Talk:Killing of Alton Sterling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image of shooting victim's body should be removed

I find the encyclopedic value of this image to be little. Rather, it is being used for shock value. The image should be replaced with an alternative that shows the person alive, or the scene of the shooting. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah uh, who thought this was a good idea? Capefeather (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I am removing it until a consensus is reached here. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The image shows the shooting scene, which is precisely what this article discusses.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Either use the video snapshot, "Alton_Sterling_2.png" or other suitable photo. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Agree- Seconds before the shot would be better. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• The image is replaceable, which disqualifies it as fair use, and must be immediately deleted from Wikipedia. —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Agree – I understand Wikipedia isn't censored, but that seems a bit too graphic and not appropriate in the infobox, however imaging of before the shooting happened would be more appropriate. To be honest, it was a shock factor to seeing that as NickPenguin has stated. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If this article were about Alton Sterling, then the shooting scene would be too graphic. However, this article is specifically on his shooting, so a scene from his death should be used to illustrate that.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment- There is a Wikipedia policy for using or removing offensive images. See WP:OM. In particular that page links to a section of the Manual of Style specifically about whether or not to remove an offensive image from an article. There's also a maybe useful list of previous decisions on the "Wikipedia:Pornography" page. That's mostly about sexual content, but one example on the list is the article Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse, where it was decided to keep the pictures of torture. --2404:130:0:1000:5DCB:ACC9:C219:6B64 (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Concerns about the bloody body of the victim are valid and I should have considered them before restoring the image. The image of the smiling victim is also bad, because it makes the article seem like a biography, which it isn't. I recommend that we take a frame capture from the 10 second mark of this video [1], which depicts the moment before the shooting, without showing the unpleasant gore that follows.- MrX 13:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• comment - As pointed out, WP is not censored so any argument about the unpleasantness of an image is not a valid criteria for exclusion. E.g., we don't remove images of dead bodies because they might "offend" some.--TMCk (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Synth and source misrepresentation

I removed content that editorializes about gun laws. The content blatantly misrepresent the sources and is almost entirely original research (WP:SYNTH).- MrX 14:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this is unacceptable original research. I also don't really think it adds anything helpful. We already cite a source that illegal possession of a firearm should not have been an aggravating factor in his killing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is seriously biased

It has "blame the victim" written all over it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.196.222 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Then please help us fix it by telling us what you think should be changed, keeping in mind that we don't take sides.- MrX 15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You are presuming that Mr. Sterling is a "victim" when no such status has been demonstrated. If someone is killed during their commission of a violent crime, they are not described in the news or in encyclopedia as a "victim". Victimhood is a product of innocence, and no such innocence has yet been demonstrated. Bricology (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

But per WP:BLPCRIME, a key policy for this article, it is presumed. FourViolas (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The flip side is that this applies equally to the officers involved in the shooting. I think more analysis is needed before we should be willing to use the noun "victim", under WP:NPOV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That occurred to me. I was thinking that it's possible to be the "victim" of a (guiltless) earthquake, but you're right that it's loaded in this context and we should wait for solid sourcing. FourViolas (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead photo removed as "worthless"

The lead photo was removed with an edit summary "the photo is worthless, it's so blurry you can barely see a thing and his body and face are almost entirely obscured. the photo looks like a photo of an elbow, and that's it".

The photo is blurry because it's a frame capture from a smart phone video. but it does show the moment just prior to the shooting. I shows Sterling on the ground, pinned down by two officers, with one officer pointing a gun at Sterling. Not only that, it is almost exactly the same photo being widely circulated in the media, so it is also recognizable.

I think calling the photo worthless and removing it in a drive-by edit without replacing it with a better photo is not beneficial to the article. I would like to get others editors' opinions about restoring this image to the infobox.- MrX 00:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Reply - @MrX:, I think that a photo such as this one violates the spirit of WP:MUG (albeit Sterling is deceased). I tried to put a neutral photo of Sterling in the infobox, but was rejected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  I certainly don't think it portrays Sterling in a negative light. I'm not sure what could be more neutral than showing an image of exactly what the article is about. Could you please elaborate?- MrX 00:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I have uploaded a clearer version of the frame cap.- MrX 00:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A free equivalent could be created, so this image doesn't satisfy the first requirement for non-free use. —KinkyLipids (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! As soon as a free equivalent appears on the scene, we can replace this one. Meanwhile, please explain how a free equivalent image of something that already happened could be created.- MrX 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to explain, and thank you for asking politely. A free equivalent can be created when a copyright holder releases an existing image under a license allowing commercial use. —KinkyLipids (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:FUC: The standard is "no free equivalent is available" (present) or "could be created" (future). "Could be created" refers to the creative act itself, not the vague possibility that someone might freely license something in the future. - MrX 00:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The criteria is meant to allow the use of corporate logos or the very limited use of a copyrighted work in an article about the copyrighted work (e.g. movie frames in articles about movies). With logos and movie frames, it is theoretically impossible for a free equivalent to be created. Even if someone else took a picture of the logo or the movie screen, the content in the photo is still copyrighted. In this case, because the scene of the shooting is not a copyrighted work, a free equivalent could theoretically have been created, and images could have been created by a security camera or another bystander that haven't yet been published. —KinkyLipids (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe I understand quite well what the purpose of the policy is, as well as its practical application on enwiki. It most certainly allows for de minimis use of non-free content that respects commercial opportunities. Since no free equivalent is known to exist at this time, the image easily meets all of the criteria of WP:NFCCP. Also, a movie frame or an album cover have significantly more commercial value than a frame from an amateur video. - MrX 01:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Using this unimportant image with no commercial value as an example, we can then proceed to use any copyrighted photo of any event for any article, arguing non-free use, as long as:

1) The event already happened, and

2) No free equivalent is currently available.

Under this rationale, no photo is protected. —KinkyLipids (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't accept the premise that the image in question is unimportant. The subject of this article is of historical importance, as evidenced by the President's statement, protest marches in New York and Washington D.C., and wide spread coverage in media throughout the world. Each situation must stand on it's own merits, but as long as we routinely allow album covers, sports team logos, video game screen shots and the like, I believe we're on solid ground with respect to this image.- MrX 02:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood you on one point. When you said "de minimis use", I thought you were arguing that the image has minimal importance and has no commercial value and therefore fair use is allowed.

I said before that because the shooting scene is not a copyrighted work, it's not comparable to using logos, screenshots, album covers, and the like. For those examples, it's impossible to ever create a free equivalent.

I have a good chance of being wrong on this issue because I'm not an expert. I'm just worried that under the rationale being used for this image, we can use any Annie Leibovitz photo (for example) on the basis that:

1) The photoshoot already occurred, and

2) No free equivalent exists.

That's enough of me talking. I can live with the use of the image, so I'll consent to it. You can consider this a consensus. —KinkyLipids (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Race of the Cop

Typical dishonest Wikipedia mentioning the race of Sterling but making no mention of the race of the cop. CD 89 98 (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016

The silver car is a 2007-2009 Toyota Camry.

125.237.20.56 (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Also, a source would be needed.- MrX 10:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016

Alton Sterling was a registered sex offender stemming from a 2000 conviction for Carnal knowledge of a juvenile.

http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=571319&AgencyID=54068 Ml.mueller49 (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

What connection does that have to the shooting?BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - See #Sex offender. There is no consensus for the proposed edit.- MrX 10:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016

Arthur Reed was the member of Stop The Killing mentioned in the Daily Beast article. Also, the comments about the ambiguity of the video seem to be original research as no mention of video quality is made in the cited sources, and should be removed. The final paragraph of the shooting section should read: "Multiple bystander cell phones captured video of the shooting, in addition to store surveillance and officer body cameras.[11] One of the bystander videos was filmed by Arthur Reed, a member of a group called "Stop the Killing" which listens to police scanners and films crimes in progress as well as police interactions in an effort to reduce violence in the community.[12] A second video was made available the day after the shooting by the store owner and eyewitness Abdullah Muflahi.[10][13]" In a statement to NBC News, Muflahi said that Sterling never wielded the gun or threatened the officers.[10]" BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - The Washington Post says "Early Tuesday morning, members of his [Reed's] team — he wouldn’t say who, nor confirm he was present, citing safety concerns — filmed the fatal shooting". The Daily Beast, a less reliable source, says it was Reed but says he is a Black Lives Matter activist. We need a source that clears up this contradiction.- MrX 10:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016

The comments about the ambiguity of the video seem to be original research as no mention of video quality is made in the cited sources, and should be removed. The final paragraph of the shooting section should read:

"Multiple bystander cell phones captured video of the shooting, in addition to store surveillance and officer body cameras.[11] One of the bystander videos was filmed by a group called "Stop the Killing" which listens to police scanners and films crimes in progress as well as police interactions in an effort to reduce violence in the community.[12] A second video was made available the day after the shooting by the store owner and eyewitness Abdullah Muflahi.[10][13] In a statement to NBC News, Muflahi said that Sterling never wielded the gun or threatened the officers.[10]" BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not see what discussion of video(s) quality you are talking about. I do not understand what change you are requesting. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops!  Done - I took care of this a few hours ago and forgot to mark it as done.- MrX 18:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Open carry

Sławomir_Biały, LA is an open carry state, but Sterling was not openly carrying, it was in his pocket. He was concealed carrying, and was likely a prohibited person, and the call was for him brandishing and threatening with the weapon. I am unsure of what relevance of the open carry clarification is? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gaijin, the article that is being referenced is "An open carry law didn't stop police from killing Alton Sterling", which explicitly discusses the open carry laws in reference to the shooting. The Kopel discussion is specifically about open carry in relation to this case. It's also discussed as a factor in Esquire and the LA Times source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The esquire source is not making serious argument in this area, they are using that as a strawman (albeit an effective one) regarding racial disparity. But they are making no serious attempt at legal analysis regarding the carrying by Sterling. Its explicitly a "by the way" aside. The LA times is making a better attempt, but misstates the facts and the law. Sterling was carrying concealed not open. Therefore the open carry law is irrelevant. The concealed carry law is relevant, but also inapplicable since Sterling did not have a license, and in fact was a prohibited person by his family's direct admission in the LAT article. However, I suppose there is no rush here, we can wait for the sources to figure this out. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Kopel discussion is explicitly about open carry, and we already do cite that, which seems quite relevant to the subject of the article (at least for the present). I'm open to de-emphasizing open carry for the reasons you've stated, but at the moment I don't see an easy way to do that while maintaining source integrity with the Kopel statements. Perhaps someone just needs to cut the Gordian knot, and delete the paragraph altogether? (However, I foresee that, unless there is strong consensus for this latter option, this promises to become a perennial issue with the article.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Kopel statement does not require any integrity with open carry laws in LA. His statement explicitly is not dependent on the situation at hand, because LA is open carry, but he is discussing the law even if it weren't open carry. David Kopel previously explained, police officers wouldn't necessarily be allowed to shoot someone just because he's wielding a gun where open carry isn't legal. and "Let's say there's no open carry" Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then. I disagree that his statements aren't dependent on the situation, but I leave it to your judgement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX : The LAT writer is objectively wrong on what the open carry statute means. Louisiana has both open and concealed licensing, but under the open carry, the gun must not be concealed.

• Louisiana has extensive case law on this. http://www.laopencarry.org/statutes.shtml
• and explicitly has a law prohibiting concealed carry http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=78739 §95. Illegal carrying of weapons A. Illegal carrying of weapons is: (1) The intentional concealment of any firearm, [...] on one's person
• but if you get a concealed carry license the previous law does not apply http://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=97451

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX btw, I'm not suggesting we should put in content regarding this in the article, I agree the sourcing is incorrect for that. But I think it is enough for us to exercise editorial discretion and not include a statement we have good reason to believe is wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I probably should have pinged you. I've removed the discussion of open carry from the article since it's clearly a red herring, and there is evidence that the LA Times source is not reliable on this matter. Your post above makes me satisfied that perhaps my concerns about source integrity are misplaced. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Are you talking about this: "Louisiana is an open-carry state, where a person who is at least 17 can legally have a gun on his or her body without a permit."? I don't understand the problem. If it's open carry, then by definition, it's not concealed.- MrX 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

MrX This is somewhat moot now, since Sławomir Biały removed it, but I was commenting on your diff here [2]. I agree that by definition open carry means not concealed, which is why I am confused about your edit, makes it sound like you may have it on your body in any way you want. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying. We just needed a better source that offered that explanation.- MrX 20:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Gun laws in Louisiana explains things somewhat. Dream Focus 20:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That article doesn't seem to cover persons prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms; see this page at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Sterling's 2009 conviction would have made him ineligible to carry a firearm. Roches (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016

Alton Sterling refused to comply with police requests.

Ahearngene (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sterling's criminal record

I added content from a source that noted Sterling's order to pay child support. I added it to a paragraph about Sterling's conviction for carnal knowledge with a juvenile. The source saw these details as relevant to the shooting, but they were reverted. Editors must add all major details that are described by sources. We shouldn't censor details, however uncomfortable we might be with them. The article on the shooting of Laquan McDonald contains extensive profiles—with many negative details—about both parties involved. This article should similarly be uncensored. If bias is a concern, it can be balanced with the sources that are criticizing the police department. —KinkyLipids (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's neither censorship nor an attempt to mitigate bias. It's simply irrelevant to the shooting. Not sure why that's so hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sex offender

I question whether inclusion of his prior sex offence is at all relevant to the article. We do not spell out the rest of the subject's rap sheet, including specifics of his violent crime offences which are arguably more relevant to the matter of his death. The prior sex offence seems to have been singled out solely to paint the subject in a negative light. I should add that the WP:BLP policy applies to the recently deceased, and WP:NPF should be taken into account here. The encyclopedia should only reprint those details that are relevant specifically to the matter of the shooting death of Alton Sterling. That he had criminal convictions, including for some violent crime, is relevant. The specific details of those convictions, especially the non-violent ones, not so much. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient media coverage to warrant its inclusion. It's a fact that he was a registered sex offender whether you think it paints him in a negative light or not. Zaostao (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPF, which is policy, mandates that we add only that material which is relevant to the subject's notability. I would venture to suggest that a non-violent 2000 crime is not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The subject is notable because he was shot. The background section is supposed to give readers a background on the persons involved. Omitting verifiable facts just because they might paint someone in a negative light is not policy -- and i'd argue that if someone is concerned about being painted in a negative light, they probably shouldn't have sex with a juvenile. Zaostao (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The article already mentions his long criminal record. Why is his sex offence from 2000 relevant to his shooting? This question requires an answer under Wikipedia policy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Only facts relevant to the case belong in the article since this is not a biography.--TMCk (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we should leave it out per WP:UNDUE. It is sourced, but not every news article mentions it. Per WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The information is completely unrelated to the shooting and would tend to have the effect of disparaging the victim's living family. See WP:BDP.- MrX 13:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the topic of the article, which is the shooting. Leave it out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Leave it in. Mr. Sterling's criminal record, spanning more than 16 years, gives insight into his willingness to comply with the law, and that would seem to have been a significant factor in his death. Bricology (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Article already says he has a long criminal record. To discuss specifics, they should be relevant somehow. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he had a record may be relevant. Sex offenses do not seem relevant beyond "had a record", especially as it is unlikely officers were aware of such record. Past offenses (if any) that dealt with guns, or violence, or prior interactions with police (resisting etc) are possibly more relevant, because they could possibly inform regarding behavior at the scene, and also because if Sterling were a known quantity, its possible officers were advised over dispatch regarding armed or dangerous etc which might have affected their behavior. (especially since the call was for someone being threatened with a gun) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

While his sex offense is notable, it is not directly related to the subject of the page, which is the shooting itself. Meatsgains (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPF doesn't apply because this isn't a biography. In the previous section, I posted that we should include whatever the sources decide is relevant. I don't think a single mention makes it WP:UNDUE. After reading WP:ONUS, however, I change my position. This detail about his sex offense doesn't improve the article because his criminal record is already covered. —KinkyLipids (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BDP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He RAPED a 14-year-old girl. How is that not relevant? It clearly demonstrates he has a violent predisposition and disregard for the rights of others. Caddy129 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Because it holds no bearing on the article's subject: the shooting. Had he been selling discs containing sex acts with the girl or had her hostage then the correlation could be made. This is akin to any defense attorney trying to discredit the deceased by basically saying "other stuff existed." — Wyliepedia 01:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC) i'm confused by the fact that this is something that wiki editors are proffering their own opinions on. why cannot we just defer to what rs say about whether it's notable? If there is a bunch of media coverage assessing the relevance of the prior conviction — rape of a 14 year old?? — to the possibility that he had violent tendencies, and that it is this that may have contributed to his own slaying at the hands of police... well then i think there's a clear argument for inclusion. what i don't like to see is editors just throwing out their own unvarnished opinions. Bottom line: where are the RS arguing for the relevance of this prior conviction to his death/killing?Happy monsoon day 20:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that statutory rape means only that an adult had intercourse with someone below the age of consent. It does not necessarily mean that the intercourse was violent, or even that the underage participant was unwilling. In fact, according to case documents, Sterling and the girl were "dating" and had been having consensual sex in her bedroom. The reason it's called "statutory" rape is that a 14-year old is legally not allowed to consent to sex. Some guy (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Which is still rape (and child abuse using research definitions). Also heavy.com is not RS. That said, I don't see what it has to do with his shooting. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My comment was partially directed at Caddy129, who suggested that the statutory offense in some way indicated that the subject had a "violent predisposition". Furthermore, he wasn't actually charged with "rape" - some courts don't use the term "rape" in statutory cases because it can confuse or mislead people. He was charged with "unlawful carnal knowledge of a minor". Lastly, I'm not using heavy.com as a source in the article, merely backing up my talk-page statements about the case. Some guy (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Robot Delivered Bomb

The Aftermath and Reactions section contains a reference to "The gunman was then killed by a robot-delivered bomb.". This needs a citation! --195.171.192.162 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Selling CDs

Do we have any information about his selling of CDs? Was this his regular selling spot? Were they his own music? How long had he been doing this? I think this is relevant to understand better the context and scenario where everything took place. --Bertrc (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

CNN said that it was his regular selling spot, that he also sold DVDs, and that he had permission from the convenience store owner. I'm sure there are sources that go into more detail.- MrX 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Did he have a license to sell them? Jim Michael (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would he have a license to sell counterfeit cd/dvd. It's against to law to even create those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomji (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

is the legal status of his retail operation relevant to the story (genuine question)? Happy monsoon day 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Serious Problem

The article states that Alton Sterling was tackled by two white officers. Personally I don't think race should be mentioned, but since that is the trigger for the resulting conflagration, we need to be clear. Remove the race for the tackling officers, since tackling wasn't the issue. State that Alton Sterling was shot by an Hispanic Officer while being held down on the ground. (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.240.67 (talk)

The article didn't include any physical characteristics of all parties. Alton Sterling: 5' 11" tall, 310 lb Two officers: Blane Salamoni Howie Lake II — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.195.205 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Black vs. African American

The first paragraph of the article described Sterling as an "African-American" man, but describes the officers as white. Why are different standards being used when describing the two parties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:224A:2400:F52A:526F:5E55:B6D7 (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Many news outlets use African American per their style guides. To them, it's usually synonymous with Black. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I've actually seen most news reports saying "black" instead of African American. I've changed it for now per the sources but feel free to revert. However, it seems most of our articles use "African-American" and others such as Shooting of Michael Brown and Shooting of Samuel DuBose use black. Kiwifist (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are we using any racial descriptors? Go to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers and you cannot discover in the lede that the perpetrator was black. Go and read. You have to scroll way down for a photo. Why two different standards? On Wikipedia we presently have the reverse of the complaint of old. If the bad guy is "white" it is mentioned up-front and immediately. If not, you can't find it out except way down in the article (if at all). We don't "bury the lede," but we bury this AFTER the lede. SBHarris 03:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

what is the procedure or rule here? does every article about people specify the race of the individuals? if not, why would we do so? seems to be a little bit questionable. The inclusion of it assumes that it is a highly important piece of information. Clearly, it probably is. But that can be stated separately. seems to be a matter of npov and objective tone here. what do others say? Happy monsoon day 19:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• That Alton Sterling was black is highly important in this case, since this shooting has been frequently cited as an example of police violence against blacks and has been one of the precipitating events of the recent riots. If you are questioning whether it's important that he was black, I suggest you read the "aftermath" section of the article. As for the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers article, the fact that the perpetrator was black is not as critical to include in the lead because reaction to the case was primarily about the fact that he was shooting police officers, not that he was black. In other words, if Micah Johnson was not black, he would still have received major coverage because he shot many police officers. If Alton Sterling was not black, his death would not have been cited as an example of police brutality against blacks and there would be far less news coverage of his death. Some guy (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What? There is zero evidence that either Alton Sterling or Philando Castille were shot because black. Yet it is mentioned in the lede (meaning it is important) in one case, and not the other (WP does not even say anything in the lede about the ethnicity of Castille, whereas in other sources it is prominently there). It was well-known in Dallas. Which way do you want it? In both cases the ethnicity of the officers is in the lede (line one and line two). Is Wikipedia reporting on what RS sources say happened, or what a few angry people assume happened on the basis of no evidence whatever? If you want to report that, put it in context: the last line of the lede can say that because of the victim's race he was the subject of protests in Dallas. We report on many conspiracy theories.

In the case of Dallas the shooter's race is critical. He didn't just shoot cops, he shot them because they were white. HE SAID THIS. So the evidence is far better. It's not mentioned in the lede. It is a racially motivated killing by definition of the shooter himself, who ought to know if anybody does. He is the ultimate RS source for the motivation of his own actions. But why would the man only want to shoot white police officers? WP struggles with this, and cannot say in the lede. This is really poor writing. Every single news source of note has done better. If WP is a tertiary summary of these, why can't it do as well? SBHarris 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You're completely misinterpreting my words. I don't know why they shot him; I'm saying the fact that Alton Sterling was black and was shot by police is notable because there has been a massive public reaction about it. The massive public reaction is related to him being black; that's why it's important to mention in the lead. In the case of Dallas, the shooter's race is not critical to the lead. He could have been white or Hispanic or Inuit or aborigine Australian and there still would have been massive media coverage because he shot 9 police officers and killed 5. Likewise, a person does not have to be black in order to be outraged about police brutality against blacks. There are lots of people of every ethnic background who are unhappy about police brutality against blacks or ethnic minorities in general. As you wrote "He didn't just shoot cops, he shot them because they were white." Notice that emphasizes the race of the cops, not the shooter. Without knowing the context you would have no idea what race the shooter was from that sentence. Anyway, this is not the place to argue about the lead of another article. Take it up there. Anyway, keep in mind that we're not just trying to tell readers "this is exactly what happened during the shooting" since we can never truly know if they thought he was reaching for a gun or if their finger just slipped or if it was a racially motivated execution or some other reason. We're also covering why the event is notable and what the public reaction was. Some guy (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He Had a Visible Gun

While I haven't been involved in this article at all, I found a source that may be of interest to editors here: Baton Rouge officer: Alton Sterling reached for a gun before he was shot
-- Gestrid (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If you read the article, there's already a quote from one of the officers about Sterling "reaching for a gun". Some guy (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Police Officers Shot in Baton Rouge

Breaking news from multiple RS sources reports multiple police officers have been shot in Baton Rouge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Horrible. Article here: 2016 shooting of Baton Rouge police officers. - MrX 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Just read the news and zero indication of notability at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't create it, but I imagine that it will end up being considered notable in the context of other July shootings and terrorist attacks.- MrX 16:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You're not alone in that thinking but so far no connection has been made by sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

Someone fix the non-neutral point of view of this article please.

For example the article begins by highlighting racial differences (which are obvious to the reader and unimportant to the course of events) yet not explaining the motivation behind the officers actions (Sterling reaching for a gun). Also the Sterlings photo does not present him with a neutral facial expression. Positive and happy image of Sterling clearly aims to sympathize with the reader. Could you also make the top-right pic description be less aggressive ("shooting and killing") and instead focus on what is actually being depicted ("being tackled moments before shooting").

You get the idea. There are other issues like this but I'll leave you to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.106.137 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

How would the race of the victim and police officers be obvious unless it's not mentioned? Sources have highlighted that aspect, so we must as well. The motive of the officers is unknown at this point. I have no objection to the photo Sterling smiling being removed, but I think we should wait to hear from other editors. The infobox image does show Sterling a couple of seconds before being shot and killed. That's not aggressive; it's simply a fact. The image does not depict him being tackled. That occurred several seconds before the frame depicted. To put it another way, the article is about a shooting, not a tackling.- MrX 20:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the smiling photo should be removed. The article is about the shooting, not him. Dream Focus 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

But Alton Sterling redirects here. This article is a bit of a hybrid of BDP and event. Also we avoid negative portrayals of people in images per WP:MUG EvergreenFir (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a bio of him. It is an article about the shooting only. Dream Focus 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the image but it just got put back again. So three people say the smiling image has nothing to do with the shooting, so shouldn't be there. I'll ask the person who put it back in why it should be. Dream Focus 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? The victim has nothing to do with the shooting? It's quite common to have a picture of a victim in an article and there is no reason what-so-ever to reject a "smiling picture", actually quite the opposite.--TMCk (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as just said we usually do include a photo of the victim. It should remain in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we find a picture of him from the shooting? An image that shows his face before he got put to the ground? Wouldn't that be more suitable for this article? Also he isn't a "victim" if he was reaching for a gun before getting shot. Dream Focus 23:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the definition of the word victim. WWGB (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

5 children mentioned, but not details

Why mention he had five children without mentioning he didn't pay child support and the mother of one of them was a 14 year old girl he was convicted of statutory raping? What point is there to mention how many children he had? Is that relevant to the shooting? Is it trying to gain sympathy for him? Since the news media does mention these other facts, why are they kept out, but not the information that might make people sympathize with him? Dream Focus 20:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I more or less agree with you. Since this is not a biography, information extraneous to the circumstances of the shooting are not worth mentioning.- MrX 20:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK. Controversial statements must be sourced... EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Not on a talk page. This information is already out there and easy to find with a Google new source. Now stop deleting my comments. Dream Focus 20:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See how easy it is to find ample news coverage of this? [3] [4] Dream Focus 20:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK... it applies everywhere. See you at ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

"He was a registered sex offender after spending close to four years in prison for felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile." [5] The federal government calls it statutory rape, but different states have different names for it. Same thing. So, if we're not going to mention his full criminal record, why are we listing information that should only be in a bio page not a shooting page? No sense having information about his children or a picture of him smiling. Dream Focus 20:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made the same argument at Shooting of Walter Scott, Shooting of Samuel DuBose, and others, and pretty much lost every time. Personal details should be limited to those directly relevant to the article subject, in my opinion, but the majority has always disagreed. Without a clear and specific guideline or policy, majority wins. That's just the way it is, unless you care to advocate for such a change to policy or guideline (I don't). That said, the current content is far from suppressing anything negative about Sterling. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

point blank

MrX While this was definitely within point blank range, I'm not sure that saying so is very useful. Point blank range is in the ballpark of 100 yards for most handgun rounds. I think whats meant here is "very close, but not a contact shot". The proper term here is "Intermediate range". While "point blank" is sometimes used in this way colloquially, I think it would be better to not use an ambiguous term. See Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#County_medical_examiner.27s_autopsy_report for similar usage. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't assume that our readers have the technical knowledge to understand terms like "intermediate range", nor do I see sources describing it that way. Our article point-blank range says "In popular usage, point-blank range has come to mean extremely close "can't miss" range with a firearm, within four feet of its muzzle at moment of discharge yet not close enough to be a contact shot." I wouldn't object to "close range", or "very close range" as an alternative to "point-blank range".- MrX 21:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that either close or very close wording. If we are going to be colloquial, lets be colloquial in a way that doesn't technically have a definition that means almost the exact opposite :) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is wide agreement on the definition of foot, if a source supports some specific number of them (one?). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from using your own terms like close range or point blank range, stick to descriptions used in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a common term and used in the cited WP source.--TMCk (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

how are the other incidents "similar"

It currently reads "other similar incidents across the nation". How are these other incidents similar? Are we claiming that if a white police officer shoots any black person for any reason its similar, even if the situation is totally different? Specifically which incidents are we talking about? Dream Focus 12:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

What improvement would you suggest? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That we eliminate the word "similar" you just re-added. [6] Dream Focus 13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as improvement. "other incidents across the nation" is a phrase devoid of meaning. What incidents? Lots of things have happened across the nation, and have been widely reported. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If we could be honest, it'd be "other incidents that the media has decided to focus on, and try to portrayal as racism even when race wasn't a factor". Dream Focus 13:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That's your (very POV) perspective. Let's be neutral Wikipedia editors, and I ask again: What improvement would you suggest? I don't claim that the current wording is the best we can do, only that it's a little better than without the word "similar". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, Mandruss and Dream Focus; remove the sentence entirely it's uncited material and therefore doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Additionally it appears to fall under WP:SYNTH. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Surely you don't mean remove the whole sentence "On July 17, Gavin Eugene Long shot and killed three police officers and injured three others in Baton Rouge, amid the unrest that the city is currently experiencing following Sterling's death and other similar incidents across the U.S." So how much of it would you remove? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I do indeed. Start with a source, then re-write the sentence using the source(s). The event did indeed happen, so sources are widely available, if you can find a source for the entire sentence great, if not, then trim away the unsourced fat. I don't mean for you to have to do it, I'll take a look in the next ten minutes for a good source, will reply soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A possible suggestion Mandruss; On July 17, Gavin Eugene Long shot and killed three police officers and injured several others in Baton Rouge. Long was killed at the scene by a SWAT member during a shootout with other responding officers. The shooting has been linked to the nationwide tension over race and policing, with the event happening days after the shooting of Alton Sterlin in Baton Rouge. [7][8] Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Fine with me. Be bold. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, being bold. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Took me ten edits to get the citations right, but, it's done. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Honorary barnstar. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sterling on his back

We touch a little bit on this but not really the significance. After tasing him, the police and Sterling went to the ground. As our article says, police were trying to control Sterling's hands and Sterling was on his back. We don't go into detail though. Police want subjects on their stomachs and control hands behind their backs for handcuffing (almost universally, police handcuff in the back for safety and policy). "Pinned" is somewhat inaccurate as the objective would be to control an arm and manipulate it to force him to his stomach. "Pinned" falsely implies he is under control. Because of the danger of someone being on their back, an officer may bring the person to a standing position if they control an arm to re-execute the controlled takedown that maintains the proper joint locks but places them face down. Face up is dangerous and indicates a combative subject. We need more expert sourcing to put "pinned" in context of control as well as lack of control of hands. --DHeyward (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinned on his back may not be the optimal situation. But it is an accurate description. If that was insufficient control, find reliable sources saying so, in the context of this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My instinct says too much reliance on personal knowledge, too little on sources (sources specific to the article subject, that is). Wikipedia's editors can be too smart for its own good, if they are not very diligent about stuff like this. (Me, I'm not that smart, so I don't have to worry about it.) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

frankly, the lead seems highly pov right now. the reverse pov would be to say "he was shot while resisting arrest and reaching for his gun as the officers feared for their lives." Yah right. however, the very top of the piece needs to explain the controversy or contention. right now the first lines sound like they simply held him down and executed him. Happy monsoon day 15:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked for reliable sources if people have found any. As it stands, it's contradictory to say he was pinned at the same time that officers were trying to control his hands. I haven't found a source that goes through initial contact, through the taser and to the ground. --DHeyward (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

i'm removing 'pinned' thenHappy monsoon day 17:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Point blank

I removed "point-blank range" from the lead. This is because, in forensic pathology, there are several classes of gunshot wounds that all result from close-range shots, but they are markedly different from each other. A contact wound (where the muzzle of the gun is in contact with the flesh) leaves minimal powder burns, while a near-contact wound has substantial powder burn, and a shot from several feet might still be commonly considered "point blank" by the public. I think "short range" or "close range" is better. Roches (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We go by the common term which is also reliable sourced. Also, this was discussed before.--TMCk (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR. Stick to the sources. I haven't done that research, but I have no reason to doubt experienced editors who say they have. I know you don't need to be told this, but you're free to produce sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How about the source used as citation? "BATON ROUGE — Alton Sterling, the black man whose point-blank shooting by white police set off a fresh round..."?--TMCk (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Seems that wasn't directed at me.--TMCk (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct, per WP:THREAD. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what happens (to me) when reading the tiny diffs only ;) --TMCk (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any prior discussion, but I don't think it's OR to remove something without replacing it with another term. The Sources -- some of them -- might be saying "point blank range", but that is a vague term that means "really close". Some people take it to mean a contact or near-contact. I also think "point blank range" is somewhat sensationalized, as if it is somehow more brutal when a homicide is caused by a close-range gunshot, compared to a longer-range one. (Consider "execution-style killing.")

The Sources will undoubtedly say "point blank range" because that's the common term. But there are specific types of gunshot wounds (they're described in any textbook of forensic pathology), and it is better to use the medicolegal terms instead of the colloquial "point blank." It would be OR, of course, to classify them now, which is why I thought it was better to replace "point blank" with nothing, until the autopsy results are available and the sources begin to discuss the exact nature of the wounds. Roches (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

After further thought, I'm changing my position. First, point-blank range, short range, and close range are all ambiguous and therefore problematic. Second, one could probably find a roughly equal number of reliable sources supporting any of those terms and probably one or two more, so there is likely some unconscious cherry-picking happening here. Third, I don't really see much need or value for anything of that nature in the first sentence of the article. Finally, below the lead, the incident is described in enough detail that the close range is quite evident without explicitly stating it. Readers are unlikely to imagine that Sterling was shot by some officer(s) standing some distance away, or that the officer(s) struggling with him decided to stand up and then shoot him. The distance, probably within about 12 inches of the fact, is clearly implicit in the description of the struggle. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's problematic but more specifically for its association Execution-style murder. Specifying range this way is a way to say that the officers had very precise control of shot placement and could not miss. Along with such control is the implication that such precise shot location was chosen to cause death. --DHeyward (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

More OR, in my opinion, and more overthink. None of us can begin to know how much aiming was done in the heat of those few seconds. Anyway, cops don't shoot to wound, that much is common knowledge. If they fire once, they continue until the person is probably dead. So "could not miss" and "chosen to cause death" are fairly pointless. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I included the article Execution-style murder because "point blank" is referenced in that article. It's not OR, rather the terminology paints that picture. It's a POV narrative to use terms that allude to an execution. Range is not relevant to the incident at all. "The officer drew his pistol and fired, striking Sterling in the chest" gives us the same information as "pinned" and "point blank range" but without the inference that Sterling was unable to move and was shot in a manner that suggests an execution. --DHeyward (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to question the terms that sources use, you're welcome to debate it with the editors to those publications. For Wikipedia's purposes, we stick to reliable sources without adding personal analysis. Your claim that It's a POV narrative to use terms that allude to an execution is based on a false premise and a misapplication of NPOV policy. If you disagree, feel free to get outside opinions at WP:NPOVN.- MrX 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• When I read "point blank" I thought it meant right against the person. That is how I've always heard the expression use. We strive for accuracy, not just repeating what sensational headlines someone tossed out to sell more newspapers. Dream Focus 01:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Technical arguments aside, we need to let readers know that the shots were fired at a very close range as our sources have done [9] [10] [11] [12]. I don't care whether we use the commonly understood "point blank range" or "close range", but saying nothing is an unacceptable omission per WP:NPOV.- MrX 16:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: As I've said above, I feel that we make that crystal clear without explicitly stating it, so there is no NPOV violation. (And I hoped we could avoid edit warring this. You're a very experienced editor setting a poor example.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources routinely state that the shooting was at close range or point blank range. Removing that not only leaves readers guessing, it obscures a key fact that our sources broadly consider worth mentioning. The original research (above) that those description mean something else is both arcane are absurd. @Mandruss: Kindly don't accuse me of edit warring when I have only made on edit to insert new material. Doing so reflects poorly on you.- MrX 16:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

While I generally agree that having a thorough description is important, these terms cause significant ambiguity. If you define point blank, it means the distance that a shot can travel horizontally without dipping too much vertically (sufficiently flat to hit the target with a direct shot). Depending on the weapon, we could be talking a hundred yards for a handgun to well over a thousand yards for a cannon. Close range for me is not so much of a problem as point blank, but, it does still cause ambiguity. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see a few sources about the shooting that give such an explantion. Failing that, it's just original research which is specifically forbidden by policy.- MrX 17:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• On what point blank actually means or can mean (aside from what some here believe) here. So of course we could paraphrase it instead of using this common term if it is so easily misunderstood (at least on this talk page).--TMCk (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with "close range" - that is short, descriptive, and amply supported by the cited sources. Some users above suggest that this phrase is ambiguous, but I don't see how. The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms defines "at close range" as "Very nearby ... anything in close proximity." Neutrality^talk 17:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In terms of close range, how close? the moon is in close proximity to the Earth, thought I doubt that we'd say that a man on the moon is in close proximity to a man in Wichita for example. It's ambiguous in the sense that it is not exact. If I was within a kilometer of say Barack Obama, I'd say I was in close proximity to the President but wouldn't say that for Joe Bloggs from down the street. It's rather subjective to say "in close proximity" or "close range". That said, I can support close range in the article but not point blank range. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's what sources use (emphasis added):

• The Advocate (local news source) - Uses no range description
• CNN - No range description
• The Guardian - "...appeared to open fire shortly after one officer held a gun near point-blank over Sterling’s chest."
• The Guardian - "Another black man killed by police. On video. And at point blank range while he lay on the ground." (lead)
• Metro (UK news outlet) - "Police filmed shooting Alton Sterling multiple times at point blank range" (title; point blank repeated in article)
• The Sun (UK) - "Protests erupt after shock footage shows policeman shooting black man Alton Sterling at point-blank range"
• NYTimes - "...still aiming his gun at the mortally wounded man at point-blank range."
• NY Daily News - "Alton Sterling, 37 and black, was shot twice at point-blank range while pinned to the ground in Baton Rouge, La." (lead sentence)
• Washington Post - "Alton Sterling, the black man whose point-blank shooting by white police set off a fresh round of national protest..." (lead sentence)
• The Times-Picayune (local news outlet) - "The videos show the officers on top of Sterling and then at least one officer firing his gun at close range."
• LA Times - "...one of the officers unholstering his weapon and pointing it, at close range, at Sterling’s chest."
• Reuters - "Sterling, the father of five, died after being shot at close range."
• International Business Times - "He was shot five times at close range while being restrained by two white police officers."

I searched for "Alton Sterling point blank", "Alton Sterling close range", "Alton Sterling short range", and "Alton Sterling shot at -Dallas". Also, NPR uses the phrase "shot and killed by police" in most of their pieces. No one uses "short range".

Given this, I'd say NPOV directs us to describe the event how sources describe it (even if individual editors disagree about the "correct" meaning of the terms). To me, this means using a range description as many of the sources describe it. Sources seem rather mixed in their use of "point blank" and "close range", so it's up to us to decide which to use. My slight preference is for "point blank" as the sources that use it seem a bit more RS to me, but that's a personal judgement on my part. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ONUS (part of the WP:V policy) - "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." - I continue to assert that it's ambiguous, or, if not ambiguous, redundant, and therefore omittable. We can quite adequately "describe the event how sources describe it" without the use of problematic phrases, and we already do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Understood, but I do not have the same qualms about the terms as you do. I brought up NPOV because we need to describe events without "taking sides" and some comments above seem to be about the tone/implications of the words. NPOV directs us to use an impartial tone. But that doesn't mean altering the wording of RS but rather accurately reflecting it and not engaging in any disputes presented in sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

After one discounts original research like "in forensic pathology, there are several classes of gunshot wounds that all result from close-range shots, but they are markedly different from each other", "Specifying range this way is a way to say that the officers had very precise control of shot placement and could not miss", and "When I read "point blank" I thought it meant right against the person", what remains is more editors agreeing that either "point blank range" or "close range" should be mentioned in the lead. While not a sweeping consensus, I count 4 editors in favor, one opposed on editorial grounds, and three opposed on personal analysis grounds.- MrX 20:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but I'd ask for another 24 hours before declaring a consensus. Otherwise opposing editors arriving during that 24 hours would be arguing against an existing consensus, and possibly accused of disruption. What a tangled web we weave (which is not a reference to deception). ―Mandruss ☎ 20:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: There's no deadline and I'm in no rush. I just wanted to do what has become a habit for me: quote a dozen or so sources and see what they say so we can make a decision based on that info. I understand your point and am not wholly opposed to it. I just have my opinion (one of many expressed here) that we should include the shot range description because the sources do. You are correct that we don't need to, but in this instance I am not swayed by the argument for excluding it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

why don't we simply say that he was shot from a distance of about one meter? That's what the sources say.Happy monsoon day 23:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any source says so. They're actually describing the scene right after shots were fired. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.--TMCk (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

yes - but why would the distance be any different? right after being fired means that the bullet just left the gun. so.... how would that not be the same as from where the bullets were fired from? Happy monsoon day 14:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh, not sure I follow. A distance of one meter is quite different to a distance of 5-10 centimeters. To say right after being fired is not to say a short distance or a long distance. Besides, this falls under the purview of WP:OR. You're assuming that because the bullet hit the target right after the gun was fired that the target was therefore at a distance of a meter away. This is rather unlikely. Again, WP:OR, but, it's more likely the gun was five or ten cm from the target than a meter. It would appear that the most appropriate thing to do here is say at close range, if there is a source with better specifics, such as a description without a distance or an actual distance (rather than some vague close or point-blank suggestion) then it'd be good to use that. It would seem however that most sources are satisfied with close range and point-blank range, given the choice, I support close range as this would be less ambiguous. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If you take a look at the 2 videos you'll see the difference in distance between the first shot fired and immediately after the last shot. If the initial shooting distance would've been clear the media surely would've reported on it.--TMCk (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

oh my. OK, we've established that the shooting did not take place more than 1 meter away. That is close range for all intents and purposes. Let's just say "close range" in the lead and then qualify elsewhere with "at a distance of no more than 1 meter." Would that not be fair? Happy monsoon day 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why should we do any OR at all and not following policy and sources? That some are falsely believing "point-blank" is a contact shot and POV is no reason for not using this quite precise and sourced term. I'm actually just waiting to see if an actual argument against it pops up, one that is based on source and within policy.--TMCk (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is policy, and it clearly says that sources alone are not sufficient. Disagree with me if you like, but don't say you haven't seen a policy argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That's right but the close range has certainly plenty of weight to be included and so far no one here came up with a reasonable paraphrase. I guess we can agree on that editor's preference alone will not do?--TMCk (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Unable to parse your last sentence with any confidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You can safely take a wild guess. The relevant part is in the first sentence :) --TMCk (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Come now. WP:DUE is also policy and we have a lot of sources mentioning it. It would seem undue to not mention shot distance in some manner. Editor preference alone is not sufficient reason to exclude it. I've not done a !vote count, but you seem to be the only one raising any substantial resistance to this. ONUS simply says we don't have to include it. Many editors appear to want to include it. So now you need to say why it should be excluded if you feel that was. Otherwise we might need an RfC. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

My argument is considerably more than "editor preference". It is perfectly legitimate editorial judgment, with clearly stated reasoning. If I'm the only dissenter, why on earth would we need an RfC? I'm well aware that consensus does not have to be unanimous. I would, however, greatly appreciate it if others refrained from mischaracterizing my arguments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I mention RfC only because you seem to be fairly firm on your position and offered it as a way to determine wider consensus if you wanted it. Again, I'm in no huge rush, but in the conversation since I've joined it, you appear (?) to be the only one against it. I'm trying to be friendly and resolve this minor dispute and if I mischaracterized your arguments, I apologize. I understand editorial judgment does play a role here. Maybe we can ping all those who've commented in this section for their opinions? (Just spitballing an idea). EvergreenFir (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm firm on my position because I haven't seen anything that changes my mind. Same as you, I suspect. In the end, there is no "correct", only consensus. This will not be worth an RfC to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so firm I'd choose to "die on this hill" or anything. Just an opinion on the matter. Seems like your the same way? Hopefully some more folks will chime in soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

so we have 11 sources saying point-blank or something similar, 2 sources not giving any distance, and every editor in support of saying the distance except one, coupled with no clear explanation for why not.... we should simply put it in. The police thought that he was reaching for his gun. Put that in the next sentence so it doesn't give people the impression that the sources believe this was an execution. Happy monsoon day 15:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, 1.5, I oppose point blank for this reason, we're talking about a 9mm handgun about 95-105 yards is MPRB (maximum point blank range) as shown here. Close range is fine though, it doesn't have literal yards of ambiguity. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Any movement here? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - You mean besides this? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I missed that! Been busy the past few days. Thanks for the update! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying a little harder to add a note and a difflink in such a case, to show that the issue is closed, probably, for the time being; e.g., [13] - Missed this one. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Events of July 17

Gandydancer, the details you removed are directly connected to the death of Alton Sterling, as shown here but not cited in the article (if somebody wants to add it), and a part of the tension between the African-American community and U.S. Police. The attack on police was a significant part of the aftermath (and documented by multiple news organizations who also linked it to the tension over Alton Sterling's shooting) and is also reliably sourced information. If you want to remove it from the article, demonstrate its irrelevance to the topic it hand (that seems to be what you were hinting at with your edit summary; no reason to include this information). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the burden is yours to show relevance. Show, not assert. RS should make a connection between the Long and Sterling cases, one beyond time and place. This article should convey that connection, and no such connection is conveyed by "The shooting has been linked to the nationwide tension over race and policing, with the event happening days after Sterling's death in the same city." ―Mandruss ☎ 19:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Refer to the source above, it makes the link between Sterling and the shooting of officers, I can put it in the article if you'd like. Unless you disagree that it does show the relevance. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"a YouTube video saying he was fed up with mistreatment of blacks" - no mention of Sterling here.
"It was not clear whether there was a link between the shootings and the recent unrest over the police killings of black men in Baton Rouge and Minnesota." - emphasis added.
"Authorities did not give any information about the gunman's possible motive."
The source links Sterling to "regular standoffs between police and community members", but conspicuously does not link him to Long. Source shows no Sterling-Long link except time and place, and I think it is OR/SYNTH to make the association simply because Sterling and Long are mentioned in the same news article. I know we don't explicitly say there was a link, but it implies one to selectively mention Long to the exclusion of all other post-Sterling violence and unrest in Baton Rouge. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss; the relevant passage; "Baton Rouge has been a flashpoint of racial tensions in recent weeks, seeing regular standoffs between police and community members following the killing of Alton Sterling, a young black man, by a police officer. That was followed by the killing of five police officers in Dallas a few days after the killing." I'm reading it as event 1 (Alton Sterling) followed by event 2 (Shooting of officers). I feel the obligation to also point to this as a case against the inclusion of the material, it quite explicitly states that "there's no evidence of a connection between the two event's so far". That said, our article on the shooting of the officers makes an explicit link to Alton Sterling based on this; "His history of rambling postings indicated that the attack was motivated at least in part by killings by police of black Americans in recent years and the resulting unrest. In one recent clip, he expressed disgust over the arrest of protesters demonstrating in Baton Rouge over the fatal shooting of Alton Sterling earlier this month." and this; "The gunman behind a deadly rampage that killed three cops in Baton Rouge Sunday was a retired Marine with an online trail of rants complaining about the treatment of African-Americans by police after Alton Sterling's death.". I am familiar with the Guardian but not New York Daily... so, I defer to others judgements on that one (it reads tabloid like to be honest "the gunman behind a deadly rampage" "an online trail of rants" like, it reminds me of the reporting of Ebola in the U.S. for example). The motive linked here is about more than just Alton Sterling but also about Alton Sterling. I think its relevant, but, I'll again defer to others judgements here. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Since I am looking at the article, I should mention, that the events of July 7th in Dallas has no reference attached, or, if citation 22, not sufficient for what is being said. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2016

~~ Gyp Cam Pizza Elm !901 Sic.

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Change "Victim" to "Principal Figure"?

Does anybody have a different word to describe Alton Sterling's part in the article? Would "Shootee" or "Principal Figure" work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk • contribs) 00:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Victim" is a neutral term, it means "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action." It is perfectly acceptable in this situation. WWGB (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Principal figure" is an unbearable euphemism for dead guy, and "shootee" is not a word in the English language. I have no objection to changing to the heading structure in Shooting of Michael Brown or Shooting of Walter Scott. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@WWGB: How would you feel about either of those changes? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed to the Walter Scott structure by Dream Focus. In my view it's helpful to add a note when an edit is made to content under discussion, for completeness of the record. If anyone wants to dispute the edit as lacking consensus, have at it, but this is now a low-attention article so I don't know that a clearer consensus would be possible without RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I reverted that as a MOS issue for one. Victim was discussed a bit before (see archives) and is a neutral enough term here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to change the Walter Scott headings as well?BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And I'll revert that. Anything discussed here does not automatically apply to other articles. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a discuss over at Talk:Shooting of Walter Scott. I think this likely needs a wider discussion though. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Victim" sounds like victim of a crime. Unless the officers involved are convicted of a crime, he isn't a victim. Just a guy who got videoed fighting with police and constantly reaching for his gun when warned not to, and was shot for it. Dream Focus 01:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Dude, no trolling. Tis hurtful. BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not trolling. Its stating the fact. You can watch the video yourself or read news reports about it. The article even says clearly Sterling was pinned to the ground by both officers, one kneeling on his chest and the other on his thigh, both attempting to control his arms.[10] One officer exclaimed, "He's got a gun! Gun!" One of the officers yelled, "If you fucking move, I swear to God!" Then Salamoni was heard on the video saying, "Lake, he's going for the gun!" One of the officers aimed his gun at Sterling's body, then three gunshots were heard. I suppose some could say he was just resisting arrest and moving his hand around the area his gun was at, and the police just assumed he was reaching for it and shot him. Anyway, calling him a "victim" is not appropriate here. Dream Focus 19:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You are applying a value-laden meaning to the word that does not exist in its definition: "a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action". That definition accurately describes what happened to Sterling. WWGB (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, I have 2 points of improvement in the article that I thought could be useful.

1. . An update on the Investigations section- that many people have pressed the authorities for the investigations to speed up, including the head of NAACP in Lousiana, state Rep. Ted James, D-Baton Rouge and family members, who expressed disappointment and outrage for the lack of transparency and urgency in continuing investigation. Meanwhile, U.S. Attorney's office for the Middle district of Louisiana said that they are "diligently and thoroughly" investigating and that there is "no timetable" when this will be finished.
2. . The aftermath and reactions seems biased against the protestors for being too violent and aggressive, even though there were at least two federal lawsuits alleging that the arrests of the protestors were made illegally and that the police was using "unconstitutional tactics" to infringe on the protestors' first amendment rights to Freedom of speech and Assembly. Other news articles mention that the Louisiana governor described the protests as "largely peaceful", that was not mentioned in this article. An update of the lawsuits can also be added- with the Metro Council voting to approve a settlement agreed by the protestors and authorities of about $100,00 in total, or about $230 to each of the 92 plaintiffs, with the rest going toward other costs. The East Baton Rouge District Attorney has also reported that his office will not prosecute the protestors.

References

Josetan (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Josephine

Racially-charged article lacking proper explanations

I've identified several instances of bias in this article that lack (any) justification:

1. 37-year-old black man and two white Baton Rouge Police Department officers
Skin color should either be

• removed,
• included in every article regarding criminal activity/shootings etc.

If it is necessary to include the races, an explanation is required.

2. Lake had three years of law enforcement experience which included a previous shooting of an African-American male
Why is this relevant? Details on the relevance of this fact should be included (or this part of the sentence removed).
How many non-African-American males has he shot in his career? Is this information important?

If the man was shot because of racial bias, the information should be included in the article.
Just implying without providing any explanation is unencyclopedical.

Wycoller (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no bias in those instances. If you remove those details from the article then the rest of it lacks context (the protests, the civil rights investigation, etc.) Whether or not there was racial bias in the shooting is the very reason there is an investigation and there are ongoing federal lawsuits claiming an ongoing pattern of racist law enforcement by the city. Justeditingtoday (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning he previously shot a black guy seems bias. There could've been legitimate reasons for that, or not, we don't know since it doesn't give any details about it. Mentioning he was put on administrative leave is misleading since they do that automatically in any shooting while they investigate it. Dream Focus 14:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Trolling?

The introduction to this article is currently just flat-out a political opinion. Wintermaiden (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was vandalism. It's been corrected. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Alton Sterling" in place of "Victim" section heading

Alton Sterling is a neutral description of the party who was shot. If the DOJ report exonerates the police officers, it's the police who will be "victims" of assault. I don't think the article should be subjected to such a gyration and we need to remove victim from the header. It is neutral to replace "Victim" with Alto Sterling as a header. if not, expect that the police will be tagged as the victims if the shooting is justified. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wiktionary defines victim as "anyone who is harmed by another". The term does not ascribe guilt. It is a neutral, unbiased term that appropriately describes Sterling's role in this matter. No-one disputes that Sterling was shot (harmed) in the incident. "If" is clearly WP:CRYSTAL at this time. WWGB (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the problem: if we label a party a "victim" and the final report says the police were justified because Sterling was assaulting them, the victim then becomes the police officer. Sources are usually particular about labeling who is a victim. A month ago, 3 people attempted to buglarize a home. The occupant confronted them and shot and killed all three. The getaway driver fled and was caught and charged with felony murder. The "victim" was the homeowner though he was unhurt and he killed 3 people. Also, the Orlando Pulse Nightclub shooter was shot and killed by police. He was definitely harmed by police but it insults the people he shot to ay he is a victim despite all accounts sayin polic shot and killed him. "Victim" infers culpability to the person or thing that harmed them. If that culpability has not been established, its use is a POV unsupported by facts. If the report exonerates police, would you agre to caa the police victims and Sterling the perpetrator? Changing it to a name will prevent the role reversal later. --DHeyward (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

WWGB—you say that the term victim appropriately describes his role in this matter, but why would we use a section heading to describe his role in this matter? He has a name. Wouldn't his name more appropriately serve as the name of a section heading? The section heading under discussion is for a section of the article containing material describing and relating to Alton Sterling. Can you tell me why "Victim" is more appropriate than "Alton Sterling" for this purpose? Bus stop (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Because that is what someone previously wrote, it is not incorrect, and I do not believe in change for the sake of change. If the !votes fall in favour of replacing "Victim" with "Alton Sterling", then I will certainly be changing "Police" to their names, in order to retain balance and equity. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How about this—let the two section headings should read: "Alton Sterling" and "Police officers Howie Lake II and Blane Salamoni". Bus stop (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not with the addition of "police officers", it creates an imbalance of power. It's either Victim and Police (like Shooting of Philando Castile#Background), or Name and Names (like Shooting of Oscar Grant#Involved parties}. WWGB (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The police are police officers. You change the relationship when you omit that one is a police officer. These are not two guys in an altercation with another guy. The police are acting in the capacity of police officers. As for the Shooting of Oscar Grant article, an article and an incident with which I have no prior familiarity, I think the section heading Johannes Mehserle should be changed to "Bay Area Rapid Transit Police officer Johannes Mehserle", in keeping with the section heading Oscar Grant III. These articles (including Shooting of Philando Castile) are about police and non-police interactions in which a death takes place. There is always a high degree of relevance in the fact that one of the parties is a police officer. For the structure of our article to make sense, concerning section headings, and if we are using the names of the individuals rather than "victim" and "police", we should be indicating not just the name of a police officer but also the fact that they are a police officer. We are not "taking sides" when we indicate in a section heading that a police officer is a police officer. This is a different discussion from the discussion concerning the implications of the word "victim". "Police officer" is a hard-and-fast term. We do not consider resorting to a dictionary to discover the implications of the term "police officer" as we have with the term "victim". Bus stop (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a different discussion from the discussion concerning the implications of the word "victim". Yes it is, and therefore off topic here. I suggest a separate thread for organization's sake. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is already over. There is nothing to discuss concerning the term "police officer". We know what the term "police officer" means. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I would just like to make us aware of this resource. Wiktionary has an entry for officer-involved shooting. Bus stop (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Merriam and Webster say we can interpret "victim" as morally loaded or not. E.g. we routinely speak of the victim in a car crash without implying any blame for the crash. Until the community establishes the Wikipedia definition of the word, I choose the neutral connotation. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Vehicles are not moral agents so of course there is no implication that the victim of a crash was wronged by their vehicle. That analogy is not relevant to this case. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wronged by the other driver, not the vehicle. The "vehicle" in this case was a gun. Since the "vehicle" has nothing to do with it in either case, your reasoning fails. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I don't object to the name method a la Shooting of Samuel DuBose, Shooting of Ezell Ford, Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott, Shooting of Laquan McDonald, Shooting of Walter Scott, etc. I recognize a tendency to reflexively defend the status quo, especially where it has stood unchanged for a long time. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support If "victim" were neutral and simply described "anyone harmed by another": Gaddafi's article would describe him as a victim. The United Flight 93 article wouldn't say "was hijacked by four Al-Qaeda terrorists" but "was hijacked by four victims", or at at least mention they were victims of the passengers and each other – it does not. More surprising is the implication that the term is more neutral than even the subject's own name. There may be arguments for the use of victim here but these aren't them. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • James J. Lambden, "victim" is neutral. Seriously. Look it up in the dictionary--I think you may have been reading too much stuff on the internet where "victim" is placed in quotation marks. As for UF93, if you want to gain respect, drop the false equivalencies here. A guy getting shot in the street, that's quite a different matter from some people who, whatever their past may have been, made that kind of decision. You seem to forget that the "decision" here was made not by the man who was shot, but by the men who shot him. Please don't normalize the shooting of black men by police: there is nothing remotely "normal" about it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You begin with the claim that "victim" does not imply judgement then explain that Sterling is deserving of the term and terrorists are not specifically because you judge Sterling's decisions less harshly. I cannot reconcile these statements. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, if a police officer on UF93 shot all hijackers and they landed the plane safely, they hijackers wouldn't be victims. The dictionary root and early use explains why we viscerally connect "victim" with blameless. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - I have no problem with the label victim as Sterling is the victim of a homicide. If the DOJ says the homicide was justifiable as an action taken under the sworn officers' legal powers. But the label victim is still used in medical-legal documentation, regardless of justifiability. As the subject of the article is the shooting itself, Sterling is clearly the victim of that shooting. That said, I don't have a major objection to changing to the victim's name other than that it seems to be made in order to change the reader's view of the victim. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Justified shooting means police were acting against a person they reasonably believed was committing a crime. If Sterling was fighting and threatening police, he is not the victim. If the DOJ changes the narrative that he is a victim of homicide to the perpetrator of assault or attempted murder. Should we change the Sterling header to "perpetrator" and the police heading to "victim' if that's what the report says? --DHeyward (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Justified means they were within their power, but that doesn't necessarily mean he perpetrated anything. The bar for law enforcement use of deadly force is reasonable belief. Again, the title of the article is the shooting, and regardless of the doj report, he is the victim of the shooting and a homicide. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@DHeyward: wait a minute, I was confusing the upcoming doj report with the police department's report... You're making statements about guilt from a report that, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't been released. You need to edit your comments per WP:BDP... EvergreenFir (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to your tense. It will be released this week. You still have it as being already released and you should modify your statement accordingly. It's my position that naming Sterling as a "Victim" violates what you cites because there is no reliable sources that says the police victimized Sterling. Reasonable fear means they were the victims of a crime. That's not avoidable and applies to every shooting. In general, every time there is a shooting, a crime has been committed either by police or the person shot. It's absurd to believe that every police shooting has a victim and I invite you to try that logic at the the Orlando Nightclub shooting or the deaths of the shooters in San Bernrdino, the Columbine shooters, Dallas police shootings etc, etc. The were all killed by police. None had trials. No, they weren't victims. --DHeyward (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Tense corrected. And no, you apparently don't understand the legal bar for lethal force by police. User of lethal force does not imply a crime was committed, rather that they reasonably believed that loss of life of others could occur or that they feared for their own safety. I'm the parlance of medical-lethal reports, to the best of my knowledge, victim is used when referring to homicides. Now, stop improperly comparing this case to others and navel gazing about the unreleased report please. This discussion seems rather pointless until that report is released anyway, since the proposed change rather hinges on its outcome. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Victim is never used when motivations are not readily apparent. "Police powers" for lethal force don't extend much further than civilians. Victim is not referred to homicides just as "murder" is not used as a euphemism for homicide. Victim and murder are terms that have legal consequences. If a person, say, shoots a rapist and the rapist died, very precise language is used. The dead rapist never referred to as the victim. Even if he survives, he is not the victim. You are dancing on the head of a pin and the alternative in this case, using "Alton Sterlinh" is a very neutral term. His mother calls him that and so does the police department. "Victim" not so much. --DHeyward (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

the proposed change rather hinges on its outcome - I don't think it does. My position, at least, has nothing to do with any report, and can be summarized as follows: 1. There is zero question that using the name is neutral. 2. There is an abundant precedent for that, representing a substantial de facto consensus for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - @MrX, Parsley Man, Slawomir Blaly, and TracyMcClark: I'm pinging additional top contributors to the article in the hope of a somewhat durable consensus. Adding ResultingConstant, simply because I respect their opinions on such questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC) @Sławomir Biały: Corrected username. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course he is a victim; that has nothing to do with motivations. The Gadaffi example is ridiculous--of course he was a victim at his own killing, but he was also a lot more, and it is proper to describe/name him those other things. I don't understand these attempts. If it turns out that the police shot him for a good reason, he is still a victim of the shooting, and even then it is hard to imagine what the (living) police officers have fallen victim to, until we hear of some persecution. Please go read the definitions in the OED--they range from "A person who is put to death or subjected to torture by another" to the weakest and most widespread definition, "One who suffers some injury, hardship, or loss". Drmies (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• And by those definitions the police are victims of assault. Naming the section by his name is NPOV. Would you oppose defining the police as victims? Naming the sections "Alton Sterling" and "Police" takes nothing away from either of them, but by your logic we would say the police "were victims of assault and feared for their lives" if the that's what the final reports says. Would you ever describe the police as victims in this case? You acknowledge that victim has motivation and judgement attached and then pretend it does do not. A woman who shoots and kills a man attempting to rape her is a "victim." The dead attempted rapist is not. We don't label the attempted rapist as a "victim" while police investigate the circumstances. I would hope you aren't arguing for that treatment here. In the rape case, we would not name the person that shot the alleged rapist and we would name the alleged rapist but not describe him as a victim because, quite frankly, it's abhorrent twist to presume that just because he was shot and killed, he is a victim of the woman who killed him. --DHeyward (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• DHeyward, I am as big a moralist as you are, but you're just wrong inserting morality into this stuff. And, eh, at the risk of being obvious, "fearing" for your life when there is no reason to fear for your life doesn't make you a victim--unless, of course, you are a snowflake, and I am sure you don't want to call anyone that. Neither do I. So, in the meantime, I'll stick to reserving the appellation "victim" to the one who actually did fall victim to someone else's lethal force, if that's alright with you--not to the ones who may have, may have, gone through some psychological processes and asked themselves questions about observation, deduction, previous experience, and what not, all the while holding a gun. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Drmies, I'm simply asserting that we are applying judgement (which you acknowledge as a NPOV term would not change) when we use the term "victim." We don't label the Orlando nightclub shooter as a victim. We don't label the San Bernadino killers as victims. Both were killed by police that feared for their life. There are no laws that grant police more power to use deadly force and "fear for their life or life of others." I believe and you would think that applying the term "victim" to describe those other shooters might stick in your throat a bit even though they were killed in the same way as Sterling. This proposal doesn't take away anything about Sterling. Titling the section "Alton Sterling" is the most neutral to describe him. "Victim" implies the police victimized him which has not been determined Victim in its definition implies a lack of complicity which we don't know. If the DoJ comes out and Sterling assaulted the police and they shot while he was attempting to secure a weapon, is he still victim? Are the police the victims? You seems to have an emotional tie to Sterling such that nothing that comes out removes him as a victim. If the report come out and finds Sterling was responsible, woul you prefer "perpetrato" to Sterlinh snf "Victims" to police? If not, now is the time to rename the "Victim" section to "Alton Sterling." --!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 11:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. "Victim" is gratuitous. The purpose of a section heading is to identify the material found in that section, not to pass any commentary on the material in that section beyond that which is absolutely necessary to identify for the reader the sort of material found in that section. The section heading should be "Alton Sterling". This identifies the content of the section under discussion without passing along any to the reader gratuitous commentary on that section of the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't want to pass commentary, stick to the dictionary. "Victim" is perfectly appropriate, which kind of makes sense since he, you know, actually got shot and died--I assume you didn't miss that part. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I understand that he got shot and died. I fully sympathize with the person (Alton Sterling) who got shot and died. If the truth be known I am essentially at odds with myself on the question we are addressing. I am of two minds on the question we are addressing. But the primary purpose of section headings is to identify the content of that section. This is a section of the article discussing the person. This section of the article tells us his dates of birth and death. This section tells us that he was locally known as "CD Man". This is not a section of the article restricted to his victimhood, though obviously that aspect of the person occupies a place of considerable importance. This section covers the wider scope of the entire person, Alton Sterling. Admittedly our knowledge of Alton Sterling is limited. But logically it is correct to say that the scope of the section under discussion encompasses all of the person Alton Sterling. I think it would be less correct to say that the scope of the section is limited to Alton Sterling as a "victim", even though our sympathies may lie with a person who was shot and died. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - The article is "Shooting of Alton Sterling". There was only one victim of the shooting itself. There may be other people involved who might qualify as "victims", but wouldn't they be better described as victims of the aftermath of the shooting? If there's an article for "Aftermath of the Shooting of Alton Sterling", I'm all for describing them there as victims. But here, where the topic is "The Shooting of Alton Sterling", there's only one victim: the person who was shot. That being said, I think it's an awfully fine hair trying to be split here, and I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep either way.  Space-Age Meat  20:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You say "There may be other people involved who might qualify as 'victims', but wouldn't they be better described as victims of the aftermath of the shooting?" This may or may not be so, but it doesn't matter either way, because no one should be "described" in a section heading unless such description were necessary to unambiguously identify the content of that section. Without passing any comment we identify with impeccable clarity the sort of subject matter that is found in this section of the article with the section heading "Alton Sterling". Bus stop (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I'm still weak oppose; I don't think "victim" is necessarily broken terminology, and I tend to come down on the side of not changing things that aren't broken.  Space-Age Meat  01:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• comment This is a complicated situation. I do not think policy mandates nor prohibits either option, so we are firmly in editorial discretion/consensus territory. This article is an event. The event is a homicide, specifically a shooting. Sterling is the victim of the shooting. These are non-judgmental, technically correct terms. But in common parlance, the word victim is judgmental. It is very easy to fall into the reading of "victim of a crime", especially in a politically/socially charged incident like this one. Using the word "victim" risks taking a POV, and also risks a BLP violation (against the cops). To be clear, I do not think such risks actually rise to an actual violation of NPOV nor BLP policy. But its rubbing up against it. On the other hand, "Anton Sterling" or other wording risks only being overly sanitized and boring. The lack of a statement is not a BLP not NPOV violation. Thus, I must come down on the side of weakly support changing the wording. However I also oppose any wording which implies or leads to the belief that the cops were a victim of anything, or that Sterling was the perpetrator of anything. (Except where reporting their own arguments, in their voice) ResultingConstant (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• The DoJ declined to levy charges against the police or the department and your summation nails it. The police are "Police" and Alton Sterling is "Alton Sterling." "Victim' is a POV term and there are likely many who will claim that mantle over time in the case. As the dictionary quoters know, it derives from innocent sacrifices. Since the feds will release evidence soon, the local investigation will begin but there is virtually no chance that a criminally culpable charge will rise higher than the civil rights investigation. The individual officers are in a holding pattern waiting for all clouds to be lifted - I expect them to be fired or resign per previous high profile killings, but not charged. They are targets. We shouldn't pander to police claims of victimhood any more than Anton Sterling's. The analogy I used earlier about a woman who kills a man she believes is going to rape her still stands. Is the dead man a victim just because he is dead and no rape occurred? Is the woman a victim because she felt she was being sexually assaulted and used lethal force to stop it? We don't know enough to support victim. For now, it's fine to just name the parties without descriptors. "victim", "rapist", "felon", "killer", "murderer", etc , etc all tend to tarnish and impeach one side or the other. That's not our job and "Alton Sterling" is the most neutral topic heading because, quite frankly, many will be adopting the victim mantle nd we an't just have 5 sections all labeled "victim." --DHeyward (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support No matter what the dictionary says, the word "victim" in common usage means they did nothing wrong and those that shot them are in the wrong. Dream Focus 11:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose BorkBorkGoesTheCode (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi BorkBorkGoesTheCode—any reason for your "Oppose" vote? At WP:!VOTE I find "it is 'not the vote' that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." Bus stop (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence without attributions

This sentence under "Shooting" is confusing and improperly implies that the officers were looking specifically for Alton Sterling: "This came after an anonymous caller reported that a man believed to be Sterling was threatening him and waving a handgun while in the process of selling CDs."

The statement is confusing because the construction of the sentence does not say WHO believed the man was Sterling or WHEN. The dispatcher simply said "Suspicious Code 2 at 2100 North Foster, cross of Fairfields. Selling CDs on the corner." http://www.wafb.com/clip/12574769/the-investigators-police-dispatch-tapes-obtained-in-alton-sterling-shooting

The press release from the police department says "a black male who was selling music cd’s and wearing a red shirt." http://www.brgov.com/dept/brpd/news/pdfs/07-05-16_Officer_Involved_Shooting.pdf

I don't know that the complaint to the police that initiated the dispatch has been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.0.5 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the above is a valid criticism. I believe the words "believed to be Sterling" should be omitted from that sentence. I think that sentence should be changed to read "This came after an anonymous caller reported that a man was threatening him and waving a handgun while in the process of selling CDs." Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

As long as the follow on description says police encountered a man selling CDs in red shirt with a pistol in his pocket. No source doubts that police found the subject in the complaint so neither should we. --DHeyward (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The narrative in the shooting section as a whole is hard to follow and would be better if placed in chronological order. Right now it reads like someone is telling their own version of the story and has jammed in references to support various facts, rather than a simple listing of the facts, with each referenced. It starts out with Sterling being "detained" and THEN moves onto the 911 call. I have slightly condensed and lightly edited the "factual summary" from the DOJ report, below. Perhaps this can replace the current narrative...?

At approximately 12:30 a.m. an individual called 911 and reported that he had been threatened with a gun by a black man wearing a red shirt and selling CDs. The caller reported that the man had the gun in his pocket. Dispatch relayed that information to Officers Lake and Salamoni, who went to the location, where they saw Sterling wearing a red shirt and standing by a table with a stack of CDs. Videos show that the officers directed Sterling to put his hands on the hood of a car. When Sterling did not comply, the officers placed their hands on Sterling, and he struggled with the officers. Officer Salamoni then pulled out his gun and pointed it at Sterling’s head, at which point Sterling placed his hands on the hood. After Sterling briefly attempted to move his hands from the hood, Officer Lake used a Taser on Sterling, who fell to his knees but then began to get back up. The officers ordered him to get down, and Officer Lake attempted unsuccessfully to use his Taser on Sterling again. Officer Salamoni holstered his weapon and tackled Sterling; both went to the ground, with Officer Salamoni on top of Sterling, who was on his back with his right hand and shoulder partially under a car. Officer Lake kneeled on Sterling’s left arm while Officer Salamoni attempted to gain control over Sterling’s right arm. Officer Salamoni then yelled, “Going for his pocket. He’s got a gun! Gun!” Officer Salamoni attempted to gain control of Sterling’s right hand, while Officer Lake drew his weapon and directed Sterling not to move. Less than one second later, while Sterling’s right hand was not visible to the cameras, Officer Salamoni again yelled that Sterling was “going for the gun!” and fired three shots into Sterling’s chest. Officer Salamoni rolled onto on his back, facing Sterling’s back, and Officer Lake stood behind them with his weapon pointed at Sterling. Sterling began to sit up and roll to his left, with his back to the officers. Sterling brought his right arm across his body toward the ground, and Officer Lake yelled at Sterling to “get on the ground.” As Sterling continued to move, Officer Salamoni fired three more rounds into Sterling’s back. From the moment when Officer Lake gave his first order to Sterling through the firing of the final shot, the entire encounter lasted less than 90 seconds. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-death-alton-sterling

The only part that is obviously missing from this summary is when Officer Salamoni un-holstered his weapon again prior to shooting Sterling the first time.140.163.0.5 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mural of Alton Sterling at the Triple S Food Mart in North Baton Rouge.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

White officers?

In response to this edit, I find: "Sterling, 37, was killed by police in July 2016. Cellphone video showed Sterling, a black man, pinned to the ground by the white officers before he was shot, but police said he was reaching for a gun."[14] Why shouldn't we mention that the officers were white? Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be mentioned. The editor's argument may be that race wasn't relevant to the shooting. That's arguable, but race is plainly relevant to the aftermath and reactions which compose the largest section of our article. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with James. The editor in question (User:Pancakelizard) appears to have some POV issues ([15], [16]) and is a zombie account (inacive for 7.5 years until today). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Race is never relevant to the shooting. If we are following sources then race is relevant. Sources don't omit the races of the three men involved. It would be a contrivance on our part to omit race. We just report the sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Apparently this is still an issue a year later. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The first part of this page appears biased, and not based on evidence. It is not clear that Mr Sterling was resisting arrest, from all of the video I have seen this doesn't appear to be the case, and I think this section should be amended to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.150.148 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Failing to follow police instructions counts as resisting arrest. Rklawton (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure video counts as reliable sources, but this seems to be the most complete/best quality. He just seems to be heavily intoxicated and confused to me, but clearly is non compliant and does have a gun in his hand when he is shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0fGWt9UtF8&feature=youtu.be Ketil (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Registered offender

Regarding this edit (which has since been reverted).

Admittedly, I haven't checked the article's history, but is there any reason it doesn't mention the fact that Alton Sterling was a registered sex offender? M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've updated accordingly. Pinging M.Bitton. Bus stop (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have done a small refactoring of the section which probably needs a rewrite as it's skipping about a bit. Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Does his registration as a sex offender have anything to do with the shooting? Should it really be in the article? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

References