Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 20 October 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Enforcement This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Ohio This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

money/pot RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

At the time of the traffic stop, the victim, Samuel DuBose, was driving on an indefinitely suspended driver's license, and had marijuana (some sources say 2 pounds) and about $2,600 cash in the car. This information is uncontested, but the officer, Tensing, was not aware of the information until after the incident. Where does this information belong?

• A In the opening paragraph of the shooting section (sample diff https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose&diff=674284477&oldid=674282562)
• B In a separate (later) paragraph of the shooting section (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose&diff=674733257&oldid=674733180)
• C In the police accounts section (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose&diff=674737121&oldid=674734049)
• D not included

Survey

• preferably A, then B Tensing did not know, but dubose did know, and this statement is an accurate summary of the Dubose's actions/status just prior to the incident. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• A - We should present things where they are most useful to the reader. When the reader is viewing the video, reading the description of it, and forming opinions about it, it will help him greatly to understand what DuBose knew at the time those things happened. To put it later, assuming the reader makes it that far, means he then has to back up, re-think the whole thing with that new knowledge, and form new opinions. It's just not good writing. This is background information, not materially different from the Backgrounds section, which also precedes the description of the shooting. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• A for now - DuBose knew. Not only did he know that he had cannabis and cash in the car, but he knew exactly what type of penalty he might incur if he were caught, because he had previously been imprisoned for marijuana trafficking. There is a reasonable argument to be made for mentioning his previous imprisonment in the opening paragraph too. DuBose's status prior to the incident isn't just as someone possessing the elements of a marijuana trafficking charge. He's someone who has previously been imprisoned for such an offense, and he's someone who, as a repeat offender, would've likely faced an even lengthier imprisonment. When the reader has those facts up front, he can see why DuBose would choose to begin to drive away when his attempt to talk his way out of the ticket fails, and Tensing asks him to step out of the vehicle. BTW, somewhat similar situation in Shooting of Michael Brown. Michael Brown knew that he had just robbed a convenience store, but police officer Darren Wilson did not, and it's handled similarly toward the top of the page. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• B, or C- the comments above regarding "DuBose knew" is pure speculation. The shooting was completely unrelated to any of that: DeBose did not flee and was not aggressive. The aggressor was the officer, who did not know anything about what was in the car. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• B, then C - Originally I favored C, but B seems to work better. I'm strongly opposed to A, because the marijuana, money and suspended license were discovered well after the shooting. It's not part of the shooting, and placing it in the narrative of the shooting would imply that they were probably cause circumstances. The order in which facts are presented carry a lot of meaning, whether intended or not. Placement of this content should not be based on what editors conjecture DuBose to have thought, or what is most useful to readers, both of which require insight in others' thinking.- MrX 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• B, then C I'm strongly opposed to A. It really doesn't fit anywhere very well. Perhaps in time the "Legal proceedings" section heading will be changed and it will fit better in that section. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• B – I oppose A because Tensing didn't know that Dubose's driver's license was suspended or anything about the drugs. We also don't know for a fact that DuBose knew about the drugs – however it is very likely that he did and refused to co-operate because of it. Therefore I don't think we should bury this info down below and I would tend to oppose C. Politrukki (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• A - summoned by bot. Since it's background information, it should go in the opening paragraph about the incident. It explains why he did not have his license on him. —Мандичка 😜 00:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• A, then B If it can be narrowly tailored in the first paragraph, and then explained in better detail in a second, I think that would be a sufficient way to layout the details of that specific part of the story. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 13:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• B, then C per Gandydancer. Frankly I'd say D if it weren't for what Wikimandia (aka Мандичка) says above. Wherever it's included, steps — and I can't imagine exactly what they would be — need to be taken to avoid implying, either expressly or by silence, that any of DuBose's actions other than his failure to produce a DL were motivated by these facts. If a reader wants to make that connection on their own, that's their business but it needs to be free of any suggestion on our part since such an implication is prohibited by SYNTHESIS. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Definitely not A. This had nothing to do with the incident which ended in DuBose losing his life. The subsequent finding of drugs and cash in the car has no bearing on Tensing's error in judgement. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• C The information should absolutely be included, but not in the lede. It was part of the police account during the aftermath, and the discovery was made after the officers mutually agreed on the invention that Tensing was in mortal danger, the subject which is dealt with in the Police Accounts section. Placing it at the bottom of the Police Accounts section respects the chronological order of events. -- Forridean 04:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
• A and B Absolutely provides relevant context to the entire incident.MichaelProcton (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Non admin non close

This RFC was opened 30 days ago, and the last comment was 11 days ago. As I'm involved, I won't close this unilaterally, but even if we posted this at WP:ANRFC it would likely take a long time to get closed. Therefore, if we can come to an agreement on the consensus above it will save time and trouble. Note, this is NOT the time to repeat your argument about what you think the right answer to the RFC is. This is merely for analysis of the RFC itself to determine what the consensus is. Although consensus is not a vote, I will start things off with vote counts as it can help to reduce the clutter we have to consider.

• A - 6 first choices, one explicit vote against.
• B - 5 first choices, 3 second choices (with all of them preferring A)
• C - 1 first choice, 4 second choices
• D - 0

So, at a minimum we can drop D from consideration and most likely C as well. A has the most first place votes by a thin margin, but B has greater overall support (when the second place A votes are added in).Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

To quantify it a little more, we give each responder six votes that they can distribute as they wish. I'll take a shot at this below.

Gaijin42 - A4 B2

Mandruss - A6

8.39.228.13 - A6

Cwobeel - B4 C2

MrX - B4 C2

Gandydancer - B4 C2

Politrukki - B6

Wikimandia - A6

Comatmebro - A4 B2

TransporterMan - B4 C2

Bus stop - A-6 (minus 6)

Forridean - C6

MichaelProcton - A3 B3

While one or two responders might wish to tweak their distribution (e.g. Cwobeel might mean B3 C3, I don't know), it's unlikely that would alter the outcome.

A - 4 6 6 6 4 -6 3 = 23

B - 2 4 4 4 6 2 4 3 = 29

C - 2 2 2 2 6 = 14

I tried to bribe Bus stop to reverse his vote, but he stubbornly refused. (jk) Therefore I have to reluctantly support a non-admin close for B. You can't argue with the numbers. (B has only 44% of the overall vote, but that's the best we can do without an A-B runoff. It's unlikely many of those C votes would end up in the A column, anyway.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Just curious as to additional perspective on the notion that DuBose knowing he had marijuana and thousands of dollars of cash in the car is pure speculation. Is it possible that DuBose did not know about the marijuana and cash in the car, or was not aware that he was breaking the law by possessing at very least the marijuana? If there's a reasonable argument for that, I need to re-examine my vote in the RfC above. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It's possible that a man who had been convicted of marijuana trafficking didn't know that he had two pounds (some sources say) of marijuana and $2,600 in the car he was driving. After all, he said it was his wife's car. Alternatively, it's possible he knew about that, but it didn't occur to him when the cop pulled him over, so he wasn't thinking about it. It may have also slipped his mind that his driver's license was indefinitely suspended. Hence our speculation, and some believe that NPOV dictates that we check all common sense at the door. I'll also use this opportunity to request that others refrain from accusing editors of POV-pushing in this matter, and, if already done, consider striking it. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(micro forum response) In response to Cwobeel's now removed comment (thank you btw) Ill say this : I think the pot/money is important because it explains DuBose's actions. But I do not think that DuBose's actions justify being shot (including the driving away part). While I always keep an open mind and am aware that there is RL information/interpretation that we do not have, at this point I think Tensing likely will be (and should be) convicted on some sort of charges. Presenting information that looks poorly on DuBose is not an attempt to shift blame, it is honest reporting, and hiding it makes it look like we are trying to whitewash him/bandwagon on Tensing. Neither needs to happen, even with the negative information about DuBose the shooting was still unjustified. Even criminals deserve due process and proportional response to threats, and neither was in play for the actual shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your signature had only time and date, so I replaced it with Unsigned. Hope that's the right thing to do. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I see how it was indeed 'possible' that DuBose didn't know he had the cannabis and money in the car, although I'm not seeing a plausible excuse. I'm not a lawyer, but I think he would've had an extraordinarily uphill battle claiming that he was not aware of or was not responsible for the marijuana in his vehicle, especially with his history of marijuana trafficking. I respect Cwobeel's now-removed comment about finding "these attempts to put some burden on the victim to be a quite sad to say the least." The "sad" part may be pushing it a slight bit :), but the rest is important to hear. If someone believes that DuBose is being unfairly victimized or blamed here, I want to hear about it, in great detail, possibly in a dedicated Talk section. I see something "sad" here too: that the weed was illegal in the first place. I understand others disagree, and I'm not proposing that we add this to the article, but I think it is at least a reasonable argument that DuBose attempted a risky fleeing maneuver because he was facing a lengthy imprisonment. This incident is a good example of how, even though cannabis has never killed anyone via ingestion, the fear of lengthy imprisonment for possessing or selling cannabis can cause people to take risks that may end up in loss of life. I need to look at the various Misplaced Pages drug legalization articles and see if there's a valid reason to mention this article, or this viewpoint.

Regarding Gaijin42's assertion about whitewashing DuBose; I agree completely. Mandruss has stated: "Frankly his history looks terrible, especially juxtaposed with Tensing's (aside from being indicted for murder, that is), and the more we say the worse that gets." Not only are all of us biased, but all of us are terrible at examining our own biases. Interestingly, we are extraordinarily skilled and experienced at examining others' biases, and we can use that skill to improve the article. - 8.39.228.13 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan I agree with your concern about synth implications, but how would one prevent silence based implications without risking synth/or the other way. To my knowledge there are no sources specifically dismissing his background/possession and the relationship to his actions during the stop. Perhaps I misunderstand your comment in that respect?Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that you missed was the part where I said, "steps — and I can't imagine exactly what they would be" . I wonder if it might be best to put the suspension information in location B and the pot information in location C or, indeed, omit it altogether unless and until a reliable source connects it to DuBose's motivations. Here's the dilemma as I see it: this article is about the entire incident, so almost any connected fact may or may not be relevant: the air pressure in DuBose's tires, the relative humidity that day, and the population density in the area might have some relevance to this event and might be reported in a reliable source, especially a newspaper trying to compile all the facts which might be relevant to what happened. But we're more selective than that: we have to follow, first, verifiability (which for purposes of this discussion I'm going to presume isn't a problem), and then second, NPOV, UNDUE. NOR/SYN, and NOTNEWS. We can only give verifiable facts as much weight as our sources give them and if all our sources are doing is reporting bare facts without giving them any particular weight — in effect, just throwing facts at a story to see what eventually sticks — then we can't give them any weight either. News sources are free to report facts to allow their readers to read into those facts whatever they like; we do not have that luxury. Until disconnected facts are somehow expressly linked into relevance by a reliable source, then we shouldn't be in the business of reporting them, first under UNDUE and NOTNEWS, and second under implied SYN. There is no hurry and facts which are relevant will eventually be supported by sources. There will be no harm done if articles like this do not exist until long after all the dust has settled about the case: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or source for breaking news. At least that's how I see it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

straw poll--"off campus"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poll regarding "off-campus" shooting by University Officer

Introduction

This poll is for answering questions with regard to whether we should cover the fact that the shooting took place off campus or not, and if so, how much coverage. Obviously it immediately raises the question of whether the officer had jurisdiction for the stop. Although he did, WP:RS shows that people in the affected community were not entirely aware of it, which affects their perception of the incident. The New York Times article (and other below WP:RS), explain how this increased tensions and race-relations concerns between the University and the adjacent communities, resulted in a moratorium on the off-campus policing program (now under a required review), comments from the Mayor questioning the program and adequacy of training of University officers compared to regular Cincinnati Officers. There is also mention of a court order that required sensitivity training for Cincinnati Police, for which there was an "island" where it did not apply to the University Officers. This poll was created as per discussion here --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Notices

I have not given notices, but I do intend to per discussion here. ----David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Notice #1: in Section where this discussion originated.

RS

The following WP:RS refers to the "off-campus" aspect:

• New York Times
• Chronicle of Education Article #1
• Chronicle of Education Article #2
• Washington Post article includes a number of paragraphs about the issue of it being off-campus:

...“A campus police officer had no business doing a traffic stop in an urban area.” Joseph Norris, who lives in the neighborhood...just off the sprawling campus.

“My record is clean, but as a young black man I start shaking whenever a police car pulls up behind me,” Norris said. If university police are going to make traffic stops, he said, “they need better training.”

Deters questioned why the university had a police force at all. “I don’t think a university should be in the policing business,” he said.

But the university’s president, Santa J. Ono, said he thought the school’s force should be improved rather than disbanded. School officials had previously announced that they would bring in an outside investigator to review the department’s policies.

Meanwhile, amid concerns about the shooting, the school announced last week that its officers would patrol and make traffic stops only on campus.

Tensing was about a half-mile south of campus when he pulled over DuBose

1. Mura, John; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (30 July 2015). "Samuel DuBose's Death in Cincinnati Points to Off-Campus Power of College Police". New York Times. Retrieved 8 August 2015.
2. Carlson, Scott (30 July 2015). "Shooting Tests Ties Between a University and Its City". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 8 Aug 2015.

Above is RS as of 23:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC). I may improve/add to the WP:RS, but will not change the questions. I support others adding to the above WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Poll Questions

These are the questions of the poll:

• (1) Should the article mention that the shooting took place "off campus" by a University Officer?

If yes, to (1):

• (2) Approximately how many sentences should be dedicated to it?
• (3) Should it have its own section in the article?
• (4) If no to (3), what section should it be in?
• (5) Should the Lede of the article mention it?

Poll Responses

• My responses:
  • (1) Yes
  • (2) TBD -- would like to see other responses before answering.
  • (3) TBD -- ""
  • (4) TBD -- ""
  • (5) Yes

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, 0-1 (perhaps just added into an existing sentence as a clause), no, shooting, no Gaijin42 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Ditto Gaijin42. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I'd include it in the article. It seems clear that resentments have been building for some time and the shooting has brought them to the surface. Other university police forces have also taken note of the controversy. Looking at our similar articles, this sort of thing is included. I'd use say four or five sentences, or whatever it takes. It will need it's own section. I'd include a mention in the lead, of course, if it is given an entire section. Gandydancer (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, include a short sentence in the article and a few words in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• It should definitely be mentioned in the body of the article that the shooting was done by a University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD) officer. I don't think that this calls for mention in the lede. It should be mentioned in the body of the article that the shooting took place off campus, though I think this is of secondary importance. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• My comments:

1. Yes
2. One to two sentences, but omit any quotes from the lay public.
3. No
4. Include with the third paragraph of Legal proceedings
5. No. It is not an important point.

- MrX 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a very complicated straw poll. I'd suggest you be WP:BOLD and edit the article with a mention of this issue, in as many sentences are needed to cover it fairly. We can then use WP:BRD to finesse the edit. If it sticks, then we can proceed to discuss mentioning in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I kind of disagree, since I'm currently opposed to any related content as not directly related to the article subject. See Shooting of Michael Brown; no discussion of Ferguson police racism issues. Shooting of Walter Scott has two sentences. In at least those articles, editors felt we should stick closely to the immediate subject. The OP and I discussed this at length earlier on this page. My BRD response would be a complete revert, then. I'd like at least a consensus that some content is needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Then the best course of action will be a simple RFC, asking if to include a mention that the stop was made off-campus. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is a lengthy RfC better than trying for a far quicker local consensus? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What Im trying to say is that this straw poll is way to complicated. Break it in pieces, starting with asking just about "Should the article mention that the shooting took place "off campus" by a University Officer?". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe just some iterative process involving multiple unstructured discussions beginning with, "Should the article include anything about this?" It's a tough nut, or maybe I'm overcomplicating things, as I'm sometimes prone to do. (Now I'm feeling guilty for helping the OP waste all that time putting this poll together, if in fact it turns out to be wasted.) ―Mandruss ☎ 00:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not that complicated. It only has 5 questions. I can put a note at the top to just answer the first if you are not sure about the others. As you can see, even I did not answer 3 of the questions! I recently participated in a single question RfC that caused much consternation (and the question was then later revised) because too few questions were answered and even the closer was not able to figure out what to conclude from the responses, that there was no consensus to keep or delete or how to revise the material. The responses were quite lengthy too. I think it is worth a shot as is. I agree with Mandruss (and appreciate the help on the poll) that a full blown RfC is unnecessary right now. David Tornheim (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, I might be open to a section of proposed language as Gandydancer spoke of, but I would rather do that outside this poll (and then refer to it) since the specific proposal might need multiple revisions and it is almost like a separate question of whether to go with the moving target of proposed language that is in its infancy and would likely need some work to gain consensus even if there is consensus to have some language. David Tornheim (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is an important point that the shooting was done by a University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD) officer. Of secondary importance, but important nevertheless, is that the traffic stop and the shooting took place off-campus. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Thanks for your feedback. Please vote in the Poll Responses Section, so people are aware of your position here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @David Tornheim: The first of distinctions I would make is between whether or not to mention that the shooting was by an officer of the University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD). To that question I would say emphatically "yes". That the shooting took place off-campus is of far lesser importance in my opinion. But it should be mentioned. At this time I don't think this is the sort of material that should be placed in the lede. If at a later time the University police department is disbanded, this subject matter probably deserves placement in the lede. I think this probably should have its own section in the article but I don't know how many sentences are called for. Bus stop (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bus stop: No one is talking about disbanding the UC Police force to my knowledge. They were talking instead about whether to continue allowing UC police to have jurisdiction off-campus and about whether they should receive the same kind of ethnic/racial sensitivity training that the Cincinnati Police do. David Tornheim (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's my issue with the university police/off campus bit. Giving just the barest info (it was univ police, stop off campus) misleads the reader into thinking the stop was in some way invalid. We therefore have to correct that misleading with the fuller information (that they have a jurisdictional agreement, and in any case Tensing/Dubose were on campus initially, but got off campus by the time the stop was fully initiated ref). To correctly describe this situation requires a whole lot of text which is frankly WP:UNDUE for a boondoggle issue that ultimately resolves to "everything is kosher with the initial stop". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons:

(1) The article does not say the stop originated "on campus" but that it was "on the edge of campus". It is not clear if edge means adjacent or "nearby". I believe the average person in Cincinnati would believe that anything not within the campus limits is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Cincinnati Police, including the adjacent streets. (admittedly my opinion has no real bearing here.) So I disagree that the situation originated "on campus" without WP:RS that says so.

(2) Although WP:RS indicate the stop was indeed within the jurisdiction of the officer, this is not simply a legal question, where the facts and law settle the question with finality. The adjacent community is not composed exclusively of attorneys who who treat and react to this situation as an independent uninvolved, unassociated neutral trial judge is expected to do. That is abundantly clear by quotes I included above by people who live nearby. The community reaction and perception to what they *believe* is or *should* be the jurisdiction of campus police is just as important as to what that jurisdiction *actually* is. Also, important is how the jurisdiction came into being and why it may be lost. That is why that entire article was written by the New York Times (obviously not based in Cincinnati) on this issue and also may affect other university police jurisdiction questions. Our job is not simply to report the facts of the case like an attorney at the trial, but based on WP:RS, which includes a paper as prominent and well respected as the New York Times. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict - and before I've read David's comments) Gaijin42 , even though I voted to include, your arguments are exactly what concerns me as well. In other words, is this article about a senseless shooting or is it about an (apparently) long standing disagreement between the university force and the city law enforcement officials? On the other hand, a quick look at other (apparently) senseless shootings have gone on to include resulting controversies. For example, did the intense public outcry from a different incident cause the local police to be afraid to adequately monitor activity in the area, resulting in a rise in crime rate. Etc. Gandydancer (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think reliable sources suggest that it is not a good idea to have two separate but overlapping police forces. I have not seen any source suggesting that this arrangement might have led to the shooting. But if the presence of two police forces is something that is mentioned in some sources, this is something we could consider adding to our article. Bus stop (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. I believe county Sheriff's and local police departments often share jurisdictions. Consider the shooting of Fouad Kaady which involved Clackamas County (Sheriff) and the City of Sandy (police dept.) who both responded here and here. David Tornheim (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I'll take your word for it that other similar articles explore some of these tangents. In my earlier discussion with DT about this, I said that was probably the case. But I also pointed to other articles where the editors have stuck closely to the immediate subject. The two that I cited were Shooting of Michael Brown, which says not a word about the history of racial tensions between the mostly white police and the mostly black community; and Shooting of Walter Scott, where RS covered the same kind of issues but they get only two sentences in our article. Bottom line is that there is apparently no community consensus on this question, so I think existing examples should be ignored on both sides. And I completely agree with Gaijin42's comments above. That reasoning is exactly the basis for my opposition to this content, although he articulated it better than I did, as usual. As I said to DT earlier, we don't include content simply because RS devotes space to it; they have a different mission than we do. This is a principle that does have community consensus, I believe. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mmm. There is probably a notable topic of campus policing likely deserving of an article. This story is a data point in that topic. As there is a relationship a mention is probably appropriate here. But it would be WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE to make this article be the proxy for that subject.Mandruss You sell yourself short, and give me undue credit, but thank you ;) Gaijin42 (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This source provides some material on questions involving the two police departments involved. In that source we find Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters saying "I don’t think a university should be in the policing business". And in that article we read "the university’s president, Santa J. Ono, said he thought the school’s force should be improved rather than disbanded." We also have in that source that "Tensing was about a half-mile south of campus when he pulled over DuBose’s green Honda Accord at 6:30 p.m. on a Sunday evening." Additional sourcing would help us to write about this. I fail to understand the objection to the inclusion of this material. Under discussion here is actually surprisingly little material. I would state the fact that two police departments have jurisdiction over the area at which the shooting took place. I would state that Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters expressed that he does not feel that the university should be in the policing business. And we can state that the shooting took place "a half-mile south of campus". Bus stop (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I fail to understand the objection to the inclusion of this material. Please clarify. Are you saying you actually don't understand the arguments given, or that you understand them but don't find them convincing? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What are the arguments? Should I re-read everything? Yes, I don't recognize any argument for omitting this material. DuBose was shot by an officer of a university's police department. But a second police department also had jurisdiction over this area. Reliable sources question the arrangement in which there are overlapping jurisdictions of police departments. We find this discussion in sources discussing the DuBose shooting. Would you say that there is a substantial argument for omitting this topic from this article? Rather than me re-reading and then guessing at what reason may be considered a good reason for omitting this information, why don't you just articulate what you see as good reasons for omitting this information? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The advantage of having discussions in writing, as compared to sitting around chatting in the living room, is that we don't have to keep repeating the same points because someone's mind wandered. It's both a discussion and a transcript of the discussion. While this question was also discussed earlier outside this thread, I think this subsection covers the important points. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your own reason given is that "I'm currently opposed to any related content as not directly related to the article subject." How unrelated is this? There is a "Cincinnati Police Department". This is separate from the "University of Cincinnati Police Department (UCPD)". Sources make this point. But we should omit it? You say that we should omit content "not directly related to the article subject." Do you feel that this sort of information is so irrelevant that it doesn't even warrant inclusion in the article? Can you explain why? Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

First, I've gotten the impression from a couple of your comments that you think inclusion of the fact that Tensing was UCPD is in dispute here. It is not; this is about whether to include content about the off-campus aspect. UCPD is already mentioned several times, including in the lead, and that will remain. As I've said, while there is no community consensus and I don't assert this as undeniable truth, my editorial judgment and that of many others is to stick closely to the immediate subject. There's really no end to tangential connections, and a line has to be drawn somewhere. I simply ask the question, did the fact that it was off-campus have anything to do with the shooting? And my answer is no. It's exactly the same as Slager's wife's pregnancy, except that that was in the Backgrounds section, where the bar for inclusion is lower. You'll recall that my position received some experienced outside support and the content remained out. See also: Gaijin42's argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The DuBose shooting took place one half-mile from the university campus, at a point over which two police departments have overlapping jurisdiction. This cannot be seen as irrelevant information. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, and it will come down to a vote. That's usually how it goes, and these Discussion sections are generally a waste of space and time. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Slager's wife's pregnancy" did not have any bearing on that shooting. But by way of distinction, we are discussing specifics of this shooting. We don't have any burden to attribute pivotal importance to this information. You say "did the fact that it was off-campus have anything to do with the shooting?" We don't have to answer that question. We are merely providing relevant information. Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and as I've repeatedly said to apparently deaf ears, editors will differ as to the definition of "relevant". I'm pretty good at recognizing when further discussion is pointless, and we're a little past that point. Discuss this someone else, if they feel inclined. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know—I'm trying to respond to your points. "Slager's wife" is unlike the place that this shooting took place, or which department had jurisdiction over that point. You posed the question as to whether "the fact that it was off-campus have anything to do with the shooting?" The answer to that question is that we don't know and we probably never will know. But these are the facts immediately surrounding the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that we will never know. I do know that no direct connection has been shown in RS, to date. That's the line that I choose to draw. Coverage in RS, as a result of the shooting, is not the same as RS making a connection for our purposes. There are many facts immediately surrounding the shooting that we choose to omit, including the fact that it occurred in a historical district called Mount Auburn. Someone added that early on, I removed it as not significant enough to include, and it has stayed out since then. And, again, see Gaijin42's argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that "it occurred in a historical district called Mount Auburn" and that could remain. You are controlling information to too great a degree and for insufficient reason. You refer to "RS making a connection for our purposes." We don't have "purposes" defined to high clarity. This article is a compilation of relatively relevant information. Different editors have different hypothetical readers in mind. Plus we should be taking our cue from good quality sources, several of which note that an officer of the University of Cincinnati shot DuBose one-half mile off campus. There is no known significance to this. But The Washington Post chooses to include this point in their article. There is ample leeway for scope in our article to allow for inclusion of this in our article. Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

And, if you provided a link to that WaPo article, I'm confident it contains other things we choose to omit, which makes that point utterly meaningless. Again, editorial judgment is exactly that: judgment, agree to disagree, this is circular, this will come down to a vote, we are wasting our time, bye bye. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

At the top of this thread we find links to the Washington Post and the New York Times. There is another but I have not read it thoroughly. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tensing was charged with murder on a Wednesday.
• "A similar shooting in 2001 provoked violent riots here."
• Multiple Deters quotes.
• Deters' office has reviewed more than 100 police shootings.
• Shooting occurred approximately two minutes after the stop.
• "he thrusts the weapon through the open car window and fires a single round", which we omit presumably because no other RS says he thrust the gun through the window, and that can't be seen in the bodycam video as far as I can tell.

I hope I don't have to repeat this process for the NYT piece to make this point. Moral: While inclusion in Misplaced Pages requires RS support, WP:DUE does not mean that something must be included in Misplaced Pages simply because it's mentioned in RS. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to take a stance on the advisability of such an arrangement. But we can apprise the reader that some question the arrangement. And we can point out the plain fact that this traffic stop took place some distance away from the university's campus, despite the fact that the officer was a part of the university's police department. These are facts that reliable sources disclose in relation to this incident. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

My objection is purely that the level of information to accurately describe this and not mislead the user is undue for such a non-issue in the shooting. Similarly, I don't think we should mention the gin bottle handed to the cop (even though many sources do) because then we have to go into it wasn't really gin, it was fragrance, but it was described as gin in the original police/media reports. etc. The "meat" of this article is the shooting. The stop itself is not controversial. It just gets into a distraction for very little value. In a different article (about campus policing) or in a hypothetical aftermath section ("triggered a debate about the proper role/jurisdiction of campus police") I could see more support, but sticking it in the shooting section at any level of detail just sends the reader off on a tangent for no reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me play Devil's advocate. Why should we include that one man is black and the other white? You say "The 'meat' of this article is the shooting." No source is saying that racial difference precipitated the shooting. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As mandruss said, editorial judgement. You are trying to build consensus for a different editorial judgement. That is the correct thing to do. But if that consensus doesn't develop in your favor, then you move on.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not attempting to address the question I posed, except indirectly. Why should we include that one man is black and the other white? Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1. That is at the center of a huge national debate that has been going on for at least a couple of years. Off-campus stops by campus police, not so much. 2. There have already been multiple RfCs that have established that as community consensus. Off-campus stops by campus police, none whatsoever. Can you move on now? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have given you the only answer that matters. There is consensus for that editorial judgement, both locally in this article, and across the dozen or so similar articles. As to why that editorial judgement exists. its probably because virtually 100% of the RS view it through that lens (BLM movement etc) and we follow along (or agree). There are certainly some sources that talk about campus policing in relation to this incident (and using this incident as a launching pad for the larger discussion). But most of them are not focusing on that angle. in my opinion they are not focusing on that angle because that angle is a dead end. If Tensing had been acting outside his legal authority and jurisdiction, more sources would probably focus on it. This could of course change. Lots of stuff that seemed minor in say the Michael Brown case ended up being important at the end. The sources shifted, and so did we. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Tensing acted "outside his legal authority and jurisdiction"; I have certainly not said that. But exceptionally good quality sources exist alerting us to the special situation here, in which two police forces overlap jurisdictionally. This can be simply stated in our article. You say at 14:17, 10 August: "Giving just the barest info (it was univ police, stop off campus) misleads the reader into thinking the stop was in some way invalid. We therefore have to correct that misleading with the fuller information (that they have a jurisdictional agreement, and in any case Tensing/Dubose were on campus initially, but got off campus by the time the stop was fully initiated ref). To correctly describe this situation requires a whole lot of text which is frankly WP:UNDUE for a boondoggle issue that ultimately resolves to 'everything is kosher with the initial stop'." You are over-thinking this. You are willing to contrive to omit information so as not to "mislead" the reader. But you are depriving the reader of information prominently provided alongside the shooting of DuBose. What we should be working on is simple language to convey the discussed information to the reader. If you can find simple language that avoids "misleading" the reader in the way that you feel is so important here, then great. If there is no way to avoid "misleading" the reader in the way that has you concerned, then that concern should be considered of secondary importance. I don't believe that well-sourced information is usually "misleading" if properly worded. Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What special situation? Law enforcement agencies frequently overlap. See Death of Sandra Bland, where the stop was made by a state trooper within city limits and then local police arrived to help out. Quite often city police and county sheriff overlap. Forgive me for stopping reading at that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the overlap between two police departments as a significant piece of information surrounding this shooting. Bus stop, you seem intent on convincing the other editors here that we should include this material, but it doesn't seem like you're any closer to reaching a consensus than when you started this topic several posts ago. If you think there is the possibility of reaching consensus for your proposal, I suggest creating an RfC (or a simple poll). - MrX 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop If you do decide to proceed with another poll or RFC, I suggest you make a single concrete proposal. Put together the sentence/paragraph/section you feel is appropriate and give it an up down vote. What we have above is much too complicated to actually get a good consensus out of. There is way too much ambiguity in the question and answers. However, when putting together your proposal, to ensure the best chances of support, you should take into account the feedback you have gotten so far about how much detail parties have stated support for. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have read through the above. Mandruss ☎ says that "my editorial judgment and that of many others is to stick closely to the immediate subject." I am confused as to what is meant by "the immediate subject". The subject is the "shooting of Samuel DuBose". Circumstances that are involved are part of the shooting, such as that ethnicity of shooter and victim are relevant, as correctly pointed out by BusStop. The location in Cincinnati is too. So is the training the officer received. Since the officer received training from the University rather than the City of Cincinnati Police Department, material in WP:RS (NYT) suggests that the UC Police officers have inadequate racial sensitivity training per consent decree. And if the stop had not been made off campus, where jurisdiction had been recently increased, the shooting might have been avoided, if better trained local police with better training had handled it. To me, all of this is relevant to the "immediate subject." A subject such as whether the police should or should not have jurisdiction outside of campus, I would agree is not part of the immediate subject of the shooting itself and a larger more complex question, although it is unquestionably affected by the shooting, so I think even that should be mentioned, but possibly referred to another article specifically dedicated to campus police jurisdiction "off-campus" for all universities/colleges, possibly with its own section dedicate to the aftermath of this particular incident. David Tornheim (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• @David Tornheim: Again, it's editorial judgment, editors will differ. You lean toward a more thorough exploration of related aspects, I prefer to keep things shorter and tighter. As I've indicated before, there is no wiki-universal "correct" on this point, there is no real need for sitewide consistency in this area, and you could easily get a different result with a different mix of editors. The purpose of an RfC is to change the mix, and you're free to start one. Barring that, an editor just has to be able to accept a local consensus that they disagree with. Sorry but I don't know how to articulate my position any better. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Allegedly" and the Kroll report

I added the Kroll report section today. You will note that the word "allegedly" does not occur anywhere in the section. This is despite the fact that it says negative things about a man who is facing a murder trial, about points that will be key in his trial. There is no need for "allegedly" because we are only saying that Kroll made these assertions, not that they have any merit. Put diifferently, it would be completely untrue, inaccurate, and unsourced to say that Kroll said Tensing allegedly was not dragged; they did not say that; they said he was not dragged. It is also quite clear enough that they are only allegations at this stage. Inserting "allegedly" would be a misapplication of WP:NPOV, not to mention a violation of WP:V.
Since one or two editors have been going around adding "allegedly"s in articles of this type, many of them inappropriate, it's reasonable to predict that they might do that here. So I'm preemptively seeking a consensus against that. With any luck they will see this and that will prevent the edit from occurring. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning.- MrX 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Weapon

The type of weapon is relevant to the case. If that's not so, please explain how we should apply WP:NPOV to determine which information is relevant or irrelevant in this matter. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see what this has to do with neutral point of view, maybe you could elaborate. The specific model of handgun is not relevant unless it has some particular bearing on the case; it does not. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• Start-Class Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Start-Class Law enforcement articles
• Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Start-Class Ohio articles
• Unknown-importance Ohio articles
• WikiProject Ohio articles
• WikiProject United States articles