Talk:Killing of Walter Scott/Archive 1

Location
The current coordinates point to the intersection of Craig and Remount. Reading the NYT article and viewing the video, and noting that Google Maps shows a muffler shop on the southwest corner, it's fairly clear the actual location was much closer to 32.8983°N, -80.0145°W, about 400 straight-line feet from the current coords. But I think it would be original research to use that location at this point, and I'm only writing this as FYI. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should be able to invoke WP:CALC to make the adjustments to the numbers. Just put hidden text in the article to explain why you're making the minor adjustments to the coordinates. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CALC is about arithmetic calculations, this is reasoning requiring unsourced assumptions. There is no arithmetic calculation that could get us to that location. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability
How does this not fail per WP:NOTNEWS, namely "enduring notability"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Due to the circumstances, this is a notable incident. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's notable on a couple points. It ties into to a recent trend that is notable, it is receiving a farily large amount of attention from reliable sources, and similar events (take your pick of recent shootings) seem to pass the notability test. Given that this is similar in character (or even more salacious for being on video), the most comparable events would suggest it remains notable. I.e. similar shootings/deaths of similar tye have been notable, so it's reasonable to think this one will be too. I think there's enough reason to think it will be notable for some time to give it the benefit of the doubt and see how it plays out. Personally I think NOTNEWS is more applicable in retrospect once the dust has settled, than in trying to determine ahead of time what will be notable based on a current event. That's a little too much into crystal ball territory.12.11.127.253 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a directly videotaped demonstration, the clearest ever made, of issues that have been the topic of major national debate even long before the Ferguson unrest. It is extremely significant news that will have an impact for decades into the future, because it shows that fears of unjustified shootings and police coverups have a very real basis. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If no one (or at least a majority of news sources) talk about this in about, say, 3-7 days, then the issue of failing WP:NOTNEWS may be brought up again, possibly (and likely) in an AfD. Until then, let's see just how notable this becomes, whether it becomes an issue that lasts for a few days (which would fail WP:NOTNEWS) or a few months/years (which would pass). My opinion, tbh, could go either way. Pyrotle  {{{sup|T}} / C}  00:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that we know there will be a very notable criminal trial months down the line, I don't think a deep lull in news coverage in 3-7 days would get this through AfD. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that there's gonna be coverage soon about how GoFundMe refused to put up a page for Slager's defense, and the debate over whether or not IndieGoGo should have done so. I'm also pretty confident we can expect interpretation of and debate over the video in different news sources over the next few days.  I can only assume that there will be journalistic commentary about how this video distinguishes this shooting from others, as some folks I know who were more "on the fence" regarding Michael Brown and Treyvon Martin are taking a very clear stance regarding Walter Scott.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

bais information pertaining to the video.
The information within this article is bais. It fails to state a struggle for the Taser. The struggle for the Taser is clearly seen at the start of the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The video itself is a primary source. We need info published in reliable secondary sources. Got any? WWGB (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The information pertaining to the video is bais and constitutes as slander and defamation. None of the sources used is reliable. Continued bais information against Mr. scott will result is a civil suit.76.111.172.54 (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I will gather the multiple sources pertaining to the struggle over the taser and re-edit this page. Also i will gather the references to multiple sources contradicting claims made within this article.76.111.172.54 (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * the first citation referencing the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/south-carolina-officer-is-charged-with-murder-in-black-mans-death.html clearly states a struggle for the Taser as seen in the begining of the video. Yet my attempts to edit the bias information pertaining to the article is clearly blocked for unjustified reasons. I used the same information within the article to edit the totally bais line referencing this article.


 * Edited references to statements made by Chris Stewart, a lawyer for Mr. Scott’s family. the edited line asserts that the claims about the injuries sustained by Scott were made by Chris Stewart, and not an official autopsy report.76.111.172.54 (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * edited the line asserting false claims about the death of Scott without referencing the official autopsy report. When an autopsy report states how many times the victim was struck by rounds fired by Slager, then and only then can that information be reliably used as a basis of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * removed language speculating the distance at which Scott was shot. These articles are supposed to be based in facts. Referencing editorial articles based on opinion is justifiably wrong.76.111.172.54 (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not so. We report what reliable sources say about a subject. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * However, you removed edits by another user regarding what you felt was an opinion, yet defend the opinion of an editoral author speculating the distance at which Slager fired shots at Scott - hypocritical to say the least. I feel the community needs to scrutinize your edits more thoroughly. Your judgement seems to be guided by emotions.76.111.172.54 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, my edits references the struggle for the taser have been changed, the source articles clearly states a struggle for the taser as witnessed by the same person who captured the incident on video. Those editing this article while guided by emotions need to be restricted. I will change them back now.
 * Please don't. I will place a warning on your page related to the number of reverts. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Paragragh ten of the cited article clearly states a struggle and that the Taser was knocked to the ground before Mr. Scott attempted to flee for a second time. You are reading these sources with bias eyes. I will make the edit. Your threats of an edit war are unjustified. I am merely editing out opinion in an attempt to keep the article factual. I will not be bullied with threats of a ban. You are the only one guilty of an edit war. You are guided by emotions. You edit articles at a whim without regard for the talk page, yet you deny others the same access to the source. You are a tyrant and a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The struggle is described in the article: Santana said that after a struggle, in which Slager deployed his Taser, Scott was "just trying to get away" from the Taser. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please identify in the cited reference for that line of text where it refers to the comments of Santana. I'm not seeing it, please enlighten me.76.111.172.54 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Santana, 23, also told NBC on Thursday that he didn’t see Scott grab the officer’s Taser — an account that doesn’t match what the officer told dispatchers about what led to the shooting following a traffic stop. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Video
Seems like this article really needs the video-- or at least a screenshot of it. Anyone know how to write good fair use rationales? Darmokand (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A screenshot can be easily taken, and fair use rationale for screenshots of video are quite prevalent. I will take a look. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. We'll see if the fair use rationale sticks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are two videos in External links. I don't know whether policy allows them in the body, or how that would be done. Would be nice to know, but I'm lazy as usual. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * On second thought, we used three YooToob videos in the body here, and that has stood for about two months without objection. Any reason that couldn't be done with one of these videos? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and dunnit and we'll see if it flies. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some odd games going on with the video now. After an edit by User:Illegitimate Barrister I found the link pointing to some site "listenonrepeat" which loops YouTube videos... I get a bad feeling about that. I'd rather link to the original YouTube video. Also, before that the link by User:Mandruss pointed to a version that was lower quality, with a big "World of Toys" logo on it, so I didn't like that either. When I first added the raw video link I carefully picked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6-jFQPu-yo because it was the first relevant link I could find for Walter Scott on YouTube, and (as I think is generally the case for a first news report) it was higher quality than all the hangers-on that followed it. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Like you I didn't see the point in the listenonrepeat thing as I think most people can figure out how to start it again if they want to, and Illegitimate Barrister's edit was without an edit summary. I'm too blind to see the quality difference, but I'll take your word for it and I'm fine with your edit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Chiming in: I agree original video is by far the best link to have, especially considering the video was realased by family's attorney. Also I would like to point out that it does make sense to have a link to the video (not sure if any will disagree) because the video itself is a notable aspect of this incident - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why I changed the link to "ListenOnRepeat" is because it skips and advertisements and removes any distracting "suggested videos", comments, and adverts from the page. It was just done to ease viewing for the viewer, that's all. Sorry I didn't state this in the edit summary. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 00:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Autopsy expectations
Can we expect for this to be released to the public? It would be interesting to see if the document matches the Scott family's lawyer's summary of (of 8 shots fired) 3 hitting the back (1 piercing heart) 1 ear, 1 glute, 3 misses. I think this deserves a more prominent feature, everywhere I look everyone is saying the guy was shot 8 times in the back, instead of 8 fired, 5 hitting, 3 in back.

Consider this exchange on the Daily Show last night:
 * Jon Stewart: "The video even from today of a black man 50 years old running and being shot" ..
 * Tavis Smiley: .. "The ending point is 8 bullets in your back lying face down." .. "He shot him like a coward in the back 8 times" .. "You're so afraid of a black man after you shoot him 8 times in the back" .. "He's dead and you still handcuff him"

I believe we should cover situations like this in the article, where celebrities with Smiley are giving inflated accounts of the event beyond even what the Scott family lawyer states (3 shots hitting back, not 8).

Not to mention the idea that the guy is dead while being cuffed, also seems like a false narrative. Getting shot in the heart doesn't kill you instantaneously. The guy was clearly still moving in the vid. Plus even if not, it is probably procedure to cuff in case someone is playing possum (not shot at all).

Another good detail to include would be the span of time that the 8 shots lasted. I know when I heard 8 shots I imagined it being dragged out and methodical, but the video clearly has it being a very quick burst. Odds are the cop didn't even know if any hit until he emptied his clip. Although we do not know, best guess: first 3 missed, shot 4 hit buttox, shots 5-7 hit back as guy dropped, shot 8 hit ear as drop continued. How long did this all take, can we time it? Round up and say "under X seconds" perhaps? 64.228.91.104 (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For rhetorical purposes it's no less cowardly to shoot someone in the back whether you happen to miss that shot or not, and we should note such editorials (without taking their POV as Wikipedia's) without feeling a need to 'correct' them. But I think the thick chewy center of the controversy is really that an officer in the department is allowed to use lethal force when he has "probable cause" that "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."  The Times cites a Supreme Court decision for this.  Now if Scott had taken Slager's taser, would the "theft" of the "weapon" indicate such a risk?  Or more importantly, could it be argued that Slager might have thought it posed such a risk?  Of course, you can say that he planted the taser, but... the NYT doesn't say they saw a taser fall, they say they saw an object fall.  So this might not be a slam dunk case.  Of course, we shouldn't OR all this stuff into the article, but we probably can and should highlight that "significant threat" quote and the links above so that the careful reader can see around the bend here. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Leave your emotions out of it. That is the exact issue I am having with the majority of the information contained within this article - emotional and speculative.76.111.172.54 (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically you're suggesting a separate "Rumor control" section for the benefit of those who are too lazy to read a fairly short Shooting section. Otherwise, where would this clarification go? In the Shooting section that they're too lazy to read? Such a technique would be a departure that I'm not at all certain the Wikipedia community is ready for. If people haven't learned by now that the media get many things wrong at first, it's time they did. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Information is still surfacing, including dashboard camera footage. Slager has new counsel and I am sure they'll present a strong defense. We need to keep this article focused on the known facts and avoid jumping to conclusions one way or another. I also warn all of us here not to use this page as a forum. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
I respectfully ask again not to use this page as a discussion forum. Also note that this article is under discretionary sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN. For those editors that have bot been warned about these sanctions, I will place a notice in their talk pages. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a move completely in the wrong direction. The "forum postings" you're talking about are just people going over some of the perspectives of the case, with the intent of writing a better article.  It is infinitely more productive for editors to try to understand the various points of view that are out there, so that they can include and balance them in the text, then to waste ten times as much time and space arguing about Wikipedia policy as a proxy for personal opinions they dare not state.  In this case, you're not even suggesting we follow WP:BLP, but invoking a Rube Goldberg route of enforcement by admins via a 2007 arbitration case!  I don't think that writing a few sentences explaining why people may think what they do is actually a bad thing here. Wnt (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am just trying to preempt the type of problems some of us experienced when editing the Shooting of Michael Brown article. Let's focus on the content rather than on our interpretations of the case. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  13:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Struggle wording
This text is not sourced: Then Scott struggled with Slager, the Taser was knocked to the ground, and Scott made a second attempt to flee. It was added several times by IP editor. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not add that content without a reference that clearly supports it. If you don't know how to add a reference, simply drop a link here and someone else will do it if it's warranted. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it wasn't simply removed. WP:BLP revert exemptions still apply to this article. --Neil N  talk to me 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From reading many sources, what seems to have transpired was (1) Scott flees from car with Slager in pursuit (2) Slager brings down Scott with Taser, and stands over him (3) Scott knocks Taser from Slager's hands (4) Scott runs off again (5) Slager brings him down with shots. The issue is trying to find sufficient reliable sources to tie all that together in the article. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A source from above. We attribute the description to Santana. --Neil N  talk to me 04:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is ABC's sequential report. Will it help you? http://abcnews.go.com/US/walter-scott-shooting-breaking-witness-video-frame-frame/story?id=30159871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That sequence is detailed, but if used we will need to carefully WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to the ABC journalists. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the article bais and references editorial articles rather than reliable sources of facts.
This entire article and its citations to references need to be thoroughly scrutinized. I have found many false claims asserted within this article. Some are flat out lies about information contained within the cited references. Some link to bias editorials claiming those references as factual sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to cease arm-waving about flaws in the article less than five days after the event. This is a work-in-progress, like any Wikipedia article. Ok? Calm down, please. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No kidding, I see little issue with the citations at first blush. Furthermore the article is already out of date and needs expansion and additional sources. Perhaps IP could enlighten us with some specific issues? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When the article contains false and misleading information regarding the incident, and the references used in citation are to editorals about the incident, which mix facts with opinions, then those sources need to be thoroughly scrutinized. Editors to wikipedia should hold themselves to higher standards. This claim is more than just some hand-waving argument. I clearly found many lines offering opinions rather than facts, and they are marked within my edits, and some are posted to the talk page under various sections.76.111.172.54 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IP it would be helpful for discussions sake if you could just identify the issues you are referring too. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Request edit 2
This quote - "In North Charleston, incidents of a white offer shooting a black man happen about twice a week.[10]" is inaccurate according to the reference it cites.

"The latest shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer comes this time from North Charleston, South Carolina. On average, the story of a white officer shooting a black man emerges about twice a week (according to USA Today, some ninety-six African-Americans were fatally shot by police every year from 2006 to 2012)."

This is nationwide, not in North Charleston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.123.2 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Deleted that BS - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad. I misinterpreted the source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Including shift in public perception of recording everything
I have read several articles in which members of the NAACP are encouraging minorities to record everything: every interaction with police and authority. Should this be including in the article?

Twolegalsystems (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the comments are in the context of this event. Can you point to the references?--Nowa (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

People have been encouraging everyone to record police interactions for a while now. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Other officer
The other officer seen in the video has been identified. Not sure if any of this source can be used, but posting here for editors' comments

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not relevant imo. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please fix victim's name
Victim is being referred to in the article as "Walter Lamer Scott", correct spelling is "Walter Lamar Scott"...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-victim-walter-scott-police-officer-unexpected-connection/story?id=30156112 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press source cites his name as Walter Lamer Scott, which is why he is being referred to as such in the article. Many other sources, such as BBC News, also cite him as Lamer. We'll have to see if it's other sources running with the AP's error or if it's the correct spelling. Rhydic (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it remains an issue perhaps we could proceed with L. instead - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Request edit 1
Please add the following wording

"An investigation of the video by ABC News shows that contrary to the officer's claims, the taser was being used by the officer and that the officer later retrieved and dropped a black object next to the victim's body."

Here is the report http://abcnews.go.com/US/walter-scott-shooting-breaking-witness-video-frame-frame/story?id=30159871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey what about the edit I requested? Someone comes along stuffing theirs under mine without a new section and you ignore my request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of this info is covered in Shooting_of_Walter_Scott where would you propose it go? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and we also say prominently in the lead, "Slager was charged with murder after a video surfaced contradicting his earlier police report." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity terms, again
Most major news sources are using white and black, not Caucasian and African American, and it is not our job to look beyond that. The archives of Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown are full of discussion about this, a consensus was reached for white and black, that consensus has stood for many months, nothing has changed since Michael Brown, and there is no relevant difference in this case. Let us resolve not to go through all that again for this article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why state races at all?

 * Why exactly are we specifying the races of those involved? To me, that is a bit biased in itself, since it implies that the respective ethnicities of the two are meaningful. Is it? –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. It goes to the heart of the national and even global debate. You only need to look as far as today's New York Times editorial. There is little question the races are the most relevant information in the article (or second most relevant, after cop vs citizen). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not so certain. That article is an opinion piece, which is itself a POV, and it doesn't even discuss any racial undertones or racism involved in the incident. In my opinion, I think that it may be best to not imply that there are racial undertones to this case until some evidence that there actually are any is presented, such was evidence found during the investigation and thereafter. (Even then, I'd question whether it's neutral and encyclopedic to state the races of those involved, even if race was an influencing factor in the crime.) As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia shouldn't be relying on opinion pieces and conjectures as reason to claim that an incident was racially charged. Although I wouldn't be surprised that this one was, to automatically assume as much is not the way to go. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The race thing is not limited to opinion pieces by any means. Have you read much of the coverage of this case, the Michael Brown case, and a half-dozen or so other white-cop-shoots-black-man cases over the past 12-18 months? Given that coverage, it would be POV to insist on excluding their races. How many of the articles Wikipedia articles on these cases exclude the races? None that I'm aware of. Apparently it's relevant, or there's a massive community incompetence problem that seriously needs investigating. In any case, the consensus is crystal clear, and consensus is king around here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I question whether the frequency of such white-cop-shoots-black-man reports are based on legitimate evidence that racial motivations existed, or whether it is just conjecturing and sensationalist reporting because such reports are more likely to draw headlines. The consensus here is that of the insistence of the races of those involved as some implication that they are meaningful to the case, which is shown among the various sources pertaining to this and similar cases. There is not consensus, however, on whether this implication is valid or substantiated (and thus whether the races of the individuals should be so blatantly stated), since there is still disagreement over whether many of the recent cases—whether it be Michael Brown or even Trayvon Martin or this—were racially motivated. Yes, these incidents have sparked debate over racism, racial profiling, and racial tensions in the United States, that much is obvious (and arguably beneficial). But what of evidence that race was a motivating factor in the case itself? That is far less clear, if not altogether nonexistent, especially in a case five days old where no formal investigation has even been made. But so be it, if you think there is consensus on this, then I'll leave it be, even though I don't think the consensus is as widespread as you think. In any case, I encourage anyone reading this to join in and voice their opinions on this, either for or against my concerns. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Race is used by the media to sell stories. Your right, if the race of the officer/victim were not disclosed there would be not story. To go further, if the races were reversed the media would not make a story out of it. For example, several weeks ago a Philadelphia cop (white) was on his way home from work and stopped at a game store to buy his nine year old son a birthday present. He was gunned down by two black brothers as they attempted to rob the store. I never saw that story on GMA for several days in a row. Why because blacks killing whites or other blacks doesn't sell news. We all need to get real and realize that the media with their biased focus perpetuates this devide between our races and they do it for profit.≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B11C:4528:75D4:24BA:82EF:5116 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you're right or wrong, we are not going to decide to suspend Wikipedia editing principles at the article level, so you're in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. If you wish to discuss this further, please do so in a larger venue such as Village pump (policy). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Race is clearly a factor in the news coverage, but we must not get swept up into painting the entire thing as a racial event. I mean, without evidence or even allegation that Slager shot Scott because he was a racist, we shouldn't make the article read like it was.  (But I don't think we do)  I think that something like this would indeed be a major news story no matter what the races of cop and shooter, simply because of that video of someone being shot in the back by a cop.  On the other hand, that's not what happened, which is what keeps this line of inquiry alive.  We're a neutral party in this, which means that we'll need to make a place for a lot of different notions before this is done. Wnt (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the race needs to be taken out completely. To me, it has no bearing in this case. It seems as if it emphasized here as if to separate opinions according to race lines. It would be similar if a black man robbed a liquor store, it would be inappropriate to label him as a black man 3 times in the story as if to bring out another meaning. I say take it out. Mattscards (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please point out where it is emphasized here. I see two references for each party, one word each time. Four words in the entire article related to race. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Get real, man. Their races might as well be underlined. It is clear there is an injustice here. Emphasizing their race goes against what is taught in school and what I teach to my children. If you don't see this in this story, you need to stop posting, sir. Mattscards (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's make this real simple. If necessary, I will start an RfC on this question. That would be the best way to establish how the Wikipedia community really feels about this, if the 100% consistency in the body of similar articles isn't enough to convince some of us. How that be? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You can start anything you want to. I am stating the obvious. You, obviously are protecting this issue as if it is personal. For some reason, you seem very strong to want to point out this was a white police officer who shot a black man. To me, you want to make this a race issue. There is no other reason to point out this in a redundant manner in this story. I say take it out. I stand by this issue. Mattscards (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This clearly has nothing to do with race. This was an officer involved shooting, simple as that. To even imply that it was racial motivated is a severe lack of judge. Let's not fan the flames.76.111.172.54 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the concern here—which I believe I initiated, though I didn't intend for such hostilities—is whether the mention of the races of those involved imply racial motivation. For example, the opening of the article clearly specifies the victim (technically not officially the "victim" yet, but let's just call him that) as "black", and the officer as "white". Why is this necessary? Couldn't this be discernibly gleaned from the citations and sources, or from the image attached in the article? That was my point: our specification of the parties' races may be interpreted or construed as implying racial motivation. I concur that there is no, or virtually no, evidence that any racial motivation is involved in this case, and moreover that it is unclear at this time, especially since there is a lack of any thorough investigation thus far. My concern is that our specification of the respective races of the victim and the officer connote underlying racial implications where there are none. I admit that this may just be my own bias, though, which is why I dropped the subject above and awaited further comments. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am protecting Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:DUE. What policy are you citing? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If your "100% consistency" and "reliable sources" is the media, I can assure you Wikipedia's objective is NOT along these lines, as I think they have a much higher standard than to sell news stories. And, lets make no mistake, you are protecting your own views and using wording from Wikipedia to try to substantiate your posts. I am still calling it what it is. Why is this so personal with you Mandruss? Why are you protecting a Wikipedia article that points out multiple times the races of the people involved in a manner that the reader will get a view of a stereotypical event that happens? It is not in Wikipedia's policies to have a biased article, which is what this is with the redundant references to their races, whether you like it or not. Mattscards (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not make this personal, please. I have encountered Mandruss in other articles and I can assure you that he is not only impartial, but an excellent editor as well. Please WP:AGF. - [[User:Cwobeel|Cwobeel ]] (talk)  15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From my observations, I can say that Mandruss does appear to be rather objective and impartial in his claims. With all due respect, Mattscards, I believe you're being a bit presumptive of Mandruss. It's obvious that this is an important issue to you, and I appreciate what appears to be your support for my position, but there's no need to accuse Mandruss of anything. He disagrees with you, just as he disagrees with me, but we can reach some common understanding if only we work together in a civil manner. Also, as a friendly bit of advice, I recommend using colons before your posts to structure them as a response, so that it's easier to track and see that a conversation is occurring. You can edit the source of this section and see how I used three colons here in this response to indent it three times, as a response to Cwobeel. It's your choice, of course, but it would probably help us all better follow this discussion, yourself included. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm done here, but in the future please limit discussion to content and policy, not editors' motives. That's fundamental. Have a great day. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of room between whitewashing the article, and presenting this as a hate crime. It is a plain fact that one of the individuals was white, and the other was black.  That statement alone does not mean anything else about either person (and to assume anything simply because of their race is racist), but it is a fact.  If it makes users uncomfortable, that's their problem.  Simply stating their race is not the same as accusing either of them of anything, but if that's the way a user can read it, that's their WP:OR.
 * Also, Mattscards, WP:WHATITEACHMYCHILDREN isn't a policy or guideline (which is what determines article content) and is a sign you're the one taking things personally here. Wikipedia summarizes mainstream journalistic sources, and those sources do mention the races of the individuals involved.  If you think that pointing out that the races of the individuals involved automatically turns this into a discussion about race in America, and you're afraid that this might cause a much-needed (off-site) discussion about race in America, that's your problem.  Your accusations towards Mandruss are nothing but hypocritical personal attacks, and I recommend you find an article you can edit without whitewashing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't call it racist per se, though it's certainly presumptive and prejudicial. That is my concern, though. Regardless of whether there is any real implication of an underlying racial motive by specifying the respective races of each involved party, many may interpret it as such, just as I have and just as a few others have. This connotation may not be implied, and may simply be the reader's own biases, but I think it's still worth noting, anyway. Like I said above, though, why is it necessary to specify the races of those involved? Couldn't this be discernibly gleaned from the citations and sources, or from the image shown the article? That was my point: our specification of the parties' races may be interpreted or construed as implying racial motivation.


 * I understand that is how it is typically presented in most news articles, but should these news articles really be the basis off which we structure our article? We are an encyclopedia, which attempts to maintain objectivity and neutrality; many editorials and journalist articles have different aims, however similar they may be at times. I believe that just because the race of each individual is specified in these articles, that doesn't mean we have to in ours, as well. Whereas their specification of race may be to convey something more, our duty is to be as objective as possible. But anyway, that was the issue I originally wished to discuss: whether we should omit this racial specification to avoid misunderstanding. So far, the consensus is claimed to be "no, do not omit", though by this discussion alone it's clear that there is far less agreement than was previously thought. At least, that's my view. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the body of Neutral point of view: Given that race has been a common and ongoing thread throughout the coverage in reliable sources of this case and the similar cases, I don't see how it can possibly be disproportionate to state the races. If anything, it's disproportionate, in the opposite direction, to only state the races, to omit any (attributed) discussion of the race issue. It's simply not our mission to second-guess the body of reliable sources on things like this. Regardless, this whole discussion is much larger than this article, and I'd suggest a larger venue such as Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. There are experts on this subject there. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it violates any NPOV policies, Mandruss, and in fact I'm concerned that the specification of race is transferring the POV of the articles this article cites onto the article itself. For example, this sentence in the lead, in particular, is what I consider to be a problem: Why is it necessary to specify "black man" or "white" in this sentence? The information is so extraneous, in fact, that Scott's race is designated to its own interrupter and couched between two commas. Why couldn't the dependent clause in the first sentence be moved to the second sentence, so that the first two sentences read something like:  In my opinion, this improves both the flow and the clarity of the lead while omitting the fact that Scott is black or Slager is white, since this information could be easily gathered by the images and information in the article and the sources cited therein. This would also prevent any misunderstanding or assumed implications, real or imaginary, which may occur from the reader. The mention of their races later on in the article is appropriate since it is detailed in a section dedicated to a short biography of those involved.


 * Admittedly, I probably should have just been bold and edited the lead anyway, thus (hopefully) avoiding all this conflict. I thought it would be better to discuss it first, however, since I wasn't sure whether it was the best thing to do. Having said that, do you think the above edit would be appropriate to make? If so, I can do so now, which should resolve this issue. If you don't think it's appropriate, however, feel free to explain why. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I promise you that said boldness would not have avoided this discussion. As far as I can see, my argument is the only one in this entire thread that is based in policy as opposed to personal judgment and reasoning. If you still disagree, there's nothing more I can add, and I can only beg you, once again, to take it up at WP:NPOVN. I would certainly defer to any consensus reached there, as I hope all of us would. Policy is all that matters here, whether we agree with it or not, and this is not a matter for local consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * During my writing of a post on WP:NPOVN, I noticed that this appears to be a prevailing precedent on Wikipedia:


 * In the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article, Martin is described as "a 17-year-old African American high school student" whereas Zimmerman is described as "a 28-year-old mixed-race Hispanic man" with a note detailing his ethnicity
 * In the Shooting of John Crawford III article, Crawford is described as "a 22-year-old African-American man", though the races of the officers are not specified anywhere in the article
 * In the Shooting of Tamir Rice article, Rice is described as "a 12-year-old African American boy", though the races of the officers are not specified anywhere in the article
 * In the Shooting of Akai Gurley article, Gurley is described as "a 28-year-old African-American man", though the race of the officer was not explicitly specified anywhere in the article
 * In the Shooting of Michael Brown article, Brown is described as "an 18-year-old black man" whereas Wilson is described as "a white Ferguson police officer"


 * I could find more, but you get the point. Obviously, this precedent has already been set and there is consensus in that respect, and not only among the sources (though I don't really think the latter consensus is meaningful to this discussion). In your opinion, do you believe I should pursue this issue by arguing to change this precedent? Or no? It seems rather futile at this point, seeing as it's pretty deeply-ingrained in Wikipedia. I see the reason for it, too, though I wouldn't personally write it that way. Maybe it's just my biases. What do you think? Should I go ahead and challenge this precedent on WP:NPOVN or just drop it? You've been reasonable throughout this discussion, although we disagree. You were also the first to respond to my concerns. So I'll leave it up to you, though I suspect I already know your answer. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Of the articles you cited, I was involved only with the Michael Brown one. I recall a lot of race-related RS coverage of the Martin case, so policy would dictate at least mentioning his race. I don't know enough of the specific RS coverage of the other cases to offer an opinion, but I assume there were enough competent editors at each article to get that right. If you're less willing to assume that, you could do your own investigation of the coverage and challenge individual articles per this policy. But you have no chance of changing the policy; it's too fundamental. If you're talking about selling some interpretation of the policy that would support omission of the races in cases like this, I just can't imagine what that interpretation would be. Without knowing what rationale or argument you might come up with, I couldn't give you an opinion as to whether one would be worth pursuing. I can only make a general observation about inertia. Such a significant change would require a consensus in a debate with wide community exposure, and that's always very difficult to attain. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My concern isn't with omitting race specifications wholesale, though that is certainly what I made it appear to be at first (my fault). I believe specifying the races of those involved is just normal documentation; however, I'm concerned that the instances in which race is mentioned is problematic. In particular, I was concerned about racial specification in the lead, which I believe gives the impression that the races involved are meaningful, which in turn violates WP:NPOV because it superimposes racial undertones which may otherwise not be there. For example, it is still unclear, if not discredited altogether, that George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin or that race was a factor at any point. It was widely discussed, but from my understanding there is no evidence that race was a factor in Zimmerman's decision. As for the case of Michael Brown, it is unclear whether Wilson was racially motivated, though there isn't really any evidence of it of which I am aware. Despite this, their races are specified in the lead in a way which, I believe, connotes that their races are meaningful in the context of the shooting and what occurred. It doesn't seem so much policy that this is the case so much as it is a precedent, since this isn't really covered in any policy of which I'm aware (though I am admittedly new to Wikipedia). I'm interested in changing a precedent which I believe violated WP:NPOV, not so much a change in any policies.


 * My rationale is as I stated above, but I'll elaborate: the specification of the individuals' races outside of the biography section, without any justification for doing so, appears to me to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it connotes that race is meaningful in the context. In other words, the context in which the races of those involved are specified gives the impression that their races are important to note in that context. I understand that Wikipedia wishes to document all important or notable information, but if it is already documented in the biography section of those involved within the article, why is it necessary to specify it in the lead, or anywhere else where it is not crucial to the sentence or context? That's my argument, and I'm wondering whether this is worthwhile to present to WP:NPOVN, or at least worthwhile enough to start arguing for a change on all those articles as well. This change could also apply to other, similar cases, such as the Shooting of Amadou Diallo wherein it is specified that he was an "immigrant from Guinea". Basically, this information is inessential to the sentence and lead, and could be misconstrued as implying something greater, so it should be removed. Does that adequately explain my position? If so, what is your opinion on it? –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that doesn't seem entirely devoid of merit to me, and it's probably worth raising at WP:NPOVN if you articulate it as well as you have above. To others I would stress that this doesn't mean you can make this change now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I am not whitewashing anything. If you want to resolve a deeper rooted issue, a Wikipedia article is not the place. By the way Ian, this article does a lot more than "simply state their race". I stand by what I said. Mattscards (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does it do more than state their races? The only mentions of race are:
 * "Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by Michael Slager, a white North Charleston police officer." - Intro, which summarizes the body.
 * "Walter Lamer Scott,[3] a 50-year-old black man..." - In body.
 * "Michael Thomas Slager, a 33-year-old white man..." - In body.
 * There's no use of the words "race," "racial," "ethnicity," "skin," "color," "hate" (as in 'hate crime'), "ancestry," or anything else along those lines.
 * It does not make any conclusions about their race, nor does it state that race was a factor. It just states their race.  If you want to claim that it does more, you need to present evidence, otherwise it only looks like you're imagining things out of bias.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's redundant, and unnecessary. Mattscards (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's effectively one real mention for each individual and a summary of those mentionings. Your last post is at least as redundant.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with others on this view. It is like talking to a wall. I am not going to split the linguistic atom with you so you can protect your view. Mattscards (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing that you removed the claim that nothing in my last post was true, because without presenting any evidence that there is any additional material about race in the article, that would have been a tendentious lie.
 * The only coverage of race in the article is four words total (and really just a repetition of a pair of words due to summarizing) -- out of about 770 -- about half a percent of the article. That pair of words is in almost every source cited.  Saying that that one-repeated pair is redundant and unnecessary is like saying that the word "shooting" is unnecessary.  If those words are undue weight, you need to show that more than 99.5% of relevant sources do not touch on the topic at all.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss on using 'black and white' for descriptors, and support their usage in the lead, but not so sure it is needed again in their mini bios. On another note, I also think "unarmed" should be in the lead as well, as pertaining to Scott. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I will go along with that. Mention their races in the lead but to maybe take it out of the bios. Mattscards (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is inconsistent with WP:LEDE. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since black men make up a disproportionately large portion of convicts, and police and corrections officers are disproportionately not black, race is going to be an enduring issue here whether you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definition of "disproportionate". They're proportionate relative to crimes committed, but not to their percentage of the general population. I do agree that I don't really like mentioning the races in the lead, as there is no evidence race was a factor in this, and honestly most of the reporting I've seen so far doesn't seem to emphasize race at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Why state race? It is part of what happened here. America is getting to be the victim of the American fairy tale: in the end the good guys shoot the bad guys and everybody lives happily ever after. This is all the result of the bombardment of tv-series that tell this story ever since television started to be an important source of entertainment in American homes. I expect you object; a sensible person knows the difference between entertainment and real life. But if you think, action series don’t influence you like that, you must also think propaganda does not work, or Sesame Street will not play a role in education. What this policeman did was influenced by the idea that he, a policemen, is a good guy, and a fleeing coloured man is a bad guy. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, but these judgments must be based in Wikipedia policy, and I don't see a shred of it in your comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of personal opinions being thrown around here without any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please remember this is not a forum where you can expound on your personal views. Looking at coverage from high-quality international sources it seems that race is prominently mentioned in all of them. ,, --Neil N  talk to me 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Neil, I agree, however it is overstated as if to incite a racial divide. It is stated in the lead and it is repeated in the bios. The bio even states Walter Scott's name, then describes him as a 33 BLACK male, and then has his picture right next to it. You can clearly see his race in the picture. Even though I think most all agree that this officer deserved what he is getting, and race very well may be an issue here in this case, it is not been proven that the officer shot this man because he we black, as the undertone of the article suggests. Mattscards (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary of the body and the undertone suggests nothing of the sort. Pictures complement text and are not a substitute for it. As shown above, sources explicitly and prominently mention race - that's how we determine WP:WEIGHT. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 15:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Neil you can color your picture with any crayon you want to use but the fact is by emphasizing race in multiple paragraphs is redundant and the overall quality of this article is horrible and will not be taken serious by the average reader.
 * Currently, 'multiple' means 'two'. It can hardly be any less, with one occurence in the introduction and one in the body. As for the 'overall quality of this article is horrible', you probably need to come up with some specifics in order to be taken seriously. Otherwise one could get the impression that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Lklundin (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually it can be less than two. The lead summarizes the body, but that doesn't mean a race mentioned in the bio section has to be in the lead, too. That's what Nøkkenbuer is going to raise at WP:NPOVN (I think), and we'll see how it goes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With hopefully better arguments than the "what is taught in school and what I teach to my children" posted by another editor. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nøkkenbuer's better argument is above, beginning with "My concern isn't". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;
 * I believe it will be. Yes, I will be posting on WP:NPOVN, but I'm trying to ensure my post is thorough and detailed. I just hope it isn't too verbose. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually Neil if you go back and read....my main concern is that it is mentioned in multiple 0 laces unnecessarily. As far as the wisecracking about what schools AND what I teach my children is based on, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia which is a great source for information at all schools, however the way this article  is written is one of the reason I would get laughed at for citing Wikipedia as my source of information for any argument. Mattscards (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had a dollar for every editor concerned that "Wikipedia/I will get laughed at" if a particular article doesn't have their changes.... The way this article is written is by following sources. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion opened here: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Confrontation
Immediately prior to the start of the video there was a secondary confrontation which doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the article. What information do we have on it? All that I've seen is that they were having some sort of heated dispute. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Car make, model, and year
Many references refer to Walter's car as a "Mercedes Benz". Do any go into more detail? How old was the car? What shape was it in (apart from alleged broken tail light)? There seems to be some inherent POV on the part of the news organizations by contrasting the image of a luxury "Mercedes" with failure to pay child support.--Nowa (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It was a 1990 Mercedes Also in LA Times--Nowa (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes that he bought from a neighbor and was headed to an auto parts store when he was stopped, his brother Rodney Scott said." Source: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2015/04/large_crowd_attends_funeral_fo.htmAnd i agree with Nowa that some media sources are using the make of the car a way of pushing POV. The car, although a luxury brand, was approximately 25 years old. On the dashcam video you can hear Scott telling Slager that he just bought the car and was getting the paperwork together. The trip to the auto parts store, where Scott pulled in to the parking lot, makes sense in this context. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added the information and source to the article Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Background & NPOV
The entire background section seems less than notable. This article is on the shooting of a person, its arrest and investigation, trial if any, and verdict if any. I don't see how the victim's general life, from the mundane (romantic life) to scandalous (child support problems) does anything to support this article. On the contrary, it seems to violate NPOV. Doubly so, since we say nothing about the background of the arrested man and alleged perpetrator. Let's stay away from "blame the victim" bias. Just because facts are in the newspaper doesn't mean they're notable for this article; instead, they should go in biography articles for the victim and suspect. Runner1928 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Casprings (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is part of the coverage by the reliable sources, and so it should be a part of our article. I do not think Walter Scott is in any way to blame, but we need to understand that the American system of debtor's prisons for people who can't pay fines or child support has consequences, one of which is that people are exposed to more frequent arrest and therefore more risk of police abuse. Wnt (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the moment I've restored part of this section, but I think even this (which I didn't put back yet) is relevant: "The other charges were a 1987 accusation of assault and battery, a conviction in 1991 for possession of a bludgeon, and a conviction in 2008 for driving under a suspended license and driving with an open container of alcohol in the car." Remember, BLP goes both ways, and as it is possible that Slager recognized this person and pulled over his car for a reason, we need to know what could have been in his mind.  The weight of evidence against the cop isn't so weak that we need to improve on it by removing inconvenient facts! Wnt (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not here to speculate. Removed portion of your edit that was highly speculative. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "we need to know what could have been in his mind" sounds like instructions to a jury, not to Wikipedia editors. Mind your goals, please. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is part of the coverage by the reliable sources, and so it should be a part of our article. No. Policy says that important things included should be sourced. It does not say that something should be included merely because it is sourced. The media regularly report details that are not suitable for Wikipedia articles, partly because they have a different mission and partly just to fill space. RS is properly the first step in a filtering process that includes a relevance test. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speculation about states of mind by media sources should not be allowed. If and when there is a trial, the speculations of witnesses regarding states of mind may be quoted as part of the trial reportage. Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott's employment as background
"Scott was working as a warehouse forklift operator at the time of his death." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/walter-scott-funeral-police-shooting.html I would like to see this added to the background, but i have no time right now to do so. I am posting this here as a marker, and i would appreciate anyone else adding it. There has been a lot of speculation about why a man who owed back child support was driving a Mercedes car (it was a 25 year old car) and questions about whether he was a regular member of society. People have asked what he did between leaving the Coast Guard and the date he was shot. I think that giving his form of employment may be useful information to those who read the article. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

✅ -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Broken taillight?
I've been concerned about this language since viewing the traffic stop video, where, at 0:40, Slager clearly says, "The reason I stopped you is your brake light's out." The reason that the difference is significant is as follows. There is no broken taillight lens visible in the dashcam video, so the use of "broken taillight" would tend to imply that Slager invented probable cause for the stop.

Slager may have written "broken taillight" in his report, but we have no evidence of that. We have many sources saying broken taillight, but we also have this local newspaper saying "broken brake light". In my opinion, that plus the video should be enough to say "broken brake light" and hope not many readers read that as "broken taillight lens". I wish we did, but I don't think we have enough to clarify it further as "brake light out" or something similar, removing the word "broken" from the description.

Unacceptable original research and cherry-picking, or good editing? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see nothing untoward regarding the brake light. I believe Slager says: "The reason for the stop is your third brake light's out." Here is a source that agrees: . And sure enough, the dashcam recording first shows Scott using his (yellow) left turn signal (no wonder with the police right behind him), and then the Mercedes comes to a full stop activating at least the left brake light (the right one is not visible at the time), while the mandatory 3rd brake light is not activated. Lklundin (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ... except that several sources are incorrectly reporting the cause for the stop as having to do with a 'broken taillight' as opposed to the 'third brake light is out'. (In addition to the fact that it is a bit much to be shot after being pulled over for a defective third brake light - in the parking lot of an auto parts store of all places.) I guess other sources (and the dashcam video) can be quoted to fix the first problem. Lklundin (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I missed the word "third" because I wasn't familiar with the term "third brake light". So it refers to the brake light inside the rear window. Thus the words "broken taillight" are even more incorrect than I thought; whatever that light is, it's clearly not a taillight. I'm not sure, but you and I may be in agreement here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lklundin, though I believe that the sources which incorrectly report it was a taillight should be cited in a Note at the end of the first sentence in the lead, stating that it has been incorrectly reported as a broken taillight. That way, we cover our bases by accurately reporting what the sources say while disputing the claim by citing the appropriate evidence. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can say, explicitly, that it was incorrectly reported unless reliable sources say it was incorrectly reported. Implying same by stating something different in Wikipedia's voice is permissible. Incorrect reporting is very common, and I've never known editors to feel the need to note it in an article (when it's clear that it's incorrect). At least that's my current understanding of this very complicated editing business. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm not sure then. I'd await further commentary from others. I probably know less than you about these sort of policies, so I may not be very helpful here. I find it strange, though, that the Daily Mail source provided above insisted on using the term "tail light" despite how it clearly stated that Slager said "third brake light" in the video. Although this would appear to be original research, I think the edit should be made, since the video is the primary source and (in my opinion) takes precedence over any secondary sources. I just hate to say that this is original research, though, since that would mean that it should not be included. I'm worried this may constitute as much, even though it's correct. I guess it's best to wait until there's more consensus. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, primary sources don't take precedence. Per WP:SECONDARY, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Personally, I don't find the issue problematic. To the average reader, the difference between a tail light and a brake light in this situation is insignificant, just as the definition of the term "broken" includes "disconnected" and "not functioning". Slager stopped Scott because a rear light was dysfunctional. Any finer description is not that important. WWGB (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct about primary vs secondary. I propose to use the one secondary source as a reference, using the video only as a way to determine which of conflicting secondary sources is correct. The only question in my mind is whether or not one demonstrably correct source trumps a hundred demonstrably incorrect ones, and that is the reason for this discussion. As I indicated above, I think the difference is quite significant, considering that the current language tends to better support clearly false rumors propagated by rags such as the Daily Mail. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I stated that it was my opinion in order to avoid any conflict with policy, since I am ignorant on the specifications of which take precedence over others (and my searching yielded nothing). Perhaps we should simply specify "[dysfunctional/broken] rear light" to avoid this altogether? Or is it best to keep to the sources, even though they may be incorrect? –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an even better source, stating "It was a third brake light behind the back window of the 1990 Mercedes 300E that wasn’t working, the video showed." If the question in my previous comment can be resolved in my favor, we can use the far clearer language from that source. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit made per agreement in the following subsection, and per BRD. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Specific proposed text (taillight)
For the Shooting section, change to lead to be determined later. Citing this source. From: To:  &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  12:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend linking the third brake light for those of us who don't know what it is, since it appears to be a pretty specific (and not very well-known) light on most vehicles. I'm a bit more for "broken" rather than "nonfunctioning" since the former is more easily understandable, but either is fine. As for the dependent clause at the end, I'd recommend removing it so long as you link the third brake light, since that would suffice as an explanation of what it is. Thus:Fun fact: "third brake light" is technically called the "center high mount stop lamp (CHMSL)". ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, just pipe to Automotive lighting, no need to give a further explanation. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate and unreferenced statement in lede
The lede says "The video showed him shooting Scott several times in the back while Scott was fleeing." Certainly it appears to show him firing 8 time AT Scott while the man was running away, but it does not distinguish between which shots might have been aimed at his back, his head, his legs, or in the air. According to a relative cited further down in the article, three shots hit him in the back (with one of them hitting his heart), one shot hit his ear, while another hit his buttock, leaving three which did not hit him at all. A rephrasing is needed to harmonize this section with the later reports. And a video is not its own reference. We need a reliable source describing what the video shows. 73.208.148.93 (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed "in the back" from the lede. Details about the shots and how many hit Scott is in the text article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see it was restored. I have no problems with leaving that text there. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The line could use more clarification that it means "in the back" as in "toward the back side of Scott," not "specifically in Scott's torso." Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am changing it to "from behind". Using primary sources is not disallowed per WP:PRIMARY, it's specific interpretations that are disallowed. Per the video, it's unambiguous that he was shot from behind. Transcendence (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Second, that's exactly what needed to be done. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually just considered changing it to 'in the back' before I saw this. I think that once autopsy/RS state where Scott was shot it could be changed. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

a bit of OR, but its somewhat self-evident that the shots were actually "in the back" (torso) since they were fairly immediately disabling/fatal, and a headshot would certainly have been notable and been talked about. However, I think this is a bit pedantic, as I think "in the back" in general is ambiguous enough to cover whatever the situation was, regardless of where the shots were aimed, or hit. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture used in the article
Why is there a picture of him from years ago in the Coast Guard? How long ago was that? He was 50 years old when he died. Do we have a more up to date picture we can use?  D r e a m Focus  08:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I assume that was the choice because it is a U.S. government image, which are generally in the public domain. More recent photos are likely to come with copyright entanglements that few of us feel inclined to deal with. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since a free image is available, we are somewhat prohibited from jumping through the normal NFCC hoops, although one could stretch Non-free_content #1 through some reverse logic to that the older pic does not meet the "same purpose" and is therefore still open to NFCC. I think this is quite a bit different than the discussion that occurred in the Michael Brown article, because we know for sure how out of date this photo is. In any case, I'm not sure there is an obvious suitable choice from the not-free images floating aroud Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for change of title
To "Murder of Walter Scott" instead of Shooting. It's clear what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wike969 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We edit Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not according to our own feelings and opinions as to what is "clear" or not. More specific to your request, we don't call a killing a murder until there is a conviction of murder in a criminal trial. See WP:BLPCRIME, Shooting of Michael Brown, and Murder of Laci Peterson. Request denied. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Kind of agree, I think at least the title should read Shooting Death, or killing or something along those lines. This isn't the appropriate place to discuss though (village pump?) as it is consistent with other similar artcles. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The title is clean, clear, and accurate. Walter Scott was shot. Most of the articles about the incident also seem to use "shooting"; Walker Scott shooting, SC shooting, shooting of black man by police, police shooting victim, ect. They don't seem to use "murder" as their article title; I do see "killing" and "gunned down" on occasion, but not "murder". Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a pending murder charge. When that charge is resolved we would have potential reason to change the article name, but per others WP:COMMONNAME seems to lead us to shooting. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss  &#9742;, I agree with you but that was a little too much WP:BITE. Myopia123 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Middle name
I'd go with "Lamer" since "Walter Lamer Scott" google search returns over a million hits, "Walter Lamar Scott" just over 10,000. Furthermore, the Charleston, SC Post and Courier uses Lamer   as does the Associated Press. 

Also, the state law enforcement division's affidavit against the officer who shot Scott uses "Lamer". I think this is the most definite, authoritative proof there is about his middle name. Arbor to SJ (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Then why would he name three of his children LAMAR? WWGB (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to say this is evidence enough, but it's technically possible (and sometimes occurs) that he named his children a variation of his own (middle) name. I personally believe it's Lamar, but until we have verified proof of his middle name being Lamar with an "a" (if only the obituary said his middle name!), I guess this will be a running issue. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First, the number at the top of Google Search is only a calculated estimate based on the known frequencies of the component words, and is unreliable for this purpose. I have seen that number change by two orders of magnitude within a couple of hours, from over a million to about 15,000. Secondly, it includes every little forum, blog, and personal page on the web, so it wouldn't be a good representation of reliable sources even if it were more accurate. A search of Google News is better on both counts. The initial hit count is also an estimate, but if you click through the pages it changes to an actual, true hit count when you approach the end. That is the best way I know to evaluate RS coverage of a name.


 * GN currently shows 120 113 63 true hits for "walter lamar scott" and 150  134 102 true hits for "walter lamer scott"; Lamer has 56%  54% 62% of the total. The affidavit notwithstanding, I think that's too close to call at this point, and we should show only the middle initial for now. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  07:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Updated numbers. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  09:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)  Updated numbers. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

LA Times has Lamar. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-walter-scott-funeral-20150411-story.html ABC News has Lamar. http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-police-murder-charges-shows-officer-shooting/story?id=30137525 Latin Post has Lamar. http://www.latinpost.com/articles/47592/20150413/walter-scott-shooting-south-carolina-police-officer-wont-face-the-death-penalty-for-fatally-shooting-unarmed-black-man.htm Local paper of record has Lamar. http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/5548213-north-charleston-police-shooting-profile-of-the-victim/ 2nd local paper of record has Lamar. http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/09/lansing-msu-join-police-body-camera-debate/25550297/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Is there any reason those 5 Lamars should be given more weight than 134 Lamers? Granted, that's probably not 134 different news organizations, but your information doesn't change the numbers given above, or the resulting conclusion. Please sign your posts at the end, using ~ (four tilde characters). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We're supposed to use RELIABLE sources. These are the reliable sources.


 * Where is it written that those are the only reliable sources? The New York Times, widely regarded as one of the most reliable sources in the world, currently shows Lamer in eight articles and Lamar in zero. We try hard not to cherry-pick the sources that support our personal views and opinions. Please sign your posts at the end, using ~ (four tilde characters). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pick the one used by the majority of reliable sources (excluding AP duplication etc), but include a footnote saying that some sources have used the other spelling. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If anyone feels energetic enough to do such a survey, excluding AP duplication etc, they have my blessing for the result. I don't, but I wouldn't object to Lamer with a footnote for Lamar, based on the numbers above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)