosecutors do.

I agree, but that's not a reason not to provide NPOV. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How about, instead of the two of us destroying our carpal tendons over this, we concentrate on the article restructuring?

I see no reason that we can't do both. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've asked you some questions about it and you haven't answered them yet.

Sorry, I didn't see them. I'll go take a look when this is finished. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

But if we put everything from the primary hearing together, and everything about the trial together --which I think we agreed to-- maybe this will not look as much like a personal attack. The problem may be that this is in an account which attempts a consensus timeline. For what it's worth, the defense attorney, as I recall, said at the preliminary hearing that the officers had no way of knowing that Boyd was mentally ill. Which *I* think is nonsense, but there you go.

I think that comment is wrong too. I think that the officer DID know that he was mentally ill. Hence Sandy's statement referring to him as a "lunatic." His ravings about being the DOD, being able to kill them with his thoughts and then bring them back from the dead, that he was working for the DOJ would quickly demonstrate to him that fact. The Open Space officers had no idea of his illness before they contacted him but once they did, they should have quickly become aware of it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Once we are in the proposed format, with dueling ridiculousness from the lawyers, the preliminary hearing may not seem anywhere near as important as it did in the 24-hour news cycle where it was covered.

To answer your actual question though, the policy is no original research, WP:NOR, which is prominently linked on the original research noticeboard where this question is, so I would have thought that was obvious. But ok. There's your link. You want the material to go in, so it's up to you to demonstrate that it complies. It doesn't, but I'll listen to you if you want to argue it.

Here's what it says there, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

My question was "If you can show me a WP policy that requires that that I have to get a defense attorney, or some commentator to provide the statement, please do so." The material does have "reliable published sources," and it is "related directly to the topic of the article," the Shooting of James Boyd, and it does "directly support the material being presented" just as does the comment from the prosecutor. I saw nothing there that says that someone who is not directly involved in the incident can't comment on a side matter that was raised by someone who is directly involved. As long as it pertains to the topic of the article, and is pertinent, it can be used, since it's not prohibited by WP policy. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "careful" use of a primary source, because those journals would be secondary sources

At one point you were arguing that they were primary sources. You wrote, "NO NO NO You *have* to use secondary sources." Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

just fine if the article was about how to get a coherent account of events from policemen involved in officr-involved shootings.

When someone, not sure who it was, brought in the prosecutors statement to insinuate that delaying the questioning was inappropriate, then it's fair and reasonable to provide a NPOV comment to counter that. The article AT THAT MOMENT BECAME "about how to get a coherent account of events from policemen involved in officer-involved shootings." Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A careful use is agreeing with you that Sandy has a rifle not a beanbag shotgun because all of the officer statements to the homicide detective agree that Sandy had a Taser shotgun and a rifle. So if he was talking about a shotgun he probably meant the taser shotgun he was holding, right. That's OR but was needed and even important imho -- see remarks to @Fyddlestix: on the subject. Here you just want to refute a possible insinuation that everyone but you has forgotten. [Emphasis here from Beanyandcecil] Elinruby (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems as if you're saying that since it's a minor point to other editors (the 3 or 4 that are involved currently) that I should just forget about it? Not gonna happen. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

James Boyd was not "obese"

According to the autopsy, Boyd's BMI was 29.80. Per the NIH, that is defined medically as "overweight." One is not "obese" until the BMI reaches 30.

I'm going to change this part of the physical description of him in the Background Section in the next couple of days. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

where are you getting this BMI? Elinruby (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's in the autopsy report that I linked in the first footnote. 04:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanyandcecil (talk • contribs)

Page?Elinruby (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Death Investigation Report page 4 of 30." "BMI: 29.80" 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanyandcecil (talk • contribs)

K thanks. I see it. I think it's a nitpick (29.9 v 30?) but I'm not going to argue over this particular word; Activist must have put that there, cause I didn't, and I don't really care. Just wanted to be sure it was somewhere, as I hadn't noticed it. The page number should also in the article reference if it isn't already. Elinruby (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It probably is a nitpick. But I think it was there for only one reason – to give the impression that Boyd was not a threat. After all, if he's a 'big fat 'OBESE' pig,' he's not in any shape to fight or be a threat. But that's just BS. As I said earlier, one does not have to be an Olympic athlete to slit a throat with a knife. I wasn't going to put the BMI into the article, I think it's superfluous, but I didn't want to let the "obese" statement stand. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, I am not the Activist whisperer. Strictly speaking if you round up he was obese

"Strictly speaking" the figure is "29.80" not 29.9. And it's already been rounded to two decimal points. He is properly defined as "overweight" not "obese." Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

but I don't see why why we need to memorialize that. It might even be against the BLP policy, since he is dead and probably would not have wanted to be famous for being fat. Not to mention unkind. I am fine with just not addressing his BMI. Activist may have another take on the matter if he comes back through here but if he's no longer participating then I see no reason why I myself should champion this particular edit.

Since we're picking nits over particular words I don't want to attempt a big structural edit -- or lede rewrite, which will necessitate a big structural edit -- here on the article itself. I have moved a copy of the article to my sandbox and am working there. Not much to see there right now but a mess and I am again at the point of needing break but if you want to discuss feel free to look and comment. Elinruby (talk)

Sandy's intent before shooting

This section was inserted in order to discuss the opinion that Sandy had intended to shoot and kill Boyd before he had even made contact with him. This would be necessary for a charge of first degree (premeditated) murder. Anyone reading this could go either way on whether he had this intent or not.

As has been mentioned in the article, as soon as the prosecution rested, the judge who heard the case sustained a motion from the defense to dismiss the first degree murder charges, leaving only the second degree murder charge against both officers, and an charge of aggravated assault against Sandy, stating that the prosecution had not proved murderous intent, the topic of this section. Beanyandcecil (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I realized from Elinruby's comment that I got this wrong. It's corrected in my response to her. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to insert a statement and a citation, to that effect in the next few days but I'd like some discussion about it first. Beanyandcecil (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sure that 1st-degree went away well before that, because there was a huge outcry about the fact that 2nd-degree was the most they were charged with. However, when I tried to research this, all I found was the initial filing, which does have the option of 1st degree. I'll try agin. I suspect this happened about the time that the special prosecutor took over, but I don't have a reference that says this now. The point about premeditation is important, as the people in Albuquerque still think he is guity of first degree because of that video. You can propose another wording if you like but it should take this into account. Elinruby (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I GOT THIS WRONG! The FIRST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE went away after the preliminary hearing. It was THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE that went away after the defense rested. It's stated correctly in the Article, but I messed it up here. Nonetheless, there needs to be a statement inserted in the Article to the effect that since the judge removed the first degree murder charge, that his ruling meant that there was no premeditation necessary to a first degree murder charge that could be upheld.

mmmmm I thought that was involuntary manslaughter. But again, I don't have a source that says it happened before that. I don't question the statement that they were initially charged with open murder and someone ruled out first degree murder. I agree it should be in there, and would put it in myself if I had the details. I don't right now though and it does need a reference. If you have one, then fine.Elinruby (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the dismissal of the voluntary manslaughter charge. Pretty sure I looked at your source and was confused about why you thought it proved your point. I have a gajillion windows open from the stuff below and can't find it right now but I found an article last night, local news coverage, that says that when the special prosecutor took over she filed (not sure of terminology exactly) the open murder charge to encompass 2nd degree on down to involuntary manslaughter. Written at the time not a hurried summay, so probably accurate. I'll put in in here later as I'll probably find it when I start closing windows. Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the news release at the bottom of this page. "On Monday, January 12, 2015, criminal informations were filed in the Second Judicial Court in connection with the fatal shooting of James Boyd. The informations contain a single count of open murder against both Albuquerque Police Officers Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez." [Emphasis Added] [1]

Here's the news story that talks about the dismissal of the first degree charges, "Prosecutors originally filed first-degree murder charges against former APD officers Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez in the death of James Boyd. Those charges were dismissed during the preliminary hearing in which Judge Neil Candelaria bound the men over for trial. First-degree murder requires premeditation." [Emphasis Added] [2]

Later. I gotta go. Elinruby (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I don't think that your statement ... as the people in Albuquerque still think he is guilty of first degree because of that video is accurate. I'm sure that SOME people there think that way, and many of them may be quite vocal, but to state it this way means that EVERYONE there thinks this way. I'm quite sure that's incorrect.

People in Albuquerque can think anything that they want but it just demonstrates that they just don't understand the law. The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandy intended to murder Boyd based on the 'shoot him in the penis' statement. Therefore it was removed from the jury's consideration. The public tends to convict defendants based on what they read in the press, and the press certainly wasn't neutral in this case. Before the defense opened its case, the press certainly didn't provide the LE side of the case. And even then they didn't give the same weight to it that they gave to the prosecution arguments. OTOH the jury hears the pertinent evidence and they have a much better understanding and knowledge of what happened and why it happened. Hence the jury's decision (actually lack of a decision).

I don't see why the wording of an article on WP should take into account the feelings of the people of Albuquerque. Did I misunderstand? Can you explain please? Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably. See my answer below to the new editor who came through the other day and questioned some stuff. New to the page, I mean. I haven't looked at his/her edit history. Note that the sources provided are just half a dozen of the better references. Then there are the comment sections, forums and social media, which really can't be used in an article like this, but are part of what the RS are talking about. The criterion is notability. APd claims people were rioting over this. I'd say it was an unnecessary use of force myself, but either way it is notable since it got many many news stories about the "riots" alone and more about why they happened, which are more useful imho. Hope that helps Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concept of notability, but "the feelings of the people of Albuquerque [should not affect] the wording of an article on WP." That is not to say that the riots and other fallout should not be mentioned, just that feelings should not be an issue as to what is, and what is not discussed, or how something is described. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"I'm going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a minute"

This statement is undisputed, and should not have been removed. I was not able to revert it because of intervening edits but it's going back in. The source that says "he didn't say it" is talking about the word "taser", I believe. I haven't been in the article for a couple of weeks so there's no telling what happened with the sources but it *was* sourced and will be when I put it back in. what is controversial is whether or not he said Taser. Elinruby (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to produce some RS to prove that it's "undisputed" first - all of the sources I looked at treated it as questionable and several of them stated outright that he did not say it. I removed it as a BLP violation since it was effectively unsourced. Please present your sources here and get consensus for it before restoring. See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There's an extensive discussion further up this page between Beany and me about which version/transcription we should use. It got international coverage. They spent hours on this at trial. Google is your friend. I've got to stop, just spent way too long on your strange idea that thinking they shoot people in Albuquerque is "an opinion" Incidentally, though, you are right, it was the non-emergency line. This was an error in early coverage, which said 911 (I think 911 is in the title of one of the references re Thickstun; I had a brain bubble) But sure. If it lost its references somehow I'll provide a bunch when I get back. Thousands to choose from. Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, it's undisputed that Sandy and Ware spoke to each other, and that Sandy made some sort of remark about shooting Boyd called him a lunatic. This audio was recorded on Ware's dash cam. and admitted into evidence at the trial. Sandy hasn't disputed making the statement. He testified at the trial that he regretted calling him a lunatic. He told the homicide investigator he did not remember saying anything about a penis but if the video says he did then he must have. The police department (police chief?) said he said "I am going to shoot him in the penis with a Taser shotgun here in a minute".

I do think it's likely he *meant* the Taser shotgun. He didn't have any other kind, and I hear "shotgun". But given that the blogosphere was saying that this was premeditated murder --- and there were demonstrations/riots over this ---the PD was eager to underline the less-that-lethal. The NMSP has not released Ware's interview, just an amendment to it, in which he says that Sandy was handling his Taser and that Sandy didnt say he was going to shoot him "in the nuts", he said he was going to shoot him with the Taser shotgun. This does not match the audio but he stuck to that story in his testimony at trial, although he wasn't happy while he was on the stand. But there is no question Sandy said something that contained most of those words. Note: this is me explaining this to you, not proposing text. I will put references on the above statements now -- I do understand your concern if you are just reading about this for the first time. Again, this is not proposed text -- probably too much information and too casually written. However, Sandy did say something and Beany and I agreed on the version you removed, except that Beany wants to insert [Taser] in front of shotgun. As I mentioned, there is an extensive discussion here about this, probably archived by now. My position is that the words in quotes should be exactly what he said to the extent it is possible to establish a consensus about this, and we should note that most transcriptions have (inaudible) somewhere in that sentence". They put it in different places though I am pretty sure. And some people say they hear "Taser, though I disagree and believe the RS do also. That's a bit hard to express and perhaps needs rewording but that did happen. Oh and when people are "rioting" (according to APD) because of something a person has done, they are a public figure at least with respect to that action. Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)\*

1. Sandy's initial homicide interview <- don't think he mentions it but would have to check and not sure it's needed
2. "There is debate over what else he said – whether he said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis as some have reported or whether he said he was bringing a less lethal weapon with him – a Taser shotgun"secondary source for disagreement
3. local weekly: "“I'm going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.”
4. "“When I came in here today, it was just to fall on my sword because that’s what I’ve been told. But I don’t recall. I don’t remember saying it.”
5. "Two hours before he killed Boyd, Albuquerque police officer Keith Sandy — already the subject of numerous allegations of misconduct and excessive force who nevertheless was permitted to serve on elite police units — was recorded referring to Boyd as a “f—ing lunatic,” then promising to “shoot him in the penis with a shotgun.” (The Albuquerque Police Department later insisted that Sandy threatened only to “shoot him with a Taser.”)[3]
6. "Called Boyd a “fucking lunatic” and joked to a colleague that he’d like to fire a Taser shotgun at Boyd’s penis. (He later told detectives that he and his colleagues talked so much “garbage to one another” that they developed a safe word, “china,” so that they would know when to stop joking. <---note lack of quote marks New Yorker
7. "Two hours before an Albuquerque police officer fatally shot a homeless camper, which sparked violent protest in the city, he was purportedly recorded saying he would shoot the suspect. A recording recently obtained by KOB-TV shows Keith Sandy telling a state police officer that James Boyd was a “lunatic” and he was going to shot the man struggling with mental illness “in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.”"ABQ tv station
8. "In the recording, APD detective Keith Sandy tells State Police Sgt. Chris Ware that James Boyd was a “f***ing lunatic” and that he was going to shoot him with some type of shotgun.
9. "Some news organizations reported that Sandy said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis. That was not clear from the Journal’s review of the recording. APD has not confirmed or denied it, and a spokeswoman refused to comment."

<-- isn't this a discussion of whether or not Sandy said "Tazer"? I am pretty sure it is; That's been the focus of discussion here so far. I am still awaiting your more reliable sources whose version does not include "penis". Elinruby (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

can I stop now? I think reliable sourcing is beyond established. There's a lot more, lots of it non-RS, but still. Plenty that are. Maybe we disagree about what is a reliable source? Maybe you should show me yours.... Elinruby (talk)

There's a lot to respond to here, but going through the sources you've given:

• This is a WP:PRIMARY source. We can't make factual claims based on it as that would be original research.
• Same goes for This video. In addition to being a primary source, this has an added problem: secondary sources attest to the fact that what he says in the video is disputed and that the recording is unclear. So what you (or anyone else) think you hear in this recording is doubly suspect and obviously not a reliable source.
• It's a bit flabbergasting that you would cite this source to suggest that Sandy made the "penis" remark, given that the article directly says that while "Some news organizations reported that Sandy said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis. That was not clear from the Journal’s review of the recording." The source supports the opposite of what you're arguing here.
• Same with This source. It says that "There is debate over what else he said – whether he said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis as some have reported or whether he said he was bringing a less lethal weapon with him – a Taser shotgun." So this source cannot be used to suggest that Sandy actually said what you're suggesting either.
• This does suggest that Sandy made the "penis" remark, but it's an extremely low-quality source. Not only is it from a free, weekly newspaper (which tend to be less reliable, lower-quality journalism compared to a daily), but this is a news quiz not an actual news article. This would never be accepted as a reliable source if you took it to RSN.
• This is a blog on the Washington Post website, not an actual news article. It would have to be compared to other coverage and properly weighted per WP:NEWSBLOG before I'd be confident citing it as a source - especially for a claim that most other news sources don't repeat.
• This is a better source, but it doesn't support inclusion of the quote that was in the article before. We could use this to suggest that Sandy "joked to a colleague that he’d like to fire a Taser shotgun at Boyd’s penis" - but again, it would have to be weighed against the coverage that questions whether Sandy said that at all. Note also that this only supports saying that Sandy joked about shooting Boyd with the Taser shotgun - which is not what the article said before (ie, that Sandy "Sandy told Ware that Boyd was 'a fucking lunatic' and that Sandy planned to shoot Boyd 'in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.'") The source does not support that wording at all.
• This appears to be another quite low-quality source: it is a short, "breaking news" type story, and while it does say that the recording "shows Keith Sandy telling a state police officer that James Boyd was a “lunatic” and he was going to shot the man struggling with mental illness “in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.” It also starts with the caveat that "he was purportedly recorded saying..."

All in all, I find very little evidence in these sources (or anywhere else) to suggest that the material I removed from the article is "undisputed." In fact, many of the sources you just linked demonstrate it is disputed. There might be enough reliable sources of sufficient quality for the article to say that Sandy joked about shooting Boyd with the Taser. But the "penis" remark is not supported by most RS, and it certainly needs to be made clear that we're not talking about an actual firearm. Even then, this might be WP:UNDUE emphasis given the number of sources which say that it's unclear exactly what Sandy said. Certainly, any statement along the lines of "Sandy said x" should probably be attributed to a specific source rather than stated as a fact. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I am ok with attribution but we have to chose a version to attribute before we get there, @Fyddlestix:. If in fact we can't get consensus on any one version -- it's starting to look like that might be the case -- we might go through some of the the more popular versions, but I am fairly sure @Beanyandcecil: will not like that. Or we *could* say it's hard to hear and go with what was entered into evidence -- that one might fly -- but it's important to go into the confusion on this point since this was a factor in the protests and also a key question in the murder trial. Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not what he said though, @Fyddlestix:. When he amended his statement, he said... well, what was there was a exact quote, I think. He said much the same thing when he testified. If we are going to be maidenly about the word "nuts" we should still report his remarks correctly. He says Sandy *said* Taser shotgun. Beany has made the case that Sandy must have meant the Taser, and I was able to verify that the weapon used to shoot Boyd was a rifle. So if you believe he said "shotgun" then he must have meant the Taser shotgun he had in his hands, because he didn't have another one. He himself said he was kidding and had no intention of shooting anyone with anything regardless of anything he had said. And by the way he doesn't recall what that was, but he doesn't question the video. We should quote him on that btw but getting back to this, Ware and Eden and nobody else hear the word Taser. There are several other versions and I am fine with enumerating them in the article if you want, shrug, personally. Elinruby (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually...he might have speculated like that at trial. But why don't we save some time, if we're using an indirect quote anyway and say something like "Ware testified that he took this to mean the Taser shotgun" -- I think this can be justified, I'll look. But initially at least Ware said that Sandy said the word Taser Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not really helpful to say "he said x" or "he might have speculated.." and so on, unless you're being specific about what source you're referring to. I have no problem adding this back in if it can be accurately and properly referenced in a way that isn't undue. But you need to be a lot more specific about which sources you're referring to here. My sense is that the most we'll be able to do is a series of attributed statements along the lines of "x paper said he said y, c paper says he said z, Ware says he said w," and that it's disputed. I'll try to work up a proposal for what I think gives due weight and can properly sourced but it might take me some time. Please be patient. More important to get this right than to do it now. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

um, @Fyddlestix: you moved my comment in this second paragraph from the separate section where I had it. I think that makes the discussion harder to follow if anyone else, @Beanyandcecil: for example, wants to weigh in. I'll clarify for his sake and anyone else's, possibly yours as well because it's not clear to me that you understand this, that the first paragraph is about what Sandy said, and the second is about what the state police officer Ware said and testified that he said, and they are talking about different pieces of text in the article. Apart from that, they do both refer, broadly speaking, to the same comment caught on Ware's dash-cam video, yes, however. I am happy to discuss your thoughts on how to do this and fine with you giving it some thought/time. There is a lot of material on this and thought is a good thing. My focus at the moment is on structure, as discussed with Beany above.

I'll say again however,because you should realize this for purposes of weight, that the Alibi is a good source and David Correia, who wrote a lot of their coverage, is a) a professor of American studies at UNM, and b) a spokesman for the protestors. He's RS at a minimum for his own position and the history he's citing is both verifiable and verified by me. The Journal is totally an RS by wikipedia standards but deeply tied to the local patron system. However, one and maybe two of their reporters have been following the police violence story forever, longer than I have anyway, so they have a story on most milestones and even some pretty good explainers towards the end. The best coverage of the *Boyd* case imho -- and I have read almost all of it -- was from KRQE. Publichealthnm.org (I think the URL is) did some thoughtful stories on various shootings including this one. It's important to realize that the police have a long history of shooting mentally ill citizens and they always say they threatened them with a weapon and the shooting was necessary for safety reasons. This is why people don't really believe it in this instance. If you encounter Heath Haussamen's nmpolitics, or nmindepth by mattew reichbach (sp?) or freeabq or Joe Monahan, these are well-respected local independent journalists, though unabashedly right-wing in the case of the latter. Pete Dinelli has several guest editorials in various publications, but he is a politician and while I think his history is accurate, his stuff needs to be checked for spin. Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I moved your comment - we do not need (and should not have) two separate sections on the same talkpage to discuss the same issue simultaneously. One section on the "penis" quote is all that's needed, and two is just going to cause confusion. See the very first point of the talk page guildelines - I urge both of you two to read/re-read that page and take it to heart btw, this talk page is extremely confusing to follow.

I agree that Correia is a valid source for his own opinions, that's fine - but if he is, as you say, the spokesmen for the protesters, then he's also clearly a WP:BIASED source and we want to be careful not to state his opinion as fact when it conflicts with other RS, or when what he says is debatable. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

His comments on the history are accurate, at least the ones I've checked. But by that token can probably be attributed to other sources, to the extent we need them, so whatever. I don't think any of the New Mexico sources are unbiased, personally. Especially not the official police department pronouncements. The statement and Ware's testimony about the statement are two different things. I wish you'd worry less about a remark Sandy definitely made and more about the actual POV pushing. Elinruby (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

this is still dubious and there's a reason why the tag says discuss

Police shootings have dropped since the DOJ Report was released and the APD instituted changes in policy and training to conform to the consent decree." As a result of the consent decree APD officers now receive training on how to minimize the use of force in high stress situations. The court monitor said, "The SWAT unit has become one of the strongest teams within the department." Officers have used their guns less since receiving this training. In 2013 eight shootings results in death or injuries. In 2015 that number dropped to five. Officers used their guns 15 times in 2013 and 10 times in 2015.

never heard of the patriot ledger

I didn't realize that one had to run a news source past you to see if you'd heard of it. Are you now the approving authority for material and citations? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

and the web page runs a bunch of scripts.

Yes, and? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

red flag for clickbait. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can't find a written editorial policy, which is needed usually to be RS.

usually needed but not always, right? It appears that you've unilaterally decided that because you Can't find a written editorial policy that the site is not a RS? If you can find some RS's that state that the Patriot Ledger is not reliable, please show them to us. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It might possibly be a mediocre mainstream newspaper but it's not demonstrated.

Please let us know when you find some information that supports your contention that it's not RS. I haven't found anything in WP policy that says that " a mediocre mainstream newspaper " can't be used. Can you direct us to such a policy please? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, you want it, *you* go read the policy. Elinruby (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

And then there is why I should trust a mediocre mainstream newspaper based in new england to be accurate on the number of Albuquerque police shootings. Well?

I really don't care if you trust it or not. I've not seen anything in WP policy that prohibits its use. If you have something that does, please show it to us. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's AP and some paper that's in the SouthWest, at least, probably ran this. If you can find it in a Las Cruces or Tucson paper maaaaaybe, but again, this is AP

I'm confident that AP refers to the Associated Press, a venerated news co−op that's been around for about 170 years. Are you questioning their reliability? Are you questioning the reliability of the author? "ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Mary Hudetz, a former Associated Press journalist and current editor of Native Peoples Magazine in Phoenix, will return to the AP in August to become the news cooperative’s law enforcement reporter in Albuquerque." So Ms. Hudetz writes a story as the "NW LE Reporter." It goes out to the AP and only the Patriot Ledger picks it up. I'm not surprised that the Albuquerque media didn't pick it up, it's not nearly as sensational as stories about the shooting or the trial. It doesn't fit into the "If it bleeds it leads" mentality that much of the media is about these days. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Citation updated Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

and I smell a police chief press release.

Perhaps it was, so what? If the Chief has the stats, there's nothing inappropriate about releasing it. But I think that if it was, it would probably have been described as such. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want that in there it needs to be better sourced than that.

Not according to WP policy. In fact, there are cautions against over sourcing. One is sufficient. If you can find some stats that are published in a RS that contradict what is in the news article, of course, you are free to cite them. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also please fix the quotes in this paragraph if you put it back in. There's one missing and it's unclear which parts are quotes. Elinruby (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional Info: Ms. Hudetz' article on the AP wire was also picked up by PoliceOne.com., and Yahoo News 05:53 6 November 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. Policeone is going away when I get around to it. I am pretty sure that THAT RePORTeR is the one who didn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun according to you. I believe you on this and therefore the editorial review part is important. Wire service stories are ok as far as they go but they are usually significantly different from one another because of local newspaper editing and updating. And that is a matter of the publication not the author. Even if you manage to prove it's a mediocre mainstream newspaper, you're trying to use it to refute something the federal DoJ monitor said, as reported in I think it was the Albuquerque Journal. which has to be regarded a) as the newspaper of record, b) a RS according to wikipedia standards. Usually I would disagree, but that's the default and in the case of this story one or two Journal reporters have been closely following the storyall along so I agree in this case. c)Also, since it's local daily it's not using the story as filler to plug a hole on the page, it's running because it's important to their readers and they're going to fact-check and and update it because they'll get angry phone calls if they print something wrong. Theoretically anyway. So we believe the story, and we believe the federal monitor, because by default we believe the government and there is no reason to question his integrity or competence ie he's probably right. @Fyddlestix: can you give me a hand here trying to explain this please?

• In other news, Policeone is almost certainly not a reliable source for this story. All of the above questions for policeone also. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The local paper didn't use the AP story because they covered it themselves. Don't be ridiculous. Just use their version. Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a problem with the Hudetz article. I might have cited the AP story itself rather than the Patriot Ledger, but even so the ledger is a perfectly reputable paper (see the wiki article, it's actually won numerous journalism awards). Associated Press stories are generally reliable, and a very large chunk of the content in most newspapers is from AP. A quick search suggests that multiple large, respectable papers (Miami Herald, for example) also ran the same story, and that numerous ABC affiliates picked it up as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem, assuming you are right about all that, is that he wants to use it instead of more recent local coverage that says otherwise Elinruby (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, what/where is the more recent coverage that you think is better? If they disagree then we probably need to discuss both viewpoints. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted it above somewhere, will find and post here. Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)