Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 1 April 2018 (→Proposing text). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Past arrests and convictions

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)

How is that not a reliable source? In the relevant section of that article it includes references to other news articles. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 16:24, 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)

• What policies and guidelines are you referring to? The onus is on you to present a reasonable case for a violation of those policies and guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• The ones I have already cited. Please read them and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've been traveling and haven't had a chance to get up to speed on this discussion. But my reaction is that we should include the biographical information we would include about anyone: his education, his age, his children, etc. How much other information we include should depend on how much coverage it receives and from how many sources. I see that we have removed the silly, fluffy stuff from his brother and I agree with that. I do agree with keeping the brother’s mention of the deaths of his sister and brother, and the brother’s description of his current attitude including “turned his life around”. But we do need to say he had past convictions, as it is part of his biography. We currently don’t say anything about convictions, just the brother’s statement that he had been arrested in the past. We need to fix that. We need to say past convictions, and we should attribute that fact to a mainstream neutral source. So let’s add at least a sentence about past convictions. My inclination would be not to get too specific about what those convictions were, but IMO we need to mention their existence - even though it makes us uncomfortable because some people will use that fact to blame the victim or claim the police were justified. As GMG and Bus Stop said, we should also include commentary about why that shouldn’t be considered a factor. But we can’t omit relevant information just because we worry about how people may use it. A caution: considering the range of opinions here, I think we should not add anything until we have agreed upon a wording. And please, let’s not throw around “BLP violation” as some people always seem to do. Negative information which is well sourced is not a BLP violation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think if we include text regarding past arrests and convictions, we need to specify. I can't see any rationale to leave it up to the readers imagination regarding this history; however, I think we need to use a lot of care to word it neutrally and also to keep it brief in accordance with due weight and put it in context regarding sources describing it as victim blaming.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should specify convictions and not mention arrests (which mean nothing legally). According to the LA Times, "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." CHARGES of pimping, not a conviction as stated at the top of this section, so IMO we leave that out. Apparently he was convicted of a robbery and pleaded guilty to some sort of reduced charges in the domestic abuse case. It doesn't sound as if his sentence included any actual jail time. We need to get this exactly right before we proceed with an addition to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Facts and well-sourced information can still be BLP violations per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The detailed recitation is all POV synth-inducing. It's well documented that arrests and convictions are not all that uncommon in certain demographic groups. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This...is...getting dangerously close to saying his criminal history doesn't matter because black folks are presumed to have a criminal history. Just...you know...an observation from a brown person with no criminal record. GMG 15:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I had the same reaction to SPECIFICO's comment. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Just tell us why the details of his arrest record is germane to the shooting. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not germane to the shooting; that is a SYNTH you keep trying to make. It is germane to his history, in a section about his history. (We give history about the police officers, and this article isn't even about them.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Because mainstream reliable sources decided it was when choosing what was pertinent information to write about? GMG 16:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Already refuted that one. Already refuted "RS can't be BLP violation" as well. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply choosing to ignore what other people have said ≠ refutation. GMG 11:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to say his past arrest history is or is not relevant. We are just suppose to follow the sources. Multiple reliable sources which discuss the shooting also discuss this history. I think it should be included but needs significant attention to wording to assure adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—everything is not synthesis. The burden is on you to present the case for the omission of the material under discussion. Synthesis involves implication, at the very least. Would the inclusion of the material under discussion imply that past infractions played a part in the shooting? No, it would not. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've already detailed the SYNTH and BLP and others have commented on the UNDUE, NPOV and other issues. Don't make straw man arguments and don't skirt the line of civility. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Civility? How have I been incivil? Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore we can explicitly state that there is an absence of a relationship between any past events and this incident, if we can cite a source asserting that. We have for instance the expressions by family members and lawyers saying that past records of infractions are irrelevant to the shooting. It might be warranted to include such assertions after mentioning prior criminal infractions. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's OR and googling for a cherrypicked verification. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, I agree that we can and should include commentary about how his arrest record is irrelevant to the shooting, that nothing he had done or was doing at the time should carry a death penalty, etc. But not from his family or lawyers; that's what we would expect them to say. From outside, respected commenters. I'll look for some. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of uncontested assertions by family and lawyers serve to express the important point that there is no known connection between any past infractions and the police shooting. I think we are permitted to use their words even if they would be expected to say that. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude per Valeince.- MrX 🖋 23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a thief

Since the brother's statement "he was not a thief" is inaccurate, I propose replacing it with an actual quote of what he was trying to say: Clark added, "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." (Same reference as the existing statement) --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that bit is irrelevant and should be removed from the article entirely. It struck me there's other irrelevant detail as well, but I will have a look to identify it. Detail about the officers is relevant because it is their actions that comprise the subject of this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments about him from his family - what he was like, his life? I think we normally include such when there has been a death, don't we? --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dunno. Plato's dead. What were his hobbies? I actually don't think that we do, as a rule. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the sourced quote regarding Clark changing his life is relevant and informative and support its inclusion in the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree concerning the inclusion of the sourced quote regarding Clark turning his life around. We should be erring on the side of the inclusion of material as found in the best quality sources. We don't contrive to omit material based on the false notion that the reader will reach bizarre conclusions. We are expected to include the facts and let the pieces fall where they fall. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's derogatory and irrelevant to the topic of this article. It's also a subjective and undefined statement by a related party, so it is not descriptive. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If it is determined that there is a blemish on the history of one of the officers involved in the shooting, do you think that should be included in the article? Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I going to add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposing text

@MelanieN, DynaGirl, GreenMeansGo, and Bus stop: if text were added on past charges, what wording would be best? Per the LA Times we could write,

• Sacramento County court records show that Clark had been charged with four times with crimes including robbery and domestic abuse, to which he pleaded no contest in order to reduce charges.

MelanieN I'm not actually sure why the "pimping" charge is to be treated differently: the LA Times source doesn't appear to state that Clark was charged (and not convicted) there, in a manner different to the other charges... -Darouet (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m not sure it should be treated differently either. My gut reaction is that pimping is seen as much more offensive and negative than robbery and we need to be very thoughtful regarding such content, but not sure about excluding it. Clark was an unarmed man holding only a cell phone who was shot to death in his back yard. Is that only atrocious if he has a squeaky clean history? --DynaGirl (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It puts things in context. He was shot by officers who believed he was to have been breaking car windows and he is seen by a helicopter (on video viewable on YouTube) running through backyards, hopping a fence, etc. He is then seen running from the police and just before being shot is facing them and advances toward them (the shots in the back are from after he fell to the ground; he did not turn his back and start getting shot as the video clearly shows). That he has a criminal history demonstrates that his behavior of running from the police, etc. is consistent with his past and that it was not as if the police just happened upon someone chilling in their backyard and gunned them down. It is important because it puts things in a proper context rather than some of the media's attempts to enflame racial tensions by presenting an incomplete/inaccurate version of things. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If tried in a court of law, there is no death penalty for running through backyards. Even if it was actually him (which is not proven) there is certainly no death penalty for breaking windows and there's no death penalty for any of the crimes listed in Clark's arrest history.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're in the dark and someone is running from you, and rather than obeying orders, turns to face you and starts extending his arm holding something that you can't make out toward you, well, if it was a gun, are you supposed to wait for them to kill you first? The point is that it is not a case by any reasonable stretch that the police (one of whom was black himself) just randomly shot someone just because that person was black as the media and protests would have you believe. To present it at all in any way that leaves out details that accurately suggest that the situation is complicated is downright dangerous as it feeds into the narrative that enflames racial tensions and puts people's lives at risk. Make no mistake, what happened is a tragedy, but if the police truly believed that the hard to see object being raised toward them in the dark from a suspect who was not obeying them and was previously fleeing was a weapon, you don't wait to get shot first. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that waiting to be shot at first is...you know...the way things work in a combat zone...kindof undermines your argument. GMG 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Rules of engagement are not uniform across the board. See how you would do in the dark after chasing someone and that person stops, advances toward you, and begins to extend what you suspect to be a weapon at you, knowing that if you hesitate, you could well be the one dead. A local police department allowed me to do one of these seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g and it was eye opening... --24.112.234.124 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I generally think footnotes are a good tool for compromise, and I would suggest saying something to the effect of ...charged and plead no contest to four charges{{efn|Including yadda yadda yadda}}, but as I said above, should be accompanied by the rebuttal published in cited RS saying that this had nothing substantive to do with the shooting. As above, we should probably err to the right of the LA Times, but well to the left of the ultra conservative sources. GMG 18:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

GMG, what is your source for "four charges"? We have seen mention of several types of charges. Apparently it was a robbery that he was on probation for. The San Francisco Chronicle says He had several encounters with the law, including convictions for robbery and domestic violence, according to Sacramento County court records. That sounds like the total list of the things he was convicted of, per actual court records: robbery and domestic violence. No mention of pimping. If you have more detailed information, let's see it. It is important to keep this kind of discussion strictly fact based. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Oh, I found it: the LA Times "four cases in four years" - by which they apparently mean charges. The Times isn't specific about what he pleaded guilty to or served on the sheriff's detail for. The Chronicle is specific about what his convictions were for, citing court records, so those are the crimes I would mention. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry MelanieN. I guess I should clarify. My comment was less about substance and more about formatting, in the sense that when there is a disagreement about how much detail to include, it's often a good compromise to put less in the body and more in a footnote rather than having to 100% to one side or the other. GMG 11:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This thread is getting off into Original Research and BLP gossip and will need to be hatted if it can't stay on topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Darouet, good start. I don’t think we can imply that he pleaded guilty to the charges all four times, because the Times doesn’t say that. And the Chronicle, in spelling out what he was convicted for, mentions convictions for robbery and domestic violence, but doesn’t say how many. I do get the impression that he never served time in prison (just "sheriff's work detail" and probation). I am working on a wording for the followup sentence, “but it’s irrelevant to the shooting”. I have found a good source and will have something shortly. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, There's also this source . Acording to The Sacramento Bee, Clark was charged with pimping in 2015 and pled "no contest" to this charge. I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in text or if it would be better in footnote as GMG suggested, but it appears reliably sourced. --DynaGirl (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the sentence about his record, several people including me thought there should be a comment putting the record in context. How about something like this? Several community leaders noted that his criminal record has nothing to do with his being shot. One pointed out that the police officers were unaware of his record, so it did not provide a reason for their actions. Another said that "black people are criminalized when anything happens" to make them look like the predator instead of the victim. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Using the same source how about Community leaders asserted that any events in Clark's past were irrelevant to the incident in which he lost his life and that the actions of the officers involved in the shooting should be scrutinized? Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is almost a direct quote from the source, right? I'd rather not change the subject, from the context or relevance of his record to the actions of the officers, and I'd rather have actual quotes from actual people who I thought made relevant points very well. But if people think my proposal is too detailed or violates WEIGHT I am willing to go with a paraphrase. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should quote Derrell Roberts, "who runs a youth mentoring program in South Sacramento", saying "Neither officer involved in the shooting, nor the helicopter pilot didn't know this, not one of the people who might have called 911 knew his record. So his record is irrelevant to what happened." Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the comments I shortened/paraphrased. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing is acceptable to me; perhaps the excerpted quote could be included in the citation. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I think the part about the police having zero knowledge regarding prior conviction should be included but not sure about the quote ""black people are criminalized when anything happens". It does not appear to be attributed to a notable public figure. It's also very POV and considering one of the past convictions is domestic violence, it kind of seems like it's saying all convictions of domestic violence are bogus if it's a black man. Is there a more neutral quote saying something more neutral such as black men are often criminalized as opposed to saying anything that happens is unfounded accusation or conviction. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point, DynaGirl. I'll see if I can find anything more appropriate to these circumstances. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include His criminal record should be included. The article is about the aftermath and how people are talking about him. Dream Focus 05:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. This article is about the shooting. SPECIFICO talk 09:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is a section for the Protests and a section for Responses. Dream Focus 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you wish to propose that we remove the personal history from the opening sections and incorporate well-sourced discussion of his personal background to the extent that it was part of the public discussion of the incident, that would be a well-formed proposal we could discuss here. That would not be WP:OR. Everything I've read on this page up to now, however, has been based on OR in one form or another.

If there are folks who say that the killing was in some way related to his prior arrest record, let's see those sources. Otherwise, for this WP article to state that it was not related to his prior record is like saying it was not related to the price of asparagus or the webs of a duck's feet. Irrelevant OR. SPECIFICO talk 12:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

When you refer to "the killing" you probably mean "the accidental killing". I just thought I'd clarify that but please feel free to weigh in if I am putting words in your mouth. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw this on NPOV and just wanted to say that this is obviously not an issue of synth, or original research. Editors are not making the connection between two unrelated things. The sources make that connection. Reliable sources describe the shooting and his criminal history in the same article. They are deciding these things are related, not us. Demanding that we produce some well-reasoned logical connection between the two things is asking too much, and only encourages OR to create justifications, when we should be relying on the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock, have you read the cited sources? In some cases they make a connection that is omitted from the article, which states part of what the cited source presents, but omitting the sole reason the cited source includes it. At any rate, I don't see that anyone has raised SYNTH in this section of the discussion. The pimping thing, I think, has been agreed removed. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO talkno, it was not agreed, A criminal's public records should be available to readers. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

here is a different source reporting the same Darkstar1st (talk) 17:35, 1 April 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)

Last time I looked at this article we had conflicting information about the number of times he was shot, and where. We need to clear that up. We also need to clarify the attribution: that this is according to a private autopsy ordered by the family, and that the official autopsy results have not yet been released. I'll work on that later today, unless someone else gets to it first. (And if you can please do, I won't have the time until later today.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"was not a thief"

had been arrested previously, arrested for what, dui? shoplifting? cashing bad checks? no, it was for selling people, beating people, and robbing people. supposedly, he was breaking windows to the home next door. he was on probation for the crime he is suspected of the night he was killed. as of today, all the article mentions is that he was not a thief, which is untrue, and he had been arrested in the past, which is true. surely the public history of a criminal killed during a crime is relevant. I suggest we clarify the not a thief comment with an explanation of how that statement is inaccurate. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See the discussion above. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Officer Mercadal

About officer Mercadal: based on this source, we give a lot of information about him: his background, his current assignment - everything except that he is African-American. Is there some reason we left that out? IMO it is of more relevance to this case than where he went to high school. This source also mentions it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, we have absolutely no information about the other officer, Jared Robinet, except that he is white and had been with the department for four years. I searched and nothing else is available. Maybe for balance we should trim back the information about Mercadal? Or leave it up to the sourcing we have? For some reason, lots of information has been published about Mercadal and virtually nothing about Robinet. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I think their ethnicities should be mentioned — I wasn't sure how to word this and ended up forgetting about it. I'll make an effort — please make any changes to improve. -Darouet (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like St Loftus already took care of it ! -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

unrelated information designed to get emotional sympathy for Stephon Clark

Clark lost a sister at birth and a 16-year-old brother to a shooting in 2006. His brother told KOVR that he and Clark had come from "underprivileged, broken homes", but that Clark was a devoted father who only cared about his children. He added, "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Any justification for having this in there? How is it related to the shooting? Dream Focus 12:01, 1 April 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