Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Shooting of Walter Scott

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Shooting of Walter Scott

[edit]
(
)

Converted to an article by Wnt (talk), WWGB (talk), and Mandruss (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 01:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC).

  • This wasn't a shootout, so ALTs 1 and 2 really don't make sense. They're too awkward for me to fix at the moment. Anyway I think the straightforward ALT0 is best. EEng (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me. EEng (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel like these humdrum hooks miss the most interesting part of the whole story. The witness actually waited from April 6 to the 8th, I think, because he was afraid of retribution if he shared the video - he even considered erasing it. [1] But then he contacted Black Lives Matter after seeing the police report didn't match with what happened. I remember one source saying there was even a full day during which he and the family had the video but still didn't release it, and only after the cop's lawyer gave a song and dance about Scott wrestling for control of the taser did they decide to release it. There ought to be a way to show people some of that dramatic tension, but one problem is that I'm afraid we didn't update the article with all these things. Wnt (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. I don't know anything about DYK, so I don't know whether this is relevant here. But the appropriate weight to give to the races in this article is a matter of controversy. Including the races in a brief DYK statement would seem at least as controversial as mentioning them in the first para of the article, which is the subject of an open RfC. However, in an article like this one, it might be difficult to identify a factoid that's both non-trivial and non-controversial. Maybe the fact that the shooting was caught on video by an eyewitness?
  2. According to the revision history statistics for this article, user Cwobeel is #2 in edit count and #1 in total text added, so he seems conspicuously absent from the credits. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
In response, I credited Cwobeel. George Ho (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Full review needed, including whether hooks are adequately interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest another hook, as below, which I think highlights perhaps the most unusual aspect of this story (not the shooting itself - unfortunately routine - but the fact that the officer responsible is facing justice). Also I note that the RfC mentioned above has closed with consensus to mention the races of the protagonists. Prioryman (talk) 07:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A good start, but a major overstatement as the realistic chances of a death sentence are somewhere between infinitesimal and nil, inclusive. How about "will be tried for first-degree murder"? It would also be more accurate to say five times from behind, as not all the hits were in his back. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, here's an amended version incorporating your suggestions. Prioryman (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hooks appears to not meet WP:NEU, also there are WP:BLP, concerns regarding this topic. The present hooks IMHO are weighted heavily towards the race of the individuals involved in the event. Therefore may I suggest the following:
ALT5 ... that a police officer will be tried for the shooting death of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina?
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Review
Eligibility criteria - 1) New - passes
Article was created from a redirect on 7 April 2015. This parallels editing occurring at the article North Charleston, South Carolina. Until 15 April, the article expanded to 7719 characters. Therefore the article was no more than 7 days old from the date nominated, was expanded more than fivefold.
Eligibility criteria - 2) Long enough - passes
As of 15 April article was 7719 characters, and is presently 8878 characters.
Eligibility criteria - 3) Cited hook
Without stating my opinion of the neutrality of the hooks...
First hook fails citation, although there are reliable sources that state that Walter Scott was unarmed, this is not directly stated in the article.
ALT1 hook fails citation, as stated in the article Walter Scott did not receive an honorable discharge.
ALT2 hook passes citation.
ALT3 hook passes citation.
ALT4 hook fails citation, for the same reason the first hook fails.
ALT5 hook (proposed by myself) passes citation.
Eligibility criteria - 4) Within policy - failed
Per 4a requirement

a) Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.

As this event article is partially about an individual charged with murder, IMHO it is best to avoid a DYK for this article.
Eligibility criteria - 5) Review Requirement - On Hold
@Wnt, WWGB, and George Ho:lease provide diffs of recent reviews of articles.
Wnt has 12 DYK credits, WWGB has 7 DKY credits, Mandruss does not appear to have any DYK credits, George Ho has 6 DYK credits.
The hook
All hooks appear to be properly formatted, however, all include a "negative aspect of a living individual", that the police officer is charged with murder. Therefore, I have to strike my own hook, and suggest a new one:
ALT6: ... that the Shooting of Walter Scott has been discussed nationally in the context of race and policing?
This hook does not discuss the living police officer, is verified by a CNN article used in the article, and is under 200 characters long.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said previously, I am DYK-ignorant, so I don't know whether it's relevant at this juncture that the omission of "unarmed" was a grievous error that has now been corrected. First hook and ALT4 no longer fail citation. As for "negative aspect of a living individual", it also says "unduly", so there's the question of whether it is "undue" to refer to such a rare occurrence as a murder charge against a police officer. I have no idea how that word should be interpreted. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just pinged, so I added some of the backstory about the video I mentioned to the article. Based on what I've added:
ALT7: ... that the witness who recorded the shooting of Walter Scott considered deleting the video out of fear of retribution?
I still didn't find the part where he and the family waited the day for the officer to go on record before releasing it, but I remember reading that in one news story... somewhere. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to give a second opinion as to whether the article itself violates neutrality (see previous review and subsequent comment), and thus should not be run under DYK. If it is sufficiently neutral, then check latest ALT hooks, including for neutrality, and strike any of the older hooks that are not sufficiently neutral. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Well you got my attention. Considering the editors who have been most involved in this article (including me), I'm very interested in any suggestion that it might not be NPOV. What "previous review and subsequent comment" are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Mandruss, RightCowLeftCoast's review tagged the nomination with an "X" (which basically means the nomination has intractable problems and is almost certain not to be promoted, and in addition to listing neutrality issues (negative aspect of living persons) said, "IMHO it is best to avoid a DYK for this article". Right now this needs a second opinion from an experienced reviewer to see whether this analysis is agreed with. The subsequent comment was yours, disagreeing that any issues were undue. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. So, if I understand now, we're not talking about the article content being non-neutral in the usual sense, and it's not a suggestion that the article might need work in that area. And I didn't necessarily disagree about undue, I merely said that I don't know how that word should be interpreted in the DYK context. If it's a meaningless word, perhaps it should be removed, which would leave:

Articles and hooks that focus on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.

―Mandruss ☎ 05:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is familiar with the word "undue"; for example, there's a policy WP:UNDUE. When the world's press has a video and reacts to it in a fairly consistent way, it's not undue to cover what it shows. Nor is this a case of an "ongoing dispute" outside the courtroom - we don't see, say, the police department rallying around the shooter to defend his point of view. So I would altogether reject the statement that "As this event article is partially about an individual charged with murder, IMHO it is best to avoid a DYK for this article." If there were a policy against covering ongoing legal cases, then there would be a policy; and there is no reason to avoid doing so except for a policy, as this is a topic of some interest. It is not proper procedure to invent a blanket policy banning all DYK coverage of ongoing legal cases out of thin air, without precedent, in the middle of one hook discussion. Wnt (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think WNT has summed up the objections against summarily rejecting this article quite well. There is nothing requiring us to avoid mentioning charges against an individual if those charges are the reason they are notable. This needs another review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Length, age (at the time), neutrality, OK; QPQ done; no copyvio or plagiarism. This statement : "Scott "never grabbed the Taser of the police. He never got the Taser." does not appear in the cited source, either in the text or video. Hooks: ALT1 is incorrect (general v honorable; they might be the same thing I suppose but we don't say that), ALT2 implies some sort of previous connection, ALT3 is out of date, ALT4 is true but is a bit judgmental in the white/black context, ALT5 has already been struck, ALT 6 is true but uninspiring; ALT7 is my preferred hook as it comes at it from a different angle. Correct the unattributed quote and it will be ready to go. Belle (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Belle: I've added print and video links for this quote; the source originally cited had paraphrased the statement but didn't quote it. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Whoever is reviewing shall take a look at my revised ALT1 in a form of... well, ALT1a. George Ho (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Added ALT1b, but it's kinda different. I switched serving years with a cause of discharge. George Ho (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think ALT1b fails the BLP test, and is in any event not appropriate for the Wikipedia main page. Scott is recently deceased, so he still comes under BLP guidelines. I don't see how a discharge at age 20 or 21 for an unspecified drug-related incident is noteworthy considering that he was killed nearly 30 years later. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the others about ALT1a/1b. You might as well say ...the late Walter Scott had a poodle named Bugsy? (that's made up, but it would be about as relevant to the shooting -- really, unless the article is moved to be a biography of Walter Scott, there's a fair argument for deleting it unless somebody can show RSes tried to make a thing out of it) Wnt (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset didn't say ALT1a is not passable; just ALT1b. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, a DYK should not attempt to advance the guilt or innocent, or a side of an ongoing dispute or controversial issue, as per the DYK review guidelines. ALT1a does that, as does ALT7. Basically DYK should not be someone's WP:SOAPBOX.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

At first I didn't want to use the proposed bill, but I was left no choice. --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
ALT8a and ALT8c appears to be the most neutral of of the above list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that DYK's value is in presenting facts that are noteworthy, that are worth knowing. The murder charge is the one thing that sets this article apart; much of the rest is trivia of real significance to no one except those who enjoy memorizing trivia. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln had about 50 moles? Wow! That's a lot of moles! Is that something worth devoting memory neurons to remember? Not for me. Is that something I'll spend some time thinking about in the near future, or discuss with friends and family? Nope.

Perhaps ALT4 could be made less loaded by dropping the "five times from behind" bit. And, we've since learned that South Carolina law does not define multiple degrees of murder, so "first-degree" is incorrect. This leaves:

ALT4a appears to violate the DYK Review Guideline.

Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Previously discussed. There is no consensus that such a focus would be undue in this case. And there is virtually no dispute here. Even the extreme pro-cop POV pushers have, for the most part, refrained from pushing their POV in this article, and I've yet to see anyone taking Slager's side in the press. So I disagree with your claim that ALT4a would violate that guideline. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I read my discussion, but that doesn't change my view. Everyone is free to disagree.
Again see WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia should not be used to advance one side or the other of a contentious issue.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
As I and others have repeatedly tried to express: What is the other side of this "contentious issue"? "Nobody's perfect"? No one has answered that question, and I assume that's because there is no other side, because there is no contentious issue. Can you answer it? And please don't imply that I'm soapboxing anything here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss: I think ALT8 is perfectly reasonable. Certainly the subject's race is a key detail in the given climate. I don't think his gender warrants a mention though. The Scott-named bill is an important part of the story and the hook subtly provides the context of the shooting (police violence and subsequent falsification, plus race issues). In time, ultimately this bill may prove to be one of the more defining historical elements of the incident, so I don't think it's a cop out to focus on this instead of a narrower focus on the murder charge element. SFB 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Care to add an icon, Sillyfolkboy? --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @George Ho: Article re-reviewed – treating as April 5x expansion. Article is neutral and sources reliable. Approving hook ALT 8–1 as good to go. General points for further exploration of the article:
  1. Could do with a bit more detail on the body camera bill, the discussions around its passing, and the hold up of similar bills in committee.
  2. Search for more information linking specifics of the case to the broader national issue and what specifically this case brings/has in common with other cases (certainly the video element is an important one, not just in cases like this and Eric Garner, but in atrocities in general in the digital age).
  3. I would be interested to hear the motivations of those giving to the GoFundMe campaign for Slager's defense. Perspectives of this group are absent from the article and would likely give background the cultural climate of the city. Anything you can find on that would be great. SFB 21:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott&oldid=1019654672"