Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2602:306:c5b4:e3d0:8dc4:bb80:568f:2021 (talk) at 00:36, 23 October 2015 (→RfC discussion: SIG Sauer: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Weapon

The type of weapon is relevant to the case. If that's not so, please explain how we should apply WP:NPOV to determine which information is relevant or irrelevant in this matter. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see what this has to do with neutral point of view, maybe you could elaborate. The specific model of handgun is not relevant unless it has some particular bearing on the case; it does not. As I said on your talk page, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There are four core content policies. The only one which seems to apply to this situation is NPOV. How are you using it to decide which elements of this matter are relevant? For example, you are not deleting the time, date, or location of the killing. Nor are you deleting descriptions of events that occurred decades ago, such as school attendance. Those you apparently deem relevant. How are you deciding? What is the criterion you are using? 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk)

Which meaning of "factoid" are you using? Do you regard this as false or spurious information? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The specific weapon should be mentioned because it's meaningful detail. The source, which is useful for verification, is also valuable to readers who wish to research further. They should both remain in the article.- MrX 01:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have cited NPOV without saying how it applies. How can I respond to your NPOV argument if I don't understand it because you haven't explained it?
You're assuming that I see other things as relevant because I do not challenge them as irrelevant. I balance relevance against the need to collaborate, and it would be an abuse of WP:BOLD to change the entire article to my liking. I choose my battles, and I choose this particular battle because I don't like the preoccupation with gun models, calbers, and so on. They are usually irrelevant, and, when they are, I sometimes choose to challenge them. MrX, you state that it is a meaningful detail, but you don't say how it's meaningful. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You are the one making the assertion about which content should go into the article. That is why I'm asking you to explain how you decide what is or isn't relevant. What is your criteria? If there is none, then it seems like a case of "I don't like it." And, what about "factoid"?2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I clearly told you why I don't think it's relevant. It isn't relevant because it has no bearing on this case. No one is suing the manufacturer of the weapon, no one is claiming that it was exceesive firepower for a cop, no one is saying Sig Sauers have too light a trigger pull and that may have been why it went off when Tensing was thrown around by the car's movement, or anything else. That would be relevance. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Detail about the type of weapon used in an alleged murder is highly relevant. It's a critical piece of the who, what, where, when and why pie. Your personal dislike for preoccupation with gun models doesn't enter into consideration. - MrX 01:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

How do we know what has a "bearing on the case"? What is the criteria you're using to decide? How can we determine the "bearing" of other material in the article? Why is time of day important? Why does it matter that the victim was a motorcycle enthusiast? Is this all just "like it/don't like it", or there a policy which determines "bearinginess"? And maybe you'd better stop using "factoid". 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I just gave you three illustrative examples of relevance. If you still need to ask me what I mean by relevance, "bearing on this case", or "criteria I'm using to decide", you are not reading what I'm writing. I also already explained why I am not required to oppose all irrelevant content in order to oppose this irrelevant content, and you're re-asking that question as well. When I see this kind of behavior, I generally assume a person is not actually interested in an answer, and I don't waste my time repeating myself ad infinitum. If you have a question I haven't already answered, please ask it. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I repeat the questions because you've never answered the one I asked in the original post - what policy basis are you using. You have givein me all kinds of answers, but have never given me any policy language for your editing decision. I can address your three examples, but if I do then I expect the discussion will devolve into a debate over those. Before we begin that debate, I'd like to know which policy we're basing this decision upon. By your lack of answer, it appears it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Correct? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Two can play that game. You pulled NPOV out of the air. When I asked you how it could possibly have anything to do with this, you did not respond, showing that you don't know. So neither of us has any strong policy basis, and we're both relying on editorial judgment and reasoning. I have given clear and specific reasoning. We don't include things simply because they appear in sources. We ask whether they are relevant. We routinely exclude little details for this reason. If I challenge something on relevance grounds, the burden is on the person who wishes to include it to show that relevance. Without this, someone could insert the fact that DuBose had epilepsy, assert that it would violate NPOV to omit it, and challenge opposers to show what policy there is for excluding it. Clearly, Misplaced Pages does not allow that kind of thing to go on. All Misplaced Pages editing is selective. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

<- When you asked how it was relevant I replied that it is the (alleged) murder weapon. I still think that establishes the relevance pretty clearly without further need. As for NPOV, I didn't pull it out of the air or out of my ass. I referred to it because it seems like the most appropriate content policy to resolve this dispute. You haven't proposed any other policy that's applicable. I still don't get any sense of how you're determining "bearing" or "relevance" other than your personal preference. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it is the alleged murder weapon is not relevance, any more than the make and model of DuBose's vehicle is relevant. The thing would have gone down the same way if he had been driving a different model of roughly the same size. Similarly, it would have gone down the same way if Tensing had carried a Glock rather than a Sig Sauer. No sources have attributed any particular relevance to the car model or the gun model, they are simply reporting all the details their reporters can scrape together, as news sources do. That is not our mission; we are an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. I fail to see how this is so hard to grasp. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to grasp because you are simply making assertions. A is relevant, B is irrelevant. These decisions don't follow any criteria other than personal preference. The type of weapon is relevant in many possible ways, as is the type of car. For example, an automatic transmission typically makes a car creep forward if the driver takes his foot off the brake pedal. A modern, military-grade semi-automatic pistol is different from a cowboy-era six-shooter or an AR15 or a hunting rifle. It may not interest you, but that's not a policy basis we can use. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that this has been elevated to an RfC, this discussion is irrelevant. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates

• Coordinates 39.12322°N 84.51319°W (traffic stop)

Why is this information relevant? Isn't this more indiscriminate information? Is anyone saying that the exact location has a bearing on the case? That it would have happened differently if it were a block away? What's our source for this material? If these questions can't be answered, should we delete it? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See this Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline: Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No answer to the question? You said above that it's the person wanting the info to be included who has to justify it. Is it disruptive to ask for that discussion? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See this Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline: Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussing content issues is disruptive? Really? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any source for the coordinates. I posted a {cn} tag asking for a source. Another editor deleted the request. It appears to be a violation of NOR/SYNTH. Where did we get this information from? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See your talk page, you are still violating WP:POINT, apparently failing to grasp its meaning. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

And you are edit warring to retain your version. Please provide sources if you have them. Unsourced material may be removed. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Unarmed"

The term "unarmed" appears in the titles of two of the sources we use, and in the texts of countless other sources about this case. Obviously, the killing of unarmed black people by police is a controversial issue in the US these days. To omit it from the article skews the content. I see that there was some sort of consensus on how to handle this issue conducted back in August, but none of the compromise language ("no weapons found", etc) is still in the article. So I've added it to the intro. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

An argument was made that the automobile was a deadly weapon. The article already makes it clear that the victim was at the wheel of a car, and it's not a stretch to say that someone whose only "weapon" is their car is "unarmed". Many things can be used as weapons, but they're not "arms" - guns, knives, etc. We can say both that DuBose was unarmed and that Tensing says he feared that he'd be dragged without contradicting ourselves. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Off-campus"

See Talk:Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose/Archive_2#straw_poll--.22off_campus.22. The closing admin summarized the results on 25 September 2015:

There is consensus for inclusion of the fact that the shooting took place off campus. The body of the article is the preferred place and not the lede. The addition should be small.

For some reason, after that lengthy discussion of the matter, this was never implemented. So I added the material in bold to the "Shooting" section:

...Tensing was patrolling off-campus in the Mount Auburn area when he stopped DuBose...

Thanks. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• 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