Talk:Killing of Stephon Clark/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Past arrests and convictions

someone please readd his conviction for pimping. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-stephon-clark-profile-20180328-story.html Darkstar1st (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Added back, [1]. -Darouet (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is garbage. It's irrelevant to the subject of this article, it's a BLP smear that SYNTH insinuates there was some justification for the shooting. I have removed it and it should not be reinserted without consensus that these concerns are invalid. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO prior convictions are always included, see rodney king. please strikethru your accusations and remember to wp:agf. also look up synth, it doesnt mean what you think it does. while you are there, learn what the L stands for in blp. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

First, no Darkstar1st, BLP also applies to recently deceased persons, especially where it has implications for living family members. Second, uhh... SPECIFICO, how exactly is it SYNTH to include content from an article explicitly about Clark and his background in the context of the shooting? That sounds more like an exactly perfect source to use for an overview of his background, the good stuff and the bad. GMG^talk 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

GMG, No, not in this context and perhaps you missed the thrust of my instruction to Specifico. what you does apply here is WP:CRYBLP, facts are facts, recent, living, or not. BLP mentions in some cases, a good example would be Chris Cornell before suicide was ruled the cause. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I agree that this information can prejudice how readers view Clark, and can tend to "justify" the shooting in some people's eyes. However, this is a part of Clark's life, it's been reported by multiple media sources, and it has also been my experience, per Darkstar1st, that prior convictions reported in the media also go into these articles. I don't know how else to present this information in a neutral fashion. MelanieN I know you've been watching this page, would you mind giving advice? I'm not sure what the best course of action is and I'm not interested in yet another edit war with SPECIFICO.

SPECIFICO I have a different question: can you please affirm that you arrived at this page independently and did not follow me here? When I asked you about doing this at another page recently [2][3] you didn't deny it [4]. Wikipedia is a very big place — there are over 5.5 million English articles — and there's no need to follow me around. -Darouet (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SYNTH: The guy was shot on suspicion. He had a prior criminal record. The suspicion was justified. The shooting was justified. That's it. It's a horrendous BLP smear via synth. The simple statement concerning prior arrests is quite sufficient. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If any of that was actually in the article, then yes it would be. GMG^talk 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I filled in the chain of implication. The first and second are what imply the last and that is what's described at our WP:SYNTH link. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's... not what synth is. And I'm not sure how to explain that other than to say in a completely non-sarcastic literal way, that you probably need to go back and reread it. If you want to argue that it's cherry picking, because it does not also include what the article says in the very next breath, that his criminal past was immaterial to the shooting, then that's an argument that holds water. But... simply pretending that an unrelated policy says what you think it says when it doesn't is not an argument at all. Quoting nearly verbatim from a single reliably published source is literally the opposite of synth. GMG^talk 16:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It provides two more reasons, single source = UNDUE. Cherrypicking the source fails WP:NPOV WP:V. I still believe that, as cherrypicked and written, it would lead our readers to the synth interpretation, but any of these 3 reasons is sufficient by itself to invalidate that bit. Note we still do have a simple neutral statement of his record in place. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

DUE maybe, depends on whether we've found the one source to talk about this in this context, when the general consensus among sources is that it's not important enough or central enough to the broad story to include. NPOV maybe, if we're presenting the information substantially out of context from the general consensus in sources (e.g., covering the bad bit exclusively but not the overall presentation of the source with regard to his personal biography). V, not really. We've got it in the LA Times, so it's perfectly verifiable, but verifiable doesn't guarantee inclusion. What needs to be determined is what the general consensus is regarding what the relevant parts of his biography are, which takes more than one source. GMG^talk 16:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, GreenMeansGo, and Darkstar1st: Thanks for the clarification that this is not synthesis. With regards to WP:DUE, I am not sure where the line is, and have agonized over that for days here with other aspects of Clark's life, both positive (e.g. he liked to make people smile) and negative (he had a criminal history). While there's no synth in merely reporting the criminal history, any excessive focus on that history will prejudice some readers against Clark. I tried to add this information in as neutral a fashion as possible. I think that by noting that Clark pled no contest to reduce charges, I did communicate something Clark's behalf. I will wait to see what kind of agreement emerges here before proposing to re-add the information.

In the LA Times article, after mentioning Clark's criminal convictions, the authors quote from community leaders who criticize efforts to highlight Clark's convictions as a justification for his death. I agree with those community leaders. I have not added those statements to the article yet because I think they belong in the "responses" section, and that section needs more attention: a description of the funeral, more media coverage, etc., and the task feels overwhelming combined with my real life commitments. If, in the future, we added Clark's specific criminal record to his bio section, perhaps we could include a relevant criticism of efforts to highlight his criminal record as well. -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if we're looking at only the LA Times piece, they commit all of 29 words to the criminal history, and then immediately to go to commit almost 300 to why it's not a factor. SBS an Australian source quotes the LA Times (lending credence to DUE), but gives both sides about equal weight. Canada Free Press is probably the most conservative source I see (and less reliable probably than either the previous two). They commit five full paragraphs to criminal record citing the Sacramento Bee, with basically no balancing coverage whatsoever. For their own part [The Bee splits it about 65% coverage of record, and about 35% rebuttal.

So I'd say overall, we're probably not riding the line of NPOV if we don't present them in some form together. We probably shouldn't be as rebuttal heavy as the LAT, but neither should we be as entirely one sided as the CFP. As far as presentation, I would say it's pretty important that those who publish a rebuttal do so immediately afterward for context, and so we probably should too. GMG^talk 18:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think that if Clark's convictions ended up in the article, your analysis would help us determine the appropriate weight, and response, they deserve. -Darouet (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No. It most certainly is SYNTH, as I have explained in detail. However it's also invalid for at least 2 other reasons. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't interject your replies inside my posts [5], per WP:TPO, "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." -Darouet (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Simple mistake Daro, no TPO links requird. Meanwhile, the crux remains: Kindly don't misrepresent me as OK'ing your BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, it really isn't necessary to turn the rhetoric up to 11 all the time. You might consider that most people are genuinely here to build a better encyclopedia, and not to push an agenda for one thing or the other. You might even consider that you may occasionally be wrong, and should at least occasionally actually read what people write in response, and consider what they have to say. You've not been very good at that last one in this discussion. It's a bit like talking to a wall. GMG^talk 21:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude - if I understand correctly, police were responding to a call about someone possibly breaking into a house. Pimping is utterly unrelated to that and does not factor in to the shooting. We need to remember that this articles about the shooting, not the person. If this one article specifically about the victim, that would be a different story. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Uhh... that's not totally right. In articles about events where the central person is not independently notable enough to have a stand alone article, the article for the event functions as both. Compare Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. GMG^talk 19:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but without the detail we expect from a full BLP. We give a brief overview of the person and relevant facts to the death. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Then I guess it is your argument too, EvergreenFir, that we should remove that "he liked dancing"? Or would it be your argument that his interest in dancing is relevant to the death? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop and EvergreenFir: I added more details about Stephon Clark's life (including "dancing," etc.) to balance the fact that newspapers were also reporting his criminal record (and I'd added that info as well). When someone is very unfortunately killed like this, all the details of their life — happy and sad — are presented to the public. Different readers will come to different conclusions when reading this material. Some readers who see that Clark had prior convictions will think, "he deserved it." Others will think, "the African American population in the United States has been criminalized." Our job is to try to present Clark's life in a neutral fashion: we can't change the prejudices or beliefs that readers have when they arrive here.

I do think it's good to have a short bio of Clark in the article. He's become famous, newspapers are reporting about his life, and so he deserve a biography section. I don't think that literally every detail that appears in that bio section needs to be clearly related to his death — this is not the way newspapers have approached the topic. But I really do believe, whatever we decide to include, that information about prior convictions can be presented in a fashion that is respectful to the totality of Clark's life, that follows reliable sources, and that does not lead readers to conclude his death was justified. -Darouet (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: yes remove the dancing stuff. It's unrelated. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Why would we selectively include and exclude information? Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: don't play coy. You've been here long enough to know the answer to that. Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir—what is discriminate and what is indiscriminate? He "was a graduate of Sacramento High School". Is that indiscriminate? Are you arguing for the removal of that indiscriminate information? Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In the article we find that he "was the parent of two sons, ages 1 and 3". We find that he "lost a sister at birth and a 16-year-old brother to a shooting in 2006." We find out that he and his brother come from "underprivileged, broken homes", and that he was "a devoted father who only cared about his children." Is this indiscriminate information warranting removal? Why not? Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: keep, keep but reword, delete, delete, respectively. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude SYNTH, BLP, V, UNDUE, and very likely others yet to be identified. Take out the trash. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly neutral - WP:HN, WP:EL, WP:SUB, WP:RTV ... Not worth fighting about one way or the other if we're going to throw out random CAPS in lieu of discussion. I'm sure someone will rewrite the article eventually once it's all blown over. GMG^talk 20:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: This is a topic of national (US) conversation right now, with justifiably strong emotions and high article traffic. For that reason I really do think that per the top of WP:BLP, "We must get the article right." I'm sorry about any perceived hostility — this is not intended on my part — and if there's anything we can do to convince you to stay and help get the article right, I will contribute. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I'm always around. It's important to get things right eventually, but for most things it's acceptable to get them acceptable for the time being. Having the information omitted isn't a serious BLP violation that must be dealt with immediately. But like I said, I'm around. I gave my honest assessment of the sources regarding criminal history. Folks can take it or leave it. GMG^talk 20:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm also Neutral; I think this is really complicated and have left more detailed explanations of the pros and cons above. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"Neutral" means we don't insert the BLP violation. Not a coin toss. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude The officers were not responding to a pimping charge, so it's not relevant to an article about the shooting. If this was a bio page for this person and not the event, maybe. Also, I didn't notice the discussion here lightly pertained to a removal I just did of all the unnecessary details about how he likes shoes and his nickname and stuff. I understand the reason it was entered to "balance" the negative stuff. But this isn't the way to do that. Valeince (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include It is not a BLP violation and the reader doesn't benefit from being fed bland pabulum. Our inclusion of this information does not suggest justification for the use of deadly force. The reader is assumed to be a person of normal intelligence who can distinguish between facts that can contribute to a police shooting and facts that can't possibly have any bearing on a police shooting. Bus stop (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong include of this relevant information. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A non-reliable source? No thanks. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

How is that not a reliable source? In the relevant section of that article it includes references to other news articles. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

EvergreenFir—this is a reliable source. It says "And Clark had a criminal history, four cases in four years that included charges of robbery, pimping, and domestic abuse. Sacramento County court files show he pleaded no contest to reduced charges, spent time on a sheriff's work detail and was on probation for the 2014 robbery when he was killed." That source also says "Community leaders were adamant that Clark's criminal record was immaterial to how he died, and said the officers who killed him are the ones who ought to be scrutinized", and I agree. It was immaterial to how he died and officers who killed him ought to be scrutinized. Why was it necessary to use deadly force? This is a relevant question. A response will emerge as this case is scrutinized. But for now, are we incapable of presenting a complicated picture? I'm wondering why we would selectively omit and selectively include information. That is not in keeping with a neutral point of view. That is in keeping with advocacy. You might as well delete the whole article. In my opinion the stance you are taking is a matter of whitewashing. My aim in my argument is not to disparage a person who died in police gunfire. But a Wikipedia article should state relatively relevant facts for the purpose of informing the reader. Why bother having an article if it is going to strategically omit the information that the editors at Wikipedia feel paints a complicated picture of a person at the heart of an article? I wish I weren't making the argument that I'm making. But the integrity of the encyclopedia matters too. If we are to write a meaningful article we should err on the side of inclusion of facts presented by generally good quality sources such as the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

All this posturing and hyperbole about complexity, meaning, and inclusion is beside the point. We may well end up creating article text that discusses his past arrests, but it would be in the context of how the pseudo-news fringe media is spinning alternative narratives and conspiracy theories and other garbage. We've been through this with the Killing of Seth Rich article a while back, where fake news consumers eagerly insinuated various "details" that were being put in play by media conspiracy theorists. At first we diligently removed these off-topic details, but later they were incorporated in article text that tells how false and misleading information was propagated to exploit the event for political purposes. Stay tuned, we may yet have a context for all this off-topic detail. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines posturing as "the assumption of an exaggerated pose or attitude". Is that what I was doing? Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Nailed it. Yep. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we are required to suppress information as a rule therefore I think the onus is on you to articulate the case for omitting the material under discussion. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I did a google search to see if reliable sources that discuss the shooting also discuss this past arrest, and there were multiple hits such as [6],[7], [8], so lean toward include but it would have to be done neutrally and briefly in accordance with due weight.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not the same as every newspaper's. Otherwise we'd just be google news. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• What policies and guidelines are you referring to? The onus is on you to present a reasonable case for a violation of those policies and guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• The ones I have already cited. Please read them and reflect. SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've been traveling and haven't had a chance to get up to speed on this discussion. But my reaction is that we should include the biographical information we would include about anyone: his education, his age, his children, etc. How much other information we include should depend on how much coverage it receives and from how many sources. I see that we have removed the silly, fluffy stuff from his brother and I agree with that. I do agree with keeping the brother’s mention of the deaths of his sister and brother, and the brother’s description of his current attitude including “turned his life around”. But we do need to say he had past convictions, as it is part of his biography. We currently don’t say anything about convictions, just the brother’s statement that he had been arrested in the past. We need to fix that. We need to say past convictions, and we should attribute that fact to a mainstream neutral source. So let’s add at least a sentence about past convictions. My inclination would be not to get too specific about what those convictions were, but IMO we need to mention their existence - even though it makes us uncomfortable because some people will use that fact to blame the victim or claim the police were justified. As GMG and Bus Stop said, we should also include commentary about why that shouldn’t be considered a factor. But we can’t omit relevant information just because we worry about how people may use it. A caution: considering the range of opinions here, I think we should not add anything until we have agreed upon a wording. And please, let’s not throw around “BLP violation” as some people always seem to do. Negative information which is well sourced is not a BLP violation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think if we include text regarding past arrests and convictions, we need to specify. I can't see any rationale to leave it up to the readers imagination regarding this history; however, I think we need to use a lot of care to word it neutrally and also to keep it brief in accordance with due weight and put it in context regarding sources describing it as victim blaming.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should specify convictions and not mention arrests (which mean nothing legally). According to the LA Times, "And Clark had a criminal history, four cases in four years that included charges of robbery, pimping, and domestic abuse. Sacramento County court files show he pleaded no contest to reduced charges, spent time on a sheriff's work detail and was on probation for the 2014 robbery when he was killed." CHARGES of pimping, not a conviction as stated at the top of this section, so IMO we leave that out. Apparently he was convicted of a robbery and pleaded guilty to some sort of reduced charges in the domestic abuse case. It doesn't sound as if his sentence included any actual jail time. We need to get this exactly right before we proceed with an addition to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Facts and well-sourced information can still be BLP violations per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The detailed recitation is all POV synth-inducing. It's well documented that arrests and convictions are not all that uncommon in certain demographic groups. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This...is...getting dangerously close to saying his criminal history doesn't matter because black folks are presumed to have a criminal history. Just...you know...an observation from a brown person with no criminal record. GMG^talk 15:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I had the same reaction to SPECIFICO's comment. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Just tell us why the details of his arrest record is germane to the shooting. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not germane to the shooting; that is a SYNTH you keep trying to make. It is germane to his history, in a section about his history. (We give history about the police officers, and this article isn't even about them.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Because mainstream reliable sources decided it was when choosing what was pertinent information to write about? GMG^talk 16:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Already refuted that one. Already refuted "RS can't be BLP violation" as well. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply choosing to ignore what other people have said ≠ refutation. GMG^talk 11:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to us to say his past arrest history is or is not relevant. We are just suppose to follow the sources. Multiple reliable sources which discuss the shooting also discuss this history. I think it should be included but needs significant attention to wording to assure adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—everything is not synthesis. The burden is on you to present the case for the omission of the material under discussion. Synthesis involves implication, at the very least. Would the inclusion of the material under discussion imply that past infractions played a part in the shooting? No, it would not. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've already detailed the SYNTH and BLP and others have commented on the UNDUE, NPOV and other issues. Don't make straw man arguments and don't skirt the line of civility. SPECIFICO talk 16:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Civility? How have I been incivil? Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore we can explicitly state that there is an absence of a relationship between any past events and this incident, if we can cite a source asserting that. We have for instance the expressions by family members and lawyers saying that past records of infractions are irrelevant to the shooting. It might be warranted to include such assertions after mentioning prior criminal infractions. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's OR and googling for a cherrypicked verification. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, I agree that we can and should include commentary about how his arrest record is irrelevant to the shooting, that nothing he had done or was doing at the time should carry a death penalty, etc. But not from his family or lawyers; that's what we would expect them to say. From outside, respected commenters. I'll look for some. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of uncontested assertions by family and lawyers serve to express the important point that there is no known connection between any past infractions and the police shooting. I think we are permitted to use their words even if they would be expected to say that. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude per Valeince.- MrX 🖋 23:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include his criminal record per common sense. --131.123.61.9 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a thief

Since the brother's statement "he was not a thief" is inaccurate, I propose replacing it with an actual quote of what he was trying to say: Clark added, "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." (Same reference as the existing statement) --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that bit is irrelevant and should be removed from the article entirely. It struck me there's other irrelevant detail as well, but I will have a look to identify it. Detail about the officers is relevant because it is their actions that comprise the subject of this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments about him from his family - what he was like, his life? I think we normally include such when there has been a death, don't we? --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dunno. Plato's dead. What were his hobbies? I actually don't think that we do, as a rule. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the sourced quote regarding Clark changing his life is relevant and informative and support its inclusion in the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree concerning the inclusion of the sourced quote regarding Clark turning his life around. We should be erring on the side of the inclusion of material as found in the best quality sources. We don't contrive to omit material based on the false notion that the reader will reach bizarre conclusions. We are expected to include the facts and let the pieces fall where they fall. Bus stop (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's derogatory and irrelevant to the topic of this article. It's also a subjective and undefined statement by a related party, so it is not descriptive. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If it is determined that there is a blemish on the history of one of the officers involved in the shooting, do you think that should be included in the article? Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I going to add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposing text

@MelanieN, DynaGirl, GreenMeansGo, and Bus stop: if text were added on past charges, what wording would be best? Per the LA Times we could write,

• Sacramento County court records show that Clark had been charged with four times with crimes including robbery and domestic abuse, to which he pleaded no contest in order to reduce charges.

MelanieN I'm not actually sure why the "pimping" charge is to be treated differently: the LA Times source doesn't appear to state that Clark was charged (and not convicted) there, in a manner different to the other charges... -Darouet (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m not sure it should be treated differently either. My gut reaction is that pimping is seen as much more offensive and negative than robbery and we need to be very thoughtful regarding such content, but not sure about excluding it. Clark was an unarmed man holding only a cell phone who was shot to death in his back yard. Is that only atrocious if he has a squeaky clean history? --DynaGirl (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It puts things in context. He was shot by officers who believed he was to have been breaking car windows and he is seen by a helicopter (on video viewable on YouTube) running through backyards, hopping a fence, etc. He is then seen running from the police and just before being shot is facing them and advances toward them (the shots in the back are from after he fell to the ground; he did not turn his back and start getting shot as the video clearly shows). That he has a criminal history demonstrates that his behavior of running from the police, etc. is consistent with his past and that it was not as if the police just happened upon someone chilling in their backyard and gunned them down. It is important because it puts things in a proper context rather than some of the media's attempts to enflame racial tensions by presenting an incomplete/inaccurate version of things. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If tried in a court of law, there is no death penalty for running through backyards. Even if it was actually him (which is not proven) there is certainly no death penalty for breaking windows and there's no death penalty for any of the crimes listed in Clark's arrest history.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're in the dark and someone is running from you, and rather than obeying orders, turns to face you and starts extending his arm holding something that you can't make out toward you, well, if it was a gun, are you supposed to wait for them to kill you first? The point is that it is not a case by any reasonable stretch that the police (one of whom was black himself) just randomly shot someone just because that person was black as the media and protests would have you believe. To present it at all in any way that leaves out details that accurately suggest that the situation is complicated is downright dangerous as it feeds into the narrative that enflames racial tensions and puts people's lives at risk. Make no mistake, what happened is a tragedy, but if the police truly believed that the hard to see object being raised toward them in the dark from a suspect who was not obeying them and was previously fleeing was a weapon, you don't wait to get shot first. --24.112.234.124 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that waiting to be shot at first is...you know...the way things work in a combat zone...kindof undermines your argument. GMG^talk 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Rules of engagement are not uniform across the board. See how you would do in the dark after chasing someone and that person stops, advances toward you, and begins to extend what you suspect to be a weapon at you, knowing that if you hesitate, you could well be the one dead. A local police department allowed me to do one of these seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g and it was eye opening... --24.112.234.124 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

• I generally think footnotes are a good tool for compromise, and I would suggest saying something to the effect of ...charged and plead no contest to four charges{{efn|Including yadda yadda yadda}}, but as I said above, should be accompanied by the rebuttal published in cited RS saying that this had nothing substantive to do with the shooting. As above, we should probably err to the right of the LA Times, but well to the left of the ultra conservative sources. GMG^talk 18:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

GMG, what is your source for "four charges"? We have seen mention of several types of charges. Apparently it was a robbery that he was on probation for. The San Francisco Chronicle says He had several encounters with the law, including convictions for robbery and domestic violence, according to Sacramento County court records. That sounds like the total list of the things he was convicted of, per actual court records: robbery and domestic violence. No mention of pimping. If you have more detailed information, let's see it. It is important to keep this kind of discussion strictly fact based. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Oh, I found it: the LA Times "four cases in four years" - by which they apparently mean charges. The Times isn't specific about what he pleaded guilty to or served on the sheriff's detail for. The Chronicle is specific about what his convictions were for, citing court records, so those are the crimes I would mention. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry MelanieN. I guess I should clarify. My comment was less about substance and more about formatting, in the sense that when there is a disagreement about how much detail to include, it's often a good compromise to put less in the body and more in a footnote rather than having to 100% to one side or the other. GMG^talk 11:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This thread is getting off into Original Research and BLP gossip and will need to be hatted if it can't stay on topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Darouet, good start. I don’t think we can imply that he pleaded guilty to the charges all four times, because the Times doesn’t say that. And the Chronicle, in spelling out what he was convicted for, mentions convictions for robbery and domestic violence, but doesn’t say how many. I do get the impression that he never served time in prison (just "sheriff's work detail" and probation). I am working on a wording for the followup sentence, “but it’s irrelevant to the shooting”. I have found a good source and will have something shortly. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, There's also this source [9]. Acording to The Sacramento Bee, Clark was charged with pimping in 2015 and pled "no contest" to this charge. I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in text or if it would be better in footnote as GMG suggested, but it appears reliably sourced. --DynaGirl (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the sentence about his record, several people including me thought there should be a comment putting the record in context. How about something like this? Several community leaders noted that his criminal record has nothing to do with his being shot. One pointed out that the police officers were unaware of his record, so it did not provide a reason for their actions. Another said that "black people are criminalized when anything happens" to make them look like the predator instead of the victim. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Using the same source how about Community leaders asserted that any events in Clark's past were irrelevant to the incident in which he lost his life and that the actions of the officers involved in the shooting should be scrutinized? Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Which is almost a direct quote from the source, right? I'd rather not change the subject, from the context or relevance of his record to the actions of the officers, and I'd rather have actual quotes from actual people who I thought made relevant points very well. But if people think my proposal is too detailed or violates WEIGHT I am willing to go with a paraphrase. --MelanieN (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should quote Derrell Roberts, "who runs a youth mentoring program in South Sacramento", saying "Neither officer involved in the shooting, nor the helicopter pilot didn't know this, not one of the people who might have called 911 knew his record. So his record is irrelevant to what happened." Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's one of the comments I shortened/paraphrased. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing is acceptable to me; perhaps the excerpted quote could be included in the citation. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, I think the part about the police having zero knowledge regarding prior conviction should be included but not sure about the quote ""black people are criminalized when anything happens". It does not appear to be attributed to a notable public figure. It's also very POV and considering one of the past convictions is domestic violence, it kind of seems like it's saying all convictions of domestic violence are bogus if it's a black man. Is there a more neutral quote saying something more neutral such as black men are often criminalized as opposed to saying anything that happens is unfounded accusation or conviction. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point, DynaGirl. I'll see if I can find anything more appropriate to these circumstances. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Include His criminal record should be included. The article is about the aftermath and how people are talking about him. Dream Focus 05:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• No. This article is about the shooting. SPECIFICO talk 09:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is a section for the Protests and a section for Responses. Dream Focus 12:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you wish to propose that we remove the personal history from the opening sections and incorporate well-sourced discussion of his personal background to the extent that it was part of the public discussion of the incident, that would be a well-formed proposal we could discuss here. That would not be WP:OR. Everything I've read on this page up to now, however, has been based on OR in one form or another.

If there are folks who say that the killing was in some way related to his prior arrest record, let's see those sources. Otherwise, for this WP article to state that it was not related to his prior record is like saying it was not related to the price of asparagus or the webs of a duck's feet. Irrelevant OR. SPECIFICO talk 12:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

When you refer to "the killing" you probably mean "the accidental killing". I just thought I'd clarify that but please feel free to weigh in if I am putting words in your mouth. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw this on NPOV and just wanted to say that this is obviously not an issue of synth, or original research. Editors are not making the connection between two unrelated things. The sources make that connection. Reliable sources describe the shooting and his criminal history in the same article. They are deciding these things are related, not us. Demanding that we produce some well-reasoned logical connection between the two things is asking too much, and only encourages OR to create justifications, when we should be relying on the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Red Rock, have you read the cited sources? In some cases they make a connection that is omitted from the article, which states part of what the cited source presents, but omitting the sole reason the cited source includes it. At any rate, I don't see that anyone has raised SYNTH in this section of the discussion. The pimping thing, I think, has been agreed removed. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO talkno, it was not agreed, A criminal's public records should be available to readers. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

here is a different source reporting the same [10] Darkstar1st (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References giving details about past convictions - and my evaluation of them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Up to now we have found two principal sources. One source says he faced charges “four times in four years” and mentions charges of robbery, pimping, and domestic abuse. It does not clarify what convictions were obtained, except for a “2014 robbery” for which he was still on probation. The other source says there were convictions for robbery and domestic abuse; it does not mention pimping. The brother said he had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting, but we don’t know for what. OK, here’s some help: I just found a third source which provides a lot more detail. [11] It details: a 2014 no-contest conviction for robbery, for which he got 5 years probation (still active); a 2015 arrest for “procuring someone for the purpose of prostitution”, for which he pleaded no contest to a lesser but related charge of “loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution”; and a 2016 plea of no contest for domestic abuse, for which he enrolled in a treatment program. Then here is another source, the SacBee [12], whose listing is different. It says a 2008 robbery charge (I think that’s an error, he would have been 12 at the time, and the record would not be public if he was that young; I think they meant the 2014 robbery charge), and charges in 2013 for “possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance” (it doesn’t say if those charges resulted in a conviction, but the other sources didn’t mention them so it probably didn’t). It says the “most recent” charges were two felony counts of domestic abuse, the guilty plea, and the treatment program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Marteau. If you see no consensus to include, then it cannot be included. BLP. SPECIFICO talk 12:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)