Jump to content

Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Mandruss vs Allegations in the lead

Re: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

A familiar story, where one editor refuses to go to talk because the other editor won't go to talk. Result: The less aggressive, less obstinate editor is the one who does the work to open the discussion. I guess I'm elected.

Lead 1, Allegations version:

The shooting of Samuel DuBose occurred during a traffic stop for a missing front license plate on July 19, 2015, in Cincinnati, Ohio. DuBose, a black man, was fatally shot by Ray Tensing, a white University of Cincinnati police officer. Tensing shot DuBose when he started his car and allegedly began to drive off. On July 29, a grand jury that reviewed the footage from Tensing's body cam indicted him on a murder charge. He was then fired from the police department.

Lead 2, Mandruss version:

The shooting of Samuel DuBose occurred during a traffic stop for a missing front license plate on July 19, 2015, in Cincinnati, Ohio. DuBose, a black man, was fatally shot by Ray Tensing, a white University of Cincinnati police officer. Tensing shot DuBose when he started his car and allegedly began to drive off. Tensing stated that he was being dragged when his arm became stuck in the car. Prosecutors said that footage from Tensing's body-mounted video camera showed that he was not dragged, and, on July 29, a grand jury indicted him on a murder charge. He was then fired from the police department.

Which is the better summary of this story? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss' is the better summary, as it includes the allegations of the officer as well as well as the prosecutor's. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That is a really offensive description of what happened. This is not a contest between me and you, Mandruss. Allegations (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that Mandruss didn't mean to be offensive. I think that omitting the dragging part of the story would fail WP:WEIGHT, because that has been a notable part of the story from the major news agencies following the release of the video. For that reason, I have to support the original text (Lead 2).- MrX 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer Lede #2; it's much more NPOV; good call Mandruss. There's something non-NPOV about how in Lede #1, the grand jury is characterized as "a grand jury that reviewed the footage from Tensing's body cam", and transitions directly from that clause to "indicted him on a murder charge". It could've just as truthfully said: "a grand jury that reviewed Tensing's police record indicted him on a murder charge"; thus implying that Tensing's police record was what encouraged the grand jury to indict. However, I believe we can uphold an even higher NPOV standard with something like this: "the prosecuting attorney has stated that the footage shows that Tensing was dragged, and the defense attorney has stated that the footage shows that Tensing was not dragged". In the current wording in Lede #2, it suggests that one side has the weight of video evidence, while the other simply has the accused's unsubstantiated position. I know I've harped on this in this article's Talk before, but: attorneys are, by definition, non-neutral. If we include a statement from one side's attorney, then, if practical, we should include a corresponding statement from the other side's attorney. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
As I've indicated elsewhere, Tensing's position and his attorney's are one and the same by definition of the words "legal representation". That's why lawyers are called mouthpieces. His lawyer's statements would substantiate nothing at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Your bold edit was too bold in these circumstances. First, we have a current consensus for the status quo, above. Second, your argument above hasn't convinced me or anyone else, or we would have said it did. I've reverted, but the discussion can continue of course. As I said, Tensing's lawyer's opinion is of no significance; he is being paid to say what Tensing says. His true opinion might well be that his client is guilty as sin. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

While I see the IPs point, the distinction in my mind is that the video/prosecutor is serving as a stand in for Dubois' testimony which we don't have. If we were to go the other way, it leaves the situation as Tensing says X while duboise is silent + tensing's attorney says Y and prosecutor says Z, which is just as unbalanced, but in the other direction. It would perhaps be possible to combine X and Y into a single assertion that covers both what tensing said and the defenses opinion of the video, but that gets complicated. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Off-campus"

However, I also believe that language that was deleted that it was an "off campus" stop is very relevant to the story and should be included as long as it is as prominent in WP:RS as I believe it is. David Tornheim (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: As I indicated in an edit summary, I think the off-campus thing may be worth some mention in the body, but not lead-worthy; it's incidental to the central issue. I can look into that. If you know of any relevant sources, links to them would help considerably. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Here are some articles on it. Admittedly, I am not super familiar with all the sources being used in the article as RS. So I do not know how well they have conveyed how the off campus stop makes it an even bigger ordeal and strain on nearby community (especially with race relations with the University) than if it was a regular Cincinnati police officer. Looks like this first article may cover it pretty well:
...“A campus police officer had no business doing a traffic stop in an urban area.” Joseph Norris, who lives in the neighborhood...just off the sprawling campus.
“My record is clean, but as a young black man I start shaking whenever a police car pulls up behind me,” Norris said. If university police are going to make traffic stops, he said, “they need better training.”
Deters questioned why the university had a police force at all. “I don’t think a university should be in the policing business,” he said.
But the university’s president, Santa J. Ono, said he thought the school’s force should be improved rather than disbanded. School officials had previously announced that they would bring in an outside investigator to review the department’s policies.
Meanwhile, amid concerns about the shooting, the school announced last week that its officers would patrol and make traffic stops only on campus.
Tensing was about a half-mile south of campus when he pulled over DuBose[]
Given that it only takes two words, it seems to me it should be in the lede, whereas if it required a long sentence, I could see omitting it. David Tornheim (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess I didn't understand why off-campus is significant. I thought there was some issue around whether Tensing was technically within jurisdiction for that stop. I think any wider issues about community relations would be too tangential, and I'm fairly sure no one would support content about "should UC have a PD?". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Just as further by-the-way information, similar to stating that it occurred at 6:30 on Rice Street, it could be mentioned that it was a few blocks south of the campus. But then, the average reader might ask, "What was a campus cop doing stopping a guy off-campus?" We would then have to explain that, with sources. I'm not sure that's a net gain. We should be exclusionist as to content, every word has to earn its keep (lower bar for the mini-bio sections, but that's a different debate). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That it occurred on Rice Street at 6:30pm in Mt. Auburn are facts that I agree are inconsequential to the main story and not important for the lede. I think it is indeed appropriate for readers to ask "What was a campus cop doing stopping a guy off-campus?" This piques their interest in the subject matter and they could read it in the article body. "We would then have to explain that, with sources." Indeed, we should. The New York Times did an entire article on this, and as I showed you above, and it was also an important part of the Washington Post article, as well as the other two articles. So it passes the "noteworthy" standard. I have not looked at other sources, but I'll bet others mention it as well. "I'm not sure that's a net gain." Why not? It's part of the incident and after-math. Are you suggesting we create a separate article just for this aspect of the story because there is not enough room in the article to explain it? David Tornheim (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that we would be giving the appearance of an issue where no issue exists, wasting space and the reader's time. As I understand it at this point, the stop was completely within law and policy, so why mention that? The fact that RS cover it isn't enough, their mission is different from ours and they have more space to fill. They explore tangents far more than we should, always looking at the broader issues. RS coverage is only the first filter in a series; the next is relevance to the article subject. The subject is the killing of Sam DuBose, not the UCPD. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You are losing me here. What is "our mission" here, other than to report what WP:RS says about the incident? I don't think we as editors decide what is important about the incident. Please cite WP:PAG if you believe I am mistaken. David Tornheim (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I can't cite p&g for this, but there are widely accepted views that aren't codified in p&g. WP:BRD is one example. As far as I know, questions of scope are left to editorial judgment, and this is mine and that of a lot of others in my experience. (Actually it would be a matter of editorial judgment even if it were codified in p&g since, as I understand it, editorial judgment trumps all in the end, even policy, per WP:IAR; but that's a different discussion.) Let's look at a couple of mature similar articles. After the Michael Brown shooting there was a certain amount of RS coverage of the history of police racial problems in Fergusoo, but none of that is in the article because editors judged it not direcly related to the article subject. In Shooting of Walter Scott, there are two sentences, in the "Location" section. Would some readers be interested in reading about that sort of thing in those articles? Sure, but that's not our only criterion. Could you cite similar articles that do explore some of those tangents? Probably. That's because they had a different group of editors who had different editorial judgment. In the end, I obviously don't WP:OWN this article. If you aren't convinced by my arguments, feel free to start a new thread on this. Things at the bottom tend to get more attention, and you might get a different answer. An RfC is also an option, if you want a wider sampling of the community, and that would trump a local consensus. If you choose to go that route, read and follow the instructions carefully, as a poorly-framed RfC is a waste of people's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. So for now we disagree in editorial judgment about this. Fair enough. I'm familiar with the RfC process, yes, and am all too familiar with what happens when the question(s) is framed poorly! Rather than start a process that takes 30 days to resolve, on this issue that is more like "breaking news" and will be changing almost daily as new info. is published, on an article that probably has many eyes, instead, I plan to add a new section and solicit input from those who have already edited this article (or starting with those who added or revised the "off-campus" language), and possibly post a non-formal request for comment in a relevant Project(s). Is there a project dedicated to Crime, Homicide, Race relations, etc.? Please tell me in advance if you think any of the proposed outreach you would consider WP:Canvassing, and if so, why. I want to avoid conflict and such allegations, but I think we should have more voices than just us two, which is all we have right now. Also, if ultimately the decision is really nothing but a mater of editorial judgement rather than WP:PAG, should we then decide base the decision on majority rather than consensus, if no consensus can be found? I'm often puzzled as to the correct choice of action in Wiki dilemma if there is no consensus for either of two choices when there is disagreement. Sometimes it is impossible to achieve consensus, so what is one to do in the meantime? David Tornheim (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
A full RfC is not really necessary for something this minor. As mentioned, this is a matter of editorial discretion. I would suggest a simple poll to determine if there is consensus one way or the other.- MrX 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Re canvassing, that only applies if you contact people who you believe will likely support your position, and for that reason. It's one of those things that people with any integrity, like us, don't need to be told. Re consensus, you're aware that consensus is generally not unanimous? I guess some people would assert that you need 70% or something, I'd be satisfied with 51%. But if it's not clear that 51% support the content, then it has to stay out; exclusion is the default. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Okay. I will do a simple poll here. Is there a format or policy for doing this kind of poll rather than full WP:RfC? If there is WP:PAG on it that you are aware of please let me know. Below is my PROPOSED poll. Let me know what you think of the questions, not your answers to the questions.
PROPOSED POLL -- regarding "off-campus" shooting by University Officer
NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE ACTUAL POLL.
This poll is with the regard to whether we should cover the fact that the shooting took place off campus or not, and if so, how much coverage. Obviously it immediately raises the question of whether the officer had jurisdiction for the stop. Although he did, RS shows that people in the affected community were not entirely aware of it, which affects their perception of the incident. The NYT article (and other below RS), explain how this increased tensions and race-relations between the University and the adjacent communities, resulted in a moratorium on the off-campus policing program and required review, comments from Mayor questioning the program and adequacy of training of University officers compared to regular Cincinnati Officers. There is also mention of a court order that required sensitivity training for Cincinnati Police, but that there was an "island" where it did not apply to the University Officers. The following RS refers to the "off-campus" aspect: [LIST OF RS, similar to above].
These are the questions of the poll:
  1. Should the article mention that the shooting took place "off campus" by a University Officer?
  2. Should the Lede of the article mention it?
  3. If yes to (1), approximately how many sentences should be dedicated to it?
  4. Should it have its own section in the article?
NOTE: THIS IS THE PROPOSED POLL. Before I start the REAL poll, I would like your feedback on the questions. David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with polls, and the ones I've seen didn't have a consistent format although some of them looked like the Survey sections of most RfCs. This is different from most RfCs, which have one question and two or more answers. Here we have multiple questions, so it might be a challenge to keep things organized and somewhat structured. I'm afraid I can't be of much help to you there, and you may have to get creative. WP has something called a straw poll, and maybe it would help to read some of that, I don't know. You might reorder the questions so that the "how many sentences" question would apply to the body content whether or not it's in a separate section. As far as the lead, I think it's reasonable to design for either two words or none. Otherwise the questions look ok to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I am putting out the poll and using your suggestions. I read the straw poll essay. David Tornheim (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

David, IMO you should go ahead and write this up. Perhaps a section in the Aftermath heading? It seems to be calling attention to both a local and a national problem. Did you see this NYT article? [1] I have been thinking about writing it up myself. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do. David Tornheim (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Is reason for traffic stop lead-worthy?

Propose a change to the first sentence, from:

The shooting of Samuel DuBose occurred during a traffic stop for a missing front license plate on July 19, 2015, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

To:

The shooting of Samuel DuBose occurred during a traffic stop on July 19, 2015, in Cincinnati, Ohio.

―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Only in that it shows that the stop was for a legitimate, but trivial reason initially. "Traffic stop" could include excessive speeding, suspected drunk driving, hit and run, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Gaijin42, exactly.- MrX 02:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Strong No to proposed change. That the stop was for something so trivial must be explained. And Yes to question in the header that it is "lead worthy". David Tornheim (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Roger. Proposal withdrawn. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
In this article I don't think the reason for the traffic stop is lede-worthy. I agree with Mandruss' suggestion. The "missing front license plate" is nearly irrelevant information in the context of the lede of this article. The fact is that the reason(s) for the traffic stop did not "include excessive speeding, suspected drunk driving, hit and run". We should not be considering inapplicable reasons for traffic stops when formulating the wording for this article's lede. In the lede of this article we would be providing sufficient information by saying that this shooting took place during a "traffic stop", not a "traffic stop for a missing front license plate". Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Point of order. It's no longer Mandruss' suggestion because I've changed my mind. It's now Bus stop's suggestion. It's lead-worthy that the stop was for a minor infraction, and I really don't understand your argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
But you knew that it was for a minor infraction, so what made you change your mind? What was your initial, if mistaken, reasoning? What was the discrepancy between your earlier reasoning and your later reasoning? Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Gaijin42 changed my mind by introducing reasoning that had not previously occurred to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This was Gaijin's reasoning: "Only in that it shows that the stop was for a legitimate, but trivial reason initially. 'Traffic stop' could include excessive speeding, suspected drunk driving, hit and run, etc." Of course the traffic stop was for a legitimate reason. Would it be for an illegitimate reason? That would be noteworthy. "[E]xcessive speeding, suspected drunk driving, hit and run" do not generally justify the use of deadly force. The information under consideration is of too-minor importance for placement in the lede. The reader should first encounter the reason given for the traffic stop—a "missing front license plate"—in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
We're approaching circularity here, but I'll restate. Yes, it's possible to have a stop for illegitimate reasons; it's called absence of probable cause. A person who drives perfectly, and whose car meets roadworthiness requirements and has the required stickers and plates, and is not suspected of having committed a crime, etc., etc., cannot be pulled over under the law, just because the officer thinks he looks suspicious and wants to check him out. But it happens from time to time nevertheless; thus, a stop for an illegitimate reason. I feel that the facts that (1) the stop was legitimate and (2) the stop was for a minor infraction, combined, are significant enough to get six words in the lead. Gaijin42, MrX, and David Tornheim appear to feel the same. And no one is making a connection between the infraction and deadly force; that connection is not implied by a mention in the lead. You feel differently; I get that. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually my instinct would be to generalize "missing front license plate" as "minor traffic infraction", but that would require the awkwardly repetitive "traffic stop for a minor traffic infraction". ―Mandruss ☎ 15:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The detail of missing license plate in this case stops is beneficial in two ways imo (or rather, the same way for two reasons). It anchors the reality of the situation. For those that are likely to lean towards the interpretation of "racist white cop hassling black guy for no reason" it shows that there was a legitimate (though trivial) reason for the stop (although I freely admit the fact that there was a legit infraction does not preclude Driving while black as the true reason for the stop). For those that are likely to lean towards the "dangerous criminal" it excludes any prior behavior that could have put Tensing on high alert. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The lede should be lean. Natural questions arise when one reads: "The shooting of Samuel DuBose occurred during a traffic stop on July 19, 2015, in Cincinnati, Ohio." A lede is not supposed to answer all those questions. There is a distinction between the lede and the body of the article. We should be endeavoring to omit all but the essential from the lede. If the reader is able to read the lede then they are also able to read the body of the article. The term "license" arises with more than one meaning because not only is the physical license plate missing from the front of the car but there is discussion over failure to produce the paper "license" document and the possibility of it being "suspended". We should defer broaching the subject of "licenses" until the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

money/pot RFC

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.
The RFC gave 4 options, A, B, C, and D. All the respondents made good reasoned responses, and the discussion area was very good. The consensus of this is made harder by some of the responders choosing multiple options. There is consensus for B. While A may have had more !votes, RFC's are not a head count. There were specific comments against A giving it a smaller impact on the consensus. There is no consensus for C or D. AlbinoFerret 00:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

At the time of the traffic stop, the victim, Samuel DuBose, was driving on an indefinitely suspended driver's license, and had marijuana (some sources say 2 pounds) and about $2,600 cash in the car. This information is uncontested, but the officer, Tensing, was not aware of the information until after the incident. Where does this information belong?

Survey

  • preferably A, then B Tensing did not know, but dubose did know, and this statement is an accurate summary of the Dubose's actions/status just prior to the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A - We should present things where they are most useful to the reader. When the reader is viewing the video, reading the description of it, and forming opinions about it, it will help him greatly to understand what DuBose knew at the time those things happened. To put it later, assuming the reader makes it that far, means he then has to back up, re-think the whole thing with that new knowledge, and form new opinions. It's just not good writing. This is background information, not materially different from the Backgrounds section, which also precedes the description of the shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A for now - DuBose knew. Not only did he know that he had cannabis and cash in the car, but he knew exactly what type of penalty he might incur if he were caught, because he had previously been imprisoned for marijuana trafficking. There is a reasonable argument to be made for mentioning his previous imprisonment in the opening paragraph too. DuBose's status prior to the incident isn't just as someone possessing the elements of a marijuana trafficking charge. He's someone who has previously been imprisoned for such an offense, and he's someone who, as a repeat offender, would've likely faced an even lengthier imprisonment. When the reader has those facts up front, he can see why DuBose would choose to begin to drive away when his attempt to talk his way out of the ticket fails, and Tensing asks him to step out of the vehicle. BTW, somewhat similar situation in Shooting of Michael Brown. Michael Brown knew that he had just robbed a convenience store, but police officer Darren Wilson did not, and it's handled similarly toward the top of the page. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • B, or C- the comments above regarding "DuBose knew" is pure speculation. The shooting was completely unrelated to any of that: DeBose did not flee and was not aggressive. The aggressor was the officer, who did not know anything about what was in the car. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • B, then C - Originally I favored C, but B seems to work better. I'm strongly opposed to A, because the marijuana, money and suspended license were discovered well after the shooting. It's not part of the shooting, and placing it in the narrative of the shooting would imply that they were probably cause circumstances. The order in which facts are presented carry a lot of meaning, whether intended or not. Placement of this content should not be based on what editors conjecture DuBose to have thought, or what is most useful to readers, both of which require insight in others' thinking.- MrX 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • B, then C I'm strongly opposed to A. It really doesn't fit anywhere very well. Perhaps in time the "Legal proceedings" section heading will be changed and it will fit better in that section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • B – I oppose A because Tensing didn't know that Dubose's driver's license was suspended or anything about the drugs. We also don't know for a fact that DuBose knew about the drugs – however it is very likely that he did and refused to co-operate because of it. Therefore I don't think we should bury this info down below and I would tend to oppose C. Politrukki (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A - summoned by bot. Since it's background information, it should go in the opening paragraph about the incident. It explains why he did not have his license on him. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A, then B If it can be narrowly tailored in the first paragraph, and then explained in better detail in a second, I think that would be a sufficient way to layout the details of that specific part of the story. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • B, then C per Gandydancer. Frankly I'd say D if it weren't for what Wikimandia (aka Мандичка) says above. Wherever it's included, steps — and I can't imagine exactly what they would be — need to be taken to avoid implying, either expressly or by silence, that any of DuBose's actions other than his failure to produce a DL were motivated by these facts. If a reader wants to make that connection on their own, that's their business but it needs to be free of any suggestion on our part since such an implication is prohibited by SYNTHESIS. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely not A. This had nothing to do with the incident which ended in DuBose losing his life. The subsequent finding of drugs and cash in the car has no bearing on Tensing's error in judgement. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • C The information should absolutely be included, but not in the lede. It was part of the police account during the aftermath, and the discovery was made after the officers mutually agreed on the invention that Tensing was in mortal danger, the subject which is dealt with in the Police Accounts section. Placing it at the bottom of the Police Accounts section respects the chronological order of events. -- Forridean (T/C) 04:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A and B Absolutely provides relevant context to the entire incident.MichaelProcton (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Non admin non close

This RFC was opened 30 days ago, and the last comment was 11 days ago. As I'm involved, I won't close this unilaterally, but even if we posted this at WP:ANRFC it would likely take a long time to get closed. Therefore, if we can come to an agreement on the consensus above it will save time and trouble. Note, this is NOT the time to repeat your argument about what you think the right answer to the RFC is. This is merely for analysis of the RFC itself to determine what the consensus is. Although consensus is not a vote, I will start things off with vote counts as it can help to reduce the clutter we have to consider.

  • A - 6 first choices, one explicit vote against.
  • B - 5 first choices, 3 second choices (with all of them preferring A)
  • C - 1 first choice, 4 second choices
  • D - 0

So, at a minimum we can drop D from consideration and most likely C as well. A has the most first place votes by a thin margin, but B has greater overall support (when the second place A votes are added in).Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

To quantify it a little more, we give each responder six votes that they can distribute as they wish. I'll take a shot at this below.
Gaijin42 - A4 B2
Mandruss - A6
8.39.228.13 - A6
Cwobeel - B4 C2
MrX - B4 C2
Gandydancer - B4 C2
Politrukki - B6
Wikimandia - A6
Comatmebro - A4 B2
TransporterMan - B4 C2
Bus stop - A-6 (minus 6)
Forridean - C6
MichaelProcton - A3 B3
While one or two responders might wish to tweak their distribution (e.g. Cwobeel might mean B3 C3, I don't know), it's unlikely that would alter the outcome.
A - 4 6 6 6 4 -6 3 = 23
B - 2 4 4 4 6 2 4 3 = 29
C - 2 2 2 2 6 = 14
I tried to bribe Bus stop to reverse his vote, but he stubbornly refused. (jk) Therefore I have to reluctantly support a non-admin close for B. You can't argue with the numbers. (B has only 44% of the overall vote, but that's the best we can do without an A-B runoff. It's unlikely many of those C votes would end up in the A column, anyway.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Just curious as to additional perspective on the notion that DuBose knowing he had marijuana and thousands of dollars of cash in the car is pure speculation. Is it possible that DuBose did not know about the marijuana and cash in the car, or was not aware that he was breaking the law by possessing at very least the marijuana? If there's a reasonable argument for that, I need to re-examine my vote in the RfC above. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that a man who had been convicted of marijuana trafficking didn't know that he had two pounds (some sources say) of marijuana and $2,600 in the car he was driving. After all, he said it was his wife's car. Alternatively, it's possible he knew about that, but it didn't occur to him when the cop pulled him over, so he wasn't thinking about it. It may have also slipped his mind that his driver's license was indefinitely suspended. Hence our speculation, and some believe that NPOV dictates that we check all common sense at the door. I'll also use this opportunity to request that others refrain from accusing editors of POV-pushing in this matter, and, if already done, consider striking it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
(micro forum response) In response to Cwobeel's now removed comment (thank you btw) Ill say this : I think the pot/money is important because it explains DuBose's actions. But I do not think that DuBose's actions justify being shot (including the driving away part). While I always keep an open mind and am aware that there is RL information/interpretation that we do not have, at this point I think Tensing likely will be (and should be) convicted on some sort of charges. Presenting information that looks poorly on DuBose is not an attempt to shift blame, it is honest reporting, and hiding it makes it look like we are trying to whitewash him/bandwagon on Tensing. Neither needs to happen, even with the negative information about DuBose the shooting was still unjustified. Even criminals deserve due process and proportional response to threats, and neither was in play for the actual shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your signature had only time and date, so I replaced it with Unsigned. Hope that's the right thing to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I see how it was indeed 'possible' that DuBose didn't know he had the cannabis and money in the car, although I'm not seeing a plausible excuse. I'm not a lawyer, but I think he would've had an extraordinarily uphill battle claiming that he was not aware of or was not responsible for the marijuana in his vehicle, especially with his history of marijuana trafficking. I respect Cwobeel's now-removed comment [2] about finding "these attempts to put some burden on the victim to be a quite sad to say the least." The "sad" part may be pushing it a slight bit :), but the rest is important to hear. If someone believes that DuBose is being unfairly victimized or blamed here, I want to hear about it, in great detail, possibly in a dedicated Talk section. I see something "sad" here too: that the weed was illegal in the first place. I understand others disagree, and I'm not proposing that we add this to the article, but I think it is at least a reasonable argument that DuBose attempted a risky fleeing maneuver because he was facing a lengthy imprisonment. This incident is a good example of how, even though cannabis has never killed anyone via ingestion, the fear of lengthy imprisonment for possessing or selling cannabis can cause people to take risks that may end up in loss of life. I need to look at the various Wikipedia drug legalization articles and see if there's a valid reason to mention this article, or this viewpoint.
Regarding Gaijin42's assertion about whitewashing DuBose; I agree completely. Mandruss has stated: "Frankly his history looks terrible, especially juxtaposed with Tensing's (aside from being indicted for murder, that is), and the more we say the worse that gets." Not only are all of us biased, but all of us are terrible at examining our own biases. Interestingly, we are extraordinarily skilled and experienced at examining others' biases, and we can use that skill to improve the article. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan I agree with your concern about synth implications, but how would one prevent silence based implications without risking synth/or the other way. To my knowledge there are no sources specifically dismissing his background/possession and the relationship to his actions during the stop. Perhaps I misunderstand your comment in that respect?Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that you missed was the part where I said, "steps — and I can't imagine exactly what they would be" . I wonder if it might be best to put the suspension information in location B and the pot information in location C or, indeed, omit it altogether unless and until a reliable source connects it to DuBose's motivations. Here's the dilemma as I see it: this article is about the entire incident, so almost any connected fact may or may not be relevant: the air pressure in DuBose's tires, the relative humidity that day, and the population density in the area might have some relevance to this event and might be reported in a reliable source, especially a newspaper trying to compile all the facts which might be relevant to what happened. But we're more selective than that: we have to follow, first, verifiability (which for purposes of this discussion I'm going to presume isn't a problem), and then second, NPOV, UNDUE. NOR/SYN, and NOTNEWS. We can only give verifiable facts as much weight as our sources give them and if all our sources are doing is reporting bare facts without giving them any particular weight — in effect, just throwing facts at a story to see what eventually sticks — then we can't give them any weight either. News sources are free to report facts to allow their readers to read into those facts whatever they like; we do not have that luxury. Until disconnected facts are somehow expressly linked into relevance by a reliable source, then we shouldn't be in the business of reporting them, first under UNDUE and NOTNEWS, and second under implied SYN. There is no hurry and facts which are relevant will eventually be supported by sources. There will be no harm done if articles like this do not exist until long after all the dust has settled about the case: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or source for breaking news. At least that's how I see it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Allegedly" and the Kroll report

I added the Kroll report section today. You will note that the word "allegedly" does not occur anywhere in the section. This is despite the fact that it says negative things about a man who is facing a murder trial, about points that will be key in his trial. There is no need for "allegedly" because we are only saying that Kroll made these assertions, not that they have any merit. Put diifferently, it would be completely untrue, inaccurate, and unsourced to say that Kroll said Tensing allegedly was not dragged; they did not say that; they said he was not dragged. It is also quite clear enough that they are only allegations at this stage. Inserting "allegedly" would be a misapplication of WP:NPOV, not to mention a violation of WP:V.
Since one or two editors have been going around adding "allegedly"s in articles of this type, many of them inappropriate, it's reasonable to predict that they might do that here. So I'm preemptively seeking a consensus against that. With any luck they will see this and that will prevent the edit from occurring. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning.- MrX 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

straw poll--"off campus"

While not an RFC discussions can be closed. This one was listed at WP:ANRFC and after posting on the proposers talk page closing is appropriate. There is consensus for inclusion of the fact that the shooting took place off campus. The body of the article is the preferred place and not the lede. The addition should be small. AlbinoFerret 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poll regarding "off-campus" shooting by University Officer

Introduction

This poll is for answering questions with regard to whether we should cover the fact that the shooting took place off campus or not, and if so, how much coverage. Obviously it immediately raises the question of whether the officer had jurisdiction for the stop. Although he did, WP:RS shows that people in the affected community were not entirely aware of it, which affects their perception of the incident. The New York Times article (and other below WP:RS), explain how this increased tensions and race-relations concerns between the University and the adjacent communities, resulted in a moratorium on the off-campus policing program (now under a required review), comments from the Mayor questioning the program and adequacy of training of University officers compared to regular Cincinnati Officers. There is also mention of a court order that required sensitivity training for Cincinnati Police, for which there was an "island" where it did not apply to the University Officers. This poll was created as per discussion here --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Notices

I have not given notices, but I do intend to per discussion here. ----David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

RS

The following WP:RS refers to the "off-campus" aspect:

...“A campus police officer had no business doing a traffic stop in an urban area.” Joseph Norris, who lives in the neighborhood...just off the sprawling campus.
“My record is clean, but as a young black man I start shaking whenever a police car pulls up behind me,” Norris said. If university police are going to make traffic stops, he said, “they need better training.”
Deters questioned why the university had a police force at all. “I don’t think a university should be in the policing business,” he said.
But the university’s president, Santa J. Ono, said he thought the school’s force should be improved rather than disbanded. School officials had previously announced that they would bring in an outside investigator to review the department’s policies.
Meanwhile, amid concerns about the shooting, the school announced last week that its officers would patrol and make traffic stops only on campus.
Tensing was about a half-mile south of campus when he pulled over DuBose[]
  1. ^ Mura, John; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (30 July 2015). "Samuel DuBose's Death in Cincinnati Points to Off-Campus Power of College Police". New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2015.
  2. ^ Carlson, Scott (30 July 2015). "Shooting Tests Ties Between a University and Its City". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 8 Aug 2015.
Above is RS as of 23:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC). I may improve/add to the WP:RS, but will not change the questions. I support others adding to the above WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Poll Questions

These are the questions of the poll:

  • (1) Should the article mention that the shooting took place "off campus" by a University Officer? [Yes/No]
If yes, to (1):
  • (2) Approximately how many sentences should be dedicated to it? [Number]
  • (3) Should it have its own section in the article? [Yes/No]
  • (4) If no to (3), what section should it be in? [Section Title]
  • (5) Should the Lede of the article mention it? [Yes/No]

Poll Responses

  • My responses:
    • (1) Yes
    • (2) TBD -- would like to see other responses before answering.
    • (3) TBD -- ""
    • (4) TBD -- ""
    • (5) Yes
--David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, 0-1 (perhaps just added into an existing sentence as a clause), no, shooting, no Gaijin42 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ditto Gaijin42. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd include it in the article. It seems clear that resentments have been building for some time and the shooting has brought them to the surface. Other university police forces have also taken note of the controversy. Looking at our similar articles, this sort of thing is included. I'd use say four or five sentences, or whatever it takes. It will need it's own section. I'd include a mention in the lead, of course, if it is given an entire section. Gandydancer (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, include a short sentence in the article and a few words in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It should definitely be mentioned in the body of the article that the shooting was done by a University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD) officer. I don't think that this calls for mention in the lede. It should be mentioned in the body of the article that the shooting took place off campus, though I think this is of secondary importance. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My comments:
  1. Yes
  2. One to two sentences, but omit any quotes from the lay public.
  3. No
  4. Include with the third paragraph of Legal proceedings
  5. No. It is not an important point.
- MrX 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a very complicated straw poll. I'd suggest you be WP:BOLD and edit the article with a mention of this issue, in as many sentences are needed to cover it fairly. We can then use WP:BRD to finesse the edit. If it sticks, then we can proceed to discuss mentioning in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I kind of disagree, since I'm currently opposed to any related content as not directly related to the article subject. See Shooting of Michael Brown; no discussion of Ferguson police racism issues. Shooting of Walter Scott has two sentences. In at least those articles, editors felt we should stick closely to the immediate subject. The OP and I discussed this at length earlier on this page. My BRD response would be a complete revert, then. I'd like at least a consensus that some content is needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Then the best course of action will be a simple RFC, asking if to include a mention that the stop was made off-campus. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Why is a lengthy RfC better than trying for a far quicker local consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
What Im trying to say is that this straw poll is way to complicated. Break it in pieces, starting with asking just about "Should the article mention that the shooting took place "off campus" by a University Officer?". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe just some iterative process involving multiple unstructured discussions beginning with, "Should the article include anything about this?" It's a tough nut, or maybe I'm overcomplicating things, as I'm sometimes prone to do. (Now I'm feeling guilty for helping the OP waste all that time putting this poll together, if in fact it turns out to be wasted.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not that complicated. It only has 5 questions. I can put a note at the top to just answer the first if you are not sure about the others. As you can see, even I did not answer 3 of the questions! I recently participated in a single question RfC that caused much consternation (and the question was then later revised) because too few questions were answered and even the closer was not able to figure out what to conclude from the responses, that there was no consensus to keep or delete or how to revise the material. The responses were quite lengthy too. I think it is worth a shot as is. I agree with Mandruss (and appreciate the help on the poll) that a full blown RfC is unnecessary right now. David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, I might be open to a section of proposed language as Gandydancer spoke of, but I would rather do that outside this poll (and then refer to it) since the specific proposal might need multiple revisions and it is almost like a separate question of whether to go with the moving target of proposed language that is in its infancy and would likely need some work to gain consensus even if there is consensus to have some language. David Tornheim (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it is an important point that the shooting was done by a University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD) officer. Of secondary importance, but important nevertheless, is that the traffic stop and the shooting took place off-campus. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bus stop: Thanks for your feedback. Please vote in the Poll Responses Section, so people are aware of your position here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi @David Tornheim: The first of distinctions I would make is between whether or not to mention that the shooting was by an officer of the University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD). To that question I would say emphatically "yes". That the shooting took place off-campus is of far lesser importance in my opinion. But it should be mentioned. At this time I don't think this is the sort of material that should be placed in the lede. If at a later time the University police department is disbanded, this subject matter probably deserves placement in the lede. I think this probably should have its own section in the article but I don't know how many sentences are called for. Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bus stop: No one is talking about disbanding the UC Police force to my knowledge. They were talking instead about whether to continue allowing UC police to have jurisdiction off-campus and about whether they should receive the same kind of ethnic/racial sensitivity training that the Cincinnati Police do. David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my issue with the university police/off campus bit. Giving just the barest info (it was univ police, stop off campus) misleads the reader into thinking the stop was in some way invalid. We therefore have to correct that misleading with the fuller information (that they have a jurisdictional agreement, and in any case Tensing/Dubose were on campus initially, but got off campus by the time the stop was fully initiated ref). To correctly describe this situation requires a whole lot of text which is frankly WP:UNDUE for a boondoggle issue that ultimately resolves to "everything is kosher with the initial stop". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons:
(1) The article does not say the stop originated "on campus" but that it was "on the edge of campus". It is not clear if edge means adjacent or "nearby". I believe the average person in Cincinnati would believe that anything not within the campus limits is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Cincinnati Police, including the adjacent streets. (admittedly my opinion has no real bearing here.) So I disagree that the situation originated "on campus" without WP:RS that says so.
(2) Although WP:RS indicate the stop was indeed within the jurisdiction of the officer, this is not simply a legal question, where the facts and law settle the question with finality. The adjacent community is not composed exclusively of attorneys who who treat and react to this situation as an independent uninvolved, unassociated neutral trial judge is expected to do. That is abundantly clear by quotes I included above by people who live nearby. The community reaction and perception to what they *believe* is or *should* be the jurisdiction of campus police is just as important as to what that jurisdiction *actually* is. Also, important is how the jurisdiction came into being and why it may be lost. That is why that entire article was written by the New York Times (obviously not based in Cincinnati) on this issue and also may affect other university police jurisdiction questions. Our job is not simply to report the facts of the case like an attorney at the trial, but based on WP:RS, which includes a paper as prominent and well respected as the New York Times. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict - and before I've read David's comments) Gaijin42 , even though I voted to include, your arguments are exactly what concerns me as well. In other words, is this article about a senseless shooting or is it about an (apparently) long standing disagreement between the university force and the city law enforcement officials? On the other hand, a quick look at other (apparently) senseless shootings have gone on to include resulting controversies. For example, did the intense public outcry from a different incident cause the local police to be afraid to adequately monitor activity in the area, resulting in a rise in crime rate. Etc. Gandydancer (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I think reliable sources suggest that it is not a good idea to have two separate but overlapping police forces. I have not seen any source suggesting that this arrangement might have led to the shooting. But if the presence of two police forces is something that is mentioned in some sources, this is something we could consider adding to our article. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't sound right. I believe county Sheriff's and local police departments often share jurisdictions. Consider the shooting of Fouad Kaady which involved Clackamas County (Sheriff) and the City of Sandy (police dept.) who both responded here and here. David Tornheim (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I'll take your word for it that other similar articles explore some of these tangents. In my earlier discussion with DT about this, I said that was probably the case. But I also pointed to other articles where the editors have stuck closely to the immediate subject. The two that I cited were Shooting of Michael Brown, which says not a word about the history of racial tensions between the mostly white police and the mostly black community; and Shooting of Walter Scott, where RS covered the same kind of issues but they get only two sentences in our article. Bottom line is that there is apparently no community consensus on this question, so I think existing examples should be ignored on both sides. And I completely agree with Gaijin42's comments above. That reasoning is exactly the basis for my opposition to this content, although he articulated it better than I did, as usual. As I said to DT earlier, we don't include content simply because RS devotes space to it; they have a different mission than we do. This is a principle that does have community consensus, I believe. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


Mmm. There is probably a notable topic of campus policing likely deserving of an article. This story is a data point in that topic. As there is a relationship a mention is probably appropriate here. But it would be WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE to make this article be the proxy for that subject.Mandruss You sell yourself short, and give me undue credit, but thank you ;) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This source provides some material on questions involving the two police departments involved. In that source we find Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters saying "I don’t think a university should be in the policing business". And in that article we read "the university’s president, Santa J. Ono, said he thought the school’s force should be improved rather than disbanded." We also have in that source that "Tensing was about a half-mile south of campus when he pulled over DuBose’s green Honda Accord at 6:30 p.m. on a Sunday evening." Additional sourcing would help us to write about this. I fail to understand the objection to the inclusion of this material. Under discussion here is actually surprisingly little material. I would state the fact that two police departments have jurisdiction over the area at which the shooting took place. I would state that Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters expressed that he does not feel that the university should be in the policing business. And we can state that the shooting took place "a half-mile south of campus". Bus stop (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I fail to understand the objection to the inclusion of this material. Please clarify. Are you saying you actually don't understand the arguments given, or that you understand them but don't find them convincing? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What are the arguments? Should I re-read everything? Yes, I don't recognize any argument for omitting this material. DuBose was shot by an officer of a university's police department. But a second police department also had jurisdiction over this area. Reliable sources question the arrangement in which there are overlapping jurisdictions of police departments. We find this discussion in sources discussing the DuBose shooting. Would you say that there is a substantial argument for omitting this topic from this article? Rather than me re-reading and then guessing at what reason may be considered a good reason for omitting this information, why don't you just articulate what you see as good reasons for omitting this information? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The advantage of having discussions in writing, as compared to sitting around chatting in the living room, is that we don't have to keep repeating the same points because someone's mind wandered. It's both a discussion and a transcript of the discussion. While this question was also discussed earlier outside this thread, I think this subsection covers the important points. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Your own reason given is that "I'm currently opposed to any related content as not directly related to the article subject." How unrelated is this? There is a "Cincinnati Police Department". This is separate from the "University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD)". Sources make this point. But we should omit it? You say that we should omit content "not directly related to the article subject." Do you feel that this sort of information is so irrelevant that it doesn't even warrant inclusion in the article? Can you explain why? Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
First, I've gotten the impression from a couple of your comments that you think inclusion of the fact that Tensing was UCPD is in dispute here. It is not; this is about whether to include content about the off-campus aspect. UCPD is already mentioned several times, including in the lead, and that will remain. As I've said, while there is no community consensus and I don't assert this as undeniable truth, my editorial judgment and that of many others is to stick closely to the immediate subject. There's really no end to tangential connections, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. I simply ask the question, did the fact that it was off-campus have anything to do with the shooting? And my answer is no. It's exactly the same as Slager's wife's pregnancy, except that that was in the Backgrounds section, where the bar for inclusion is lower. You'll recall that my position received some experienced outside support and the content remained out. See also: Gaijin42's argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The DuBose shooting took place one half-mile from the university campus, at a point over which two police departments have overlapping jurisdiction. This cannot be seen as irrelevant information. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree to disagree, and it will come down to a vote. That's usually how it goes, and these Discussion sections are generally a waste of space and time. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
"Slager's wife's pregnancy" did not have any bearing on that shooting. But by way of distinction, we are discussing specifics of this shooting. We don't have any burden to attribute pivotal importance to this information. You say "did the fact that it was off-campus have anything to do with the shooting?" We don't have to answer that question. We are merely providing relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and as I've repeatedly said to apparently deaf ears, editors will differ as to the definition of "relevant". I'm pretty good at recognizing when further discussion is pointless, and we're a little past that point. Discuss this someone else, if they feel inclined. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know—I'm trying to respond to your points. "Slager's wife" is unlike the place that this shooting took place, or which department had jurisdiction over that point. You posed the question as to whether "the fact that it was off-campus have anything to do with the shooting?" The answer to that question is that we don't know and we probably never will know. But these are the facts immediately surrounding the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that we will never know. I do know that no direct connection has been shown in RS, to date. That's the line that I choose to draw. Coverage in RS, as a result of the shooting, is not the same as RS making a connection for our purposes. There are many facts immediately surrounding the shooting that we choose to omit, including the fact that it occurred in a historical district called Mount Auburn. Someone added that early on, I removed it as not significant enough to include, and it has stayed out since then. And, again, see Gaijin42's argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that "it occurred in a historical district called Mount Auburn" and that could remain. You are controlling information to too great a degree and for insufficient reason. You refer to "RS making a connection for our purposes." We don't have "purposes" defined to high clarity. This article is a compilation of relatively relevant information. Different editors have different hypothetical readers in mind. Plus we should be taking our cue from good quality sources, several of which note that an officer of the University of Cincinnati shot DuBose one-half mile off campus. There is no known significance to this. But The Washington Post chooses to include this point in their article. There is ample leeway for scope in our article to allow for inclusion of this in our article. Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
And, if you provided a link to that WaPo article, I'm confident it contains other things we choose to omit, which makes that point utterly meaningless. Again, editorial judgment is exactly that: judgment, agree to disagree, this is circular, this will come down to a vote, we are wasting our time, bye bye. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
At the top of this thread we find links to the Washington Post and the New York Times. There is another but I have not read it thoroughly. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Things that WaPo considered worth mentioning that we have omitted:
  • Tensing was charged with murder on a Wednesday.
  • "A similar shooting in 2001 provoked violent riots here."
  • Multiple Deters quotes.
  • Deters' office has reviewed more than 100 police shootings.
  • Shooting occurred approximately two minutes after the stop.
  • "he thrusts the weapon through the open car window and fires a single round", which we omit presumably because no other RS says he thrust the gun through the window, and that can't be seen in the bodycam video as far as I can tell.

I hope I don't have to repeat this process for the NYT piece to make this point. Moral: While inclusion in Wikipedia requires RS support, WP:DUE does not mean that something must be included in Wikipedia simply because it's mentioned in RS. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to take a stance on the advisability of such an arrangement. But we can apprise the reader that some question the arrangement. And we can point out the plain fact that this traffic stop took place some distance away from the university's campus, despite the fact that the officer was a part of the university's police department. These are facts that reliable sources disclose in relation to this incident. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

My objection is purely that the level of information to accurately describe this and not mislead the user is undue for such a non-issue in the shooting. Similarly, I don't think we should mention the gin bottle handed to the cop (even though many sources do) because then we have to go into it wasn't really gin, it was fragrance, but it was described as gin in the original police/media reports. etc. The "meat" of this article is the shooting. The stop itself is not controversial. It just gets into a distraction for very little value. In a different article (about campus policing) or in a hypothetical aftermath section ("triggered a debate about the proper role/jurisdiction of campus police") I could see more support, but sticking it in the shooting section at any level of detail just sends the reader off on a tangent for no reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me play Devil's advocate. Why should we include that one man is black and the other white? You say "The 'meat' of this article is the shooting." No source is saying that racial difference precipitated the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
As mandruss said, editorial judgement. You are trying to build consensus for a different editorial judgement. That is the correct thing to do. But if that consensus doesn't develop in your favor, then you move on.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You are not attempting to address the question I posed, except indirectly. Why should we include that one man is black and the other white? Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
1. That is at the center of a huge national debate that has been going on for at least a couple of years. Off-campus stops by campus police, not so much. 2. There have already been multiple RfCs that have established that as community consensus. Off-campus stops by campus police, none whatsoever. Can you move on now? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have given you the only answer that matters. There is consensus for that editorial judgement, both locally in this article, and across the dozen or so similar articles. As to why that editorial judgement exists. its probably because virtually 100% of the RS view it through that lens (BLM movement etc) and we follow along (or agree). There are certainly some sources that talk about campus policing in relation to this incident (and using this incident as a launching pad for the larger discussion). But most of them are not focusing on that angle. in my opinion they are not focusing on that angle because that angle is a dead end. If Tensing had been acting outside his legal authority and jurisdiction, more sources would probably focus on it. This could of course change. Lots of stuff that seemed minor in say the Michael Brown case ended up being important at the end. The sources shifted, and so did we. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that Tensing acted "outside his legal authority and jurisdiction"; I have certainly not said that. But exceptionally good quality sources exist alerting us to the special situation here, in which two police forces overlap jurisdictionally. This can be simply stated in our article. You say at 14:17, 10 August: "Giving just the barest info (it was univ police, stop off campus) misleads the reader into thinking the stop was in some way invalid. We therefore have to correct that misleading with the fuller information (that they have a jurisdictional agreement, and in any case Tensing/Dubose were on campus initially, but got off campus by the time the stop was fully initiated ref). To correctly describe this situation requires a whole lot of text which is frankly WP:UNDUE for a boondoggle issue that ultimately resolves to 'everything is kosher with the initial stop'."[3] You are over-thinking this. You are willing to contrive to omit information so as not to "mislead" the reader. But you are depriving the reader of information prominently provided alongside the shooting of DuBose. What we should be working on is simple language to convey the discussed information to the reader. If you can find simple language that avoids "misleading" the reader in the way that you feel is so important here, then great. If there is no way to avoid "misleading" the reader in the way that has you concerned, then that concern should be considered of secondary importance. I don't believe that well-sourced information is usually "misleading" if properly worded. Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What special situation? Law enforcement agencies frequently overlap. See Death of Sandra Bland, where the stop was made by a state trooper within city limits and then local police arrived to help out. Quite often city police and county sheriff overlap. Forgive me for stopping reading at that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the overlap between two police departments as a significant piece of information surrounding this shooting. Bus stop, you seem intent on convincing the other editors here that we should include this material, but it doesn't seem like you're any closer to reaching a consensus than when you started this topic several posts ago. If you think there is the possibility of reaching consensus for your proposal, I suggest creating an RfC (or a simple poll). - MrX 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop If you do decide to proceed with another poll or RFC, I suggest you make a single concrete proposal. Put together the sentence/paragraph/section you feel is appropriate and give it an up down vote. What we have above is much too complicated to actually get a good consensus out of. There is way too much ambiguity in the question and answers. However, when putting together your proposal, to ensure the best chances of support, you should take into account the feedback you have gotten so far about how much detail parties have stated support for. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have read through the above. Mandruss ☎ says that "my editorial judgment and that of many others is to stick closely to the immediate subject." I am confused as to what is meant by "the immediate subject". The subject is the "shooting of Samuel DuBose". Circumstances that are involved are part of the shooting, such as that ethnicity of shooter and victim are relevant, as correctly pointed out by BusStop. The location in Cincinnati is too. So is the training the officer received. Since the officer received training from the University rather than the City of Cincinnati Police Department, material in WP:RS (NYT) suggests that the UC Police officers have inadequate racial sensitivity training per consent decree. And if the stop had not been made off campus, where jurisdiction had been recently increased, the shooting might have been avoided, if better trained local police with better training had handled it. To me, all of this is relevant to the "immediate subject." A subject such as whether the police should or should not have jurisdiction outside of campus, I would agree is not part of the immediate subject of the shooting itself and a larger more complex question, although it is unquestionably affected by the shooting, so I think even that should be mentioned, but possibly referred to another article specifically dedicated to campus police jurisdiction "off-campus" for all universities/colleges, possibly with its own section dedicate to the aftermath of this particular incident. David Tornheim (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @David Tornheim: Again, it's editorial judgment, editors will differ. You lean toward a more thorough exploration of related aspects, I prefer to keep things shorter and tighter. As I've indicated before, there is no wiki-universal "correct" on this point, there is no real need for sitewide consistency in this area, and you could easily get a different result with a different mix of editors. The purpose of an RfC is to change the mix, and you're free to start one. Barring that, an editor just has to be able to accept a local consensus that they disagree with. Sorry but I don't know how to articulate my position any better. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weapon

The type of weapon is relevant to the case. If that's not so, please explain how we should apply WP:NPOV to determine which information is relevant or irrelevant in this matter. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see what this has to do with neutral point of view, maybe you could elaborate. The specific model of handgun is not relevant unless it has some particular bearing on the case; it does not. As I said on your talk page, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
There are four core content policies. The only one which seems to apply to this situation is NPOV. How are you using it to decide which elements of this matter are relevant? For example, you are not deleting the time, date, or location of the killing. Nor are you deleting descriptions of events that occurred decades ago, such as school attendance. Those you apparently deem relevant. How are you deciding? What is the criterion you are using? 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk)
Which meaning of "factoid" are you using? Do you regard this as false or spurious information? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The specific weapon should be mentioned because it's meaningful detail. The source, which is useful for verification, is also valuable to readers who wish to research further. They should both remain in the article.- MrX 01:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, you have cited NPOV without saying how it applies. How can I respond to your NPOV argument if I don't understand it because you haven't explained it?
You're assuming that I see other things as relevant because I do not challenge them as irrelevant. I balance relevance against the need to collaborate, and it would be an abuse of WP:BOLD to change the entire article to my liking. I choose my battles, and I choose this particular battle because I don't like the preoccupation with gun models, calbers, and so on. They are usually irrelevant, and, when they are, I sometimes choose to challenge them. MrX, you state that it is a meaningful detail, but you don't say how it's meaningful. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You are the one making the assertion about which content should go into the article. That is why I'm asking you to explain how you decide what is or isn't relevant. What is your criteria? If there is none, then it seems like a case of "I don't like it." And, what about "factoid"?2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I clearly told you why I don't think it's relevant. It isn't relevant because it has no bearing on this case. No one is suing the manufacturer of the weapon, no one is claiming that it was exceesive firepower for a cop, no one is saying Sig Sauers have too light a trigger pull and that may have been why it went off when Tensing was thrown around by the car's movement, or anything else. That would be relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Detail about the type of weapon used in an alleged murder is highly relevant. It's a critical piece of the who, what, where, when and why pie. Your personal dislike for preoccupation with gun models doesn't enter into consideration. - MrX 01:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
How do we know what has a "bearing on the case"? What is the criteria you're using to decide? How can we determine the "bearing" of other material in the article? Why is time of day important? Why does it matter that the victim was a motorcycle enthusiast? Is this all just "like it/don't like it", or there a policy which determines "bearinginess"? And maybe you'd better stop using "factoid". 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I just gave you three illustrative examples of relevance. If you still need to ask me what I mean by relevance, "bearing on this case", or "criteria I'm using to decide", you are not reading what I'm writing. I also already explained why I am not required to oppose all irrelevant content in order to oppose this irrelevant content, and you're re-asking that question as well. When I see this kind of behavior, I generally assume a person is not actually interested in an answer, and I don't waste my time repeating myself ad infinitum. If you have a question I haven't already answered, please ask it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I repeat the questions because you've never answered the one I asked in the original post - what policy basis are you using. You have givein me all kinds of answers, but have never given me any policy language for your editing decision. I can address your three examples, but if I do then I expect the discussion will devolve into a debate over those. Before we begin that debate, I'd like to know which policy we're basing this decision upon. By your lack of answer, it appears it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Correct? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Two can play that game. You pulled NPOV out of the air. When I asked you how it could possibly have anything to do with this, you did not respond, showing that you don't know. So neither of us has any strong policy basis, and we're both relying on editorial judgment and reasoning. I have given clear and specific reasoning. We don't include things simply because they appear in sources. We ask whether they are relevant. We routinely exclude little details for this reason. If I challenge something on relevance grounds, the burden is on the person who wishes to include it to show that relevance. Without this, someone could insert the fact that DuBose had epilepsy, assert that it would violate NPOV to omit it, and challenge opposers to show what policy there is for excluding it. Clearly, Wikipedia does not allow that kind of thing to go on. All Wikipedia editing is selective. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

<- When you asked how it was relevant I replied that it is the (alleged) murder weapon.[4] I still think that establishes the relevance pretty clearly without further need. As for NPOV, I didn't pull it out of the air or out of my ass. I referred to it because it seems like the most appropriate content policy to resolve this dispute. You haven't proposed any other policy that's applicable. I still don't get any sense of how you're determining "bearing" or "relevance" other than your personal preference. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it is the alleged murder weapon is not relevance, any more than the make and model of DuBose's vehicle is relevant. The thing would have gone down the same way if he had been driving a different model of roughly the same size. Similarly, it would have gone down the same way if Tensing had carried a Glock rather than a Sig Sauer. No sources have attributed any particular relevance to the car model or the gun model, they are simply reporting all the details their reporters can scrape together, as news sources do. That is not our mission; we are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. I fail to see how this is so hard to grasp. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to grasp because you are simply making assertions. A is relevant, B is irrelevant. These decisions don't follow any criteria other than personal preference. The type of weapon is relevant in many possible ways, as is the type of car. For example, an automatic transmission typically makes a car creep forward if the driver takes his foot off the brake pedal. A modern, military-grade semi-automatic pistol is different from a cowboy-era six-shooter or an AR15 or a hunting rifle. It may not interest you, but that's not a policy basis we can use. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that this has been elevated to an RfC, this discussion is irrelevant. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates

  • Coordinates 39.12322°N 84.51319°W (traffic stop)

Why is this information relevant? Isn't this more indiscriminate information? Is anyone saying that the exact location has a bearing on the case? That it would have happened differently if it were a block away? What's our source for this material? If these questions can't be answered, should we delete it? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See this Wikipedia behavioral guideline: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
No answer to the question? You said above that it's the person wanting the info to be included who has to justify it. Is it disruptive to ask for that discussion? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
See this Wikipedia behavioral guideline: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussing content issues is disruptive? Really? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any source for the coordinates. I posted a {cn} tag asking for a source. Another editor deleted the request. It appears to be a violation of NOR/SYNTH. Where did we get this information from? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See your talk page, you are still violating WP:POINT, apparently failing to grasp its meaning. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
And you are edit warring to retain your version. Please provide sources if you have them. Unsourced material may be removed. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Unarmed"

The term "unarmed" appears in the titles of two of the sources we use, and in the texts of countless other sources about this case. Obviously, the killing of unarmed black people by police is a controversial issue in the US these days. To omit it from the article skews the content. I see that there was some sort of consensus on how to handle this issue conducted back in August, but none of the compromise language ("no weapons found", etc) is still in the article. So I've added it to the intro. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

An argument was made that the automobile was a deadly weapon. The article already makes it clear that the victim was at the wheel of a car, and it's not a stretch to say that someone whose only "weapon" is their car is "unarmed". Many things can be used as weapons, but they're not "arms" - guns, knives, etc. We can say both that DuBose was unarmed and that Tensing says he feared that he'd be dragged without contradicting ourselves. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Off-campus"

See Talk:Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose/Archive_2#straw_poll--.22off_campus.22. The closing admin summarized the results on 25 September 2015:

There is consensus for inclusion of the fact that the shooting took place off campus. The body of the article is the preferred place and not the lede. The addition should be small.

For some reason, after that lengthy discussion of the matter, this was never implemented. So I added the material in bold to the "Shooting" section:[5]

...Tensing was patrolling off-campus in the Mount Auburn area when he stopped DuBose...

Thanks. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Police are police"

They also switched service weapons to a model that can have a lighter trigger pull, and received additional training on gun use.<ref name="cincinnati.com"/> In the first half of 2015, officers pulled their weapons 13 times, compared to 2 times in 2014 and 2013. "UC police got new guns before DuBose shooting". Cincinnati.com. August 25, 2015.

This is sourced information from an article about this shooting. It was deleted with the edit comment "police are police".[6] I object strongly. All police officers are not he same, and all police departments are not the same. That's a ridiculous claim, not a legitimate reason to delete sourced material from an article. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Same model and training as other LE. University Police have the same state-wide authority as any other police officer and the pistol they carry is a standard model carried by other departments and is very common. There's no indication its different from anyone else. Going from a Glock to a Sig could possibly lower pull weight but trigger travel distance is increased tremendously. They all have tradeoffs and these random guesses are random guesses. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not random guesses - it's data. Following the change of weapon and the change in training, the number of occasions that weapons were drawn skyrocketed. That's clearly relevant to this topic. If all police are the same then why bother naming Tensing - since all cops would have done the same? Why give the name of the particular agency, since all LE agencies are the same? Those arguments make no sense. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
How does a change in firearm relate to whether it's drawn? Firearms are drawn all the time and 2 to 13 isn't particularly notable nor is 2 datapoints. Firearms are drawn everytime they clear a building or a car or any number of encounters. Heck, it could be a reporting change. Whether Tensing acted outside of policy is at issue. Whether it has anything to do with 100 other issues is speculation. The other officers with the same firearms and the same training are not charged. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In general people don't fire guns until they've drawn them. Wielding (brandishing) a weapon in a conflict is, by itself, a potential violation if done by a civilian. In the prior two years, the entire force drew their weapons only four times, versus 13 times in the six months prior to the shooting. Clearly, something changed in the practices of the department. This is the kind of data that police review boards look at all the time. If it weren't significant, they wouldn't bother gathering the data. Whether Tensing followed policy is not the issue. For example, if the policy was inappropriate that could be an issue too. It's not for us to decide - we follow sources. It is certainly more relevant than many details in the article. The idea that police department policies or training routines have no bearing on the use of force by their officers is incomprehensible. It's not necessary for every officer in a department to engage in a questionable shooting death for their training to be questioned. That's a ridiculous standard. So far, I haven't seen any good reason for the deletion of sourced material. Let's present the information found in reliable sources, not spoonfeed what we think readers should find interesting. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources don't link either "firearms drawn" or trigger pull weight to the shooting. They noted that traffic citations rose significantly. That is a much more likely connection to drawing a firearm. But even that isn't telling the whole story because firearms are drawn routinely on burglary calls ant the 2 vs. 12 number is more likely a "use of force" report (i.e. threatened use of deadly force) and is generally directly connected to traffic stops. I think the biggest change in firearms is that the new ones are striker fired vs. a hammer fire with a safer disassembly procedure (the slide can be removed for cleaning without pulling the trigger). It can also be more custom fitted to each officers hand. As the prosecutor said, though, the officer intentionally pulled the trigger on his firearm to stop the driver. Modern police (and civilian) pistols are very crisp with their break and travel compared to military specs for older pistols and rifles that have much wider variations in weight, travel, break and reset. Sig in particular is a very precise and expensive firearm. UC didn't skimp on either safety or performance by choosing that model. Competitive shooters choose trigger pull weights that are about half of that police model because they are more accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
What reliable sources are you talking about? LEOs don't fire guns they haven't drawn. If a gun is drawn, it's 10000% more likely to be fired than if it isn't drawn. So the fact that the rate of pulling out their guns and getting ready to shoot suddenly went up 13-fold just before this shooting is quite clearly relevant to the fact that one of their officers drew a gun at a minor traffic stop leading to a tragic death and a ruined career. This material has been reported in a reliable source about this case. It takes up very little space. Deleting it outright, with no compromise offered, no re-write allowed, seems like a violation of UNDUE, by prohibiting brief relevant text found in a reliable source about the topic. Since this discussion is heading towards resolution, I'll request a third opinion, using that system. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I see this as a question of appropriate scope, of how far we should delve into the tangential issues raised by the event. All high-profile and controversial events raise such issues, and they are discussed at length in the media. But the media have a different mission from ours, and discussion in the media is not enough in my view. My editorial preference is to stay close to the immediate subject, but I recognize the wide disagreement among the community on this. Basically it comes down to the editorial judgments of the editors locally present, unless one of them chooses to open an RfC on the question. At this point it looks like 2-to-1 against the content, even if the 2 have different reasons for their opposition. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I've requested an independent third opinion, as noted above. Thank you. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize that's what you meant by third opinion. Ok. So we'll end up with 3-to-1 or 2-to-2. An outside third (fourth) opinion doesn't carry more weight than a local one as far as I know, although they could introduce a strong policy argument. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No offense, but I've never met an editor so concerned with voting. It's not the best way to write articles on contentious topics. Especially when there's off page canvassing. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No offense taken. I recognize that a lot of what we do is not clearly covered by policy and falls to editorial judgment. In those cases, what you call voting is all we have, the only way to reach any resolution. I have rarely seen someone actually change their mind in one of these discussions, so, yes, it comes down to "voting" unless a clear policy case is made. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Whoever can recruit the most allies wins? That's a depressing view of Wikipedia editing, but probably true. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
With you talking in riddles, I can only surmise that you're referring to this, which was a discussion of article content, one of the main reasons for having user talk pages. I would have made the same comment here and pinged that editor, but unless I'm mistaken pings don't work from IP users. So the only way to get their attention was to post on their talk page. If you think you have a canvassing grievance, take it to WP:ANI, otherwise kindly drop these subtle and spurious accusations. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Your source that discusses the model, firearm training, increased traffic citations and apparently use of force reports involving firearms. From 2 to 13 is not particularly significant considering their contact with the public went up roughly the same amount (i.e. traffic stops went from very few to 700). More importantly, the source doesn't link any of it to the shooting. You did that. We don't know whether this officer had any change in behavior nor has the source said any changes are relevant and the tiny numbers they are using are over years. That's classic WP:SYNTH as you have drawn a conclusion the source did not. Second, we don't draw conclusions as you just did. No one drew a gun over a minor traffic stop. DuBose was attempting to flee from a lawful detention. The alleged mistakes were tactical, per the Kroll report, that the officer put himself in a dangerous position by reaching into the car but there is no question that he had the authority to detain and question DuBose until he determined his identity and DuBose was not free to leave. The charge of manslaughter is essentially that the officer unreasonably exposed and caused DuBose' death through some form of recklessness or negligence (i.e. acted outside his training). This issue was not drawing of the firearm. It would have been perfectly fine had the officer taken two steps back, drew his firearm and ordered DuBose to shut off his car at gunpoint. That wouldn't allow him to shoot, but police can threaten force including deadly force to effect an arrest. That's what they are trained to do instead of reaching into the car. This went sour when the officer reached into the car, not when he drew his gun. --DHeyward (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If you think I mis-summarized the source, leading to synth, then you propose a better summary of what the source says on the topic. I'm open to alternatives. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The source makes no connection between the firearm model, firearm training, increased traffic citations, use of force reports involving firearms and this shooting of DuBose by Tensing. Therefore, neither should we and it should not be in the encyclopedia article about the shooting of Samuel Dubose. --DHeyward (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so what does the source say? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Because, as I see it, the text properly summarizes the source and does not draw any inappropriate inferences. It simply provides data, that is in a reliable source writing about this topic. We don't say that one thing led to another. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Data is primary source. We require reliable sources to draw conclusions about data and link it to the topic. The problem is readily identified as you see a causal link between this data and the event when the source has made no such claim. Find a source that specifically ties how many more times Tensing drew his new weapon and how it caused him to shoot DuBose. Without that reliable source, though, it SYNTH (and likely coatrack). So far, your source published random data with no connection to this shooting. --DHeyward (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
We're using a secondary source already. This material is about the department, not about Tensing. The department is responsible for what it's officers do, and for providing their training. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:35D2:4BDB:A6:D594 (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with DHeyward on this matter. Newspapers are (and should be) able to throw whatever facts show up about a matter and invite readers to conclude whatever they like about it. That's what news is, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The SYNTH policy prohibits not only explicit synthesis by also implied synthesis, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." (Emphasis added.) The fact that the material is reliably sourced is not a reason to include it: it's a reason not to necessarily exclude it. As the verifiability policy makes clear, reliable sourcing is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. Frankly, I'd go further than DHeyward has gone, I think everything in the paragraph, except perhaps the first two sentences and maybe the first half of third (omitting the comparison with the city department), is pretty clearly SYNTH and UNDUE for this article. The rest might (or might not) be appropriate for a separate article about that department, but isn't appropriate for this one. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How can it be SYNTH if we report what a source says? Synth is when we make a conclusion not in sources. We're not implying anything that's not already implied in the sources about this topic. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:35D2:4BDB:A6:D594 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"Sources differ"

Sources differed as to whether the car was moving before the shot was fired.

What sources? From when? Is this still true? Is there now a consensus, one way or the other? No way to tell, since there's no citations. If no sources are provided I'll replace this with fresh text based on the best and latest sources. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW - I was pointed[7] to this thread: Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose/Archive 1#Sources for "sources differ". However there aren't any sources there either. Three months later, I'm sure we can do better than this. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I've altered it to "early sources", since this was written just a few days after the shooting. But the whole sentence should be replaced with more definitive information, since this is a key issue in the case. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The Kroll Report says:

Prior to the gunshot, it is difficult to determine with precision how much, if at all, the car moved, but whatever movement may have occurred appears to have been minimal.

This seems more precise than the other formula. I'd rather quote or rephrase this with attribution than the sloppier 'sources differ as to whether the car was moving or not'. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed the "sources differ" sentence. It was unsourced, misplaced, and outdated. I replaced it with a quote from the Kroll Report. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In this archived thread, consensus was reached for the statement: "Sources differed as to whether the car was moving before the shot was fired." That consensus has stood for months. This consensus involved close analysis of randomly chosen major "blue chip" news sources. User 2602 has declared that the statement is "out of date", and as far as I can tell that assertion is based solely on the Kroll report. 2602 has replaced the statement with: "According to the Kroll Report, 'it is difficult to determine with precision how much, if at all, the car moved [prior to the gunshot], but whatever movement may have occurred appears to have been minimal.'
The Kroll report did come later than the other sources that were input to the consensus, and Kroll probably did do more thorough analysis of Tensing's bodycam video. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the Kroll report supersedes all other sources in this analysis. Regardless, a new consensus must be reached to override the existing one. I'm reverting until said consensus is reached. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't split up discussions. What are the sources that differ? Please cite them. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The consensus is fully documented in the archived thread that I linked above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, a different thread than you referenced here.[8] Again, sources belong in the article, not on the talk page. Further, those sources are all from within day or two of the shooting and that talk page discussion occurred long ago, just after the shooting. It's not a contract which binds future editors. There's no consensus for it any more. It's unnecessary text. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how an existing consensus can evaporate simply because you declare it invalid. Can you point me to policy to that effect? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS:
Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
That consensus does not incorporate my concerns, does it? Not that I see. Nowhere is there a discussion of the fact that this material is out-of-date or uncited, or that better sources have been published since then. Let's just leave it out, it's unnecessary. If you think it is, then let's rewrite it to include the issues you think are important. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by leave it out. But I think it's improper to give only Kroll's analysis in the Shooting section. I think we should say sources differ in the Shooting section, and then you could put the Kroll quote in the Kroll Report section if you like (although that analysis is already paraphrased there). We're giving undue emphasis to Kroll's analysis.
As to the question of process, nothing in WP:CONSENSUS says that an existing consensus becomes null and void when someone new arrives and disagrees with it. Re "Nowhere is there a discussion of the fact...", this is that discussion, and that's why I started this. I'm prepared to be on the losing side of a new consensus, as always. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I started the discussion - see the top of the thread. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd further note that none of the editors involved in that previous consensus are currently active in this discussion. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

o/d We should use only the best sources. We don't write, "sources differ over whether the earth is a planet." The Kroll report is more comprehensive and later than any of the press reports you quoted back on July 31. Why use lesser sources when better ones are available? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than Kroll, which better ones are you referring to? If there is now a rough RS agreement on this question, we can simply reflect it in wiki voice. Again, I don't question Kroll's competence, but they should not be treated as the last word on the matter (nor should any other single source). 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
There's plenty in this article we cite to a single source. I just don't think that the sources which come out a day or two after a controversial shooting are likely to be the best. Maybe you do. Can you name any other sources after mid-August which still claim that DuBose was trying to drag Tensing? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Sources and citations are not the same thing. We may cite a single source, but that's not the same as basing content on a single source and treating that source as the only one that has any merit. Where something is fairly uncontroversial, more than one cite is unnecessary; that doesn't mean it's the only existing source for that content. And some things are so uncontroversial that one source is enough, such as the fact that Tensing was a cop in Green Hills. The car movement is a different animal.
This is not about dragging, it's about car movement. The car could have moved without any dragging. Nor is it about DuBose's intent. It's about what reliable sources have said about whether the car moved prior to the shot. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, what sources would you like to add to the Kroll Report summary? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Why would we need other sources there? It's a summary of the Kroll Report. There is universal agreement that Kroll said those things, and that's hard to dispute given that the report is public. And we already cite two sources besides the report itself, NYT and Cincinnati Enquirer. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The Kroll statement seems to be the best possible summary of the situation, basically, 'it's hard to be sure, but if the car moved it only moved a little'. On the other hand, simply saying 'the car may have moved' doesn't describe the extent of the movement. I don't see the value in saying that (some early) sources differ. Sources differ on exactly how far the car moved after the shooting too. Sources differ on many things, but we rarely mention it. As to the relative reliability of the sources, the Kroll report describes the process they used to estimate movement. None of the press sources do. A crime desk reporter on a deadline is not as good a source for this type of video analysis. In the end, the "sources differ" text doesn't add anything. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I restored the Kroll quote. There's no consensus to delete it. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:35D2:4BDB:A6:D594 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No citations needed?

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Is there really anything about this topic which meets the standard of common knowledge? Any assertion which requires no sources whatsoever? "Source differ", but we won't tell you which sources? Let's present these sources which differ and describe their difference. No need to hide the citations. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

2602 refers to MrX's comment here, which still makes sense to me. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean "We don't have to have a source for "sources differ". It's verifiable, directly observable, and incontrovertible. WP:BLUE applies.- MrX 20:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC) "
Does that statement supercede WP:V? No, I don't think so. Sources need to be provided for any challenged statement. Pick the ones you think are relevant, let's settle this. Don't keep saying source are unnecessary.2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Making demands of other editors won't get you very far, and it only makes you look silly. None of us has that kind of power/authority here; the only authority is in consensus. I'd suggest a different tack, making your best case and hoping a majority of commenting editors will see it your way. And simply letting go and moving on if they do not, rather than arguing ad infinitum et nauseam. No one is required to convince you that you're wrong, on this issue or any other. The current consensus is that no citation is needed in this case, and I trust you'll respect that until a new consensus is reached. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the authority is Wikipedia policy. There's no consensus here for the "sources differ" text sitting there without any citations. Is there even anyone from that old discussion still active on this article? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:35D2:4BDB:A6:D594 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're mistaken (again). WP:CONSENSUS says, at WP:CCC:

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion.

It does not say:

If an editor believes that an existing consensus is contrary to Wikipedia policy, they may ignore that consensus and edit against it.

There is no recognized concept of "still active on this article"; editors can come and go at will, leave for weeks and then come back, or whatever. WP:CONSENSUS says nothing about a consensus becoming invalid because the editors who were involved in it are less active in the article than they were at the time of the consensus. The one dissenter in the existing consensus was indeffed for socking, and I believe that disqualifies them, but MrX is still editing in good stead and his input to the consensus is just as current as it was three months ago. Please observe this Wikipedia policy and respect the existing consensus until a new consensus is reached. Thank you. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see you making any effort to discuss the text - you just keep saying that there's a consensus because two people agreed to something three months ago. Two people don't agree now. Let's find something we can agree upon. So, are these the sources you used for the edit? "Car moves: NYT,[9] CSM[10] Car doesn't move: LAT[11]". I assume there's no objection to citing those sources in the article. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, the NYT link is dead. It now says, "This news-agency article is no longer available on nytimes.com." Presumably it was an AP report. We may be able to find it on another news website if we have any other information. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and added citations for the LAT and CSM articles. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This NYT article would seem to be in the "didn't move" category: "University of Cincinnati Officer Indicted in Shooting Death of Samuel Dubose". Should we add that? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:4811:21A:B873:1A02 (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"... and places the car in drive"

I removed this text because I reviewed the video and I do not believe it's possible to determine that he did anything with the transmission. The narrative is about what is visible in the video. If we have a specific source about him putting the car in drive we could add that someplace besides this narrative. Further, we haven't established that the car has automatic transmission. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:35D2:4BDB:A6:D594 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's in the Kroll report. It's a green 1998 Honda Accord automatic with gear selector on the center console. It's explicitly stated and not disputed just as DuBose closing the door and restarting the car is not disputed. The video of the engine racing while it's crashed into a tree backs it up as well (Tensing turned the ignition off after the crash, DuBose foot was still on the accelerator). At some point after starting the car and before being shot, DuBose put in in drive. The time is not known, the fact it happened is known. --DHeyward (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I really hope we are not selectively choosing information directly from the video. We need to use secondary sources to determine what is appropriate for inclusion in the article.- MrX 14:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, we are removing information because the video doesn't show it. "green 1998 Honda Accord" is a description in a reliable source. "DuBose closed the door" is a description. "automatic transmission with drive selector in center console" is a description in a reliable source. "Dubose started the car" is a description in a reliable source. "Dubose put the car in drive" is a dscription in a reliable source. Those aren't disputed facts. "Tensing fired a single shot into DuBose head" is a description in a reliable source. "Tensing tried to open the door" is a description in a reliable source. "Tensing reached into the car" is a decription in a reliable source. Again none of those descriptions are disputed. The disputed events are whether Tensing got hung up in the car. Whether the car moved prior to the gunshot. Whether Tensing recklessly, negligently or intentionally placed himself in a position that resulted in the unlawful use of deadly force - are the disputed areas. Not sure why someone would remove "put in drive" as it's part of the sequence of closing the door, starting the car, putting in drive and when shot, the foot hit the accelerator and is in the sources. More bizarre is citing the video as "proof" as it's quite obvious the car was "in gear" (the letter "D") when it took off and duBose was in no position to work either a clutch or gear shift and the engine was still revving with a foot on the gas (not stalled like a manual transmission would when the wheels stopped moving). Very bizarre removal. --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Really, the video should not be used as a source at all. That makes everything simple and compliant with various policies. It might help to add a citation to the specific words "put in drive".- MrX 23:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In point of fact, the video clearly shows his right hand move to the steering column at 3:13, and you can hear the starter at 3:14. The gunshot occurs three seconds later, and it goes without saying that he must have shifted into Drive at some point between 3:14 and 3:17. But I agree that the video should not be used by itself to include - or exclude - content; that is a clear violation of WP:NOR. I've seen videos used to decide between contradictory reliable sources, and I don't see a problem with that, but we shouldn't go farther than that. If we had sources that said he put it into Drive, and other sources that said he did not, I wouldn't have a problem with ignoring the latter sources on the basis of the video. We're allowed to disregard reliable sources that we know to be incorrect (that's in policy somewhere), and the video tells us that those hypothetical latter sources are incorrect. I don't think that's what we have, however.72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Aims it at DuBose's head

Insufficiently sourced in my opinion. The Kroll report, alone, is not enough to say this in wiki voice. Maybe with attribution, but not wiki voice. I don't question Kroll's competence, but it still doesn't justify wiki voice. This is critical because it clearly implies intent to shoot him in the head, which amounts to intent to kill. The editor is correct, it's a "key point". 68.97.47.26 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back from your retirement. It's well-known that police officers are trained to shoot-to-kill, not to wound. There's no indication that the weapon was fired accidentally, unless you think the gun misfired, in which case the brand of gun is important. There's no source which says the officer intended to shoot DuBose anywhere else besides the head. So mere logic says that the officer aimed the gun at the perp's head with the intent to kill. But we don't have to rely on logic, because we have sources. If multiple sources say the same thing, and none dispute it, then that's sufficient to say it in "wiki voice". But we can attribute it until you find a source that says he fired at DuBose's head without aiming. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • what sources specifically say "aimed at head" vs "hit in head" or some such formulation?
  • "aiming" a gun generally requires a sign picture with arms extended and proper alignment. At best this was point shooting, which is certainly accurate enough at point blank range,
  • since DuBose was sitting in the car , the only area really exposed through the window is the head and upper chest, so it would be somewhat surprising if he had been hit somewhere else
  • accidentally, probably not, but unintentionally, possibly (which would bring judgement/skill into play, but not really the make of gun)

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

[E/C] OK, as a compromise I put in "points it DuBose's head". It's obvious from the video that Tensing had pointed the gun at DuBose's head when he fired. It sounds less intentional than "aimed". 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe that is still a BLP violation. To be clear, I think Tensing is in the wrong here, that the situation was not sufficiently threatening for pulling the gun and shooting, but we cannot say that he intended to shoot Dubose in the head (vs any non-specified area). Tensing fired. Dubose was hit in the head. Anything more is speculation unfit for wikipedia's voice. I am reverting this due to this BLP concern. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE do not restore this change without consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If Tensing didn't point the gun at DuBos'es head, then who pointed it there? It pointed itself? The text never says he intended to point, just like we don't say he intended to shoot. Maybe we better just put it all in passive mode - "The gun was pointed at DuBose's head when it fired." That clears Tensing from any responsibility. Good enough? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
That version is better than your prior version, but I don't see its advantage over the current version. Yes, clearly from a physics standpoint, the end of the gun was aligned with Dubose's head at the time of the shot. Because it is clear, saying that he was hit in the head is sufficient, and does not raise any possible intent issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't go all BLPNAZI here. I've put in another compromise version: "Within the next few seconds, Tensing reaches into the car with his left hand, yells "Stop! Stop!", draws his pistol with his right hand, and fires once at DuBose's head." That's clearer than the previous text, and represents to BLP violation. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The next para makes it very clear that he was shot in the head, and there is no need to say anything about that in the sentence in question. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This paragraph is about the shooting, so it needs to be there. It's allowable to repeat the fact that the victim was shot in the head, just like we say repeatedly that he was in a car. The fact that the gun was shot at the head doesn't mean it hit the head, which is what's covered in the subsequent paragraph. A little redundancy isn't a problem. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Police are trained to shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. Center of mass is the easiest to hit under stress and generally incapacitates the person. Pelvic girdle is next in the list if center of mass is protected with, say body armor. Head is effective target, too but I doubt he targetted anything other than just shooting. The officer was detached/released from the vehicle almost immediately after shooting and he pulled himself back with enough force to fall down. Note, that police are justified in shooting only if they are justified in killing but that's pretty much the rule for anyone whence why there are never warning shots or intentional shots to wound. Another noticeable tidbit is the officers finger is on the trigger almost the entire time. That's contrary to training and is a stress reaction and I believe noted in a few reliable sources that discuss such things. There is a squeeze reflex when hands are occupied with different tasks especially one hand grabbing/squeezing keys. Lastly, there is Jerk (physics) - which is another feeling that people can have that doesn't translate well into video and is when acceleration is changing. The feeling of a jerk (a sudden change in acceleration) and a persons general overreaction to them causes falls and feeling of large motion when there is only small motion. Pumping the breaks at a stoplight can jerk people around in a car and it doesn't really move at all. The act of putting a car in drive can cause a lurch that will cause a person standing in pickup truck bed to fall down without the pickup moving. Standing on a train or bus that jerks without a handhold will likely cause a person to fall down with little or no movement. Holding onto a car from the outside when it is put into drive is very noticeable with little or no movement so we should be careful with stating "felt he was being dragged" as that is quite possible just as it's quite possible the steering wheel could have locked up his arm as he reached through it. We should be very careful wording what the officer did/felt/reacted to as the law can be very precise about police justifications and reasonableness in use of deadly force. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
We should be careful about everything we write. However we write to Wikipedia standards, not with an eye to helping or hurting someone at some future trial. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
And the standard is WP:BLPCRIME which emphaticatically states we write "innocent until proven guilty." --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's start be enforcing BLPCRIME about the 60 arrests of DuBose that didn't result in convictions. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk)
Please don't assert "Wikipedia standards" without some kind of backup. The primary issue here is to avoid the slightest implication of intent, and in BLP areas it's prudent to err on the safe side. That's a Wikipedia standard with backup. It's clear DuBose was shot in the head without that phrase. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If you don't know what Wikipedia standards are then don't assert them. Are you saying that Tensing didn't shoot at DuBose's head? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I have a good handle on what Wikipedia standards are, thanks. Please learn something about Wikipedia BLP policy and drop this stick. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You're the one with the stick, based on how often you've fought with other editors about this. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Please focus on content and policy, not editors. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not the one who raised the stick. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made this edit, restoring DHeyward's language. As I said in my editsum I believe this is closer to the apparent consensus that BLP is the most important consideration here.
My preference would be what stood for months, "fires once", relying on the following paragraph to inform the reader about the fatal head wound. But I'll accept this compromise. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose/Archive_2&oldid=1137185079"