Talk:Ash Street shootout

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that of up to 300 bullets fired in the 1989 Ash Street shootout between U.S. Army Rangers and alleged drug dealers, none were reported to have hit anyone? Source: Eng 1998. (Eng says 300 bullets, but other sources differ, hence this wording; see this footnote.)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Citizen Erased
  • Comment: The words "were reported to have" are here to account for the fact that there are years-after-the-fact, unverified claims by the leader of the Rangers that people on the other side were shot. See § Confrontation and gunfight ¶ 4 for more information.

Moved to mainspace by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 06:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC).

• Article is neutral, meets the required length, and is sufficiently referenced—moved to mainspace on 4 January, the same day as this nomination. Hook is interesting, succinct, neutral, and reliably sourced; I always prefer to see more ALTs, but this one is interesting anyway, and the phrasing has been acceptably explained. QPQ looks good. This is good to go! A very interesting topic. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin and Rhain: Interesting article. I have a question about the exchange of rounds. Our article states "The first responding officers estimated 50 to 60 shots fired in less than a minute", so were the first responders Rangers? If not we might consider saying authorities or something which covers the agencies trading fire? Bruxton (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Bruxton: Clarified. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks I was unsure if others besides the army rangers and the dealers were shooting. Perhaps the police did not shoot at all and just documented the situation "estimated 50 to 60 shots fired in less than a minute". I will promote to prep four. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Citations Regarding Uncertain Numbers / Notes

Is there a reason the "Citations Regarding Uncertain Numbers" is not integrated into general citations or into notes? I appreciate the original editor's effort to be summative, but it seems clunky with the odd combination of [1] and [a] and [#1], etc. Maximilian775 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maximilian775: I felt it was helpful to distinguish among explanatory notes, citations that clarify ambiguous numbers, and the rest of the citations. Maybe it looks a bit strange to have three kinds of footnote, but lots of articles do that, and I think it's outweighed by the benefit of clearly grouping the footnotes. Is there a more substantive reason to change? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I was simply curious as to the rationale for such formatting, and didn't mean to necessarily advocate for a change.

Maximilian775 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparent incorrect statement, as timing does not add up

The article states that Foulk had combat experience in Panama. However, Operation Just Cause was launched on 20 December 1989, months after the shootout, which took place in September.

It is certainly possible that Mr Foulk had participated in some preparatory operation, leading up to the Invasion of Panama, however, no combat took place in these. Nauticalisimo (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nauticalisimo: Coincidentally, I stumbled on a source clarifying this without noticing your comment, and corrected the error, which arose from a misleading phrasing in the 48 Hours interview, although I do take responsibility for drawing an inference that wasn't strictly there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)