Talk:2015 Texas pool party incident

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Texas pool party incident article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 June 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Black Lives Matter Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an image or photograph of 2015 Texas pool party incident be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

1

Mentioning proper name

Well, it's officially silly season here on Wikipedia. I've filed my complaint about the repeated removal of the officer's name here. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so important to you that this person's name be included? And yes, this news story is an excellent example of silly season. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well add in other names such as Brandon Brooks, the one who recorded the event, Dajerria Becton the bikini girl, The party promoter, Tatyana/Tatiana Rhodes, and her mother LaShana Burks and the party DJ, DJReign aka Andrew Cosby. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been publicly reported by no less than the New York Times and Washington Post (the latter in the headline). There can be no BLP rationale for withholding the name here. (Of course, I question whether this incident is encyclopedially notable at all. If this were put up on Articles for Deletion, it is possible I would vote to delete or merge into a broader article on policing controversies. But if we are to have the article, at least we can be complete). Neutrality^talk 04:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why is it important that this name's person be included? It adds nothing to an understanding of the subject, and popularizing the name (even if it is just one more location) has the potential to do real-world harm. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:ENC, because WP:PRESERVE. What real world harm possible exists when everyone and their mother knows the name of the officer involved already? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both non-answers. This is a high-visibility website, and popularizing publicly-accessible, sensitive information is a BLP issue. The person has received death threats, and desires to remain a low-profile individual. That is all that should matter given BLP's requirement for greatest care. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being low-profile was never going to happen. I tried to write a rather flattering BLP about him at Eric Casebolt, but you submitted it to AFD and got it thru. We're writing an encyclopedia of knowledge, and like it or not, the man's name is common knowledge. It sucks for him; I fully believe he was just a public servant who was having a bad day. But it is what it is. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually deleted per criterion A7 (while at AfD). No, I do not accept that we have to play dumb and contribute to popularizing the name, and I do not agree that it is (or will be) a household term. As noted above, this far below our inclusion criteria for events. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats

@Dratman: I found the fact that one of the officers had received death threats to be pretty relevant to the article; it seems like a direct effect of the event. Why was it removed? VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that someone received death threats is vague, unverifiable and thus inherently irrelevant. What exactly constitutes a death threat is unclear, and unless the alleged recipient makes the threats public, there is no way to check any part of the claim. I am not going to quote specific rules. We both understand the pillars and general principles of Wikipedia. Dratman (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information was sourced to BBC. What makes it unverifiable, in the context of WP:V? What is the connection between verifiability and relevance? What policy indicates to you that it is our job as editors to examine the primary source (the threats themselves) rather than using reliable secondary sources? No, I do not accept that "we both understand the pillars" because you have exhibited competence in none of them with this reply. VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears in the NY Daily News here, the Daily Mail here, the Dallas Morning News here, and so on. GregJackP Boomer! 06:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for getting emotional about this topic and for arguing it in a sloppy fashion as a result. The only point I now have to add is that I think it would be better to wait some period of time (say, two weeks) before posting a notability template if the notability issue pertains to an article about a fresh story which touches on a hot topic such as racial discrimination. Dratman (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, someone, make the article more accessible to non-Americans

I am British. I find the article hard to understand, probably because its writers assume as obvious things which are not obvious to non-Americans.

"a private pool party where various teens jumped fence and assaulted the security officers". Is this a party at someone's private pool? Or a party in a pool hired for the purpose? If the former - can "upper middle class" people normally afford their own security guards?
"one tenant promoted the party over social media". Tenant of whom? Does this refer to the householder of a nearby property? It seem unlikely that a householder would invite a lot of strangers onto a neighbour's property.
"The lawyer noted that a white woman was also detained". I infer from this that the police officer was white and the bikini-wearer was black. But I should not be expected to infer it. If their colours are thought to be relevant, they should be explicitly stated.

Maproom (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pool belongs to an Homeowner_association as such it is only for use by the residents of that neighborhood (vs a public pool which anyone may go to, or a even a private pool which anyone may buy membership to) Tenant refers to tenant of the neighborhood. The HOA agreement allows for limited numbers of guests, or even exclusive pool parties, but IIRC is limited to 20 guests, and requires advance permission. They did not obtain permission, and had 100+ show up, and were tossing passes over the pool wall to get more people inside. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those passes being tossed was the electronic gate key that residents get from the HOA as part of their dues. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2020 George Floyd Protest in McKinney

So this happened in McKinney earlier this month. The pool party incident was rememberd at a GF protest in McKinney. I was wondering if it might be notable enough to include on this page. If so, how? Start a new category? Here's the citation. Thanks in advance. Kire1975 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]