Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose/Archive 1

Dragged vs. Not Dragged
So far, there's no conclusive position as to whether DuBose was dragging or not dragging Tensing with his car. The prosecuting attorney says he was not dragged; Tensing's attorney says he was. Referencing an article which repeats Deters's non-NPOV statement that he was not dragged, while claiming Deters's statement to be conclusive evidence, is not NPOV. Either both positions should be stated, or neither, especially when one of the positions is from an attorney representing one side of the case. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree.- MrX 15:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a source for the assertion that Tensing was not dragged.- MrX 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we cleanup the statement "the video did not show Tensing being dragged"? Tensing's position moved considerably down the street, which is evidenced by Tensing's position relative to landmarks in the video (pothole/mark on road, car in front of DuBose's car, fence). Although the video does not explicitly show Tensing "being" dragged (a likely impossible perspective from Tensing's body camera), it evidences the fact that Tensing's body was "moved" significantly up the road during the encounter. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We can only follow sources, and trust experts who have reviewed the video. You can't view the video yourself and make your own conclusions. This is explained in our original research policy.- MrX 16:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is the expert who has reviewed the video and arrived at the conclusion that Tensing was not dragged? Not trying to be argumentative here, but, in this case, the "expert" is a reporter. I have no intention of inserting my personal view of the video here, but I do think that if we are including a reporter's perspective that he was not dragged, we should include one indicating that he was dragged. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reporter was almost certainly basing that claim on the statements of the prosecutor. I would expect that the prosecutor would be considered an expert in criminal matters, but ultimately a jury will decide.- MrX 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are considering the prosecuting attorney an expert, then we should consider the defense attorney an expert as well, and we should include a reference in which a reporter quotes the defense attorney's position that Tensing was indeed dragged (there are plenty). An even more NPOV position might be to state that the attorneys conflict as to their interpretations, and that expert analysis of the video (by someone whose expertise lies in video analysis), has yet to surface. Why do I belabor this "dragged" point? Because I think it's central to maintaining the NPOV of the article. Thanks for (repeatedly) engaging me on this issue and clarifying your position :) - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The not dragged statement should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and we can attribute it to "prosecutors and media have viewed the video" Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we should also include a "dragged" statement, which we can attribute to "defense attorney and media have viewed the video". As stated above, I think a better solution would be to state both sides, being sure to mention that each side is presented by the attorney for that side, and then state that expert analysis of the video ("expert" as in video analysis expert, not "expert" as in the expertise of a lawyer representing his client's position) has simply not yet been made public. No doubt multiple legitimate experts will ultimately be weighing in with their analyses of the video, at which time we should of course include those analyses. Until then, we should ignore interpretations by involved attorneys, reporters, or ourselves, and maintain NPOV. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need the defense attorney's POV, we already have Tensings direct statement. In any case, where is the defense statement about what the video shows (as opposed to the defense's assertions as to what happened in Tensing's own recollection.) In a police report filed by Tensing after the incident, he stated that he was dragged by DuBose's vehicle, forcing him to fire his weapon. Tensing's statement was corroborated by another officer on the scene, who stated he witnessed Tensing being dragged by DuBose's vehicle.[3] Tensing was wearing a body-mounted video camera which he activated before the traffic stop. On July 29, authorities released the video,[3] which according to prosecutors did not show Tensing being draggedGaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point about Tensing's defense repeating Tensing's own recollection vs. Tensing's defense's position on the video evidence! Here's an AP story detailing the defense statement specifically about what the video shows: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29666233/cincinnati-cop-pleads-not-guilty-to-murder-in-traffic-stop . Technically, the defense is implying that there are multiple videos depicting the scene, so characterizing it as "the video" is imperfect here (although the defense also addresses the initial video). BTW, I think that if we are including the prosecuting attorney's statement, we should include a statement from the defense attorney. I think this should happen in addition to including Tensing's direct statement. Obviously, it's unfair that Dubose, being deceased, can't counter Tensing's position with his own statement, but I do think it's fair to match an obviously biased statement from one attorney with an obviously biased statement from the opposing attorney. As it stands now, we have a highly biased "Reactions" section that includes zero reactions in favor of Tensing's position. Again, thanks for your attention to detail here. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Relevant policies
I've expanded the section containing the Cincinnati police policy into a larger section which also contains the fleeing felon rule, which is likely to be used in Tensing's defense. This helps to make the article more adherent to NPOV. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's original research. It can't be added to the article unless a source specifically discusses it in context with this shooting.- MrX 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on this for me; I'm not certain I understand which part is original research. Per original research, "original research" refers to material for which no reliable, published sources exist. Fleeing felon rule is referenced to a US Supreme Court ruling, which should be a suitable reference. For the record, I omitted the part in my comment above about about how it's "likely to be used in Tensing's defense". The insertion of this rule is intended to move the article towards a more NPOV position. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH is the applicable rule: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You're not allowed to connect something (fleeing felon rule) with this article without a source that clearly makes that connection.- MrX 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the justification for including the Cincinnati police policy, but not the US Supreme Court policy? Again, not trying to be argumentative here. I just don't understand why one is acceptable but the other is not. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the source for the University of Cincinnati Police Department procedure is about the subject (the shooting). The Justia document that you added is not a source that discusses the shooting at all.- MrX 17:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, understood, thanks. If I can find a good source that references the fleeing felon rule, should we include it? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you find a source that discusses the fleeing felon rule relative to this shooting then it can be included in the article. Generally though, I would advise against including a link to the Justia document.- MrX 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying. If we can find an acceptable source, we can skip the Justia document, reference the source, and include a link to Fleeing felon rule.- 8.39.228.13 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove district attorney statement from Reactions section
Should the district attorney statement be removed from the Reactions section? Or moved elsewhere? Isn't that the attorney who is going to be prosecuting Tensing? Statements from either sides' attorneys probably don't qualify as "reactions" here. TBH the "some members of the media" bit in the following paragraph is a bit of a weasel word phrase too, but including a statement from one side's attorney and not the other is even worse. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The prosecutor's statements could be moved under legal proceedings, I suppose. "some members of the media" should be specifically attributed if the source(s) make such an attribution. If not, then some members of the media would be appropriate.- MrX 00:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good call. This article is really shaping up. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia becoming my newspaper of record?
I think it's worth mentioning that I turned to Wikipedia in the hope of finding the kind of impartial analysis the NY Times once gave me. I wasn't disappointed. Great job so far, everyone. Profhum (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that's definitely worth mentioning, WP:NOTFORUM notwithstanding. Actually I think that's the first time I've seen that on an article talk page. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments .- MrX 12:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I'm a New York Times refugee myself. Now I only read them for food, art, or travel stories. In recent years (and especially since Dean Baquet took over for Jill Abramson), it seems like their editorial mission is too focused around twisting the news to fan the flames of racial and cultural disharmony. I'm all for including highly varied (and even deeply biased) opinion pieces in newspapers, but news articles should be kept dry and factual. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Races
I added black and white to the lead and the bios, consistent with the fairly decisive results of this RfC. I see nothing different in this story that would warrant different handling of races.

My position in that RfC was to include the races in the bios (actually that was never in question) and omit them in the lead. That position failed, the community has spoken, and I feel that community consensus should apply here unless someone can show what is different here. There is nothing to be gained by re-hashing this, at great length, at every similar article. I doubt another RfC would give a different result, and I hope one can be avoided.

The first of what will no doubt be many drive-by removals occurred four hours after I added the races. I'm seeking a speedy local consensus in support of the treatment shown in this revision, so we can refer to that consensus in reverts of removals. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Mandruss. In the last year or two we've added quite a few of what appears to be or may be racially motivated deaths, and the race is included in the lead of those articles. Gandydancer (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur. This is consistent with our broader convention for these types of article and the reporting by our sources.- MrX 12:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can provide a dissenting opinion. I don't think that exact RfC is strictly applicable here, or should be further hardened into policy in this article. An RfC from one article is not sufficient justification for enacting similar changes to another article, even if both articles cover similar topics. The races should be mentioned in the bios, because race is biographical information. Other than that, unless there is good evidence that this was a racially motivated death (is there any evidence of such whatsoever?), it's simply not relevant. I support your position in that RfC to include the races in the bios, and omit them in the lede. I should also note that many of our sources are for-profit media outlets who have no qualms about distorting stories to make them fit their most profitable narrative agenda, which, in this era, is black/white racial conflict (the coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting is an excellent example). We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than our sources. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You say that that RfC result shouldn't be "hardened into policy", and I certainly agree, but you give no explanation of how this story is different. I can tell you that I will run another RfC if we can't reach a local consensus here, and I promise you that the result would be the same and it would be a monumental waste of time. But so far, you're the only one voicing that position, so it may not come to that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm uncertain of your position. Disregarding the previous RfC, would you again vote to include the races in the bios here and omit them in the lede? Are you tempering your belief based on the previous results, and in the interest of not getting bogged down in minutiae? We should look closely at the results of the previous RfC. It's not a great example of consensus; the winning option won by plurality, not majority. In fact, had the vote been split between two options, those who voted for option #1 and option #2 would likely have voted for option #4, not #3 (I should note that you honestly acknowledged the informal tone of the vote when you characterized it as "admittedly arbitrary"). Also, the option for #4 was added after many people had already voted. Finally, based on the evidence we have, there has been zero indication of any racial undertones in this shooting. In fact, from watching the video, my personal take on Tensing's demeanor is that he was extremely professional and respectful, with zero overt or implied racial discrimination whatsoever; certainly not enough to warrant multiple mentions of the races of the involved parties. I respect that you want to build this article, and not get drawn into an arduous discussion on a single point, but I don't see enough consensus in that previous RfC to apply the same concept here. If such an RfC is repeated here, or in future articles, I would like to recommend that the voting options are reduced to 2, and that all available voting options are stated at the beginning of the vote. Thanks for your careful consideration of this small but significant point :) - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you watched the Scott traffic stop dashcam video? Slager couldn't be more professional, respectful, even friendly. I'd say even more so than Tensing. So I think that voids that argument. You've yet to make an argument that wasn't made in the RfC. In the RfC, I did do some weighted scoring, but that wasn't how it was decided, nor was that my intent. The closer stated, "So consensus and policy support the status quo." [emphasis mine]. S/he didn't even hedge or equivocate. In other words, that result was dictated by WP:DUE and that policy applies just as much here as there. As for your first question, I would now !vote differently, because I follow Wikipedia policy and the RfC shows that the community believes that's the policy position. Until someone shows me convincing evidence to the contrary, that's my new position. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Any opposition to opening an RfC here, for this article? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, uh ... I did say "monumental waste of time". Does that count as opposition? But hey, no one has to get consensus to run an RfC. You just run it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. I'm going to take a closer look at WP:DUE and try to decide if an RfC is truly justified here, and if this is a good example of undue weight, beyond my own personal viewpoint/bias. I might wait to see if a broader black/white wording issue arises, and save the RfC for that. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Page DuBose
At the page DuBose should there perhaps be a section heading reading "Incidents" with Shooting of Samuel DuBose under it? Bus stop (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since that page has a section for people with that surname, I'd just add an entry for Samuel Vincent DuBose. I just added a redirect for that, so no need to pipe. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess I could have suggested using Walter Lamar Scott on Walter Scott (disambiguation) as an example. Worth a look anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting twist
There's an interesting aspect of this shooting involving the two officer's who backed Tensing's account. First, the officer's accounts have been largely discredited. Now, The Guardian is reporting that the officer's have been implicated in another suspicious death of a black man. I would like to get other editor's thoughts on whether we should include this content, and to what extent.- MrX 23:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Got a link for either? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, here's the link for the Guardian. The other reporting is widespread.- MrX 23:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding that specific article, I would wait to see how the coverage of it develops. To my understanding, these two other officers assisted in restraining someone who was having a psychotic episode. Another officer tased him, and he died of a heart attack three days later. A lawsuit was filed, and it was settled for $638K. If something comes out about the officers giving false testimony in that case, it should be added to the article. Regarding the position that their accounts have been "largely" discredited, from where is that sourced? --8.39.228.13 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - MrX 00:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Re Brinson, it looks like the only ones alleging any wrongdoing on the part of the officers are Brinson's family. As you know, anyone can sue anyone and allege anything. I don't think it's worth mentioning (and it already is, as of now). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing those sources justifying us characterizing the officer's accounts as "largely discredited": Deters shouldn't be quoted in this regard; his job is to prosecute. Existence of an internal investigation does not constitute discrediting. The Guardian's wording is "appear to have corroborated a false account", and Mother Jones says "seemingly false". Note how they're cushioning those statements with "appear to have" and "seemingly". However, I do see that NYT has mentioned the previous lawsuit around the death of the prisoner: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/us/bail-set-at-1-million-for-ex-university-of-cincinnati-officer-charged-with-murder.html . Note the phrasing in the NYT article: they say that Kidd was "named as a defendant", and then that he was "dropped as a defendant by the end of the case". HuffPo simply says "named in a lawsuit". I think we avoid the vague "named in a lawsuit" wording. What exactly does that mean anyway? Literally that your name appeared in a lawsuit? Or that you were "named" as a defendant or plaintiff? Or a witness? Anyway, let's replace the HuffPo reference with the NYT one; it's more detailed and NYT is more credible anyway. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We can leave it out unless there are new developments that suggest it's an important aspect of the shooting and investigation.- MrX 12:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not clear whether that refers to Brinson. Anyway, let's give a chance to weigh in on that before removing it, since he added it. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  13:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is notable for this reason: if these officers were at fault in this incident, prior conduct is relevant. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose using the NYT source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on notability of being at fault. But were they at fault? Was the lawsuit settled without admission of guilt or wrongdoing? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I support use of NYT source for mentioning the lawsuit as well because NYT is WP:RS and there are a few sentences related to that lawsuit. The NYT WP:RS thinks it is relevant.  I don't think it matters whether we think it is relevant or not.  David Tornheim (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your take on the HuffPo "named in a lawsuit" wording? Anyone here know more about the usage of that phrase? I'd prefer to follow NYT's style of stating Kidd was "named as a defendant" then "dropped as a defendant". If you look at the original lawsuit opinion, you can see in the footnote on page 1 that Weibel is also a defendant in that case. Why did NYT avoid naming him too? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing July 30
I am editing this page to address a biased slant, remove information that needs further investigation and seems to have only been added to support the original author's bias (the backgrounds of the two parties involved), and refine the "Reactions" category, which contains information that did not belong in that category. 2602:306:3893:7900:51BD:15F:A86B:F8BA (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help on the article. As noted in my edit summary, I did have an issue with removing the 'Background' section which are conventional for these types of articles. I also had to remove the content sourced to the Daily Kos which is an unreliable source.- MrX 14:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears even more biased now. For example, the "Reactions" section now only includes a reaction from the prosecuting attorney, and the defense attorney's position has been removed. Why not include both, for NPOV?- 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the Daily Kos reference has been re-inserted. Any objections to removing that, and adding the statement from the defense attorney to balance the statement from the prosecuting attorney? Historically, these police shooting episodes tend to acquire an immediate pro-victim bias, which gets softened as more evidence is released. I'd rather the WIkipedia article were balanced from the start. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I object. Speculation about what will happen in the future is irrelevant.  Your theories about what " normally " happens (you use the word "historically") is irrelevant.  I do not object to balancing statements from each attorney for WP:NPOV if WP:RS includes them both. What WP:RS are your referring to?  David Tornheim (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC) (revised David Tornheim (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC) responding to quotation issue below.)
 * Please refrain from misquoting me. I never used the word "normally" here, and you falsely attribute it to me by enclosing it in double quotes, and then referring to the usage of that word as my "theories". This isn't even a strawman or the use of weasel words; it's blatant misquoting. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the quotation marks from the word "normally" to "historically" which you did use. When you used the word "historically" you did clearly mean that is what normally happens.  Your statement "Historically, these police shooting episodes tend to acquire an immediate pro-victim bias, which gets softened as more evidence is released" is indeed your theory, which you have not backed by WP:RS.  So it is irrelevant here.  I believe that the reason you assert this theory is because you believe in this particular case that the media and RS is following this "historical" "pro-victim bias" and, therefore, Wikipedia article should be revised not to reflect what the mainstream media and WP:RS reports, but instead to reflect some higher level of expertise and understanding of the subject, which you believe you have.  That's not how Wikipedia works.  We report what WP:RS says and do not do WP:OR nor insert our own views in place of WP:RS. ---David Tornheim (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adjusting the quotes. To clarify again, I did not mean "normally", I meant "historically". I see your point about one of the definitions of "historically" being similar to the definition of "normally", but misquoting people based on your interpretation of what they meant, even if your interpretation is 100% correct, is very bad form. If you want an example of, historically, the media pushing a pro-victim bias in a similar event, I can provide one for you. Moving forward, I agree that we are here to report on what is happening, but we don't need to mimic the manner in which it is being reported. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Attempted to flee
The CNN article used as a source for this entry makes it clear that DuBose attempted to flee. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/21/us/cincinnati-police-shooting/ - Tensing fired a single shot, hitting the driver in the head as he attempted to flee.) Someone keeps editing this very specific language to things such as "DuBose pulls the door closed again and starts the car. " and "allegedly began driving away". This is disingenuous, and no different to saying that the officer involved "pulled his finger toward his body which was resisted by the trigger on a weapon" instead of saying that he shot DuBose. The text in the article should reflect the facts of the event in a neutral tone, which 'attempted to flee' conveys. In short, please stop rewording 'attempted to flee' to less specific language that creates ambiguity around the facts of the incident.121.45.105.236 (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The CNN article is based on allegations. Allegations (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not use words like "disingenuous" to refer to editors, even unnamed editors, on this talk page. See WP:AGF.
 * "Starts the car" is both neutral and significant. There is little question that it is objectively true.
 * "Attempts to flee", in contrast, requires guessing DuBose's intent.
 * Creating ambiguity is what we do. It is NOT our job to condemn or exonerate the accused.
 * Tensing does not claim that the gun went off by accident, so your comparison is a false equivalence.
 * Yes, you can find more than one source that say something like "attempts to flee". You can also find many that do not.
 * You say, The CNN article used as a source for this entry makes it clear that DuBose attempted to flee. At the same time, you disregard the fact that the first source used in the body section, from The New York Times, says he starts the car but does not say he attempts to flee. That is called cherry-picking, choosing the source that agrees with you and asserting it as the "truth". Am I doing the same thing with the NYT source? No, because that is not a primary basis for my argument.
 * In any case, the fact that content doesn't match its current citations does not automatically mean that the content is wrong. It can also mean that the citations need work. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All that said, I'm not opposed to the current language in the lead, "allegedly attempted to flee". I think that is an accurate and neutral summary. And I don't feel that the body text, which is at a detail level, necessarily has to use the same phrase. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Concerning the lede, it presently reads: "Tensing shot DuBose when DuBose failed to step out of his vehicle and allegedly attempted to flee." I would change that sentence to read: "Tensing shot DuBose when DuBose started his car and began to drive off." Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That would have to be "allegedly began to drive off", but I'd be ok with that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Mandruss—why would it be necessary to say "allegedly began to drive off"? No source that I have seen would cast doubt on an assertion that he started the car's engine, put the car into gear, and then caused the vehicle to move in a forward direction. Such a sequence of events is unquestioned in sources therefore we should be permitted to make an equivalent assertion without the addition of "allegedly". Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we're suffering from discussion fragmentation. I assumed you were aware of the discussion in . &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, after seeing all those sources, it is not all that clear. I have made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, we'll see how it flies. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Other than the CNN RS cited above, what other RS are we talking about?--for both those who support the "attempted flee" vs. not including it. I admittedly know the video footage better than the WP:RS (and I know my interpretation of the video footage is not important), so please fill me in on the WP:RS you all are referring to.  I do agree that "attempting to flee" is assigning motive to the driver's actions.  He could have equally started the car because he was bored talking to the officer, was in a hurry to get home, etc., so "attempting to flee" is a judgement and speculative, and sounds more like a legal allegation, than a fact, just like saying that Tensing murdered DuBose is currently an allegation.  But let's see the WP:RS on that.  The current sentence:


 * Tensing shot DuBose when he started his car and allegedly began to drive off.


 * does not sound right either. The first part "Tensing shot DuBose when he started his car" matches what I saw in the video and material in the articles I have read and appears like an objective fact that is uncontested and written in an WP:NPOV voice.  The part "and allegedly began to drive off" makes less sense.  Who is doing the "alleging" here?  Tensing, the prosecutor or the defense attorney?  It's also confusing because the car certainly does "drive off"--a similar uncontested fact--but the contentiousness surrounding this is whether the DuBose was driving it (and dragging the Tensing), or whether he was already dead.  The video certainly makes it look like he was shot before the car moved,  but we do have to rely on WP:RS for who we describe it.  The sentence still needs work.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We know we've seen multiple examples of sources with "attempted to flee" and not, but we don't have them memorized. A fairly representative sample of relevant RS can be found in the article's References section. Each source that describes the incident will either say "attempted to flee" or not, and the citation titles are good clues as to which sources those are.
 * As I write this, the word "flee" no longer occurs anywhere in the article, and, with a bit of luck, any flee-related issues are dead.
 * Re "allegedly began to drive off": Tensing is doing the alleging, his defense is based on that assertion. I don't know that the prosecutor has stated an opinion one way or the other; he only says that Tensing wasn't dragged. I also don't know whether the defense attorney has said anything on the question, but his position and Tensing's are one and the same by definition of the words "legal representation".
 * I don't know, perhaps it could say, "Tensing shot DuBose when he started his car and, according to Tensing, began to drive off." On the other hand, perhaps readers can figure that out without our help, and, at some point, a desire for completeness becomes obsessive and results in something akin to legalese. And perhaps the important thing is that it's only an allegation, not who is doing the alleging. Tough call.
 * I don't understand your last point. If the car was moving forward before the gunshot, it's because DuBose was beginning to drive off. There's really no other reasonable explanation. He wasn't going to just pull forward a few feet and then stop again. And the phrase is a reasonable description of the act of removing one's foot from the brake and moving it to the accelerator pedal while the car is in Drive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disproportionate number of edits made by Mandruss
As of right now, this article has 422 revisions, from 68 different users. 124 of those revisions (29%) have been made by one user: Mandruss - https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/articleinfo.py?page=Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose&server=enwiki. I applaud Mandruss for his dedication and clearly-evidenced hard work and diligence in editing this article. However, I do feel that we can all work together to achieve a more balanced voice. I'd like to encourage Mandruss to slow down just a bit, and to encourage others to take a more active role in editing, even if your edits have previously been reverted. If Mandruss has left a note on your Talk page advising you to slow down, or revert less, or not "steamroll" an article, as he has on mine, please keep in mind the disproportionate amount of editing that he has done on this article. Mandruss sets a good example with his hard work, dedication, and boldness, and we would be wise to follow it :) - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I've demonstrated adequately that collaboration and consensus are my first priorities. I think others who have worked extensively with me will agree. That was clearly not the case with you, when I issued you two warnings and used the word steamroll. You have improved, so that's currently old news. That's all I have to say on the subject. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that you have demonstrated adequately that collaboration and consensus are your first priorities. I should note that your editing of this Talk page is even more disproportionate. You're responsible for over 47% of the edits to this talk page: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Mandruss&page=Talk%3AShooting_of_Samuel_DuBose&server=enwiki&max= . That's not collaboration, it's domination. Again, I applaud your hard work and dedication. I think it's time for you to slow down and share the editing duties with the other editors present here. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bodycam confusion
The Lindenschmidt and Kidd videos linked in the article appear to be different cuts of the same bodycam. This can be seen by comparing Lindenschmidt to Kidd+1:02. Both show Tensing and the bald guy, and those were the only three on scene at that time. I think we have two bodycams, not three, and we need to figure out whether this is Lindenschmidt or Kidd. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they're the same. Both can be seen briefly panning to the right, showing the big white house; it's unlikely two officers did that at exactly the same time. The article with the "Kidd" version states that it's Kidd's bodycam, so the bald guy must be Lindenschmidt. I'm modifying the article, keeping the "Kidd" version since it's the longer one. I don't know that we have any bodycam from Lindenschmidt, but it can be added if we find one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that I read that there were two additional body cam videos released. Unfortunately, I don't have time to research it right now.- MrX 14:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, looking closer at the NBC article, where it combines three bodycams into one frame and labels them, I'm now satisfied that we have Lindenschmidt, not Kidd, and I'll change the article again to reflect that. That leaves the question of where to find Kidd's bodycam where it's not confusingly jumbled up with a bunch of other stuff. I wish we could get them all at YouTube, since these other sources don't seem to work very reliably (and who knows how long they will be kept). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eureka, I found both Lindenschmidt and Kidd at YouTube, both uploaded yesterday. We're golden. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The executive summary, for the record:
 * Kidd is the bald guy. He has a big tat on the inside of his left forearm, briefly visible in his bodycam video.
 * We previously had two cuts of Lindenschmidt's bodycam, labelling the longer one as Kidd.
 * We previously linked to msnbc.com and nbcnews.com; now we use only YouTube.
 * We are no longer confused. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Move bodycams to Commons?

 * Assuming the jurisdiction's public domain policy is compatible, it might be worth pulling those videos into commons to avoid any issues with youtube links going down. See the similar situation in the Trayvon Martin 911 recordings. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Would that be worth you doing it, or "us"? :) It makes a difference. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, at this point I was just tossing it out as a proposal to get feedback/objections. but I do see your point ;) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If they were at Commons, how would that work from the reader's perspective? Do you know of any existing examples we could look at? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It could either be exactly as it is now (just a link) or we could embed a thumbnail. The player would then pop up embedded. Here is a commons page that has some videos in its gallery as an example (found by clicking around at random, subject only coincidentally involves guns/military) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sanandros/ogre/special_forces/2014_August_21-31 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Our player seems adequate. I wonder if that would work on as many devices and platforms as YouTube? Here's a bit of sandbox play. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sandbox played well on my Android. It appears to be using an HTML5 player, which should be good for anything "modern" Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At this time, I would like to declare my enthusiastic support for you doing the uploads. :) If that's done, we can then decide on the best implementation method of those three (I already have an opinion but I'm keeping it to myself). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The only remaining issue would be licensing. Are works by Ohio police departments in the public domain? Does this "work" even qualify for copyright, since it does not contain any creative effort? If it is copyrighted, would it be subject to fair use WP:NFCC exemptions since it is of historical/irreplaceable nature, low commercial value, and the subject of significant discussion in the article? I think the answers is that it is acceptable, but would like to gague where others see it before we waste a lot of effort on this. (uploading from youtube is a pain) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No clue on any of that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

On review of the videos, I've found another reason we should move them to commons. the first video is titled "Full Unedited Body Cam Video Of Sam Dubose Murder by Officer Ray Tensing" which surely runs into blp/npov at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. That's not wiki voice. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone modified that link to point to a different version at YouTube. I have no idea what the editsum means — I see no difference in "field of view" — but it lacks any such blp/npov issue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's my perception that there aren't enough editors who know enough about copyright to get much input on your average article talk page. You might contact a copyright expert on their talk page, although I can't think of one offhand. Or you could take it to Media copyright questions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I support adding the unedited videos to Commons., I think you would need to contact the University of Cincinnati Police Department (Three Edwards Center, 51 Corry Blvd, Cincinnati, OH 45221, (513) 556-4900) and get them to agree in writing that the vdeos are public domain or that they agree to release the videos under a compatible creative commons license. That information can then be sent to OTRS and the videos can be uploaded with an appropriate OTRS template. An OTRS volunteer will (eventually) review it and either mark the uploaded files as OK, or they may mark them for deletion.- MrX 16:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Juxtaposition
The information about the marihuana and cash found in the car had absolutely no relevance to the traffic stop, and thus it should not be in he shooting section. The more appropriate section is the police reports, as these facts were disclosed by police after the incident. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a well-developed thread about this question. In any case, the section you mentioned is about police accounts of the incident, not about investigators' discoveries subsequent to the incident. The only commonality is the word "police". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Shooting" section
Our Shooting section states that the car "appears to move forward" before the shot that killed the driver. I am removing that statement because it is very important to the incident and far from settled at this time. In fact, the third ref for the statement says:


 * ""Go ahead and take your seat belt off," Tensing says again.


 * DuBose turns the key to start the car and revs the engine, but the car doesn't move.


 * Tensing reaches in the window with his left hand and appears to grab DuBose's shoulder strap. He pulls his gun with this right hand, shouts, "Stop! Stop!"  and shoots DuBose.


 * The car jumps forward and rolls down the street about 100 yards until it runs off the road and stops - engine still running.

Thoughts please... Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO its a poor description of the video. One can certainly think that Tensing was not "dragged", or perhaps not even "pulled", but the car was definately moving forward prior to the shot. I believe other sources have described this more reliably. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. If the car moved forward after he was shot in the head, we can assume it was at least in Drive before the gunshot. 2. Why would Tensing yell Stop! Stop! if the car wasn't moving? Did he deliberately say that as cover for his assassination of DuBose? 3. Some reliable sources say the car appeared to move. All things considered, "the car appears to move forward" seemed to me like the most reasonable language, and it still does. The words "appeared to" are a hedge, an acknowledgement that we're not 100% certain. Removing the statement completely is going too far. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We should definitely avoid any original research, including reading the chronology of the incident and forming our own conclusions. If reliable sources are ambiguous as to whether the car was moving before DeBose was shot, then so should we. If sources are mixed, then we should present the range of interpretations.- MrX 18:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. To say "appears to" is not a way to express doubt in this instance.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources often differ on such things. When it comes to the first 24 hours of coverage, that is often due to the rush to publish. For this question I think we should survey only the blue-chip sources (well under 10) and only what they said after 24 hours. If that gives mixed results on the question, then we can say that sources are mixed. I don't think that will be the case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I was thinking as well. Look at the most recent coverage from our best sources and present their conclusions(s) as best we can.- MrX 18:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NYT, WaPo, LAT, ChiTrib, Newsweek, BBC. Any others? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How about The Guardian, The Atlantic, and Christian Science Monitor‎?- MrX 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You'd call The Guardian a blue chip? I wouldn't. Second tier, maybe. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We can omit The Guardian.- MrX 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start building this one at a time, no objection if anyone wants to help.

NYT July 30 - "The car started slowly rolling forward as Tensing reached in and yelled for him to stop." &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * yes. That is probably the most accurate description of the video. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The speed is difficult to estimate with the shakiness of the camera, and lack of background to compare against. On the other hand, even if he put the pedal to the metal it had such a short time to accelerate before the shot. On the other other hand, speed is relative. "slowly" for a car is not the same thing as "slowly" for a person trying to keep up on foot, especially if there was any kind of drag/pulling involved (even just his hand on the doorframe pulling him off balance). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, I just got jumped on for using logic and reasoning. Now you're doing it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WaPo - they quote others, but nothing in "WaPo voice" that I can find. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * 1) BBC - "The driver seemed to attempt to pull away."
 * 2) Chicago Tribune - Then the video becomes shaky, but a gunshot can be heard and DuBose appears to be slumped in the seat before the car rolls away, coming to stop at a nearby corner."
 * 3) Christian Science Monitor - "In the video, Mr. DuBose is starting the car and slowly rolling away when Tensing appears to suddenly fire a single shot."
 * 4) LA Times - "“I didn't even do nothing,” DuBose said as Tensing put his hand on the driver's door handle, as if to open it, and directed DuBose to remove his seat belt. ¶ Instead, the video shows, DuBose started the engine and a shot rang out."
 * 5) Newsweek - " In the camera footage, the car ingition can be heard turning on and within seconds, Tensing fires into DuBose's head. Tensing claimed his arm and hand were caught inside the steering wheel during the incident. Both of Tensing's hands are seen on the gun at the time of the shooting."
 * 6) The Atlantic - "Now, thanks to footage from Tensing’s body camera, we know. After the two men briefly exchange words, DuBose's vehicle is seen to roll forward. Tensing then shoots him in the head."
 * 7) Washington Post - "The video, released Wednesday, appears to show DuBose turning the ignition after Tensing tells him to take off his seat belt. The officer reaches toward the door, yells “Stop!” and draws his gun. Then he thrusts the weapon through the open car window and fires a single round, striking DuBose in the head."

I will add more quotes and sources to this list in a few minutes.- MrX 20:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC), 20:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC), 20:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC), 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC), 20:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

How the hell did you do that so fast??
 * Car moves: NYT, BBC, CSM, Atlantic
 * Car doesn't move: ChiTrib, LAT, Newsweek, WaPo
 * Ok. Propose the following one-sentence paragraph following paragraph 2 in Shooting: &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  20:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1,3,7-Trimethylpurine-2,6-dione
 * I think we have to be careful not to intepret "attempt to pull away" as"car moves". Newsweek seems to dodge the question. I generally agree with your proposed wording, unless someone comes up with a better construct.- MrX 21:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, so disqualify BBC and Newsweek. Then disqualify ChiTrib, Atlantic, and WaPo because they fail the 24 hour requirement (Tensing's bodycam was released on July 29 if I'm not mistaken). That leaves:
 * Car moves: NYT, CSM
 * Car doesn't move: LAT
 * This is where things get messy. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This version seems about right to me. We can simply avoid directly stating that the car moved before the gun was fired. There's other factual detail and a video so that readers can decide for themselves. If later a jury decides one way or the other, then we can add "A jury found...".- MrX 13:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. I don't think it's a good idea to completely ignore one of the two most important questions in the entire case (the other being dragged or not). My proposal stands (it does not state that the car moved), and let's see what others think. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the importance of this question; well stated Mandruss. I should add that I'm not favoring the use of the word "flee". It implies running on foot: http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=flee . I think we should also try to remove "allegedly", perhaps substituting "began" or "attempted". Is there dispute over the assertion that DuBose at least started the ignition, and shifted the car out of Park? To my understanding, the extreme position favoring DuBose is: he started the ignition, shifted the car out of Park, was shot and killed by Tensing, and then the foot of his dead body depressed the accelerator, causing the car to move forward. And the extreme position favoring Tensing is: Dubose started the ignition, shifted the car out of Park, depressed the accelerator, the car moved forward under power of acceleration, dragging Tensing, and then Tensing shot and killed DuBose.-8.39.228.13 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it's not my first choice, I am fine with something close to the wording proposed by Mandruss, upthread. I also agree that "flee" is not the best word choice.- MrX 23:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

✅ &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Suspended license
Here are some sources which report that Mr. DuBose's license was suspended: This information appears to be well sourced, but is it sufficiently relevant to the article for inclusion? -- ToE 16:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cincinnati Enquirer, 21 July 2015, Family of man killed by police asks: 'Why?': [Discussing DuBose's history] "..., and he had his license suspended indefinitely in January by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles."
 * The New York Times, 22 July 2015, Questions After Unarmed Ohio Man Is Killed in Traffic Stop: [Referencing the Cincinnati Enquirer article] "..., and he had his license suspended indefinitely in January by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the paper reported."
 * The Washington Post, 22 July 2015, Cincinnatians seek answers in cop shooting of unarmed black man: [Referencing the Cincinnati Enquirer article] "..., and he had his license suspended indefinitely in January by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the paper said."
 * CNN, 29 July 2015, Video shows the encounter between Samuel DuBose, Officer Ray Tensing: "In fact, DuBose was driving on a suspended license, according to records with the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles."
 * RT, 29 July 2015, Cincinnati police officer charged with murder of unarmed man: "The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles suspended Dubose’s license indefinitely in January."


 * Sure, why not, but in the mini-bio. It's at least as relevant as the fact that he fathered 13 children. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Upon further reflection, it might go to a reason for attempting to drive off rather than get out of the car; with his record, getting out of the car might well have meant spending some time in jail. I'm actually leaning in that direction, but let's get more comment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with your second reasoning, especially since the cop had specifically asked if he was suspended during the stop. somewhere above someone had mentioned pot and $2600 in the car. Has that been substantiated by anyplace reliable, or is it just rumor/bs? If true, between the suspended license and prior convictions for dealing, it explains the motive for driving off rather well (not that either is a death penalty issue ofc) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The pot and the cash are already in the bio section. It's sourced to cincinnati.com, which attributes it to Deters. Maybe we should add attribution? On the other hand, news sources can't independently verify that kind of thing, so we'd be adding attribution only because the source did so. In most cases, sources make statements like that in their own voices, and we repeat it without attribution. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Something to chew on: &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds well sourced and relevant to the events that follow. -- ToE 21:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After belatedly reading some of the above NYT source, I'll modify the proposal as follows. The same source says he was unarmed, which I think we should include too. I have been reluctant to use the word "unarmed" since he was driving a deadly weapon, but "no weapons in the car" solves that problem. Also replacing "suspended" with the more accurate and more significant "indefinitely suspended", per that source. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I boldly made the above change (and received a thanks from Gaijin42). Not set in stone, needless (?) to say. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted by Cwobeel, then by MrX (neiither feels like discussing first, so I'm their proxy; I hope they don't mind). Strongly disagree with this reasoning. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted in my edit, I object to including ex post facto material in the shooting incident which strongly implies that the marijuana and suspended license were at all related to the traffic stop. - MrX 23:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We (quite conspicuously) say nothing to suggest that Tensing knew any of that. It comes just before "no weapons in the car", which Tensing couldn't possibly have known, further reinforcing the nature of the preceding facts. If that's not enough, if there is any doubt in the reader's mind, the sources are a click away. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The marijuana, money and suspended license were discovered well after the shooting. It's not part of the shooting, and placing it where you propose could imply that they were probably cause circumstances. Not stating it is necessary, but insufficient. The order in which facts are presented carry a lot of meaning, whether intended or not. The most neutral place to put this material it is in the police accounts section (where it is now). As a distant second choice would be putting it at the end of the the shooting section, in a separate paragraph.- MrX 00:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand when things were discovered. And I'm saying we don't necessarily have to present things in chronological sequence, nor is chronological sequence ever implied by us or assumed by a reader. We should present things in the sequence where they are most useful to the reader. When the reader is viewing the video, reading the description of it, and forming opinions about it, it will help him greatly to understand what was likely in DuBose's mind at the time those things happened. To put it later, assuming he makes it that far, means the reader then has to back up, re-think the whole thing with that new knowledge, and form new opinions. It's just not good writing. But Gaijin42 sent me thanks for that edit, so I'm interested to hear what he thinks about your argument. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I see merit in both arguments, but lean more towards Mandruss' argument. While Tensing did not know any of that, DuBose certainly did, and it does a great deal to explain his behavior during the incident. It should not be in the police accounts as that implies it is something that could be in dispute (unless someone is trying to argue it was all planted or made up). The facts have no relevance to the aftermath, but do have relevance to the incident itself. I could compromise to a separate paragaraph (where I actually started with it in my original move edit) but it does belong in the shooting section. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Same objection, pretty much. It's still cart before horse. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree that it likely explains his behavior during the traffic stop. But I don't think it's proper to lead readers to that conclusion based on our own analysis of the facts. It tilts the article toward a view that the shooting was a consequence of dealing drugs, driving with a suspended license, or both. - MrX 02:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) Ok, here's a compromise solution that I can live with. Move it back to the top of Shooting and begin the sentence with: "It was later revealed that...". MrX, your last argument would dictate removing the information completely. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as a compromise that I can live with. Gaijin42's edit represents my compromise position, although I prefer the previous version where the content is in the police accounts section.- MrX 03:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as a compromise either. I strongly agree with MrX's version where it belongs in the police accounts section.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's proper to lead readers to that conclusion based on our own analysis of the facts. We would be simply providing factual information and letting the reader draw their own conclusions, which is precisely what we are supposed to do. Here's another example for comparison. "Within the next few seconds, Tensing reaches into the car with his left hand and yells, "Stop! Stop!", draws his pistol with his right hand, and fires once. Tensing falls away from the vehicle..." Well gosh, that's leading the reader to the conclusion that Tensing was not dragged, at least not for more than a second or two. Is it not? How can we possibly violate NPOV so blatantly? (end irony) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

MrX, could you please address the preceding comment? In my opinion it clearly illustrates the fallacy of your argument. If what you say is correct, we have to remove "Within the next few seconds", which, as you know, has rock-solid support from NYT and likely other blue chips. Also in my opinion, removing that would be to withhold important information from the reader and simply bad Wikipedia editing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be presenting factual information, but in a neutral context. The placement of each fact is crucial to maintaining a neutral POV. In the case that you mention, one is a simple, chronological retelling of what happened, according to our sources. The other (the one I'm opposed to) is a retelling of the chronological events with a parenthetical inserted about a later discovery. It's misleading to our readers.- MrX 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is background information. You could use the same argument to insist that the Backgrounds section be placed last, because it juxtaposes DuBose's mainly negative history with Tensing's mainly positive history, thereby biasing the reader against DuBose before he ever gets to the Shooting section. That would be as incorrect as this is. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is severe Information asymmetry in this situation. That information was not known until a later time, chronologically it is a description of the situation before and during the event. This is not biographical information about someone with a troubled past who was then hassled by the cops. He had the drugs and money in his possession at the time. He knew about them at the time. he made his actions based on that knoweldge. Its misleading in the other way to pretend that this information has no relevance to the shooting. The suspended license bit in particular is super relevant, because Tensing and Duboise specifically discussed if Duboise had a suspended license. However, we are going around in circles here, and probably should just open up an RFC on where this information belongs. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about an RfC at this stage. This situation is nuanced and complex, and I don't have a lot of faith that the average !voter will spend the time and brainpower necessary to truly understand the issue. I'm inclined to try longer here, with more voices already familiar with the subject and the article. Or, hell, maybe MrX might even be swayed. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, X has already indicated that while he prefers the info in the police accounts section, he can compromise to a separate paragraph in the shooting section. I think that is an acceptable compromise for now until more information or wider consensus is available. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. If it's not at the top of Shooting in about a week, I'll start the RfC. I feel it's too important, not only to this article but as to the general principle. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources for "sources differ"
1, 2, 3

The sentence was deliberately given its own paragraph because it's the most important sentence in the section. That is the best way to show emphasis and to ensure that the statement is not missed by the reader. But has apparently dropped their objection to that part of it.

As for citations, it's highly unlikely we can find any tertiary sources that say secondary sources differ on this. Is it better to leave it uncited, or should we provide examples of sources that differ? How many? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't have to have a source for "sources differ". It's verifiable, directly observable, and incontrovertible. WP:BLUE applies.- MrX 20:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me, and I'll re-revert. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-NPOV wording in lede
I've edited the lede for more NPOV, and I see it had been reverted, referencing consensus in a Talk discussion. I don't see that consensus has been reached; or maybe the link was incorrect, or I'm misinterpreting, so I wanted to get some clarification here instead of reverting. Here's how I understand it:

1. Tensing's attorney says that body cam footage shows that he was dragged.

2. The prosecuting attorney says that body cam footage shows that he was not dragged.

Why is the defense position presented as Tensing's statement, whereas the prosecution position is presented as an attorney's statement, backed up by footage? How is this NPOV?

In addition, transitioning from the non-NPOV statement about the cam footage substantiating only the prosecution's position, directly to the grand jury indictment, is non-NPOV (in addition to being clunkily worded). This should be in a separate sentence, like this: "On July 29, a grand jury indicted Tensing on a murder charge. He was then fired from the police department."

This type of wording implements two distinct non-NPOV trends we've been challenged with in this article: presenting the body cam footage as favoring one position, and presenting a statement from one side's attorney without presenting the corresponding attorney's position. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well you and I already had a discussion going about this in . Probably too tangential to that section, but in that case we generally just insert a subsection heading to set it off, rather than fragmenting the discussion. I already replied to you there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a related, but different discussion. That discussion limits the wording to two choices. Claiming consensus on that binary decision does not mean that you have permanent consensus for your phrasing in the lede. After all, I respected that discussion; it's not like I altered it to the lesser-supported phrasing :) Also, why is "prosecutors" pluralized? Are we referring to one person, Deters? If so, pluralizing that term is incorrect, and gives the impression that multiple people ("prosecutors") oppose Tensing's singular statement. And, you don't address the issue of the prosecution's statement being phrased as if it's supported by video, whereas Tensing's statement is not. The video is ambiguous. Both sides have stated that it supports their position. Thus, if we truly want to present NPOV, we should include the statements of both sides, in relation to the video. Finally, we should clean up that final sentence so it's less clunky, and separates the positions of both sides from the fact that Tensing was indicted and fired. Thanks (yet again) for engaging me on this issue. It seems that we are biased in different directions, which is perfectly normal, and probably helpful. I believe that if we implement our biases evenly, we can reach NPOV together :) - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said, our (you and I) discussion there was tangential to the discussion that limited the wording to two choices, and could have (and should have) been simply separated from it by inserting a subsection (level 3) heading. Thus preventing this discussion from being split between there and here. See two existing examples of exactly that in the TOC. At least one other editor has already replied to your arguments there.
 * As for number of prosecutors, I think you're putting too fine a point on it. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where individual prosecutors from one office publicly disagreed with each other. All other prosecutors for the county work for Deters. So there's little important difference between "the prosecutor" and "prosecutors". Essentially it's shorthand for "the prosecutor's office", who speak with one voice. That said, I could live with "the county prosecutor" despite the two-word increase in two places. I definitely don't feel we need to say Deters' name each and every time we refer to him.
 * Please avoid combining multiple issues into one thread. You can use as many level 2 sections as you need, or, if you have related issues and feel it helps, you can create one level 2 section with multiple level 3 subsections within it. But we at least try for one [edit] link for each issue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a separate issue. I don't believe it should be a subsection. You've now repeatedly failed to answer my legitimate concern. You've only addressed the most minor issue mentioned about, about pluralizing "prosecutors". So, I ask again: Why is the defense position presented as Tensing's statement, whereas the prosecution position is presented as an attorney's statement, backed up by footage? How is this NPOV? Why not simply state both positions, and state that both positions are backed up by footage? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

8.39.228.13 edit
1


 * The NYT source given clearly says "Unarmed" in its title. It also uses that word twice in its body.
 * We deliberately avoided the word "unarmed" because the car was a weapon. Instead, we said there were no weapons in the car. My original text said that more explicitly, but that was changed by another editor.
 * In my opinion, we do not need attribution to Deters on this. He is in a position to know the truth, and no one is disputing his word. It is uncontroversial. It is also not particularly significant that he was the one who said it, so it does not benefit the reader to know that.
 * 8.39.228.13, from now on in these cases, I'll just revert per WP:BRD, and you can open the discussion if you feel it's important. Please don't take offense. But you're being pretty aggressive with edits that are without much merit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't mention weapons one way or the other, so we shouldn't. There are many ways to be "armed". In fact, if you review that NYT source, you'll see that, in the footnote, NYT states that they do indeed consider a car to be a weapon (I didn't include that). Again, we are here to report, not to embellish. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just pointed to three occurrences of the word "unarmed" in the NYT source; how can you say that the source does not mention weapons? "unarmed" at m-w.com: "not having a weapon : not armed"


 * I also explained that we carefully avoided implying that he was completely unarmed, saying only that he had no weapons in the car. Did you read ANY of my comments above?


 * Do not keep re-reverting, especially when you lack a leg to stand on. Slow ... down. Please. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * By your own admission, the source says "unarmed". So we should say "unarmed". It doesn't get any simpler than that. If you like, we can add a bit about how, in the footnote of that article, the NYT claims that they do indeed consider a car to be a weapon.- 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this with others, I've had enough. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Unarmed" and "no weapon" are interchangeable in this context. Clearly the sources can be interpreted to support either wording. Anyway, one does not usually arm oneself with a car. The "car as weapon" trope is something that is, IMHO, too often used by some police officers to justify shooting young black men.- MrX 14:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's overused, but that doesn't change the fact that you can kill a person with a car as easily as with a gun. So a car is in fact a weapon, and "unarmed" can easily be interpreted in the more general sense. Therefore it's reasonable in this situation to try to avoid "unarmed" without clarification. I also feel it's important to say that he had no weapons in the car, just as it was important to say "unarmed" in Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Walter Scott, and who knows how many similar cases. The article currently does not say that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, and you can kill someone just as easily with a choke hold, so an arm is a weapon also. I do prefer "unarmed" though, because it concisely answers what would likely be the foremost question in the mind of a reader unfamiliar with the subject.- MrX 15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Air freshener in gin bottle
Reuters is reporting that the glass bottle that DuBose handed to Tensing, marked as a gin bottle, actually held fragrance: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/04/us-usa-police-ohio-idUSKCN0Q82DS20150804. Not sure what prompted DuBose to hand Tensing the bottle in the first place, or why DuBose had a gin bottle of fragrance in his vehicle. I know it may seem insignificant, but the bottle could've served as an indicator to Tensing that this may be a DUI stop, and may have been the impetus for Tensing requesting that DuBose step out of the vehicle. That it did not contain gin, but fragrance, is or may become notable. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I see no reason to theorize and speculate about things such as what importance to the case the true contents of the bottle labelled gin was. Our duty is to report what WP:RS says.  Since what you provided appears to be WP:RS and mentions it, it should likely be included in the in the article without any speculation on our part as to the significance of what the true contents are to the case.  The same applies to the issue of  "off-campus" above.  In summary, YES, include what RS says about the gin bottle's contents in the article.  David Tornheim (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As the source is good, the only speculation should be whether or not it's significant enough to include, and I believe it is. I'm going to wait a news cycle and see who else covers this, although it already merits inclusion without any additional coverage. For the record, I agree on the off-campus issue too. We may not yet know the exact nature of Tensing's jurisdiction, but the fact that he was a University of Cincinnati police officer, and this event occurred in a non-University of Cincinnati location, while he was in his official capacity as a police officer, is questionable (and notable), and has garnered significant attention in the media. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see several more sources that discuss the importance of this before we add it to the article, per WP:DUE.- MrX 14:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. There's no rush. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is only relevant to the degree that it contradicts a hypothetical additional crime that a bottle of gin in the driver's seat implies (open container/DUI/etc). As that hypothetical crime has not gotten any significant coverage (in wiki or in RS) there is no reason to spend time contradicting it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased application of "alleged"
There's an extraordinary bias here apparent in the uneven application of the word "alleged". For example, why is DuBoses's criminal history characterized as "alleged"? The news sources we are referencing don't characterize it as such. Probably because they're referencing Hamilton County Clerk's Office, which has a lengthy record of DuBose's criminal history, including numerous sentencings, convictions, and fines paid. Or the fact that he served time in prison for one of these "alleged" crimes.

Similarly, DuBose is similarly characterized as having "allegedly" began to drive off. He turned the ignition, put the car in drive, depressed the accelerator, and the car ended up down the street.

We don't say that Tensing was charged with "alleged" murder. Why so liberally apply the phrase to DuBose?

I should note that the uneven application of the word "alleged" has been made largely by a single editor, Mandruss, who has made his bias apparent with the following statement in this talk section: "Frankly his history looks terrible, especially juxtaposed with Tensing's (aside from being indicted for murder, that is), and the more we say the worse that gets.". I believe our job here is to report on this event, and not to withhold or cushion facts because, in regard to DuBose's history, "the more we say the worse that gets". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * From the source that you added: Stop it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the assault charges were dismissed, but the domestic violence charge was not dismissed. Domestic violence is a violent offense. BTW, here's the record from the County Clerk in Hamilton County about the domestic violence: http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?casenumber=/95/CRB/26540 - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had enough here, too. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been proven wrong. Care to edit the article to reflect the truth, or should I? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please cool it, and assume good faith. You may also want to become familiar with Wikipedia policies. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My issue here is exactly about Wikipedia Policies. Specifically, NPOV. How less neutral can you get than the word "allegedly" being applied to accusations made against one subject of an article, but not the other? I should note that I'm not the only editor here bringing up the biased application of this word in this article. Why, when one party gets arrested, it's for "alleged" offenses (despite the sourced evidence to the contrary), but when the other gets arrested, it's for "a murder charge"? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the word "alleged" is inconsistent with normal use, especially in the lede regarding the car allegedly driving off. I do see that 8.39.228.13 deleted the word "alleged" here. However, that word is not found anywhere in the 4 references. In fact, I couldn't find any mention of the various list of charges in the WP:RS, so I just deleted the entire problematic sentence here that appears to be WP:OR. Problem solved. If there is WP:RS that mentions these arrests, charges, etc., please provide it. David Tornheim (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I undid that edit; I thought you might've misread the sources. Washington Post source said: "Court records show DuBose had a long criminal history of minor traffic infractions such as driving while suspended, traffic light violations, having unauthorized license plates, and also selling and possessing marijuana.". CNN source said: "A CNN records search showed that Dubose had more than 60 arrests.". WCPO source said: "Dubose had been charged with more than 55 offenses before his death. Some of the other charges escalated beyond traffic violations, including drug abuse, domestic violence and assault." - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I see that the CNN sources says 60, and the WCPO says 55, but some of the other material, such as the prison time for marijuana trafficking I could not find in any of the four references, and did not come up with Google search either, so mistakenly thought *all* of it was WP:OR.  I did not see anything about DuBose's criminal history in the Washington Post article, which is the other reason I thought it was WP:OR and the references were referring to the material in sentence #1 on DuBose only.  What paragraph did you find the sentence you quoted in the Washington Post article?   Maybe there are more than one article from the same news paper, and the references are referring to the wrong article(s)? David Tornheim (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your coolheadedness. In reply to your questions: the prison time for marijuana trafficking is covered in the third reference, the FoxNews article. That article states: "He served time in a state prison on a 2005 marijuana trafficking charge." Also, The Washington Post article mentions the sentence I quoted in the third-to-last paragraph. That one is tricky, because there's a left-justified underscore that almost looks like it's denoting the conclusion of the article, but it's really delineating the final section in which that quote occurs. Confusingly, they use a second, identical left-justified underscore to mark the actual end of the article :) - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's all there after all.  Yeah, that underscore business was indeed confusing!  I'm not sure why my Google search like this did not come up with our WP:RS references.  If it had, much time would have been saved!
 * That said, based on what I read, I did not see the use of the word "alleged" in the WP:RS and hence I agree with its deletion in the article. David Tornheim (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's made clear in the highlighted text above that the number 60, or 55, or whatever estimate close to that happens to be stated in a source, is not convictions but arrests. The average reader may well interpret the sentence as convictions, and my goal was to make it clear that they are not all convictions; in particular, some of the more serious charges. We routiinely use different language from the sources, provided the meaning is not changed, and I believe that the word "alleged" does not change the meaning of the above-highlighted text. However, I can see the argument that the word "alleged" could be interpreted as none of the arrests resulted in convictions (which would imply one hell of a good attorney, statistically speaking, but never mind). If you prefer to add the sentence, "Not all of the arrests resulted in convictions, and two assault charges were dismissed"; fine with me; that would be even more clear on the question. Alternatively, we could omit the question until we have information about convictions (I don't understand how that is more difficult for a source to obtain than arrests, and they must know that convictions is what matters, per presumption of innocence). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is best to hold off with the previous arrests, etc., for now. From what I've read it is the press digging up whatever they can find rather than some sort of "official" release of information.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the word "alleged" is necessary if we use phrases like "arrested on ___ charges" or "indicted on ____". This is based on my assumption that even modestly educated English language readers understand the concept of presumption of innocence.- MrX 14:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If not alleged, then additional words like what I suggested above. But at least some readers don't understand POI, and at least some readers will simply fail to focus to the necessary degree on the word "arrested", resulting in an overly negative opinion of the subject. I see no harm in being extra clear on an important point, and I feel this is an important point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding explanatory content such as you proposed, as long as we stick close to the sources.- MrX 14:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why has the reference to the domestic violence charge been deleted? It's well sourced, and extremely significant. Tensing's assertion that DuBose dragged him with his vehicle amounts to an accusation of a violent crime. That DuBose has a history of violent crime (domestic violence) is significant (certainly as significant as, or probably more significant than, traffic and marijuana offenses).


 * As the source states, while other violent charges against DuBose had been dropped, the domestic violence charge had not. I understand the sourced sentence is confusing, because it says: "Some of the other charges escalated beyond traffic violations, including drug abuse, domestic violence and assault", then goes on to say that "The two assault charges were dismissed". Assault and domestic violence are two different crimes. You can see DuBose's criminal history on the Hamilton County Clerk's website. There are actually 5 assault charges. 3 are dismissed (|1,|2,|3), and he was acquitted on 2 of them (|1, |1).


 * The domestic violence charge is a separate violent charge: http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp?casenumber=/95/CRB/26540.


 * The source is clear about the domestic violence charge, and it's very significant. Why was it deleted? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of the sources that discuss his arrests do not mention a domestic violence conviction, thus it would be WP:UNDUE to include it. Also, I told you before, your original research is not a consideration for how we write this article.- MrX 16:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Most" of the sources don't need to discuss it. There is one good sourced reference, and it's significant to the article. I don't propose that we include any original research. BTW, the arrest records are primary sources, and could be included per WP:PRIMARY. But we don't even need them. We have a good secondary source. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, one mention does not constitute undue weight per WP:UNDUE. 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the rest of my argument. One mention from a local news article out of nearly a million news articles is indeed WP:UNDUE.- MrX 16:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A million search results in Google does not equate to a million news articles. If you search google news for "samuel dubose" "domestic violence", you get over 10,000 results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22samuel+dubose%22&num=100#tbm=nws&q=%22samuel+dubose%22+%22domestic+violence%22 . A more fair comparison would be that 1 out of the 34 references we include mentions it, and thus 1 mention by us would not be undue weight. We all have bias here, certainly including myself, and every other human being in the history of humanity :) It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it. I do think we need to take a close look at it. Try to consider, if there was a well-sourced article about how Tensing had committed domestic violence, should it be included? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough already. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * I'm not certain what you mean. If there is specific behavior that I am exhibiting that you feel is inappropriate, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, I'd be interested in your opinion on the issue at hand. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and also WP:BLP. Even if we are taking about a deceased person, the BLP policy applies. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you providing more details Cwobeel, but I don't believe what I'm proposing constitutes soapboxing, or is in any way covered by BLP. We have now two good sources, a secondary source and a primary source, evidencing Dubose's domestic violence charge. It's also clearly significant. Again, why shouldn't we include it? I'll wait patiently without reverting the article from its current state, too see if we can generate consensus in this discussion. If not, I can open an RfC and we can take it from there. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The primary source is completely unusable per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The secondary source is weak, and I don't really see the relevance as there is no allegation that he was violent during the encounter. However the weight of that item seems roughly equal to the weight of the other charges that we do cover. (ive found several sources that do mention DV in the list of other charges, none call particular attention to it) I do not have an objection to including the DV charge along with the list of other charges we have, but I do not go so far as to say it should be included. at an absolute maximum no more than a single mention in the list of other charges should be given. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY, my read is that it specifically applies to living persons: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I can look further into that, or point me somewhere and I'll research the policy more thoroughly. More broadly, I do agree that Mandruss is correct in that we should be cautious about criminal accusations, and one good way to do that is to use the word "alleged", but I think we can do a better job of more evenly applying that standard to Tensing and DuBose.
 * Agreed that that single secondary source is not great. If there are others that mention DV, we should include them. To clarify, are we agreed that there was indeed an allegation that DuBose was violent during the encounter? The allegation of violence being that he dragged Tensing with his vehicle. I'm open to different interpretations, but that's where I'm seeing even more significance here. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies also to recently deceased persons. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BDP. the hypothetical injury to Tensing is not "violence", unless it was the intent to harm him. Nobody has made such an allegation as far as I know, any danger to tensing was a side effect of his action. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, yes, the allegation is that there was indeed intent to harm him. Tensing has stated that he "feared for his life", and "thought DuBose was going to run him over". Many sources for this, here are google search results for that phrase: |"Dubose was going to run him over". - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you were behind an empty car and it started to roll toward you, and you barely escaped, you might well state that you feared for your life, and that you thought the car was going to run you over. Does that mean the car had intent to harm you? DuBose's intent, if in fact the car was moving forward, was to leave the scene, not to harm Tensing, and I'm sure that is Tensing's understanding. If Tensing had been run over, that would have been an unintended side effect of DuBose's action. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Mandruss, I don't think that's a reasonable analogy. A car can't have intent, a person can. I agree that DuBose's primary goal was to flee, and not run over a police officer, but Tensing's well-sourced allegation is that DuBose committed a violent crime in the act of fleeing. In fact, it's that allegation that's central to Tensing's position, and we need to cover it here if we want an NPOV article. Your speculation on what you are "sure" is "Tensing's understanding" isn't relevant. The fact is that many sources state Tensing's position that he feared for his life, that he "thought DuBose was going to run him over", and that he fired in self-defense, all of which is suspiciously absent from this article, despite numerous quality sources documenting it. The excuses for not including this material are getting more and more unusual. We need to report what the sources are reporting. If we can't reach consensus here, I'm going to look into the dispute resolution options. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article already includes Tensing's claim that he was dragged. I'm not clear on what other specific material you are proposing or what specific sources you think support it. Please fill in these gaps.- MrX 01:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you could not be clear on this. We've been discussing it at length, with numerous sources, in this exact thread. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do find it odd that you are so adamant on painting Sam Dubose as a violent man, when even District Attorney Deters said he did nothing violent toward the officer. I think you want to put anything in the article that could sway reader opinion to interpret Sam Dubose as a violent person with a violent history. 50.48.33.5 (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:AGF. Limit your comments to policy and content, and stay away from editors' motives. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:AGF. Limit your comments to policy and content, and stay away from editors' motives. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of seconds edit
1


 * "Within the next few seconds" is clearly supported by language in the NYT source cited.
 * It is not original research to choose the high-quality source that describes what we can clearly see in the Tensing video.
 * , please show a source of equal quality that says the number of seconds was significantly greater. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose restoring the "next few seconds" if attributed. Because from watching the video, it seems less than a second. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no need for attribution. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, "within the next few seconds" is a fair representation. I self reverted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disproportionate number of edits made by Mandruss
As of right now, this article has 422 revisions, from 68 different users. 124 of those revisions (29%) have been made by one user: Mandruss - https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/articleinfo.py?page=Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose&server=enwiki. I applaud Mandruss for his dedication and clearly-evidenced hard work and diligence in editing this article. However, I do feel that we can all work together to achieve a more balanced voice. I'd like to encourage Mandruss to slow down just a bit, and to encourage others to take a more active role in editing, even if your edits have previously been reverted. If Mandruss has left a note on your Talk page advising you to slow down, or revert less, or not "steamroll" an article, as he has on mine, please keep in mind the disproportionate amount of editing that he has done on this article. Mandruss sets a good example with his hard work, dedication, and boldness, and we would be wise to follow it :) - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I've demonstrated adequately that collaboration and consensus are my first priorities. I think others who have worked extensively with me will agree. That was clearly not the case with you, when I issued you two warnings and used the word steamroll. You have improved, so that's currently old news. That's all I have to say on the subject. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that you have demonstrated adequately that collaboration and consensus are your first priorities. I should note that your editing of this Talk page is even more disproportionate. You're responsible for over 47% of the edits to this talk page: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Mandruss&page=Talk%3AShooting_of_Samuel_DuBose&server=enwiki&max= . That's not collaboration, it's domination. Again, I applaud your hard work and dedication. I think it's time for you to slow down and share the editing duties with the other editors present here. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Marihuana possession
The article says that "In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it was reported that DuBose was driving on an indefinitely suspended driver". But that is incorrect. Deter reported on that fact later and not "in the immediate aftermath of the shooting". As such, it needs to go in the section of the police reports and not the shooting section -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To me, "immediate aftermath" means up to a few days. If it was later than that (I don't know), no objection to removing "immediate". No objection to moving the paragraph. Objection to attribution to Deters as unnecessary clutter. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am OK with not mentioning Deter, but the material is unrelated to the shooting and related to the police report, so it needs to be moved there, alongside all other reports from Deter. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It was reported a few days later, but it was known (to the cops) a few minutes/hours later, and it was known to DuBose before and during. Reports are that it was ~2 pounds (which makes sense with $2.5k) which easily pushes things into felony level possession/distribution. No tensing did not know this. But DuBose did, and it is very relevant to why he started the car (and started/tried/thought about driving away) In any case, if Deter is the attribution, that is not a police report. He is thee person prosecuting this case. We should not put it into the section where it raises question about motive/truth of the information Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I forgot about the placement issue. I still want it at the top of Shooting, and still plan the RfC on that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

flip the problem around - the body cam footage and analysis and statements by deter about the lack of dragging are all analysis that happened significantly after the incident, but are describing the state of things during the incident. Should those all be moved out because they weren't publicly known/discussed until later? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not just start the RfC now? There seems to be three different places where different editors would prefer to see this material, so I suggest limiting the question to those options.- MrX 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hope is hard to let go of, given the amount of time an RfC takes. I'd like to see your response to my point about the Backgrounds section. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't have much of a response. It's a valid argument, but it's not really related to my assertion that a chronological arrangement of the incident history is the most neutral presentation.- MrX 20:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, hope is fading. However, of the editors who have made a substantial contribution to the discussion on this, you're in a 2-to-1 minority. Gaijin originally agreed with me and then compromised, which I wasn't prepared to do. Two other editors have made one-liner comments, one on each side. There is no policy that clearly applies, just your assertion that NPOV applies, so I think it comes down to numbers. I take it you don't feel 2-to-1 constitutes a consensus? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Mandruss: I don't agree with your assessment of consensus. I see 2 for; 1 for, but open to compromise (Gaijin42); and 2 against, with one of them (me) open to compromise. I imagine that Cwobeel is about to form an opinion on this content as well.- MrX 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

can you clarify what you mean by your proposal about the "background section"? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime I have replaced the ambiguous "In the immediate aftermath", with the exact timing (the day after the shooting). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Use your browser Find to look for "backgrounds" on this page, not case-sensitive. It's the second occurrence on the page. It was during a long debate about this question, mainly involving me, X, and Gaijin. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, can't find it. Care to summarize your proposal again here? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a proposal, it was an argument, or part of one. I couldn't possibly summarize it for you here in a comprehensible way, short of about a thousand words. If you can't make your browser Find work, I can only suggest that you read the section from the top. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you perhaps give us the wording that you would use for a RfC? Gandydancer (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was working on that. But let's see if Cwobeel will come in on my Gaijin's and my side first; if he does, that's a sufficient consensus in my opinion. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why have you ignored my opinion? I'm not in agreement with you. Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not ignored your opinion. You're one of the two other editors I mentioned above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed w/Gaijin42 on the importance of the money and marijuana, especially in light of DuBose's previous prison term for marijuana trafficking. It's extremely relevant to why he started the vehicle: had be been caught and convicted, he very well may have had to return to prison. Why do we even say "a day after" or "it was reported that"? Why not just say: "DuBose was driving on an indefinitely suspended driver's license, and had marijuana and about $2,600 cash in the car.", and then the references? - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

2 pounds sources  Gaijin42 (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Offenses including possession and sale of marijuana"
I think we can do a better job of characterizing Samuel DuBose's criminal history as "he had been arrested over 60 times for offenses including possession and sale of marijuana." Out of the 60+ arrests, why is the sale/possession of marijuana the most notable? Why not say that he was arrested for "a variety of traffic, drug, and violent offenses"? That's more general, and avoids cherry-picking. DuBose also served time in prison; another notable fact that should be mentioned. How about something like: "he had been arrested over 60 times for a variety of traffic, drug, and violent offenses, and had served time in a state prison on a 2005 marijuana trafficking charge"?- 8.39.228.13 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The source says he had a long history of minor traffic infractions. It doesn't say how many of those resulted in arrest, if any. I've had my share of traffic tickets and have never been arrested as far as I know. I certainly didn't cherry-pick, I used most or all of the actual hard facts I found in those two sources, trying hard to give him equal space. The prison thing wasn't in those sources, and I wasn't aware of it. Frankly his history looks terrible, especially juxtaposed with Tensing's (aside from being indicted for murder, that is), and the more we say the worse that gets. This is always the problem with those bio sections, and very little of it ever has any actual relevance to the subject case. The responses have never made much sense to me, but again I'm a slave to community consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies for implying that you had cherry-picked. I should've said: "avoids the appearance of cherry-picking". Are you in agreement that prison time merits inclusion based on notability (I'm assuming you searched for it and saw that it was well-sourced)? I also think we should mention that his history includes violent crime. Tensing's assertion (if true) that he dragged him with his vehicle would be a violent crime, so I think any history of violent crime merits inclusion and would certainly be relevant. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly I'm having trouble getting my head around this and can't seem to conjure a coherent opinion about it. My edit was a WP:BOLD, it has no actual or de facto consensus, and I have no objection to you substituting what you think would be best. We can then go from there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, done. While sourcing DuBose's history, I also found Deters's statement about marijuana and ~$2,600 cash found in DuBose's car. I wasn't really sure where to put that; I ended up choosing the end of the "Shooting" section. The relevance of the marijuana and cash being found in the vehicle is fairly obvious in light of DuBose's previous incarceration on a marijuana trafficking charge. Once he was asked to step out of the vehicle, DuBose may have realized that his vehicle would likely be searched, and, if caught with the marijuana and the cash, he could've faced another marijuana trafficking charge, and may very likely have ended up back in prison. Obviously I didn't include my personal speculation in the article, but it's certainly notable enough to bring up here on the Talk page. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Removed the bit about violent offenses as unsourced. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this source sufficient? http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/hamilton-county/cincinnati/mount-auburn-shooting - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Added source for violent offenses. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't seem sufficient for "domestic violence" or "assault". I'm leery of source articles lacking clear authorship.- MrX 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The NYTimes article cited does not mention the claims about marijuana or $2600. Only the cincinnati.com article does. 76.189.248.116 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Allegedly began to drive off" vs. "began to drive off" in lede
Anyone opposed to changing the wording in the lede from "allegedly began to drive off" to "began to drive off"? There's some background on this in the 'Attempted to flee' section in this talk, but I wanted to address this more clearly in light of the fact that the "flee" phrasing is no longer in the article. In this case, "allegedly" is an addition that is not used by the sources covered in this article. Literally zero sources use the phrasing "allegedly began to drive off"; a Google search for: samuel dubose "allegedly began to drive off" returns this article as the sole result: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dubose+%22allegedly+began+to+drive+off%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=samuel+dubose+%22allegedly+began+to+drive+off%22. Phrasing like "tried to drive off", or "attempted to drive away" would also be fine; they're used more commonly in sources. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In it was quite systematically established that blue-chip sources are mixed as to whether the car was moving before the gunshot, and a sentence to that effect has been added to the Shooting section. If we can't say without qualification that the car was moving, we certainly can't say without qualification that he began to drive off. Again, we don't have to use the same language as sources, provided the meaning is not changed, and there is no room for question that this is only alleged. This question is very much in dispute, which is what "alleged" means. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If this case maintains momentum in the public eye it is likely a stronger real world consensus will develop on to what degree the car was moving or not. I would also expect that detailed frame by frame video analysis will occur during the trial by both the defense and prosecution that will give a more factual measurement of exactly how far and how fast the car was moving. when either of these two situations occur (media consensus, or factual analysis) we can update the article. For now although I weigh in on the "was moving" side, I agree that the status quo (mixed/alleged) is the right answer.  Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, several media organizations have done some frame by frame already. A few notable bits I gleaned (not OR, just repeating the things from the videos) This video does the most analysis of the movement of the car http://www.wlwt.com/news/wlwt-investigates-officers-body-cam-video-in-shooting-death-of-sam-dubose/34449234 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tensing's hand started on the door frame, moved to the steering wheel when the car was started, and was on the seatbelt on DuBose's chest at the time of the shot
 * There is a parked car visible through the window as the car was starting, and then the car is visible again at the moment of the shot. there was no significant movement (Im moving into the "not moving before the shot" camp as a result of this). After the shot the car can be seen moving past the window in the background as DuBose's car starts moving
 * Dubose's hands were in the air at the time of the shot, relevant from both a "threat" perspective, and a "intent to drive" perspective


 * At 1:34 in the WLWT video, the parked car is partly obscured by the A-pillar of DuBose's car. In the comparison frame, at 1:45, the parked car is no longer obscured by the A-pillar. Since the camera position relative to DuBose's car has not changed significantly, the change can only be because DuBose's car has moved, maybe 2–3 feet. But the reporter says, "suggesting the car has not moved yet". He then says, "The first indication of the car's movement comes in these video frames, taken about a second after the deadly shot was fired." While the second frame is after the shot, that doesn't prove or disprove that the movement came after the shot; DuBose's body position suggests that it was mere milliseconds after the shot. So the video doesn't quite support the reporter's analysis. While it shows that the car did not move more than a few feet before the shot, and it shows that Tensing was not dragged any significant distance, it doesn't show that the car didn't move at all before the shot, and the reporter's statements are too unequivocal. I know this is original research, but I hope no one will suggest modifying the article per this one reporter's analysis. The status quo is good at this point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We are getting rather deep down the OR rabbit hole here, but due to Parallax a minor change in position of Tensing would "move" the A-Pillar much more than it would move the parked car. In any case, any possible movement prior to the shot is of very short distance/speed. However, I somewhat agree with the IP just below, we can state unequivocally that the car was started and put into drive. However, the "towards" bit is pure speculation, once DuBose was dead, the car could easily veer to one side or the other based on alignment and that doesn't tell us anything about what dubose intent was. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't object to saying it was put into Drive if we have quality source that says he put it into Drive. Even if it's a logical certainty that he couldn't have done that after the gunshot, it would be OR to say it without a source. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not approach it like this: say what isn't disputed. Does starting a car and shifting it into gear count as "started to drive off" or "began to drive away"? I don't know. Do we (and our sources) generally agree that he started the vehicle ignition, and shifted the car out of Park? Should we just say that? For the record, saying that "in dispute" is what alleged "means" does not do full justice to the definition of the word "alleged". Have a look at the definition of "alleged"; it's more nuanced than that, and we should examine that nuance here. BTW I'm all for including frame-by-frame reference if the source is good. We should also take a look at the obvious stuff about the video and the relevant sources that cover that stuff; things that absolutely don't require deep analysis or expert opinion. For example, the fact that the car starts on one side of the street and ends up on the other side indicates that DuBose's vehicle wasn't just moving "away" from Tensing. It was moving into or toward, or in the direction of Tensing or Tensing's position. This stuff (like Tensing's well-sourced assertion that he thought DuBose was going to run him over, that he feared for his life, and that he fired in self-defense), merits inclusion. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My instinct is that you're putting too fine a point on things. It's ok if we leave some of the finer details unaddressed, we needn't try the case in this article. Others may disagree. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a fine point, but what we say in the lead can be said differently. This is what we have now: Tensing shot DuBose when he started his car and allegedly began to drive off.. That is inconsistent with the evidence and the sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * More neutrally and accurately would be to say that Tensing shot DuBose when, according to Tensing, DuBose began to drive off, and his arm became caught in the car and he was being dragged. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At least one other editor has requested clarifying who is doing the alleging. I can't imagine any strong objection to that, so I'm making that bold change. The dragging allegation is already addressed in the following sentence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To complicate things, it appears the prosecutor concedes the car was in motion "This just does not happen in the United States. People don't get shot for a traffic stop unless they are violent towards the police officer, and he (DuBose) wasn't," Deters said. "He was simply slowly rolling away. That's all he did.""http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_dc09a652-37ad-11e5-b872-e3446ee03e9c.html In the same source Matthews (Tensing attorney) alleges the putting into drive. I'm searching for a fact based source for that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not yet read everything above. However, I support the current language "Tensing shot DuBose when he started his car and, according to Tensing, began to drive off." which is far superior to the previous language "allegedly drove off" that was devoid of who was doing the alleging. David Tornheim (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

DuBose "was a rapper, music producer, entrepreneur, and motorcycle enthusiast"
What's the source for this? Here: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/07/28/samuel-dubose-laid--rest/30777221/ ? News article quoting a funeral program? I think we should clean that up a bit; not exactly sure how to phrase it properly. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The source is what I cited: This. Likely also from the funeral program, but we include stuff with weaker basis than that, especially minor personal interest stuff. It was printed in the venerable Washington Post. See my comment in the previous section. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I just added "according to his funeral program". I think that's sufficient. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is anyone opposed to the "according to his funeral program" wording? Are there any other sources to substantiate the claim that DuBose was a rapper, music producer, or entrepreneur? Any evidence of any rap songs that he composed or performed, or any music that he produced, or any companies that he founded as an entrepreneur? If not, then I think we should say, "according to his funeral program", just like the sources phrase it. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that if the only sources saying so are either the program, or sources referring to the program, we should as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)