This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The current coordinates point to the intersection of Craig and Remount. Reading the NYT article and viewing the video, and noting that Google Maps shows a muffler shop on the southwest corner, it's fairly clear the actual location was much closer to 32°53′54″N 80°00′52″W / 32.8983°N 80.0145°W, about 400 straight-line feet from the current coords. But I think it would be original research to use that location at this point, and I'm only writing this as FYI. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
How does this not fail per WP:NOTNEWS, namely "enduring notability"? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If no one (or at least a majority of news sources) talk about this in about, say, 3-7 days, then the issue of failing WP:NOTNEWS may be brought up again, possibly (and likely) in an AfD. Until then, let's see just how notable this becomes, whether it becomes an issue that lasts for a few days (which would fail WP:NOTNEWS) or a few months/years (which would pass). My opinion, tbh, could go either way. Pyrotle {T/ C} 00:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The information within this article is bais. It fails to state a struggle for the Taser. The struggle for the Taser is clearly seen at the start of the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 ( talk) 08:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, my edits references the struggle for the taser have been changed, the source articles clearly states a struggle for the taser as witnessed by the same person who captured the incident on video. Those editing this article while guided by emotions need to be restricted. I will change them back now.
Seems like this article really needs the video-- or at least a screenshot of it. Anyone know how to write good fair use rationales? Darmokand ( talk) 04:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There are some odd games going on with the video now. After an edit by User:Illegitimate Barrister I found the link pointing to some site "listenonrepeat" which loops YouTube videos... I get a bad feeling about that. I'd rather link to the original YouTube video. Also, before that the link by User:Mandruss pointed to a version that was lower quality, with a big "World of Toys" logo on it, so I didn't like that either. When I first added the raw video link I carefully picked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6-jFQPu-yo because it was the first relevant link I could find for Walter Scott on YouTube, and (as I think is generally the case for a first news report) it was higher quality than all the hangers-on that followed it. Wnt ( talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we expect for this to be released to the public? It would be interesting to see if the document matches the Scott family's lawyer's summary of (of 8 shots fired) 3 hitting the back (1 piercing heart) 1 ear, 1 glute, 3 misses. I think this deserves a more prominent feature, everywhere I look everyone is saying the guy was shot 8 times in the back, instead of 8 fired, 5 hitting, 3 in back.
Consider this exchange on the Daily Show last night:
I believe we should cover situations like this in the article, where celebrities with Smiley are giving inflated accounts of the event beyond even what the Scott family lawyer states (3 shots hitting back, not 8).
Not to mention the idea that the guy is dead while being cuffed, also seems like a false narrative. Getting shot in the heart doesn't kill you instantaneously. The guy was clearly still moving in the vid. Plus even if not, it is probably procedure to cuff in case someone is playing possum (not shot at all).
Another good detail to include would be the span of time that the 8 shots lasted. I know when I heard 8 shots I imagined it being dragged out and methodical, but the video clearly has it being a very quick burst. Odds are the cop didn't even know if any hit until he emptied his clip. Although we do not know, best guess: first 3 missed, shot 4 hit buttox, shots 5-7 hit back as guy dropped, shot 8 hit ear as drop continued. How long did this all take, can we time it? Round up and say "under X seconds" perhaps? 64.228.91.104 ( talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully ask again not to use this page as a discussion forum. Also note that this article is under discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN. For those editors that have bot been warned about these sanctions, I will place a notice in their talk pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This text is not sourced: Then Scott struggled with Slager, the Taser was knocked to the ground, and Scott made a second attempt to flee. It was added several times by IP editor. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is ABC's sequential report. Will it help you? http://abcnews.go.com/US/walter-scott-shooting-breaking-witness-video-frame-frame/story?id=30159871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This entire article and its citations to references need to be thoroughly scrutinized. I have found many false claims asserted within this article. Some are flat out lies about information contained within the cited references. Some link to bias editorials claiming those references as factual sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 ( talk) 10:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This quote - "In North Charleston, incidents of a white offer shooting a black man happen about twice a week.[10]" is inaccurate according to the reference it cites.
"The latest shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer comes this time from North Charleston, South Carolina. On average, the story of a white officer shooting a black man emerges about twice a week (according to USA Today, some ninety-six African-Americans were fatally shot by police every year from 2006 to 2012)."
This is nationwide, not in North Charleston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.123.2 ( talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I have read several articles in which members of the NAACP are encouraging minorities to record everything: every interaction with police and authority. Should this be including in the article?
Twolegalsystems ( talk) 16:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
People have been encouraging everyone to record police interactions for a while now. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 01:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The other officer seen in the video has been identified. Not sure if any of this source can be used, but posting here for editors' comments [2]
- Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Victim is being referred to in the article as "Walter Lamer Scott", correct spelling is "Walter Lamar Scott"...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-victim-walter-scott-police-officer-unexpected-connection/story?id=30156112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following wording
"An investigation of the video by ABC News shows that contrary to the officer's claims, the taser was being used by the officer and that the officer later retrieved and dropped a black object next to the victim's body."
Here is the report http://abcnews.go.com/US/walter-scott-shooting-breaking-witness-video-frame-frame/story?id=30159871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey what about the edit I requested? Someone comes along stuffing theirs under mine without a new section and you ignore my request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Most major news sources are using white and black, not Caucasian and African American, and it is not our job to look beyond that. The archives of Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown are full of discussion about this, a consensus was reached for white and black, that consensus has stood for many months, nothing has changed since Michael Brown, and there is no relevant difference in this case. Let us resolve not to go through all that again for this article. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Race is used by the media to sell stories. Your right, if the race of the officer/victim were not disclosed there would be not story. To go further, if the races were reversed the media would not make a story out of it. For example, several weeks ago a Philadelphia cop (white) was on his way home from work and stopped at a game store to buy his nine year old son a birthday present. He was gunned down by two black brothers as they attempted to rob the store. I never saw that story on GMA for several days in a row. Why because blacks killing whites or other blacks doesn't sell news. We all need to get real and realize that the media with their biased focus perpetuates this devide between our races and they do it for profit.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B11C:4528:75D4:24BA:82EF:5116 ( talk) 12:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the race needs to be taken out completely. To me, it has no bearing in this case. It seems as if it emphasized here as if to separate opinions according to race lines. It would be similar if a black man robbed a liquor store, it would be inappropriate to label him as a black man 3 times in the story as if to bring out another meaning. I say take it out. Mattscards ( talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Get real, man. Their races might as well be underlined. It is clear there is an injustice here. Emphasizing their race goes against what is taught in school and what I teach to my children. If you don't see this in this story, you need to stop posting, sir. Mattscards ( talk) 14:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You can start anything you want to. I am stating the obvious. You, obviously are protecting this issue as if it is personal. For some reason, you seem very strong to want to point out this was a white police officer who shot a black man. To me, you want to make this a race issue. There is no other reason to point out this in a redundant manner in this story. I say take it out. I stand by this issue. Mattscards ( talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If your "100% consistency" and "reliable sources" is the media, I can assure you Wikipedia's objective is NOT along these lines, as I think they have a much higher standard than to sell news stories. And, lets make no mistake, you are protecting your own views and using wording from Wikipedia to try to substantiate your posts. I am still calling it what it is. Why is this so personal with you Mandruss? Why are you protecting a Wikipedia article that points out multiple times the races of the people involved in a manner that the reader will get a view of a stereotypical event that happens? It is not in Wikipedia's policies to have a biased article, which is what this is with the redundant references to their races, whether you like it or not. Mattscards ( talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that race has been a common and ongoing thread throughout the coverage in reliable sources of this case and the similar cases, I don't see how it can possibly be disproportionate to state the races. If anything, it's disproportionate, in the opposite direction, to only state the races, to omit any (attributed) discussion of the race issue. It's simply not our mission to second-guess the body of reliable sources on things like this. Regardless, this whole discussion is much larger than this article, and I'd suggest a larger venue such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There are experts on this subject there. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Why is it necessary to specify "black man" or "white" in this sentence? The information is so extraneous, in fact, that Scott's race is designated to its own interrupter and couched between two commas. Why couldn't the dependent clause in the first sentence be moved to the second sentence, so that the first two sentences read something like:"Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer."
In my opinion, this improves both the flow and the clarity of the lead while omitting the fact that Scott is black or Slager is white, since this information could be easily gathered by the images and information in the article and the sources cited therein. This would also prevent any misunderstanding or assumed implications, real or imaginary, which may occur from the reader. The mention of their races later on in the article is appropriate since it is detailed in a section dedicated to a short biography of those involved."The shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina. Scott was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer, during a daytime traffic stop for a broken taillight."
I am not whitewashing anything. If you want to resolve a deeper rooted issue, a Wikipedia article is not the place. By the way Ian, this article does a lot more than "simply state their race". I stand by what I said. Mattscards ( talk) 16:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's redundant, and unnecessary. Mattscards ( talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with others on this view. It is like talking to a wall. I am not going to split the linguistic atom with you so you can protect your view. Mattscards ( talk) 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss on using 'black and white' for descriptors, and support their usage in the lead, but not so sure it is needed again in their mini bios. On another note, I also think "unarmed" should be in the lead as well, as pertaining to Scott. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I will go along with that. Mention their races in the lead but to maybe take it out of the bios. Mattscards ( talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Why state race? It is part of what happened here. America is getting to be the victim of the American fairy tale: in the end the good guys shoot the bad guys and everybody lives happily ever after. This is all the result of the bombardment of tv-series that tell this story ever since television started to be an important source of entertainment in American homes. I expect you object; a sensible person knows the difference between entertainment and real life. But if you think, action series don’t influence you like that, you must also think propaganda does not work, or Sesame Street will not play a role in education. What this policeman did was influenced by the idea that he, a policemen, is a good guy, and a fleeing coloured man is a bad guy. Jan Arkesteijn ( talk) 10:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of personal opinions being thrown around here without any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please remember this is not a forum where you can expound on your personal views. Looking at coverage from high-quality international sources it seems that race is prominently mentioned in all of them. [3], [4], [5] -- NeilN talk to me 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Neil, I agree, however it is overstated as if to incite a racial divide. It is stated in the lead and it is repeated in the bios. The bio even states Walter Scott's name, then describes him as a 33 BLACK male, and then has his picture right next to it. You can clearly see his race in the picture. Even though I think most all agree that this officer deserved what he is getting, and race very well may be an issue here in this case, it is not been proven that the officer shot this man because he we black, as the undertone of the article suggests. Mattscards ( talk) 15:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Neil you can color your picture with any crayon you want to use but the fact is by emphasizing race in multiple paragraphs is redundant and the overall quality of this article is horrible and will not be taken serious by the average reader.
Actually Neil if you go back and read....my main concern is that it is mentioned in multiple 0 laces unnecessarily. As far as the wisecracking about what schools AND what I teach my children is based on, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia which is a great source for information at all schools, however the way this article is written is one of the reason I would get laughed at for citing Wikipedia as my source of information for any argument. Mattscards ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion opened here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Changing_the_precedent_on_race_specifications_in_shooting_articles -- NeilN talk to me 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Immediately prior to the start of the video there was a secondary confrontation which doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the article. What information do we have on it? All that I've seen is that they were having some sort of heated dispute. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 23:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Many references refer to Walter's car as a "Mercedes Benz". Do any go into more detail? How old was the car? What shape was it in (apart from alleged broken tail light)? There seems to be some inherent POV on the part of the news organizations by contrasting the image of a luxury "Mercedes" with failure to pay child support.-- Nowa ( talk) 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The entire background section seems less than notable. This article is on the shooting of a person, its arrest and investigation, trial if any, and verdict if any. I don't see how the victim's general life, from the mundane (romantic life) to scandalous (child support problems) does anything to support this article. On the contrary, it seems to violate NPOV. Doubly so, since we say nothing about the background of the arrested man and alleged perpetrator. Let's stay away from "blame the victim" bias. Just because facts are in the newspaper doesn't mean they're notable for this article; instead, they should go in biography articles for the victim and suspect. Runner1928 ( talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It is part of the coverage by the reliable sources, and so it should be a part of our article.No. Policy says that important things included should be sourced. It does not say that something should be included merely because it is sourced. The media regularly report details that are not suitable for Wikipedia articles, partly because they have a different mission and partly just to fill space. RS is properly the first step in a filtering process that includes a relevance test. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
"Scott was working as a warehouse forklift operator at the time of his death." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/walter-scott-funeral-police-shooting.html I would like to see this added to the background, but i have no time right now to do so. I am posting this here as a marker, and i would appreciate anyone else adding it. There has been a lot of speculation about why a man who owed back child support was driving a Mercedes car (it was a 25 year old car) and questions about whether he was a regular member of society. People have asked what he did between leaving the Coast Guard and the date he was shot. I think that giving his form of employment may be useful information to those who read the article. 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Done - Cwobeel (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been concerned about this language since viewing the traffic stop video, where, at 0:40, Slager clearly says, "The reason I stopped you is your brake light's out." The reason that the difference is significant is as follows. There is no broken taillight lens visible in the dashcam video, so the use of "broken taillight" would tend to imply that Slager invented probable cause for the stop.
Slager may have written "broken taillight" in his report, but we have no evidence of that. We have many sources saying broken taillight, but we also have this local newspaper saying "broken brake light". In my opinion, that plus the video should be enough to say "broken brake light" and hope not many readers read that as "broken taillight lens". I wish we did, but I don't think we have enough to clarify it further as "brake light out" or something similar, removing the word "broken" from the description.
Unacceptable original research and cherry-picking, or good editing? ― Mandruss ☎ 08:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit made per agreement in the following subsection, and per BRD. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
For the Shooting section, change to lead to be determined later. Citing this source. From:
... Slager stopped Scott for allegedly having a broken taillight on his car.
To:
... Slager stopped Scott for a nonfunctioning "third brake light", the light inside the rear window.
― Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Fun fact: "third brake light" is technically called the "center high mount stop lamp (CHMSL)". ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)... Slager stopped Scott for a [broken/nonfunctioning] third brake light.
The lede says "The video showed him shooting Scott several times in the back while Scott was fleeing." Certainly it appears to show him firing 8 time AT Scott while the man was running away, but it does not distinguish between which shots might have been aimed at his back, his head, his legs, or in the air. According to a relative cited further down in the article, three shots hit him in the back (with one of them hitting his heart), one shot hit his ear, while another hit his buttock, leaving three which did not hit him at all. A rephrasing is needed to harmonize this section with the later reports. And a video is not its own reference. We need a reliable source describing what the video shows. 73.208.148.93 ( talk) 18:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
a bit of OR, but its somewhat self-evident that the shots were actually "in the back" (torso) since they were fairly immediately disabling/fatal, and a headshot would certainly have been notable and been talked about. However, I think this is a bit pedantic, as I think "in the back" in general is ambiguous enough to cover whatever the situation was, regardless of where the shots were aimed, or hit. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is there a picture of him from years ago in the Coast Guard? How long ago was that? He was 50 years old when he died. Do we have a more up to date picture we can use? Dream Focus 08:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
To "Murder of Walter Scott" instead of Shooting. It's clear what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wike969 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss ☎, I agree with you but that was a little too much WP:BITE. Myopia123 ( talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd go with "Lamer" since "Walter Lamer Scott" google search returns over a million hits, "Walter Lamar Scott" just over 10,000. Furthermore, the Charleston, SC Post and Courier uses Lamer [8] [9] [10] as does the Associated Press. [11] [12] [13]
Also, the state law enforcement division's affidavit against the officer who shot Scott uses "Lamer". I think this is the most definite, authoritative proof there is about his middle name. [14] Arbor to SJ ( talk) 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
LA Times has Lamar.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-walter-scott-funeral-20150411-story.html
ABC News has Lamar.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-police-murder-charges-shows-officer-shooting/story?id=30137525
Latin Post has Lamar.
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/47592/20150413/walter-scott-shooting-south-carolina-police-officer-wont-face-the-death-penalty-for-fatally-shooting-unarmed-black-man.htm
Local paper of record has Lamar.
http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/5548213-north-charleston-police-shooting-profile-of-the-victim/
2nd local paper of record has Lamar.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/09/lansing-msu-join-police-body-camera-debate/25550297/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (
talk •
contribs) 23:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We're supposed to use RELIABLE sources. These are the reliable sources.
Pick the one used by the majority of reliable sources (excluding AP duplication etc), but include a footnote saying that some sources have used the other spelling. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The current coordinates point to the intersection of Craig and Remount. Reading the NYT article and viewing the video, and noting that Google Maps shows a muffler shop on the southwest corner, it's fairly clear the actual location was much closer to 32°53′54″N 80°00′52″W / 32.8983°N 80.0145°W, about 400 straight-line feet from the current coords. But I think it would be original research to use that location at this point, and I'm only writing this as FYI. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
How does this not fail per WP:NOTNEWS, namely "enduring notability"? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If no one (or at least a majority of news sources) talk about this in about, say, 3-7 days, then the issue of failing WP:NOTNEWS may be brought up again, possibly (and likely) in an AfD. Until then, let's see just how notable this becomes, whether it becomes an issue that lasts for a few days (which would fail WP:NOTNEWS) or a few months/years (which would pass). My opinion, tbh, could go either way. Pyrotle {T/ C} 00:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The information within this article is bais. It fails to state a struggle for the Taser. The struggle for the Taser is clearly seen at the start of the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 ( talk) 08:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, my edits references the struggle for the taser have been changed, the source articles clearly states a struggle for the taser as witnessed by the same person who captured the incident on video. Those editing this article while guided by emotions need to be restricted. I will change them back now.
Seems like this article really needs the video-- or at least a screenshot of it. Anyone know how to write good fair use rationales? Darmokand ( talk) 04:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There are some odd games going on with the video now. After an edit by User:Illegitimate Barrister I found the link pointing to some site "listenonrepeat" which loops YouTube videos... I get a bad feeling about that. I'd rather link to the original YouTube video. Also, before that the link by User:Mandruss pointed to a version that was lower quality, with a big "World of Toys" logo on it, so I didn't like that either. When I first added the raw video link I carefully picked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6-jFQPu-yo because it was the first relevant link I could find for Walter Scott on YouTube, and (as I think is generally the case for a first news report) it was higher quality than all the hangers-on that followed it. Wnt ( talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we expect for this to be released to the public? It would be interesting to see if the document matches the Scott family's lawyer's summary of (of 8 shots fired) 3 hitting the back (1 piercing heart) 1 ear, 1 glute, 3 misses. I think this deserves a more prominent feature, everywhere I look everyone is saying the guy was shot 8 times in the back, instead of 8 fired, 5 hitting, 3 in back.
Consider this exchange on the Daily Show last night:
I believe we should cover situations like this in the article, where celebrities with Smiley are giving inflated accounts of the event beyond even what the Scott family lawyer states (3 shots hitting back, not 8).
Not to mention the idea that the guy is dead while being cuffed, also seems like a false narrative. Getting shot in the heart doesn't kill you instantaneously. The guy was clearly still moving in the vid. Plus even if not, it is probably procedure to cuff in case someone is playing possum (not shot at all).
Another good detail to include would be the span of time that the 8 shots lasted. I know when I heard 8 shots I imagined it being dragged out and methodical, but the video clearly has it being a very quick burst. Odds are the cop didn't even know if any hit until he emptied his clip. Although we do not know, best guess: first 3 missed, shot 4 hit buttox, shots 5-7 hit back as guy dropped, shot 8 hit ear as drop continued. How long did this all take, can we time it? Round up and say "under X seconds" perhaps? 64.228.91.104 ( talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully ask again not to use this page as a discussion forum. Also note that this article is under discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN. For those editors that have bot been warned about these sanctions, I will place a notice in their talk pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This text is not sourced: Then Scott struggled with Slager, the Taser was knocked to the ground, and Scott made a second attempt to flee. It was added several times by IP editor. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is ABC's sequential report. Will it help you? http://abcnews.go.com/US/walter-scott-shooting-breaking-witness-video-frame-frame/story?id=30159871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This entire article and its citations to references need to be thoroughly scrutinized. I have found many false claims asserted within this article. Some are flat out lies about information contained within the cited references. Some link to bias editorials claiming those references as factual sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 ( talk) 10:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This quote - "In North Charleston, incidents of a white offer shooting a black man happen about twice a week.[10]" is inaccurate according to the reference it cites.
"The latest shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer comes this time from North Charleston, South Carolina. On average, the story of a white officer shooting a black man emerges about twice a week (according to USA Today, some ninety-six African-Americans were fatally shot by police every year from 2006 to 2012)."
This is nationwide, not in North Charleston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.123.2 ( talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I have read several articles in which members of the NAACP are encouraging minorities to record everything: every interaction with police and authority. Should this be including in the article?
Twolegalsystems ( talk) 16:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
People have been encouraging everyone to record police interactions for a while now. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 01:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The other officer seen in the video has been identified. Not sure if any of this source can be used, but posting here for editors' comments [2]
- Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Victim is being referred to in the article as "Walter Lamer Scott", correct spelling is "Walter Lamar Scott"...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-victim-walter-scott-police-officer-unexpected-connection/story?id=30156112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following wording
"An investigation of the video by ABC News shows that contrary to the officer's claims, the taser was being used by the officer and that the officer later retrieved and dropped a black object next to the victim's body."
Here is the report http://abcnews.go.com/US/walter-scott-shooting-breaking-witness-video-frame-frame/story?id=30159871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey what about the edit I requested? Someone comes along stuffing theirs under mine without a new section and you ignore my request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Most major news sources are using white and black, not Caucasian and African American, and it is not our job to look beyond that. The archives of Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown are full of discussion about this, a consensus was reached for white and black, that consensus has stood for many months, nothing has changed since Michael Brown, and there is no relevant difference in this case. Let us resolve not to go through all that again for this article. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Race is used by the media to sell stories. Your right, if the race of the officer/victim were not disclosed there would be not story. To go further, if the races were reversed the media would not make a story out of it. For example, several weeks ago a Philadelphia cop (white) was on his way home from work and stopped at a game store to buy his nine year old son a birthday present. He was gunned down by two black brothers as they attempted to rob the store. I never saw that story on GMA for several days in a row. Why because blacks killing whites or other blacks doesn't sell news. We all need to get real and realize that the media with their biased focus perpetuates this devide between our races and they do it for profit.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B11C:4528:75D4:24BA:82EF:5116 ( talk) 12:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the race needs to be taken out completely. To me, it has no bearing in this case. It seems as if it emphasized here as if to separate opinions according to race lines. It would be similar if a black man robbed a liquor store, it would be inappropriate to label him as a black man 3 times in the story as if to bring out another meaning. I say take it out. Mattscards ( talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Get real, man. Their races might as well be underlined. It is clear there is an injustice here. Emphasizing their race goes against what is taught in school and what I teach to my children. If you don't see this in this story, you need to stop posting, sir. Mattscards ( talk) 14:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You can start anything you want to. I am stating the obvious. You, obviously are protecting this issue as if it is personal. For some reason, you seem very strong to want to point out this was a white police officer who shot a black man. To me, you want to make this a race issue. There is no other reason to point out this in a redundant manner in this story. I say take it out. I stand by this issue. Mattscards ( talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If your "100% consistency" and "reliable sources" is the media, I can assure you Wikipedia's objective is NOT along these lines, as I think they have a much higher standard than to sell news stories. And, lets make no mistake, you are protecting your own views and using wording from Wikipedia to try to substantiate your posts. I am still calling it what it is. Why is this so personal with you Mandruss? Why are you protecting a Wikipedia article that points out multiple times the races of the people involved in a manner that the reader will get a view of a stereotypical event that happens? It is not in Wikipedia's policies to have a biased article, which is what this is with the redundant references to their races, whether you like it or not. Mattscards ( talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Given that race has been a common and ongoing thread throughout the coverage in reliable sources of this case and the similar cases, I don't see how it can possibly be disproportionate to state the races. If anything, it's disproportionate, in the opposite direction, to only state the races, to omit any (attributed) discussion of the race issue. It's simply not our mission to second-guess the body of reliable sources on things like this. Regardless, this whole discussion is much larger than this article, and I'd suggest a larger venue such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There are experts on this subject there. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Why is it necessary to specify "black man" or "white" in this sentence? The information is so extraneous, in fact, that Scott's race is designated to its own interrupter and couched between two commas. Why couldn't the dependent clause in the first sentence be moved to the second sentence, so that the first two sentences read something like:"Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer."
In my opinion, this improves both the flow and the clarity of the lead while omitting the fact that Scott is black or Slager is white, since this information could be easily gathered by the images and information in the article and the sources cited therein. This would also prevent any misunderstanding or assumed implications, real or imaginary, which may occur from the reader. The mention of their races later on in the article is appropriate since it is detailed in a section dedicated to a short biography of those involved."The shooting of Walter Scott occurred on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina. Scott was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a North Charleston police officer, during a daytime traffic stop for a broken taillight."
I am not whitewashing anything. If you want to resolve a deeper rooted issue, a Wikipedia article is not the place. By the way Ian, this article does a lot more than "simply state their race". I stand by what I said. Mattscards ( talk) 16:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It's redundant, and unnecessary. Mattscards ( talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with others on this view. It is like talking to a wall. I am not going to split the linguistic atom with you so you can protect your view. Mattscards ( talk) 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Mandruss on using 'black and white' for descriptors, and support their usage in the lead, but not so sure it is needed again in their mini bios. On another note, I also think "unarmed" should be in the lead as well, as pertaining to Scott. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I will go along with that. Mention their races in the lead but to maybe take it out of the bios. Mattscards ( talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Why state race? It is part of what happened here. America is getting to be the victim of the American fairy tale: in the end the good guys shoot the bad guys and everybody lives happily ever after. This is all the result of the bombardment of tv-series that tell this story ever since television started to be an important source of entertainment in American homes. I expect you object; a sensible person knows the difference between entertainment and real life. But if you think, action series don’t influence you like that, you must also think propaganda does not work, or Sesame Street will not play a role in education. What this policeman did was influenced by the idea that he, a policemen, is a good guy, and a fleeing coloured man is a bad guy. Jan Arkesteijn ( talk) 10:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of personal opinions being thrown around here without any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please remember this is not a forum where you can expound on your personal views. Looking at coverage from high-quality international sources it seems that race is prominently mentioned in all of them. [3], [4], [5] -- NeilN talk to me 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Neil, I agree, however it is overstated as if to incite a racial divide. It is stated in the lead and it is repeated in the bios. The bio even states Walter Scott's name, then describes him as a 33 BLACK male, and then has his picture right next to it. You can clearly see his race in the picture. Even though I think most all agree that this officer deserved what he is getting, and race very well may be an issue here in this case, it is not been proven that the officer shot this man because he we black, as the undertone of the article suggests. Mattscards ( talk) 15:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Neil you can color your picture with any crayon you want to use but the fact is by emphasizing race in multiple paragraphs is redundant and the overall quality of this article is horrible and will not be taken serious by the average reader.
Actually Neil if you go back and read....my main concern is that it is mentioned in multiple 0 laces unnecessarily. As far as the wisecracking about what schools AND what I teach my children is based on, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia which is a great source for information at all schools, however the way this article is written is one of the reason I would get laughed at for citing Wikipedia as my source of information for any argument. Mattscards ( talk) 18:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion opened here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Changing_the_precedent_on_race_specifications_in_shooting_articles -- NeilN talk to me 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Immediately prior to the start of the video there was a secondary confrontation which doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the article. What information do we have on it? All that I've seen is that they were having some sort of heated dispute. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 23:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Many references refer to Walter's car as a "Mercedes Benz". Do any go into more detail? How old was the car? What shape was it in (apart from alleged broken tail light)? There seems to be some inherent POV on the part of the news organizations by contrasting the image of a luxury "Mercedes" with failure to pay child support.-- Nowa ( talk) 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The entire background section seems less than notable. This article is on the shooting of a person, its arrest and investigation, trial if any, and verdict if any. I don't see how the victim's general life, from the mundane (romantic life) to scandalous (child support problems) does anything to support this article. On the contrary, it seems to violate NPOV. Doubly so, since we say nothing about the background of the arrested man and alleged perpetrator. Let's stay away from "blame the victim" bias. Just because facts are in the newspaper doesn't mean they're notable for this article; instead, they should go in biography articles for the victim and suspect. Runner1928 ( talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It is part of the coverage by the reliable sources, and so it should be a part of our article.No. Policy says that important things included should be sourced. It does not say that something should be included merely because it is sourced. The media regularly report details that are not suitable for Wikipedia articles, partly because they have a different mission and partly just to fill space. RS is properly the first step in a filtering process that includes a relevance test. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
"Scott was working as a warehouse forklift operator at the time of his death." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/walter-scott-funeral-police-shooting.html I would like to see this added to the background, but i have no time right now to do so. I am posting this here as a marker, and i would appreciate anyone else adding it. There has been a lot of speculation about why a man who owed back child support was driving a Mercedes car (it was a 25 year old car) and questions about whether he was a regular member of society. People have asked what he did between leaving the Coast Guard and the date he was shot. I think that giving his form of employment may be useful information to those who read the article. 75.101.104.17 ( talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Done - Cwobeel (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I've been concerned about this language since viewing the traffic stop video, where, at 0:40, Slager clearly says, "The reason I stopped you is your brake light's out." The reason that the difference is significant is as follows. There is no broken taillight lens visible in the dashcam video, so the use of "broken taillight" would tend to imply that Slager invented probable cause for the stop.
Slager may have written "broken taillight" in his report, but we have no evidence of that. We have many sources saying broken taillight, but we also have this local newspaper saying "broken brake light". In my opinion, that plus the video should be enough to say "broken brake light" and hope not many readers read that as "broken taillight lens". I wish we did, but I don't think we have enough to clarify it further as "brake light out" or something similar, removing the word "broken" from the description.
Unacceptable original research and cherry-picking, or good editing? ― Mandruss ☎ 08:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Edit made per agreement in the following subsection, and per BRD. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
For the Shooting section, change to lead to be determined later. Citing this source. From:
... Slager stopped Scott for allegedly having a broken taillight on his car.
To:
... Slager stopped Scott for a nonfunctioning "third brake light", the light inside the rear window.
― Mandruss ☎ 12:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Fun fact: "third brake light" is technically called the "center high mount stop lamp (CHMSL)". ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)... Slager stopped Scott for a [broken/nonfunctioning] third brake light.
The lede says "The video showed him shooting Scott several times in the back while Scott was fleeing." Certainly it appears to show him firing 8 time AT Scott while the man was running away, but it does not distinguish between which shots might have been aimed at his back, his head, his legs, or in the air. According to a relative cited further down in the article, three shots hit him in the back (with one of them hitting his heart), one shot hit his ear, while another hit his buttock, leaving three which did not hit him at all. A rephrasing is needed to harmonize this section with the later reports. And a video is not its own reference. We need a reliable source describing what the video shows. 73.208.148.93 ( talk) 18:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
a bit of OR, but its somewhat self-evident that the shots were actually "in the back" (torso) since they were fairly immediately disabling/fatal, and a headshot would certainly have been notable and been talked about. However, I think this is a bit pedantic, as I think "in the back" in general is ambiguous enough to cover whatever the situation was, regardless of where the shots were aimed, or hit. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is there a picture of him from years ago in the Coast Guard? How long ago was that? He was 50 years old when he died. Do we have a more up to date picture we can use? Dream Focus 08:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
To "Murder of Walter Scott" instead of Shooting. It's clear what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wike969 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss ☎, I agree with you but that was a little too much WP:BITE. Myopia123 ( talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd go with "Lamer" since "Walter Lamer Scott" google search returns over a million hits, "Walter Lamar Scott" just over 10,000. Furthermore, the Charleston, SC Post and Courier uses Lamer [8] [9] [10] as does the Associated Press. [11] [12] [13]
Also, the state law enforcement division's affidavit against the officer who shot Scott uses "Lamer". I think this is the most definite, authoritative proof there is about his middle name. [14] Arbor to SJ ( talk) 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
LA Times has Lamar.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-walter-scott-funeral-20150411-story.html
ABC News has Lamar.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-police-murder-charges-shows-officer-shooting/story?id=30137525
Latin Post has Lamar.
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/47592/20150413/walter-scott-shooting-south-carolina-police-officer-wont-face-the-death-penalty-for-fatally-shooting-unarmed-black-man.htm
Local paper of record has Lamar.
http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/5548213-north-charleston-police-shooting-profile-of-the-victim/
2nd local paper of record has Lamar.
http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/09/lansing-msu-join-police-body-camera-debate/25550297/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (
talk •
contribs) 23:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We're supposed to use RELIABLE sources. These are the reliable sources.
Pick the one used by the majority of reliable sources (excluding AP duplication etc), but include a footnote saying that some sources have used the other spelling. Gaijin42 ( talk) 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)