Talk:Killing of Keith Lamont Scott/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Neutrality tag

I've added a neutrality tag onto this article as it almost appears like it's trying to glorify the cop involved. The article should be treating the subject of the shooting neutrally and not having an entire section talking about the officer and how good of a person he was. We shouldn't be doing that with the person killed in the shooting either. Regardless, this needs to be fixed. Silverseren^C 04:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Despite neither woman being at the scene, and the sister being asleep, both Scott's sister and daughter claimed that he was in his car reading a book when he was gunned down by the officer"

This sort of line also seems like it's trying to push a narrative, as does the protest sections by focusing practically exclusively on claimed negative things the protesters are doing. Silverseren^C 04:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The glorifying of the cop has been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There are other neutrality issues with the article though, as I mentioned above. But that's a start. Silverseren^C 04:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the hagiography of the officer. This is no place to sing his praises or talk about his scholarships. The article is about the shooting, not his history. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I feel the same way about both people involved in this. We should talk about their history only in relation to the shooting (so, like, mentioning the guy was married and had so and so kids actually is relevant due to their testimony and involvement in the case, but anything more than that about them would be undue). Silverseren^C 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"The shooting sparked riots three hours after the shooting and continued on into the early morning of the next day and night. The violence of the riots injured dozens of officers and included the near-death of another unarmed black man by a "Black Lives Matter" rioter."

But, yeah, if this is the summary of the protests, then I think it would be hard for anyone to claim that this is looking neutrally at the topic. Silverseren^C 04:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Charlotte riots

2016 Charlotte riots or 2016 Charlotte riot should already be split to a new article. Not sure why it is not yet.--Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There isn't enough information still to warrant its own article as of yet and both, the shooting and riots, are linked. If their is enough information and sources to break it into two articles, then sure; but at this time I would argue we have not hit critical mass yet. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Charlotte riots (infobox)

I've removed partof = Black Lives Matter from the 2016 Charlotte riots infobox. It violates WP:NPOV to make such a profound connection between the group and the riots. In fact, I'm not sure there should be a riots infobox at all. What do others think?- MrX 18:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It probably doesn't. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing

As a separate issue to the above, though undoubtedly related to the neutrality problems, is that the sourcing is pretty horrible. Theroot.com? Heavy.com? Mic.com? Daily Kos? Freaking Russia Today with two separate articles used as sources? Silverseren^C 04:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed the lousy sources (RT, TheHeavy.com, TheRoot, Daily Caller, Mic) and replaced the cites and modified text, as necessary. Neutrality^talk 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Facebook check

Facebook check was activated for Charlotte, North Carolina. --150.216.63.40 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I found it annoying too. However, I do not believe that is relevant. How has the Facebook checker been used in other articles where it was activated? --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and 2016 Davao City bombing all mention it. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the Boston Globe, this is the first time a Facebook safety check was implemented during a protest event, rather than inn the aftermath of a shooting, terrorist attack or natural disaster. I think that this merits inclusion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm cool with it Spirit of Eagle. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Middle name in title

We generally wouldn't include middle name here, unless that is how sources usually refer to him, per WP:COMMONNAME. E.g., Shooting of Walter Scott not Shooting of Walter Lamar Scott, Shooting of Samuel DuBose not Shooting of Samuel Vincent DuBose. I confess to not having looked at a lot of sources, being tied up on other things. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: FWIW a simply google search for "Keith Scott" showed most seem to include his middle name (for some reason). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, probably just how they do it in early reporting. No problem leaving it as is for the time being, and maybe they'll settle down to Keith Scott at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times, on first reference, uses just the middle initial: shooting of Keith L. Scott? Neutrality^talk 23:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally I'd go for brevity but sometimes it's actually easier to type the "amont" then it is to bother with a period, those dots are easy to overlook when trying to remember a URL. Ranze (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why we should consider anything but COMMONNAME. I doubt we could show COMMONNAME for Keith L., either. I say defer. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Top infobox

In the top infobox, with have participant Keith Lamont Scott (victim) and then death Keith Lamont Scott. This appears to be a duplication of the same thing. Is there a better way without showing duplication? --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Other pages like this don't list the deceased as a participant. I saw that and was confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done- MrX 21:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

White devils

So we have one source from Fox News ([1]) which says that "“Just know that all white people are f****** devils, all white cops are f******* devils and white people," said a man identified as Scott's brother." The video is cites is no longer available. Fox does not claim that they identified the person as his brother. I assume that it was in the video.

When I search "Charlotte protest white devil" and "Charlotte riot white devil" I find zero reliable sources that corroborate this story. Fox News is not the most reliable source for race issues and considering that no other news organizations covered this, I am skeptical of its veracity. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be removed per WP:UNDUE. I tried once but was reverted. - MrX 21:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Concur. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The quote is real, Scott's brother did say that to WCNC-TV news, here is a video on YouTube and it mentioned by a WCNC-TV reporter on Twitter. Oddly, despite this, I cannot find a valid source quoting it, even on WCNC-TV's own website. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt the WP:V. I don't care about the WP:V because I doubt the WP:DUE even if it's true. I think MrX agrees with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree in that case, it is obviously a reaction and does not really change the events as they unfolded. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Exact time of day

We currently say "3:55 p.m. – 4:00 p.m." in the infobox and "before 4:00 p.m." in the prose, no citation for either. The dashcam video shows the shots fired at 3:51:45. How would you resolve this discrepancy? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine if you want to adjust it since we have more accurate information now. Doesn't have to be down to the second though. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How do know that the dash cam video timestamp is accurate?- MrX 12:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The only other way is getting the list chronological events by CMPD themselves, which typically include the time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Or say "about 3:50 p.m.". Seems sufficient hedge. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

NBC just released a video

NBC News just released a video of the shooting. Will see if there's anything new to integrate into the article, but expect more news to come out about this (meaning more editors too). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The source says "No gun can be seen in the footage, which appears to have been recorded from a nearby patch of grass. The footage was obtained by NBC News amid conflicting reports about whether a gun was found at the scene of the shooting. Police say he had a handgun on him and posed "an imminent, deadly threat." The family says he was not armed and did not pose a threat to the officers." EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the cops look all dressed in battle gear - I assume not on regular patrol. They seem looking for someone dangerous. Poor guy they found I bet was the same color and size - they were certain he had a gun because the guy they were looking for probably was "armed and dangerous". 2601:181:8301:4510:B597:D80A:61F0:CD89 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the police report says that they recovered a gun from the scene. Thus, if there is no gun in the footage and, whenever info is released about Scott in relation to guns, if he had no gun permit or any known gun owned, then that would imply such a gun was planted. Oh dear. :/ I expect all of this to get much more complicated. Silverseren^C 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

None of this is accurate or sensible. Just because a gun is present does not mean it will be visible in videos that were shot, as ought to be clear from the wife's video which doesn't really show anything at all, including not showing that Scott was shot.

Also, since Scott was a convicted felon not legally allowed to own a gun, and since there is no gun registration in NC, it's downright bizarre to suggest that, IF somebody discovered an absence of legal gun records, that would somehow show he didn't have any gun. So this crystal balling on your part does not make a whole lot of sense. RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I gather, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary (e.g., [2]). But on Wikipedia we need to withhold judgment for now EvergreenFir (talk) 10:29 pm, 23 September 2016, last Friday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)

Coords in error

Current coordinates - 35.29559°N 80.72557°W / 35.29559; -80.72557 - are off by about 150 m, not even in the apartment complex and across a two-lane highway to the east. If that's not enough, the marker is on the top of a water tower in Google Earth. Just a heads up that I'm working on it, trying to be as accurate as possible comparing videos to Google Maps and Google Earth. (This kind of thing has not been seen as OR in the past.) Hard to correlate them, so I don't know how accurate I'll be. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've made an adjustment - 35.29543°N 80.72708°W / 35.29543; -80.72708 - that gets us into the apartment complex. A ton of detective work and reasoning went into this, more than I have ever done before, and I'm only about 80% confident that this is the exact spot. I'm open to alternative strategies, but I can think of only three.

1. Use the coordinates of 9453 Lexington Circle, per Google Maps, which the wife said on her video (she incorrectly said Court instead of Circle; there is no Lexington Court in Charlotte). This is probably her home address, the address of her building, and it is unknown how far they were from that building. This would put the marker on that building, about 75 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty, although that means nothing to readers and most editors for that matter.
2. Use the coordinates of the Village at College Downs apartment complex, per Google Maps. This would put the marker on what is probably the apartment complex office, about 40 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty.
3. Use the coordinates of the approximate center of the apartment complex, per eyeball. This would put the marker in a grassy area about 75 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty.

And it's possible someone else could do better detective work, but I would like to hear their reasoning. If you feel I've committed OR, please specify which of the three alternatives you would prefer, or suggest a fourth. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm 98% certain those are the correct coordinates based on the unambiguous dash cam video and other information about the shooting location..- MrX 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: What other information, just for my information? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The main street, the name of the complex, this compared to index :02 of the dash cam video. Compare this with index :36 of the wife's video. (opposite sides of the same building.- MrX 15:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Changing 80% to 98%. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Placement of new video

At first I was going to move this video link from External links to the body, as at Shooting of Walter Scott#Eyewitness video and Shooting of Samuel DuBose#Shooting. Raw video doesn't lie or take a side, so it's not an NPOV violation to make it more prominent. And we judged in those articles that it added significant reader value. In this case, the video seems to add less reader value. The frame is jumping all around, and you only get a very brief glimpse of Scott. So I'm ambivalent. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine that moving it up would be a problem. Raw video of an event unfolding is about a neutral as you can get.- MrX 00:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion as to reader value? Do we care about that? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to moving the link. We now have 3 videos (wife's, dashcam, and bodycam). The dashcam is the only one that actually shows the moment the shots were fired. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok then. I'll do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, changed the non-YouTube one to a YouTube version of the same length. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Move videos to Commons?

Recommendation - That the videos should be placed in Wikimedia and linked to there so they will always be available. If you need assistance let me know. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Washuotaku: - This is similar to this discussion about 14 months ago, but I think my position has changed a little. If you feel that the risk of YouTube being acquired by Fox in a hostile takeover is significant (that should tell you where my bias is), and the licensing issues discussed there don't apply here, then I'm not opposed to you doing that. That discussion did not result in a move to Commons. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bulletproof vest

One of the cited sources says "police vest", the other "CMPD vest". I changed our content from "police vest" to "bulletproof vest" and wikilinked that to Bulletproof vest. It seems like a permissible paraphrase to my ear, but have I committed original research? If it's just some vest that says CMPD on it, I'm in error and that doesn't even need to be in the article as far as I can see. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have self-reverted that change pending an outcome here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of weak sources that say it was a bulletproof vest.[3][4].- MrX 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak is right. Heavy Romper. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Video clearly shows Kevlar vests, but that could still be OR. Just erring on the side of caution here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The only important fact about the vest is that it clearly identified the man as a cop. IMO that is why generally the RS's mention that part and don't say anything about it being bulletproof or kevlar. Tracking what the sources say is basic WP:V; removing that lone bit of useful information would be very, very objectionable and contrary to WP:DUE. RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can state your first sentence without RS support, I can state my view that the bulletproof vest provided some protection against any gun in Scott's possession, and is therefore not insignificant. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Observer reported that "They returned to watching for their suspect, then Vinson saw Scott hold up a gun. They withdrew to a spot nearby and put on duty vests that said “Police” that would identify them as officers. When they came back, Scott still had the gun." RealityCheckTime (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, still little RS support for bulletproof, so I'll concede pending said support. I.e., stay with status quo "police vest". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional transcript of wife's video

Re: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

89.242.76.10, I encourage you to read some of WP:EW and learn how to use this talk page to resolve content disagreements. When someone disputes your edit by reverting it, you don't simply re-revert with a counter to their argument. You start a discussion or let it go.

With that said, I support MrX's position. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic about process. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How exactly am I edit warring? I only reverted MrX once with an edit summary explaining why, which is perfectly acceptable. The other revert is of an automated bot. With regards to my actual edit, I think the part I added is as pertinent to the shooting as the rest of transcript that is currently on the page. I don's see why this part would be removed instead of the other lines. 89.242.76.10 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC) By your reasoning, MrX should then be allowed to re-revert you with an edit summary explaining why? Where would you suggest this should end? At what point do you decide it's time to go to talk? Five reverts? Eight reverts? Who decides what the appropriate number is? Or, does it continue until one side is persuaded or gives up out of exhaustion? We don't discuss content issues via reverts and edit summaries; that's what article talk pages are for. This conundrum is what the essay WP:BRD attempts to address, but sadly it is only "widely accepted" without being "widely accepted enough to promote to guideline status". BRD's main opposition is the claim that it can be abused in bad faith, which I say is true for anything. Or that it is too restrictive and inflexible, which I have never found to be the case in 3.5 years. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC) I only reverted MrX once which is certainly not edit warring. I'm not saying we should indefinitely revert each other with an edit summary, just a couple of reverts each and then take it to talk. 89.242.76.10 (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC) You didn't answer my question, so I'll restate it with the addition of one word for clarity. Where exactly would you suggest this should end? And again, who decides? You say "a couple of reverts each", what if MrX believes in "three reverts each"? And who should take it to talk, the person advocating the article change, or the other one? Tell me in precise detail how you think this should have played out in your view. Or state that you think we should hammer out the details of the process via reverts and edit summaries, too. I'm sorry, but your reasoning just does not work in practice. I generally wouldn't expend this much energy on a discussion like this, but I make an exception because you seem to have enough intelligence that there is a chance you might see the light. You're certainly not going to change my mind after 3+1⁄2 years of experience. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC) I think you're reading to way too much into this. Why are trying to convince me of something? Why do you think I'm trying to change you're mind? I expressed no opinion other than three revert rule and civility. Then you go to talk page. I never said anything about the discussing changes entirely through edit summaries. 89.242.76.10 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC) I guess I might see it a little differently if your re-revert argument actually fully addressed MrX's argument. He mentioned the fact that we have the video, and you appeared to ignore that or miss it. That's where discussion-by-edit-summary becomes unproductive and even counterproductive. And it's often impossible to fully articulate one's argument in the limited space of an edit summary. Note to others. Don't worry, this will ultimately be collapsed as off-topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC) I did not miss or ignore the part about the video, I suggested the part ought to still be mentioned anyway because it is as important and relevant as the part of the transcript that was already listed. 89.242.76.10 (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Ok, I think this off-topic is played out without a resolution, so I'm going to collapse it after I give you a few minutes to read this. Then we can proceed with the content discussion. Please leave the status quo until there is a consensus to change it. Thanks for the conversation. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the new content per MrX's edit summary rationale. Nothing to add to that, except that I didn't take his "we don't need a full transcript" that literally. I understand that the IP user does not propose a full transcript, and I suspect that MrX did, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - BTW, the proposed content is a copy-and-paste from the cited source, which we can't do per copyright policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I did not copy the source exactly and I reworded the few words when I first reverted MrX and considering what I proposed to add is almost entirely a one line quote, it seems hard get around it being similar to the source. Currently the second last sentence of that paragraph, which in the source is just above what I added, is almost entirely the quote and is as close to being copy and paste as to what I propose to add. Also with regards to the other information I added, which you said was of questionable reliability and linked me to its wiki page, the source is certainly reliable enough to use with attribution. Other sources used on the page, such as The Daily Beast also have a large controversy section relative to the size of the page like The Intercept page you linked me to in your edit summary. 89.242.76.10 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  Ok, I could be wrong as to copy-and-paste, but that was more an unrelated side comment anyway. If it were a copy-and-paste, that by itself wouldn't preclude its inclusion. We could have simply decided that it can be included with rewording. And let's keep The Intercept and other issues separate please, using the same process. (I didn't realize you were the one who added the content about The Intercept; I have a very poor memory for IP addresses). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

About the gun

I don't know where it came from but is there any more information available on the gun? Given that police are arguing KLS had it they presumably have one entered into evidence. For example, do we know the make/model or if it was loaded (and if so, how many rounds) and if there's any blood on it? Ranze (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, CMPD will release that information in time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the fact that Scott was not legally eligible to own a firearm should be included in the article. I have placed this information in the section about his background. However, I don't know whether the information about his gun ownership ineligibility should be in his background section, or the section about the shooting, or some other section, or some combination of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathEconMajor (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Police accounts

The new "case update" released by the police seems to add useful detail and clarity. I think there should be a separate "police accounts" section for all of that, to keep it separate and make it clear that it is their account. This technique tends to eliminate the need for repetitive and tiresome "according to's". Just not sure where I'd put it, or how it should affect the existing Shooting section content. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My first draft of the "case update". I wouldn't see any need to cite anything but the Washington Post article linked above.

On September 24, along with the two dashcam and bodycam videos, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department released a statement of their account of the shooting incident. It stated that the incident began as Vinson and another plainclothes officer were sitting in an unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in an unrelated case. A white SUV pulled up and parked beside them, driven by a man later identified as Scott. The officers observed Scott rolling what they believed to be a marijuana "blunt", but they decided that the warrant operation had higher priority than the drug activity.

Soon afterward, Vinson saw Scott hold a gun up, giving the officers probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and investigate the gun possession. The officers then left the area to retrieve equipment and don "marked duty vests" that would identify them as police officers. When they returned, they again saw a gun in Scott's possession, and they identified themselves as police officers and "gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun". A uniformed officer arrived to assist and tried to break Scott's front passenger window with a baton.

Scott then got out of his vehicle with the gun, backing away from the vehicle while failing to respond to further commands to drop the gun. Perceiving Scott's actions and movements as an "imminent physical threat" to the officers, Vinson fired at Scott, hitting him. Officers "immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene". According to the statement, Scott was found to be wearing an ankle holster and the gun was found to be loaded.

The statement said that lab analysis revealed Scott's DNA and fingerprints on the gun recovered at the scene. Police also released photographs of a gun, a holster, and a marijuana "blunt" they said were recovered at the scene.

The statement did not say how many officers were ultimately present at the time of the gunshots.

―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be appropriate. Natureium (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I have added that as a subsection under Shooting. After trimming for redundancy, there won't be a lot left in the parent section, but I still think it's needed and I can't think of a better way to structure this. Open to suggestion as always. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent edits: [10][11][12][13] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New NC law re LE video

The New York Times, 26 September: Video of Charlotte Police Shooting Could Be the Last Released in North Carolina

Could be a short section 3.3 under "Video recordings". Too tangential to include? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Too WP:CRYSTAL for my tastes and too tangential. EvergreenFir (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

For background, a year ago wife filed a restraining order that said Scott carries a gun

Suggest adding the following to the Background section,

About a year before the shooting, Scott's wife filed a restraining order against him saying that he carries a 9mm gun.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think this falls under the "previous stuff not directly related to the shooting" as mentioned above in the #Please give your opinion on whether or not this information should be included section. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I considered that when I made the edit and therefore I did not include further details from the restraining order. I limited the edit to the part about Scott having a background that included carrying a gun since this article is about an incident where Scott was repeatedly told to drop a gun, and then shot. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems a lot like a trial, where past criminal behavior is admissible evidence. I don't think it's our job to convict or acquit Vinson, nor do I feel that omitting information that would shed a bad light on Scott violates WP:NPOV or any other policy. I do feel it would violate NPOV to omit that while including favorable bio information about Scott or unfavorable bio information about Vinson, but that doesn't mean I would necessarily support including that negative stuff under those conditions. My preference would be to omit everything not directly related to the actual shooting event.
I freely admit that some of Scott's history doesn't make him look very good. To say that the history is related to the shooting is to make a judgment that the history means it's more likely Scott in fact had a gun in his hand as he backed away from the vehicle. I don't think that kind of call is within our purview as Wikipedia editors.
I am not 100% confident of this position (I do recognize my liberal bias), it's one of those things where I would like to see input from far more experienced editors. This is why I pinged Gaijin42, but I see he has not edited for 24 days. Do we need to go to WP:NPOVN? Or should that be WP:BLPN?
If the decisions should be driven by RS, then we're back to the unanswered questions I posed here. Those who want to include will tend to see sufficient RS, those who want to omit will tend not to, and there has to be a way to resolve that disagreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that my last message adequately addressed your points. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that it addressed my second paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's my message again, which I think addresses your second paragraph. "...I did not include further details from the restraining order. I limited the edit to the part about Scott having a background that included carrying a gun since this article is about an incident where Scott was repeatedly told to drop a gun, and then shot." It's a fact about his background which appeared in an ABC News/Associated Press article about Scott and the shooting. It doesn't imply anything that is not implied by the reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: "To say that the history is related to the shooting is to make a judgment that the history means it's more likely Scott in fact had a gun in his hand as he backed away from the vehicle. I don't think that kind of call is within our purview as Wikipedia editors." You did not address that. It appears you and I are deadlocked, and others have become remarkably quiet.
Since I don't care to be seen as filibustering this, I'm prepared to go to RfC with questions about inclusion of Scott's history, independent from other bio content decisions. Although it would be complicated, I think we would have to ask separate questions about each item of his history. This should include only those items that have at least some amount of quality RS, such as a single ABC News article. It should be more than the source reporting a rumor; there should be some actual meat to it.
I would prefer to get some agreement on this in advance, among more than just the two of us, but I'm prepared to go ahead without that. We don't have a consensus either way, and at some point a decision has to be made.
Can you nominate items for inclusion in the RfC? This can include items you have agreed to omit from the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think my previous messages adequately addressed your points about the specific edit. Also, I think part of your message is digressing from the edit that is the topic of this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right, I'm off topic. Then never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. As it now stands, the reverting editor EvergreenFir said on that editor's talk page yesterday that it should not be in the article but graciously wouldn't revert the edit if I restored it. I think you don't want it in the article either. So without other editors joining this discussion in support, or anyone changing their mind, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to restore it, even though I think it would improve the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. I think I'll go ahead with an RfC on just your question, and we can decide how to handle the rest when we get more participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

About other Scott history items

So what do we do about the other history items, such as physical violence? I haven't researched it, but my impression is that there are three or four more things to consider. I see at least five options.

1. Run a separate RfC for each item.
2. Run an RfC that combines all of the above into one, but decides each item separately and independently from the others.
3. Run a blanket RfC for all remaining Scott bio information, including any favorable such as "family man".
4. Assume that the outcome of the current RfC will predict that of additional RfCs, and treat it as if it were a blanket RfC.
5. Try to reach consensus(es) without RfC(s). Experience suggests that would not be fruitful. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you list the items you're thinking of so far? You don't have to go into much detail, just enough to identify each item. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it's only an impression. Being a slow reader, and being time-limited, I haven't absorbed all of the news coverage. I just remember running across other bio things, most negative. The restraining order talked about domestic violence, that's one. If he was a felon, there's at least one felony conviction, that's two. And so on. I assume others have more bandwidth than I do (they always do), so I don't feel the need to do that research myself.
I don't know about you, but I think most of the "inclusionists" here would make the same argument for those items—by reporting them, RS says they are relevant to this shooting, therefore they should be included (and we're not too concerned about how much of RS has reported them, or how they have treated them). If there is only one such item, options 1, 3, 4, and 5 apply. If there are two or more items, all of them do. For the purpose of choosing the option, it really doesn't matter what the items are. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This is looking like an RfC on RfC's. For now, let's not complicate things. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually I see it as an attempt to uncomplicate things, and to avoid the unproductive consensus-free discussion that we had prior to the current RfC. That is, unless everyone agrees not to propose any more negative content about Scott, which seems unlikely. I'll wait for other responses. If there is little or no participation in this thread, I'll choose an option myself, and it will probably be option 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Expanded reactions

This article clearly needs more expansion on the aftermath. Hillary Clinton has commented on the matter, and a little girl was crying before the Charlotte city council and drew national attention. Here is a link to an article [14] about it. I'm mostly just leaving this as note here for myself so I can get back to it, but I encourage others to help expand this article. Indy beetle (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)