Talk:Killing of Keith Lamont Scott/Archive 2

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

Please give your opinion on whether or not this information should be included

I added the following to the article:

In July 2005, in Bexar County, Texas, Scott was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was released in 2011. Source: Charlotte police protests: Governor declares state of emergency as violence erupts for second night

User:EvergreenFir erased it and commented: "Unrelated to this incident. Wish folks would stop trying to justify killings with past actions."

What do other editors think of including or not including this information?

71.182.243.204 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also consider it unrelated. This article is about the specific incident, not about the past of those involved. This isn't a biography article. SilverserenC 04:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree it is inappropriate. It is just a form of victim blaming. The cops had no knowledge of that conviction when they took him down, so it is irrelevant to the circumstances of his death. WWGB (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Utterly WP:UNDUE and unrelated to this incident. There's a nasty habit of media to dig up any wrongdoing of people shot by police with the effect of trying to paint the dead person as deserving of their fate. Unless that past info is somehow related to the incident at hand, it should be excluded. The addition of this material coupled with the repeated attempts to write hagiographies about Vinson should be seen for what they are: propaganda. Over on Shooting of Terence Crutcher we don't have info about Crutcher's or Shelby's rap sheets, though both have been reported on. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
A short biography is usually a part of an article about a person's death. Without this info all that's left is one line. The long prison sentence is just a relevant to this article as his marriage and his many children. Death of Harry Stanley is about a man who was shot dead by a police officer and it mentions a prison sentence that the victim served. Jim Michael (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Frankly it shouldn't. Unless you're willing to allow the criminal histories and complaint records of the police to be included too. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that both should: due to Scott having been the victim of a police action (which action is the sole reason he has become notable), his criminal antecedents are just as relevant to this article as his personal family background; and any complaints related to Shelby's past police actions (including any relevant criminal past that could come to light) are also relevant to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.192.131.236 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, include both. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Both should be included as relevant background information, but in as neutral a manner as possible. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The record of both the police officer and the victim should be included. EvergreenFir, please add the info if you have a source per your statement.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I still oppose it and I see you think this is a vote for some reason. If we need an RfC, we can. But I don't see anyone for including it citing any policy yet. It's still undue. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The part about him being convicted previously of "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon" I believe is relevant to this case, since he had a deadly weapon on him. Listing him doing jail time for "evading arrest" might be relevant here also, since he didn't comply with the police yelling at him to drop his weapon a few dozen times. Dream Focus 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Do we have sources that say they might be related? Or just sources stating info because (assuming the best of faith) they're filling space in a high profile story? If we had something that connected the past explicitly to this event, I would raise no objections. But we don't. Just editors who think they're related and news outlets spewing out anything that's public record. (Also there appears to be a lot about the cop too) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And now some IP is copy-pasting stuff from coverage of Vinson's arrest... le sigh EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I already reverted the IP vandal several times before you did. What does that have to do with this discussion? That's a different person with the same name. Dream Focus 06:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I know you did (IP also put it on Brentley Vinson). Just frustrated with this crap and venting a bit. Can ignore it. But curious what others think about the issue I raise: isn't it WP:OR/WP:SYNTH on our end if we start making connections that sources don't explicitly make? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
We can include the information about Scott and Vinson without saying that any of it led to the shooting of Scott. Jim Michael (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There are sources about Scott's criminal history, although most of the coverage is in fringe sources.

"Under North Carolina law, Scott would have been prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition because he had been convicted of a violent felony.

When he was 30, in 2003, a Bexar County, Texas, grand jury indicted him on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest with a vehicle after Scott allegedly shot a man the previous year. Scott pleaded no contest and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison after his 2005 conviction."
— CNN

"However, the police paint a different picture of Mr. Scott, who spent several years in prison in Texas and who had been convicted on a variety of criminal charges over the years."
— New York Times

"A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.

In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.

In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with ​several different crimes on different dates, including carrying ​a concealed weapon​ (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to ​the delinquency of a minor. ​He pleaded guilty to ​all charges.

Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992​ and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced but the disposition of the case​s​ is unclear."
— Charlotte Observer

"Scott has a lengthy criminal record, including convictions in Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina. Texas records showed he was convicted of evading arrest with a vehicle in 2005, and several months later, of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon."
— Boston Herald

- MrX 12:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Those are all reliable, mainstream sources and the info is relevant. It should be added to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Still this it's prejudicial and meant to blame the victim. A simple "Scott had a criminal record which included weapons charges" would suffice. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: You've been here long enough to know not to readd stuff, offering a version without discussing on the talk page when there's an ongoing dispute. Your version is still too long in my view. Wish other regulars would chime in EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed, until there is consensus for adding it. I don't have strong view at this point, but I think we should take a cautious approach until there is more widespread coverage in mainstream sources and until more facts are known. - MrX 21:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I am not sure what exactly was his criminal history based on the sources above, but this criminal history obviously must be included as something relevant. It does not justify anything, but this is an information interesting for readers (this is the reason the info was published in newspapers), and it would be considered, for example, during any court proceedings. If we had a separate page about this person, then his criminal history would be included in the biography page, but since we do not, it should be included here. By the same reason any similar information about police officers (for example if they shot someone before) should also be included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
To what extent do we detail it then? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
State which crimes he was convicted of. Jim Michael (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Even with some dodgy single-purpose accounts, there is no consensus here to add Scott's irrelevant criminal record to this article. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Scotts record is of zero consequence or importance. In the moment, the officers had no idea who Scott was, so his criminal history, if accurate, was not an issue. To me the more obvious issue is that North Carolina is an "Open Carry" state. He was within his rights to have a gun (if in fact he had a gun). Any previous arrests or jail time, if true, were under different rules and in different places. Buster Seven Talk 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If he had done jail time for previously shooting someone, and had previously been arrested for having a weapon when he wasn't allowed to, then both of those things are clearly relevant here and should be mentioned. Don't whitewash things. Dream Focus 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am simply telling that "background" section here is insufficient. What kind of "brain damage"? Where did he work? Did he work? What was his criminal history is any? This is a criminal incident. This is simply information a typical reader would like to know. Nothing else matters. This should not be included only if this can not be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
His criminal record is more relevant to assessing his conduct than it being an open carry state, since convicted felony assailants are not allowed to carry a firearm in any state. Maybe the open carry law is relevant to assessing the conduct of the police, but we have to assess what they did in light of what Scott did during the incident in question and whether their claims about this conduct are credible. The fact that wikipedians are calling it "irrelevant" that he was legally ineligible to have a firearm and had prior convictions for offenses that sound similar to what the police are making disputed claims that he did right before they shot him baffles me. MathEconMajor (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The issue is whether that fact is pertinent to the shooting. The cops don't know his felon status when they encountered him. The police chief said it was the gun and the weed together that made them act. TBH, at this point I don't care if that info is added so long as it's clear to the reader that eligibility of ownership was not at issue with the shooting, just a realization afterwards. But moreover, you are here discussing this and yet you reinsert the info which you added before and was contested before? Don't make daft edits. Wait until this is resolved. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


  • His record wrt to owning and using guns is certainly relevant as to the question of whether he was carrying a gun at the time, which is an issue central to the case. Keep in mind that the rules governing Wikipedia content are very different from the rules of evidence in court; Wikipedia doesn't omit potentially relevant information just because it might be prejudicial.Erniecohen (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Scott's record of committing violent crimes with guns and other weapons is obviously not irrelevant, which is why practically every RS discusses it. In particular it's quite relevant to the family's claim that Scott had no gun and that the gun and ankle holster the cops found must have been planted, and oh look, our article helpfully includes that completely unsubstantiated accusation, so I find it puzzling that we would strain to spin the news reporting that is out there.

The above citations to "UNDUE" are utterly and obviously wrong. The policy on weight doesn't say anything about whether a couple WP editors think the material is important; instead it refers to the importance assigned by sources. In particular it doesn't say that topics that are given a lot of weight in RS's should be excluded if EvergreenFir thinks the sources are "filling space" or engaging in a "nasty habit" or quite possibly doing something very nefarious, folks, I'm not saying it's racism, folks, but really who's to say that it's not?

UNDUE also doesn't license a well-meaning editor to ask whether the information is "prejudicial"—which inquiry, besides being entirely irrelevant because this isn't a court of law, nobody is going to jail and thus the very steep protections afforded to accused criminals are not even relevant, and in any event the fact of the prior convictions could be admissible as evidence for a variety of purposes if Scott were alive and standing trial for the events of the day. But more to the point, WP:UNDUE is not WP:NOPREJUDICE; the latter policy simply doesn't exist.

"Consensus" also is not a vote, and it particularly is not a vote unsupported by identifiable content policies. There are clear policy bases to include this material, and no clear basis for an argument to the contrary (or, if there is one, you haven't stated it). So that is one way of saying your !vote doesn't count for anything unless you can cite policy language clearly demonstrating the correctness of your analysis.

Oh and finally, User:Buster7, North Carolina is not an open carry state for convicted violent felons. I am not sure such a thing exists in the United States. RealityCheckTime (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Officer shot and killed a man BEFORE knowing if he was a convicted felon. And...you have been an editor for one day. I ask you respectfully not to undo a thread I begin. I admit that "The Officer" thread may have stretched talk page rules and decorum. But in the future it may be best to let a veteran a editor make that Revert decision. Buster Seven Talk 17:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The cops didn't know his violent criminal record at the time. So what? That doesn't mean Scott was allowed to carry a gun, it doesn't mean he's allowed to brandish it at people (which is a crime even if they aren't cops), and it certainly doesn't mean he's allowed to ignore police orders to drop the gun. And, I don't see any problem with reverting talk page abuse—the sooner, the better. Just don't do it again and there shouldn't be any problems. RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
If the quote about him being a "family man" is considered to be relevant, then the fact that he was a felon should also be included. Basic biographical facts are appropriate for articles like these.

And User:RealityCheckTime, I'll confirm that there is no such thing as an open carry state for violent felons. Just the fact that he was in possession of the weapon was illegal. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: the police claim that he had a gun, that it was in his hand, and that he disobeyed orders to drop it. At least one member of his family made a highly publicized claim that all of this is false. There is a dispute about what the victim had and did that is at the heart of the controversy.

If he had a criminal record for assault with a deadly weapon, evading arrest, and other offenses related to violence, weapons, and non-compliance with police officers, that would suggest the possibility of a propensity for this sort of conduct. That would serve as character evidence that would make it seem more likely that he engaged in the conduct on the day he was killed that the officer said he did. The wikipedians who have included information about his criminal conviction have actual tended to not include the full scope of all the things he has pleaded guilty to or been charged with and had the charges subsequently dropped, but apparently some wikipedians are trying to censor out facts they don't like and have eliminated any mention at all.

This is actually more relevant than much of the information that is in the article. As a comparison, we have the daughter's claim that he was unarmed and reading a book. How does she know this? Was she there? Did she talk to someone who was there who none of the news sources that reported on this seem to have talked to directly? Did she visit the scene before evidence was collected and see everything that was there? Did she just think that she knew him so well that there is no way he had a gun and brandished it? If it is the last option, then her statements would be opinions based on an analysis of his character. Having actual facts to establish his character is actually more relevant (to the shooting itself, putting aside relevance to the subsequent protests) than a daughter's opinion on what he would or would not have done based on her perception of his character.

It is possible that someone out there, instead of or in addition to caring about his criminal record because of how it might reflect on how he is likely to have behaved on the day he was killed, also thinks that it means that he deserved to die because of his past. Even if someone might think that, Wikipedia does not censor out relevant information simply because it might cause someone to draw a conclusion that many wikipedians might disapprove of.

In addition, although the details are less relevant for this, having a felony record made him legally ineligible to own a gun. It's true that what the police knew is what is most relevant to assessing their actions, but many many people would be interested in knowing whether he was in fact breaking the law at the time his encounter with the police began. I was discussing this case in another medium, and came to this article to determine whether he was legally allowed to own a firearm so that I could defend him for allegedly carrying it (if not for allegedly brandishing it) if he was. It turns out he was not. That is the type of important information people come to wikipedia for.

Anything that reflects on the likelihood of the officer's account being true meets both the dictionary and legal definitions of relevance. Whether Scott's prior convictions would be admissible in court or not (and they might be), they are significant enough to include here. MathEconMajor (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court and we don't present "character evidence". We are neither prosecutors nor defenders; that is the type of information they'd try to present to help their client's case. That is not the business we engage in though. If there is a court case and such evidence is brought up, it should be covered here. But trying otherwise you're just trying to sway the reader as a lawyer would a jury. We include narratives of the event itself as that is what the article is on. Multiple notable narratives deserve explanation on the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The point is, the information is deeply relevant, which is why RS's report it, and you're the one trying to act as an attorney by pretending, quite nonsensically, that it's "irrelevant".RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
We are not prosecutors or defenders; that is why we include relevant facts rather than excluding relevant facts that might make someone look bad. Obviously, if the article said, "he had a criminal record, therefore we have no reason to doubt anything police say about him," that would be improper, but factual information that is relevant to readers forming their own conclusions deserves inclusion. MathEconMajor (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Comparison with other articles

I would like to compare this article with other articles on high-profile deaths at the hands of police.

Articles discussing the history of the killer:

  • Tamir Rice death: The article on the shooting of Tamir Rice has sections on the two main officers involved. The section on the shooter consists almost entirely of statements about how he resigned from another police department to avoid being fired for things like "lack of maturity" and "indiscretion," and how the Cleveland police hired him without reviewing his file from the other employer. The section on the other officer who was with the shooter consists entirely of information about how the city settled an excessive force lawsuit against him containing allegations of improper use of a choke-hold.

Articles discussing the history of the victim:

  • Zale Thompson death: In this article, the deceased is listed as the "perpetrator" and other individuals injured by him in the incident are referred to as "victims" of his hatchet attack. There is a section titled "perpetrator" that includes the following: "Between 2002 and 2003, he had been arrested six different times in southern California for domestic disputes."

Articles discussing both histories:

  • Eric Garner death: There is a section on Eric Garner stating that "Garner had been arrested by the NYPD thirty times since 1980 on charges such as assault, resisting arrest, and grand larceny. An official said he had been arrested multiple times for allegedly selling unlicensed cigarettes." There is also a section on the officer who applied the choke-hold that includes information about two prior civil rights lawsuits against him.
  • Alton Sterling death: Alton Sterling, according to the article, "had a criminal record that included violent offenses; a 2009 affidavit of probable cause says that he resisted arrest and a "black semi auto gun fell from his waistband" as the arresting officer wrestled him on the ground." It is also stated that the arresting officers did not know about this background. The two officers involved in the shooting are mentioned as having been previously cleared for use of excessive force, and one of them is noted for "three years of law enforcement experience which included a previous shooting of an African-American male for which he was placed on department-mandated leave". MathEconMajor (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral choice of information to include about Scott

Quoting his neighbor's characterization of Scott as a "family man" while omitting his history of violent criminal offenses involving guns seems to be absurdly non-neutral. I think both pieces of information should be included. Erniecohen (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That does seem rather bias. Dream Focus 15:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll state the position I always do, to no avail. I think no personal information should be included that tends to shed either good or bad light on the individual, unless relevance to the article subject (the shooting of Keith Scott) can be shown. This is not a bio article, and there are different inclusion criteria. Criminal history is not relevant unless the cops knew of it in advance. They also knew nothing about his current personal life situation. They knew his race, his approximate age, and his gender. Period. So I would omit both. This would obviously apply to Vinson as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this position. Only way to be neutral and to adhere to WP:BLP (which, yes, applies to this article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Although character evidence is sometimes inadmissible in court, a previous conviction for assault would tend to show a person who sometimes engages in violent and criminal behavior, which could logically influence our perceptions about the probability that he engaged in violent behavior during on the date when he was shot. It also would indicate that if he had a gun, he had that gun illegally. Saying that his background is irrelevant because the police probably didn't know it is almost like saying that the fact that the "gun" that Tamir Rice had was an airsoft replica rather than a firearm is irrelevant because the police probably didn't know it. Saying that his past for assault with a deadly weapon and resisting arrest with a vehicle is irrelevant to an article about an incident where he was stopped in a vehicle and shot because of how he was allegedly holding and failing to drop a deadly weapon is like saying that a wikipedia article on a particular murder allegation against a serial killer (or someone who killed a serial killer) should never mention that the person is a serial killer.MathEconMajor (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
RS's are the best guide of what is topical/relevant. So when you see a lot of them discussing information in connection with a topic...RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, but reporting is not discussing. They routinely give details that we routinely omit. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Criminal background regarding gun violence and/or resisting arrest is presumably relevant to the critical question of whether he was carrying a gun and (if he was carrying a gun) whether he refused to drop it when ordered to do so. Similarly, his history of brain damage, while perhaps not known to police (unless they heard what his wife was saying), is potentially relevant if it affected his ability to communicate with the police. The Wikipedia principle is (or should be) to lean in the direction of inclusion of possibly relevant information, even if it is possibly prejudicial. This is important in its de facto role as a trustworthy aggregator of information.Erniecohen (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty much original research. Wikipedia is NOT a "de facto aggregator of information". It's an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is, by definition, an aggregator or information. Wikipedia plays a unique role in that it is considered a mostly trustworthy aggregator of contemporary information. Both readers and "reliable sources" depend on Wikipdedia to fill this role. Erniecohen (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, when it comes to WP:BLP, which does apply to recently deceased person, the relevant principle is and should be to lean in the direction of exclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss, in the article cited by MrX above the NY Times writes: "However, the police paint a different picture of Mr. Scott, who spent several years in prison in Texas and who had been convicted on a variety of criminal charges over the years." Are you seriously arguing that they're not presenting this as relevant information? They go on to discuss a concealed weapons charge and the fact that he did prison time for shooting a man in Texas. RealityCheckTime (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'm going to solicit opinion from Gaijin42 on this. This is not WP:CANVASS since I have no idea how he would feel about it. He often disagrees with me, and I usually defer to his superior judgment. I simply have great respect for his competence as to this kind of question. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest starting an RfC as these multiple discussions about the same subject are unlikely to lead to a consensus.- MrX 17:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to articles on recently deceased persons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Short bios of the victim and shooter are usual for these articles. Several criminal convictions - resulting in being sent to prison for years - can't be regarded as a minor issue. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It is most definitely a minor issue and should not be included. This article should not be used to besmirch the victim. Any felony convictions or prison time or failure to pay his light bill is in no way relevant to the shooting of Keith Scott. Wikipedia should not be used sway public opinion. Buster Seven Talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
And I reiterate that we should apply the same consideration to Vinson. We don't need his awards and commendations and favorable reviews, and we wouldn't need to repeat any reporting about wife-beating, alcohol abuse, or picking his nose in public. It's simply not relevant to the article subject, unless there is reliable reporting that he beat his wife that morning, which might have affected his state of mind at the time of the shooting, or that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the shooting. In my opinion, still waiting for Gaijin42. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Nobody's suggesting including trivial or irrelevant details such as nose-picking or a failure to pay the light bill. Nor is anybody suggesting including unsourced claims or unproven crimes. If the two of you can't discuss article content seriously and competently, perhaps you should go work on another article.RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@RealityCheckTime: Perhaps you should learn something about appropriate ways to address other Wikipedia editors, which, in my view, is more important in the larger picture than whether this article reports Keith Scott's criminal history. That confrontational tone is exactly what starts these discussions spinning out of control. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: Unabashed bullsh*tting on the talk page, i.e. making plainly nonsensical factual claims and demanding edits contrary to policy, are what sends discussions out of control. If you don't have a policy argument, don't talk. This is not a place to air your feelings about stuff. RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
"Plainly nonsensical" is your opinion, and subject to consensus. That's we we do, or are supposed to do, in these discussions. We decide what is plainly nonsensical, not you or any other single editor. Please refrain from presenting your editorial opinions as unequivocal fact. And your last sentence is more than a little hypocritical, given the rest of that comment, wouldn't you say? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please avoid presenting your unjustified desire to present a positive spin on the article subject as a genuine and sincere assessment that obviously relevant information is somehow "irrelevant". Just say, "I want this article to read a certain way and I don't care what policy requires" instead of pretending you are abiding by policy, because doing the latter is just plain obnoxious.RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Relevance of something to the subject of article (the shooting) should be established by sources. If publications on the subject of shooting provide personal information, so should we. Same is about the police officer or anyone else related to the shooting (relatives, investigators, whoever). My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree in principle. On the other hand, if we included anything that was reported by four reliable sources, I'm estimating the article would be about three times its current size. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we have to be selective, or we're ourselves a newspaper. This comes down to four questions, none of which has been answered. 1. How many reliable sources report Scott's criminal history? 2. If one news organization reports it five times, does that count as one or five? 3. Must a source discuss a history–shooting connection or relationship? 4. How much reporting of Scott's criminal history constitutes sufficient WP:WEIGHT?
I shudder to think of an RfC that tried to reach a consensus on these questions, but maybe we don't need to. Maybe we could just ask the question, "Should the article include content about Scott's criminal history?". For that matter, if someone could point me to a fairly recent RfC consensus to include criminal history in a fairly similar case, I would probably defer to that rather than wait 30 days for an answer. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no WP policy that supports excluding material from articles simply because it reflects unfavorably on the subject. Quite the opposite, policy tells us to include such material. Painting a rosy picture is not the goal.RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes there is, it's called WP:BLP and it applies to recently-dead people. WWGB (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No, WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV in general) does not support excluding material from articles simply because it reflects unfavorably on the subject. Quite the opposite. That mistake is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
We're currently including positive info about him, whilst excluding negative info. That violates WP:NPOV. Jim Michael (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"Positive" or "negative" does not matter. It only matters if that was published by multiple RS on the subject of the shooting (as something obviously important and interesting to readers. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Painting a rosy picture is not the goal - Please note that I propose omitting irrelevant positive as well as irrelevant negative for both parties. This is hardly trying to paint a picture of any kind of either person. The question in my mind is exactly what is required to show relevance. It doesn't appear we're making much progress here—and the tone of the discussion is starting to suffer—so how do we feel about starting an RfC (per MrX's suggestion yesterday) with the question, "Should the article include content about Scott's criminal history?" ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I think an RfC is called for as long as the "Suggestions for responding" at WP:RfC are adhered to and no editor is reverted or chastised because of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT [1] and [2] Buster Seven Talk 14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that's three for an RfC and none against, so far. But I'm not sure that's the best way to frame the question, given some of the comments here including mine. For example, my position would be along the lines of: "Yes or no, depending on the other bio content for both parties." Which is a worthless !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
How about if the question is: Should we include reliably sourced info about Scott's criminal conviction and Vinson's record of previous incidents? Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: you keep saying "irrelevant". I do not think that word means what you think it means.

News now reports that Scott's wife had recently filed for a restraining order against her husband, telling police he carried a black 9mm pistol and had threatened to kill his family with it, saying:

"I'm a killer, you need to know that". RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

1. The legal definition of relevance is: something that tends to make a fact of consequence more or less likely. For example, if it is a fact of consequence whether Scott posed a deadly threat to an officers, and there is a factual dispute over what he did or did not do that would have posed such a threat, and prior behavior could shed light on the probability that he engaged in such behavior during the incident in question, it is relevant. 2. Wikpedia's policies on biography of a living person have policies in favor of privacy and in favor of presumption of innocence. A criminal conviction based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt after due process does not require a presumption of innocence, since this presumption has already been overcome in a court of law, nor does a guilty plea (or, to my knowledge, no contest plea) that substitutes for a conviction require this. Publishing a felony criminal record from a jurisdiction that has this record available to the public, does not violate privacy any more than publishing the residential address of the President of the United States would violate privacy; it is a matter of public record that can easily be looked up online from an official source and has been reported on broadly. MathEconMajor (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rules for extending the rules of living persons to recently deceased persons are, as I understand them, out of respect for the privacy and feelings of the decedent's family, particularly in cases where the cause of death is at issue (e.g. possible suicides). They say e.g. delay repeating media speculation that someone killed themselves because of marital problems, and perhaps to omit something that is relevant only in that implies why they killed themselves (e.g. that he had contacted a divorce lawyer). They don't say to omit well-establish fact, e.g. that he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Erniecohen (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not a "biography of a living person", but the coverage of a news event. That event started when police went on the lookout for a man on an outstanding warrant (who was not Scott). What crime Scott did in the months and years before that news event is utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on his shooting. The assertions for inclusion look like thinly-disguised victim blaming or racial profiling. WWGB (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Accusing other WP editors of racism or other moral/character defects simply for not accepting horseshit claims of "irrelevance" is deeply disturbing and deeply contrary to basic civility. So you can fuck off and please not repeat such nonsense ad hominems. And the argument is horseshit -- ALL RS's obviously disagree with you, and no English speaker could credibly make the claim.
Even in an American court of law, where there are limitations on what past criminal convictions can be used to prove, THE REASON FOR THE LIMITATIONS IS NOT THAT PAST CRIMINAL ACTS ARE IRRELEVANT. Quite the opposite: if the information were irrelevant, there wouldn't be any need for special rules to exclude it, because irrelevant information doesn't even count as evidence in the first place.RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Calling editors contributions "horseshit", telling other editors to "fuck off" and then shouting at them as they leave are not conducive to collaboration. Buster Seven Talk 13:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Meritless arguments are meritless. And nobody dishing out character insults to avoid policy discussion has any right to complain about anything that occurs on WP. RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of "victim-blaming" in a self-defense case doesn't really make sense to me. If any claim which would tend to attribute the actions of a shooter to a situation created by their victim is "victim-blaming" and invalid, then the entire concept of self-defense would be eliminated. It's like a determination of whether a homicide is voluntary manslaughter rather than murder; it is fundamentally premised on a discussion of whether the killer was responding to something the victim did. I do understand the opposition to the "he had it coming" defense, which is a different "defense" from self-defense and is not legally recognized, based on an idea that the victim is a bad person whose death is good rather than the idea that the killer would have suffered deadly force if he had not used it himself. But personal opposition to a conclusion that someone might draw after hearing information is not a reason to exclude relevant information from an encyclopedia. We can't assess a self-defense claim without determining whether the claims about Keith Scott holding a gun are true, and past events can help to corroborate the probability of those claims. MathEconMajor (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Breaking up article

I was wondering whether this should be divided into multiple articles. There are basically two separate ideas about how this could be done:

1. Have separate articles for the shooting itself and for the protests. 2. Create pages on individuals who are especially relevant to the shooting, such as Keith Lamont Scott or Officer Brentley Vinson.

Among other things, this would help to focus controversies about what is and is not relevant for inclusion in a particular article.

What do people think about this? MathEconMajor (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be unnecessary, unjustified, and inconsistent with most similar cases. See WP:ONEEVENT. There was initially a bio article of Officer Darren Wilson, the cop who shot Michael Brown, but consensus was reached to merge it with the main article, mostly per ONEEVENT. In other cop-shooting cases, no one has even tried to create sub-articles.
As for the protests, I'm aware of one case where that was done, Ferguson unrest, which lasted far longer and got far more RS coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not a shooting by a cop, but the Trayvon Martin shooting has separate articles for the victim, the shooter, and the shooting. In that case, the shooter has done some things after the shooting that got news coverage, but they were mostly newsworthy solely because they involved someone who had been a defendant in a high-profile murder case. The article on the shooting doesn't say a whole lot about the backgrounds of the people involved, while their individual articles talk about their pasts. MathEconMajor (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Transcript of bodycam video

How do I include my edit which is a transcript of the bodycam video? There appears to be no authoritative source only my version which can be validated by listening to the video and comparing. I have noted in my edit that I am the source. It can be validated by listening and comparing the transcript. There is no known authoritative source at this time. Cluebot reversed my edit as vandalism and I tried to revoke that but then WWGB reversed my edit again.

Here is my intended edit:

The transcript below of the Charlotte police bodycam video indicates someone (presumably Keith Lamont Scott) saying " I got my gun but I got shot" at time mark 36-38 seconds.[This is a personal/private transcription any errors are my own.] As no one else was shot, it supports the police contention that he had a gun and may be viewable as a confession that he had it.

Private Transcription: Charlotte police bodycam video of Keith Lamont Scott shooting. Time Seconds 27-28 "Handcuffs, backup, backup" 29 "Handcuffs!!" [multiple voices/two?] 30 "Handcuffs... handcuffs(second voice)" 31 [unintelligible: sounds like...puts'us] 32 "Handcuffs" 33 "What's his address?" 34-36 "Well I can see your grippin' his hands..., grippin his hands." 36 "Backup!" 36-38 "I got my gun but I got shot"[victim] 37 "Backup!" [repeat command] 39 "Backup!" [third repeat] 41-43 "moaning' [victim] 42 "He better be alive,'cause I'm commin'..."[wife in background] 43 "You on?" [officer]"He better be alive, I'm sayin'."[wife in background] 45 "on?" 46 "I don't know." 49-55 "moaning" [victim] 55-56 "Hey, hey!" 56-58 "Somebody get my...ah, my bag..." 59 "...We start gettin' it". "OK"[response] 1:00 "...Some equipment." 1:01 "Where's your bag Dude? 1:02 "You girls...?" 1:02-3 "You take the back of my trunk" 1:03 "Good?" 1:04 "I'm good." "Gettin' good." 1:05-6 "Get the gloves...we need to hold the wound." 1:08 End of File — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.75.222 (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR EvergreenFir (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
As EvergreenFir noted above, No Original Research is permitted. Only a transcription published by a Reliable Source can be used in this article. Parkwells (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of the Template:YouTube in the video box

Re: [3]

@Bob K31416: I understand that this usage is not in that guideline. In my opinion the template improves the encyclopedia by standardizing links to YouTube, while making any site-wide changes to those links a trivial matter of one edit (to whatever extent the template is used). Can you say how the non-template method improves the encyclopedia? I would therefore argue that this is a good application of WP:IAR.
Guidelines follow community consensus, not the other way around. For evidence that the community accepts this usage, see the following three articles. Admittedly, the last two are low activity and the usage has been in them for only 6 days. Still, this is some evidence that the community accepts it, and I haven't seen any that they reject it (aside from your revert, which I obviously dispute). I expect that the guideline will be adjusted to mention this usage, and then IAR will no longer be needed.

Actually, my problem with the edit is mentioning You Tube there with or without the template. I think it's unnecessary clutter. The identifier in the link is sufficient. Mentioning You Tube isn't needed or useful. Can you think of a reason it is worthwhile?
Regarding your use of the You Tube template that differs from the use specified at Template:YouTube, you could determine what the consensus says about that by proposing the change in the template documentation at Template talk:YouTube or be bold and make the change and see whether it's accepted.
Regarding your remark "standardizing links to YouTube, while making any site-wide changes to those links a trivial matter of one edit" – I didn't understand it, so feel free to explain it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: Mentioning You Tube isn't needed or useful. Can you think of a reason it is worthwhile? - I sure can. It tells the reader, "This link will take you to YouTube." They have a need to know that, since many people don't like to click a link without knowing where it goes. Some websites are not trustworthy and will install malware or spamware on your computer, or do other undesirable things, and we shouldn't ask the reader to accept our judgment about a site (besides, a site that is trustworthy today may not be trustworthy tomorrow). It should be their decision. It's also inappropriate to expect them to know how to check the URL by mousing over the link before clicking it. All that is technical stuff that should be "under the covers". My mom has used the web all the time for years and wouldn't have a clue how to do that.
– I didn't understand it, so feel free to explain it - Say somebody acquires YouTube from Google and decides to change the name. It happens all the time. So we edit the {{YouTube}} template and change the name displayed with the link. Done, for all YouTube links that use the template. It's beneficial to minimize the amount of work remaining after that's done, which is far more time-consuming and labor-intensive. This is a large part of the concept behind all templates. Standardization/consistency, and ease of site-wide changes.
Anyway, your argument is that there is no need to show "YouTube" beside those links, which is actually an argument against the existence of the template. But the template has existed for over ten years, has been edited 63 times by 40 different editors, and is used thousands of times (I stopped paging through the "What links here" at about 2,000). It's clear that the community accepts the template, and you haven't explained how it makes sense to use it in "External links" but prohibit it in an "external media" box. They are simply two ways of presenting external links. There are "rules", and then there's reason. That is why we have IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your reason, I looked at WP:External links and I didn't see any concern about that there. So I don't think that's a consideration. (If I missed it, you can copy the excerpt here.) Since you think that's a significant concern, I would suggest that you try adding it to that guideline.
Regarding acquiring You Tube from Google, etc., as I mentioned before, my problem with the edit is mentioning You Tube there with or without the template.
Regarding why only use it in the "External links" section and not the "External video" boxes, as I said previously, propose it at the template talk page or boldly make the edit in the "When to use" section of the template page and see what they say. I think it would be clutter in the "External video" boxes, which is part of the main text where that is more of a consideration than in the External links section.
What you are suggesting is very general and if it is correct, it should be added to the guideline WP:External links and to the section "When to use" of the Template:YouTube. So good luck and unless something new comes up, that's about it for me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You completely ignored a large part of what I said. No matter, I've done the update and I'll wait a week before reverting you. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 Done [4] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Update needed with District Attorney's decision to not press charges?

I noticed that there wasn't an update here yet when I tried to check on this after hearing about it.

I'm not much good at keeping an informative-but-neutral tone, so I'll refrain from editing it in myself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/charlotte-officer-acted-lawfully-in-fatal-shooting-of-keith-scott.html

Woden87 (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is well updated about that development. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Attribute to Murray or the report?

@Bob K31416: Since we have the DA report] (already cited once), I struggled with whether to attribute stuff to Murray or to the report. I assume the former implies that he said the things in a press conference. The latter might be more weighty than that, and I don't think pulling things directly from the report would violate p&g.

I haven't checked it out, but it would be wrong to say "Murray said" if you got it from the report; the report comes from the office, not the man.

Note that I would oppose skipping the attribution and using wiki voice for any of the report's findings, but it doesn't look like that's a problem at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In the NYT article that is the source for the info, it is mostly about what Murray said in his oral report to the press, although I noted there were a couple of times where the article referred to what Murray wrote in the written report. I would suggest following the source and use the language, or similar language, of the NYT article in referring to where the info came from. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Keith_Lamont_Scott/Archive_2&oldid=1076839837"