Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marteau (talk | contribs) at 04:33, 19 April 2018 (→Convicted Pimp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Stephon Clark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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)
• Include his criminal record per common sense. --131.123.61.9 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 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)

Let's keep things clear for new editors who join the discussion. The rejected pimp bit is in the opening part under this high-level header -- the one where you see all the exclude !votes. That was the agreement there. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

here is a different source reporting the same Darkstar1st (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sourcing. Nobody is disputing the facts. We're discussing article text and Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you seem to misunderstand WP:synthesis, which in this case would involve implication. We do not contrive to omit material unless a case can be made that the inclusion of that material would imply something that is unsupported by sources. But inclusion of the criminal past of Clark would not imply that the shooting was necessary or that lethal force was appropriate or called for. If such an implication exists then the burden is on you to articulate such an argument. You can't just say "synthesis" and leave it at that. Bus stop (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of newcomers, this is the second time Bus Stop has claimed I have not articulated the SYNTH, which I did indeed state near the outset of this discussion after I removed it from the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you? If so, I stand corrected. But I do not recall reading a serious presentation of a violation of WP:synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, the cited source for the pimp bit goes on to state explicitly that this past event was unrelated to the shooting. I see none of the insistent editors here arguing to include the full, non-cherrypicked, source to convey the meaning of the cited source in the article text. I would still argue that is UNDUE but at least it would resolve the SYNTH problem. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

From where do you derive that the person shot is not within the scope of this article? Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Straw man. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop I'm...not gonna lie. I'm getting pretty close to suggesting that the rest of us just start to ignore one particular editor all together and try to find some other consensus amongst the remainder. It's not totally clear with whom they're debating, but it doesn't seem to be any of us, or what policy they're citing, but it doesn't seem to be enwiki. The alternative is probably AE or ANI, neither of which seem particularly appealing options to me personally. But the sheer amount of WP:IDHT is at least worth simply ignoring, even if it's not worth trying to do anything else about. It certainly doesn't seem worth debating. Of course, they're welcome to rejoin the discussion if at any point they decide to...rejoin the reality the rest of us inhabit. But I can't see anything approaching a substantive argument worth responding to. GMG 20:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenMeansGo, I appreciate the expressed sentiments. Bus stop (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

GMGagreed the same editor claimed the matter settled with votes for exclude. 1. wp doesnt vote on edits 2. there were just as many include votes. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you will carefully reread my words you will see that I wrote "!vote", not "vote". You can look up the meaning of that on WP PAG pages. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO how was it settled, there were just as many include? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I found several more sources about his convictions. I'll add them, with my comments, under a hat to avoid cluttering up the page.

I’m not suggesting we go into this much detail, not at all, but it should help us to be accurate in what we say. I will propose wording shortly. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, it would help focus the discussion if you could state why you believe these facts are relevant to the killing of Mr. Clark, that is, relevant to the topic of this article. The scope of this article is not the same as the scope of every news report or commentary that refers to the event. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I have responded to this point about 20 times and I do not intend to repeat myself any more. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It must be my cataracts. I don't see a single one. I suggest a restorative RfC. If you're claiming that WP associates diverse topics just because some RS associates them in its own publication, that one is not convincing. But I don't intend to put words in your mouse. I just have not heard a single policy-based rationale for inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 23:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion in this and other threads: please see a proposed wording here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—in your response to MelanieN you say it would help focus the discussion if you could state why you believe these facts are relevant to the killing of Mr. Clark, that is, relevant to the topic of this article. The scope of this article is not the same as the scope of every news report or commentary that refers to the event but the problem that you think you are pinpointing to MelanieN is similar to the problem that I see in your analysis of differing purposes in differing contexts, to wit that we are not the protesters in Sacramento and other cities. While we can sympathize with the purposes of the protesters, our purpose in writing this article does not serve such a focussed purpose. You articulate repeatedly that the scope of this article is limited to the shooting. That is not quite correct. For the purposes of bringing about social change, protesters rightly point out that an unarmed man was shot 20 times. Those facts point out the injustice of the shooting. Were we merely a facet of the protest movement we too would focus solely on the tragedy that unfolded in under six minutes in Clark's grandmother's backyard. But Misplaced Pages is not serving that activist function, however noble that cause may be. Our purpose is deriving material basically from journalistic outlets and assembling it into an informative article. Bus stop (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include We give weight based on coverage by reliable sources, and reliable sources are including these details. In addition, it would be irresponsible of us to exclude these details. We provide a service to our readers who come to us to learn about certain things, and should endeavor to leave them with the knowledge required to intelligently discuss a topic. By failing to include the history of this individual, we would leave our readers ignorant about facts on the case which are part of the national debate on the subject. We would leave our readers, who come to us in good faith to become educated on a matter, with gaping holes in their knowledge of the subject, would leave them liable to be blindsided in any debate, and completely unprepared to publicly discuss the matter with others. Marteau (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• facts on the case which are part of the national debate on the subject. So far, nobody has been able to point to references that say the victim's criminal record is the subject of any debate. If you have any such references, please share them. Otherwise, this rationale doesn't seem to hold up. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Some groups are lionizing Clark, and others are using what Reason magazine termed the "'he was no angel' defense of police behavior". The public debate is not always high-minded and I agree that the "he was no angel" tactic is contemptable, but that these facts are being used in the public debate is happening. It is a common phenomena surrounding such occurrences. Leaving our readers ignorant of facts about subjects of the article which are being used as part of the public discourse does our readers no favor and leaves them unprepared to intelligently discuss the matter and leaves them liable to being blindsided in a discussion. Marteau (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marteau: I agree that the tactic of rolling out Clark's record is awful, but many newspaper outlets reporting his history don't present his past convictions as a justification for his death. For example there's an excellent LA Times article that we cite in the article that reviews his convictions from a perspective sympathetic to Clark. I also agree with you that if something is widely reported in the newspapers, we shouldn't choose not to report it to "protect" our readers and shepherd them to the appropriate viewpoint. This leaves them ignorant of the issues at hand, and even if well-intentioned (I write "well-intentioned" because we agree Clark shouldn't have been shot) is still POV-pushing. -Darouet (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

These talk pages are not intended to provide limitless indulgence of editors' failure to understand/respect WP policy. We are not a newspaper. We don't use news media standards as to what's relevant to topics or helpful to readers. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

These talk pages are not intended to provide limitless indulgence of editors' failure to understand/respect WP policy. GMG 15:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I gather you forgot to switch off the auto-parrot setting on your preferences page. At any rate, it is simply false and incorrect to state that everything widely discussed in the daily press automatically goes into this encyclopedia. Consider the endless coverage of President Trump's hair style. Interviews with scalp flap experts, colorists, combover coiffuriers, et al. The photos and videos of his hair compromised by the wind, by birds, and by attendees at his rallies, his own statements about his celebrated hair. And yet there's only the most incidental mention of anyone's hair in his BLP, and an article about his hair was AfD deleted. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)?

Donald Trump in popular culture#Hair GMG 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I said in his Bio article.. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—is this a Bio article and did anyone state that everything widely discussed in the daily press automatically goes into this encyclopedia? In part this is a "bio article". But it is also an article about the subsequent protests. And the argument is not that "everything" goes in this article, but arguably that which is related to criminal activity finds a rightful place in this article. No one is arguing that the police should have shot Stephon Clark, but the likelihood of being shot was increased by the presence of criminal activity in the subject's life, was it not? Does the color of Trump's hair increase the likelihood of his becoming president? No, it is irrelevant. Can you make the same argument—that the presence of criminal activity in the life of Stephon Clark was irrelevant to his death? You can only make the argument that his criminal record was unknown to the police on the night that he was shot. You cannot claim that involvement in criminal activity was irrelevant to his being shot. Do you see where your analogy with Trump's hair breaks down? Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude: his past record doesn't appear to have played any sort of rôle in the incident, and the article is not a biography of Clark. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

  Curly Turkey—the article isn't just about "the incident". You say his past record doesn't appear to have played any sort of rôle in the incident. The article is about subsequent events. In subsequent events the record of previous run-ins with the law are discussed. Why would we omit the record of previous run-ins with the law? Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  Because they didn't play a rôle in the incident—they didn't shoot him because of anyhting he'd done previously, but because they thought he was someone else. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  Curly Turkey—can you show me a source that supports that they thought he was someone else? Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  The article says they were after a 6'1" suspect—if you're saying they intended to take down a "Stephon Clark" (and that his past record plays into this), the article fails to note this, and gives the impenetrably strong impression of the opposite. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  Curly Turkey—you asserted that they thought he was someone else. So I am asking you—can you show me a source that supports that "they thought he was someone else"? Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  You always play these games, Bus Stop. The onus is on you to provide evidence that the actions of the police had anything to do with on anything they knew about Clark's past. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  You do not have a source supporting that they thought he was someone else therefore you cannot assert that "they thought he was someone else" as you do here. Bus stop (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  You do not have a source that says Clark's past record played a rôle in the actions of those police officers on him. That is what I base my exclude on. Go play mind games with someone else, now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  This is your post in which you say "Because they didn't play a rôle in the incident—they didn't shoot him because of anyhting he'd done previously, but because they thought he was someone else." How can you assert that "they thought he was someone else"? Don't you need a source to make that assertion? I've asked you if you have a source for that assertion. Why can't you say "no", you don't have a source for that assertion? Are you of the opinion that arguing is fun? I'm not interested in arguing at all. My interest is in participating in this discussion in a civil way. Bus stop (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  Stop replying to me Bus Stop. I've been through this horseshit with you far too many times. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  BS, Turkey has not put "somebody else" in the article. No need for a citation. His point is valid. Time to move on. SPECIFICO talk 12:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It might be time to have an RFC on this issue. There was a consensus to include a longer biographical section including past convictions, but with more editors joining the debate, it's now unclear what the consensus is, or if there is one at all. It'd be good to get a more structured debate that could centralize discussions from this talk page and BLPN. I think it'd be good to propose text base on that produced by Melanie below. Any thoughts? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to editor Darouet, who went to BLP/N, we have confirmed that the "consensus" here on does not represent the policy-based consensus of the community. It's not clear that an RfC is needed so long as talk page editors recognize that the larger community rejected their approach. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Too many editors think a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override policy. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Where, exactly, has the "community rejected (their) approach". Where was "consensus" determined? Are you referring to this? Because I don't see a policy base rejection of the rationale for inclusion there at all... I see a still open debate with editors on both sides of the issue still discussing it, with no closure or "consensus" at all. Marteau (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Marteau. If you see no consensus to include, then it cannot be included. BLP. SPECIFICO talk 12:19, 7 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)

@Dream Focus: This information, and information similar to it about Clark's life, has been printed in many newspaper articles. The information is related to the shooting in that it describes Clark, the human being who was killed in this case. It is appropriate that we, like the newspapers, include a small amount of biographical information on Clark. It is true that readers will read this information and tend to have more sympathy for Clark. However, while we recognize this fact (knowing more about a person will make them appear more human), it is still appropriate to present the information using neutral language.

I and a many other editors here have argued that Clark's having pled no contest to four criminal charges should also appear in the article, and also be presented in neutral fashion. It is true that this will tend to prejudice some readers regarding Clark. However, as in the case of the "positive" material about Clark noted above, these more negative facts are also reported in the media, and can also be described in neutral fashion. -Darouet (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the shooting and its aftermath. How exactly does something happening to his sister dying at birth or his brother being shot 12 years ago, effect this? And the part about him being different and he changed his life, is ridiculous, the police helicopter footage shows him jumping over fences and crossing yards before the police on the ground got there, he clearly not reformed if he still doing crimes to the point he died. Dream Focus 19:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, you appear to be advocating deliberate BLP violation because... well, what the heck. That's like Captain Kirk messing with the Andorian orphanage. Not allowed. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is someone else able to explain what SPECIFICO is getting at here? I don't see how I've advocated a BLP vio or how that would relate to Star Trek. -Darouet (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Either he is quoting fanfiction or some obscure Star Trek novel. I don't see the point of that either. Dream Focus 20:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am removing unrelated personal detail and I again note that the current header of this section violates WP:TPO and should be removed. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It does not violate anything, since this is what the discussion is about. People only add in sad stories about his baby sister died at birth, and whatnot, to play with people's emotions. It would not have been put in there otherwise. This has happened at other shooting articles in the past. Dream Focus 20:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The header of this section is certainly not neutral, but I don't see that it violates any policy (unlike one I changed earlier, which contained false information about the subject). Dream Focus, we include this information because many Reliable Sources have included it. Whether it provokes "sympathy" for the victim is irrelevant; it's a question of WP:WEIGHT. In a section above we are discussing whether to include information about his criminal record; that will tend to reduce sympathy for the victim, and again that is irrelevant for whether we include it or not. We will include it if consensus finds that we should based on the weight of coverage given to it by Reliable Sources. Emotional arguments about how the information might make readers feel about the subject have no place here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear about this. WP:TPO is not a policy. It's a behavioral guideline. The header is certainly inappropriate and @Dream Focus: should not have reinserted it once it was removed. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Even when no one agrees with you, you still argue nonstop. Stop beating a dead horse already. Dream Focus 02:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call you a dead horse. 😘 SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion in this and other threads: please see a proposed wording here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent protest

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article207621909.html

Here is another one a protester from the Stephon Clark Rally gets hit by a Sacramento County Sheriffs deputy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:9090:FF24:9368:E721 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

misleading lede

It makes it sound like he was just standing around in his backyard and got shot on the cell phone. The helicopter footage shows him running about, leaping over a privacy fence, he not in his own yard when they started following him. Dream Focus 20:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary and OR in recent edit

This edit should be undone please, @Dream Focus:. If you have a secondary RS reference, please use that instead of your own conclusions from the video, which is a primary source and also cannot establish due WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The information there before has a reference to the NYT website which is nothing but a video. There is no text appearing for them to reference. If you can mention they waited 5 minutes before approaching him, with that reference, you need to also point out the reason why. Dream Focus 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. It is not a valid source for the text you inserted and should be removed. If you don't understand, ask a friendly Admin to review the issues with you. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The referenced video shows the information on how long they waited and why. Maybe I didn't explain that properly. If you use that reference for one thing, you can use it for the other. Otherwise get rid of the whole thing, or find another source. Dream Focus 22:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in this article should be sourced only to the police video. You can remove it all or you can find independent, secondary reliable sources for significant content. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is right on this one. Video alone should not be used as a source but for the most uncontroversial of facts. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I would think this was as uncontroversial of a fact as possible. You see what happened there in the video, they clearly telling the guy he needed medical attention but they couldn't help him unless they were certain he didn't have a gun, and then hesitating nervously before finally going over there. Without this, it misleads people into thinking they just stood around waiting while he died for no reason at all. Dream Focus 00:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source that lays out this course of events, or better yet multiple reliable secondary sources, and then we can add it. We can't add it based on our own description of what happens in a video. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't source it directly to the police video and agree with concerns regarding editor interpretation of this content, which was not presented as a direct quote from the video. There are multiple reliable sources discussing this portion of the video. Here's one which includes this content: "We need to know if you're OK," one female officer is heard saying. "We need to get you medics, so we can't go over and get you help until we know you don't have a weapon," she said three minutes after the shooting.. These sources also discuss that portion of the video , . --DynaGirl (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering how preposterous the claim -- that the police unloaded 20 rounds at close range into a person who is then supine on the pavement but that the police cannot then place a call for medical assistance, (even if not personally approaching the victim themselves) -- I think you'll need impeccable sourcing that helps readers to fully understand this inexplicable delay. The sources cited here are less than first rate. We need lots of context, comment, and explanation of procedure to present an accurate picture of this development to our readers. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it. So that explains the situation. Dream Focus 03:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you've actually corrected the problems here. The sources you cite are weak. They relate some of the words on the recording devices but don't correlate the words to the sequence of the events in past-tense statements. They don't elucidate the statement you quote about "we have to know you don't have a weapon" or what that has to do with the delay in seeking medical support. Please be assured that we will sort this out more quickly and more completely if you exercise a bit of patience here. Please undo this content so that we can look for better and more complete RS discussion of this part of the time-line. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The delay was obviously they thought he had a gun and didn't want to get close. That should be painfully obvious. "We need to know if you're OK. We need to get you medics, so we can't go over and get you help until we know you don't have a weapon." How more obvious could that be in explaining the situation? Dream Focus 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

They did not need to "go over" in order to call for medics. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

They surely called it in live. They had a helicopter around even, people were watching them, so I'm sure it was called in, that standard procedure. They just couldn't go over to him right away to check on his condition. Dream Focus 04:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is entirely your personal conjecture. If there's a secondary RS that states "it was called in" then please cite it. Otherwise, don't further confuse the discussion here and certainly don't propose that WP article text be based on what seems to make sense to any of us editors. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, what is your source for law enforcement not promptly calling for an ambulance following shooting? There is video of helicopter coverage witnessing and reporting the shooting, but I'm unable to find a reliable source stating who called for an ambulance and how long after the shooting an ambulance was called for. Seems the issue with the quote from the female officer is regarding officers on the scene (who are typically trained in first aid) not promptly going over and providing medical assistance, but this isn't the same as not calling for an ambulance. From what I can gather there is conjecture on the talk page regarding not calling it in promptly as well as calling it in promptly. This conjecture doesn't seem to be a violation on the talk page, but it clearly would be in the article. If you, or anyone else has a reliable source for who first reported that a suspect was shot and called for an ambulance, please post it. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That part of it is responding to another editor's statement. The officers appear to be in a state of considerable confusion and distress. After all, asking "do you have a gun" is not an effective way to determine whether it is safe to approach the victim. Nor is the differential distance likely to matter if indeed the victim has a gun and is able to fire it. The quote therefore doesn't really show anything other than to suggest possible (and fully understandable) cognitive dysfunction of the officers SPECIFICO talk 23:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of lots of information today

What has been going on here? All day today there has been massive removal of well-sourced information that had been in the article for days and been previously discussed here. Not to mention edit warring over some of it.

• Clark’s childhood: A few days ago we discussed how much to include of the comments from Clark's brother about his childhood and life. We trimmed out the silly stuff (shoes, dancing) but left in the stuff that would normally be included in any biography, such as his upbringing and the deaths of siblings. We also left in the brother's comment about him turning his life around, with editors saying that comments about the deceased from close family members are commonly included. Today all that was removed by Dream Focus, then restored by Evergreen Fir. Then SPECIFICO removed the comments about turning his life around as “undue personal opinion”. Then Darouet removed the deaths of siblings (possibly in protest against or reaction to SPECIFICO's deletions). SPECIFICO restored the deaths of siblings information, and Darouet removed it again. Right now we have way less biographical information about him than we would normally have in such an article.

• The officers: SPECIFICO removed all the identifying information about the two officers, because the source for the information was not official. The information had been in the article for days, sourced to Reliable Sources.

IMO the article is in much poorer shape today than it was yesterday, due to all this information that was removed. Some of the removals were in contradiction with earlier discussion. We need to discuss again and reach some kind of decision about what to include about Clark and about the officers. I'll start a couple of discussions below. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion for that was above at Talk:Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark#unrelated_information_designed_to_get_emotional_sympathy_for_Stephon_Clark. Remember, its about the shooting and the aftermath, not the person, this not a biography article. Dream Focus 03:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I did think the article was stronger with more biographical information, as I originally added all that material and have argued as much above. However, I don't see the point of adding that he lost two siblings when it is literally the only information provided in addition to his age at death and the fact that he had children. In that context, adding only the loss of the siblings does come across as pity seeking. -Darouet (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be restored but list not just siblings who died but also his surviving sibling, Stevante Clark because he has been involved in the protests and has been widely covered by the media. It is not Undue, Synthesis or Original Research to include brief biographical information when the sources which cover the shooting include this biographical information. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not what? Please check out what has been said above in reference to which proposed article text. For example, "undue" applies to the personal opinion that he "turned his life around" but not to the name of his kids mother or the siblings bit. It's going to confuse editors who come here to help sort this out if we're not clearly associating article text and their proposed sources with the related policies and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The article need not be hobbled by the impetus to omit information. Reliable sources provide information and we compile it. That is standard operating procedure. The burden is on an editor to present the argument for why a piece of reliably-sourced information should be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion in this and other threads: please see a proposed wording here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What to include about Stephon Clark's background and life?

We used to have the following in the section about 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."

All of that has now been removed. There seemed to be differing opinions about including some parts of it and not others. Looking at the information sentence-by-sentence, 1) should we include the deaths of his siblings? 2) should we include the sentence about upbringing and “devoted father”? 3) Should we include the quote about changing his life? --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the section should be restored. The prior deaths of his siblings have been reported in sources discussing the shooting. It's on topic biographical information. I think section should also mention Clark's surviving brother because he is often mentioned in media sources which discuss the shooting and also he's been active in the protests. It might help to tweak wording slightly to make it more clear and more encyclopedic by stating his sister died at birth instead of being "lost".--DynaGirl (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the killing. None of this other stuff, either the subjective or the factual or the SYNTHY, has anything to add to the narrative concerning his killing. It's all distraction and off-topic at best and at worst leads to unfounded speculation and interpretation by our readers. My sense is that even while disagreeing about other points, most of us agreed on those edits that trimmed the article to its factual bones. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

From where do you derive that the topic of this article is the killing? You mean, we don't talk about previous run-ins with the law? Why? From where do you derive that previous run-ins with the law are not within the purview of this article? Bus stop (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Its about the shooting and the aftermath. Since he was committing crimes when this happened, his past criminal record is relevant. Dream Focus 04:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You may not state that the victim was committing a crime. You should undo those words. I would ordinarily remove them myself, but I'm not interested in triggering the drama that might ensue. You may not state that this person was committing a crime. That may or may not ever be determined or even deemed relevant to the investigation of his having been killed. SPECIFICO talk 12:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I say according to the police they were certain he was doing the crimes reported, and the helicopter video footage showed him running across yards, leaping over a privacy fence, getting home from that? Stop being ridiculous. Dream Focus 13:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

We already have the statement of the police as to their own belief. That's fully appropriate. But your statement above is not appropriate. Also "stop being ridiculous" is not appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we can now re-add information on prior criminal infractions. I think the number of editors favoring inclusion outweighs the number of editors opposing. We can consider the following wording which was previously in the article but had been removed:

Clark had previous convictions for robbery, pimping and domestic violence; the Los Angeles Times reported that Clark pleaded no contest to reduce charges. Clark had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting and had been staying with his grandparents on and off, according to his brother.

This revision shows the above with the supporting citations in place. If changes are called for, let us discuss. Bus stop (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop and MelanieN: sorry, real life prevents me from being more involved right now. In a general sense, I agree with both of you that more information should be added to the Clark bio section. MelanieN, my sense is that the info you suggest is great, but that some short text should also be given to Clark's past convictions. Bus Stop, my sense is that the material you propose on his past convictions should be shortened, and only added if there is some kind of biography in place.

I agree with keeping out "sneakers" and so forth, but also believe you should consider adding in his nickname, "Zoe." This has been widely reported and many protestors carried the name on their signs. -Darouet (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Darouet—I am in favor of adding other biographical material. I think there has been too much of an emphasis on omitting material. I have played "devil's advocate" in suggesting removing material, so maybe I am part of the problem. But I feel we should try to provide the reader with information on the entire topic. Bus stop (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Darouet, I certainly agree about adding something about the convictions and have been discussing how to word that in another thread. I listed here the three sentences that someone deleted as "too sympathetic" but we certainly also need to specify his convictions as well. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: No there is not consensus for re-adding that stuff and your vote counting, after we've already been dragged into a side-discussion of vote-counting, and you do not even accurately count the !votes, (let alone evaluate the PAG-based discussion) is nonsense. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you write a succinct few sentences of article text and launch an up or down RfC about adding it. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion in this and other threads: please see a proposed wording here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What to include about the two officers?

SPECIFICO removed all the identifying information about the two officers, because the source for the information was not official. The information included their names, ethnicities, and length of time with the force, as well as additional biographical information about one of them. The information had been in the article for several days, sourced to numerous Reliable Sources which apparently must have felt the identifications were solid enough for them to publish. The Police Department would not confirm the names and said the officers had received numerous threats. How do people feel about this? Should we include the information because numerous sources have reported it, or should we withhold it until the identities are officially confirmed? --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What harm waiting for official statement, especially in view of the threats against those alleged to have been the officers but not confirmed? SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Protester hit by car

I've added a short paragraph to the "protest" section on the protester who was struck by a sheriff's vehicle on Saturday night, since this has gotten a lot of (also international) coverage and further angered people. Video of the event is available as well. The protester's name is Wanda Cleveland — a fact also widely reported in the media — if anyone thinks this could be added. An investigation has been opened into the incident, though I didn't add that here since it's a bit more detail than seems necessary at the moment? Feel free to add if you think it's useful. -Darouet (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Given just how much coverage this has gotten the event might deserve its own subsection. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd give it a paragraph. She wasn't badly hurt, and protesters had been closing in on the car, and she deliberately walked in front of it. There are different versions of how fast the car was going when it hit her. The main significance of the incident seems to be that it has enraged the protesters even more. I'm confused by some of the coverage: This was a sheriff's vehicle, and the shooting was by the police department, but at least one article referred to "the sheriff's role in the shooting", and another (WaPo for heaven's sake) said she was hit by a "police car" - later in the article described as a sheriff's cruiser, apparently they didn't notice the contradiction. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That's police with a small "p". The Sherrif's dept sometimes acts in a policing role in California, e.g. in public gatherings, parades, and other situations where law enforcement is not likely to be required. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed wording for the "Stephon Clark" section of the article

This is an attempt to pull together the discussion under various threads here, about what to say about his biography, including his background and his criminal convictions.

Stephon Clark (born Stephen Clark) was a graduate of Sacramento High School. He was the father of two sons, ages 1 and 3. At the time of his death, Clark was 22 years old. His brother, Stevante Clark, told KOVR that he and Stephon had come from "underprivileged, broken homes”. A 16-year-old brother was killed in a shooting in 2006. Stevante Clark said Stephon had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting and had been staying with his grandparents on and off, adding "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Sacramento County court records show that Clark had a history of convictions for robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense. At the time of his death he was on probation for a 2014 robbery conviction. Several community leaders noted that his criminal record has nothing to do with his being shot, pointing out that the police officers were unaware of his record at the time.

If people prefer, the "community leaders noted" sentence could be moved to "Responses" as it is not really part of his biography. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I just changed "Clark lost a 16 year old brother" to "A 16 year old brother was killed in a shooting", the same wording as the source. "Lost" is a euphemism, and this wording ties in better with the "underprivileged" upbringing. Hope that's OK with the people who have already supported by proposed text. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion of this well sourced text. I think we should probably keep the comments about the community leaders saying the officers didn't know about the past arrests with the text regarding the arrests, because it relates to and balances this text, even if it isn't strictly biographical information.--DynaGirl (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: thank you for taking the time to draft. -Darouet (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That is well written in my opinion and I feel it should be added to the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That look like a good description of his biography for the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The "prostitution-related" bit has clearly been rejected above. Bundling it with other less obviously objectionable material is not the best way to reach a clear consensus. "All or none" choices can't provide the best solution. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There was some feeling in the discussion above that we should leave out "pimping". In fact I also said to leave it out - because in the source said "charged with" and I was only willing to list convictions. However, I later found what the charge was ("procuring someone for the purpose of prostitution") and what it was reduced to in his plea ("loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution"). The word "pimping" was never officially used - that was the reporter's interpretation. For all we know it could simply mean that he attempted to engage the services of a prostitute. So I preferred to go with the wording of the actual conviction and say "prostitution-related". --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In late 2015, Clark was charged with “pimping” ...Clark pleaded no contest to the charge. yet another source using the term pimping. it should be included as sourced Darkstar1st (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

more details of the other convictions we should consider for inclusion, felony armed robbery and assault and endangering the life of a child. 2014, bruising and swelling to her right eye,” it says, and complained of pain in her right elbow. The woman said Clark had punched her. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not which word to use. The reason it doesn't belong in the article is that it's orthogonal to the subject. And the long discussion above demonstrates no consensus to include it. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The scope of the article includes more than just the shooting. There is a "prostitution-related offense". Why should it be omitted? Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICOthe shooting occurred after he is suspected of attempting to break into a home. the last time he robbed someone, he did it a with a weapon, assaulted the victim, in the process a child was endangered. the same person plead no contest to beating and selling women, i don't think orthogonal means what you think it does. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, the more times you repeat that, the more it appears you have no rationale for your assertion. If you'd like to move the article to some other title/subject then go-fer-it. Meanwhile these personal details have nothing to do with the subject of the article. They are orthogonal to the subject. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Clearly rejected" by you. There is no clear consensus above, and the wording being discussed right now is different than that above anyways. It makes sense to include a brief biography of the man who was shot for a very simple reason: many, if not most, sources that describe the shooting also describe some facts about the life of the man who was shot. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—the shooting is certainly the central event but it is not the only area of information valid for inclusion in the article. An informative article would not document only the six minutes of the shooting. The shooting is a confluence of prior conditions finding expression in various lives. If an aspect of one the police officer's lives received attention in sources, wouldn't it likely find its way into our article, and couldn't there be a degree of propriety in its presence in our article? Bus stop (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• nothing to do with his being shot Seems like an awfully definitive statement to say in Misplaced Pages's voice and colloquial besides. I would reword this somehow, although it will be hard to do without getting coat-racky about modern race relations in the US. To MelanieN, I think this is a case where for NPOV it is important to present them together. It gives a much different impression overall to present them how the sources do, one immediately following the other, rather in different sections on other sides of the article. GMG 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I guess to be more specific I would replace the last sentence with an attributed quote, something like According to the LA Times, leaders in the community were "adamant that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to how he died". The inclusion of "several" is also playing a little fast and loose, since the source includes by my count three people, and three is not quite the same as several. GMG 16:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the paraphrase, including the point that the officers did not know about his record, but I will go with whichever version people prefer. Folks, what do you think - for the last sentence of the proposed text? --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, even if we don't like the quote "several" materially changes the information in the source, and we should find some other way to word it. GMG 17:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

To me it is more problematic to just say "leaders in the community" - as if they were unanimous. How about "some"? --MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. I don't know that I agree there is a meaningful difference between "community leaders" and "leaders in the community"... maybe "leaders of the community" (which in my mind would definitely imply unanimity), but it's not going to hurt my feelings either way. GMG 17:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My problem wasn't with "leaders in the community" vs. "community leaders"; I am fine either way. My problem was starting the sentence with "Leaders in the community said.." without any modification - all of them? some of them? several of them? A couple of them? I wanted something that didn't suggest unanimity (even though the source does). --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we should avoid suggesting unanimity. I think GMG's suggested rewording is also good, but I'd take out "adamant" and replace it with "expressed" or "stated". Perhaps change "leaders in the community were adamant that Clark's criminal record was immaterial" to "multiple leaders in the community expressed that Clark's criminal record was immaterial".(Add - I think adamant is probably accurate terminology here in that it expresses strong belief, but I also worry that it might not be neutral in that it can have connotation of unreasonableness, so seems a more neutral a term might be better)--DynaGirl (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So... something like:

Stephon Clark (born Stephen Clark) was a graduate of Sacramento High School. He was the father of two sons. At the time of his death, Clark was 22 years old; his sons were ages 1 and 3. His brother, Stevante Clark, told KOVR that he and Stephon had come from "underprivileged, broken homes”. A 16-year-old brother was killed in a shooting in 2006. Stevante Clark said Stephon had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting and had been staying with his grandparents on and off, adding "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Sacramento County court records show that Clark had a history of convictions for robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense. At the time of his death he was on probation for a 2014 robbery conviction. According to the LA Times, multiple leaders in the community expressed that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to his death.

I also tweaked the ages of his kids a little bit. It sounds stupid but they were ages 1 and 3 at the time of death, which is the part of their age that is relevant to the subject of the article. GMG 18:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we add community leaders stated the police did not know about the past criminal record at the time of the shooting? This apparently is an opinion related to the police, but also a reasonable opinion IMO, (I don't think police knew name of suspect to possibly run background on him) and this is mentioned in reliable sources. --DynaGirl (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe just add to the final sentence so: "According to the LA Times, multiple leaders in the community expressed that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to his death, stating that police were unaware of Clark's record at the time." --DynaGirl (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is the unaware bit coming from? I don't see it in the LAT piece, or maybe I'm just missing it. GMG 18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The "unaware" bit is paraphrased from the comment by the youth mentoring guy, Derrell Roberts: "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." He is eloquent, but it's too long for the purposes of this paragraph. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Who are "community leaders"? Do you mean the elected mayor, or just some random guy trying to talk big about himself? Dream Focus 18:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Community leaders" is the wording from the LAT. By name, they include the extended comments of Berry Accius, a black community leader, Derrell Roberts, who runs a youth mentoring program, and NAACP Sacramento chapter President Betty Williams. GMG 18:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Should just mention the NAACP chapter president. Dream Focus 18:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I could be fine with this also. Other thoughts? GMG 18:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any harm including all 3 community leaders in this brief sentence. The community leaders are a large focus on LA Times article and there's significant community protests and unrest following the shooting, so seems comments from community leaders are relevant. We could use footnote to indicate who the community leaders are if there is concern they might be misinterpreted as elected officials. --DynaGirl (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Eh. Quoting all three of them is probably a little too much, and getting into Wikiquote territory, not that this wouldn't make a really good subject for a companion Wikiquote page anyway. If anyone is interested I can set up a bare bones one and we can add content as we go. GMG 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Any characterization of the extent of that view, without attribution, is OR. The back and forth above is editor OR going beyond what the proposed LAT source states. You could cite the NAACP officer, as proposed, but the whole thing raises the insinuation that it's responding to some assertion that the victim's background contributed to his killing. I have not seen any such statement in RS. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's not what OR is. GMG 18:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've previously said, you're welcome to discuss personal issues on my user talk page. This article talk page is loaded with OR arguments. Fact. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not what OR is. GMG 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Glad to explain: "Community leaders said..." does not convey the same meaning as "Community leaders said...""Three community leaders said" (corrected 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)) That's OR. Similar issues come up all the time when we make lists of key points or make other generalizations when paraphrasing RS. It's important to be sensitive to the meaning conveyed by the details of language and context. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Are you making a joke? GMG 19:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Nah just typo, corrected. 2 things I haven't got: POV. Sense of Humor. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• No one proposed saying "Three community leaders said". GMG 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but we cannot just say "community leaders said" because it is undefined. We could say the LA Times quoted community leaders who said or something like that -- that is substantially but not entirely OK. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, we can say that. GMG 20:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, all. If we are going to name the community leaders, or quote all three of them, that should go in the Reactions section. Which would be fine if someone wants to do it. What I am looking for here is a single sentence for the biography, following the the information about his criminal record. Also, I don't see any need to say "According to the Los Angeles Times..."; they are just doing standard reporting, not making an editorial statement or anything, and a citation is all we need. Also, I would rather leave the sons' ages in the sentence about the sons; putting information about them into two different sentences looks clumsy. Open for discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Now we have another OR or fails V issue. One of the cited leaders says "unaware". So clearly that wording cannot be attributed to community leaders in general or to all of any group that's named. Can't make this stuff up folks. It is fraught. @GreenMeansGo: -- what say you? SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN:These problems are exactly why his criminal record should not be in the bio section. And any solution to the current set of problems will be replaced by a similar set of problems with any alternative approach. They will keep popping up. It's essentially a bad idea. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There are suggestions above that already address this. We could just end the section with "multiple community leaders expressed that Clark's criminal record was immaterial", which the LA Times source explicitly states as a summary of the various community leaders comments. Additional content regarding individual quotes could possibly be added to a reactions section as MelanieN suggested or a wikiquote page as GMG suggested. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

1. That's not what original research is. You're welcome to ask at The Help Desk if you really need it explained to you in further detail than it already has been.
2. After a nice spring run to refresh my mind (gee is it pretty outside today, really perfect running weather), I'm really just fine saying we have a rough consensus for something akin to the proposal, and let most of these little tweaks happen organically, most of them I wouldn't revert either way, even though I might offer tweaks of my own. Of course, by "rough consensus for something akin to the proposal" I mean that one disruptive user shouldn't blanket revert productive work because they don't understand policy, and the rest of us that actually can manage to collaborate with one another should be allowed to write an article together. GMG 21:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we are certainly ready to insert something along the lines proposed here - without worrying about the objections from one editor. One editor cannot overrule consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "The point was made by community leader and NAACP Sacramento chapter President Betty Williams that..." Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Better to just quote the commentator opinion. If his record were actually irrelevant to the shooting, it wouldn't be mentioned in every RS. What they technically mean is that the officers' decision-making was not influenced by knowledge of Clark's record, because they didn't have any—but that's quite a mouthful and is not explicitly laid out by any RS, I suspect. Factchecker_atyourservice 03:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

More editor opinion SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest eliminating the sentence reading "Several community leaders noted that his criminal record has nothing to do with his being shot, pointing out that the police officers were unaware of his record at the time." As MelanieN has pointed out, that could be added to the "Responses" section. But that could be considered at a later time. Bus stop (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We clearly have consensus for restoring the biography material to the article, including the conviction information. What is in dispute, is whether to include a sentence quoting community leaders about the significance of his convictions, and if so, how to word it. I'm going to add the biography material to the article, omitting that last sentence. We can then discuss here at our leisure what to do about any additional commentary. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see recent advice at BLP/N to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If you’re going to refer people to another site, a link would be helpful. (I see that I and two other people from this discussion were pinged there a few days ago, but I didn’t get the ping and I suspect they didn’t either.) At that discussion two people, commenting in general, said to exclude the convictions. That opinion should be compared to our past practice, which I documented below, of including past convictions in such cases. You have invited those two people to join the discussion here, and that is appropriate. In the meantime I did include the convictions based on local consensus here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't originate that thread, but it's indeed unfortunate that you were not notified. I was not notified either. I think you're underplaying the extent of the objections raised by those two editors. I think that what they said clearly applies to the text you added subsequent to their comments and my ping to make sure you saw their concerns. It's important we not rush what appears to be a BLP violation into this article due to a head count on this talk page - a headcount that's in my view conspicuously unsupported by any sound policy-based rationale and that's been rather erratically and sloppily argued. I think that at the least -- as I said on your talk page yesterday -- we should await further fresh input from other editors here. Not everyone checks this page, BLP/N or WP in general every day. I think that this needs some time in view of the clear lack of consensus for the text you just inserted. I think the best course would be if you undo that addition and post it in a fresh section here for discussion. The alternative, as I said on your talk, would be for someone else to revert it and start an RfC, which is a nuisance and often unduly cumbersome. Please reflect. The article is in needs of all kinds of other improvements (such as the ones I have recently made even amid all this BLP haggling). It's hardly urgent to add this very questionable personal information. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually saw your ping, and your comment here about BLPN, after I had decided to add the material. But it would not have changed my action. At this local discussion, a clear consensus has developed to include conviction information, with you as the only person objecting. (The earlier discussion where multiple people said "exclude" was specifically about the "pimping" accusation, not about whether to include any conviction information at all.) Your opinion that this kind of information violates BLP has been explicitly rejected by other people here, and your "in my view" dismissal of everyone else's comments does not add strength to your position. Combining that local consensus with the evidence that previous similar articles have included conviction information (in other words, apparently a consensus at multiple other articles), I feel comfortable that the material should be in the article. If someone does remove it, I think it would take very little time to establish a consensus to restore it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if there's an RfC to verify consensus it's going to take at least a month, so it's not clear that forcing that option is the most expeditious mode of resolution. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN and SPECIFICO: I apologize that you did not receive the ping. I opened a request at BLPN within an hour of SPECIFICO raising BLP objections , but it appears that I bungled the ping . My intention was to notify everyone involved in the discussion of my post through the ping; now that I know you didn't receive the ping I'm not surprised you didn't comment there earlier! Also pinging @GreenMeansGo and Darkstar1st:, whom I meant to notify at that time. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Community leader comments

I have added the biographical information to the Stephon Clark section. We have not reached agreement about whether to 1) also include a sentence quoting community leaders that his conviction was unrelated to the shooting; or 2) put something along those lines in the Responses section; or 3) both; or 4) neither. There is a lot of valid discussion about this above, and it shoud be considered part of this discussion. I am just starting a new subsection for convenience in editing (sometimes called "arbitrary break"). Please do state your general feeling about whether to say something and where; then continue your discussion about wording. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I still do think it's NPOV to follow the sources, and say some kind of rebutting sentence in the biographical section, editorially close to the discussion of the convictions themselves. I'm fine with pretty much any of the variations in doing it except for providing direct quotes from all three in the LA Times piece, since that is going to end up being a lot of real estate that should really probably be at Wikiquote. Summarizing the "community leaders" position is fine. Quoting the NAACP rep is fine. Both is fine. It's an editorial decision, but directly supported by the source any way you go. GMG 17:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think it'd be best to have some kind of response to the sentence about his convictions right afterwards. It could be short, and expanded upon in the responses section, but I think it should be there. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is implying a straw man and should not be in the article. Do we have any source stating that his criminal record is related to the killing? If not, why add text that sounds as if it is rebutting something somebody said? SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think a brief sentence regarding community leaders saying his criminal history is unrelated to the shooting should be added. Reliable sources which discuss Clark's criminal history also includes these comments from community leaders, so it seems it should be included. Agree it should be kept brief in the biographical section but can be expanded upon in responses section. --DynaGirl (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN, GreenMeansGo, Red Rock Canyon, SPECIFICO, and DynaGirl: I have added one sentence, per MelanieN's original proposal above, on the response by community leaders . -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I do think we should include the community leader comments, but have been torn on where. Strictly speaking and per logical organization, it belongs in the Responses section, and I do think we should put something there, possibly naming the individuals and a one-sentence summary of what they each said. I am torn whether to add a brief sentence like the ones already suggested to the biography section. We are including his past record because many Reliable Sources are doing so. At least one such Reliable Source immediately paired that record with comments pointing out that it was unrelated to the shooting. There is some common-sense rationale for doing so, to avoid any suggestion of “he deserved it” or similar reactions to his record. I am leaning toward including a single brief sentence to put the record in context with the shooting, and I am good with what Darouet added. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Including that "oh, of course it's irrelevant..." is implying a statement that it is relevant, which so far only a couple of WP editors have said (Darkstar1 and Bus stop) but no RS have said. However this insinuation that the "irrelevant" info is possibly rebutting widespread speculation to the contrary is a tactic that's now been deployed by Fox News, here . This does not belong in our article unless it is to balance an explicit claim that his past record was indeed a factor. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of facts which RS's have explicitly stated were relevant to the shooting: zero. So, should we blank the page because according to RS's, no facts are relevant? Factchecker_atyourservice 01:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop rubric - let's consider

Reverted improper removal of WP:DUE expert opinion

Over the weekend, SPECIFICO removed an RS-attributed expert remark with the edit summary "UNDUE personal opinion from fringe flogging advocate and junior-level academic". In view of other very lengthy discussion threads above involving the some of the same misunderstandings of DUE by the same editor, I want to thoroughly address the wrongness of the removal and its purported justification.

This is not how DUE works, but even if it were, SPECIFICO's analysis is clearly wrong. First, in the general sense, Moskos is a well-regarded expert and frequent commentator on police topcs. Academically, he is a Princeton grad with multiple graduate degrees from Harvard, a former Baltimore police patrolman, and a prolific author, lecturer and researcher. As a matter of reported opinion, his writings have appeared in NYT, Wapo, US News, CNN, Baltimore Sun and a representative swath of lesser publications, with media appearances on NPR, C-Span, MSNBC, CNN and numerous other outlets.

More importantly, the way DUE does work, we look to RS's themselves to vet their sources and weigh credentials, so that WP articles are representative of what has been said in mainstream media. To this end, Moskos's comments on the Clark shooting have been widely featured alongside Alpert's–in case anybody's worried that the removed Time Magazine citation was somehow wonky (it wasn't). You can find the same and similar comments from Moskos regarding the Clark shooting on national as well as Sacramento-based coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, Associated Press, US News, CBC, Fox, Mercury, etc. etc.

As a matter of NPOV, articles are supposed to fairly represent all significant viewpoints on a subject. Omitting widely reported mainstream expert analysis because one editor sniffled at the commentator's CV is not remotely proper. Additionally, the tone of the edit summary and effort to disparage the source is troubling. Factchecker_atyourservice 00:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Instead of this long pompous screed, all that would have been required was evidence that this bizarre comment of his was widely cited. I am well aware of the meaning of WP:WEIGHT SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Having now examined the dozen or so websites that cite Moskos on this "thought they were shot" bit, I can see that they all picked up the Time story or some other common source, and so the numerous google hits all reflect a single article in which this opinion of Moskos is stated. Not quite what one would think from the definitive rationalization of this bit at the outset of this section. Since it is nowhere disputed that the police believed they were pursuing an armed perpetrator, it's not clear what this adds to the article even under the best circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Things like "long pompous screed" are not necessary and are counterproductive. You can and should consider that a warning.
2. Seems fine to me. It's Time, so it's about as mainstream as it gets. If a dozen or more people are citing it, that's a pretty strong case for DUE. GMG 01:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, your stated reasons for 86'ing the text were his lack of tenure and the fact he wrote a book about flogging, and he was already being cited by Time Magazine which is a pretty vanilla waiting room magazine—you were attacking the commentator, not the publication, so it seemed warranted to explain his bona fides.

Regarding the number of sources, I don't see how I implied those outlets all interviewed him independently. The point was just that they included his comments in their coverage of the subject. Most of them gave the same verbatim quote, but at least one paraphrased him differently: "Peter Moskos says the officers appear to legitimately believe they were in danger. If so, he and police training expert Ed Obayashi say the shooting was likely legally justified." Factchecker_atyourservice 01:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

But the substantive point is that this is not news. Who disputes that the officers believed him to be armed and dangerous? Yes, one might claim that all the local news outlets could have opted not to carry this fringe commentator quoted by Time, but the sad fact is that most of the time, major organs like Time are automatically cut and pasted into local news broadcasts and publications, and it's arguable but not convincing, that these rehashes denote a noteworthy commentator. I don't recall anybody mentioning tenure. Who knows if there is such a thing as tenure at John Jay. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It didn't originate from Time, looks like Associated Press to me. This conversation has outlived its usefulness—I think we're done, no? Factchecker_atyourservice 03:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Other killings article w/o undue personal detail about victims

• Featured article: Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner. No personal details. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that - just this morning I went looking to see how we handle biographical information about other victims of similar shootings (choosing cases that are actually comparable - i.e., unarmed black men shot by police within the past 10 years or so). Here's what I found:

• Shooting of Philando Castile: a 5-sentence summary of his education and employment history, plus a single sentence about being stopped and sometimes arrested for traffic violations.
• Shooting of Michael Brown: We have one paragraph of biographical information, including his birthdate, height, weight, education, and employment.
• Shooting of Oscar Grant: We have three sentences about his education and employment, and one sentence that he had served time in prison for gun possession and was on parole.
• Shooting of Walter Scott: Four sentences. One gives his current employment, one his time in the Coast Guard, two about arrests and jail time over child support payments.
• Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott: A brief paragraph with birth and death dates, marriage and children, and health problems due to previous brain injury.
  

It appears that we do provide biographical details about them. And if such a victim had a police record, we do describe it briefly. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Relevant information should always be listed. If the person had "brain damage" such as Keith Lamont Scott, then that's listed in the article since that would help explain his behavior. If they have a criminal record, same thing. Dream Focus 15:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure basically everyone here besides SPECIFICO is in agreement that basic biographical details are appropriate. Perhaps we can drop that particular stick, call it a rough consensus, and move on. GMG 15:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that everyone here agrees that WP:NOR must never be compromised in a BLP. OK then.  @Dream Focus:' statement that XYZ "help explain his behavior" cannot be in any WP article about a victim unless the weight of mainstream RS references make the connection that, so far, we have only seen stated without attribution by WP editors. This first principle should promote an orderly and reasoned discussion about this. I note that in the section captioned Bus stop rubric above, would be another location on this page these issues could be unpacked. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. We do agree about OR. The only issue is that everyone else seems to know what it means. That you would like to bludgeon the discussion does not obligate everyone else to engage in endless fruitless debate rather than simply moving on and being productive. GMG 15:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. We look over information covered by reliable sources, and then decide what should go into the article. There is no original research involved in listing the criminal record, as long as you don't write your own conclusions. Dream Focus 16:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I noticed something worthy of caution, though:

California is reported to have tight restrictions on the public release of law enforcement discipline records. Employer discipline records are not arrests and criminal convictions—obviously if the cops had arrests and convictions of their own, those would be a matter of public record just as Clark's—yet it still has the appearance of an imbalance. Now, the same editorial boards complaining about these restrictions are still reporting on Clark's criminal history, but these editorials should be taken into account. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: that's an important point. I wonder, if some text were added on this fact, where it should go? Maybe under "policing experts," or a new section, "media commentary?" -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is only pointing out what youse guys should have embraced to begin with. Adding all this off-topic stuff is a mess, a can of worms, and a slippery slope. FYI the Sacramento Police Dept. is under investigation for various lapses. But we shouldn't put that in the article either unless RS put it in context. This article is currently an a disgraceful condition, and I see no efforts to improve it. Only quibbling about this irrelevant smear text. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The way the article is currently organized, if it went in the "Officers" section then it would be featured very prominently and immediately after the description of Clark's record and the community leader comments, and this additionally makes sense because that's where the information on disciplinary history would go if we had it. The sources are editorials, but being in the editorial voice of a local paper I think it's safe to treat it like news reporting on the straightforward matter of California law. The complaint about the state of the law could conceivably go in reactions with the fact of the absent records in Officers, but I don't know if it's really necessary to break it up that much.

@SPECIFICO:, I'm sympathetic to that view, but as I noted the very same newspeople still decided that Clark's record was a matter of public interest.Factchecker_atyourservice 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Other comparisons: Murder of Shanda_Sharer Death of JonBenét Ramsey. btw, what were Clark's interests and hobbies? SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you add something about Clark's interest and hobbies that was removed? What is the salient comparison you are trying to make by raising those other 2 articles? Factchecker_atyourservice 20:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just showing the kind of stuff we sometimes say about victims of killings. I added Clark's hobbies, etc. after posting those. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

References

1. "Why will Stephon Clark's death change nothing? It's written into California law". Sacramento Bee. March 23, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
2. "Only the Legislature can save Californians from bad cops". Sacramento Bee. April 4, 2018.

Use of force legislative proposal

"Two California lawmakers on Tuesday introduced legislation to restrict when police officers in the state can use lethal force, requiring them to use such force only when there is no opportunity to use a non-lethal means. The bill would also make clear that the use of lethal force would not be justified in circumstances where an officer’s “gross negligence” contributed to a situation that made that level of force necessary. The bill, introduced at a press conference at California’s state capitol in Sacramento, comes amid continued protests in the city over the police shooting death of Stephon Clark in March."

References

1. Patterson, Brandon (April 4, 2018). "California Police Killed Stephon Clark. State Lawmakers Want to Make it Harder for History to Repeat Itself". Mother Jones. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Criminal record

Article currently states "Multiple leaders in the community stated that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to his death," but our article does not list any criminal record. Is this sentence needed? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Vestigial. Needs excision. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's a issue and a topic of concern and completely relevant to the events surrounding the shooting. The LA Times and the Sacramento Bee have discussed the matter multiple times. The Sacramento Bee gave the issue five paragraphs not too long ago. Clark's family and their attorney have issued public statements about just this very issue. It is an important facet pertaining the reactions surrounding the shooting and to exclude the fact that his record is part of the public debate would be doing our readers a disservice. Marteau (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is out of place if there is no description of a criminal record. While this point is still under discussion in BLPN we should remove the statement in question. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. It's received significant coverage from the mainstream media, and his family and attorney have been vocal about the issue. It is a significant aspect pertaining to the reactions surrounding the shooting. If readers really want to know more about it, there's a reference at the end of the sentence. Marteau (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The proper solution would be to flesh out the sentence. The facts of the matter is, several commentators (I'm thinking Fox News) have attempted to use his record to cast him as someone less than angel. The community response has been to say it's immaterial. It is the objection of editors to anything whatsoever being mentioned about him in any context other than absolutely positive that prevents adding context to the current sentence. Marteau (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marteau:> These strawman editor friends of yours... Do they have names or is this your friend Harvey speaking? It's been stated numerous times here and at BLP/N that if and when the conspiracy theory assertions become widespread and are covered in RS as conspiracy theories, then they should be identified and described in article text, according to however they're described in RS. But we're not going to cherrypick them ourselves and then weave OR around fringe or conspiracy garbage. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am NOT invoking any "conspiracy theory". I base my case for inclusion on the very real fact that Clark's family and attorney have come out publicly and vocally about the issue of how Fox et al's implication and aspersions done by bringing up Stephon's record on their show is improper and irrelevant. That they want the people to know that, hence, them standing in front of cameras and saying it rather vehemently. If it is important enough for them and their attorney to make public statements about it, and is important enough for the LA Times and the Sacramento Bee to give it coverage, it is not "fringe" or a "conspiracy theory". Marteau (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Marteau, I was not saying that you are promoting a conspiracy theory. I meant to say that the Fox folks are doing that and if it is widely reported then that false theory, along with the fact-based background and rebuttals, would become valid article content. In that event the content would not be in a "personal history" section, but would be in a "conspiracy theories" section. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurduring it for a moment, but if Fox were to have vomited up the most vile, ridiculous, patently offensive conspiracy theory the world has ever seen and linked it to Stephon's record, and Stephon's family, attorney and community were to go public and point out that his record has nothing to do with it, and the media were to report on that to a significant degree, weighted coverage in our article would still be warranted. It is not the truth or falsity of what Fox is saying that determines whether it should or should not receive coverage It is that it happened to begin with. That it is a 'thing' for want of a better word and has received significant media coverage. I am not advocating going into Fox et al's conspiracy theories. I am advocating saying some sources are smearing Clark based on his record, and his family and community are with indignation publicly calling bullshit on it. I have to figure I've made clear what I needed to make clear regarding my position as best I can, and further elucidation on my part will serve no purpose. Marteau (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—it is a myopic view of this article that maintains that the proper scope of this article is the span of time between the 9-1-1 call that summoned the police and the shooting of the unarmed individual. The insistence on that perspective is a contrivance. I have not seen any reference to a "conspiracy theory". The police shooting of Stephon Clark is problematic. At this moment editors at Misplaced Pages can only guess at what went wrong. No doubt there will be further developments in the investigation into that shooting. But the article we are writing is not focussed just on that relatively brief period of time between the 9-1-1 call and the shooting. This article would lack notability and it would not exist if it were only about that brief period of time. The criminal record matters because repeated instances of criminal activity increase the likelihood that one of those instances will result in a police shooting that is uncalled for, unjustified, and improper. Sources say for instance "The deputies in the helicopter can be heard saying the 'suspect' had broken a window on the house next door and was checking out another car in the driveway." Wouldn't repeated instances of tampering with other people's property increase the likelihood that one of those instances would result in a problematic outcome for the person committing those illegal acts? The perspective of this article obviously includes so much more than the restricted period of time from the 9-1-1 call to the shooting. You are arguing for BLP concerns but they are of minor importance in an article involving the social phenomenon which is the real focus of this article. Many topics assume a position of relevance in two-plus weeks of social protest. Those topics include not only the interface between police and civilians but also crime itself. You argue for the excising mention of Clark's criminal history but this is in conflict with the aims of explicating the larger picture. And this article would not exist if it were solely on the shooting itself. It is not surprising that in the larger picture there are multiple mentions of Clark's criminal history. It would be surprising if this article failed to mention that there are multiple instances of Clark engaging in criminal activity. Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting my views. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If I have misrepresented you please tell me what I said that constitutes a misrepresentation. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

how I feel. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you refer to a "conspiracy theory" put forth by Fox. I can't find it. Can you provide a link? I've googled it but come up empty-handed. Can you please post a link to an instance of of a conspiracy theory advanced by Fox about the shooting? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Marteau, there used to be a sentence about his criminal record. That sentence was removed pending the outcome of a discussion at WP:BLPN. You can comment there if you feel it should be included. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Closure of discussion at WP:BLPN

That discussion has now been closed. The closer comment was Reading through the discussions, both here and on the article's talk page, there does seem to be a weak consensus that some mention of the convictions should be made, but as it was not central to this case, they should not be covered in any great detail. … As for the exact wording, I think a fresh discussion into this may be best, if ultimately the decision is not to go with the previous line included in the article.  

So, consensus at BNPN was that we SHOULD have a general mention of his convictions. Since we were told the BLPN discussion would be a more authoritative reading of BLP policy than a local consensus at the talk page, and since that discussion approved mentioning it, it appears that "don’t mention his convictions at all" is no longer an option. The closer saw "the previous line included in the article" as one of the options, but exact wording was to be determined by discussion. They were probably referring to this, which had been in-and-out of the article and had more-or-less achieved consensus on this talk page in early April: Sacramento County court records show that Clark had a history of convictions for robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense. At the time of his death he was on probation for a 2014 robbery conviction. I am proposing that we add that to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support - I agree that it seems reasonable to add this sentence to the article. The next step after this would seem to be deciding what to add regarding the community leaders reaction to Clark's criminal record, in stating it shouldn't matter, and where to add this (biography or responses section) (scratched because a sentence regarding the community leaders is already in the biography section.)--DynaGirl (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - The closer finds that we can mention Mr. Clark's record. I think the "it shouldn't matter, it's irrelevant" bit should be removed. In its place we can put something minimal along the lines of the closer's finding. That does not mean we should list each item by name, maybe not calling them "convictions", just that we mention this record briefly, in summary, and not in irrelevant or undue detail irrelevant to the subject of this article. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the suggested wording is too detailed. We should list each item by name. That is a review of the criminal record. Criminal acts were repeatedly committed. Repeated criminal behavior is likely to eventually result in a negative outcome. The police record is not entirely irrelevant to the fatality even though the police record was unknown to the responding officers. In the narrative of the story of the shooting of Clark a sequence of criminal acts eventually results in a fatality. Relevance is obvious. This, despite the fact that the responding officers were unaware of previous run-ins with the law. We provide the reader with well-sourced material as found in good quality sources. They, readers, see things through their own lens. Different readers will focus on different facts. But if we contrive to omit facts we do a disservice to all readers. No one benefits from ignorance. Bus stop (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to ignore the words of the closer, it's only going to make a big mess of this simple discussion. The closer did not say to list everything by name. Full stop. Misrepresenting something so easily checked is just plain -- what's the word for it? --- pointless. Your disparagement of Mr. Clark in the above post is itself exactly the kind of SYNTH BLP-smear that every other editor at BLP/N rejects. Keep that up and you'll be asked to exit the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I disparaged anyone. Let me reiterate something I've said on various occasions. I harbor no negative sentiments regarding this issue whatsoever. Inclusion of this information is just to present a complete picture of the situation for the purposes of informing the reader. And it is obviously in keeping with the information included in articles by some although not all good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Your proposed sentence is well crafted and in keeping with the closer's finding of consensus. Marteau (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - required for NPOV, reflecting balance in external sources (which, per BALASP, is what decides relevance - not editor OR or opinion) as well as BLP issue vs. The officers involved. Proposed wording is short and concise and does not go into unneeded details.Icewhiz (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of the language that was previously in the article. It is neither too detailed nor lacking in informative value. Bus stop (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a good addition to the article which brings up information related to this incident and discussed in sources, without giving too much weight to prior convictions. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

USE Sorry, but you are all ignoring the BLPN discussion and close. This will need a formal RfC. SPECIFICO talk 07:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, it won't. The closer said we should not go into "great detail". Listing his convictions is not "great detail". Two sentences is not "great detail". Stop stonewalling. Marteau (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPACloser said RfC. SPECIFICO talk 07:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No, actually the closer said "a fresh discussion into this may be best" and that's what this is. And saying you are "stonewalling" is not a personal attack. It is an accurate description of your behavior. Our "fresh discussion" here does not seem to be aligned with your desires, so rather than accept it, you wish to throw a monkey wrench into the works and ditch it and find another venue. You're becoming borderline disruptive at this point. Marteau (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Specifico, you yourself rejected holding an RFC just 10 days ago in favor of using the BLP discussion to assess consensus. That has occurred, at your request. Consensus supports including some material about his convictions, following a discussion about what material to include. We are having that discussion. And now that the consensus has been determined via the method you yourself requested, you're demanding an RFC to reassess that consensus. How are we supposed to assume good faith on your part? It appears that you're just doing whatever you can to prevent this material from being added to the article, regardless of consensus or policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the close. I am not opposing it. Saying otherwise makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 08:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have asked the closer, on his talk page, if he would clarify his words and intent. My request is here Marteau (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I apologise if this was unclear.my intentions when referring to an RfC is where "local" consensus cannot be obtained - in this case, if a discussion here can't reach an useful conclusion, then move it over to an RfC. I didn't think an RfC here was automatically needed, especially due to the existing discussion on a high-traffic noticeboard. Mdann52 (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So now where are we? The same local group that was considerably rejected at the BLPN -- whose "unanimous agreement" here became only "weak consensus" at BLPN with more objective and informed discussion -- this group now repeats their former POV and claims it should be accepted without amendment. Well this is not the upshot from BLPN. So instead of an informal poll, which resolves nothing and does nothing to invite uninvolved review, we will need to go to RfC. For starters, all those who commented at BLPN should be notified and the RfC template will notify additional helpers. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Weak consensus is still a consensus, and this discussion here follows the spirit of the closure, so not sure what else you want me to say. As this is now at an separate RfC, I think my involvement here is done - I'm not going to follow this discussion any further, so please ping me if my input is needed. Just going to add - if I saw this discussion at this point while closing, it would be a WP:SNOW close. Mdann52 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Mdann52: The problem is that this is not an RfC. It's a kangaroo poll of the sort we see increasingly on difficult articles where folks jump to a poll before the issues have been clarified sufficiently for a binary choice to make any sense or have lasting significance. If this were an RfC, it would be announced to the larger community, from which additional uninvolved help would arise. It would also stay open for a month to ensure broad participation. And it would not be summarily declared "closed" by a motivated, involved editor rather than getting a formal close by a dispassionate editor. So your suggestion that an RfC was the likely path to resolution has been thwarted by this informal self-affirming poll, which again evinces an inability to parse the BLP issue that led to the BLPN thread -- a thread where much more informed and well-articulated concern was in evidence. Once again, I have not challenged the inclusion of some very limited reference to the victim's personal history. But the informal !votes here manifestly ignore the sensitive discussion at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A short, quick sequence of events: when there were seven !votes in "Support" with you being the only "Oppose" you then said you were going to "...launch an RfC if/when I have time within the next 24 hours if there's no progress on this" with no indication you would wait for a closure. That would have mooted this debate; would have effectively shut it down. You showed no intention of respecting the debate here unless it went your way, and promised to do what appears to me as WP:FORUMSHOP. The effect of launching a simultaneous RfC would be to moot this debate... to then complain about the actions of a "motivated, involved editor" allegedly subverting process appears to me to be a textbook case of projection. Marteau (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Can we put this to rest already? Gee fizz. GMG 11:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I think MelanieN's proposal is fine. -Darouet (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'all need to take account of the BLPN thread. Not just use it to revert to what the BLPN folks showed was at best a weak consensus for some limited inclusion. The current 2 sentences are already a limited inclusion in the article. I will launch an RfC if/when I have time within the next 24 hours if there's no progress on this. Repeating yourselves really adds nothing to the soup. Y'all should be able to understand that much. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Someone just convert this into an RFC. The existing !votes can just as well stand. The whole thing is getting a little silly. Christ  almighty, we could've written three or four GAs by now easy. I've  got a couple articles in the works if anyone is interested. GMG 16:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Are you saying you are OK with an RfC. I have still not had time to do it and meanwhile suffered a preemptive attack here, but an RfC can be started at any time, regardless of the excessive list of violations having been pushed back into the article. There's no rush about any of this. It would be better not to go the 30-day RfC route, but that seems to be the direction this is headed because the same old group has now insisted on its content being put back in without responding to the issues raised by uninvolved editors at BLPN - some of them even more pointedly than I have done. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing silly about this besides SPECIFICOs insistence that their interpretation is correct and everyone else's is not. An RfC is not indicated. If SPECIFICO thinks policy is being violated, or if the closer's opinion on concensus was wrong or violates policy, let them take it to WP:ANI or challenge the closure using the process as discussed at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, but creating a new RfC when there is nothing wrong with this discussion beyond their stubbornness not indicated. Letting them subvert the current process and WP:FORUMSHOP should not be tolerated. Marteau (talk)

I suggest you read up on the meaning of forum shopping. Why do you think BLPN exists? For forumshopping? You don't add to the credibility of your position with such statements. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The closer noted at WP:AN that he expected an RfC would be necessary to sort this out, so you seem to be barking up the wrong tree here. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You are intentionally leaving out important context and misrepresenting what the closer intended which, given that you just pinged him to this discussion, I find astounding. He made clear what his intent was when he clarified it with ...if a discussion here can't reach an useful conclusion, then move it over to an RfC. I didn't think an RfC here was automatically needed, especially due to the existing discussion on a high-traffic noticeboard. Marteau (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to put it in the article. We do NOT need an RFC. The issue has been thoroughly discussed at two different venues. The conclusion was to mention the convictions but "not cover them in any great detail". That is what this material does. I'll have more to say in a minute after I put the material in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I added it. Now I have this to say: User:SPECIFICO, this has got to STOP. You have tried for weeks, to the point of BLUDGEONing, to keep this information out of the article. You could not get agreement with your position here. Then someone took it to BLPN, where you contributed to that discussion more than 20 times by my count. Despite your best efforts to claim the information would constitute a BLP violation, the majority of people at that board (which is specifically about evaluating BLP issuues) did not agree. An uninvolved closer said to include the information. And yet when someone added conviction information to the article, citing the BLPN close, you reverted it! It’s time for you to drop the stick, accept the verdict of the community, and move on. To persist any further in this would likely be seen as disruptive. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to this nonsense on MelanieN's personal talk page where such stoof belongs. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Convicted Pimp

this is the second time i have created a section on this topic, please dont change the section name again. the blpn close prescribed a brief mention of his convictions. Stephon plead, instead of standing trial for pimping. pimp has a specific meaning, i suggest we use that instead of a prostitution related offense which leaves the reader with several options of how the crime transpired, did Stephon hire someone, or was he himself a prostitute? The sources clearly describe the police report of the crime. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

We just got done with a process which determined the exact verbiage of the sentence in question, and what we have now should stand as it is. Changing the verbiage from what we have now would require another finding of consensus, and I personally would be opposed to any change in the status quo. Furthermore, the closer of an RfC for this issue determined consensus to be that mention of his record was acceptable, but too much detail was to be avoided... the current detail is enough for the reader to get the point, and if our description for some reason piques their interest and they just have to know more they can go to the provided source. Marteau (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• 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