This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Law Enforcement C‑class This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: North Carolina / Charlotte C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina - Charlotte (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

I've added a neutrality tag onto this article as it almost appears like it's trying to glorify the cop involved. The article should be treating the subject of the shooting neutrally and not having an entire section talking about the officer and how good of a person he was. We shouldn't be doing that with the person killed in the shooting either. Regardless, this needs to be fixed. Silverseren^C 04:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite neither woman being at the scene, and the sister being asleep, both Scott's sister and daughter claimed that he was in his car reading a book when he was gunned down by the officer"

This sort of line also seems like it's trying to push a narrative, as does the protest sections by focusing practically exclusively on claimed negative things the protesters are doing. Silverseren^C 04:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The glorifying of the cop has been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are other neutrality issues with the article though, as I mentioned above. But that's a start. Silverseren^C 04:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hagiography of the officer. This is no place to sing his praises or talk about his scholarships. The article is about the shooting, not his history. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed. I feel the same way about both people involved in this. We should talk about their history only in relation to the shooting (so, like, mentioning the guy was married and had so and so kids actually is relevant due to their testimony and involvement in the case, but anything more than that about them would be undue). Silverseren^C 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The shooting sparked riots three hours after the shooting and continued on into the early morning of the next day and night. The violence of the riots injured dozens of officers and included the near-death of another unarmed black man by a "Black Lives Matter" rioter."

But, yeah, if this is the summary of the protests, then I think it would be hard for anyone to claim that this is looking neutrally at the topic. Silverseren^C 04:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate issue to the above, though undoubtedly related to the neutrality problems, is that the sourcing is pretty horrible. Theroot.com? Heavy.com? Mic.com? Daily Kos? Freaking Russia Today with two separate articles used as sources? Silverseren^C 04:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have removed the lousy sources (RT, TheHeavy.com, TheRoot, Daily Caller, Mic) and replaced the cites and modified text, as necessary. Neutrality^talk 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Charlotte riots or 2016 Charlotte riot should already be split to a new article. Not sure why it is not yet.--Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough information still to warrant its own article as of yet and both, the shooting and riots, are linked. If their is enough information and sources to break it into two articles, then sure; but at this time I would argue we have not hit critical mass yet. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed partof = Black Lives Matter from the 2016 Charlotte riots infobox. It violates WP:NPOV to make such a profound connection between the group and the riots. In fact, I'm not sure there should be a riots infobox at all. What do others think?- MrX 18:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It probably doesn't. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Silverseren^C 04:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, include both. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And now some IP is copy-pasting stuff from coverage of Vinson's arrest... le sigh EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

To what extent do we detail it then? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State which crimes he was convicted of. Jim Michael (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Facebook check was activated for Charlotte, North Carolina. --150.216.63.40 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it annoying too. However, I do not believe that is relevant. How has the Facebook checker been used in other articles where it was activated? --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and 2016 Davao City bombing all mention it. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Boston Globe, this is the first time a Facebook safety check was implemented during a protest event, rather than inn the aftermath of a shooting, terrorist attack or natural disaster. I think that this merits inclusion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it Spirit of Eagle. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NBC News just released a video of the shooting. Will see if there's anything new to integrate into the article, but expect more news to come out about this (meaning more editors too). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "No gun can be seen in the footage, which appears to have been recorded from a nearby patch of grass. The footage was obtained by NBC News amid conflicting reports about whether a gun was found at the scene of the shooting. Police say he had a handgun on him and posed "an imminent, deadly threat." The family says he was not armed and did not pose a threat to the officers." EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cops look all dressed in battle gear - I assume not on regular patrol. They seem looking for someone dangerous. Poor guy they found I bet was the same color and size - they were certain he had a gun because the guy they were looking for probably was "armed and dangerous". 2601:181:8301:4510:B597:D80A:61F0:CD89 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the police report says that they recovered a gun from the scene. Thus, if there is no gun in the footage and, whenever info is released about Scott in relation to guns, if he had no gun permit or any known gun owned, then that would imply such a gun was planted. Oh dear. :/ I expect all of this to get much more complicated. Silverseren^C 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is accurate or sensible. Just because a gun is present does not mean it will be visible in videos that were shot, as ought to be clear from the wife's video which doesn't really show anything at all, including not showing that Scott was shot.

Also, since Scott was a convicted felon not legally allowed to own a gun, and since there is no gun registration in NC, it's downright bizarre to suggest that, IF somebody discovered an absence of legal gun records, that would somehow show he didn't have any gun. So this crystal balling on your part does not make a whole lot of sense. RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary (e.g., [1]). But on Wikipedia we need to withhold judgment for now EvergreenFir (talk) 10:29 pm, 23 September 2016, last Friday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)

We generally wouldn't include middle name here, unless that is how sources usually refer to him, per WP:COMMONNAME. E.g., Shooting of Walter Scott not Shooting of Walter Lamar Scott, Shooting of Samuel DuBose not Shooting of Samuel Vincent DuBose. I confess to not having looked at a lot of sources, being tied up on other things. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: FWIW a simply google search for "Keith Scott" showed most seem to include his middle name (for some reason). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably just how they do it in early reporting. No problem leaving it as is for the time being, and maybe they'll settle down to Keith Scott at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, on first reference, uses just the middle initial: shooting of Keith L. Scott? Neutrality^talk 23:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd go for brevity but sometimes it's actually easier to type the "amont" then it is to bother with a period, those dots are easy to overlook when trying to remember a URL. Ranze (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should consider anything but COMMONNAME. I doubt we could show COMMONNAME for Keith L., either. I say defer. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where it came from but is there any more information available on the gun? Given that police are arguing KLS had it they presumably have one entered into evidence. For example, do we know the make/model or if it was loaded (and if so, how many rounds) and if there's any blood on it? Ranze (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, CMPD will release that information in time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fact that Scott was not legally eligible to own a firearm should be included in the article. I have placed this information in the section about his background. However, I don't know whether the information about his gun ownership ineligibility should be in his background section, or the section about the shooting, or some other section, or some combination of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathEconMajor (talk • contribs) 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the top infobox, with have participant Keith Lamont Scott (victim) and then death Keith Lamont Scott. This appears to be a duplication of the same thing. Is there a better way without showing duplication? --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages like this don't list the deceased as a participant. I saw that and was confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done- MrX 21:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we have one source from Fox News ([2]) which says that "“Just know that all white people are f****** devils, all white cops are f******* devils and white people," said a man identified as Scott's brother." The video is cites is no longer available. Fox does not claim that they identified the person as his brother. I assume that it was in the video.

When I search "Charlotte protest white devil" and "Charlotte riot white devil" I find zero reliable sources that corroborate this story. Fox News is not the most reliable source for race issues and considering that no other news organizations covered this, I am skeptical of its veracity. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be removed per WP:UNDUE. I tried once but was reverted. - MrX 21:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is real, Scott's brother did say that to WCNC-TV news, here is a video on YouTube and it mentioned by a WCNC-TV reporter on Twitter. Oddly, despite this, I cannot find a valid source quoting it, even on WCNC-TV's own website. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the WP:V. I don't care about the WP:V because I doubt the WP:DUE even if it's true. I think MrX agrees with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree in that case, it is obviously a reaction and does not really change the events as they unfolded. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cited sources says "police vest", the other "CMPD vest". I changed our content from "police vest" to "bulletproof vest" and wikilinked that to Bulletproof vest. It seems like a permissible paraphrase to my ear, but have I committed original research? If it's just some vest that says CMPD on it, I'm in error and that doesn't even need to be in the article as far as I can see. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have self-reverted that change pending an outcome here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of weak sources that say it was a bulletproof vest.[3][4].- MrX 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak is right. Heavy Romper. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video clearly shows Kevlar vests, but that could still be OR. Just erring on the side of caution here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only important fact about the vest is that it clearly identified the man as a cop. IMO that is why generally the RS's mention that part and don't say anything about it being bulletproof or kevlar. Tracking what the sources say is basic WP:V; removing that lone bit of useful information would be very, very objectionable and contrary to WP:DUE. RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can state your first sentence without RS support, I can state my view that the bulletproof vest provided some protection against any gun in Scott's possession, and is therefore not insignificant. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Observer reported that "They returned to watching for their suspect, then Vinson saw Scott hold up a gun. They withdrew to a spot nearby and put on duty vests that said “Police” that would identify them as officers. When they came back, Scott still had the gun." RealityCheckTime (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, still little RS support for bulletproof, so I'll concede pending said support. I.e., stay with status quo "police vest". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was going to move this video link from External links to the body, as at Shooting of Walter Scott#Eyewitness video and Shooting of Samuel DuBose#Shooting. Raw video doesn't lie or take a side, so it's not an NPOV violation to make it more prominent. And we judged in those articles that it added significant reader value. In this case, the video seems to add less reader value. The frame is jumping all around, and you only get a very brief glimpse of Scott. So I'm ambivalent. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that moving it up would be a problem. Raw video of an event unfolding is about a neutral as you can get.- MrX 00:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion as to reader value? Do we care about that? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to moving the link. We now have 3 videos (wife's, dashcam, and bodycam). The dashcam is the only one that actually shows the moment the shots were fired. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I'll do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, changed the non-YouTube one to a YouTube version of the same length. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move videos to Commons?

Recommendation - That the videos should be placed in Wikimedia and linked to there so they will always be available. If you need assistance let me know. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Washuotaku: - This is similar to this discussion about 14 months ago, but I think my position has changed a little. If you feel that the risk of YouTube being acquired by Fox in a hostile takeover is significant (that should tell you where my bias is), and the licensing issues discussed there don't apply here, then I'm not opposed to you doing that. That discussion did not result in a move to Commons. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current coordinates - 35°17′44″N 80°43′32″W / 35.29559°N 80.72557°W / 35.29559; -80.72557 - are off by about 150 m, not even in the apartment complex and across a two-lane highway to the east. If that's not enough, the marker is on the top of a water tower in Google Earth. Just a heads up that I'm working on it, trying to be as accurate as possible comparing videos to Google Maps and Google Earth. (This kind of thing has not been seen as OR in the past.) Hard to correlate them, so I don't know how accurate I'll be. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made an adjustment - 35°17′44″N 80°43′37″W / 35.29543°N 80.72708°W / 35.29543; -80.72708 - that gets us into the apartment complex. A ton of detective work and reasoning went into this, more than I have ever done before, and I'm only about 80% confident that this is the exact spot. I'm open to alternative strategies, but I can think of only three.

1. Use the coordinates of 9453 Lexington Circle, per Google Maps, which the wife said on her video (she incorrectly said Court instead of Circle; there is no Lexington Court in Charlotte). This is probably her home address, the address of her building, and it is unknown how far they were from that building. This would put the marker on that building, about 75 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty, although that means nothing to readers and most editors for that matter.
2. Use the coordinates of the Village at College Downs apartment complex, per Google Maps. This would put the marker on what is probably the apartment complex office, about 40 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty.
3. Use the coordinates of the approximate center of the apartment complex, per eyeball. This would put the marker in a grassy area about 75 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty.

And it's possible someone else could do better detective work, but I would like to hear their reasoning. If you feel I've committed OR, please specify which of the three alternatives you would prefer, or suggest a fourth. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 98% certain those are the correct coordinates based on the unambiguous dash cam video and other information about the shooting location..- MrX 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: What other information, just for my information? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main street, the name of the complex, this compared to index :02 of the dash cam video. Compare this with index :36 of the wife's video. (opposite sides of the same building.- MrX 15:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Changing 80% to 98%. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We currently say "3:55 p.m. – 4:00 p.m." in the infobox and "before 4:00 p.m." in the prose, no citation for either. The dashcam video shows the shots fired at 3:51:45. How would you resolve this discrepancy? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine if you want to adjust it since we have more accurate information now. Doesn't have to be down to the second though. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do know that the dash cam video timestamp is accurate?- MrX 12:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only other way is getting the list chronological events by CMPD themselves, which typically include the time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or say "about 3:50 p.m.". Seems sufficient hedge. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. That does seem rather bias. Dream Focus 15:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, but reporting is not discussing. They routinely give details that we routinely omit. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes there is, it's called WP:BLP and it applies to recently-dead people. WWGB (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5] and [6] Buster Seven Talk 14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

89.242.76.10, I encourage you to read some of WP:EW and learn how to use this talk page to resolve content disagreements. When someone disputes your edit by reverting it, you don't simply re-revert with a counter to their argument. You start a discussion or let it go.

With that said, I support MrX's position. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the new content per MrX's edit summary rationale. Nothing to add to that, except that I didn't take his "we don't need a full transcript" that literally. I understand that the IP user does not propose a full transcript, and I suspect that MrX did, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - BTW, the proposed content is a copy-and-paste from the cited source, which we can't do per copyright policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did not copy the source exactly and I reworded the few words when I first reverted MrX and considering what I proposed to add is almost entirely a one line quote, it seems hard get around it being similar to the source. Currently the second last sentence of that paragraph, which in the source is just above what I added, is almost entirely the quote and is as close to being copy and paste as to what I propose to add. Also with regards to the other information I added, which you said was of questionable reliability and linked me to its wiki page, the source is certainly reliable enough to use with attribution. Other sources used on the page, such as The Daily Beast also have a large controversy section relative to the size of the page like The Intercept page you linked me to in your edit summary. 89.242.76.10 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I could be wrong as to copy-and-paste, but that was more an unrelated side comment anyway. If it were a copy-and-paste, that by itself wouldn't preclude its inclusion. We could have simply decided that it can be included with rewording. And let's keep The Intercept and other issues separate please, using the same process. (I didn't realize you were the one who added the content about The Intercept; I have a very poor memory for IP addresses). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new "case update" released by the police seems to add useful detail and clarity. I think there should be a separate "police accounts" section for all of that, to keep it separate and make it clear that it is their account. This technique tends to eliminate the need for repetitive and tiresome "according to's". Just not sure where I'd put it, or how it should affect the existing Shooting section content. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first draft of the "case update". I wouldn't see any need to cite anything but the Washington Post article linked above.

On September 24, along with the two dashcam and bodycam videos, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department released a statement of their account of the shooting incident. It stated that the incident began as Vinson and another plainclothes officer were sitting in an unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in an unrelated case. A white SUV pulled up and parked beside them, driven by a man later identified as Scott. The officers observed Scott rolling what they believed to be a marijuana "blunt", but they decided that the warrant operation had higher priority than the drug activity.

Soon afterward, Vinson saw Scott hold a gun up, giving the officers probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and investigate the gun possession. The officers then left the area to retrieve equipment and don "marked duty vests" that would identify them as police officers. When they returned, they again saw a gun in Scott's possession, and they identified themselves as police officers and "gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun". A uniformed officer arrived to assist and tried to break Scott's front passenger window with a baton.

Scott then got out of his vehicle with the gun, backing away from the vehicle while failing to respond to further commands to drop the gun. Perceiving Scott's actions and movements as an "imminent physical threat" to the officers, Vinson fired at Scott, hitting him. Officers "immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene". According to the statement, Scott was found to be wearing an ankle holster and the gun was found to be loaded.

The statement said that lab analysis revealed Scott's DNA and fingerprints on the gun recovered at the scene. Police also released photographs of a gun, a holster, and a marijuana "blunt" they said were recovered at the scene.

The statement did not say how many officers were ultimately present at the time of the gunshots.

―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be appropriate. Natureium (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that as a subsection under Shooting. After trimming for redundancy, there won't be a lot left in the parent section, but I still think it's needed and I can't think of a better way to structure this. Open to suggestion as always. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent edits: [12][13][14][15] ―Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding the following to the Background section,

About a year before the shooting, Scott's wife filed a restraining order against him saying that he carries a 9mm gun.^[1]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this falls under the "previous stuff not directly related to the shooting" as mentioned above in the #Please give your opinion on whether or not this information should be included section. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that when I made the edit and therefore I did not include further details from the restraining order. I limited the edit to the part about Scott having a background that included carrying a gun since this article is about an incident where Scott was repeatedly told to drop a gun, and then shot. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a lot like a trial, where past criminal behavior is admissible evidence. I don't think it's our job to convict or acquit Vinson, nor do I feel that omitting information that would shed a bad light on Scott violates WP:NPOV or any other policy. I do feel it would violate NPOV to omit that while including favorable bio information about Scott or unfavorable bio information about Vinson, but that doesn't mean I would necessarily support including that negative stuff under those conditions. My preference would be to omit everything not directly related to the actual shooting event.
I freely admit that some of Scott's history doesn't make him look very good. To say that the history is related to the shooting is to make a judgment that the history means it's more likely Scott in fact had a gun in his hand as he backed away from the vehicle. I don't think that kind of call is within our purview as Wikipedia editors.
I am not 100% confident of this position (I do recognize my liberal bias), it's one of those things where I would like to see input from far more experienced editors. This is why I pinged Gaijin42, but I see he has not edited for 24 days. Do we need to go to WP:NPOVN? Or should that be WP:BLPN?
If the decisions should be driven by RS, then we're back to the unanswered questions I posed here. Those who want to include will tend to see sufficient RS, those who want to omit will tend not to, and there has to be a way to resolve that disagreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that my last message adequately addressed your points. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it addressed my second paragraph. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my message again, which I think addresses your second paragraph. "...I did not include further details from the restraining order. I limited the edit to the part about Scott having a background that included carrying a gun since this article is about an incident where Scott was repeatedly told to drop a gun, and then shot." It's a fact about his background which appeared in an ABC News/Associated Press article about Scott and the shooting. It doesn't imply anything that is not implied by the reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: "To say that the history is related to the shooting is to make a judgment that the history means it's more likely Scott in fact had a gun in his hand as he backed away from the vehicle. I don't think that kind of call is within our purview as Wikipedia editors." You did not address that. It appears you and I are deadlocked, and others have become remarkably quiet.
Since I don't care to be seen as filibustering this, I'm prepared to go to RfC with questions about inclusion of Scott's history, independent from other bio content decisions. Although it would be complicated, I think we would have to ask separate questions about each item of his history. This should include only those items that have at least some amount of quality RS, such as a single ABC News article. It should be more than the source reporting a rumor; there should be some actual meat to it.
I would prefer to get some agreement on this in advance, among more than just the two of us, but I'm prepared to go ahead without that. We don't have a consensus either way, and at some point a decision has to be made.
Can you nominate items for inclusion in the RfC? This can include items you have agreed to omit from the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my previous messages adequately addressed your points about the specific edit. Also, I think part of your message is digressing from the edit that is the topic of this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, I'm off topic. Then never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate that. As it now stands, the reverting editor EvergreenFir said on that editor's talk page yesterday that it should not be in the article but graciously wouldn't revert the edit if I restored it. I think you don't want it in the article either. So without other editors joining this discussion in support, or anyone changing their mind, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to restore it, even though I think it would improve the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that assessment. I think I'll go ahead with an RfC on just your question, and we can decide how to handle the rest when we get more participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times, 26 September: Video of Charlotte Police Shooting Could Be the Last Released in North Carolina

Could be a short section 3.3 under "Video recordings". Too tangential to include? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too WP:CRYSTAL for my tastes and too tangential. EvergreenFir (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following be added to the Backgrounds section,

About a year before the shooting, Scott's wife filed a restraining order against him saying that he carries a 9mm gun.^[1]

―Mandruss ☎ 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's wife is reliably reported[16] to have filed a restraining order against him in October 2015, in which she said he carried a 9mm gun, the type police say they recovered after fatally shooting him on 20 September of this year. Police say he had the gun in his hand when one of them, Brentley Vinson, shot him. Should the article include this bit of information about the restraining order? This RfC does not address other parts of the restraining order, or any other parts of Scott's history. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC survey: Scott history of carrying a gun

• No - Applicable policy is WP:BDP and WP:BLPCRIME. In the case of BLPCRIME, inclusion does not serve to convict Scott, who is not subject to trial, but it does serve to acquit Vinson, who is subject to trial—even if only in the court of public opinion—at Scott's expense. I see little substantive difference. Our job is not to convict or acquit anybody in any court. This content is not directly related to the actual shooting event, as the police on the scene were not aware of that history, or even of the identity of the person they were dealing with. Therefore it is not relevant to the article subject, and I feel it should be omitted. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No per WP:BDP and WP:BLPCRIME. North Carolina is an open carry state. Unless he was violating the law in possessing the gun, which is unlikely, it's not relevant to his shooting, which is the subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was in violation of the law by possessing a gun because he was a convicted felon, and federal law bars felons from possessing firearms. Natureium (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have a wikipedian who voted the way that did, at least in part, because they did not know the things that readers of this article would not know as a result of the information that is being kept out of it. This is one example of a reason why people should be provided with this information. MathEconMajor (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes – I think this item about Scott having a background that included carrying a gun, is relevant since this article is about an incident where Scott was repeatedly told by police to drop a gun. The previous filing of a restraining order by his wife that included information about him carrying a gun, is a fact about his background which appeared in the given ABC News/Associated Press article about Scott and the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Wikipedia does not decide what is relevant. Multiple RSs have mentioned the restraining order information. Whether or not editors think the RSs *should have* mentioned it, the article should mention it unless preempted by another wikipedia policy. The newspaper articles are about the shooting, and the consensus of RSs decides that his prior record is relevant to the shooting. NPalgan2 (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No. This article is about a specific event - his shooting. The attending police who shot him had no knowledge of his identity or his priors. His history played no part in the decision to shoot him, and so it should not be used now to somehow explain, justify or ameliorate that shooting. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No - I understand the rationale that because RS mention we should too. But we are not obligated to mention everything that RS say. In these cases, news outlets seem to scrounge for any info at all to fill in the gaps, and publicly available info is the first stop. Here it doesn't provide info on the event itself, as there was no warrant or knowledge of past actions by the officers. If they were serving a warrant for him, I'd say include it. But here it is was unrelated and, to some, used to justify actions after the fact. Now if this ever went to trial and was admitted as character evidence, then it's relevant to the case and events and should be considered for inclusion. But at this point it's not. Exclude for now. Side note: I think we might need to go to VP and purpose some guidelines for these specific cases as it comes up over and over. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Known history of carrying a gun should be included in the article about him being shot whilst police say he was holding a gun. Jim Michael (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. It is disputed by his family whether he had a gun. The fact that he had a history of carrying a gun illegally is relevant. Natureium (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes The mention of a gun isn't here for the purpose of bending the tone to favor the police officer, but given that a core part of the dispute here centers on whether or not he did in fact have a gun, a neutral fact on the record that may indicate he had a gun at some point is a crucial part of the story. WP:BLPCRIME is fairly clear - as long as we're not using the fact in accusatory manner, it's a perfectly legitimate note. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Relevance of something to the subject of article (the shooting) should be established by sources. If multiple RS on the subject of shooting provide any kind of personal information, so should we. Same is about the police officer or anyone else related to the shooting (relatives, investigators, whoever). This info could be included in a BLP page about the person, but we do not have such page. Of course we have no obligation to include everything what RS say. But... "police say Keith Scott had this gun on him when he was shot". Obviously, it is highly relevant if this man ever had a gun. Hence include.My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Whether he had a gun recently is the best evidence we have to evaluate whether to believe the claim that he had a gun at the time of the shooting. This article contains claims by police that Keith Scott had a gun. It also contains claims by his daughter that he did not have a gun. In order for him to have a gun on him at the time of the shooting, he would have to possess a gun. This evidence would tend toward showing that he did. Whether the officers at the scene knew about this history or not, it is relevant to the factual question of whether he had a gun at the time of the shooting. Some wikipedians are arguing that this evidence is not relevant now, but might be relevant later if it is introduced into evidence in a trial. I would argue that in a way, it is actually more relevant now than it will be later. At some point, there will probably be definitive evidence introduced showing that he did or did not have a gun at the time, so indirect evidence about whether he had possessed one recently will be less necessary. Right now, though, this article basically just has assertions that he did and did not have a gun at the time, with evidence about whether he had possessed a gun before being disallowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathEconMajor (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Stop whitewashing the article by keeping valid information form it. This is clearly relevant. Dream Focus 21:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC discussion: Scott history of carrying a gun

• Regarding the first two No !votes, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply because Scott is covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. So the edit is consistent with policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott was not a public figure so WP:WELLKNOWN would not apply. Someone being in the news because they were shot dead does not suddenly make them a public figure. - MrX 16:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't suddenly but after he became well known. According to that link public figure, he would be an involuntary public figure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the definition of "public figure" that I have always understood. Politicans and celebrities are public figures, subjects of passing news stories are not. Our article public figure, which both you and MrX have linked, attempts to clarify this point: "(such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader)". Not even Michael Brown is a public figure, and I suspect Scott will never quite reach his level of prominence in this issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those were some examples for the lead and not expressed as the only cases. Farther down the page is the part I was referring to. Here's an excerpt from a source that the public figure article used,[17] "The concept of the 'public figure' is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an 'involuntary public figure' as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention." The second sentence in the excerpt was used in the public figure article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting perspective, but I'm pretty sure it's one that is contrary to widespread practice on Wikipedia. Shall we inquire at WP:BLPN?- MrX 19:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide to, let us know. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's necessary. I assume that whoever closes this RfC will be familiar with our content policies.- MrX 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the No !votes that say the item is not relevant because the policeman who shot him did not know about Scott's history of carrying a gun – That's not the point since the policeman thought he had a gun from his observation at the scene. The point is that the claim of the police that Scott had a gun is consistent with Scott's history of carrying a gun, and that the material is informative and appropriate for this article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's textbook SYNTH. You're making that connection, not the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH applies to the article, not discussions on the talk page. (See the end of the first paragraph of WP:NOR.) The proposed edit is consistent with policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale for inclusion is SYNTH though. Not supported by rs. You need a rationale that adheres to policy send guidelines, not just ILIKEIT. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my previous comment adequately addressed your response. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the fact that a media source contains information that it deemed worthy of inclusion; and the fact that a logical reason that it is relevant can be provided (whether or not this reasoning itself should be placed in the article), is insufficient for some wikipedians unless an outside source specifically explains its rationale for including something. This would require us to find an outside source that does not follow wikipedia-like policies regarding whether to explain the logic of why something is relevant rather than simply including the evidence. Most news sources are like wikipedia articles in that they try to be unbiased by including evidence that is deemed relevant without explicitly explaining the reasoning of what deduction the reader is supposed to make that would make the evidence relevant. Nevertheless, even this standard can more or less be met. Here is a CBS article that mentions the restraining order filing that claimed that he "carries a gun" from October 2015 in the same paragraph that it mentions police claims that he was carrying a gun on the day of the shooting in September 2016. It mentions the controversy over whether he was carrying a gun at the time of the shooting in the next paragraph.[18] Essentially, CBS made the connection (through immediate proximity of information placed back-to-back in the same paragraph) that the restraining order filing about him having a gun is relevant to whether he carried a gun at the time of the shooting. MathEconMajor (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do about the other history items, such as physical violence? I haven't researched it, but my impression is that there are three or four more things to consider. I see at least five options.

1. Run a separate RfC for each item.
2. Run an RfC that combines all of the above into one, but decides each item separately and independently from the others.
3. Run a blanket RfC for all remaining Scott bio information, including any favorable such as "family man".
4. Assume that the outcome of the current RfC will predict that of additional RfCs, and treat it as if it were a blanket RfC.
5. Try to reach consensus(es) without RfC(s). Experience suggests that would not be fruitful. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list the items you're thinking of so far? You don't have to go into much detail, just enough to identify each item. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's only an impression. Being a slow reader, and being time-limited, I haven't absorbed all of the news coverage. I just remember running across other bio things, most negative. The restraining order talked about domestic violence, that's one. If he was a felon, there's at least one felony conviction, that's two. And so on. I assume others have more bandwidth than I do (they always do), so I don't feel the need to do that research myself.
I don't know about you, but I think most of the "inclusionists" here would make the same argument for those items—by reporting them, RS says they are relevant to this shooting, therefore they should be included (and we're not too concerned about how much of RS has reported them, or how they have treated them). If there is only one such item, options 1, 3, 4, and 5 apply. If there are two or more items, all of them do. For the purpose of choosing the option, it really doesn't matter what the items are. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking like an RfC on RfC's. For now, let's not complicate things. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see it as an attempt to uncomplicate things, and to avoid the unproductive consensus-free discussion that we had prior to the current RfC. That is, unless everyone agrees not to propose any more negative content about Scott, which seems unlikely. I'll wait for other responses. If there is little or no participation in this thread, I'll choose an option myself, and it will probably be option 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly needs more expansion on the aftermath. Hillary Clinton has commented on the matter, and a little girl was crying before the Charlotte city council and drew national attention. Here is a link to an article [19] about it. I'm mostly just leaving this as note here for myself so I can get back to it, but I encourage others to help expand this article. Indy beetle (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]