Talk:Killing of Samuel DuBose

RfC: Should the article mention that the firearm used in the shooting is a SIG Sauer P320?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus on the question. The arguments are good and well reasoned. One argument is that it is verifiable WP:VER and should be included as a fact of the incident. The other that the relevance of the model and make of the gun is not discussed in sources citing WP:UNDUE. The discussion is just to evenly split. AlbinoFerret 16:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the article mention that the firearm used in the shooting is a SIG Sauer P320? - MrX 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC survey: SIG Sauer

• No - No relevance to the specific gun model has been shown, there have only been assertions that it is "meaningful", with no explanation of how it's meaningful. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• No. Why? Drmies (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe this would be interesting if he had been using a cowboy-era six-shooter or an AR15 or a hunting rifle, but no one expects one of those weapons on the hip of a campus cop. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Maybe this information would be irrelevant if he were using a generic "weapon", but instead he was using a the latest model of military grade semi-automatic. Something readers don't know now. It is just as relevant as many other facts in the article.2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - The weapon used in a killing is of obvious importance and relevance in an article about that killing. There is no explanation of "meaningfullness" for any of the material in this article, so that appears to be a made-up standard. The above poster won't even discuss it for other detailed info. See #Coordinates. If there was a policy reason for this decision it'd be helpful, otherwise, it appears to be an "I don't like it" issue. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, "I don't like it" can be said about your comments too. That stupid expression cuts both ways. Plus, the editor did in fact explain it, you just didn't like their explanation. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd like an explanation that references a policy, not just a personal preference. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The "Yes" voters do not cite any sources or policies to determine which material is "relevant". The applicable policy seems to be NPOV, and specifically WP:DUE. Material should be included in proportion to its prominence as found in reliable sources. This material is found in the police report and in news reports.[1][2] Is inclusion of material described in reliable sources - two secondary sources and one primary source - sufficient for inclusion? If it isn't, then I'd say that inclusion of anything with less coverage is undue. IP 2602 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Nonsense. Policy does not dictated what goes in an article: common sense and editorial judgment do. But, if you like, I'll cite WP:UNDUE. I don't care what's there, but it's the opposite of what you cite--and I'm pretty sure whatever you linked doesn't dictate what an article should include. I could always link to WP:FART as well. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
          • At first I thought you were making a serious reply. But the idea that an admin wouldn't know what's in WP:NPOV, or wouldn't care, is too outlandish to believe. Your last sentence makes it clear you're either joking or trolling. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:A140:489C:7FEB:37D5 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• no P320 is one of the most common police issue guns, nothing special about it. We also don't mention the make and model of the officers patrol car, the brand of shoes he was wearing at the time, or his brand of cell phone. If someone can show some specific relevance cited by reliable sources (per the discussion above about trigger pull, etc) then I could see it, but every "fact" is not necessarily notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's true that this pistol is one of the most common police issue guns, then that seems relevant too. Where did you get that information? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• replace no above with qualified neutral - No objection (but also no weight to include) to making a single wikilink to the model article in an appropriate place, but all commentary reasoning about the gun as implied ("military grade") etc in some of the !votes here must be excluded as WP:OR and WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being reasonable. Can you specify which !votes should be discarded? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not that the votes need to be discarded. Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion and voice. Just that the reasoning for those arguments should not be included in the article text (allusions to this particular gun being evidence of police militarization etc). ofc that is just my own !vote which should be weighted against policy and the other editors here - but as nobody has provided any sources doing that analysis, it is a fairly persuasive voice since policy prohibits WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - We're an encyclopedia of all knowledge. Knowing what model of firearm was used to slay an unarmed citizen is highly relevant, given the current US dialog about gun control, police militarization, and mass shootings. I suppose we could also not mention the names of the people involved (including some on the periphery), the city where it occurred (down to the streets and geo coordinates), the time that it occurred, and the amount of Tensing's bail, but that also would underserve our readers.- MrX 02:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - A simple matter of fulfilling "who, what, when, where, and how". I see no valid reason to omit the information. BMK (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak No - I understand the argument of "who, what, when, where, and how" to its full extent, but noting the type of gun used does not seem notable. The type of gun isn't relevant to how they were killed, so for that reason I am a weak oppose. Meatsgains (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you think everything in the article meets the same standard of notability? How do we determine what's "notable" in this article? WP:N is no help - it simply discusses the existence of articles, not their contents. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:A140:489C:7FEB:37D5 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - The bar for inclusion in an article is only that something is verifiable. This clearly is verifiable, so the onus here is on the folks who want to exclude the info to justify exclusion. I'm not sure what the rationale for exclusion would be. NickCT (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• No. It would be insensitive to identify the type of gun used. The victim was an innocent civilian. He leaves behind family and friends who will read this article. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Replied below. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong No: I've worked on this article and several other similar articles and in the hundreds of reports that I have read I have yet to see the news media discuss the type of gun used by the police officer who did the shooting. It is not our place to report information not generally reported in the media. As non-experts, we follow, not lead. Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with your premise - the article should follow the lead of the sources. Here are two that refer to the model of gun used in the shooting.[3][4] 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You just proved my point. You have provided only two sources, both local, and one is specifically about the gun that was used, not about the shooting. Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the gun is sufficiently significant that one local Gannett paper did an article just about it.

Months before officer Ray Tensing shot and killed Samuel DuBose during a traffic stop, University of Cincinnati police got new guns with triggers that are slightly easier to pull. ... Soon after UC police began carrying the new guns, they began drawing their weapons more often. Records obtained by The Enquirer last month showed campus police drew guns 13 times this year, compared to a total of two times in the previous two years. "UC police got new guns before DuBose shooting"

So it seems like a relevant issue. More relevant than the assertion that the victim was a motorcycle enthusiast. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Gandydancer: - re "It is not our place to report information not generally reported in the media." - There's a difference between briefly mentioning and covering something in detail. If information isn't "generally reported", we shouldn't be covering in detail because to do so would be WP:UNDUE. To briefly mention something though it need only be verifiable. WP mentions lots of stuff which isn't "generally reported". If we followed "generally reported" as a standard, we'd have to eliminate a lot of content. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• No per Mandruss above. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. It's something that reader to the page will want to know. And it seems that the key objection to its inclusion is that it is not widely reported. But it is reported in at least one RS, which is adequate. If Wikipedia only regurgitated what was in every news article, its entries would become the common denominator of all media reporting. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Weak No - noting the type of gun in the article doesn't seem notable enough to me. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Weak no (summoned by bot) per WP:UNDUE, although this source about the gun almost swayed me to a yes. I don't think it's necessary to mention the brand and model of gun unless it is in some way remarkable in the context (e.g. it was a machine gun). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Weak yes: I believe the weapon should be mentioned if this is done in the context of noting that it was a military-grade weapon used by a police officer against an unarmed civilian, and if this is considered relevant by any reputable media. -Darouet (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• No: Per Drmies at 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC). This is something which may eventually become relevant, but which has not yet been shown to be sufficiently relevant to prevent it from having undue weight. Merely being mentioned in reliable sources, even many reliable sources, doesn't make it relevant until those sources show it to be relevant beyond merely mentioning it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Yes The identity of the weapon used in a killing is part of the basic information that would be included in any police report or history book. (No more than a simple mention is needed unless there is something particularly notable about it.)--Wikimedes (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC discussion: SIG Sauer

Or that it was a military-grade semi-automatic pistol? 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some militaries use Sig, but they don't use the P320 (not yet anyway). Sig is competing for the Modular Handgun System contract with the p320, BUT THAT VERSION OF THE GUN IS NOT AVAILABLE TO BUY. thousands of police departments use sigs, and sig specifically makes models of their weapons to market to law enforcement.Beyond that, virtually every gun made today is "military grade" as that is just the normal state of the art for manufacturing. You seem to be implying some sort of Militarization of police argument, but such is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR in this case as no sources have made that argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This gun, the SIG Sauer P320, was apparently designed with the military market in mind. Not every gun is. People have asked why this might be relevant. This is one reason. The edit in question makes no OR or SYNTh arguments. It simply provides basic information on the most important single item in this killing - the weapon. If you think that the type of weapon is irrelevant, then why do we have article discussing the fine differences between them? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It was designed for the military so much that they had to significantly change the design it to meet the military requirements? solid reasoning. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't readers of this article know what weapon was used in the shooting? If all guns are the same then why do we need to have an article about each model? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• "...insensitive to identify the type of gun used... He leaves behind family and friends who will read this article."

That the victim was shot in the head for having a missing front license plate, and that the police tried to create a false report, are the facts that would upset me the most if it were my relative who had been killed. The model of gun used does not seem likely to upset anyone, except perhaps the gun maker. Can anyone explain this reasoning more fully? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can try to explain "more fully". Guns are used to dispatch animals. In an article on hunting we might say what type of weapon was used to kill an animal. Detailed explanation the type of weapon that ended an innocent human life is unseemly because it evokes parallels to animals. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. Semiautomatic handguns of this type are rarely used to kill animals, so far as I know. Including the model would make that clearer. In any case, you seem to be saying that the victim was killed like an animal but it would be offensive to the family to include any information which would support that view. Taken to its logical conclusion, we should remove all references to the type of weapon or other facts of the case. Instead of saying something like "he was shot with a pistol" should we say "he was killed with a weapon"? I certainly agree that we should be sensitive to avoid anything needlessly offensive, but I really don't see how identifying the weapon used in this shooting could offend anyone. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is callousness associated with specifying the brand name of the firearm. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a policy reason for excluding the material. 'It feels callous' seems like another variation on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages#Personal point of view. This is a simple fact: identifying the weapon used in a shooting, as reported by a number of reliable sources. It is relevant to this article, it is verifiable, it does not involve original research, it does not violate any of the restrictions in WP:BLP. I don't understand why there is so much opposition to this very small addition. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Brand names detract from solemnity. Bus stop (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So does getting shot in the head. "Solemnity" is not a Wikipedia content policy. Even so, it's not as if it's a jokey name or something that would bring inappropriate mirth to the article. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Brand names to varying degrees are "jokey". I think we are talking about Register (sociolinguistics). Our article should maintain an appropriate tenor. That importantly involves respect for the life lost. I think the inclusion of the the brand of weapon would detract from the respect we should maintain. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how "SIG Sauer P320" is at all "jokey". This seems to be a novel argument, which doesn't seem to have been made on any talk page previously. Let me ask you about two recent incidents: Germanwings Flight 9525 and Death of Sandra Bland. One of them repeatedly mentions the brand name of the airplane, even though no one argues that the result would have been different if it had been a different plane. The other tells us that the victim was strangled with a trash bag. That is a very non-solemn detail. Both the plane and the trash bag, like the firearm in this case, were the agents of killing. Would you make the same argument at those pages - that brand names or non-decorous details should be omitted? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Has a related discussion taken place at another Talk page? You are talking about airplanes and trash bags yet you are providing no links to any other discussions. Bus stop (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There was no discussion on this page until I started one. I supplied links to the articles, in case you aren't familiar with them. So my question is whether you would make the same arguments on those pages: that the brand name of the plane and the non-solemn agent of death should be removed for the sake of the survivors' feelings. As I said, I've never seen that type of argument before, and I'm wondering if it's limited to this article or applies generally. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any comparable questions at those other two articles. Bus stop (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a hypothetical question. By your non-answer, I assume you would not delete those references or make that argument on those talk pages should the questions arise. While it may be a sincerely held belief, it appears to be limited to this one article. So we're left with a one-article WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. That's not a good reason to delete short, relevant, neutral, well-sourced material. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

When we speak about two different articles there has to be some connection between those two articles. You are saying you are posing hypothetical questions. You are not posing any questions. Airplanes and trash bags may be your thing but they are not germane to the topic of this discussion. I will ask you to stay on topic. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If your concern is that seeing the brand name of the gun used to kill the victim will upset his survivors, would you support providing a link to the article piped to a descriptive phrase, such "semi-automatic pistol". That way the information is still partially present, but in a form unlikely to upset any family or friends who happen to read this article in the future. Would that satisfy your concerns? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I would oppose such a piped link, possibly more than the original suggestion. And it is not just the upsetting of survivors that I am concerned about. It is the tenor of the article that concerns me. Wikipedia tries to steer a wide berth around tabloid journalism. In this case that aim is being weighed against the need to supply information. While information has value, propriety in human relations has value too. We need to maintain control of our sensitivity to the pain of others. That does not get discarded in the interests of facts, despite your arguments to the contrary. I also have a low tolerance threshold for a string of numbers. On a human level a name has significance. You are editing as an unregistered IP. Is there a reason for that choice? Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to any policy, guideline, or even essay which describes this point of view? Can you point to any talk page where you've made this argument before? Can you point to any news story or blog that says other people find the appearance of brand names in an article about a shooting to be upsetting? If you can't, then, as I've said before, you're just expressing your one-off opinion that you don't like this material. (And none of the sources are tabloids.) 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want me to "point to any news story or blog that says other people find the appearance of brand names in an article about a shooting to be upsetting?" Do you think for yourself? You cite policy as though doing so justifies anything. It does not. Policy properly used buttresses good arguments. But you are merely arguing for the inclusion of sensationalist elements. Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not finding any merit to any of your arguments. Of course "trash bag" would be mentioned in the supposed suicide case but note that no news story mentioned that it was a "Glad" (or whatever) brand, as though that would make a difference. As for the airplane downings, check news stories and you will find that the make of the plane is always used in the reporting - thus we do the same as appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The trash bag isn't about brand names - it's about Bus stop's position that undignified information, such as brand names, would be upsetting to the victim's loved ones. Apparently strangling oneself with a trash bag is solemn, but being shot with a Sig Sauer P320 is not. As for the plane, Bus stop did not seem to think that the number of sources was an issue either way. I can't figure out if he's making a serious point or just tugging my beard.

I agree that we should follow the sources. I've quoted a from an article, in the RFC thread above, that is purely about how the gun relates to the crime, by a mainstream news source. Have you read it? If we exclude this and follow the policy of determining content by prominence in sources, WP:DUE, then the logical conclusion is that material with even less coverage than the gun should not be included either. That may seem Procrustean, but it beats having to file an RFC for every editing decision. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss trash bags, be my guest. If you wish to discuss "solemnity" vis-à-vis trash bags, I will promise to read your comments but not necessarily respond to them. I will address your assertions when they directly disagree with my arguments. But I won't entertain any argument you may throw my way especially when they involve items found in other articles—airplanes and trash bags, for instance. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree with the above position of Gandydancer and me - that we should follow sources? Do you believe that WP:NPOV applies to the content of this article? If we could move to a discussion based on sources and policies, rather than a personal feelings, it'd be helpful to finding a compromise. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How does WP:NPOV apply? By the way Gandydancer voted "Strong No" for the inclusion of the firearm information that you are arguing for. Bus stop (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you missed the earlier discussion - I'll start it fresh below. I don't think your view that WP should be censored for the sake of unknown individuals is sound. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see my response here. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How NPOV applies to article content

Of the core content policies (NPOV, NOR, V, BLP), only one discusses what should be in an article, as opposed to what should be omitted. The primary part of NPOV which applies to this article discussion is Achieving neutrality. It has headings like "Article structure", "Due and undue weight", and so on. That policy says that all significant points of view must be included. "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." By failing to identify the weapon the article presents the POV that it was irrelevant, unimportant, trivial, and unworthy of any mention whatsoever. That's a legitimate POV, but it isn't the only one. Another POV, for example, is the one that says this gun had an easier trigger pull, and that the frequency of guns being were drawn increased after the department bought them. In other words, that the gun did matter, and that not all guns are the same. That POV is significant, as shown by the large number of gun publications and even gun articles on Wikipedia. It is my contention that Wikipedia policy not only allows, but actually requires, that we include information of this type, in proportion to its significance. In this case, we're only talking about twenty characters, ", a SIG Sauer P320,". WP:NPOV is an important policy and it should be followed in deciding this matter. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is a policy that is largely inapplicable to what we are discussing. What are the differing points of view that we are supposedly addressing? WP:NPOV is a policy which involves reconciling divergent points of view. Which "views" do you think we are discussing? Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read the above statement where I describe two POVs regarding this material. I'm not sure I can say it any more clearly. Also, you haven't mentioned any policy which you consider applicable instead of NPOV. Let's talk policies and sources, not feelings. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You say "I'm not sure I can say it any more clearly." That is true. You are trying to apply a largely inapplicable policy. The identity of the firearm does not represent a point of view. You say "By failing to identify the weapon the article presents the POV that it was irrelevant, unimportant, trivial, and unworthy of any mention whatsoever." Gibberish. There is virtually no "viewpoint" embodied in the presence or absence of the identity of the firearm. It is a detail. An integral part of WP:NPOV is the point of view at stake. Points of view are broader in relation to an overall article than the minor contrivance that you are trying to foist on us. There is no point of view, in the context of this article, that the identity of the firearm is "trivial, and unworthy of any mention". Don't misconstrue policy. Bus stop (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Foist"? You think I'm "foisting" the NPOV policy on you? No, the NPOV policy applies to all articles. All articles. And POV may be expressed by the structure and contents of an article, not just by the explicit opinions contained in it. I'm surprised that you're not familiar with the policy and its applications. Perhaps that explains why this article was so incomplete when I got here.

I'll just ask this one more time - do you have any - any - policy justification for deleting this brief, relevant, verifiable, and neutral material? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021—please stop stretching policy to the point at which for all practical purposes it is no longer applicable. You have had the nerve to say this about a good editor here: "Maybe we're better off without 'aggressively incompetent, chronically disruptive editors' like Mandruss. As for my own edits - I think I've added more to the DuBose article in a day or two than Mandruss did over many months, despite his thousands and thousands of words disputes on the talk page." You apparently think a lot of yourself. But you demonstrate no grasp of the Wikipedia policies that you blithely toss about such as the policy of WP:NPOV. How does the inclusion or omission of the information pertaining to the identification of the firearm relate to the policy of WP:NPOV? Is one "point of view" emphasized by inclusion and another "point of view" emphasized by omission? What are those "points of view"? Elaborate on those points of view please. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I asked you for a policy, you provided none. This discussion's not going anywhere. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:D1E0:22A:AF88:F346 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Question prior to making up my mind What level of importance do mainstream, well-regarded, reliable sources give to the model of gun? We should follow the sources. If lengthy discussions of the weapon are in major news sources, we should reflect that here. If major news sources ignore it, or for example, if lengthy discussions of the weapon are restricted to fringe, minor, or unreliable sources, we should not include it. Can someone show me some sources so I can decide how I should vote? --Jayron32 16:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should follow the sources. However we shouldn't set the bar too high or we'll end up excluding a lot of other material. Here's probably the most extensive discussion of the importance (or lack of importance) of the gun, the gun training, and other gun related issues: [5]. That's published by the local Gannett newspaper, part of a major news chain. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:D1E0:22A:AF88:F346 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

A long-standing history with Franklin County police

@IIvIIozzie: Re: [6]

1. I find only one record using the search facility at that URL (Court Records->Search by Name). If lists two minor charges, both dismissed.
2. The birthdate shown on that record is 3/12/1972, not 9/12/1972 as in your edit.
3. The previous status quo as to history was the result of discussion at a time when there were multiple experienced editors active on the article. There wasn't anything really "formal" in that area, and I can't recall what the sources were, but there was at least some discussion about the area of his history, it was decided to omit some of the sourced information on relevance grounds, and others were at least aware of it and didn't object to the result. To my mind, that approximates a consensus that I think should be respected until replaced by a new one.
4. I feel we need a fairly high relevance bar for this kind of history, and I don't see much relevance at all to the shooting. Do you? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Re: [7]

1. I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time using the search feature. Click on Court Records > Search by name >3. Criminal & Traffic Name Search. Last name box "debose" First name "sam" then click the submit button. *Edit: Results should like similar to this image. (Sorry not confirmed yet so had to post image on another site)
2. This was my mistake. You are correct and that should be edited accordingly. *Edit: Updated accordingly.
3. His criminal history should be included within the page as it otherwise appears to be bias as to what facts belong on the page. His history as a criminal probably had more influence on his life and into his decision making on the day of the shooting rather than being a rapper, a music producer, entrepreneur, and motorcycle enthusiast.
4. As explained above. As the information resides in a background category within the page it does not pertain to the event of the shooting, just the history of the individuals involved.IIvIIozzie (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@IIvIIozzie:

1. Got it using dubose (not debose), sam.
2. Thank you.
3. This doesn't appear to be a response to my point. You are basically saying that consensus doesn't matter if you disagree with it.
4. Still disagree, but see 3.
5. I'll revert to status quo ante and hopefully we'll get more participation. I can live with the change if there is even a small consensus for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss:

1. Yes, you should receive the results I listed with Dubose, not desbose.
2. You're welcome
3. You suggest that a consensus took place without citing such. The majority of people discussing a consensus in the talk page and removing edits in the main page due to the consensus verdict is either you or IP edits (anonymous)
4. The act of removing background history from Samuel DuBose that can be viewed as negative whilst retaining irrelevant history that can be seen as positive is suspicious at best and biased at worst. Your history of revisions on this article seems to indicate the latter. Please explain how Mr. Dubose's history as a rapper, a music producer, entrepreneur, and motorcycle enthusiast has any relevancy on the case.
5. Seeing as you have the majority of edits on this page over the last several month's I'd expect a consensus to be unlikely.
6. I would like to further state that having 84 Criminal & Traffic court cases is extremely irregular and should not necessarily be perceived as negative or positive. Where one individual can claim he lived a life as a career criminal another can claim he was being targeted. I would also like to note that many of Mr.Dubose's court cases involved him driving, which has an obvious connection to the case.
7. The page also suggests to the reader the shooting may have occurred as a black hate crime with inclusions such as "Two other black men had been killed by UCPD officers, both with Tasers: a student in 2011 and a mental patient in 2010". These type's of edits are irresponsible and goes against the neutrality of wikipedia.
8. With all the above in consideration I will be reinstating my previous edit. IIvIIozzie (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I hoped and believed we could resolve this in an orderly manner. The existing-consensus question aside, a disputed edit stays out until consensus is reached for it, and your edit is a disputed edit. But, per "two wrongs don't make a right", I am not going to respond to your disruptive editing with more disruptive editing. I'm going to let it stand and hope for, as I said, more participation. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm honored that you decided to let stand my disruptive editing. After reviewing your wiki contributions I couldn't help but notice your involvement in pages involving shootings, most predominately, those revolving around Black Lives Matter. There is edit's on Walter Scott, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, and of course, this one. Heck, if there is any police involvement in a black person's death you've probably added your two cents to their wiki page. While all of which is commendable (go you!), what isn't so great is you have a habit of edit warring. While some of it is innocent enough, there is a lot of undoing revisions and reverting going on with things you don't like. When another contributor disagrees with the reverting, your go-to is seeking a consensus, while removing the contributor's content from the wiki page. With your involvement in all of these pages it's not difficult to see you are editing with an agenda. Let's keep Wikipedia neutral. Instead of seeking assistance from like-minded individuals, perhaps a nice tall glass of wikibreak is in order to wash all that bias down. Cheers! --IIvIIozzie (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your gracious invitation to a pissing match is declined, especially since you are an editor with some experience very possibly trying to conceal their past behind a new username. You can criticize my history all you like, but at least mine is visible.
MSGJ is not a "like-minded individual". They are a fair-minded admin who issued me the one block of my career and has suggested that I seek outside help against disruptive editors when no one else is around. I suggest more focus on working together with mutual respect, less on ferreting out personal-history weapons to use against your opponent(s) in a content dispute. This is a good example. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

My intentions are not to have a pissing match, as you put it, merely to keep articles on Wikipedia honest. And no, I'm not some secret archrival from wiki pages past, this is my first edit to Wikipedia and from it I can tell this is going to be a long road. I have worked on different Wiki's though, if that's what you're looking for. Your like-minded colleagues contribution's can speak for themselves and if they or anybody else you choose(inclined to agree with you) show up I'd be happy to engage with them at that time. Unfortunately, working together is not a possibility. I will further neutralize this article and your presence would only inhibit me from doing so, as your history shows. Your record of editing to construct a subtle narrative on these pages quite simply, is not allowed.I am going to assume in good faith that all of this partial activity was not intentional but an unexpected outcome of your passion for the black lives matter movement. I am asking you politely to please refrain from future black lives matter page edits until you can do so impartially.--IIvIIozzie (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What a load of articulate crap. I have very little personal interest in BLM, as clearly evidenced by the fact that you could count my edits to that article on the fingers of one hand, and probably still have a finger or two to spare (and even those edits were quite inconsequential and uncontroversial). If you were truly interested in reality, you would note that I work on many things other than those that happen to fall under the BLM umbrella. You would also note that my edits in this article, and others like it, are about as likely to favor one side as the other. If you want references from other experienced editors who have worked with me on articles of this type, I would be happy to provide them (but of course you would then simply dump them into the same uncontrolled-bias category as you've placed me, as the only alternative would be to admit that you might be wrong, which is out of the question).
Your paranoia is on clear display and is all too typical of the traditional Wikipedia battleground mind-set. I will continue to maintain focus on Wikipedia process, and, if your delusion that you are the only righteous editor in the vicinity causes you to edit war, we know how to deal with that. I will ask MSGJ to keep an eye on this situation and to provide guidance as we move forward, or to suggest a different approach. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Within this article alone, you have 35 out of the last 50 revisions. You have been working on this page two days after it's inception and you continue to alter it nearly every day another edit is placed by another contributor over the past six month's. It's clear that you are either too close to the content contained within the page or the page itself. Nobody like's to be called out for being biased, I understand that. I'm not looking for an argument here Mandruss. If you wish to prove your lack of personal interest, please back away from the page and let other editor's work.--IIvIIozzie (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ, you most certainly are "looking for an argument here", beginning with this edit. And you continue that with the suggestion that high participation at an article is patently an indication of being too close to the subject. If you wish to discuss that concept, please do so in a public venue such as WP:VPP, which receives a lot of attention from editors with far more experience than I have, and take note of the lack of support you get for it. In the meantime I have also solicited participation from two other experienced editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the name and birthdates etc, those should probably not be used per WP:BDP and WP:BLPPRIMARY . The potential criminal stuff falls into there as well via WP:BLPCRIME especially if based on the primary source court records like that. It is probably sourcable from reliable secondary sources that he has a significant criminal history. A short and vague mention of that history is probably appropriate per WP:WEIGHT. But going into the details in that way is WP:OR, and is a likely WP:NPOV and WP:BDP violation as there is no distinction being made between arrests (of which he might be innocent) and convictions and the general lack of attention paid to that level of detail by reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I more or less agree. There has been such extensive coverage of this shooting and the aftermanth, that there is no reason at all to use primary sources. To do so would potentially breach WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR. IIvIIozzie would be wise to focus on content and whether it merits inclusion in the article, rather than questioning the motives of other editors. - MrX 21:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

flag tshirt

The fact that Tensing was wearing a confederate flag was recently added to the article. [8] I don't object to its inclusion somewhere but it seems like this is undue for the lede, since it isnt covered at all in the body, (and indeed, there isn't a lot that could be expanded on in the body). I think the sentence as is should be moved into the body, either into the Tensing section, or the shooting overview section? ResultingConstant (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Frame by frame analysis: Tensing grabbed seatbelt during the headshot

Looking at the bodycam video frame by frame, it is clearly evident that Tensing was holding on to the seatbelt during the headshot. One could say he was dragged voluntarily. Or maybe he was holding on to the belt to get a stable shot. See this frame: Single frame of bodycam video.Lukie.80 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution, Lukie.80! Unfortunately, this is pretty obviously your own original research, which means it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If a news outlet or other reliable source reports the same thing, then it could possibly be added. Marianna251TALK 18:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)