This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Death 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. United States: South Carolina 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject South Carolina.

So I just went through and filled in some citation information, among other changes. As I was doing so, however, I noticed that some of the sources being cited, in particular [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] (see changes in title names, and grayed text at the bottom of each NYT article) have changed and have no archived copy of the original. This was also updated one day later, past the date it was originally accessed, though the contents appear largely the same. I can dig up the current citation numbers if needed. I have filled in all the other citations as best I could, and I don't think there are any changes on any of them (none from what I could see) but I have not done so with these yet. Should I proceed with any editing, or all, of these sources? I'm concerned that the original reports may have been different, but I can't seem to find any archive of them. I'm new to all this, so any input is appreciated.

Also, if any of my changes in this last edit are an issue, feel free to revert them or discuss them here. If you'd rather not go through the painstaking process of reverting some of the technical edits I made (such as reverting some of the retrieval dates on the citations), let me know what you believe should be changed and I have no problem atoning for my sins and doing the work myself. I will be going offline soon until later tonight (UTC-6) or possibly tomorrow, though, so any such edits may have to wait. If there are a lot of problems with my edit which seriously undermine the article, and it's too much work to change it, simply revert my entire edit for now and we can discuss it when I'm available. I know this is a big edit (and I probably should have broken it up), but I wanted to get it all done.

Also, ignore "fixed image template (was comment template, intentional?), changed positions of photos;" in the summary. I forgot to edit that out. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the big edit, I'm not sure what you're doing in some places. You modified accessdates to today's date, and you replaced at least one refname with a full citation for the same source. Are you aware that a ref title should be as it was on the accessdate, not necessarily what it is today? Rather than go through and find and fix individual things, I'd be more comfortable reverting the edit (while it's still undo-able) and taking things slower. Anyone? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with that. My main point was using the VisualEditor to specify and structure the citation information using the templates available, and to start the BRD process. Now that I was bold, and now that you'll probably revert this, we can discuss these changes. If you think the current citations should stay as-is without any of my editing, then that's fine, though I do believe some of the information I added may be worthwhile to keep. I suspected that the ref title should stay as it was the day it was on access date, but I wasn't sure, so I didn't make any changes to those which had changed titles. I don't think any of the changes to titles I did make was a problem, though. In fact, I pretty much avoided the titles for the most part. As for the accessdates, I didn't know whether I should change them because I just accessed them, or leave the older date. I only changed access dates on the citations where none of the source information appeared different upon most recent access, and where no recent updates on the source occurred (if it did, I listed it above). I otherwise retained the accessdates where I thought it should be. I couldn't find any policies or guidelines about this, so I assumed I should just use my best judgment. I guess my best judgment wasn't really what was best for the article. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, revert and Nøkkenbuer, please do one edit at the time and go slower, thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just didn't want to clog up the history page with a dozen or so edits, which I've been prone to do in the past, so I tried to do it all at once. I don't really know which is the preferred method, since I see both happen before. I couldn't find any policy or guidelines in this regard, so I just tried to do it all at once. In the future, I'll keep the edits to small or single changes. Thanks for the advice. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An accessdate should be the date that the editor used the source to support article content, and shouldn't change unless you feel like reverifying the source material. And there's the matter of modifying <ref name=NBCNews.mourners/> to a full citation, thus creating a redundant citation instead of reusing one elsewhere in the article. Yes, little edits are more manageable I think, although many seem to disagree. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed what I thought was a duplicate or two, so I cleaned those out. I didn't know I created one, too. I was wondering where I saw "Chuck, Elizabeth" before, but couldn't find it in the references (I blame VisualEditor). That's my bad. If you want, you could look over what changes I did make in the edit and note which ones should be changed. I'll promptly change them and resubmit the revised edit. That is, assuming you want to keep any of my changes. For example, if you want me to revert most or all the access dates I changed back to their original dates, I can do that. If you'd rather me not hyphenate "first-degree murder", I can remove that change. If you want me to remove some of the citation data I added, I can do that, too. I can also delete that duplicate citation entry. If not, and you'd rather just keep my edit reverted and maintain the current status quo, then... Well, that's your decision. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if you want me to revert most or all the access dates I changed back to their original dates, I can do that. I reverted the entire edit yesterday per the above discussion, so one of us is confused.
Few of us, if any others working on this article, use VisualEditor, and many including me have never even seen it. So we may experience somewhat of a communication problem. On another article we had a local convention for coding refnames. The convention included omitting quotation marks around the refname, but one editor kept putting quotes around already-existing refnames. It took us awhile to figure out that VE was doing that without the editor's knowledge or choice. So, to some extent, we're editing in different worlds and may have difficulty understanding each other's perspectives. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I use VisualEditor because I'm still trying to learn how to edit in source. I occasionally edit in source, but typically stick to VE since it's easier for me to understand. I understand that my entire edit has been reverted, but I could make changes to my edit in source before resubmitting it. After we have reached consensus on what to keep or change in my edit, I can make these changes and resubmit it. If you'd rather not keep any of the changes I suggested in my edit, then I guess I'll just go back to WikiGnoming. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier (for me, at least) for you to take one type of change at a time, discuss it here, and then do it if agreement is reached. For one example we could start with, you're adding wikilinks around some citation parameters; I don't do that myself, and I think I'm in the majority, but I don't object to it if someone else wishes to do it, and I think I'm in the majority there too. You could do all of those in one edit, then discuss the next proposed type of edit. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'wikilinks around some citation parameters', I like to see them for the parameters that help to determine the reliability of the source, e.g. author, website, work, publisher, etc. I agree that doing one type of change per edit is a good idea, certainly for high-profile articles. Lklundin (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I guess I'll just start over and try to fix/fill each source once per edit. Is that fine? Do you, or anyone here, have any recommendations? For example, if you think I should not wikilink some of the paramaters more than once (e.g., only wikilink "CNN" once, "The New York Times" once), I can do that. If you don't mind me asking, what—if anything—should be done about the sources I linked above? They are cited in the article, but their original pages weren't archived (to my knowledge) and the source content has since changed. Should I leave them be, or should I update them? I really appreciate your patience and help, Mandruss (and everyone else) by the way. I know it must be frustrating dealing with a new editor, but I'm grateful that you all are trying to work with me. ―Nøkkenbuer (talkcontribs) 10:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

try to fix/fill each source once per edit seems contrary to doing one type of change, article-wide, in each edit. So I'm confused again on that point.
No, it would be a really bad idea to link each news outlet only once. Articles are too dynamic, even after they quiet down considerably, and that rule wouldn't last long. Either link all of them or none of them, and per Lklundin I'm fine with linking all of them. I do think it's important to be consistent within the article, without feeling compelled to monitor the article's updates forever to maintain the consistency.
As for the articles you linked above, the first one has been archived 41 times at archive.org, so I'm not understanding the issue there. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I thought that one problem with my edit was that it made many changes. Most of those changes were to the citations. If I were to break up my edit into smaller edits, wouldn't that mean I should change one or two citations at a time, so they could be reverted and discussed separately? Am I mistaken somewhere?

As for the archive, I am astonished that the first link has been archived so many times. I guess I was doing something wrong, or I broke the link, because when I searched for archives it said that none could be found. Well, seeing as that one (and probably many of the others) is archived, what is the policy here? Should the title be that of the current article, or the archived one? Should the archived link be the link to the first posting, when it wasn't updated? Or should I compare the different archives to see which one among them is best? For example, should I choose the second archive instance over the original because the only update was to copyediting in the source, but no actual content change? Maybe I'm just overthinking all this. What do you advise I do about these citations? Include the archive URL, change some of the info, what? Or would you rather change them yourself, since you're almost certainly more experienced here? We could always just leave them as-is, but I think that's a bad idea. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the first question: First we suggested keeping edits small. Later I suggested doing one type of change article-wide, after disussing it here; a single edit for all occurrences of that type would be fine, as they're either all correct or all incorrect (since it's been discussed here first, we can assume the former). An example of a type of change would be making wikilinks of citation parameters. Sorry for the confusion.

Re the handling of archives: There are two schools of thought that I think are within guidelines, as follows. I've seen it done two other ways, but I'll omit them.

1. Ignore archives completely until a dead link is discovered. At that time, identify the appropriate archive version and add it to the citation using |archiveurl=. If |archiveurl= is present, |deadurl=yes is the default.
2. Go ahead and add the appropriate archive version to the citation now, using |archiveurl= with |deadurl=no, thereby helping out future editors. If a dead link is discovered, they can simply change |deadurl=no to |deadurl=yes (or remove |deadurl=no) and be done with it. Many editors don't know how to locate an archive version.

I used to use #2, and still do sometimes, but mostly I've become old and tired and go with #1. #1 is by far the most commonly used method because dead links are relatively rare and editors are relatively lazy. However, #2 has the advantage that, even when the source link is still alive, a reader can easily access the archive version to see what the source looked like at the time of use. The choice is yours.

The ref title should match the source at the time the source was used to support the content. This is in keeping with leaving the accessdate alone, as the accessdate says when that occurred. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I usually go for method #2. Do you recommend I select the correct archive along any sort of criteria? For example, should I check for differences between archives, or perhaps use an archive which is closest to the access date (if available)? Of course I could get really technical and check for when the citation was added in the page history in order to determine the exact access date to the second, but I highly doubt that will be necessary in all but the most extreme of cases. Alternatively, should I just select the oldest, most original one for the archive, even in instances where there is an access date? What about on citations which do not list an access date? Just pick the oldest ones? I hate to bombard you with so many questions, but any help is appreciated. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overthinking things. The articles changed, but did they change in a way that no longer backs the statements they are supporting? If not there is no issue. If you want to add an archive as a bookkeeping action, just add the newest one. Only if the source has issued a material correction for us that our citation is now invalid is there an issue. In that case, the correct action is NOT to find an old archive that supports our statement, its to update our statement with the most recent information. In actuality, giving users the "live" version is better, because even if our version is wrong, they will get linked to the most updated info, where they could have a chance to notice the discrepancy, and correct our content. The archive is only really useful if we expect their link to go dead (which is a real issue, but don't let that get in the way of the encyclopedia itself). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posed this question on some board a long time ago. The feedback I got was that we needn't keep going back to sources to see if they have changed in a way that affects our content, since who has the time? Who does that? The accessdate is what's important. If a specific piece of content comes into question, that's a different matter. At least that's how I understood the feedback at the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my understanding as well, Keep it simple, folks! - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nøkkenbuer, use the earliest archive version that is on or after the accessdate. If accessdate is missing, skip it; in the relatively unlikely event that the source link dies, another editor can figure it out then. It's not an exact science, references are a fuzzy and messy business in general, and I'll wager you'll end up old and tired like the rest of us anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it took me some time to research this, and this was originally to Gaijin42, but I guess I'll pose this to you (though anyone can respond, of course):

I was worried that I was. As for the archives: sometimes, the information has changed, though not always significantly. Compare the original archive with the latest archive of the first link I provided above. Some significant details, as well as the title, have been changed. This archive is the last one from April 8, the date at specified in the citation's access date. Even this differs from the earliest archive from April 8, such as the title and specifying that Scott was shot in the back (which was later reverted in a later update). If we take into account when the citation was first added with a specified access date (it was added previously, but with no access date), then we would use the first archive, since all archives up to and including the closest one to the access date (which is the last one of April 7, and not on April 8, since the page was not archived before access on April 8 at 2:09 UTC) appear to be broken—at least, for me. Out of all these possibilities, which would you (or anyone reading this) recommend we use for the archive of the first citation? Or, in your opinion, should we even archive this first link? If we don't, shouldn't update the link title and access date, since they refer to an older version of the article?

Given the tone which has developed since the time I began typing all that, I suspect the response will be "you're overthinking it again". ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't make that value judgment, but you're certainly thinking more than I'm used to thinking, and I haven't known editors to go back and check other editors' work, when there is no particular reason to question it. So, speaking for myself, you're asking me how you should do something that I've never done before, and I have no answer. You're just amazingly advanced for a 40-day editor, and it's a bit overwhelming. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading a lot of the policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia, and tried to familiarize myself with some of the tools. Over the years, I've also edited as an IP on occasion, and I've lurked the talk pages for a while before actually contributing. When I finally decided it was time to create an account, I did so about 40 or so days ago. I wanted to make sure I was somewhat prepared to actually become a Wikipedian editor, since I consider that to be a big task. Maybe I overprepared, or maybe I'm just idealizing Wikipedian editorship, I dunno. I do have more time on my hands than I'd like to admit, however, so I've used these 40 days to the most I could. For these reasons, I'm a "new user" in the sense that I am new to participating on Wikipedia. I've been using Wikipedia for years, though, and I've been "on" Wikipedia as in reading some of the talk pages for many months. Only in the past 40 days have I finally stepped up and became an active member of Wikipedia. I hope that makes sense.

Arb break

But anyway, back to the topic: yeah I'm probably overthinking things. This is the change I made to the first citation. Do you think this is fine? If so, I could continue and just fill in the citations in chunks (or all together). Not that this is particularly important, but it's all I really know how to do at this time. I'm not very good at adding information to an article, only tweaking current info. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nøkkenbuer: Can you do the wikilinks in citations first? It's something that's uncontroversial and doesn't require me to think right now.

But I'm not real comfortable with the use of VE for extensive changes to refs. It necessarily imposes its developers' own arbitrary ideas about coding, such as how it uses spaces in citation parameters, the aforementioned unnecessary quotes around refnames, and so on. It looks like it does all of this with any ref it touches for any reason, which I suppose makes sense from a programming perspective. If you used VE to make all the wikilinks, it would effectively convert the entire article to VE-format refs. That's not particularly appealing considering that some of us disagree with some aspects of it. In the proverbial nutshell, VE does not (yet?) play well in a mixed environment. How would you feel about adding the wikilinks the "old way"? At the very least it would be good experience; I think everybody should learn to drive a stick first, then an automatic if they choose to. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. I can make changes to the citations later, when we're all more available to do so. I appreciate your guidance. As for using VE, I can try to use source editing if you'd like. Is this better, Mandruss? On VE, I like it because it's much easier to understand for someone new to source coding, but I don't understand why it adds those extra spaces or quotation marks. Those spaces can be beneficial from the perspective of someone knowing what goes where while source coding, but then again you usually collapse it into a single line and remove the spaces afterward, anyway. Seeing as VE is meant for users to work without using source, I don't see why they keep those spaces. As for the quotation marks, I have no clue. It's useful to distinguishing when a refname begins and ends, but it isn't really necessary, and only adds more bytes. Maybe I'll report it as a bug/problem/suggestion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to imply that I don't like any spaces, but my personal preference as to where to put spaces differs from VE's. But that's neither here nor there at this point, if you're only doing the wikilinks for now. Don't worry about the rest. (BTW, I'm still talking about wikilinks in citations. Re-reading your last, I'm unclear whether you're on the same page.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I could remove all the unnecessary spaces in the citations? And yes, we're on the same page. After I finish the wikilinking, I'll submit it. I can either submit it with all unnecessary spaces removed (which means no VE on this article, since it'll add spaces), or to just leave them as-is. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what "submit it" means. I assumed that was a VE concept/term, and I thought we just agreed to use the old (non-VE) editor for this. So I'm confused again. What I'd prefer is that you (1) use the old editor to add the wikilink brackets around the appropriate citation parameters, and (2) leave everything else unchanged for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by "submit it" I mean submit the edit by saving the page. Yes, I'm using the source editing now, but my question was whether to remove any and all unnecessary spaces in the citations. It wouldn't impact how the page is displayed, but it'll remove some of the bytes and clean up the citations. My point about VE is that if I go ahead and remove all the spaces, it'll make VE editing of the citations problematic because (like you noted above) it'll inject more unnecessary spaces. Thus, we probably shouldn't use VE to edit the citations on this article. But so be it, I'll just wikilink in the citations, and I'll leave any and all spaces I find in the citation source code. It makes my job easier, at least. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The worst possible thing you could do to a citation would be to remove all unnecessary spaces, for multiple reasons. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? I was testing it in the preview and I noticed no problems. There is a lot of inconsistent spacing throughout the citations, none of which actually helps with the parameters. I didn't remove any of the spaces, though. You can see what I did in my most recent edit here. I hope that's alright. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How should this article's lead treat the races of Slager and Scott? Is RS coverage of direct evidence of racism in this particular shooting required in order to mention races in the lead? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the result here, their races will continue to be mentioned in their respective mini-bio sections. Please !vote 1, 2, or 3, boldfaced. (Note, the terms used for Slager's and Scott's races will be white and black, per sources and prior consensus, and this RfC is not about that question.)

1 — omit both races

2 — mention only Scott's race

3 — mention both races, as per status quo

BACKGROUND SUMMARY:

• Most RS coverage states the races of Slager and Scott.
• Much RS coverage discusses race issues in North Charleston, including alleged police racial profiling, or in the context of the ongoing national debate about white-cop-on-black killings.
• Some RS coverage attempts to imply a racism component to the shooting, but without actually substantiating it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Races in the lead

• 1 - We have video of both the traffic stop and the shooting, and at no point does Slager speak to Scott like a racist Southern cop speaks to a black man. Many of us are familiar with the condescending tone that is invariably present, even when no there are no racial slurs or other blatant disrespect. That tone is simply not there. Slager has no racism in his history, as a cop or otherwise; if he did, it would have been reported, and loudly. The question I ask, then, is: Does the mention of races in the lead imply a racism component to this shooting? If the answer is yes, I think the obvious !vote is 1 (or at least 2), regardless of other RS coverage. Per WP:NPOV, we cannot imply something that has not been shown in RS. I believe the answer is yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 - This definitely fits into the broader issue of Racial Profiling. Just like all of the individual uprisings in the Middle East fit into the Arab spring and fall of the individual communist states fits into the fall of Communism itself. Whether or not slager himself is a racist, it is clear that there are a lot people who are taking this incident, and many of them are RS's, in that context. To omit it would be to omit what RS's are saying.Myopia123 (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 - Wikipedia editors do not get to pick and choose what is added to articles based on their personal theories on what is relevant or important or what reliable sources should have reported. "Most RS coverage states the races of Slager and Scott." is what we go by. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 - Per NeilN. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 - Our job, among others, is to stay true to the sorts of sources that we rely upon to write this article. We don't have the freedom to stray from what is clearly the way that this incident is reported in the predominant number of the sources that we use in this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 1/2 - My arguments are already detailed in the discussion I initiated about it; I strongly recommend anyone interested in understanding my full views on this matter to peruse the discussion there. Basically, I believe the race specifications in the lead is inessential information to the sentence and lead, available elsewhere in the article, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed. I am also willing to compromise with option 2 in order to break the "X race (victim) vs. Y race (shooter)" pattern. My arguments for why this is at least an improvement can also be found in the discussion linked above. I believe our duty as editors is to interpret the sources when writing in WikiVoice and omit, alter, or rephrase content which may be POV in order to remain neutral and encyclopedic. I believe the race specifications in the lead, at least in its current form, is POV. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 - My reasoning is that the story is about a police shooting incident. Officer involved shootings happen almost daily (unfortunately) in the U.S. Some get significant media coverage, others do not. And the mitigating factor in this case is the existence of the amateur video, the races of the individuals involved are ancillary to the main story. Racial profiling and unfair treatment of minorities is not unique to South Carolina (again, unfortunately) or the United States for that matter. I was living in Southern California when the Rodney King incident happened. No one was shocked that the police had beaten King, but what made it so sensational was the fact that it was caught on video and made available for the whole world to see. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, since "[r]acial profiling and unfair treatment of minorities is not unique to South Carolina … or the United States" we should omit from the lead of our article that one of the individuals is white and the other of the individuals was black? Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prolly oughta ping Scalhotrod if you want a reply, he may have been just in and out. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop:, I thought I laid out my reasoning in a fairly straightforward manner. The article is about a shooting incident, something that happens regardless of the color of anyone involved. Furthermore, to expand on this thought, in my opinion there is no need to include the race of either individual in the Lead. If you want to know why, then I would cite that the section that seemingly would deal with and address this aspect (the race of either person involved) is the National impact section, which is currently the smallest section in the article. Since this event is so new, its likely that this section will be expanded. But for the time being, it is what it is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 - Most of the coverage covers it, so to appropriately represent the coverage, it should be mentioned. It's also a part of the ongoing discussion in the USA right now and almost every case of police conduct and excessive force has involved white officers and minority citizens. Again this is also mentioned in most of the coverage. Trying to remove the effect of race as covered by the news organizations from this article is an agenda to misrepresent the news coverage being linked and referenced. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Did you read the original discussion? If not, I really recommend you do. I covered everything you mentioned therein. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, your last sentence is uncalled for. I think we can assume good faith on the part of all editors involved here. Disagreeing with you is not evidence of an agenda. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. While some try to make a race issue out of everything, this had nothing to do with racism. The news media will always try to get more attention and higher ratings by stirring things up however they can. Dream Focus 20:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 - a cursory glance at the RS shows that this case is notable on the premise that a white officer killed a fleeing black man. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Continued in Discussion 1. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 3 While it is not clear that race had anything to do with the incident itself, it has a lot to do with why the incident became notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point I haven't heard yet. I agree that it may have contributed to why it became notable (along with the help of the media), but if that's true, then wouldn't the reasonable thing to do here be include this in the article in the form of content, such as in the National impact section? The races of those involved may have aided its notability, but that doesn't mean we have to specify their races in the lead. We could at least just omit one. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 - it's been widely reported and everyone will want to know it. Red Slash 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know what exactly? If you mean the races of those involved, then that is easily available in the biography section. It can also be easily distinguished from the various images used in the article, as well as the video itself. Many who come to the article will probably do so after seeing it on the news or hearing it from another, anyway, and they will likely already know that "a white North Charleston police officer shot and killed a black man". We aren't providing any relevant information by including this in the lead, but we're running the risk of misinterpretation if we keep it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 - Given that this information will already be included elsewhere on the article page, including it in the lede does not contribute to the article on whole.MichaelProcton (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 3, but in modified form - I concur with Mandruss about NPOV, as well as OR for that matter: the status quo as it is right now strongly implies that this is a racism incident. However racism is very difficult to prove, and for me to agree to leave the lead as it is would require much stronger evidence showing that it is a racism incident. However, the fact that RS treats this as a racism incident should definitely be mentioned, and to do this one of course needs to include the races of both Scott and Slager. I favour a sentence describing what happened, followed by a sentence describing why the incident was notable. Example: "The shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, following a daytime traffic stop for a nonfunctioning brake light. Scott was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer. The case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man. Slager originally alleged that Scott had taken his taser and therefore he felt "threatened"; however, after a video surfaced that showed him shoot Scott from behind while Scott was fleeing, Slager was charged with murder." Banedon (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Continued in Discussion 2. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 1: Races in the lead

Moved from Survey.―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance at the RS shows that this case is notable on the premise that a white officer killed a fleeing black man. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that matter at all? That alone is hardly sufficient reason. We are to report on the facts, not participate in an ongoing debate or comment on the tendencies of certain incidents. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, a white officer killed a black man. This is stressed in the sources. I think you're seeing things or debates that aren't there. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nøkkenbuer—if we live in a Post-racial America there is no need to mention in the lead that one of the individuals is black and the other is white. I think we are on our way to a "post-racial America" but I don't think we've arrived there yet. Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's relevant. Regardless of whether racism is still alive and kicking in the United States, and regardless of whether there was even a racial motivation in this article, unless the races of those involved are notable enough to mention again in the lead (after already being mentioned elsewhere), then I see no reason in keeping either or both. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've already argued, we have no obligation to mimic a word-for-word facsimile of how the sources describe it. Yes, a white officer killed a black man. This could easily be gathered by the biography section and the various images, as well as the video itself. The wording is inflammatory, however, and may give the reader the impression that there is more to it than there really is. I understand that what happened is a fact, but how we convey that fact is the question. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While we "...have no obligation to mimic a word-for-word facsimile of how the sources describe it...", we do have an obligation to adhere reasonably closely to sources. Our article presently reads, in the lead, "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer." The journalistic sources invariably say something like that, generally in the first sentence of their articles. The reader need not derive something "inflammatory" from that. Our wording is not saying that "...there is more to it..." We don't live in a post-racial America. That is something we can reasonably derive from sources writing about this subject. Our obligation is just to reflect sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, haven't we? We have "an obligation to adhere reasonably close to the source", but I would assume this means the information the provide, not the structure of their sentences. Why are we required to structure our sentences in the same sensationalist manner as the editorials and news articles from which we receive the information? We are an encyclopedia, so our goals and objectives are different. We can still meaningfully convey the races of those involved, and do, through multiple ways. We even have a section or paragraph on most to all shootings discussing media and national impact. It's not like we're whitewashing anything; removing one or both races in the lead would simply lessen the chances of misinterpretation. I don't see any conflict with our duties of reporting what the sources say and refraining from structuring our lead in the same way as said sources. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The contrast in skin color is important. We don't live in a post-racial America. Important facts warrant placement in the lead. We don't use our own opinion to determine which facts are important, rather we defer to sources to show us this. When they use their first sentence to tell us about the contrast in skin color we can derive that this must be "important". Do I think that skin color should be important? Absolutely not. But Wikipedia should not bend to accommodate my sensibilities. Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is important, then our article will explain why it is believed to be. We don't need an inflammatory sentence structure to accomplish that. Anyway, the reader can easily ascertain the races of those involved by reading the article or checking the biography. The races of those involved are also conspicuous by the images in the article, the video that was provided, and the information in the sources. At this time, there is no reason to place race in the lead. It's not important at all for the article itself; it's only important from a media perspective, or from the perspective of a national debate. We already have a section for that, though, and we are not obliged to facilitate this debate whatsoever, only report on it.

Again, you bring up "post-racial America" but I don't see why that matters at all. Why must we politicize this article and inextricably use it as social commentary when that is not the role of Wikipedia? Wikipedia should not bend to accommodate anyone's "sensibilities". Our only duty is to collect and convey information. The races of those involved, as well as whatever national impact the media has contrived, is detailed in the article already. Specifying the races in the lead is not only redundant, but inflammatory when done in the way it has been. At least with the shooting of Trayvon Martin, race was a widely-discussed factor in it with a lot of confusing details surrounding it, so at least then the specification of both parties' races is justified. Not so in this article, nor in many of the others. The least that could be done is to omit one of the races in order to break the forced comparison of the two. It's not our job to engage in national debates through our articles, and it is POV to do so. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtual unanimity in the importance that sources place on skin color. Almost all sources start out their articles by pointing out the skin color of both. Your argument is that we should not point out skin color in the lead. It is an interesting position to take but I do not agree with it. Bus stop (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The importance they place on the race of those involved has little to nothing to do with the case, though. Virtually every source uses the races of those involved as a vehicle to expand into the larger national debate. In other words, they only mention the races so as to serve as a premise for their opinion pieces about racial tensions in the United States. Good for them, I guess, and we can report that in the article. It still doesn't justify the specification of both parties' race in the lead, though.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but I don't think we should simply read the sources and transplant their rhetoric onto the article. They are news outlets, journalists, and columnists; they write editorials and news reports. This is an encyclopedia; we convey information in as neutral and disinterested a way as possible. Our aims and objectives are conflicting and, at times, contradictory. We must consider why the sources are mentioning the races of those involved, and why they do so in the way they did. Is it to convey information, or to draw a comparison to serve as fueling national debate? Are they trying to inform us of the event, or are they trying to structure their headlines to be as sensationalist and attention-grabbing as possible? In my opinion, I think the way they structure their sentences, and how they present the information is POV because of why they do it. We can still convey the same exact information as the sources, but we don't need to do it in the same way. They way they do it is POV. That's not how Wikipedia does it, so we shouldn't follow their lead. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 2: Races in the lead

Moved from Survey.―Mandruss ☎ 20:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Mandruss about NPOV, as well as OR for that matter: the status quo as it is right now strongly implies that this is a racism incident. However racism is very difficult to prove, and for me to agree to leave the lead as it is would require much stronger evidence showing that it is a racism incident. However, the fact that RS treats this as a racism incident should definitely be mentioned, and to do this one of course needs to include the races of both Scott and Slager. I favour a sentence describing what happened, followed by a sentence describing why the incident was notable. Example: "The shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, following a daytime traffic stop for a nonfunctioning brake light. Scott was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer. The case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man. Slager originally alleged that Scott had taken his taser and therefore he felt "threatened"; however, after a video surfaced that showed him shoot Scott from behind while Scott was fleeing, Slager was charged with murder." Banedon (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could maybe support your modification with one modificaton. "Although no racism has been shown in the case, it has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man." Or, must we have sources that explicitly state that no racism has been shown? Is it OR or editorializing to accurately summarize reliable sources in that manner? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is no need to mention "racism" in the lede or anywhere else for that matter. But we ought to mention the races of the protagonists as that is what the sources tell us. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "racism" probably shouldn't be mentioned in the lead unless it is done so in a very specific manner, but I've already explained why I don't think we need to follow the sources in this respect. Since you were already there for the original discussion, however, I trust you've already read all (or most) of my responses, so there's no need to reiterate them. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, Mandruss. I like Banedon's idea, but I'm very concerned that it could be seen as original research or itself POV. If we clarify why this case is notable so explicitly while still omitting the races, that might run the risk of giving readers the impression that we're asserting that race is not a factor. Although it may be true, most reliable sources either speculate on race being a factor or ignore that entirely in favor of using the case as a vehicle for fueling national debate regarding racism. My proposal was intended to simply omit unnecessary information to prevent misinterpretation; this proposal keeps the information and adds further detail, bringing us closer into the very territory I was hoping to avoid—namely, the territory of us implying race either is or is not a factor when we simply don't know. I'm always for considering alternatives, and I like the idea, but I'm worried this alternative could be seen as POV itself, even though it's not intended to be. Naturally, it's up to consensus to decide, though. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll need RS to say no racism was shown to write that into the article. The racism overtones are definitely there; that's why RS keeps mentioning the races of both Scott and Slager. Also @Nøkkenbuer, can you elaborate on why what I wrote might be NPOV? It doesn't omit the races; that's present in "a white police officer fatally shot a black man". It doesn't assert that race is not a factor either (at least I don't see where that assertion could come from). Banedon (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should resist the urge to tamper with assertions as made by the preponderance of sources. I don't see the "racism overtones" that some of you are bothered by. We most definitely do not read sources saying that racism is absent. It is a fact that one man is black and the other is white. That is the point made by all the sources. We should transplant that fact into the lead of our article. Sources generally give that information prominence of place, such as the first paragraph or even the first sentence of their article. There should not be a huge amount of handwringing over reporting facts and giving weight in approximate proportion to the weight given by almost all sources. The reader is perfectly capable of evaluating the words as written. They read that a black man and a white man are involved but they do not read that there is underlying racism. We specifically should not be altering this sort of information. By elaborating on the story in some of the ways being discussed we would be entering the realm of editorialization. Bus stop (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By 'racism overtones' I was describing the entire affair. However you seem to be objecting to how I perceive "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer" as NPOV, so I'll direct this at that. The point is that the races of the two people are not usually given unless they matter, and they don't usually matter unless racism is involved. The same applies to other things such as height, educational background, and so on. The text therefore exhibits a clear implication that the article is about racism, something which according to the question in the RfC is unsubstantiated.

Let me try giving examples. Suppose I'm telling you a joke, and the first sentence is:

1. "Two people meet in a bar." In this case you can expect that the the joke operates on minimal background of these two people (you only need to know they're human).

2. "Two men meet in a bar." This is actually rather similar to #1, since in English it's quite common to use "man" and "person" interchangeably (hence expressions like 'time and tide wait for no man' and gender neutral language). You can still expect that the joke operates on a minimal background of these two people.

3. "A man meets a woman in a bar." In this case you can expect the joke requires knowledge of the two genders to work; in particular, one of the two parties must be female.

4. "A white man meets a black woman in a bar." In this case you need knowledge of their races (although not necessarily gender - it's just hard to describe a person's race without also giving the gender).

5. "A white, male forklift operator of height 1.8m, weight 85kg and powerful physique meets a black female accountant of 33-27-30 measurements in a bar." I hope you get the point. These things may all be facts, but if they're not relevant, they wouldn't have been stated. If they're not relevant the extra facts simply make the sentence clunky for no good reason.

Back to the sentence. "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer." Since race clearly doesn't affect the lethality of a shooting, whoever wrote that would not have inserted the races unless there is a racism component. The implication is very clear, at least to me. For the same reason we do not write "Scott, an unmarried 50-year old father of four children, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a 34-year old North Charleston police officer and former coast guard", so too should we omit the races, even though the races are 'facts' that have been reported in RS.

I'm sorry I can't explain it better. I encountered something similar not so long ago, and came to the conclusion that either an editor is sensitive to the nuances of English, or (s)he is not. Discussing such nuances is very tangential and, in my opinion, rather missing the point. That's why I proposed what I did. It solves the POV / OR issue, yet leaves the races, and both the people who perceive the racism implication and who don't should be happy with it. Banedon (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But your proposal still states the races in the lead, without a clarifying clause such as I suggested, which still implies a racism component. To some extent your latest comments argue against your own suggested language. My feelings are ambivalent in this matter, and I took my position largely because I knew it would be a minority position. Just two days earlier, as the NPOVN discussion was wrapping up, I was leaning in the other direction. There are good arguments for both sides, and I can totally relate to "sources say it, so we should say it"; we apply that reasoning routinely, and legitimately. My problem is that it appears to be in conflict with NPOV in this case. The more correct reasoning is, "sources say it, and it's relevant, so we should say it". The relevance test is something we do as part of routine editorial judgment. Does the fact that sources mention the races 99% of the time automatically make them pass the relevance test, if the sources haven't supported their relevance? Obviously editorial judgment is a proper part of what we do, but how much thinking is too much thinking? I don't know the answer; hence my ambivalence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. Regarding the topic of this new proposal and your suggested amendment: I can see where you're coming from, Mandruss, though I'm somewhat concerned that the clause you added to the proposal could be itself interpreted as saying something more. Although it's true that there doesn't appear to be any racism involved here, a lot of RS are treating it like it is. Unless we have a RS supporting the claim that "no racism has been shown in the case", I'm worried that it could be considered original research. Perhaps it could be reworded to be more specific, such as:

This case has gained attention as an incident in which a white police officer fatally shot a black man. This has in turn fueled national debate regarding racism in law enforcement.

("racism in law enforcement" could be replaced with something else if another subject is more appropriate.) Maybe not the best sentence, but I think something along those lines could work. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent explanation and it really captures what I was thinking when I started all this. I think the race specifications in the lead, in its current state, is unnecessary and could be interpreted as meaning something more. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop: I sympathize, and even agree, with your point that the reader is capable of drawing their own conclusions. We may be undermining this, however, if our wording or information is tainted with bias. Although the current wording may not be intended to be biased, it can certainly be perceived that way, and that's what I immediately detected when I read it. In my opinion, the way we currently have the lead worded is editorialization. We've transplanted the sensationalist wording of our sources (which are themselves POV editorials) onto our article. The lead already reads like an editorial; my proposal is meant to remove this bias. Banedon's proposal, in my opinion, is the opposite of editorializing because it reports the facts in a direct, explicit, and disinterested tone. Maybe I'm just the outlier here, but I'm not seeing any editorializing in Banedon's suggestion. If anything, it cures the editorializing already present in the lead. It's flawed, in my opinion, but the flaw does not lie in its wording. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banedon, I apologize for being unclear. I was very tired during the time of my response, so I didn't elaborate like I should have. My concern about it being potentially POV is similar to Mandruss' concerns above. Basically, your wording can be an improvement, but by failing to specify why this case has become so notable while still specifying the incident as "a white police officer fatally shot a black man". This is true, but this may be misleading because it could still be interpreted as implying that race was a motivating factor, or that it is involved in some capacity. We don't know that yet, and I'm very cautious when specifying the races in the manner currently used in the lead and, now, in your proposal, because it could be misunderstood as saying otherwise. To use your example above, it's like telling a joke and specifying the races of both parties from the outset. It can imply, intentionally or not, that race is going to be important in the story or punchline. The same is the case here.

I think your proposal is fine, but I find it difficult to count your vote as being in support of Option 3 because your suggested changes alter the lead itself. The three options above only address the mention of races in the lead in its current wording. You propose new wording which changes this, so if anything your proposal would be Option 4. I would support a modified form of your proposal over Options 1 or 2 (my original proposals) if it were available for !voting, but since this RfC has already begun, I'm not sure if we could add a new option without requesting a reevaluation from all current !voters. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently has one source supporting the statement: "The video shows that Slager ran back toward where the initial scuffle occurred and picked something up off the ground. Moments later, he dropped the object, apparently the taser, near Scott's body." I simplified a contribution from one editor to follow the above up with another source, supporting this statement: 'Dropping a weapon near the body of an unarmed suspect is a form of police misconduct known as a "throw down" used to justify the shooting.' This additional explanation was reverted with the summary: 'pure synthesis, no reliable source calling this incident a "throwdown"'. I am unsure if this revert is justified. The two different sentences are each supported by their own source, so no combination of sources, per WP:SYNTH. Let's assume that indeed there are currently no reliable sources calling Sclager's actions 'throw-down'. My question then is: Does Sclager's dropping of what is apparently the taser self-evidently match what the quoted source defines as a 'throw down' close enough that we can use the term here? Because in that case, I see no reason for the revert. Lklundin (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All we can tell from the video is that Slager retrieved an article and placed it near Scott. For all we know, it might have been Scott's wallet. How does that constitute a "throwdown". The assumption that it was a Taser, and his intention was to create a throwdown situation, is speculative. WWGB (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The juxtaposition is the problem, Lklundin. That it was the Taser is not clear enough to make the assertion (or implication) that any throw-down occurred, in my opinion. Mentioning anything about throw-down is such an implication. (I think it probably was the Taser, especially considering that he was later seen apparently picking the object up and stowing it somewhere on his left hip, which was on his side opposite the camera. But that's OR and beside the point.) BTW, it's Slager, not Sclager, just in case you need to refer to him by name in the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are no reports of other objects being recovered from around Scott's body, so if a Taser was found there and nothing else was found there, then there is really not much research into concluding that the dropped object was the Taser. Regardless of what Sclager actually dropped, the mere fact that he is moving an object at what has to be considered and investigated as a crime scene, is incriminating - and as a police officer he should know that. But let us just stick to what the sources report (and not just 'All we can tell from the video'). In describing the drop the article had the phrase 'apparently the taser', but this turned out to not be supported by the quoted source, and actual, current sources are vague (e.g. 'possibly the Taser'). So I agree to not mention the 'throw down'. It can always be reintroduced if reliable sources report the drop as such. Lklundin (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we can do is report what the written reliable sources say. We cannot look at a video and make editorial decisions about what we think we see in the video.--MONGO 12:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... Slager. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this edit by Lklundin. Without "possibly the Taser", any mention of an object just seems like an irrelevant detail and might as well be removed. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree too; "possibly the Taser" is what most sources report or imply. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is significant enough to discuss. I felt it was important enough to change, and Myopia123 felt it was important enough to change back. So at least two of us feel it's at least that important. Please choose 1, 2, or 3, if you care.

1 - Left, with a {{clear}} just before Slager's section heading

2 - Right, with a {{clear}} just before Slager's section heading

3 - Right, with no {{clear}} ―Mandruss ☎ 11:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Compared to 3, better vertical alignment between Slager's photo and the top of that subsection, at least in my maximized Firefox window, because Scott's section isn't quite long enough for the height of his photo. Nicely abuts the straight right edge of the image with the straight left edge of the text. Looks better overall, imo. In general, I think a judicious mix of left and right is more visually attractive (many magazine layout experts seem to agree). Being encyclopedic does not require being visually boring, and many (a majority of?) GA articles mix left and right. If you like, have a quick browse of the articles linked in Wikipedia:Good articles/History. I looked at four, and all four mixed left and right. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3/1 - Either could work, though I am more inclined toward 3 because I don't think the {{clear}} improves the article layout, and I think it adds more white space than is needed. 3 is more concise, and allows for better formatting if (and when?) more information is added about either individual. 1 also works, but I feel it may eventually need to be changed anyway as more information is added to the article. Layout 1 was actually my initial choice when I was considering where the images should be placed. I was checking how it looked in preview after the image discussion settled and 1 is closest to what I was planning. Considering it now, however, I think 3 is the best in the long-term. Either could work for now, however, so I'm fine with either choice so long as it isn't 2 (far too much white space). ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was an extra blank line in 2's white space. I've updated the link for 2, to point to a corrected version in my sandbox. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but in my opinion, it's still far too much white space caused by the {{clear}} I much prefer 3 or 1. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 - I'm using a 28" widescreen monitor, so the {{clear}} only really affect Users with small screens. Anyone check it with a cell phone yet? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: Not sure what you mean by "small screen", but it makes a very clear difference on my 15.6" 16:9 screen with maximized browser window. Sorry, I'm smartphone-free. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss:, Google keeps statistics on average screen size and and resolution used by people that allow for statistics reporting of their computer systems. I haven't checked it lately, but the average computer user was using a 17" (desktop and laptop users). The mobile statistics are kept separately, but with Google's upcoming announcement about giving search ranking preference to websites that are compatible with mobile browsers, that I probably change. Hence the followup question, has anybody checked it with a cell phone? Checking it with a tablet is valid too. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, for this purpose, inches and aspect ratio aren't relevant, and I should have just said 1366x768. As for Google, how do you expect that will affect Wikipedia's ranking? Is someone going to sample Wikipedia articles for compatibility on an ongoing basis? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP has been a "screen size" autodetect site for quite some time. I don't know the exact setting, but if someone accesses WP with a resolution of a typical phone browset, it redirects to the mobile version. So it should be fine. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer right alignment. I don't see much difference on my screen (27" 2560 x 1440px) with or without clear. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads "The shooting was condemned by U.S. senators for South Carolina Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, and Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina.", but there are many more politicians that have condemned it. Why are we singling out just state politicians? I suggest we remove that sentence, or expand to include all politicians that condemned the incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest saying that the shooting was condemned by many in the federal and state governments, and find one source to support that. I think that's sufficient for our purposes. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that we include the state politicians since they are most relevant. We could also add a sentence, such as "Numerous others have also condemned this event" and cite it with various sources detailing the statements of other US politicians. We could add all the names, but I'm concerned that it may turn out to be longer than expected. We could also do what Mandruss suggests above, and just wait for further developments. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that (1) most of that is political grandstanding, and (2) no politician in his right mind would make a statement defending this shooting, I don't think the information about who said what is very notable or informative. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking, too, but I wasn't sure whether I was just being POV. Glad to see we're in agreement. Should remove the sentences for now? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still think the one general statement was warranted, but whatever. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with a general statement, please re-add. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After about 20 minutes I gave up trying to find a source to support it, and we're not going to include a string of eight citations for one simple sentence. Willing to let the sentence go as unremarkable. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]