Talk:Killing of Walter Scott/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Other Cops at scene and coaching audio

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/index.html http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/12/walter-scott-shooting-officer-michael-slager-audio-recording

There looks like there is audio of him being coached by other officers at the scene. Relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing article-worthy there, in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"coaching" seems to imply something nefarious in terms of coverup. That seems like fairly normal post-incident chatter/banter/support, with no indiciation that the other officers were aware anything "Bad" had happened during the incident that needed coaching. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

While maybe not relevant to this page, the Guardian article offers an interesting insight into the standard operating procedure of the police. When a policeman kills someone in the line of duty, it cannot a priori be known whether that killing happened within the legal bounds. Nevertheless, from the Guardian article it is clear that after a killing, the policeman is not questioned right away unlike in the case where a citizen has killed someone. That decreases the probability of the police uncovering any illegal act on the part of the ... police. Lklundin (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah theres a number of issues like that. The are generally not questioned at all for 2 days for "cooling off" and communication with union reps and lawyers, an advantage definitely not held by normal citizens. However, it seems undue to emphasize that aspect in this article as it is not unique to this situation, and it doesn't seem to be a thread that has been emphasized by the reliable sourcesGaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Given that the police is trusted as the main instrument of the monopoly on violence they should actually be held to a higher standard than normal citizens. Trust the Guardian to pick up on this. So if someone there follows this discussion Wikipedia might get its reliable on-topic source. So let's wait and see... Lklundin (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

The article currently claims that Santana's video was delivered to Scott's family by a Black Lives Matter activist. The cited source doesn't seem to mention this. Should this be removed? Perhaps there is another source for this claim? Edsu (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, I added a link to this article on the Black Lives Matter article since it was mentioned here. If this proves to be inaccurate, we might remove the link from the Black Lives Matter articles, unless people feel they are related in other ways. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed that sentence as not particularly significant and not worth trying to find a source. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the provenance of the video is of importance. It is significant that the video was shared with the family as well as the police department. Would the video have surfaced if it was only delivered to the police department? I'm going to adjust the text so that it simply removes the claim about a Black Lives Matter activist. Edsu (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I added that text, and it was sourced. It seems that in the editing reshuffle over past days that source was either removed or misplaced. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here it is: Santana said he connected online with a local activist involved with the group Black Lives Matter who reached out to Scott's family and the Scotts connected with Santana.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that I care much, but where does that say anything about the video, specifically? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It is all about the video, isn't it? Santana contacted an activist of Black Lives Matter, who put him in contact with Scott's brother and handed over the video.- Cwobeel (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Charleston County Sheriff's Office - Michael Slager's Arrest Details

Are the details of his arrest, including this mugshot (which are freely available on the Charleston County Sheriff's Office website) in the public domain? (Make sure you click on the plus sign to expand the panel which shows the details)

Also, how do you feel about adding a picture of his mugshot (provided it is in the public domain)?

I'm asking first because uploading images to wikimedia in general is more trouble than it's worth. So I want consensus before going forward (or not).Myopia123 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Re public domain, this would appear to say yes. As for including it, it doesn't feel very NPOV to show Scott smiling and looking sharp in his Coast Guard uniform just above a mug shot of Slager. Scott was less than his photo implies, as indicated in his bio, and Slager is more than his photo implies, i.e., a criminal. But I'm interested in other opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur that this probably causes NPOV issues and runs into WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MUG pretty quickly, unless it can be shown that the "official" photo of Slager is in some way out of date or misleading. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think WP:MUG would apply since this would not be "out of context". A mug shot in the bio of, say, Oprah Winfrey would be out of context. If MUG doesn't apply, I don't think BLPCRIME could, either. But NPOV is still a problem. What official photo? Is this something we can use? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss [1] is what I'm talking about. We would need to look up what SC's copyright laws are for local agencies to see if that photo would be covered by copyright or not. Normally it would possibly itself introduce an NPOV issue, but since we are using the coast guard photo currently, it actually has good parity (other than the out of date-ness of the CG photo) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So you don't think this is enough? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats enough for me to go forward assuming its PD. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's my question. Do you think the above link (this) is enough for PD? If so, would it be accepted as PD despite coming from an ABC source rather than a government website? If so, what is the best upload method for this purpose? I've never done anything that wasn't "own work". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is PD, so it does not matter from were do you acquire the image. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Added booking photo, as I don't see any specific NPOV issue. I would be interested to know if there are other editors with a different opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there other photos of Slager in the PD? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mugshot

[2] ?? no need to emphasise it is a mugshot ?? why not, exactly? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Because there is nothing in the background to suggest it is anything other than a standard image. Why draw attention to something which is not otherwise obvious? The provenance of the photo has no particular relevance. WWGB (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it does. I can't understand your rationale for omitting that information. This is a booking photo and AFAIK in all other instances of such photos being used in articles, the fact that it is a booking photo is always described. Just check a few at Category:Mug_shots - Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to hear comments from other editors, and if none is forthcoming I will open an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in the above section, it's about avoiding undue imbalance between the two images. Scott is presented in a positive sense (a serviceman) whereas tagging Slager as an inmate presents a negative context. The purpose of the image is to extend understanding of the individual's appearance, not to editorialise on his actions. You have not given any compelling reason why the image needs to be tagged as a mugshot, other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WWGB (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Cwobeel, you chose to add it after reading the NPOV concerns of Gaijin42 and me. Fine, you were bold per BRD. I'm going to revert you now, and that puts us in the D phase of BRD. The photo should stay out until there is consensus to add it. Fair? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Also note that we're considering the non-criminal photo of Slager as well, not sure if you caught that. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I am in agreement with the opinion that the photo of Michael Slager should not have the caption under it reading "booking photo" and linking to the article mug shot. I think improved language might be something like "Michael Slager at time of his arrest on April 7, 2015". Bus stop (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To my understanding, Wikipedia prefers PD pictures to fair use pictures. The only PD picture i am aware of is the mugshot. I say that there should be either no caption or a caption simply saying "Michael Slager". It is quote obvious from his striped uniform that it is prison attire. Myopia123 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To my non-American eyes, it did not look like prison attire at all. It just looked like a man wearing a shirt. That's why I removed the "mugshot" description as it skewed the perception of the circumstances of the image. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, a picture of him smiling next to an American Flag is not very NPOV either. A suggestion for an alternative, I believe there are multiple dash cam videos of him, which are public domain. If someone thinks a good-enough quality image of him can be taken from those, it would be worth exploring.Myopia123 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Beg pardon? How can photos of the two respective individuals, both in uniform and smiling in front of an American flag, violate NPOV? You have completely lost me there. My position at this point, assuming the official portrait is PD, is both official photos or no photos. That's neutrality. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd use the two Coast Guard images you've proposed as the images of the two, at least until better images surface. I'm in the process of editing the page right now, so I could submit the image during the edit I'll soon submit. That's assuming we reach consensus, of course. If we don't by the time I'm done, I'll simply edit it back to how it was (before submitting, of course). I support the inclusion of both images at this time, and I think the Slager CG image is fine. I'd prefer this over the mugshot because I believe that is POV by assuming he's a criminal before the case is even closed. We're trying him as guilty until proven innocent, and that's not how the law (or Wikipedia) works. It's best to keep two CG photos, which are very NPOV, even though they're both dated. If Slager is charged with the crime, we can use a mugshot then. If a better image of Scott surfaces, we'll use that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

See #Slager_official_portrait. Sorry for splitting what is becoming a single debate, but I judged Slager's official police portrait to be off-topic here, per this heading, and this section has become somewhat disorganized. Hopefully this won't hinder us too much. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Slager official portrait

I have uploaded a cropped version of Slager's official portrait to Wikipedia (not Commons), as File:Officer_Michael_Thomas_Slager.jpg. I'm not adding it at this time, pending resolution of the larger discussion including his mug shot. Those more familiar with copyright are welcome to examine the PD rationale and comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Which seems more in keeping with WP:NPOV?

1		2
Walter Scott during his service in the U.S. Coast Guard		Walter Scott during his service in the U.S. Coast Guard
File:Michael Thomas Slager.jpeg Michael Slager in April 2015		File:Officer Michael Thomas Slager.jpg Michael Slager in an undated official NCPD photo

―Mandruss ☎ 10:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For a somewhat different reason, I am in favour of option 2: The US Flag behind Slager underlines the fact that the murder shooting happened at the hands of a person officially acting on behalf of the country, not just any common criminal. This is after all what makes this case notable. Lklundin (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, we're weighing-in here, too? Well, I already have Option 2 lined up in my edit (which should be done shortly), though I won't submit it until some consensus is made. I prefer Option 2 because it is the most NPOV we can get here. Slager, despite having a booking mugshot, is not a criminal and he has not been found guilty—at least not yet, but may never be on either account. Both images are dated and until Slager is charged convicted with first-degree murder (if he is charged convicted at all), and/or until a more recent quality image of Scott has surfaced, I believe Option 2 is the best option by far. At least save Option 1 for once we find another image of Scott, or once Slager has been charged convicted (in which case, use the official mugshot). ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose the mug shot even after a conviction, per NPOV. We'll deal with that if and when it happens. By the way, Slager has already been charged. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, wrong terminology! I'll blame that on my tiredness. I've edited the text above. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The only comment I have is be sure as hell that they're in public domain. There are users whose only activity on wikipedia is nominating files for deletion. Myopia123 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why I asked for expert opinions. If it's not PD, or my rationale is defective, I suspect it will be gone before we reach consensus to include it. If it survives that long, it's probably ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in addtion to PD any sufficiently permissive license would be OK. And the problem is not that dedicated users make sure to delete material that is violating copyright law, but rather the risk of a lawsuit when such material is _not_ deleted. (And the solution to that problem is a copyright reform). Lklundin (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I hardly think the City of North Charleston is going to sue Wikipedia for including a photo that they have previously released (released, not leaked) to the media and that has been used on dozens (hundreds?) of other web pages. Even if they objected for some reason, they would notify us of the alleged violation first, and we would no doubt take it down immediately without a fight. The risk of a lawsuit is pretty much nil. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Option 2 is obviously better, if the PD or fair use for the police photo passes scrutiny. It it does not, the mug shot can be used. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have consensus, or is more input necessary? Cwobeel, Mandruss, Gaijin42, Lklundin, and I all appear to favor Option 2. Myopia123 doesn't appear to have any preference and I'm not sure about WWGB or Bus stop's respective opinions. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would opt for the picture of Michael Slager in juxtaposition to the American flag. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer the parallelism of the two uniformed images. WWGB (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's let it percolate a couple of days at least. There's no rush. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Second that. Also, it will give time to image patrollers to review the PD/fair use on Slager's photo.- Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for being hasty. Still new to all this. Well, I'll submit my edit (and new section) without the image changes, then. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, you are doing well and we welcome newcomers! Thanks for your contributions. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• We need a picture of him in his police uniform, that's what he had on when this took place. We also need to find a more recent picture of Walter Scott. Dream Focus 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• What about a screenshot of slager from one of his many dashcam videos? Those are definitely Public Domain and hopefully good enough quality.Myopia123 (talk)

The dashcam video honestly appears far too low quality for us to use. It would be fuzzy and look more like a snapshot (which, I guess, it literally is) than an actual photograph. I still think Option 2 is better at this time, if only until we get updated images of both. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

For a recent photo, we have the mug shot. But as we will likely include only one photo, the PD photo may do, if it stands the scrutiny of our image patrollers. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can Slager's dropping of an object be called a 'throw down' ?

The article currently has one source supporting the statement: "The video shows that Slager ran back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picked something up off the ground. Moments later, he dropped the object, apparently the taser, near Scott's body." I simplified a contribution from one editor to follow the above up with another source, supporting this statement: 'Dropping a weapon near the body of an unarmed suspect is a form of police misconduct known as a "throw down" used to justify the shooting.' This additional explanation was reverted with the summary: 'pure synthesis, no reliable source calling this incident a "throwdown"'. I am unsure if this revert is justified. The two different sentences are each supported by their own source, so no combination of sources, per WP:SYNTH. Let's assume that indeed there are currently no reliable sources calling Sclager's actions 'throw-down'. My question then is: Does Sclager's dropping of what is apparently the taser self-evidently match what the quoted source defines as a 'throw down' close enough that we can use the term here? Because in that case, I see no reason for the revert. Lklundin (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

All we can tell from the video is that Slager retrieved an article and placed it near Scott. For all we know, it might have been Scott's wallet. How does that constitute a "throwdown". The assumption that it was a Taser, and his intention was to create a throwdown situation, is speculative. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The juxtaposition is the problem, Lklundin. That it was the Taser is not clear enough to make the assertion (or implication) that any throw-down occurred, in my opinion. Mentioning anything about throw-down is such an implication. (I think it probably was the Taser, especially considering that he was later seen apparently picking the object up and stowing it somewhere on his left hip, which was on his side opposite the camera. But that's OR and beside the point.) BTW, it's Slager, not Sclager, just in case you need to refer to him by name in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, there are no reports of other objects being recovered from around Scott's body, so if a Taser was found there and nothing else was found there, then there is really not much research into concluding that the dropped object was the Taser. Regardless of what Sclager actually dropped, the mere fact that he is moving an object at what has to be considered and investigated as a crime scene, is incriminating - and as a police officer he should know that. But let us just stick to what the sources report (and not just 'All we can tell from the video'). In describing the drop the article had the phrase 'apparently the taser', but this turned out to not be supported by the quoted source, and actual, current sources are vague (e.g. 'possibly the Taser'). So I agree to not mention the 'throw down'. It can always be reintroduced if reliable sources report the drop as such. Lklundin (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The only thing we can do is report what the written reliable sources say. We cannot look at a video and make editorial decisions about what we think we see in the video.--MONGO 12:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ummm ... Slager. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this edit by Lklundin. Without "possibly the Taser", any mention of an object just seems like an irrelevant detail and might as well be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree too; "possibly the Taser" is what most sources report or imply. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated news story citations (among other things)

So I just went through and filled in some citation information, among other changes. As I was doing so, however, I noticed that some of the sources being cited, in particular [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11] (see changes in title names, and grayed text at the bottom of each NYT article) have changed and have no archived copy of the original. This was also updated one day later, past the date it was originally accessed, though the contents appear largely the same. I can dig up the current citation numbers if needed. I have filled in all the other citations as best I could, and I don't think there are any changes on any of them (none from what I could see) but I have not done so with these yet. Should I proceed with any editing, or all, of these sources? I'm concerned that the original reports may have been different, but I can't seem to find any archive of them. I'm new to all this, so any input is appreciated.

Also, if any of my changes in this last edit are an issue, feel free to revert them or discuss them here. If you'd rather not go through the painstaking process of reverting some of the technical edits I made (such as reverting some of the retrieval dates on the citations), let me know what you believe should be changed and I have no problem atoning for my sins and doing the work myself. I will be going offline soon until later tonight (UTC-6) or possibly tomorrow, though, so any such edits may have to wait. If there are a lot of problems with my edit which seriously undermine the article, and it's too much work to change it, simply revert my entire edit for now and we can discuss it when I'm available. I know this is a big edit (and I probably should have broken it up), but I wanted to get it all done.

Also, ignore "fixed image template (was comment template, intentional?), changed positions of photos;" in the summary. I forgot to edit that out. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the big edit, I'm not sure what you're doing in some places. You modified accessdates to today's date, and you replaced at least one refname with a full citation for the same source. Are you aware that a ref title should be as it was on the accessdate, not necessarily what it is today? Rather than go through and find and fix individual things, I'd be more comfortable reverting the edit (while it's still undo-able) and taking things slower. Anyone? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. My main point was using the VisualEditor to specify and structure the citation information using the templates available, and to start the BRD process. Now that I was bold, and now that you'll probably revert this, we can discuss these changes. If you think the current citations should stay as-is without any of my editing, then that's fine, though I do believe some of the information I added may be worthwhile to keep. I suspected that the ref title should stay as it was the day it was on access date, but I wasn't sure, so I didn't make any changes to those which had changed titles. I don't think any of the changes to titles I did make was a problem, though. In fact, I pretty much avoided the titles for the most part. As for the accessdates, I didn't know whether I should change them because I just accessed them, or leave the older date. I only changed access dates on the citations where none of the source information appeared different upon most recent access, and where no recent updates on the source occurred (if it did, I listed it above). I otherwise retained the accessdates where I thought it should be. I couldn't find any policies or guidelines about this, so I assumed I should just use my best judgment. I guess my best judgment wasn't really what was best for the article. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

yes, revert and Nøkkenbuer, please do one edit at the time and go slower, thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just didn't want to clog up the history page with a dozen or so edits, which I've been prone to do in the past, so I tried to do it all at once. I don't really know which is the preferred method, since I see both happen before. I couldn't find any policy or guidelines in this regard, so I just tried to do it all at once. In the future, I'll keep the edits to small or single changes. Thanks for the advice. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

An accessdate should be the date that the editor used the source to support article content, and shouldn't change unless you feel like reverifying the source material. And there's the matter of modifying <ref name=NBCNews.mourners/> to a full citation, thus creating a redundant citation instead of reusing one elsewhere in the article. Yes, little edits are more manageable I think, although many seem to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed what I thought was a duplicate or two, so I cleaned those out. I didn't know I created one, too. I was wondering where I saw "Chuck, Elizabeth" before, but couldn't find it in the references (I blame VisualEditor). That's my bad. If you want, you could look over what changes I did make in the edit and note which ones should be changed. I'll promptly change them and resubmit the revised edit. That is, assuming you want to keep any of my changes. For example, if you want me to revert most or all the access dates I changed back to their original dates, I can do that. If you'd rather me not hyphenate "first-degree murder", I can remove that change. If you want me to remove some of the citation data I added, I can do that, too. I can also delete that duplicate citation entry. If not, and you'd rather just keep my edit reverted and maintain the current status quo, then... Well, that's your decision. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

if you want me to revert most or all the access dates I changed back to their original dates, I can do that. I reverted the entire edit yesterday per the above discussion, so one of us is confused.
Few of us, if any others working on this article, use VisualEditor, and many including me have never even seen it. So we may experience somewhat of a communication problem. On another article we had a local convention for coding refnames. The convention included omitting quotation marks around the refname, but one editor kept putting quotes around already-existing refnames. It took us awhile to figure out that VE was doing that without the editor's knowledge or choice. So, to some extent, we're editing in different worlds and may have difficulty understanding each other's perspectives. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I use VisualEditor because I'm still trying to learn how to edit in source. I occasionally edit in source, but typically stick to VE since it's easier for me to understand. I understand that my entire edit has been reverted, but I could make changes to my edit in source before resubmitting it. After we have reached consensus on what to keep or change in my edit, I can make these changes and resubmit it. If you'd rather not keep any of the changes I suggested in my edit, then I guess I'll just go back to WikiGnoming. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be easier (for me, at least) for you to take one type of change at a time, discuss it here, and then do it if agreement is reached. For one example we could start with, you're adding wikilinks around some citation parameters; I don't do that myself, and I think I'm in the majority, but I don't object to it if someone else wishes to do it, and I think I'm in the majority there too. You could do all of those in one edit, then discuss the next proposed type of edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 'wikilinks around some citation parameters', I like to see them for the parameters that help to determine the reliability of the source, e.g. author, website, work, publisher, etc. I agree that doing one type of change per edit is a good idea, certainly for high-profile articles. Lklundin (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I guess I'll just start over and try to fix/fill each source once per edit. Is that fine? Do you, or anyone here, have any recommendations? For example, if you think I should not wikilink some of the paramaters more than once (e.g., only wikilink "CNN" once, "The New York Times" once), I can do that. If you don't mind me asking, what—if anything—should be done about the sources I linked above? They are cited in the article, but their original pages weren't archived (to my knowledge) and the source content has since changed. Should I leave them be, or should I update them? I really appreciate your patience and help, Mandruss (and everyone else) by the way. I know it must be frustrating dealing with a new editor, but I'm grateful that you all are trying to work with me. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 10:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

try to fix/fill each source once per edit seems contrary to doing one type of change, article-wide, in each edit. So I'm confused again on that point.
No, it would be a really bad idea to link each news outlet only once. Articles are too dynamic, even after they quiet down considerably, and that rule wouldn't last long. Either link all of them or none of them, and per Lklundin I'm fine with linking all of them. I do think it's important to be consistent within the article, without feeling compelled to monitor the article's updates forever to maintain the consistency.
As for the articles you linked above, the first one has been archived 41 times at archive.org, so I'm not understanding the issue there. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I thought that one problem with my edit was that it made many changes. Most of those changes were to the citations. If I were to break up my edit into smaller edits, wouldn't that mean I should change one or two citations at a time, so they could be reverted and discussed separately? Am I mistaken somewhere?

As for the archive, I am astonished that the first link has been archived so many times. I guess I was doing something wrong, or I broke the link, because when I searched for archives it said that none could be found. Well, seeing as that one (and probably many of the others) is archived, what is the policy here? Should the title be that of the current article, or the archived one? Should the archived link be the link to the first posting, when it wasn't updated? Or should I compare the different archives to see which one among them is best? For example, should I choose the second archive instance over the original because the only update was to copyediting in the source, but no actual content change? Maybe I'm just overthinking all this. What do you advise I do about these citations? Include the archive URL, change some of the info, what? Or would you rather change them yourself, since you're almost certainly more experienced here? We could always just leave them as-is, but I think that's a bad idea. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Re the first question: First we suggested keeping edits small. Later I suggested doing one type of change article-wide, after disussing it here; a single edit for all occurrences of that type would be fine, as they're either all correct or all incorrect (since it's been discussed here first, we can assume the former). An example of a type of change would be making wikilinks of citation parameters. Sorry for the confusion.

Re the handling of archives: There are two schools of thought that I think are within guidelines, as follows. I've seen it done two other ways, but I'll omit them.

1. Ignore archives completely until a dead link is discovered. At that time, identify the appropriate archive version and add it to the citation using |archiveurl=. If |archiveurl= is present, |deadurl=yes is the default.
2. Go ahead and add the appropriate archive version to the citation now, using |archiveurl= with |deadurl=no, thereby helping out future editors. If a dead link is discovered, they can simply change |deadurl=no to |deadurl=yes (or remove |deadurl=no) and be done with it. Many editors don't know how to locate an archive version.

I used to use #2, and still do sometimes, but mostly I've become old and tired and go with #1. #1 is by far the most commonly used method because dead links are relatively rare and editors are relatively lazy. However, #2 has the advantage that, even when the source link is still alive, a reader can easily access the archive version to see what the source looked like at the time of use. The choice is yours.

The ref title should match the source at the time the source was used to support the content. This is in keeping with leaving the accessdate alone, as the accessdate says when that occurred. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I usually go for method #2. Do you recommend I select the correct archive along any sort of criteria? For example, should I check for differences between archives, or perhaps use an archive which is closest to the access date (if available)? Of course I could get really technical and check for when the citation was added in the page history in order to determine the exact access date to the second, but I highly doubt that will be necessary in all but the most extreme of cases. Alternatively, should I just select the oldest, most original one for the archive, even in instances where there is an access date? What about on citations which do not list an access date? Just pick the oldest ones? I hate to bombard you with so many questions, but any help is appreciated. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are overthinking things. The articles changed, but did they change in a way that no longer backs the statements they are supporting? If not there is no issue. If you want to add an archive as a bookkeeping action, just add the newest one. Only if the source has issued a material correction for us that our citation is now invalid is there an issue. In that case, the correct action is NOT to find an old archive that supports our statement, its to update our statement with the most recent information. In actuality, giving users the "live" version is better, because even if our version is wrong, they will get linked to the most updated info, where they could have a chance to notice the discrepancy, and correct our content. The archive is only really useful if we expect their link to go dead (which is a real issue, but don't let that get in the way of the encyclopedia itself). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I posed this question on some board a long time ago. The feedback I got was that we needn't keep going back to sources to see if they have changed in a way that affects our content, since who has the time? Who does that? The accessdate is what's important. If a specific piece of content comes into question, that's a different matter. At least that's how I understood the feedback at the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding as well, Keep it simple, folks! - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nøkkenbuer, use the earliest archive version that is on or after the accessdate. If accessdate is missing, skip it; in the relatively unlikely event that the source link dies, another editor can figure it out then. It's not an exact science, references are a fuzzy and messy business in general, and I'll wager you'll end up old and tired like the rest of us anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it took me some time to research this, and this was originally to Gaijin42, but I guess I'll pose this to you (though anyone can respond, of course):

I was worried that I was. As for the archives: sometimes, the information has changed, though not always significantly. Compare the original archive with the latest archive of the first link I provided above. Some significant details, as well as the title, have been changed. This archive is the last one from April 8, the date at specified in the citation's access date. Even this differs from the earliest archive from April 8, such as the title and specifying that Scott was shot in the back (which was later reverted in a later update). If we take into account when the citation was first added with a specified access date (it was added previously, but with no access date), then we would use the first archive, since all archives up to and including the closest one to the access date (which is the last one of April 7, and not on April 8, since the page was not archived before access on April 8 at 2:09 UTC) appear to be broken—at least, for me. Out of all these possibilities, which would you (or anyone reading this) recommend we use for the archive of the first citation? Or, in your opinion, should we even archive this first link? If we don't, shouldn't update the link title and access date, since they refer to an older version of the article?

Given the tone which has developed since the time I began typing all that, I suspect the response will be "you're overthinking it again". ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't make that value judgment, but you're certainly thinking more than I'm used to thinking, and I haven't known editors to go back and check other editors' work, when there is no particular reason to question it. So, speaking for myself, you're asking me how you should do something that I've never done before, and I have no answer. You're just amazingly advanced for a 40-day editor, and it's a bit overwhelming. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been reading a lot of the policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia, and tried to familiarize myself with some of the tools. Over the years, I've also edited as an IP on occasion, and I've lurked the talk pages for a while before actually contributing. When I finally decided it was time to create an account, I did so about 40 or so days ago. I wanted to make sure I was somewhat prepared to actually become a Wikipedian editor, since I consider that to be a big task. Maybe I overprepared, or maybe I'm just idealizing Wikipedian editorship, I dunno. I do have more time on my hands than I'd like to admit, however, so I've used these 40 days to the most I could. For these reasons, I'm a "new user" in the sense that I am new to participating on Wikipedia. I've been using Wikipedia for years, though, and I've been "on" Wikipedia as in reading some of the talk pages for many months. Only in the past 40 days have I finally stepped up and became an active member of Wikipedia. I hope that makes sense.

Arb break

But anyway, back to the topic: yeah I'm probably overthinking things. This is the change I made to the first citation. Do you think this is fine? If so, I could continue and just fill in the citations in chunks (or all together). Not that this is particularly important, but it's all I really know how to do at this time. I'm not very good at adding information to an article, only tweaking current info. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nøkkenbuer: Can you do the wikilinks in citations first? It's something that's uncontroversial and doesn't require me to think right now.

But I'm not real comfortable with the use of VE for extensive changes to refs. It necessarily imposes its developers' own arbitrary ideas about coding, such as how it uses spaces in citation parameters, the aforementioned unnecessary quotes around refnames, and so on. It looks like it does all of this with any ref it touches for any reason, which I suppose makes sense from a programming perspective. If you used VE to make all the wikilinks, it would effectively convert the entire article to VE-format refs. That's not particularly appealing considering that some of us disagree with some aspects of it. In the proverbial nutshell, VE does not (yet?) play well in a mixed environment. How would you feel about adding the wikilinks the "old way"? At the very least it would be good experience; I think everybody should learn to drive a stick first, then an automatic if they choose to. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I can make changes to the citations later, when we're all more available to do so. I appreciate your guidance. As for using VE, I can try to use source editing if you'd like. Is this better, Mandruss? On VE, I like it because it's much easier to understand for someone new to source coding, but I don't understand why it adds those extra spaces or quotation marks. Those spaces can be beneficial from the perspective of someone knowing what goes where while source coding, but then again you usually collapse it into a single line and remove the spaces afterward, anyway. Seeing as VE is meant for users to work without using source, I don't see why they keep those spaces. As for the quotation marks, I have no clue. It's useful to distinguishing when a refname begins and ends, but it isn't really necessary, and only adds more bytes. Maybe I'll report it as a bug/problem/suggestion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply that I don't like any spaces, but my personal preference as to where to put spaces differs from VE's. But that's neither here nor there at this point, if you're only doing the wikilinks for now. Don't worry about the rest. (BTW, I'm still talking about wikilinks in citations. Re-reading your last, I'm unclear whether you're on the same page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want, I could remove all the unnecessary spaces in the citations? And yes, we're on the same page. After I finish the wikilinking, I'll submit it. I can either submit it with all unnecessary spaces removed (which means no VE on this article, since it'll add spaces), or to just leave them as-is. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue what "submit it" means. I assumed that was a VE concept/term, and I thought we just agreed to use the old (non-VE) editor for this. So I'm confused again. What I'd prefer is that you (1) use the old editor to add the wikilink brackets around the appropriate citation parameters, and (2) leave everything else unchanged for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, by "submit it" I mean submit the edit by saving the page. Yes, I'm using the source editing now, but my question was whether to remove any and all unnecessary spaces in the citations. It wouldn't impact how the page is displayed, but it'll remove some of the bytes and clean up the citations. My point about VE is that if I go ahead and remove all the spaces, it'll make VE editing of the citations problematic because (like you noted above) it'll inject more unnecessary spaces. Thus, we probably shouldn't use VE to edit the citations on this article. But so be it, I'll just wikilink in the citations, and I'll leave any and all spaces I find in the citation source code. It makes my job easier, at least. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The worst possible thing you could do to a citation would be to remove all unnecessary spaces, for multiple reasons. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is that? I was testing it in the preview and I noticed no problems. There is a lot of inconsistent spacing throughout the citations, none of which actually helps with the parameters. I didn't remove any of the spaces, though. You can see what I did in my most recent edit here. I hope that's alright. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Condemnation

The article reads "The shooting was condemned by U.S. senators for South Carolina Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, and Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina.", but there are many more politicians that have condemned it. Why are we singling out just state politicians? I suggest we remove that sentence, or expand to include all politicians that condemned the incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest saying that the shooting was condemned by many in the federal and state governments, and find one source to support that. I think that's sufficient for our purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I assume that we include the state politicians since they are most relevant. We could also add a sentence, such as "Numerous others have also condemned this event" and cite it with various sources detailing the statements of other US politicians. We could add all the names, but I'm concerned that it may turn out to be longer than expected. We could also do what Mandruss suggests above, and just wait for further developments. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering that (1) most of that is political grandstanding, and (2) no politician in his right mind would make a statement defending this shooting, I don't think the information about who said what is very notable or informative. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That was my thinking, too, but I wasn't sure whether I was just being POV. Glad to see we're in agreement. Should remove the sentences for now? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I still think the one general statement was warranted, but whatever. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no problems with a general statement, please re-add. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

After about 20 minutes I gave up trying to find a source to support it, and we're not going to include a string of eight citations for one simple sentence. Willing to let the sentence go as unremarkable. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Backgrounds layout

I guess this is significant enough to discuss. I felt it was important enough to change, and Myopia123 felt it was important enough to change back. So at least two of us feel it's at least that important. Please choose 1, 2, or 3, if you care.

1 - Left, with a {{clear}} just before Slager's section heading

2 - Right, with a {{clear}} just before Slager's section heading

3 - Right, with no {{clear}} ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

1 - Compared to 3, better vertical alignment between Slager's photo and the top of that subsection, at least in my maximized Firefox window, because Scott's section isn't quite long enough for the height of his photo. Nicely abuts the straight right edge of the image with the straight left edge of the text. Looks better overall, imo. In general, I think a judicious mix of left and right is more visually attractive (many magazine layout experts seem to agree). Being encyclopedic does not require being visually boring, and many (a majority of?) GA articles mix left and right. If you like, have a quick browse of the articles linked in Wikipedia:Good articles/History. I looked at four, and all four mixed left and right. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

3/1 - Either could work, though I am more inclined toward 3 because I don't think the {{clear}} improves the article layout, and I think it adds more white space than is needed. 3 is more concise, and allows for better formatting if (and when?) more information is added about either individual. 1 also works, but I feel it may eventually need to be changed anyway as more information is added to the article. Layout 1 was actually my initial choice when I was considering where the images should be placed. I was checking how it looked in preview after the image discussion settled and 1 is closest to what I was planning. Considering it now, however, I think 3 is the best in the long-term. Either could work for now, however, so I'm fine with either choice so long as it isn't 2 (far too much white space). ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually there was an extra blank line in 2's white space. I've updated the link for 2, to point to a corrected version in my sandbox. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but in my opinion, it's still far too much white space caused by the {{clear}} I much prefer 3 or 1. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

3 - I'm using a 28" widescreen monitor, so the {{clear}} only really affect Users with small screens. Anyone check it with a cell phone yet? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Not sure what you mean by "small screen", but it makes a very clear difference on my 15.6" 16:9 screen with maximized browser window. Sorry, I'm smartphone-free. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, Google keeps statistics on average screen size and and resolution used by people that allow for statistics reporting of their computer systems. I haven't checked it lately, but the average computer user was using a 17" (desktop and laptop users). The mobile statistics are kept separately, but with Google's upcoming announcement about giving search ranking preference to websites that are compatible with mobile browsers, that I probably change. Hence the followup question, has anybody checked it with a cell phone? Checking it with a tablet is valid too. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In hindsight, for this purpose, inches and aspect ratio aren't relevant, and I should have just said 1366x768. As for Google, how do you expect that will affect Wikipedia's ranking? Is someone going to sample Wikipedia articles for compatibility on an ongoing basis? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually WP has been a "screen size" autodetect site for quite some time. I don't know the exact setting, but if someone accesses WP with a resolution of a typical phone browset, it redirects to the mobile version. So it should be fine. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer right alignment. I don't see much difference on my screen (27" 2560 x 1440px) with or without clear. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)