# Talk:Breonna Taylor

This should redirect to the top of Shooting of Breonna Taylor, not a subsection. It's a disservice to the reader to not first see the lead of the article, which establishes who she is and provides background on the event she is unfortunately most associated with. There is no benefit to bypassing it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, Anyone can go to the top of the article easily: I don't see how anyone is being "disserved". It's common to redirect to a section when there is a biography redirect to an article about an event. In fact, I don't know of any such redirects that aren't the case. Do you? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Koavf: There's the other killing in the same city, David McAtee, but let's not get into an "other stuff" argument. I can see redirecting being a consideration if the person is not the main subject of the event. By your same logic, anyone inconvenienced can also scroll. However, I can't imagine readers not wanting to read it though.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, If they're all going to read thru it then does it in any way do a disservice for them to be redirected to a section? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: I've watchlisted this, so no need for further pings to me. Thanks. Sorry, I do not follow. I contend that readers would want to read the lead, not skip it. Redirecting to a section bypasses the lead, forcing them to make the additional effort to scroll up.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence or just an assertion? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I could ask you the same. To avoid a deadlock between us, go ahead and establish consensus with others for your change.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 Top of page - I support redirecting to the top of the page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In Breona Taylor's "Adult Life" section, the current section describes her working as an emergency room technician "at UofL Health (Jewish Hospital)" with no citation. University of Louisville Health is a non-profit hospital acquired from Catholic Health Initiatives. These kinds of references(especially parenthetical ones e.g. (((globalists))) ) have been used to isolate and negatively associate the Jewish community with wider conspiracies (c.f. Protocols of the Elders of Zion). The overarching conspiracy is that Jews have deliberately plotted to control all public facets of life from media, to financing, to politics - including healthcare - for nefarious purposes. Historically, this rhetoric has escalated to distrust and dehumanisation that ultimately culminate in violence. 2600:100C:B242:2344:710A:2001:46A9:E89 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Jewish Hospital is the actual name of a hospital in the UofL Health network. I'll look into finding a cite. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the official name of the hospital as per the website. https://uoflhealth.org/locations/jewish-hospital/ Nickscoby (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Just checked: There are three cites, and two of them mention "Jewish Hospital" or "Jewish East", so in encyclopedic terms, we should be covered. Note that the 'H' in "Jewish Hospital" is upper-cased, indicating a proper noun; therefore, there should be no misunderstanding with this being a descriptive phrase. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, I apologise for the misapprehension and appreciate your considerate response. I will commit to better investigating my claims and being more objective in approach. 2600:100C:B242:2344:710A:2001:46A9:E89 (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The majority of sources used for this page refer to Ms. Taylor as a Black woman. Please explain why the continuous change to "African American"? Nickscoby (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The encyclopedia appears to regulate this to the term "African American", which is a common parlance which is apparently most common at this point. See where Black American redirects to. These terms, albeit with their nuances, in the context of the U.S. mean the same thing. See also this discussion. Unless and until there is a consensus to use "Black American", we should stick with "African American". Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll also note that reflecting sources does not mean we use the exact same words. The Wikipedia like many works has a house style, we paraphrase to avoid copyright infringement, and like I suggest above, over time, there have been community discussions and understandings over time that has led to various terms being regulated for a common reader experience. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Breonna Taylor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Nickscoby (talk · contribs) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I am going to start this review. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is very well written. Spelling and grammar appear to be all correct and the content uses formal and understandable language for readers of the article. I noticed one thing that could be changed when it comes to the placing of photos, which I have now edited. The article has no primary source research, with most of the sources coming from American news sources. The article is also very well sourced given its size. I'm aware it isn't a criteria for GA, but the templates on the page are also informative and used well. The article is broad, but stays focussed on the relevant topic with regards to Taylor, with very informative and well written paragraphs on her university experience etc. The article maintains a Neutral point of view, and simply provides the information in an unbiased format, recognises the areas where two sides may differ. I would say the article is stable. The illustration is in a good quantity in ratio to the length of the article, and has informative and correct captions. I have just modified the layout of the images to better fit what I have seen on other GA articles. I don't think it is very controversial to say that there really isn't a reason not to pass this page. I think a review is supposed to take about 7 days, but I think I am going to pass this if anyone doesn't have a reason otherwise. As far as I can see it matches the criteria. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)