Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:36, 12 November 2015

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Ohio 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Society, sports, and culture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. It is my contention that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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: . 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)

"Sources differ"

Sources differed as to whether the car was moving before the shot was fired.

What sources? From when? Is this still true? Is there now a consensus, one way or the other? No way to tell, since there's no citations. If no sources are provided I'll replace this with fresh text based on the best and latest sources. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW - I was pointed to this thread: Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose/Archive 1#Sources for "sources differ". However there aren't any sources there either. Three months later, I'm sure we can do better than this. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've altered it to "early sources", since this was written just a few days after the shooting. But the whole sentence should be replaced with more definitive information, since this is a key issue in the case. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The Kroll Report says:

Prior to the gunshot, it is difficult to determine with precision how much, if at all, the car moved, but whatever movement may have occurred appears to have been minimal.

This seems more precise than the other formula. I'd rather quote or rephrase this with attribution than the sloppier 'sources differ as to whether the car was moving or not'. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DF:6C2B:FD2B:30B4 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the "sources differ" sentence. It was unsourced, misplaced, and outdated. I replaced it with a quote from the Kroll Report. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In this archived thread, consensus was reached for the statement: "Sources differed as to whether the car was moving before the shot was fired." That consensus has stood for months. This consensus involved close analysis of randomly chosen major "blue chip" news sources. User 2602 has declared that the statement is "out of date", and as far as I can tell that assertion is based solely on the Kroll report. 2602 has replaced the statement with: "According to the Kroll Report, 'it is difficult to determine with precision how much, if at all, the car moved , but whatever movement may have occurred appears to have been minimal.'
The Kroll report did come later than the other sources that were input to the consensus, and Kroll probably did do more thorough analysis of Tensing's bodycam video. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the Kroll report supersedes all other sources in this analysis. Regardless, a new consensus must be reached to override the existing one. I'm reverting until said consensus is reached. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't split up discussions. What are the sources that differ? Please cite them. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is fully documented in the archived thread that I linked above. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a different thread than you referenced here. Again, sources belong in the article, not on the talk page. Further, those sources are all from within day or two of the shooting and that talk page discussion occurred long ago, just after the shooting. It's not a contract which binds future editors. There's no consensus for it any more. It's unnecessary text. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how an existing consensus can evaporate simply because you declare it invalid. Can you point me to policy to that effect? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS:

Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

That consensus does not incorporate my concerns, does it? Not that I see. Nowhere is there a discussion of the fact that this material is out-of-date or uncited, or that better sources have been published since then. Let's just leave it out, it's unnecessary. If you think it is, then let's rewrite it to include the issues you think are important. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by leave it out. But I think it's improper to give only Kroll's analysis in the Shooting section. I think we should say sources differ in the Shooting section, and then you could put the Kroll quote in the Kroll Report section if you like (although that analysis is already paraphrased there). We're giving undue emphasis to Kroll's analysis.
As to the question of process, nothing in WP:CONSENSUS says that an existing consensus becomes null and void when someone new arrives and disagrees with it. Re "Nowhere is there a discussion of the fact...", this is that discussion, and that's why I started this. I'm prepared to be on the losing side of a new consensus, as always. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I started the discussion - see the top of the thread. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

o/d We should use only the best sources. We don't write, "sources differ over whether the earth is a planet." The Kroll report is more comprehensive and later than any of the press reports you quoted back on July 31. Why use lesser sources when better ones are available? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than Kroll, which better ones are you referring to? If there is now a rough RS agreement on this question, we can simply reflect it in wiki voice. Again, I don't question Kroll's competence, but they should not be treated as the last word on the matter (nor should any other single source). 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty in this article we cite to a single source. I just don't think that the sources which come out a day or two after a controversial shooting are likely to be the best. Maybe you do. Can you name any other sources after mid-August which still claim that DuBose was trying to drag Tensing? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources and citations are not the same thing. We may cite a single source, but that's not the same as basing content on a single source and treating that source as the only one that has any merit. Where something is fairly uncontroversial, more than one cite is unnecessary; that doesn't mean it's the only existing source for that content. And some things are so uncontroversial that one source is enough, such as the fact that Tensing was a cop in Green Hills. The car movement is a different animal.
This is not about dragging, it's about car movement. The car could have moved without any dragging. Nor is it about DuBose's intent. It's about what reliable sources have said about whether the car moved prior to the shot. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, what sources would you like to add to the Kroll Report summary? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why would we need other sources there? It's a summary of the Kroll Report. There is universal agreement that Kroll said those things, and that's hard to dispute given that the report is public. And we already cite two sources besides the report itself, NYT and Cincinnati Enquirer. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Kroll statement seems to be the best possible summary of the situation, basically, 'it's hard to be sure, but if the car moved it only moved a little'. On the other hand, simply saying 'the car may have moved' doesn't describe the extent of the movement. I don't see the value in saying that (some early) sources differ. Sources differ on exactly how far the car moved after the shooting too. Sources differ on many things, but we rarely mention it. As to the relative reliability of the sources, the Kroll report describes the process they used to estimate movement. None of the press sources do. A crime desk reporter on a deadline is not as good a source for this type of video analysis. In the end, the "sources differ" text doesn't add anything. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Aims it at DuBose's head

Insufficiently sourced in my opinion. The Kroll report, alone, is not enough to say this in wiki voice. Maybe with attribution, but not wiki voice. I don't question Kroll's competence, but it still doesn't justify wiki voice. This is critical because it clearly implies intent to shoot him in the head, which amounts to intent to kill. The editor is correct, it's a "key point". 68.97.47.26 (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back from your retirement. It's well-known that police officers are trained to shoot-to-kill, not to wound. There's no indication that the weapon was fired accidentally, unless you think the gun misfired, in which case the brand of gun is important. There's no source which says the officer intended to shoot DuBose anywhere else besides the head. So mere logic says that the officer aimed the gun at the perp's head with the intent to kill. But we don't have to rely on logic, because we have sources. If multiple sources say the same thing, and none dispute it, then that's sufficient to say it in "wiki voice". But we can attribute it until you find a source that says he fired at DuBose's head without aiming. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• what sources specifically say "aimed at head" vs "hit in head" or some such formulation?
• "aiming" a gun generally requires a sign picture with arms extended and proper alignment. At best this was point shooting, which is certainly accurate enough at point blank range,
• since DuBose was sitting in the car , the only area really exposed through the window is the head and upper chest, so it would be somewhat surprising if he had been hit somewhere else
• accidentally, probably not, but unintentionally, possibly (which would bring judgement/skill into play, but not really the make of gun)

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, as a compromise I put in "points it DuBose's head". It's obvious from the video that Tensing had pointed the gun at DuBose's head when he fired. It sounds less intentional than "aimed". 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that is still a BLP violation. To be clear, I think Tensing is in the wrong here, that the situation was not sufficiently threatening for pulling the gun and shooting, but we cannot say that he intended to shoot Dubose in the head (vs any non-specified area). Tensing fired. Dubose was hit in the head. Anything more is speculation unfit for wikipedia's voice. I am reverting this due to this BLP concern. Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE do not restore this change without consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If Tensing didn't point the gun at DuBos'es head, then who pointed it there? It pointed itself? The text never says he intended to point, just like we don't say he intended to shoot. Maybe we better just put it all in passive mode - "The gun was pointed at DuBose's head when it fired." That clears Tensing from any responsibility. Good enough? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That version is better than your prior version, but I don't see its advantage over the current version. Yes, clearly from a physics standpoint, the end of the gun was aligned with Dubose's head at the time of the shot. Because it is clear, saying that he was hit in the head is sufficient, and does not raise any possible intent issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't go all BLPNAZI here. I've put in another compromise version: "Within the next few seconds, Tensing reaches into the car with his left hand, yells "Stop! Stop!", draws his pistol with his right hand, and fires once at DuBose's head." That's clearer than the previous text, and represents to BLP violation. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The next para makes it very clear that he was shot in the head, and there is no need to say anything about that in the sentence in question. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph is about the shooting, so it needs to be there. It's allowable to repeat the fact that the victim was shot in the head, just like we say repeatedly that he was in a car. The fact that the gun was shot at the head doesn't mean it hit the head, which is what's covered in the subsequent paragraph. A little redundancy isn't a problem. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Police are trained to shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. Center of mass is the easiest to hit under stress and generally incapacitates the person. Pelvic girdle is next in the list if center of mass is protected with, say body armor. Head is effective target, too but I doubt he targetted anything other than just shooting. The officer was detached/released from the vehicle almost immediately after shooting and he pulled himself back with enough force to fall down. Note, that police are justified in shooting only if they are justified in killing but that's pretty much the rule for anyone whence why there are never warning shots or intentional shots to wound. Another noticeable tidbit is the officers finger is on the trigger almost the entire time. That's contrary to training and is a stress reaction and I believe noted in a few reliable sources that discuss such things. There is a squeeze reflex when hands are occupied with different tasks especially one hand grabbing/squeezing keys. Lastly, there is Jerk (physics) - which is another feeling that people can have that doesn't translate well into video and is when acceleration is changing. The feeling of a jerk (a sudden change in acceleration) and a persons general overreaction to them causes falls and feeling of large motion when there is only small motion. Pumping the breaks at a stoplight can jerk people around in a car and it doesn't really move at all. The act of putting a car in drive can cause a lurch that will cause a person standing in pickup truck bed to fall down without the pickup moving. Standing on a train or bus that jerks without a handhold will likely cause a person to fall down with little or no movement. Holding onto a car from the outside when it is put into drive is very noticeable with little or no movement so we should be careful with stating "felt he was being dragged" as that is quite possible just as it's quite possible the steering wheel could have locked up his arm as he reached through it. We should be very careful wording what the officer did/felt/reacted to as the law can be very precise about police justifications and reasonableness in use of deadly force. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We should be careful about everything we write. However we write to Misplaced Pages standards, not with an eye to helping or hurting someone at some future trial. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

And the standard is WP:BLPCRIME which emphaticatically states we write "innocent until proven guilty." --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's start be enforcing BLPCRIME about the 60 arrests of DuBose that didn't result in convictions. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk)

Please don't assert "Misplaced Pages standards" without some kind of backup. The primary issue here is to avoid the slightest implication of intent, and in BLP areas it's prudent to err on the safe side. That's a Misplaced Pages standard with backup. It's clear DuBose was shot in the head without that phrase. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know what Misplaced Pages standards are then don't assert them. Are you saying that Tensing didn't shoot at DuBose's head? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a good handle on what Misplaced Pages standards are, thanks. Please learn something about Misplaced Pages BLP policy and drop this stick. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You're the one with the stick, based on how often you've fought with other editors about this. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on content and policy, not editors. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who raised the stick. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"Police are police"

They also switched service weapons to a model that can have a lighter trigger pull, and received additional training on gun use. In the first half of 2015, officers pulled their weapons 13 times, compared to 2 times in 2014 and 2013. "UC police got new guns before DuBose shooting". Cincinnati.com. August 25, 2015.

This is sourced information from an article about this shooting. It was deleted with the edit comment "police are police". I object strongly. All police officers are not he same, and all police departments are not the same. That's a ridiculous claim, not a legitimate reason to delete sourced material from an article. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Same model and training as other LE. University Police have the same state-wide authority as any other police officer and the pistol they carry is a standard model carried by other departments and is very common. There's no indication its different from anyone else. Going from a Glock to a Sig could possibly lower pull weight but trigger travel distance is increased tremendously. They all have tradeoffs and these random guesses are random guesses. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not random guesses - it's data. Following the change of weapon and the change in training, the number of occasions that weapons were drawn skyrocketed. That's clearly relevant to this topic. If all police are the same then why bother naming Tensing - since all cops would have done the same? Why give the name of the particular agency, since all LE agencies are the same? Those arguments make no sense. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

How does a change in firearm relate to whether it's drawn? Firearms are drawn all the time and 2 to 13 isn't particularly notable nor is 2 datapoints. Firearms are drawn everytime they clear a building or a car or any number of encounters. Heck, it could be a reporting change. Whether Tensing acted outside of policy is at issue. Whether it has anything to do with 100 other issues is speculation. The other officers with the same firearms and the same training are not charged. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In general people don't fire guns until they've drawn them. Wielding (brandishing) a weapon in a conflict is, by itself, a potential violation if done by a civilian. In the prior two years, the entire force drew their weapons only four times, versus 13 times in the six months prior to the shooting. Clearly, something changed in the practices of the department. This is the kind of data that police review boards look at all the time. If it weren't significant, they wouldn't bother gathering the data. Whether Tensing followed policy is not the issue. For example, if the policy was inappropriate that could be an issue too. It's not for us to decide - we follow sources. It is certainly more relevant than many details in the article. The idea that police department policies or training routines have no bearing on the use of force by their officers is incomprehensible. It's not necessary for every officer in a department to engage in a questionable shooting death for their training to be questioned. That's a ridiculous standard. So far, I haven't seen any good reason for the deletion of sourced material. Let's present the information found in reliable sources, not spoonfeed what we think readers should find interesting. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources don't link either "firearms drawn" or trigger pull weight to the shooting. They noted that traffic citations rose significantly. That is a much more likely connection to drawing a firearm. But even that isn't telling the whole story because firearms are drawn routinely on burglary calls ant the 2 vs. 12 number is more likely a "use of force" report (i.e. threatened use of deadly force) and is generally directly connected to traffic stops. I think the biggest change in firearms is that the new ones are striker fired vs. a hammer fire with a safer disassembly procedure (the slide can be removed for cleaning without pulling the trigger). It can also be more custom fitted to each officers hand. As the prosecutor said, though, the officer intentionally pulled the trigger on his firearm to stop the driver. Modern police (and civilian) pistols are very crisp with their break and travel compared to military specs for older pistols and rifles that have much wider variations in weight, travel, break and reset. Sig in particular is a very precise and expensive firearm. UC didn't skimp on either safety or performance by choosing that model. Competitive shooters choose trigger pull weights that are about half of that police model because they are more accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

What reliable sources are you talking about? LEOs don't fire guns they haven't drawn. If a gun is drawn, it's 10000% more likely to be fired than if it isn't drawn. So the fact that the rate of pulling out their guns and getting ready to shoot suddenly went up 13-fold just before this shooting is quite clearly relevant to the fact that one of their officers drew a gun at a minor traffic stop leading to a tragic death and a ruined career. This material has been reported in a reliable source about this case. It takes up very little space. Deleting it outright, with no compromise offered, no re-write allowed, seems like a violation of UNDUE, by prohibiting brief relevant text found in a reliable source about the topic. Since this discussion is heading towards resolution, I'll request a third opinion, using that system. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I see this as a question of appropriate scope, of how far we should delve into the tangential issues raised by the event. All high-profile and controversial events raise such issues, and they are discussed at length in the media. But the media have a different mission from ours, and discussion in the media is not enough in my view. My editorial preference is to stay close to the immediate subject, but I recognize the wide disagreement among the community on this. Basically it comes down to the editorial judgments of the editors locally present, unless one of them chooses to open an RfC on the question. At this point it looks like 2-to-1 against the content, even if the 2 have different reasons for their opposition. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've requested an independent third opinion, as noted above. Thank you. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:FD6A:87EF:A89E:DD53 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that's what you meant by third opinion. Ok. So we'll end up with 3-to-1 or 2-to-2. An outside third opinion doesn't carry more weight than a local one as far as I know, although they could introduce a strong policy argument. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference cincinnati.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• Start-Class Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Start-Class Law enforcement articles
• Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class Ohio articles
• Unknown-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment