Talk:Killing of Walter Scott/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Walter Scott. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
RfC: Races in the lead
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
How should this article's lead treat the races of Slager and Scott? Is RS coverage of direct evidence of racism in this particular shooting required in order to mention races in the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the result here, their races will continue to be mentioned in their respective mini-bio sections. Please !vote 1, 2, or 3, boldfaced. (Note, the terms used for Slager's and Scott's races will be white and black, per sources and prior consensus, and this RfC is not about that question.)
- 1 — omit both races
- 2 — mention only Scott's race
- 3 — mention both races, as per status quo
- 4 — language as shown in #Option 4: Races in the lead
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
- Most RS coverage states the races of Slager and Scott.
- Much RS coverage discusses race issues in North Charleston, including alleged police racial profiling, or in the context of the ongoing national debate about white-cop-on-black killings.
- Some RS coverage attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Survey: Races in the lead
- 4 - as a reasonable compromise. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
1 - We have video of both the traffic stop and the shooting, and at no point does Slager speak to Scott like a racist Southern cop speaks to a black man. Many of us are familiar with the condescending tone that is invariably present, even when no there are no racial slurs or other blatant disrespect. That tone is simply not there. Slager has no racism in his history, as a cop or otherwise; if he did, it would have been reported, and loudly. The question I ask, then, is: Does the mention of races in the lead imply a racism component to this shooting? If the answer is yes, I think the obvious !vote is 1 (or at least 2), regardless of other RS coverage. Per WP:NPOV, we cannot imply something that has not been shown in RS. I believe the answer is yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC) - 3 - This definitely fits into the broader issue of Racial Profiling. Just like all of the individual uprisings in the Middle East fit into the Arab spring and fall of the individual communist states fits into the fall of Communism itself. Whether or not slager himself is a racist, it is clear that there are a lot people who are taking this incident, and many of them are RS's, in that context. To omit it would be to omit what RS's are saying.Myopia123 (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- 3 - Wikipedia editors do not get to pick and choose what is added to articles based on their personal theories on what is relevant or important or what reliable sources should have reported. "Most RS coverage states the races of Slager and Scott." is what we go by. --NeilN talk to me 10:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- 3 or 4 (either would work for me) - Per NeilN. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- 3 - Our job, among others, is to stay true to the sorts of sources that we rely upon to write this article. We don't have the freedom to stray from what is clearly the way that this incident is reported in the predominant number of the sources that we use in this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Addendum: I oppose the indirect language of Option 4. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1/2/4 - My arguments are already detailed in the discussion I initiated about it; I strongly recommend anyone interested in understanding my full views on this matter to peruse the discussion there. Basically, I believe the race specifications in the lead is inessential information to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed. I am also willing to compromise with option 2 in order to break the "X race (victim) vs. Y race (shooter)" pattern. My arguments for why this is at least an improvement can also be found in the discussion linked above. I believe our duty as editors is to interpret the sources when writing in WikiVoice and omit, alter, or rephrase content which may be POV in order to remain neutral and encyclopedic. I believe the race specifications in the lead, at least in its current form, is POV. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- In light of the new Option 4, I am willing to support this in modified form over Options 1 or 2. However, I also support Options 1 and 2 if Option 4 does not reach consensus. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Prefer 1, 4 is acceptable along as its not taken as indication to turn the article into a WP:COATRACK - My reasoning is that the story is about a police shooting incident. Officer involved shootings happen almost daily (unfortunately) in the U.S. Some get significant media coverage, others do not. And the mitigating factor in this case is the existence of the amateur video, the races of the individuals involved are ancillary to the main story.
Racial profiling and unfair treatment of minorities is not unique to South Carolina (again, unfortunately) or the United States for that matter. I was living in Southern California when the Rodney King incident happened. No one was shocked that the police had beaten King,but what made it so sensational was the fact that it was caught on video and made available for the whole world to see. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- So, since "[r]acial profiling and unfair treatment of minorities is not unique to South Carolina … or the United States" we should omit from the lead of our article that one of the individuals is white and the other of the individuals was black? Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Prolly oughta ping Scalhotrod if you want a reply, he may have been just in and out. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Bus stop:, I thought I laid out my reasoning in a fairly straightforward manner. The article is about a shooting incident, something that happens regardless of the color of anyone involved. Furthermore, to expand on this thought, in my opinion there is no need to include the race of either individual in the Lead. If you want to know why, then I would cite that the section that seemingly would deal with and address this aspect (the race of either person involved) is the National impact section, which is currently the smallest section in the article. Since this event is so new, its likely that this section will be expanded. But for the time being, it is what it is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- 3 - Most of the coverage covers it, so to appropriately represent the coverage, it should be mentioned. It's also a part of the ongoing discussion in the USA right now and almost every case of police conduct and excessive force has involved white officers and minority citizens. Again this is also mentioned in most of the coverage. Trying to remove the effect of race as covered by the news organizations from this article is an agenda to misrepresent the news coverage being linked and referenced. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not really. Did you read the original discussion? If not, I really recommend you do. I covered everything you mentioned therein. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, your last sentence is uncalled for. I think we can assume good faith on the part of all editors involved here. Disagreeing with you is not evidence of an agenda. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1. While some try to make a race issue out of everything, this had nothing to do with racism. The news media will always try to get more attention and higher ratings by stirring things up however they can. Dream Focus 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- 4 if not then 3 - a cursory glance at the RS shows that this case is notable on the premise that a white officer killed a fleeing black man. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Continued in Discussion 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- 3 While it is not clear that race had anything to do with the incident itself, it has a lot to do with why the incident became notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is a point I haven't heard yet. I agree that it may have contributed to why it became notable (along with the help of the media), but if that's true, then wouldn't the reasonable thing to do here be include this in the article in the form of content, such as in the National impact section? The races of those involved may have aided its notability, but that doesn't mean we have to specify their races in the lead. We could at least just omit one. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I can also accept 4 Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- 3 - it's been widely reported and everyone will want to know it. Red Slash 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Know what exactly? If you mean the races of those involved, then that is easily available in the biography section. It can also be easily distinguished from the various images used in the article, as well as the video itself. Many who come to the article will probably do so after seeing it on the news or hearing it from another, anyway, and they will likely already know that "a white North Charleston police officer shot and killed a black man". We aren't providing any relevant information by including this in the lead, but we're running the risk of misinterpretation if we keep it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1 - Given that this information will already be included elsewhere on the article page, including it in the lede does not contribute to the article on whole.MichaelProcton (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- My preference is unchanged, but I would take option 4 over 2 or 3.MichaelProcton (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
3, but in modified form - I concur with Mandruss about NPOV, as well as OR for that matter: the status quo as it is right now strongly implies that this is a racism incident. However racism is very difficult to prove, and for me to agree to leave the lead as it is would require much stronger evidence showing that it is a racism incident. However, the fact that RS treats this as a racism incident should definitely be mentioned, and to do this one of course needs to include the races of both Scott and Slager.I favour a sentence describing what happened, followed by a sentence describing why the incident was notable. Example: "The shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, following a daytime traffic stop for a nonfunctioning brake light. Scott was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer. The case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man. Slager originally alleged that Scott had taken his taser and therefore he felt "threatened"; however, after a video surfaced that showed him shoot Scott from behind while Scott was fleeing, Slager was charged with murder." Banedon (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Continued in Discussion 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- 4 is preferable for me. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Based on my admittedly arbitrary scoring system, distributing six votes for each user, I get the following: 3=46%, 4=35%, 1=18%, 2=1%. Option 3 would appear to lead on votes alone, despite being in a slight minority. The rest, obviously, is for the closer. The RfC is one month old today. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I noticed that a bot removed the RfC template as expired. Does that mean we don't get a closer? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've requested closure at the administrator's noticeboard. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion 1: Races in the lead
Moved from Survey.―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A cursory glance at the RS shows that this case is notable on the premise that a white officer killed a fleeing black man. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why should that matter at all? That alone is hardly sufficient reason. We are to report on the facts, not participate in an ongoing debate or comment on the tendencies of certain incidents. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The fact is, a white officer killed a black man. This is stressed in the sources. I think you're seeing things or debates that aren't there. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nøkkenbuer—if we live in a Post-racial America there is no need to mention in the lead that one of the individuals is black and the other is white. I think we are on our way to a "post-racial America" but I don't think we've arrived there yet. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's relevant. Regardless of whether racism is still alive and kicking in the United States, and regardless of whether there was even a racial motivation in this article, unless the races of those involved are notable enough to mention again in the lead (after already being mentioned elsewhere), then I see no reason in keeping either or both. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Like I've already argued, we have no obligation to mimic a word-for-word facsimile of how the sources describe it. Yes, a white officer killed a black man. This could easily be gathered by the biography section and the various images, as well as the video itself. The wording is inflammatory, however, and may give the reader the impression that there is more to it than there really is. I understand that what happened is a fact, but how we convey that fact is the question. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- While we "...have no obligation to mimic a word-for-word facsimile of how the sources describe it...", we do have an obligation to adhere reasonably closely to sources. Our article presently reads, in the lead, "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer." The journalistic sources invariably say something like that, generally in the first sentence of their articles. The reader need not derive something "inflammatory" from that. Our wording is not saying that "...there is more to it..." We don't live in a post-racial America. That is something we can reasonably derive from sources writing about this subject. Our obligation is just to reflect sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, haven't we? We have "an obligation to adhere reasonably close to the source", but I would assume this means the information the provide, not the structure of their sentences. Why are we required to structure our sentences in the same sensationalist manner as the editorials and news articles from which we receive the information? We are an encyclopedia, so our goals and objectives are different. We can still meaningfully convey the races of those involved, and do, through multiple ways. We even have a section or paragraph on most to all shootings discussing media and national impact. It's not like we're whitewashing anything; removing one or both races in the lead would simply lessen the chances of misinterpretation. I don't see any conflict with our duties of reporting what the sources say and refraining from structuring our lead in the same way as said sources. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The contrast in skin color is important. We don't live in a post-racial America. Important facts warrant placement in the lead. We don't use our own opinion to determine which facts are important, rather we defer to sources to show us this. When they use their first sentence to tell us about the contrast in skin color we can derive that this must be "important". Do I think that skin color should be important? Absolutely not. But Wikipedia should not bend to accommodate my sensibilities. Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it is important, then our article will explain why it is believed to be. We don't need an inflammatory sentence structure to accomplish that. Anyway, the reader can easily ascertain the races of those involved by reading the article or checking the biography. The races of those involved are also conspicuous by the images in the article, the video that was provided, and the information in the sources. At this time, there is no reason to place race in the lead. It's not important at all for the article itself; it's only important from a media perspective, or from the perspective of a national debate. We already have a section for that, though, and we are not obliged to facilitate this debate whatsoever, only report on it.
- The contrast in skin color is important. We don't live in a post-racial America. Important facts warrant placement in the lead. We don't use our own opinion to determine which facts are important, rather we defer to sources to show us this. When they use their first sentence to tell us about the contrast in skin color we can derive that this must be "important". Do I think that skin color should be important? Absolutely not. But Wikipedia should not bend to accommodate my sensibilities. Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well, haven't we? We have "an obligation to adhere reasonably close to the source", but I would assume this means the information the provide, not the structure of their sentences. Why are we required to structure our sentences in the same sensationalist manner as the editorials and news articles from which we receive the information? We are an encyclopedia, so our goals and objectives are different. We can still meaningfully convey the races of those involved, and do, through multiple ways. We even have a section or paragraph on most to all shootings discussing media and national impact. It's not like we're whitewashing anything; removing one or both races in the lead would simply lessen the chances of misinterpretation. I don't see any conflict with our duties of reporting what the sources say and refraining from structuring our lead in the same way as said sources. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- While we "...have no obligation to mimic a word-for-word facsimile of how the sources describe it...", we do have an obligation to adhere reasonably closely to sources. Our article presently reads, in the lead, "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer." The journalistic sources invariably say something like that, generally in the first sentence of their articles. The reader need not derive something "inflammatory" from that. Our wording is not saying that "...there is more to it..." We don't live in a post-racial America. That is something we can reasonably derive from sources writing about this subject. Our obligation is just to reflect sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Nøkkenbuer—if we live in a Post-racial America there is no need to mention in the lead that one of the individuals is black and the other is white. I think we are on our way to a "post-racial America" but I don't think we've arrived there yet. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The fact is, a white officer killed a black man. This is stressed in the sources. I think you're seeing things or debates that aren't there. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why should that matter at all? That alone is hardly sufficient reason. We are to report on the facts, not participate in an ongoing debate or comment on the tendencies of certain incidents. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you bring up "post-racial America" but I don't see why that matters at all. Why must we politicize this article and inextricably use it as social commentary when that is not the role of Wikipedia? Wikipedia should not bend to accommodate anyone's "sensibilities". Our only duty is to collect and convey information. The races of those involved, as well as whatever national impact the media has contrived, is detailed in the article already. Specifying the races in the lead is not only redundant, but inflammatory when done in the way it has been. At least with the shooting of Trayvon Martin, race was a widely-discussed factor in it with a lot of confusing details surrounding it, so at least then the specification of both parties' races is justified. Not so in this article, nor in many of the others. The least that could be done is to omit one of the races in order to break the forced comparison of the two. It's not our job to engage in national debates through our articles, and it is POV to do so. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is virtual unanimity in the importance that sources place on skin color. Almost all sources start out their articles by pointing out the skin color of both. Your argument is that we should not point out skin color in the lead. It is an interesting position to take but I do not agree with it. Bus stop (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- The importance they place on the race of those involved has little to nothing to do with the case, though. Virtually every source uses the races of those involved as a vehicle to expand into the larger national debate. In other words, they only mention the races so as to serve as a premise for their opinion pieces about racial tensions in the United States. Good for them, I guess, and we can report that in the article. It still doesn't justify the specification of both parties' race in the lead, though.
- There is virtual unanimity in the importance that sources place on skin color. Almost all sources start out their articles by pointing out the skin color of both. Your argument is that we should not point out skin color in the lead. It is an interesting position to take but I do not agree with it. Bus stop (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you bring up "post-racial America" but I don't see why that matters at all. Why must we politicize this article and inextricably use it as social commentary when that is not the role of Wikipedia? Wikipedia should not bend to accommodate anyone's "sensibilities". Our only duty is to collect and convey information. The races of those involved, as well as whatever national impact the media has contrived, is detailed in the article already. Specifying the races in the lead is not only redundant, but inflammatory when done in the way it has been. At least with the shooting of Trayvon Martin, race was a widely-discussed factor in it with a lot of confusing details surrounding it, so at least then the specification of both parties' races is justified. Not so in this article, nor in many of the others. The least that could be done is to omit one of the races in order to break the forced comparison of the two. It's not our job to engage in national debates through our articles, and it is POV to do so. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but I don't think we should simply read the sources and transplant their rhetoric onto the article. They are news outlets, journalists, and columnists; they write editorials and news reports. This is an encyclopedia; we convey information in as neutral and disinterested a way as possible. Our aims and objectives are conflicting and, at times, contradictory. We must consider why the sources are mentioning the races of those involved, and why they do so in the way they did. Is it to convey information, or to draw a comparison to serve as fueling national debate? Are they trying to inform us of the event, or are they trying to structure their headlines to be as sensationalist and attention-grabbing as possible? In my opinion, I think the way they structure their sentences, and how they present the information is POV because of why they do it. We can still convey the same exact information as the sources, but we don't need to do it in the same way. They way they do it is POV. That's not how Wikipedia does it, so we shouldn't follow their lead. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion 2: Races in the lead
Moved from Survey.―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Mandruss about NPOV, as well as OR for that matter: the status quo as it is right now strongly implies that this is a racism incident. However racism is very difficult to prove, and for me to agree to leave the lead as it is would require much stronger evidence showing that it is a racism incident. However, the fact that RS treats this as a racism incident should definitely be mentioned, and to do this one of course needs to include the races of both Scott and Slager. I favour a sentence describing what happened, followed by a sentence describing why the incident was notable. Example: "The shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, following a daytime traffic stop for a nonfunctioning brake light. Scott was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer. The case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man. Slager originally alleged that Scott had taken his taser and therefore he felt "threatened"; however, after a video surfaced that showed him shoot Scott from behind while Scott was fleeing, Slager was charged with murder." Banedon (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I could maybe support your modification with one modificaton. "Although no racism has been shown in the case, it has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man." Or, must we have sources that explicitly state that no racism has been shown? Is it OR or editorializing to accurately summarize reliable sources in that manner? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I believe there is no need to mention "racism" in the lede or anywhere else for that matter. But we ought to mention the races of the protagonists as that is what the sources tell us. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that "racism" probably shouldn't be mentioned in the lead unless it is done so in a very specific manner, but I've already explained why I don't think we need to follow the sources in this respect. Since you were already there for the original discussion, however, I trust you've already read all (or most) of my responses, so there's no need to reiterate them. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, Mandruss. I like Banedon's idea, but I'm very concerned that it could be seen as original research or itself POV. If we clarify why this case is notable so explicitly while still omitting the races, that might run the risk of giving readers the impression that we're asserting that race is not a factor. Although it may be true, most reliable sources either speculate on race being a factor or ignore that entirely in favor of using the case as a vehicle for fueling national debate regarding racism. My proposal was intended to simply omit unnecessary information to prevent misinterpretation; this proposal keeps the information and adds further detail, bringing us closer into the very territory I was hoping to avoid—namely, the territory of us implying race either is or is not a factor when we simply don't know. I'm always for considering alternatives, and I like the idea, but I'm worried this alternative could be seen as POV itself, even though it's not intended to be. Naturally, it's up to consensus to decide, though. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think we'll need RS to say no racism was shown to write that into the article. The racism overtones are definitely there; that's why RS keeps mentioning the races of both Scott and Slager. Also @Nøkkenbuer, can you elaborate on why what I wrote might be NPOV? It doesn't omit the races; that's present in "a white police officer fatally shot a black man". It doesn't assert that race is not a factor either (at least I don't see where that assertion could come from). Banedon (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- We should resist the urge to tamper with assertions as made by the preponderance of sources. I don't see the "racism overtones" that some of you are bothered by. We most definitely do not read sources saying that racism is absent. It is a fact that one man is black and the other is white. That is the point made by all the sources. We should transplant that fact into the lead of our article. Sources generally give that information prominence of place, such as the first paragraph or even the first sentence of their article. There should not be a huge amount of handwringing over reporting facts and giving weight in approximate proportion to the weight given by almost all sources. The reader is perfectly capable of evaluating the words as written. They read that a black man and a white man are involved but they do not read that there is underlying racism. We specifically should not be altering this sort of information. By elaborating on the story in some of the ways being discussed we would be entering the realm of editorialization. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- By 'racism overtones' I was describing the entire affair. However you seem to be objecting to how I perceive "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer" as NPOV, so I'll direct this at that. The point is that the races of the two people are not usually given unless they matter, and they don't usually matter unless racism is involved. The same applies to other things such as height, educational background, and so on. The text therefore exhibits a clear implication that the article is about racism, something which according to the question in the RfC is unsubstantiated.
- We should resist the urge to tamper with assertions as made by the preponderance of sources. I don't see the "racism overtones" that some of you are bothered by. We most definitely do not read sources saying that racism is absent. It is a fact that one man is black and the other is white. That is the point made by all the sources. We should transplant that fact into the lead of our article. Sources generally give that information prominence of place, such as the first paragraph or even the first sentence of their article. There should not be a huge amount of handwringing over reporting facts and giving weight in approximate proportion to the weight given by almost all sources. The reader is perfectly capable of evaluating the words as written. They read that a black man and a white man are involved but they do not read that there is underlying racism. We specifically should not be altering this sort of information. By elaborating on the story in some of the ways being discussed we would be entering the realm of editorialization. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think we'll need RS to say no racism was shown to write that into the article. The racism overtones are definitely there; that's why RS keeps mentioning the races of both Scott and Slager. Also @Nøkkenbuer, can you elaborate on why what I wrote might be NPOV? It doesn't omit the races; that's present in "a white police officer fatally shot a black man". It doesn't assert that race is not a factor either (at least I don't see where that assertion could come from). Banedon (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I believe there is no need to mention "racism" in the lede or anywhere else for that matter. But we ought to mention the races of the protagonists as that is what the sources tell us. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Let me try giving examples. Suppose I'm telling you a joke, and the first sentence is:
- 1. "Two people meet in a bar." In this case you can expect that the the joke operates on minimal background of these two people (you only need to know they're human).
- 2. "Two men meet in a bar." This is actually rather similar to #1, since in English it's quite common to use "man" and "person" interchangeably (hence expressions like 'time and tide wait for no man' and gender neutral language). You can still expect that the joke operates on a minimal background of these two people.
- 3. "A man meets a woman in a bar." In this case you can expect the joke requires knowledge of the two genders to work; in particular, one of the two parties must be female.
- 4. "A white man meets a black woman in a bar." In this case you need knowledge of their races (although not necessarily gender - it's just hard to describe a person's race without also giving the gender).
- 5. "A white, male forklift operator of height 1.8m, weight 85kg and powerful physique meets a black female accountant of 33-27-30 measurements in a bar." I hope you get the point. These things may all be facts, but if they're not relevant, they wouldn't have been stated. If they're not relevant the extra facts simply make the sentence clunky for no good reason.
- Back to the sentence. "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer." Since race clearly doesn't affect the lethality of a shooting, whoever wrote that would not have inserted the races unless there is a racism component. The implication is very clear, at least to me. For the same reason we do not write "Scott, an unmarried 50-year old father of four children, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a 34-year old North Charleston police officer and former coast guard", so too should we omit the races, even though the races are 'facts' that have been reported in RS.
- I'm sorry I can't explain it better. I encountered something similar not so long ago, and came to the conclusion that either an editor is sensitive to the nuances of English, or (s)he is not. Discussing such nuances is very tangential and, in my opinion, rather missing the point. That's why I proposed what I did. It solves the POV / OR issue, yet leaves the races, and both the people who perceive the racism implication and who don't should be happy with it. Banedon (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- But your proposal still states the races in the lead, without a clarifying clause such as I suggested, which still implies a racism component. To some extent your latest comments argue against your own suggested language. My feelings are ambivalent in this matter, and I took my position largely because I knew it would be a minority position. Just two days earlier, as the NPOVN discussion was wrapping up, I was leaning in the other direction. There are good arguments for both sides, and I can totally relate to "sources say it, so we should say it"; we apply that reasoning routinely, and legitimately. My problem is that it appears to be in conflict with NPOV in this case. The more correct reasoning is, "sources say it, and it's relevant, so we should say it". The relevance test is something we do as part of routine editorial judgment. Does the fact that sources mention the races 99% of the time automatically make them pass the relevance test, if the sources haven't supported their relevance? Obviously editorial judgment is a proper part of what we do, but how much thinking is too much thinking? I don't know the answer; hence my ambivalence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. Regarding the topic of this new proposal and your suggested amendment: I can see where you're coming from, Mandruss, though I'm somewhat concerned that the clause you added to the proposal could be itself interpreted as saying something more. Although it's true that there doesn't appear to be any racism involved here, a lot of RS are treating it like it is. Unless we have a RS supporting the claim that "no racism has been shown in the case", I'm worried that it could be considered original research. Perhaps it could be reworded to be more specific, such as:
("racism in law enforcement" could be replaced with something else if another subject is more appropriate.) Maybe not the best sentence, but I think something along those lines could work. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)This case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man. This has in turn fueled national debate regarding racism in law enforcement.
- I completely agree with you. Regarding the topic of this new proposal and your suggested amendment: I can see where you're coming from, Mandruss, though I'm somewhat concerned that the clause you added to the proposal could be itself interpreted as saying something more. Although it's true that there doesn't appear to be any racism involved here, a lot of RS are treating it like it is. Unless we have a RS supporting the claim that "no racism has been shown in the case", I'm worried that it could be considered original research. Perhaps it could be reworded to be more specific, such as:
- This is an excellent explanation and it really captures what I was thinking when I started all this. I think the race specifications in the lead, in its current state, is unnecessary and could be interpreted as meaning something more. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- But your proposal still states the races in the lead, without a clarifying clause such as I suggested, which still implies a racism component. To some extent your latest comments argue against your own suggested language. My feelings are ambivalent in this matter, and I took my position largely because I knew it would be a minority position. Just two days earlier, as the NPOVN discussion was wrapping up, I was leaning in the other direction. There are good arguments for both sides, and I can totally relate to "sources say it, so we should say it"; we apply that reasoning routinely, and legitimately. My problem is that it appears to be in conflict with NPOV in this case. The more correct reasoning is, "sources say it, and it's relevant, so we should say it". The relevance test is something we do as part of routine editorial judgment. Does the fact that sources mention the races 99% of the time automatically make them pass the relevance test, if the sources haven't supported their relevance? Obviously editorial judgment is a proper part of what we do, but how much thinking is too much thinking? I don't know the answer; hence my ambivalence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bus stop: I sympathize, and even agree, with your point that the reader is capable of drawing their own conclusions. We may be undermining this, however, if our wording or information is tainted with bias. Although the current wording may not be intended to be biased, it can certainly be perceived that way, and that's what I immediately detected when I read it. In my opinion, the way we currently have the lead worded is editorialization. We've transplanted the sensationalist wording of our sources (which are themselves POV editorials) onto our article. The lead already reads like an editorial; my proposal is meant to remove this bias. Banedon's proposal, in my opinion, is the opposite of editorializing because it reports the facts in a direct, explicit, and disinterested tone. Maybe I'm just the outlier here, but I'm not seeing any editorializing in Banedon's suggestion. If anything, it cures the editorializing already present in the lead. It's flawed, in my opinion, but the flaw does not lie in its wording. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
our sources (which are themselves POV editorials)
- Please, let's not confuse things further by misusing the word "editorials". This is an editorial. This is not an editorial. We rarely use editorials as references, and never in Wikipedia's voice. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)- Mainstream press editorials (e.g. LA Times, NYT, WaPo, WSJ) are fair game, provided we use full attribution - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I apologize for misusing the word. I was using it to refer to any article which posits an opinion or interpretation of events that is not universally accepted. Many of the articles we use do not simply report the facts, but expand on them and pad them with opinions, commentary, and interpretations of the event which skew it into POV territory. Although they may not be editorials per se, they are nevertheless more than just news reports and they contain more than just verified facts. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- And Nøkkenbuer, if you actually view all mainstream RS as editorial in nature, that would help explain why your viewpoint on this differs so much from that of most editors. All RS sources, like all individuals, suffer from some bias, but the good ones try hard to limit their POV to the op-ed page. To try to correct for their bias is to introduce our own, and it's not what we do. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said in my response immediately above yours here, I do consider most to all the articles to be POV. They don't just report the facts; they include opinions, commentary, and interpretations of the event which skew the facts into meaning something more. I agree that we all suffer from some bias, but I don't believe I'm trying to correct it by introducing my own.The point of my initiating this discussion is to shed light on what I believe to be bias that we inadvertently received from the sources and unintentionally conveyed in WikiVoice. The bias, in my opinion, lies in the structure and wording (syntax?) of the lead and where the races are specified therein. I argued against specifying the races in the lead, or at least omitting one, in order to break what I believe to be this POV, since I wasn't sure how to include the races in the lead while still remaining neutral and disinterested. I think Banedon's proposal, modified to be more specific, could work by retaining the race specifications in the lead and dispelling the bias I think is present. Seeing as the proposal came after the RfC already began, however, I'm concerned that it's no longer available as a viable alternative. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Nøkkenbuer: You may need to re-assess your understanding of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not about reporting "facts", but rather, it is about reporting significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources. Understand that, and you will have an easier time assessing NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that, and I apologize if my response sounds like I don't. I don't see how anything I've said conflicts with that, though. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I usually don't like modifications in the middle of RfCs, but that's because there are usually so many of them. The discussion ends up going in 8 different directions at the same time, and it becomes impossible to reach consensus on anything. In this case, we're considering one modification, and I don't have a problem with making it available as option 4. We could ping people who have already !voted to request that they re-evaluate, and I might go with 4 myself with a little more thought. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think perhaps a modified version of Banedon's proposal is worth suggesting as an additional option? If so, which would you recommend? We could bring forth multiple proposed wordings and discuss the best one to propose as Option 4, or we could just choose one and run with it. I'd recommend something like:
If you think a different modification of Banedon's proposal should be used, or if you think we should not modify Banedon's proposal whatsoever, we can start discussing this in a new subsection dedicated to this new proposal. (I'm concerned that if we discuss it here, it may lead to a whole lot of indenting.) ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)This case has gained national attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man. This in turn has sparked widespread debate regarding racism in law enforcement.
- I think we should limit this RfC strictly to what we do with the words white and black in the lead. Any other changes to the lead could be discussed outside of this RfC, and it seems unlikely we would have enough disagreement there to require another RfC. Therefore I think we should add Banedon's language as option 4 and ping. I'll take care of that if that's what we agree on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that. I'm concerned that people won't change their votes unless Option 4 is to their liking, though, so discussion about it may occur anyway. In any case, I'm fine with us giving this a shot. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should limit this RfC strictly to what we do with the words white and black in the lead. Any other changes to the lead could be discussed outside of this RfC, and it seems unlikely we would have enough disagreement there to require another RfC. Therefore I think we should add Banedon's language as option 4 and ping. I'll take care of that if that's what we agree on. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think perhaps a modified version of Banedon's proposal is worth suggesting as an additional option? If so, which would you recommend? We could bring forth multiple proposed wordings and discuss the best one to propose as Option 4, or we could just choose one and run with it. I'd recommend something like:
- @Nøkkenbuer: You may need to re-assess your understanding of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not about reporting "facts", but rather, it is about reporting significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources. Understand that, and you will have an easier time assessing NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said in my response immediately above yours here, I do consider most to all the articles to be POV. They don't just report the facts; they include opinions, commentary, and interpretations of the event which skew the facts into meaning something more. I agree that we all suffer from some bias, but I don't believe I'm trying to correct it by introducing my own.The point of my initiating this discussion is to shed light on what I believe to be bias that we inadvertently received from the sources and unintentionally conveyed in WikiVoice. The bias, in my opinion, lies in the structure and wording (syntax?) of the lead and where the races are specified therein. I argued against specifying the races in the lead, or at least omitting one, in order to break what I believe to be this POV, since I wasn't sure how to include the races in the lead while still remaining neutral and disinterested. I think Banedon's proposal, modified to be more specific, could work by retaining the race specifications in the lead and dispelling the bias I think is present. Seeing as the proposal came after the RfC already began, however, I'm concerned that it's no longer available as a viable alternative. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Banedon, I apologize for being unclear. I was very tired during the time of my response, so I didn't elaborate like I should have. My concern about it being potentially POV is similar to Mandruss' concerns above. Basically, your wording can be an improvement, but by failing to specify why this case has become so notable while still specifying the incident as "a white police officer fatally shot a black man". This is true, but this may be misleading because it could still be interpreted as implying that race was a motivating factor, or that it is involved in some capacity. We don't know that yet, and I'm very cautious when specifying the races in the manner currently used in the lead and, now, in your proposal, because it could be misunderstood as saying otherwise. To use your example above, it's like telling a joke and specifying the races of both parties from the outset. It can imply, intentionally or not, that race is going to be important in the story or punchline. The same is the case here.I think your proposal is fine, but I find it difficult to count your vote as being in support of Option 3 because your suggested changes alter the lead itself. The three options above only address the mention of races in the lead in its current wording. You propose new wording which changes this, so if anything your proposal would be Option 4. I would support a modified form of your proposal over Options 1 or 2 (my original proposals) if it were available for !voting, but since this RfC has already begun, I'm not sure if we could add a new option without requesting a reevaluation from all current !voters. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Option 4: Races in the lead
@Bus stop, Cwobeel, Myopia123, NeilN, Nøkkenbuer, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, Scalhotrod: ―Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @Dream Focus, Starship.paint, Red Slash, Michael Procton, Banedon: ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @MichaelProcton: ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Previous !voters are requested to re-evaluate their !votes with the addition of Option 4. If you don't wish to alter your !vote, there is no need to say so.
This is not a discussion thread. It merely presents the new Option 4 fully, which requires too much space for the introduction. This option does not preclude other changes to the first paragraph, not related to race, which are outside the scope of this RfC. See #Discussion 2: Races in the lead for related discussion.
Change from:To:Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer.
―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Scott was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer. The case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man.
- I have no issues with either of these version. Either would work. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Cwobeel: Could you alter your !vote to reflect that? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Adjust coordinates?
The current coordinates, 32°53′57″N 80°00′50″W / 32.89926°N 80.01394°W, are those of the traffic stop, since we did not have a precise source for the shooting location.
I just ran across this source which contains the statement, "The police have not given details about the confrontation that followed behind the Mega Pawn shop at 5654 Rivers Ave."
This pawn shop is marked in Google Maps, less than 100 yards (91 m) west of what we all have deduced, from the video and other clues, is the shooting location. Further, a Google Maps search for 5654 Rivers Ave produces a pointer to that building.
Should we move the coordinates to something like 32°53′54″N 80°00′52″W / 32.89825°N 80.01453°W and cite the above source? Or is that still too OR? Use Google Maps satellite or Earth view, or equivalent, to see the path (actually, an unpaved driveway to the back of the pawn shop, apparently) and trees for orientation.
Alternatively we could show both sets of coordinates, as here.
The address of the auto parts store was enough for the coordinates of the traffic stop. The only possible issue I see with moving the coordinates is that "behind the pawn shop" could be anywhere between its back door and Craig Rd—a distance of over 500 ft (152 m)—and we would be using the video to guesstimate a precise location in that range. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Never mind. I have talked myself into it.
We routinely use coordinates to point to the approximate center of a large area, such as in 2014 Isla Vista killings. We use the precision of the coordinates to reflect the rough size of the area, per the colored tables at WP:OPCOORD. That's all we'll be doing here, showing the approximate center of a rectangle, about 470 ft by 90 ft, within which we know the shooting occurred based on our source. There's no OR in that. I'll just reduce the coordinates precision by an order of magnitude to reflect the size of that area.
I'll add some prose to provide the address and cite that, similar to how we already treat the auto parts store; that will eliminate the need to cite the coordinates directly. And I'll show both sets of coordinates for now, as in the example.
Thanks for the input! ―Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Just for sanity check confirmation, here is analysis others have done about where everything took place. It seems that it mostly aligns with what you were talking about https://i.imgur.com/EAvBTQk.png Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Unarmed
I note that the article does not currently mention that Scott was unarmed, despite more than adequate RS support for that. Is this not considered relevant? If the omission is an oversight, where should the mention go? (In Shooting of Michael Brown, this is mentioned a couple of times, the first time in the second para of the lead). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I don't believe we missed that. Thanks for catching it, please add to body and lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Im ok with putting all claims and counterclaims in the lede.
For your guys own elucidation, it may be helpful to review the video. http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003615939/video-shows-fatal-police-shooting.html Set it to high-def to see it better, and starting at about 0:25 you can see the taser wire leading to slager while he is holding his firearm and preparing to shoot, the taser itself is on the ground at Slager's feet, and at the other end of that wire is the cartridge that launches the wire being drug by Scott's feet. If the cartridge is by Scott, and there are wires leading to Slager, which direction was the taser pointed when it was fired?
I do not present this as WP:OR for inclusion in the article directly, but as a way of arguing why we should not dismiss conflicting POVs which are otherwise sourcable and not treat them as mere CYA. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think you can make much of the video in that regard. I find it difficult to believe that Slager was hit by the Taser and then shoot as he did. It does not make sense. In any case, we have the word of an officer that lied about other things, so it would be doubtful how his word that Scott took his Taser will be taken seriously if this goes to trial. Also, if Scott shot Slager with the Taser as you imply, why would Slager omit that crucial point from his report? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) If Scott had fired the Taser at Slager, wouldn't Slager have included that in his report, and wouldn't that fact have been widely reported by RS? If that has happened, I have completely missed it. Do you have anything to go on besides your own interpretation of the video? I'm honestly not seeing the objects you're seeing, and even if I did I would have to take your word for what each barely visible object is, in video frames that are very unclear due to distance and camera movement. Regardless, the Taser-planting allegation has better support in the video (need I go into detail on that?), and it also has explicit mention in RS. So how is it that your sentence belongs in the lead for balance, but the Taser planting does not? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think that Gaijin42 is saying above that he is OK with
with putting all claims and counterclaims in the lede.
- Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)- I missed his first sentence. Not opposed on principle, but the devil's in the details and it could get messy deciding which claims are lead-worthy. I could be wrong, I haven't read the whole article to identify all claims for consideration. No objection to someone giving that a shot, and we could haggle over the details as per usual. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think that Gaijin42 is saying above that he is OK with
- Yes - I agree that the allegations that the taser was planted should also be included.
reply to both. He said on the radio that the taser was taken immediately after the shooting. If it is unbelievable that slager could shoot, is it not also unbelievable that Scott could run? Either way can be explained by a barbs setting incorrectly. (and if not set correctly would also make plausible that he was not actually aware that he was shot) In either case the wire extending from one to the other is plainly visible is it not? At the time that slager is aiming his firearm, he is no longer holding the taser, so why are the wires still leading to him at chest level? Anyway, the point is not to convince you, nor that we should put this level of detail/theory into the article, but again merely to state that we should not be burying a reasonable alternate POV that is easily sourcable (That Scott took the taser according to Slager)
Here is a slow mo version of the video. The wire extending from one to the other is most visible just as Scott is going behind the tree (5:22?) The angle of the wire changes as Scott runs. The object being dragged by scott is most easily visible starting at about 5:56 appearing from behind the tree on the left right at the grassline and then bouncing along a few feet behind Scott (it is visible earlier as well on the right side of the tree, but not as obviously)Gaijin42 (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- doh, forgot video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eAjBaSbsec Gaijin42 (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well you're right, whether or not Scott fired Taser at Slager is moot if you're willing to put all claims in the lead, and you're not proposing that that should be one of the claims included, lead or elsewhere. So let's not spend any more time analyzing that aspect, ok? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- To start a "claims list":
- Scott took the Taser from Slager.
- Scott did not take the Taser from Slager (Santana).
- Slager tried to plant the Taser near Scott's body.
- Slager feared for his life and "felt threatened".
- Police performed CPR (if so, not during the 2:45 of video after Scott was down).
- Habersham gave false statements to protect Slager.
- See what I mean? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- So when I said "all", I didn't mean ALL ;) Unarmed vs took taser are a pair, because they are somewhat mutually exclusive, and they both go directly to the most important question : to what degree was the shooting (un)/justified. The planting is a close 3rd place as it could indicate slagers thoughts about if the shooting was justified or not. The others while I think are factors that can and should be discussed in the article, are imo not worthy for the lede, but if someone feels they are important and we can get a coherent wording, I don't object. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that, thanks for clearing up the definition of "all". I'll dispute the notion that the Taser questions bear even a little on cause for shooting a man who is running away from you. It could affect sentencing but not verdict, imo. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Tentative proposal for a new second paragraph:
―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)A scuffle ensued just before the shooting, during which Slager said Scott took his Taser; this claim was disputed by an eyewitness. There was some evidence that Slager tried to plant the Taser beside Scott's body after the shooting.
- So when I said "all", I didn't mean ALL ;) Unarmed vs took taser are a pair, because they are somewhat mutually exclusive, and they both go directly to the most important question : to what degree was the shooting (un)/justified. The planting is a close 3rd place as it could indicate slagers thoughts about if the shooting was justified or not. The others while I think are factors that can and should be discussed in the article, are imo not worthy for the lede, but if someone feels they are important and we can get a coherent wording, I don't object. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- To start a "claims list":
- Well you're right, whether or not Scott fired Taser at Slager is moot if you're willing to put all claims in the lead, and you're not proposing that that should be one of the claims included, lead or elsewhere. So let's not spend any more time analyzing that aspect, ok? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss In general ok, I think the planting allegation should not be in wiki voice, but I'm sure we can name it to someone (I'd even accept a WP:WEASEL passive voice construction "Slager is seen dropping something in the video which has been viewed as evidence of planting..." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This omits the fact that Slager is seen returning to the location of the scuffle and picking up an object immediately before dropping an object beside the body; that's a very significant part of the "evidence". We could include that, too, but at some point this ceases to be a summary suitable for the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)A scuffle ensued just before the shooting, during which Slager said Scott took his Taser; this statement was disputed by the eyewitness. In the eyewitness video, Slager is seen dropping an object beside Scott's body. Some sources viewed this as evidence that Slager attempted to plant the Taser to support his statement.
- Paging Gaijin42. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Scott's middle name, redux
| Google Search | Google News | |
|---|---|---|
| "walter lamer scott" | 222 | 243 |
| "walter lamar scott" | 197 | 101 |
The article currently shows only the middle initial to reflect the uncertainty. Although web sources still favor "Lamer", the State's indictment document shows "Lamar" for two out of two references. One would think that the spelling would be correct in a legal document created two months after the man's death; there has been ample time to clear up any confusion. I'm inclined to show Lamar with a footnote for Lamer. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Over a week with no response. I'll go ahead and boldly make this change. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of Videographer's pertinent statements were omitted from this Wiki article
The videographer stated that he witnessed both Scott and the officer to be on the ground in a scuffle just prior to Scott fleeing and the officer shooting. The Wiki article does not describe this or mention the videographer eyewitness account of a physical altercation between the officer and Scott. That needs to be mentioned as a pertinent fact. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.50.208 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- I also have issues with the credibility of the videographer. On multiple occasions while talking with media about the incident his story changes. I gather resources and bring them to the discussion.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The officers pregnant Wife?
How is that applicable to the story to mention the officer's pregnant wife, except to drum of emotion (see NPOV) for the officer?
Should we mention the expected gender of the child? How about whether any of Walter Scott's children had braces, or were preparing for the Spelling-Bee at the time?
Novous (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
- Boldly removed as irrelevant, although the same could be said for a lot in both bios. For parity, I also removed the bit about Scott's engagement, also irrelevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, as it is background information on the perpetrators. But don't feel strong enough to make a fuss about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- But relevance? Did Scott's engagement bear on his decision to run? Did Slager's wife's pregnancy bear on his decision to shoot? Not as reported by RS, to my knowledge. Both factoids humanize the individuals, but I don't know that that's the proper function of an encyclopedia article; that's for People (magazine). In my opinion, as I said, a lot of these bio sections (and similar ones like in Michael Brown) should go, but I'll settle for a slight reduction as a compromise. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- As I said, I will not make a fuss. Article is OK without that info, but think of the reader ... it is always useful to have background info on the actors of an incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Cwobeel about this. Such information should remain in. By removing it, we are screening out information without a reason as to why that information should not be in the article. The reader does not benefit from being deprived of these details. A tragic incident occurred, but for the reader there is no harm in knowing that at the time of the incident one of the participants had a wife who was eight months pregnant and the other participant was about to get married. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bus, we don't include content because it does no harm and some readers would be interested. We include it because it's relevant to the subject, which is the shooting of Walter Scott. (As I said, there remain a few things in the bios that aren't strictly relevant, and I'm compromising on those, so I'd hope their inclusion wouldn't be used as argument for restoring the other stuff.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- A man's life is over and another is facing serious criminal charges. Their lives have been destroyed. I am actually flabbergasted that this could be considered irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's an appeal to emotion, and I know you know better. Please show how either fact is relevant to the shooting. If you continue down your current path, you'll have to do it with someone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Why would we weed out information? Do we know better than sources? Can we anticipate the needs of readers? Are we omniscient? There has to be a reason for omitting that which is supplied to us by good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Who are you, and what have you done with the real Bus stop? We routinely omit things that are reported in reliable sources but are not relevant to the subject of the article. Do I really need to go compile a list of a dozen or so examples related to this story? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The real Bus stop is out to lunch. But why would we omit fundamental facts about the primary participants? Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Because they are not relevant to the subject of the article. For example, if Slager had stated that he was feeling especially stressed out or distracted that day because his wife was having pregnancy-related trouble, then her pregnancy would be relevant. Her pregnancy might have been a contributing factor to the shooting. However, no such thing has been reported in RS, so it is not relevant. To say it's not relevant to the article is not to say it's irrelevant or unimportant in the general sense. I think you're confusing the two things. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The real Bus stop is out to lunch. But why would we omit fundamental facts about the primary participants? Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Who are you, and what have you done with the real Bus stop? We routinely omit things that are reported in reliable sources but are not relevant to the subject of the article. Do I really need to go compile a list of a dozen or so examples related to this story? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Why would we weed out information? Do we know better than sources? Can we anticipate the needs of readers? Are we omniscient? There has to be a reason for omitting that which is supplied to us by good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's an appeal to emotion, and I know you know better. Please show how either fact is relevant to the shooting. If you continue down your current path, you'll have to do it with someone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- A man's life is over and another is facing serious criminal charges. Their lives have been destroyed. I am actually flabbergasted that this could be considered irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Bus, we don't include content because it does no harm and some readers would be interested. We include it because it's relevant to the subject, which is the shooting of Walter Scott. (As I said, there remain a few things in the bios that aren't strictly relevant, and I'm compromising on those, so I'd hope their inclusion wouldn't be used as argument for restoring the other stuff.) ―Mandruss ☎ 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Cwobeel about this. Such information should remain in. By removing it, we are screening out information without a reason as to why that information should not be in the article. The reader does not benefit from being deprived of these details. A tragic incident occurred, but for the reader there is no harm in knowing that at the time of the incident one of the participants had a wife who was eight months pregnant and the other participant was about to get married. Bus stop (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, this article needs to remain neutral. Just as the location section needs to remove bias information regarding the opinions of the community. These may be facts but they are irrelevant. All bias information in this article regarding both parties should be removed. I will start a new section to start a discussion of what is irrelevant.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- The reader is able to distinguish between that which pertains to the causes of a shooting and that which does not pertain to the causes of a shooting. Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which is beside the point. I don't think you stand much chance of convincing me that the way I've edited for close to two years, which I've learned through a lot of watching and talking to four or five editors with probably 20 years of experience between them, is the wrong way. But you could run an RfC on the question. With the right mix of participants, you might even win the RfC, as there are probably many editors who don't understand what relevance means in the Wikipedia editing context. This assumes no competent closer, since it would have to depend solely on a count of !votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Mandruss—I apologize for some of my snide remarks. That is not really the most productive way to conduct myself. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I wish there were a way to say, "Don't worry about it, no apology needed" without sounding dismissive and a little condescending. Especially without offering the counter-apology, and I don't think I crossed the line into apology territory, either. But thanks for the comment, Bus stop, too apologetic is always better than not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Mandruss—I apologize for some of my snide remarks. That is not really the most productive way to conduct myself. Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Which is beside the point. I don't think you stand much chance of convincing me that the way I've edited for close to two years, which I've learned through a lot of watching and talking to four or five editors with probably 20 years of experience between them, is the wrong way. But you could run an RfC on the question. With the right mix of participants, you might even win the RfC, as there are probably many editors who don't understand what relevance means in the Wikipedia editing context. This assumes no competent closer, since it would have to depend solely on a count of !votes. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Like Mandruss said, such content is not suitable or relevant to this article's scope. It could be added to their own bio-page (if they have one) but not in a "mini-bio" here where the purpose is to give only a brief background of the subjects involved.--TMCk (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- "[T]he purpose is to give only a brief background of the subjects involved." Pending fatherhood and pending marriage should fall under "brief background". Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Think about a very shortened lead of a bio. Unless maybe in a celebrity bio, we wouldn't include the pregnancy or soon to be married (crystal ball) unless really notable and needed to understand the article's subject. This one is not a bio and certainly not a celebrity article and thus such trivia is out of scope.--TMCk (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
All information under the section Location should be removed. Completely irrelevant.
All information under the section 'Location' should be removed. The entire section is completely irrelevant. 'Location' section should be labeled 'Location and Time', and include only information pertinent to the shooting of Scott. Opinions of those in the community have nothing to do with the facts of this shooting incident.
I will let this simmer in the talk for a bit, then I will make the edits. Edit will include date, time, location, nothing more.Hawtpeppers (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Our sources, which talk about Walter Scott in the context of racial profiling, etc., disagree with you. Please do not remove this section without showing that there is a consensus to do so.- MrX 00:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- This article has an undertone of bias for Scott. I aim to keep the article neutral. The information has no business in this section.
- I will remove them, the information within the section has nothing to do with the shooting of Scott. This section should include date, location, time - nothing more.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Let's not forget, Scott was the victim. - MrX 00:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is the kind of bias talk I hope to remove from the article. That is your opinion. This case hasn't been settled. Keep your opinions to yourself, thanks.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Scott was killed by bullets from a gun? That makes him a victim, regardless of culpability.- MrX 01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, it makes him the guy who got shot. I could give you plenty of cases where those who were shot were not the victims but instead the aggressors. Being shot doesn't make a person a victim.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Scott was killed by bullets from a gun? That makes him a victim, regardless of culpability.- MrX 01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- That is the kind of bias talk I hope to remove from the article. That is your opinion. This case hasn't been settled. Keep your opinions to yourself, thanks.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Let's not forget, Scott was the victim. - MrX 00:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will remove them, the information within the section has nothing to do with the shooting of Scott. This section should include date, location, time - nothing more.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
excessive reverts by user mandruss
Excessive reverts by user mandruss. Edits seem to be based on personal opinions. These edits are happening without discussion on the talk page. I will follow up as I learn more about how to report such flagrant misuse of the system.Hawtpeppers (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Hawtpeppers: My last revert here was on July 31. None of it has been edit warring, and there is nothing in policy to prevent those actions. See WP:BRD; these reverts are the "R" in BRD, entirely routine and legitimate. As for "personal opinions", I think what you're seeing is editorial judgment, which we do routinely. But feel free to discuss any individual reverts, one per section please for organization. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- you are abusing the system. you made multiple edits, attempting you undermined the contributions made by other to fit your bias opinions. As I learn more about the system I will counter the likes of you with integrity.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are not Bold editing, you are Tendentious editing, wp:te,wp:game. please stop.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Edit warring complaints are made at WP:ANEW, other behavior at WP:ANI. There is also a more formal process available at WP:AE, but I'm less familiar with that. Read and follow the instructions at the top of the page; a poorly presented complaint is usually viewed unfavorably. Accusations made in other talk spaces are generally viewed as violations of WP:No personal attacks, a Wikipedia policy. If you have a grievance against me, this is not the way to address it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Protests category
Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles - It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. This article contains one sentence about protests, and that does not justify this categorization. That would require considerably more than a few more sentences, more than I feel would be justified per WP:WEIGHT. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- It IS clear from verifiable information why it was placed in this category. The article talks about protests and those protests are an important part of this story. I am also in love with the delicious irony of us now protesting adding the protest category to this article! Cheers, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 12:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors: Did you read my comments above? You certainly didn't give them anything resembling a counterargument. As I said, one sentence does not justify a category. Are you actually asserting that it does? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Ahaha, I did in fact read them. And I disagree entirely that I provided no counterargument. As I stated, there IS in fact clear and verifiable information why it was placed in this category. And upon rereading the section again there are actually three different sentences forming an entire paragraph (in what is ultimately a rather short article) which relate to the protests. I do not see why we continue to insist on removing this categorization when this event is clearly in the same vein as (and closely connected to) many other events in this category. Thanks! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors: Did you read my comments above? You certainly didn't give them anything resembling a counterargument. As I said, one sentence does not justify a category. Are you actually asserting that it does? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors: No, you're mistaken. There are two sentences about controversy (i.e., widespread public debate), followed by one sentence about protests. They are not the same thing. We "continue to insist on removing this categorization" because the content does not justify it. Similarly, the mention of cocaine and alcohol does not justify Category:Drugs. This shooting may in fact bear a stronger connection to protests than to drugs, but that is beside the point. The point is that that stronger connection is not reflected in its current content. Drugs and protests both have one brief mention. You are misinterpreting and misapplying the above guideline. If you want to expend the effort to add some well-written, well-sourced content about protests, fine, then we can talk about the category. Until then, this edit is not justified. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(←) Hey thanks for assuming I'm mistaken! That's very nice of you! Ahahah, all joking aside, I completely disagree with the interpretation being brought to these guidelines. Nowhere in the guideline cited does it mandate any set amount of coverage within the article. It simply demands, as you rightly pointed out; It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. And it is. And, in fact, you just admitted that there is A connection between the shooting and protest; "stronger connection to protests". Strong enough to be included as part of the coverage given by the majority of our sources for this article. Strong enough for inclusion in the category. So I contend that the edit is very justified and its removal is not. Thanks! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I lean towards saying the protest cat is appropriate, but would liukely be more appropriate via a diffused cat - I'm somewhat suprised that the BLM (which was renamed to) African-american related controversies cat isn't already a subcat of the protests cat. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant material within multiple sections of article.
There are multiple places within this article where irrelevant information resides.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I will start the discussion with my disapproval of the entire 'Location' section. This section should include the date, time, location of the shooting- nothing more. Information regarding the opinions of the community are irrelevant.Hawtpeppers (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Create an 'Opinions of the community' section if need be, but this information does not belong in the location section.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- The location section is significant analysis that is relevant to this shooting, at least according to our sources. I would object to removing content from this section.- MrX 01:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- How does the opinions of a few in the community relate to the location of the shooting? It doesn't. I'd like an explanation on how this is relevant. The second police man on the scene was a black man. The community is now trying to destroy this man also. So now is this black police man also a racist out to bully the black community? The opinions of those who spoke out to media have motives, opinions have no place in this article.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I took it out completely. It's totally POV, doesn't assist the reader in better understanding the article subject, and is completely unnecessary. Did I mention it is totally and completely and unabashedly POV? It was absolutely against Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV. I can say I've never seen content that POV before in Wikipedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- The entire section still exists. This section reads as if its the opinion of the entire community. entirely racist propaganda from start to finish. must be removed. The integrity of the entire article hangs on this section.Hawtpeppers (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems fairly on topic to me as general background, and the type of thing that numerous stories have included in their background of this case and other similar incidents. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is the wording. It's just "out there" and leads readers to make a POV conclusion. It's not the statistics that are the problem, it's the way it's presented and has no context to make it relevant other than to a POV conclusion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: The B in WP:BRD was your WP:BOLD removal. The R was my revert of your removal. Now we're at BRRD. I request that restore the material until a new consensus is reached, as explained in WP:STATUSQUO.- MrX 01:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I figured you would bring that up. Normally, I would follow BRD correctly and not have reverted your revert. That said, the content is just SO anti-NPOV, and this is a BLP of sorts, I just couldn't allow it to stand as it was. That's why I reverted your revert, MrX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's your opinion that it non-neutral. "BLP" of sorts" doesn't make any sense? As far as I know, BRD really doesn't make an exception for the strong opinion of the Bold editor. Nor does WP:STATUSQUO. - MrX 01:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I figured you would bring that up. Normally, I would follow BRD correctly and not have reverted your revert. That said, the content is just SO anti-NPOV, and this is a BLP of sorts, I just couldn't allow it to stand as it was. That's why I reverted your revert, MrX. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: The B in WP:BRD was your WP:BOLD removal. The R was my revert of your removal. Now we're at BRRD. I request that restore the material until a new consensus is reached, as explained in WP:STATUSQUO.- MrX 01:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's contentious and it's POV. As far as it being a BLP of sorts, see the top of this page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Is there something about the content that clearly violates the WP:BLP policy? I would appreciate if you could show specifically what passage of this content violates the policy:
Local residents have complained that policing in North Charleston includes the harassment and racial profiling of African Americans, including frequent use of Tasers without cause. In North Charleston, whites make up 37% of the population, but the police department is 80% white.
- I'm truly curious how this content violates the principle that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Where is the living person in the two sentences above?- MrX 02:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's contentious and it's POV. As far as it being a BLP of sorts, see the top of this page: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As already stated above, the content -- as it is written -- leads a reader in a particular direction. A POV direction that is biased against Slager. That is a violation of NPOV, which, for this article, makes it a violation of BLP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- That evaded my question. Your strongly-held opinion that there's a POV problem is not the same thing as there being a WP:BLP violation. Even Arbcom has commented on such overreaching interpretations of WP:BLP. At least I know where you stand now. - MrX 02:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
That facts lead to a particular POV is not an NPOV issue. Is that fact cherry picked from the sources in a way that misrepresents their general thrust? I don't believe so. Are there perhaps facts that could be included to the contrary? Probably. Include them if you feel they are needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is about how that information is presented. First, the opinions of those few that talked to media don't reflect the opinions of the entire community, that is not being fair to the community, or readers of wikipedia. That is not being conveyed. Second, the information within the section has nothing to do with the shooting. There opinions from sources not directly , and I dare say it, nor indirectly involved. The entire section should be removed. If someone feels the information within that section warrants insertion within the article, then that person should begin by creating a talk section, so that the community can hash out the details, but for starters at least create a new section with a proper title in regards to the information contained within.Hawtpeppers (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: Supporting MrX's position as to process. -
As far as I know, BRD really doesn't make an exception for the strong opinion of the Bold editor. Nor does WP:STATUSQUO.
- If we care about BRD, we don't get to pick and choose when we follow it. If you don't care about BRD, then that's a different matter and you should stop pretending you do. I'm also asking you to self-revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: Supporting MrX's position as to process. -
- I care about BLP and NPOV as well as common sense more than BRD. Especially in this case. I also care about AGF, which, with your comment, "you should stop pretending you do", is obviously not what you are doing. No, I won't self revert (for all the reasons I just listed). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- The revert was inline with BRD, now discuss before you attempt to edit.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX:you are Tendentious editing, wp:te,wp:game. please stop. Please read WP:YESPOV, WP:STRUCTURE. Please discuss why you think this material should be added before editing the page again.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- And you're on a fast track to being blocked for disruption. Consider this a final warning to cease making personal attacks. Also note that editors contributing to this article and talk page are subject to discretionary sanctions. Don't ping me again. - MrX 04:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX:you are Tendentious editing, wp:te,wp:game. please stop. Please read WP:YESPOV, WP:STRUCTURE. Please discuss why you think this material should be added before editing the page again.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @MrX: Don't threaten me, I made no personal attacks, I am following guidelines that we must all follow. please discuss as per BRD. please refrain from wp:te,wp:game,wp:de and discuss. I will use pings to identify and collaborate, which is within guidelines.Hawtpeppers (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Another item of irrelevant content. What purpose does the picture of Scott during his service in the U.S. Coast Guard in the mid-1980s serve other than an attempt to characterize the incident to the effect of "Scott was an American hero who fought for our country, can you believe how he was brutally murdered by that damn pig"? 173.57.254.193 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Question about terminology
Why do police murders always get called a "shooting" or a "killing" and never get acuratly get referred to as a "murder"? this is endemic on every article about police murdering members of the public throughout wikipedia, the question is why? 92.237.186.252 (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Because it's not called "murder" until there's a conviction. That applies to anyone, not just police.77Mike77 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)