Talk:Killing of Stephon Clark/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Stephon Clark. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Notable

This article is notable because: This meets Wikipedia's standard for notability because of the sustained coverage and impact of the event over time, as demonstrated by reliable sources.--Beneficii (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I, who came to this article after reading this, endorse the above statement. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Coverage a mere five days after the event is not ongoing coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Ncpz (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[TIME], [Vox], [Newsweek], [Washington Post]

If it gains considerable coverage, and will be likely referenced for years to come in subsequent shootings, and court cases, notability has been established.

On another note, I will say, with due respect to TheLongTone it seems you have a history of pointed AfD nominations. I admire your initiative, and even how you don't care what others think, you do what you think you need to. However, I think that is highly misplaced here. I don't think there's an admin that would consider this AfD. --Amaraiel ^{Send Message} Amaraiel ^{Send Message} 22:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Structure and summary

Have tried to give the article some structure and provide a short summary in the lead. More detailed descriptions should go in the body. I think there's more that can be done to describe the event itself clearly. I also think that the "protests" and "responses" can be a lot longer, given all the material that's available. -Darouet (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging two editors who I've seen do really good work on this kind of article, @Mandruss and Malik Shabazz: hope you can have time to improve at some point. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

hope you can have time to improve at some point. Yeah, me too. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Need Help to add Reference

I added SacramentoPoliceDepartmentVideo as Reference 11 in the article but need help to add the URL in the References section: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwCJR5iiXQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tel555 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Converted to Islaam?

This article and tweet indicates that he converted to Islaam and so was most likely a Muslim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/29/funeral-begins-for-stephon-clark-amid-outrage-over-fatal-police-shooting/?utm_term=.6145a2b62847

https://twitter.com/omarsuleiman504/status/979203603880665088 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.151.144 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

More background on Clark's life

This source has more background on Clark's life: LA Times. Will add more tomorrow. -Darouet (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

indeed, it lists his conviction for pimping that you removed as unsourced, please self revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Darouet very often contradicts himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.171.61 (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of times shot.

He was shot 8 times total, 6 of which were in the back. The intro should be revised to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.1.80 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Last time I looked at this article we had conflicting information about the number of times he was shot, and where. We need to clear that up. We also need to clarify the attribution: that this is according to a private autopsy ordered by the family, and that the official autopsy results have not yet been released. I'll work on that later today, unless someone else gets to it first. (And if you can please do, I won't have the time until later today.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"was not a thief"

had been arrested previously, arrested for what, dui? shoplifting? cashing bad checks? no, it was for selling people, beating people, and robbing people. supposedly, he was breaking windows to the home next door. he was on probation for the crime he is suspected of the night he was killed. as of today, all the article mentions is that he was not a thief, which is untrue, and he had been arrested in the past, which is true. surely the public history of a criminal killed during a crime is relevant. I suggest we clarify the not a thief comment with an explanation of how that statement is inaccurate. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion above. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Officer Mercadal

About officer Mercadal: based on this source, we give a lot of information about him: his background, his current assignment - everything except that he is African-American. Is there some reason we left that out? IMO it is of more relevance to this case than where he went to high school. This source also mentions it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, we have absolutely no information about the other officer, Jared Robinet, except that he is white and had been with the department for four years. I searched and nothing else is available. Maybe for balance we should trim back the information about Mercadal? Or leave it up to the sourcing we have? For some reason, lots of information has been published about Mercadal and virtually nothing about Robinet. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think their ethnicities should be mentioned — I wasn't sure how to word this and ended up forgetting about it. I'll make an effort — please make any changes to improve. -Darouet (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like St Loftus already took care of it [1]! -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

misleading lede

It makes it sound like he was just standing around in his backyard and got shot on the cell phone. The helicopter footage shows him running about, leaping over a privacy fence, he not in his own yard when they started following him. Dream Focus 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent protest

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article207621909.html

Here is another one a protester from the Stephon Clark Rally gets hit by a Sacramento County Sheriffs deputy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:9090:FF24:9368:E721 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What to include about the two officers?

SPECIFICO removed all the identifying information about the two officers, because the source for the information was not official. The information included their names, ethnicities, and length of time with the force, as well as additional biographical information about one of them. The information had been in the article for several days, sourced to numerous Reliable Sources which apparently must have felt the identifications were solid enough for them to publish. The Police Department would not confirm the names and said the officers had received numerous threats. How do people feel about this? Should we include the information because numerous sources have reported it, or should we withhold it until the identities are officially confirmed? --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What harm waiting for official statement, especially in view of the threats against those alleged to have been the officers but not confirmed? SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Protester hit by car

I've added a short paragraph to the "protest" section on the protester who was struck by a sheriff's vehicle on Saturday night, since this has gotten a lot of (also international) coverage and further angered people. Video of the event is available as well. The protester's name is Wanda Cleveland — a fact also widely reported in the media — if anyone thinks this could be added. An investigation has been opened into the incident, though I didn't add that here since it's a bit more detail than seems necessary at the moment? Feel free to add if you think it's useful. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] -Darouet (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Given just how much coverage this has gotten the event might deserve its own subsection. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd give it a paragraph. She wasn't badly hurt, and protesters had been closing in on the car, and she deliberately walked in front of it. There are different versions of how fast the car was going when it hit her. The main significance of the incident seems to be that it has enraged the protesters even more. I'm confused by some of the coverage: This was a sheriff's vehicle, and the shooting was by the police department, but at least one article referred to "the sheriff's role in the shooting", and another (WaPo for heaven's sake) said she was hit by a "police car" - later in the article described as a sheriff's cruiser, apparently they didn't notice the contradiction. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That's police with a small "p". The Sherrif's dept sometimes acts in a policing role in California, e.g. in public gatherings, parades, and other situations where law enforcement is not likely to be required. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What to include about Stephon Clark's background and life?

We used to have the following in the section about Stephon Clark:

Clark lost a sister at birth and a 16-year-old brother to a shooting in 2006.^[1] His brother told KOVR that he and Clark had come from "underprivileged, broken homes", but that Clark was a devoted father who only cared about his children. He added, "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life."^[2]

Sources
^ Santa Cruz, Nicole; St. John, Paige (29 March 2018). "Stephon Clark: Surrounded by love, trouble and tragedy, and now a rallying cry for justice after police shooting". LA Times. Retrieved 30 March 2018. ^ Cite error: The named reference `sanchez` was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

All of that has now been removed. There seemed to be differing opinions about including some parts of it and not others. Looking at the information sentence-by-sentence, 1) should we include the deaths of his siblings? 2) should we include the sentence about upbringing and “devoted father”? 3) Should we include the quote about changing his life? --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the section should be restored. The prior deaths of his siblings have been reported in sources discussing the shooting. It's on topic biographical information. I think section should also mention Clark's surviving brother because he is often mentioned in media sources which discuss the shooting and also he's been active in the protests. It might help to tweak wording slightly to make it more clear and more encyclopedic by stating his sister died at birth instead of being "lost".--DynaGirl (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the killing. None of this other stuff, either the subjective or the factual or the SYNTHY, has anything to add to the narrative concerning his killing. It's all distraction and off-topic at best and at worst leads to unfounded speculation and interpretation by our readers. My sense is that even while disagreeing about other points, most of us agreed on those edits that trimmed the article to its factual bones. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

From where do you derive that the topic of this article is the killing? You mean, we don't talk about previous run-ins with the law? Why? From where do you derive that previous run-ins with the law are not within the purview of this article? Bus stop (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Its about the shooting and the aftermath. Since he was committing crimes when this happened, his past criminal record is relevant. Dream Focus 04:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You may not state that the victim was committing a crime. You should undo those words. I would ordinarily remove them myself, but I'm not interested in triggering the drama that might ensue. You may not state that this person was committing a crime. That may or may not ever be determined or even deemed relevant to the investigation of his having been killed. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I say according to the police they were certain he was doing the crimes reported, and the helicopter video footage showed him running across yards, leaping over a privacy fence, getting home from that? Stop being ridiculous. Dream Focus 13:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We already have the statement of the police as to their own belief. That's fully appropriate. But your statement above is not appropriate. Also "stop being ridiculous" is not appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we can now re-add information on prior criminal infractions. I think the number of editors favoring inclusion outweighs the number of editors opposing. We can consider the following wording which was previously in the article but had been removed:

Clark had previous convictions for robbery, pimping and domestic violence; the Los Angeles Times reported that Clark pleaded no contest to reduce charges. Clark had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting and had been staying with his grandparents on and off, according to his brother.

This revision shows the above with the supporting citations in place. If changes are called for, let us discuss. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop and MelanieN: sorry, real life prevents me from being more involved right now. In a general sense, I agree with both of you that more information should be added to the Clark bio section. MelanieN, my sense is that the info you suggest is great, but that some short text should also be given to Clark's past convictions. Bus Stop, my sense is that the material you propose on his past convictions should be shortened, and only added if there is some kind of biography in place.

I agree with keeping out "sneakers" and so forth, but also believe you should consider adding in his nickname, "Zoe." This has been widely reported and many protestors carried the name on their signs. -Darouet (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Darouet—I am in favor of adding other biographical material. I think there has been too much of an emphasis on omitting material. I have played "devil's advocate" in suggesting removing material, so maybe I am part of the problem. But I feel we should try to provide the reader with information on the entire topic. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, I certainly agree about adding something about the convictions and have been discussing how to word that in another thread. I listed here the three sentences that someone deleted as "too sympathetic" but we certainly also need to specify his convictions as well. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: No there is not consensus for re-adding that stuff and your vote counting, after we've already been dragged into a side-discussion of vote-counting, and you do not even accurately count the !votes, (let alone evaluate the PAG-based discussion) is nonsense. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you write a succinct few sentences of article text and launch an up or down RfC about adding it. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion in this and other threads: please see a proposed wording here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of lots of information today

What has been going on here? All day today there has been massive removal of well-sourced information that had been in the article for days and been previously discussed here. Not to mention edit warring over some of it.

Clark’s childhood: A few days ago we discussed how much to include of the comments from Clark's brother about his childhood and life. We trimmed out the silly stuff (shoes, dancing) but left in the stuff that would normally be included in any biography, such as his upbringing and the deaths of siblings. We also left in the brother's comment about him turning his life around, with editors saying that comments about the deceased from close family members are commonly included. Today all that was removed by Dream Focus, then restored by Evergreen Fir. Then SPECIFICO removed the comments about turning his life around as “undue personal opinion”. Then Darouet removed the deaths of siblings (possibly in protest against or reaction to SPECIFICO's deletions). SPECIFICO restored the deaths of siblings information, and Darouet removed it again. Right now we have way less biographical information about him than we would normally have in such an article.

The officers: SPECIFICO removed all the identifying information about the two officers, because the source for the information was not official. The information had been in the article for days, sourced to Reliable Sources.

IMO the article is in much poorer shape today than it was yesterday, due to all this information that was removed. Some of the removals were in contradiction with earlier discussion. We need to discuss again and reach some kind of decision about what to include about Clark and about the officers. I'll start a couple of discussions below. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion for that was above at Talk:Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark#unrelated_information_designed_to_get_emotional_sympathy_for_Stephon_Clark. Remember, its about the shooting and the aftermath, not the person, this not a biography article. Dream Focus 03:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I did think the article was stronger with more biographical information, as I originally added all that material and have argued as much above. However, I don't see the point of adding that he lost two siblings when it is literally the only information provided in addition to his age at death and the fact that he had children. In that context, adding only the loss of the siblings does come across as pity seeking. -Darouet (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be restored but list not just siblings who died but also his surviving sibling, Stevante Clark because he has been involved in the protests and has been widely covered by the media. It is not Undue, Synthesis or Original Research to include brief biographical information when the sources which cover the shooting include this biographical information. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not what? Please check out what has been said above in reference to which proposed article text. For example, "undue" applies to the personal opinion that he "turned his life around" but not to the name of his kids mother or the siblings bit. It's going to confuse editors who come here to help sort this out if we're not clearly associating article text and their proposed sources with the related policies and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The article need not be hobbled by the impetus to omit information. Reliable sources provide information and we compile it. That is standard operating procedure. The burden is on an editor to present the argument for why a piece of reliably-sourced information should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion in this and other threads: please see a proposed wording here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary and OR in recent edit

This edit [9] should be undone please, @Dream Focus:. If you have a secondary RS reference, please use that instead of your own conclusions from the video, which is a primary source and also cannot establish due WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The information there before has a reference to the NYT website which is nothing but a video. There is no text appearing for them to reference. If you can mention they waited 5 minutes before approaching him, with that reference, you need to also point out the reason why. Dream Focus 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. It is not a valid source for the text you inserted and should be removed. If you don't understand, ask a friendly Admin to review the issues with you. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The referenced video shows the information on how long they waited and why. Maybe I didn't explain that properly. If you use that reference for one thing, you can use it for the other. Otherwise get rid of the whole thing, or find another source. Dream Focus 22:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in this article should be sourced only to the police video. You can remove it all or you can find independent, secondary reliable sources for significant content. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is right on this one. Video alone should not be used as a source but for the most uncontroversial of facts. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I would think this was as uncontroversial of a fact as possible. You see what happened there in the video, they clearly telling the guy he needed medical attention but they couldn't help him unless they were certain he didn't have a gun, and then hesitating nervously before finally going over there. Without this, it misleads people into thinking they just stood around waiting while he died for no reason at all. Dream Focus 00:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source that lays out this course of events, or better yet multiple reliable secondary sources, and then we can add it. We can't add it based on our own description of what happens in a video. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't source it directly to the police video and agree with concerns regarding editor interpretation of this content, which was not presented as a direct quote from the video. There are multiple reliable sources discussing this portion of the video. Here's one [10] which includes this content: "We need to know if you're OK," one female officer is heard saying. "We need to get you medics, so we can't go over and get you help until we know you don't have a weapon," she said three minutes after the shooting.. These sources also discuss that portion of the video [11], [12]. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering how preposterous the claim -- that the police unloaded 20 rounds at close range into a person who is then supine on the pavement but that the police cannot then place a call for medical assistance, (even if not personally approaching the victim themselves) -- I think you'll need impeccable sourcing that helps readers to fully understand this inexplicable delay. The sources cited here are less than first rate. We need lots of context, comment, and explanation of procedure to present an accurate picture of this development to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it. [13] So that explains the situation. Dream Focus 03:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've actually corrected the problems here. The sources you cite are weak. They relate some of the words on the recording devices but don't correlate the words to the sequence of the events in past-tense statements. They don't elucidate the statement you quote about "we have to know you don't have a weapon" or what that has to do with the delay in seeking medical support. Please be assured that we will sort this out more quickly and more completely if you exercise a bit of patience here. Please undo this content so that we can look for better and more complete RS discussion of this part of the time-line. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The delay was obviously they thought he had a gun and didn't want to get close. That should be painfully obvious. "We need to know if you're OK. We need to get you medics, so we can't go over and get you help until we know you don't have a weapon." How more obvious could that be in explaining the situation? Dream Focus 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

They did not need to "go over" in order to call for medics. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

They surely called it in live. They had a helicopter around even, people were watching them, so I'm sure it was called in, that standard procedure. They just couldn't go over to him right away to check on his condition. Dream Focus 04:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is entirely your personal conjecture. If there's a secondary RS that states "it was called in" then please cite it. Otherwise, don't further confuse the discussion here and certainly don't propose that WP article text be based on what seems to make sense to any of us editors. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, what is your source for law enforcement not promptly calling for an ambulance following shooting? There is video of helicopter coverage witnessing and reporting the shooting, but I'm unable to find a reliable source stating who called for an ambulance and how long after the shooting an ambulance was called for. Seems the issue with the quote from the female officer is regarding officers on the scene (who are typically trained in first aid) not promptly going over and providing medical assistance, but this isn't the same as not calling for an ambulance. From what I can gather there is conjecture on the talk page regarding not calling it in promptly as well as calling it in promptly. This conjecture doesn't seem to be a violation on the talk page, but it clearly would be in the article. If you, or anyone else has a reliable source for who first reported that a suspect was shot and called for an ambulance, please post it. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That part of it is responding to another editor's statement. The officers appear to be in a state of considerable confusion and distress. After all, asking "do you have a gun" is not an effective way to determine whether it is safe to approach the victim. Nor is the differential distance likely to matter if indeed the victim has a gun and is able to fire it. The quote therefore doesn't really show anything other than to suggest possible (and fully understandable) cognitive dysfunction of the officers SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

unrelated information designed to get emotional sympathy for Stephon Clark

[14] Clark lost a sister at birth and a 16-year-old brother to a shooting in 2006.[4] His brother told KOVR that he and Clark had come from "underprivileged, broken homes", but that Clark was a devoted father who only cared about his children. He added, "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life."[5] Any justification for having this in there? How is it related to the shooting? Dream Focus 12:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: This information, and information similar to it about Clark's life, has been printed in many newspaper articles. The information is related to the shooting in that it describes Clark, the human being who was killed in this case. It is appropriate that we, like the newspapers, include a small amount of biographical information on Clark. It is true that readers will read this information and tend to have more sympathy for Clark. However, while we recognize this fact (knowing more about a person will make them appear more human), it is still appropriate to present the information using neutral language.

I and a many other editors here have argued that Clark's having pled no contest to four criminal charges should also appear in the article, and also be presented in neutral fashion. It is true that this will tend to prejudice some readers regarding Clark. However, as in the case of the "positive" material about Clark noted above, these more negative facts are also reported in the media, and can also be described in neutral fashion. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the shooting and its aftermath. How exactly does something happening to his sister dying at birth or his brother being shot 12 years ago, effect this? And the part about him being different and he changed his life, is ridiculous, the police helicopter footage shows him jumping over fences and crossing yards before the police on the ground got there, he clearly not reformed if he still doing crimes to the point he died. Dream Focus 19:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, you appear to be advocating deliberate BLP violation because... well, what the heck. That's like Captain Kirk messing with the Andorian orphanage. Not allowed. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is someone else able to explain what SPECIFICO is getting at here? I don't see how I've advocated a BLP vio or how that would relate to Star Trek. -Darouet (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Either he is quoting fanfiction or some obscure Star Trek novel. I don't see the point of that either. Dream Focus 20:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am removing unrelated personal detail and I again note that the current header of this section violates WP:TPO and should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It does not violate anything, since this is what the discussion is about. People only add in sad stories about his baby sister died at birth, and whatnot, to play with people's emotions. It would not have been put in there otherwise. This has happened at other shooting articles in the past. Dream Focus 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The header of this section is certainly not neutral, but I don't see that it violates any policy (unlike one I changed earlier, which contained false information about the subject). Dream Focus, we include this information because many Reliable Sources have included it. Whether it provokes "sympathy" for the victim is irrelevant; it's a question of WP:WEIGHT. In a section above we are discussing whether to include information about his criminal record; that will tend to reduce sympathy for the victim, and again that is irrelevant for whether we include it or not. We will include it if consensus finds that we should based on the weight of coverage given to it by Reliable Sources. Emotional arguments about how the information might make readers feel about the subject have no place here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear about this. WP:TPO is not a policy. It's a behavioral guideline. The header is certainly inappropriate and @Dream Focus: should not have reinserted it once it was removed. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Even when no one agrees with you, you still argue nonstop. Stop beating a dead horse already. Dream Focus 02:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call you a dead horse. 😘 SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion in this and other threads: please see a proposed wording here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted improper removal of WP:DUE expert opinion

Over the weekend, SPECIFICO removed an RS-attributed expert remark with the edit summary "UNDUE personal opinion from fringe flogging advocate and junior-level academic". In view of other very lengthy discussion threads above involving the some of the same misunderstandings of DUE by the same editor, I want to thoroughly address the wrongness of the removal and its purported justification.

This is not how DUE works, but even if it were, SPECIFICO's analysis is clearly wrong. First, in the general sense, Moskos is a well-regarded expert and frequent commentator on police topcs. Academically, he is a Princeton grad with multiple graduate degrees from Harvard, a former Baltimore police patrolman, and a prolific author, lecturer and researcher. As a matter of reported opinion, his writings have appeared in NYT, Wapo, US News, CNN, Baltimore Sun and a representative swath of lesser publications, with media appearances on NPR, C-Span, MSNBC, CNN and numerous other outlets.

More importantly, the way DUE does work, we look to RS's themselves to vet their sources and weigh credentials, so that WP articles are representative of what has been said in mainstream media. To this end, Moskos's comments on the Clark shooting have been widely featured alongside Alpert's–in case anybody's worried that the removed Time Magazine citation was somehow wonky (it wasn't). You can find the same and similar comments from Moskos regarding the Clark shooting on national as well as Sacramento-based coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, Associated Press, US News, CBC, Fox, Mercury, etc. etc.

As a matter of NPOV, articles are supposed to fairly represent all significant viewpoints on a subject. Omitting widely reported mainstream expert analysis because one editor sniffled at the commentator's CV is not remotely proper. Additionally, the tone of the edit summary and effort to disparage the source is troubling. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Instead of this long pompous screed, all that would have been required was evidence that this bizarre comment of his was widely cited. I am well aware of the meaning of WP:WEIGHT SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Having now examined the dozen or so websites that cite Moskos on this "thought they were shot" bit, I can see that they all picked up the Time story or some other common source, and so the numerous google hits all reflect a single article in which this opinion of Moskos is stated. Not quite what one would think from the definitive rationalization of this bit at the outset of this section. Since it is nowhere disputed that the police believed they were pursuing an armed perpetrator, it's not clear what this adds to the article even under the best circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Things like "long pompous screed" are not necessary and are counterproductive. You can and should consider that a warning.
Seems fine to me. It's Time, so it's about as mainstream as it gets. If a dozen or more people are citing it, that's a pretty strong case for DUE. GMG ^talk 01:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your stated reasons for 86'ing the text were his lack of tenure and the fact he wrote a book about flogging, and he was already being cited by Time Magazine which is a pretty vanilla waiting room magazine—you were attacking the commentator, not the publication, so it seemed warranted to explain his bona fides.

Regarding the number of sources, I don't see how I implied those outlets all interviewed him independently. The point was just that they included his comments in their coverage of the subject. Most of them gave the same verbatim quote, but at least one paraphrased him differently: "Peter Moskos says the officers appear to legitimately believe they were in danger. If so, he and police training expert Ed Obayashi say the shooting was likely legally justified." Factchecker_atyourservice 01:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But the substantive point is that this is not news. Who disputes that the officers believed him to be armed and dangerous? Yes, one might claim that all the local news outlets could have opted not to carry this fringe commentator quoted by Time, but the sad fact is that most of the time, major organs like Time are automatically cut and pasted into local news broadcasts and publications, and it's arguable but not convincing, that these rehashes denote a noteworthy commentator. I don't recall anybody mentioning tenure. Who knows if there is such a thing as tenure at John Jay. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It didn't originate from Time, looks like Associated Press to me. This conversation has outlived its usefulness—I think we're done, no? Factchecker_atyourservice 03:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop rubric - let's consider

Hatting - unhelpful invitation to engage in Original Research and speculation. The article will be based on Reliable Source coverage, not philosophical discussions here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Bus stop:Thanks for your suggestion above. I think it would be helpful for us to structure some additional discussion around your The shooting is a confluence of prior conditions finding expression in various lives. Let's consider how prior events in Clark's life might find expression in the shooting and compare with how prior events in the police officers lives might find expression in the shooting. That seems like a helpful start. Could you lead off the discussion by laying out how prior conditions in Clark's life contributed to the shooting? I think this will give us a focused, structured approach to work our way through this issue. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this would be helpful. I think we should stay away from the personal opinions of various wikipedia editors. We should just follow the reliable sources. If there is a reliably sourced quote from a notable commentator regarding how prior conditions of Clark's life relate to shooting or how prior events in police officers lives relate to the shooting, then we could discuss including such a quote, but I do not think editors personal opinions on these issues have any place in the article .--DynaGirl (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not about personal opinions. But if you don't want to discuss the helpful "confluence" approach Bus stop has mentioned, please feel free to disregard it, and we'll report back to you with any progress we make in this section. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—I don't have the answer to those questions, as you very well know. I adhere to findings of reliable sources. That is standard operating procedure. Do reliable sources enumerate prior criminal activity? Is there any reason to omit that information? If there is I feel you need to articulate the case for omission. In my opinion that is not accomplished by one-word answers. You say the inclusion of that information constitutes WP:synthesis. In my opinion, the burden is on you to articulate that argument, because standard operating procedure is to include the sort of information under discussion. And if the police officers—one or both—were found to have prior blemishes on their history—such as previous wrongdoings—I don't think you would be arguing to omit that from the article. Does this article only exist to document what took place in under six minutes in Clark's grandmother's backyard? Of course not. The scope is much wider than that. There is already much more in the article outside of that narrow focus. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As concerns my original comment that the shooting is a confluence of prior conditions finding expression in various lives, this is merely axiomatic. Forgive my indulgence in flowery language. Obviously I cannot tease apart components in lives of three individuals to result in the death of one of them on a fateful night. I am merely employing flowery language in an attempt to explain to you why factors not applicable to the six minutes of the shooting are valid for inclusion. This is fundamental to Wikipedia and any form of expository writing. I'm sorry if I threw a monkey wrench into an explanation for why we include background information on individuals. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Flowery, metaphorical, or whatnot -- I was just trying to take you at your word. The "confluence" bit conveys meaning and I think it's helpful. If you disavow the meaning, that would be different. But if it is a meaning you did and do intend, then I think it's helpful to unpack it to get from the poetic sense of it down to the nuts and bolts that can correspond to simple editing decisions. I am accepting your confluence statement and trying to make it applicable to our WP chores. I hope you'll continue to express and expand your views along those lines. SPECIFICO talk 15:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please just state your argument. I believe you are arguing that Clark's altercations with the law should be omitted. Why? My question to you is: why should those details be omitted from this article? Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I am starting from your words: The shooting is a confluence of prior conditions finding expression in various lives and I do not see any "prior condition" in Mr. Clark's life that found expression in the shooting. It would be helpful if you could state how any such conditions gave rise to (a.k.a. found expression in) the killing. If there are such conditions, they would relate directly to the subject of this article and would be the basis for good article text we could all agree on. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it is axiomatic that prior conditions lead to later developments, in this case a death. Those prior conditions can only be guessed at, by me. I have no reliable sources supporting the existence of prior conditions. Importantly, this also applies to the police. Were they excessively nervous? I have no answer to this question whatsoever. But it is axiomatic that the confluence of prior conditions expressing themselves in the lives of three people resulted in the death of one person that night. This, by the way, is all irrelevant to the Talk page. I apologize for using language that caused more confusion than it was worth. It is not that I disavow what I said, but this isn't the place for unclear language, so I retract what I said. Bus stop (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)