Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:32, 31 March 2018

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 March 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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 Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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. 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. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. It is requested a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Killing of Stephon Clark be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Need Help to add Reference

I added SacramentoPoliceDepartmentVideo as Reference 11 in the article but need help to add the URL in the References section: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwCJR5iiXQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tel555 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Converted to Islaam?

This article and tweet indicates that he converted to Islaam and so was most likely a Muslim.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/29/funeral-begins-for-stephon-clark-amid-outrage-over-fatal-police-shooting/?utm_term=.6145a2b62847

• https://twitter.com/omarsuleiman504/status/979203603880665088 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.151.144 (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Notable

This article is notable because: This meets Misplaced Pages's standard for notability because of the sustained coverage and impact of the event over time, as demonstrated by reliable sources.--Beneficii (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I, who came to this article after reading this, endorse the above statement. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Coverage a mere five days after the event is not ongoing coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Ncpz (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

, , ,

If it gains considerable coverage, and will be likely referenced for years to come in subsequent shootings, and court cases, notability has been established.

On another note, I will say, with due respect to TheLongTone it seems you have a history of pointed AfD nominations. I admire your initiative, and even how you don't care what others think, you do what you think you need to. However, I think that is highly misplaced here. I don't think there's an admin that would consider this AfD. --Amaraiel Amaraiel 22:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Structure and summary

Have tried to give the article some structure and provide a short summary in the lead. More detailed descriptions should go in the body. I think there's more that can be done to describe the event itself clearly. I also think that the "protests" and "responses" can be a lot longer, given all the material that's available. -Darouet (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging two editors who I've seen do really good work on this kind of article, @Mandruss and Malik Shabazz: hope you can have time to improve at some point. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

hope you can have time to improve at some point. Yeah, me too. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

More background on Clark's life

This source has more background on Clark's life: LA Times. Will add more tomorrow. -Darouet (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

indeed, it lists his conviction for pimping that you removed as unsourced, please self revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Darouet very often contradicts himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.171.61 (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Convicted Pimp

someone please readd his conviction for pimping. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-stephon-clark-profile-20180328-story.html Darkstar1st (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Added back, . -Darouet (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is garbage. It's irrelevant to the subject of this article, it's a BLP smear that SYNTH insinuates there was some justification for the shooting. I have removed it and it should not be reinserted without consensus that these concerns are invalid. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO prior convictions are always included, see rodney king. please strikethru your accusations and remember to wp:agf. also look up synth, it doesnt mean what you think it does. while you are there, learn what the L stands for in blp. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

First, no Darkstar1st, BLP also applies to recently deceased persons, especially where it has implications for living family members. Second, uhh... SPECIFICO, how exactly is it SYNTH to include content from an article explicitly about Clark and his background in the context of the shooting? That sounds more like an exactly perfect source to use for an overview of his background, the good stuff and the bad. GMG 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

GMG, No, not in this context and perhaps you missed the thrust of my instruction to Specifico. what you does apply here is WP:CRYBLP, facts are facts, recent, living, or not. BLP mentions in some cases, a good example would be Chris Cornell before suicide was ruled the cause. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I agree that this information can prejudice how readers view Clark, and can tend to "justify" the shooting in some people's eyes. However, this is a part of Clark's life, it's been reported by multiple media sources, and it has also been my experience, per Darkstar1st, that prior convictions reported in the media also go into these articles. I don't know how else to present this information in a neutral fashion. MelanieN I know you've been watching this page, would you mind giving advice? I'm not sure what the best course of action is and I'm not interested in yet another edit war with SPECIFICO.

SPECIFICO I have a different question: can you please affirm that you arrived at this page independently and did not follow me here? When I asked you about doing this at another page recently you didn't deny it . Misplaced Pages is a very big place — there are over 5.5 million English articles — and there's no need to follow me around. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH: The guy was shot on suspicion. He had a prior criminal record. The suspicion was justified. The shooting was justified. That's it. It's a horrendous BLP smear via synth. The simple statement concerning prior arrests is quite sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If any of that was actually in the article, then yes it would be. GMG 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I filled in the chain of implication. The first and second are what imply the last and that is what's described at our WP:SYNTH link. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's... not what synth is. And I'm not sure how to explain that other than to say in a completely non-sarcastic literal way, that you probably need to go back and reread it. If you want to argue that it's cherry picking, because it does not also include what the article says in the very next breath, that his criminal past was immaterial to the shooting, then that's an argument that holds water. But... simply pretending that an unrelated policy says what you think it says when it doesn't is not an argument at all. Quoting nearly verbatim from a single reliably published source is literally the opposite of synth. GMG 16:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It provides two more reasons, single source = UNDUE. Cherrypicking the source fails WP:NPOV WP:V. I still believe that, as cherrypicked and written, it would lead our readers to the synth interpretation, but any of these 3 reasons is sufficient by itself to invalidate that bit. Note we still do have a simple neutral statement of his record in place. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

DUE maybe, depends on whether we've found the one source to talk about this in this context, when the general consensus among sources is that it's not important enough or central enough to the broad story to include. NPOV maybe, if we're presenting the information substantially out of context from the general consensus in sources (e.g., covering the bad bit exclusively but not the overall presentation of the source with regard to his personal biography). V, not really. We've got it in the LA Times, so it's perfectly verifiable, but verifiable doesn't guarantee inclusion. What needs to be determined is what the general consensus is regarding what the relevant parts of his biography are, which takes more than one source. GMG 16:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, GreenMeansGo, and Darkstar1st: Thanks for the clarification that this is not synthesis. With regards to WP:DUE, I am not sure where the line is, and have agonized over that for days here with other aspects of Clark's life, both positive (e.g. he liked to make people smile) and negative (he had a criminal history). While there's no synth in merely reporting the criminal history, any excessive focus on that history will prejudice some readers against Clark. I tried to add this information in as neutral a fashion as possible. I think that by noting that Clark pled no contest to reduce charges, I did communicate something Clark's behalf. I will wait to see what kind of agreement emerges here before proposing to re-add the information.

In the LA Times article, after mentioning Clark's criminal convictions, the authors quote from community leaders who criticize efforts to highlight Clark's convictions as a justification for his death. I agree with those community leaders. I have not added those statements to the article yet because I think they belong in the "responses" section, and that section needs more attention: a description of the funeral, more media coverage, etc., and the task feels overwhelming combined with my real life commitments. If, in the future, we added Clark's specific criminal record to his bio section, perhaps we could include a relevant criticism of efforts to highlight his criminal record as well. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we're looking at only the LA Times piece, they commit all of 29 words to the criminal history, and then immediately to go to commit almost 300 to why it's not a factor. SBS an Australian source quotes the LA Times (lending credence to DUE), but gives both sides about equal weight. Canada Free Press is probably the most conservative source I see (and less reliable probably than either the previous two). They commit five full paragraphs to criminal record citing the Sacramento Bee, with basically no balancing coverage whatsoever. For their own part [The Bee splits it about 65% coverage of record, and about 35% rebuttal.

So I'd say overall, we're probably not riding the line of NPOV if we don't present them in some form together. We probably shouldn't be as rebuttal heavy as the LAT, but neither should we be as entirely one sided as the CFP. As far as presentation, I would say it's pretty important that those who publish a rebuttal do so immediately afterward for context, and so we probably should too. GMG 18:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think that if Clark's convictions ended up in the article, your analysis would help us determine the appropriate weight, and response, they deserve. -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No. It most certainly is SYNTH, as I have explained in detail. However it's also invalid for at least 2 other reasons. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't interject your replies inside my posts , per WP:TPO, "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." -Darouet (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Simple mistake Daro, no TPO links requird. Meanwhile, the crux remains: Kindly don't misrepresent me as OK'ing your BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, it really isn't necessary to turn the rhetoric up to 11 all the time. You might consider that most people are genuinely here to build a better encyclopedia, and not to push an agenda for one thing or the other. You might even consider that you may occasionally be wrong, and should at least occasionally actually read what people write in response, and consider what they have to say. You've not been very good at that last one in this discussion. It's a bit like talking to a wall. GMG 21:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - if I understand correctly, police were responding to a call about someone possibly breaking into a house. Pimping is utterly unrelated to that and does not factor in to the shooting. We need to remember that this articles about the shooting, not the person. If this one article specifically about the victim, that would be a different story. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Uhh... that's not totally right. In articles about events where the central person is not independently notable enough to have a stand alone article, the article for the event functions as both. Compare Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. GMG 19:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but without the detail we expect from a full BLP. We give a brief overview of the person and relevant facts to the death. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Then I guess it is your argument too, EvergreenFir, that we should remove that "he liked dancing"? Or would it be your argument that his interest in dancing is relevant to the death? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop and EvergreenFir: I added more details about Stephon Clark's life (including "dancing," etc.) to balance the fact that newspapers were also reporting his criminal record (and I'd added that info as well). When someone is very unfortunately killed like this, all the details of their life — happy and sad — are presented to the public. Different readers will come to different conclusions when reading this material. Some readers who see that Clark had prior convictions will think, "he deserved it." Others will think, "the African American population in the United States has been criminalized." Our job is to try to present Clark's life in a neutral fashion: we can't change the prejudices or beliefs that readers have when they arrive here.

I do think it's good to have a short bio of Clark in the article. He's become famous, newspapers are reporting about his life, and so he deserve a biography section. I don't think that literally every detail that appears in that bio section needs to be clearly related to his death — this is not the way newspapers have approached the topic. But I really do believe, whatever we decide to include, that information about prior convictions can be presented in a fashion that is respectful to the totality of Clark's life, that follows reliable sources, and that does not lead readers to conclude his death was justified. -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: yes remove the dancing stuff. It's unrelated. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would we selectively include and exclude information? Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: don't play coy. You've been here long enough to know the answer to that. Misplaced Pages is not a repository of indiscriminate information. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir—what is discriminate and what is indiscriminate? He "was a graduate of Sacramento High School". Is that indiscriminate? Are you arguing for the removal of that indiscriminate information? Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In the article we find that he "was the parent of two sons, ages 1 and 3". We find that he "lost a sister at birth and a 16-year-old brother to a shooting in 2006." We find out that he and his brother come from "underprivileged, broken homes", and that he was "a devoted father who only cared about his children." Is this indiscriminate information warranting removal? Why not? Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: keep, keep but reword, delete, delete, respectively. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude SYNTH, BLP, V, UNDUE, and very likely others yet to be identified. Take out the trash. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly neutral - WP:HN, WP:EL, WP:SUB, WP:RTV ... Not worth fighting about one way or the other if we're going to throw out random CAPS in lieu of discussion. I'm sure someone will rewrite the article eventually once it's all blown over. GMG 20:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: This is a topic of national (US) conversation right now, with justifiably strong emotions and high article traffic. For that reason I really do think that per the top of WP:BLP, "We must get the article right." I'm sorry about any perceived hostility — this is not intended on my part — and if there's anything we can do to convince you to stay and help get the article right, I will contribute. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I'm always around. It's important to get things right eventually, but for most things it's acceptable to get them acceptable for the time being. Having the information omitted isn't a serious BLP violation that must be dealt with immediately. But like I said, I'm around. I gave my honest assessment of the sources regarding criminal history. Folks can take it or leave it. GMG 20:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm also Neutral; I think this is really complicated and have left more detailed explanations of the pros and cons above. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Neutral" means we don't insert the BLP violation. Not a coin toss. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude The officers were not responding to a pimping charge, so it's not relevant to an article about the shooting. If this was a bio page for this person and not the event, maybe. Also, I didn't notice the discussion here lightly pertained to a removal I just did of all the unnecessary details about how he likes shoes and his nickname and stuff. I understand the reason it was entered to "balance" the negative stuff. But this isn't the way to do that. Valeince (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include It is not a BLP violation and the reader doesn't benefit from being fed bland pabulum. Our inclusion of this information does not suggest justification for the use of deadly force. The reader is assumed to be a person of normal intelligence who can distinguish between facts that can contribute to a police shooting and facts that can't possibly have any bearing on a police shooting. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong include of this relevant information. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A non-reliable source? No thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir—this is a reliable source. It says "And Clark had a criminal history, four cases in four years that included charges of robbery, pimping, and domestic abuse. Sacramento County court files show he pleaded no contest to reduced charges, spent time on a sheriff's work detail and was on probation for the 2014 robbery when he was killed." That source also says "Community leaders were adamant that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to how he died, and said the officers who killed him are the ones who ought to be scrutinized", and I agree. It was immaterial to how he died and officers who killed him ought to be scrutinized. Why was it necessary to use deadly force? This is a relevant question. A response will emerge as this case is scrutinized. But for now, are we incapable of presenting a complicated picture? I'm wondering why we would selectively omit and selectively include information. That is not in keeping with a neutral point of view. That is in keeping with advocacy. You might as well delete the whole article. In my opinion the stance you are taking is a matter of whitewashing. My aim in my argument is not to disparage a person who died in police gunfire. But a Misplaced Pages article should state relatively relevant facts for the purpose of informing the reader. Why bother having an article if it is going to strategically omit the information that the editors at Misplaced Pages feel paints a complicated picture of a person at the heart of an article? I wish I weren't making the argument that I'm making. But the integrity of the encyclopedia matters too. If we are to write a meaningful article we should err on the side of inclusion of facts presented by generally good quality sources such as the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

All this posturing and hyperbole about complexity, meaning, and inclusion is beside the point. We may well end up creating article text that discusses his past arrests, but it would be in the context of how the pseudo-news fringe media is spinning alternative narratives and conspiracy theories and other garbage. We've been through this with the Killing of Seth Rich article a while back, where fake news consumers eagerly insinuated various "details" that were being put in play by media conspiracy theorists. At first we diligently removed these off-topic details, but later they were incorporated in article text that tells how false and misleading information was propagated to exploit the event for political purposes. Stay tuned, we may yet have a context for all this off-topic detail. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines posturing as "the assumption of an exaggerated pose or attitude". Is that what I was doing? Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Nailed it. Yep. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we are required to suppress information as a rule therefore I think the onus is on you to articulate the case for omitting the material under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I did a google search to see if reliable sources that discuss the shooting also discuss this past arrest, and there were multiple hits such as ,, , so lean toward include but it would have to be done neutrally and briefly in accordance with due weight.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are not the same as every newspaper's. Otherwise we'd just be google news. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of times shot.

He was shot 8 times total, 6 of which were in the back. The intro should be revised to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.1.80 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Start-Class Law enforcement articles
• Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• Misplaced Pages requested maps in California
• Start-Class California articles
• Low-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Sacramento County, California