Talk:Killing of Keith Lamont Scott

Neutrality tag

I've added a neutrality tag onto this article as it almost appears like it's trying to glorify the cop involved. The article should be treating the subject of the shooting neutrally and not having an entire section talking about the officer and how good of a person he was. We shouldn't be doing that with the person killed in the shooting either. Regardless, this needs to be fixed. Silverseren^C 04:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Despite neither woman being at the scene, and the sister being asleep, both Scott's sister and daughter claimed that he was in his car reading a book when he was gunned down by the officer"

This sort of line also seems like it's trying to push a narrative, as does the protest sections by focusing practically exclusively on claimed negative things the protesters are doing. Silverseren^C 04:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The glorifying of the cop has been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There are other neutrality issues with the article though, as I mentioned above. But that's a start. Silverseren^C 04:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the hagiography of the officer. This is no place to sing his praises or talk about his scholarships. The article is about the shooting, not his history. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I feel the same way about both people involved in this. We should talk about their history only in relation to the shooting (so, like, mentioning the guy was married and had so and so kids actually is relevant due to their testimony and involvement in the case, but anything more than that about them would be undue). Silverseren^C 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"The shooting sparked riots three hours after the shooting and continued on into the early morning of the next day and night. The violence of the riots injured dozens of officers and included the near-death of another unarmed black man by a "Black Lives Matter" rioter."

But, yeah, if this is the summary of the protests, then I think it would be hard for anyone to claim that this is looking neutrally at the topic. Silverseren^C 04:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing

As a separate issue to the above, though undoubtedly related to the neutrality problems, is that the sourcing is pretty horrible. Theroot.com? Heavy.com? Mic.com? Daily Kos? Freaking Russia Today with two separate articles used as sources? Silverseren^C 04:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I have removed the lousy sources (RT, TheHeavy.com, TheRoot, Daily Caller, Mic) and replaced the cites and modified text, as necessary. Neutrality^talk 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Charlotte riots

2016 Charlotte riots or 2016 Charlotte riot should already be split to a new article. Not sure why it is not yet.--Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There isn't enough information still to warrant its own article as of yet and both, the shooting and riots, are linked. If their is enough information and sources to break it into two articles, then sure; but at this time I would argue we have not hit critical mass yet. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Charlotte riots (infobox)

I've removed partof = Black Lives Matter from the 2016 Charlotte riots infobox. It violates WP:NPOV to make such a profound connection between the group and the riots. In fact, I'm not sure there should be a riots infobox at all. What do others think?- MrX 18:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It probably doesn't. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please give your opinion on whether or not this information should be included

I added the following to the article:

In July 2005, in Bexar County, Texas, Scott was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was released in 2011. Source: Charlotte police protests: Governor declares state of emergency as violence erupts for second night

User:EvergreenFir erased it and commented: "Unrelated to this incident. Wish folks would stop trying to justify killings with past actions."

What do other editors think of including or not including this information?

71.182.243.204 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also consider it unrelated. This article is about the specific incident, not about the past of those involved. This isn't a biography article. Silverseren^C 04:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is inappropriate. It is just a form of victim blaming. The cops had no knowledge of that conviction when they took him down, so it is irrelevant to the circumstances of his death. WWGB (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Utterly WP:UNDUE and unrelated to this incident. There's a nasty habit of media to dig up any wrongdoing of people shot by police with the effect of trying to paint the dead person as deserving of their fate. Unless that past info is somehow related to the incident at hand, it should be excluded. The addition of this material coupled with the repeated attempts to write hagiographies about Vinson should be seen for what they are: propaganda. Over on Shooting of Terence Crutcher we don't have info about Crutcher's or Shelby's rap sheets, though both have been reported on. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A short biography is usually a part of an article about a person's death. Without this info all that's left is one line. The long prison sentence is just a relevant to this article as his marriage and his many children. Death of Harry Stanley is about a man who was shot dead by a police officer and it mentions a prison sentence that the victim served. Jim Michael (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly it shouldn't. Unless you're willing to allow the criminal histories and complaint records of the police to be included too. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that both should: due to Scott having been the victim of a police action (which action is the sole reason he has become notable), his criminal antecedents are just as relevant to this article as his personal family background; and any complaints related to Shelby's past police actions (including any relevant criminal past that could come to light) are also relevant to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.192.131.236 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, include both. Jim Michael (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Both should be included as relevant background information, but in as neutral a manner as possible. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The record of both the police officer and the victim should be included. EvergreenFir, please add the info if you have a source per your statement.Patapsco913 (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I still oppose it and I see you think this is a vote for some reason. If we need an RfC, we can. But I don't see anyone for including it citing any policy yet. It's still undue. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• The part about him being convicted previously of "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon" I believe is relevant to this case, since he had a deadly weapon on him. Listing him doing jail time for "evading arrest" might be relevant here also, since he didn't comply with the police yelling at him to drop his weapon a few dozen times. Dream Focus 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Do we have sources that say they might be related? Or just sources stating info because (assuming the best of faith) they're filling space in a high profile story? If we had something that connected the past explicitly to this event, I would raise no objections. But we don't. Just editors who think they're related and news outlets spewing out anything that's public record. (Also there appears to be a lot about the cop too) EvergreenFir (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

And now some IP is copy-pasting stuff from coverage of Vinson's arrest... le sigh EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I already reverted the IP vandal several times before you did. What does that have to do with this discussion? That's a different person with the same name. Dream Focus 06:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I know you did (IP also put it on Brentley Vinson). Just frustrated with this crap and venting a bit. Can ignore it. But curious what others think about the issue I raise: isn't it WP:OR/WP:SYNTH on our end if we start making connections that sources don't explicitly make? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We can include the information about Scott and Vinson without saying that any of it led to the shooting of Scott. Jim Michael (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are sources about Scott's criminal history, although most of the coverage is in fringe sources.

"Under North Carolina law, Scott would have been prohibited from owning firearms or ammunition because he had been convicted of a violent felony.

When he was 30, in 2003, a Bexar County, Texas, grand jury indicted him on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and evading arrest with a vehicle after Scott allegedly shot a man the previous year. Scott pleaded no contest and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison after his 2005 conviction."
— CNN

"However, the police paint a different picture of Mr. Scott, who spent several years in prison in Texas and who had been convicted on a variety of criminal charges over the years."
— New York Times

"A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanor assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.

In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.

In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with ​several different crimes on different dates, including carrying ​a concealed weapon​ (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to ​the delinquency of a minor. ​He pleaded guilty to ​all charges.

Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992​ and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced but the disposition of the case​s​ is unclear."
— Charlotte Observer

"Scott has a lengthy criminal record, including convictions in Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina. Texas records showed he was convicted of evading arrest with a vehicle in 2005, and several months later, of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon."
— Boston Herald

- MrX 12:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Those are all reliable, mainstream sources and the info is relevant. It should be added to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 13:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Still this it's prejudicial and meant to blame the victim. A simple "Scott had a criminal record which included weapons charges" would suffice. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jim Michael: You've been here long enough to know not to readd stuff, offering a version without discussing on the talk page when there's an ongoing dispute. Your version is still too long in my view. Wish other regulars would chime in EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed, until there is consensus for adding it. I don't have strong view at this point, but I think we should take a cautious approach until there is more widespread coverage in mainstream sources and until more facts are known. - MrX 21:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am not sure what exactly was his criminal history based on the sources above, but this criminal history obviously must be included as something relevant. It does not justify anything, but this is an information interesting for readers (this is the reason the info was published in newspapers), and it would be considered, for example, during any court proceedings. If we had a separate page about this person, then his criminal history would be included in the biography page, but since we do not, it should be included here. By the same reason any similar information about police officers (for example if they shot someone before) should also be included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

To what extent do we detail it then? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

State which crimes he was convicted of. Jim Michael (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Even with some dodgy single-purpose accounts, there is no consensus here to add Scott's irrelevant criminal record to this article. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Scotts record is of zero consequence or importance. In the moment, the officers had no idea who Scott was, so his criminal history, if accurate, was not an issue. To me the more obvious issue is that North Carolina is an "Open Carry" state. He was within his rights to have a gun (if in fact he had a gun). Any previous arrests or jail time, if true, were under different rules and in different places. Buster Seven Talk 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If he had done jail time for previously shooting someone, and had previously been arrested for having a weapon when he wasn't allowed to, then both of those things are clearly relevant here and should be mentioned. Don't whitewash things. Dream Focus 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am simply telling that "background" section here is insufficient. What kind of "brain damage"? Where did he work? Did he work? What was his criminal history is any? This is a criminal incident. This is simply information a typical reader would like to know. Nothing else matters. This should not be included only if this can not be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• His record wrt to owning and using guns is certainly relevant as to the question of whether he was carrying a gun at the time, which is an issue central to the case. Keep in mind that the rules governing Wikipedia content are very different from the rules of evidence in court; Wikipedia doesn't omit potentially relevant information just because it might be prejudicial.Erniecohen (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Scott's record of committing violent crimes with guns and other weapons is obviously not irrelevant, which is why practically every RS discusses it. In particular it's quite relevant to the family's claim that Scott had no gun and that the gun and ankle holster the cops found must have been planted, and oh look, our article helpfully includes that completely unsubstantiated accusation, so I find it puzzling that we would strain to spin the news reporting that is out there.

The above citations to "UNDUE" are utterly and obviously wrong. The policy on weight doesn't say anything about whether a couple WP editors think the material is important; instead it refers to the importance assigned by sources. In particular it doesn't say that topics that are given a lot of weight in RS's should be excluded if EvergreenFir thinks the sources are "filling space" or engaging in a "nasty habit" or quite possibly doing something very nefarious, folks, I'm not saying it's racism, folks, but really who's to say that it's not?

UNDUE also doesn't license a well-meaning editor to ask whether the information is "prejudicial"—which inquiry, besides being entirely irrelevant because this isn't a court of law, nobody is going to jail and thus the very steep protections afforded to accused criminals are not even relevant, and in any event the fact of the prior convictions could be admissible as evidence for a variety of purposes if Scott were alive and standing trial for the events of the day. But more to the point, WP:UNDUE is not WP:NOPREJUDICE; the latter policy simply doesn't exist.

"Consensus" also is not a vote, and it particularly is not a vote unsupported by identifiable content policies. There are clear policy bases to include this material, and no clear basis for an argument to the contrary (or, if there is one, you haven't stated it). So that is one way of saying your !vote doesn't count for anything unless you can cite policy language clearly demonstrating the correctness of your analysis.

Oh and finally, User:Buster7, North Carolina is not an open carry state for convicted violent felons. I am not sure such a thing exists in the United States. RealityCheckTime (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Officer shot and killed a man BEFORE knowing if he was a convicted felon. And...you have been an editor for one day. I ask you respectfully not to undo a thread I begin. I admit that "The Officer" thread may have stretched talk page rules and decorum. But in the future it may be best to let a veteran a editor make that Revert decision. Buster Seven Talk 17:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The cops didn't know his violent criminal record at the time. So what? That doesn't mean Scott was allowed to carry a gun, it doesn't mean he's allowed to brandish it at people (which is a crime even if they aren't cops), and it certainly doesn't mean he's allowed to ignore police orders to drop the gun. And, I don't see any problem with reverting talk page abuse—the sooner, the better. Just don't do it again and there shouldn't be any problems. RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If the quote about him being a "family man" is considered to be relevant, then the fact that he was a felon should also be included. Basic biographical facts are appropriate for articles like these.

And User:RealityCheckTime, I'll confirm that there is no such thing as an open carry state for violent felons. Just the fact that he was in possession of the weapon was illegal. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Facebook check

Facebook check was activated for Charlotte, North Carolina. --150.216.63.40 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I found it annoying too. However, I do not believe that is relevant. How has the Facebook checker been used in other articles where it was activated? --WashuOtaku (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and 2016 Davao City bombing all mention it. EvergreenFir (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the Boston Globe, this is the first time a Facebook safety check was implemented during a protest event, rather than inn the aftermath of a shooting, terrorist attack or natural disaster. I think that this merits inclusion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm cool with it Spirit of Eagle. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

NBC just released a video

NBC News just released a video of the shooting. Will see if there's anything new to integrate into the article, but expect more news to come out about this (meaning more editors too). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The source says "No gun can be seen in the footage, which appears to have been recorded from a nearby patch of grass. The footage was obtained by NBC News amid conflicting reports about whether a gun was found at the scene of the shooting. Police say he had a handgun on him and posed "an imminent, deadly threat." The family says he was not armed and did not pose a threat to the officers." EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the cops look all dressed in battle gear - I assume not on regular patrol. They seem looking for someone dangerous. Poor guy they found I bet was the same color and size - they were certain he had a gun because the guy they were looking for probably was "armed and dangerous". 2601:181:8301:4510:B597:D80A:61F0:CD89 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the police report says that they recovered a gun from the scene. Thus, if there is no gun in the footage and, whenever info is released about Scott in relation to guns, if he had no gun permit or any known gun owned, then that would imply such a gun was planted. Oh dear. :/ I expect all of this to get much more complicated. Silverseren^C 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

None of this is accurate or sensible. Just because a gun is present does not mean it will be visible in videos that were shot, as ought to be clear from the wife's video which doesn't really show anything at all, including not showing that Scott was shot.

Also, since Scott was a convicted felon not legally allowed to own a gun, and since there is no gun registration in NC, it's downright bizarre to suggest that, IF somebody discovered an absence of legal gun records, that would somehow show he didn't have any gun. So this crystal balling on your part does not make a whole lot of sense. RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Middle name in title

We generally wouldn't include middle name here, unless that is how sources usually refer to him, per WP:COMMONNAME. E.g., Shooting of Walter Scott not Shooting of Walter Lamar Scott, Shooting of Samuel DuBose not Shooting of Samuel Vincent DuBose. I confess to not having looked at a lot of sources, being tied up on other things. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: FWIW a simply google search for "Keith Scott" showed most seem to include his middle name (for some reason). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, probably just how they do it in early reporting. No problem leaving it as is for the time being, and maybe they'll settle down to Keith Scott at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times, on first reference, uses just the middle initial: shooting of Keith L. Scott? Neutrality^talk 23:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally I'd go for brevity but sometimes it's actually easier to type the "amont" then it is to bother with a period, those dots are easy to overlook when trying to remember a URL. Ranze (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why we should consider anything but COMMONNAME. I doubt we could show COMMONNAME for Keith L., either. I say defer. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

About the gun

I don't know where it came from but is there any more information available on the gun? Given that police are arguing KLS had it they presumably have one entered into evidence. For example, do we know the make/model or if it was loaded (and if so, how many rounds) and if there's any blood on it? Ranze (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not yet, CMPD will release that information in time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Top infobox

In the top infobox, with have participant Keith Lamont Scott (victim) and then death Keith Lamont Scott. This appears to be a duplication of the same thing. Is there a better way without showing duplication? --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Other pages like this don't list the deceased as a participant. I saw that and was confused. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done- MrX 21:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

White devils

So we have one source from Fox News ([1]) which says that "“Just know that all white people are f****** devils, all white cops are f******* devils and white people," said a man identified as Scott's brother." The video is cites is no longer available. Fox does not claim that they identified the person as his brother. I assume that it was in the video.

When I search "Charlotte protest white devil" and "Charlotte riot white devil" I find zero reliable sources that corroborate this story. Fox News is not the most reliable source for race issues and considering that no other news organizations covered this, I am skeptical of its veracity. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be removed per WP:UNDUE. I tried once but was reverted. - MrX 21:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Concur. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The quote is real, Scott's brother did say that to WCNC-TV news, here is a video on YouTube and it mentioned by a WCNC-TV reporter on Twitter. Oddly, despite this, I cannot find a valid source quoting it, even on WCNC-TV's own website. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt the WP:V. I don't care about the WP:V because I doubt the WP:DUE even if it's true. I think MrX agrees with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree in that case, it is obviously a reaction and does not really change the events as they unfolded. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bulletproof vest

One of the cited sources says "police vest", the other "CMPD vest". I changed our content from "police vest" to "bulletproof vest" and wikilinked that to Bulletproof vest. It seems like a permissible paraphrase to my ear, but have I committed original research? If it's just some vest that says CMPD on it, I'm in error and that doesn't even need to be in the article as far as I can see. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I have self-reverted that change pending an outcome here. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of weak sources that say it was a bulletproof vest.[2][3].- MrX 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak is right. Heavy Romper. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Video clearly shows Kevlar vests, but that could still be OR. Just erring on the side of caution here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The only important fact about the vest is that it clearly identified the man as a cop. IMO that is why generally the RS's mention that part and don't say anything about it being bulletproof or kevlar. Tracking what the sources say is basic WP:V; removing that lone bit of useful information would be very, very objectionable and contrary to WP:DUE. RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can state your first sentence without RS support, I can state my view that the bulletproof vest provided some protection against any gun in Scott's possession, and is therefore not insignificant. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte Observer reported that "They returned to watching for their suspect, then Vinson saw Scott hold up a gun. They withdrew to a spot nearby and put on duty vests that said “Police” that would identify them as officers. When they came back, Scott still had the gun." RealityCheckTime (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, still little RS support for bulletproof, so I'll concede pending said support. I.e., stay with status quo "police vest". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Placement of new video

At first I was going to move this video link from External links to the body, as at Shooting of Walter Scott#Eyewitness video and Shooting of Samuel DuBose#Shooting. Raw video doesn't lie or take a side, so it's not an NPOV violation to make it more prominent. And we judged in those articles that it added significant reader value. In this case, the video seems to add less reader value. The frame is jumping all around, and you only get a very brief glimpse of Scott. So I'm ambivalent. Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine that moving it up would be a problem. Raw video of an event unfolding is about a neutral as you can get.- MrX 00:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion as to reader value? Do we care about that? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to moving the link. We now have 3 videos (wife's, dashcam, and bodycam). The dashcam is the only one that actually shows the moment the shots were fired. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok then. I'll do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, changed the non-YouTube one to a YouTube version of the same length. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Move videos to Commons?

Recommendation - That the videos should be placed in Wikimedia and linked to there so they will always be available. If you need assistance let me know. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Washuotaku: - This is similar to this discussion about 14 months ago, but I think my position has changed a little. If you feel that the risk of YouTube being acquired by Fox in a hostile takeover is significant (that should tell you where my bias is), and the licensing issues discussed there don't apply here, then I'm not opposed to you doing that. That discussion did not result in a move to Commons. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Coords in error

Current coordinates - 35.29559°N 80.72557°W / 35.29559; -80.72557 - are off by about 150 m, not even in the apartment complex and across a two-lane highway to the east. If that's not enough, the marker is on the top of a water tower in Google Earth. Just a heads up that I'm working on it, trying to be as accurate as possible comparing videos to Google Maps and Google Earth. (This kind of thing has not been seen as OR in the past.) Hard to correlate them, so I don't know how accurate I'll be. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've made an adjustment - 35.29543°N 80.72708°W / 35.29543; -80.72708 - that gets us into the apartment complex. A ton of detective work and reasoning went into this, more than I have ever done before, and I'm only about 80% confident that this is the exact spot. I'm open to alternative strategies, but I can think of only three.

1. Use the coordinates of 9453 Lexington Circle, per Google Maps, which the wife said on her video (she incorrectly said Court instead of Circle; there is no Lexington Court in Charlotte). This is probably her home address, the address of her building, and it is unknown how far they were from that building. This would put the marker on that building, about 75 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty, although that means nothing to readers and most editors for that matter.
2. Use the coordinates of the Village at College Downs apartment complex, per Google Maps. This would put the marker on what is probably the apartment complex office, about 40 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty.
3. Use the coordinates of the approximate center of the apartment complex, per eyeball. This would put the marker in a grassy area about 75 m away from the current coords. Reduce coordinates precision to reflect the uncertainty.

And it's possible someone else could do better detective work, but I would like to hear their reasoning. If you feel I've committed OR, please specify which of the three alternatives you would prefer, or suggest a fourth. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm 98% certain those are the correct coordinates based on the unambiguous dash cam video and other information about the shooting location..- MrX 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: What other information, just for my information? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The main street, the name of the complex, this compared to index :02 of the dash cam video. Compare this with index :36 of the wife's video. (opposite sides of the same building.- MrX 15:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Changing 80% to 98%. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Exact time of day

We currently say "3:55 p.m. – 4:00 p.m." in the infobox and "before 4:00 p.m." in the prose, no citation for either. The dashcam video shows the shots fired at 3:51:45. How would you resolve this discrepancy? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine if you want to adjust it since we have more accurate information now. Doesn't have to be down to the second though. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

How do know that the dash cam video timestamp is accurate?- MrX 12:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The only other way is getting the list chronological events by CMPD themselves, which typically include the time. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Or say "about 3:50 p.m.". Seems sufficient hedge. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral choice of information to include about Scott

Quoting his neighbor's characterization of Scott as a "family man" while omitting his history of violent criminal offenses involving guns seems to be absurdly non-neutral. I think both pieces of information should be included. Erniecohen (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That does seem rather bias. Dream Focus 15:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll state the position I always do, to no avail. I think no personal information should be included that tends to shed either good or bad light on the individual, unless relevance to the article subject (the shooting of Keith Scott) can be shown. This is not a bio article, and there are different inclusion criteria. Criminal history is not relevant unless the cops knew of it in advance. They also knew nothing about his current personal life situation. They knew his race, his approximate age, and his gender. Period. So I would omit both. This would obviously apply to Vinson as well. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this position. Only way to be neutral and to adhere to WP:BLP (which, yes, applies to this article).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

RS's are the best guide of what is topical/relevant. So when you see a lot of them discussing information in connection with a topic...RealityCheckTime (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but reporting is not discussing. They routinely give details that we routinely omit. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Criminal background regarding gun violence and/or resisting arrest is presumably relevant to the critical question of whether he was carrying a gun and (if he was carrying a gun) whether he refused to drop it when ordered to do so. Similarly, his history of brain damage, while perhaps not known to police (unless they heard what his wife was saying), is potentially relevant if it affected his ability to communicate with the police. The Wikipedia principle is (or should be) to lean in the direction of inclusion of possibly relevant information, even if it is possibly prejudicial. This is important in its de facto role as a trustworthy aggregator of information.Erniecohen (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much original research. Wikipedia is NOT a "de facto aggregator of information". It's an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, when it comes to WP:BLP, which does apply to recently deceased person, the relevant principle is and should be to lean in the direction of exclusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, in the article cited by MrX above the NY Times writes: "However, the police paint a different picture of Mr. Scott, who spent several years in prison in Texas and who had been convicted on a variety of criminal charges over the years." Are you seriously arguing that they're not presenting this as relevant information? They go on to discuss a concealed weapons charge and the fact that he did prison time for shooting a man in Texas. RealityCheckTime (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to solicit opinion from Gaijin42 on this. This is not WP:CANVASS since I have no idea how he would feel about it. He often disagrees with me, and I usually defer to his superior judgment. I simply have great respect for his competence as to this kind of question. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest starting an RfC as these multiple discussions about the same subject are unlikely to lead to a consensus.- MrX 17:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to articles on recently deceased persons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Short bios of the victim and shooter are usual for these articles. Several criminal convictions - resulting in being sent to prison for years - can't be regarded as a minor issue. Jim Michael (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It is most definitely a minor issue and should not be included. This article should not be used to besmirch the victim. Any felony convictions or prison time or failure to pay his light bill is in no way relevant to the shooting of Keith Scott. Wikipedia should not be used sway public opinion. Buster Seven Talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And I reiterate that we should apply the same consideration to Vinson. We don't need his awards and commendations and favorable reviews, and we wouldn't need to repeat any reporting about wife-beating, alcohol abuse, or picking his nose in public. It's simply not relevant to the article subject, unless there is reliable reporting that he beat his wife that morning, which might have affected his state of mind at the time of the shooting, or that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the shooting. In my opinion, still waiting for Gaijin42. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting including trivial or irrelevant details such as nose-picking or a failure to pay the light bill. Nor is anybody suggesting including unsourced claims or unproven crimes. If the two of you can't discuss article content seriously and competently, perhaps you should go work on another article.RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@RealityCheckTime: Perhaps you should learn something about appropriate ways to address other Wikipedia editors, which, in my view, is more important in the larger picture than whether this article reports Keith Scott's criminal history. That confrontational tone is exactly what starts these discussions spinning out of control. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Unabashed bullsh*tting on the talk page, i.e. making plainly nonsensical factual claims and demanding edits contrary to policy, are what sends discussions out of control. If you don't have a policy argument, don't talk. This is not a place to air your feelings about stuff. RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of something to the subject of article (the shooting) should be established by sources. If publications on the subject of shooting provide personal information, so should we. Same is about the police officer or anyone else related to the shooting (relatives, investigators, whoever). My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree in principle. On the other hand, if we included anything that was reported by four reliable sources, I'm estimating the article would be about three times its current size. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we have to be selective, or we're ourselves a newspaper. This comes down to four questions, none of which has been answered. 1. How many reliable sources report Scott's criminal history? 2. If one news organization reports it five times, does that count as one or five? 3. Must a source discuss a history–shooting connection or relationship? 4. How much reporting of Scott's criminal history constitutes sufficient WP:WEIGHT?
I shudder to think of an RfC that tried to reach a consensus on these questions, but maybe we don't need to. Maybe we could just ask the question, "Should the article include content about Scott's criminal history?". For that matter, if someone could point me to a fairly recent RfC consensus to include criminal history in a fairly similar case, I would probably defer to that rather than wait 30 days for an answer. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no WP policy that supports excluding material from articles simply because it reflects unfavorably on the subject. Quite the opposite, policy tells us to include such material. Painting a rosy picture is not the goal.RealityCheckTime (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is, it's called WP:BLP and it applies to recently-dead people. WWGB (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP (and WP:NPOV in general) does not support excluding material from articles simply because it reflects unfavorably on the subject. Quite the opposite. That mistake is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

We're currently including positive info about him, whilst excluding negative info. That violates WP:NPOV. Jim Michael (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"Positive" or "negative" does not matter. It only matters if that was published by multiple RS on the subject of the shooting (as something obviously important and interesting to readers. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Painting a rosy picture is not the goal - Please note that I propose omitting irrelevant positive as well as irrelevant negative for both parties. This is hardly trying to paint a picture of any kind of either person. The question in my mind is exactly what is required to show relevance. It doesn't appear we're making much progress here—and the tone of the discussion is starting to suffer—so how do we feel about starting an RfC (per MrX's suggestion yesterday) with the question, "Should the article include content about Scott's criminal history?" ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think an RfC is called for as long as the "Suggestions for responding" at WP:RfC are adhered to and no editor is reverted or chastised because of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT [4] and [5] Buster Seven Talk 14:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's three for an RfC and none against, so far. But I'm not sure that's the best way to frame the question, given some of the comments here including mine. For example, my position would be along the lines of: "Yes or no, depending on the other bio content for both parties." Which is a worthless !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

How about if the question is: Should we include reliably sourced info about Scott's criminal conviction and Vinson's record of previous incidents? Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional transcript of wife's video

Re: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

89.242.76.10, I encourage you to read some of WP:EW and learn how to use this talk page to resolve content disagreements. When someone disputes your edit by reverting it, you don't simply re-revert with a counter to their argument. You start a discussion or let it go.

With that said, I support MrX's position. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the new content per MrX's edit summary rationale. Nothing to add to that, except that I didn't take his "we don't need a full transcript" that literally. I understand that the IP user does not propose a full transcript, and I suspect that MrX did, too. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - BTW, the proposed content is a copy-and-paste from the cited source, which we can't do per copyright policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I did not copy the source exactly and I reworded the few words when I first reverted MrX and considering what I proposed to add is almost entirely a one line quote, it seems hard get around it being similar to the source. Currently the second last sentence of that paragraph, which in the source is just above what I added, is almost entirely the quote and is as close to being copy and paste as to what I propose to add. Also with regards to the other information I added, which you said was of questionable reliability and linked me to its wiki page, the source is certainly reliable enough to use with attribution. Other sources used on the page, such as The Daily Beast also have a large controversy section relative to the size of the page like The Intercept page you linked me to in your edit summary. 89.242.76.10 (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  Ok, I could be wrong as to copy-and-paste, but that was more an unrelated side comment anyway. If it were a copy-and-paste, that by itself wouldn't preclude its inclusion. We could have simply decided that it can be included with rewording. And let's keep The Intercept and other issues separate please, using the same process. (I didn't realize you were the one who added the content about The Intercept; I have a very poor memory for IP addresses). ―Mandruss ☎ 14:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Police accounts

The new "case update" released by the police seems to add useful detail and clarity. I think there should be a separate "police accounts" section for all of that, to keep it separate and make it clear that it is their account. This technique tends to eliminate the need for repetitive and tiresome "according to's". Just not sure where I'd put it, or how it should affect the existing Shooting section content. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

My first draft of the "case update". I wouldn't see any need to cite anything but the Washington Post article linked above.

On September 24, along with the two dashcam and bodycam videos, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department released a statement of their account of the shooting incident. It stated that the incident began as Vinson and another plainclothes officer were sitting in an unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in an unrelated case. A white SUV pulled up and parked beside them, driven by a man later identified as Scott. The officers observed Scott rolling what they believed to be a marijuana "blunt", but they decided that the warrant operation had higher priority than the drug activity.

Soon afterward, Vinson saw Scott hold a gun up, giving the officers probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and investigate the gun possession. The officers then left the area to retrieve equipment and don "marked duty vests" that would identify them as police officers. When they returned, they again saw a gun in Scott's possession, and they identified themselves as police officers and "gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun". A uniformed officer arrived to assist and tried to break Scott's front passenger window with a baton.

Scott then got out of his vehicle with the gun, backing away from the vehicle while failing to respond to further commands to drop the gun. Perceiving Scott's actions and movements as an "imminent physical threat" to the officers, Vinson fired at Scott, hitting him. Officers "immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene". According to the statement, Scott was found to be wearing an ankle holster and the gun was found to be loaded.

The statement said that lab analysis revealed Scott's DNA and fingerprints on the gun recovered at the scene. Police also released photographs of a gun, a holster, and a marijuana "blunt" they said were recovered at the scene.

The statement did not say how many officers were ultimately present at the time of the gunshots.

―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)