Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:37, 4 February 2023

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Killing of Tyre Nichols. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Killing of Tyre Nichols at the Reference desk.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Black Lives Matter Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter 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.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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. Death Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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. Law Enforcement Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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. Tennessee Low‑importance Killing of Tyre Nichols is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. • • • • TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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. United States Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: January 22 to 28, 2023 (7th)

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: First police report in Tyre Nichols case contradicts video evidence and didn't mention beating by police – CNN, Jan. 31, 2023 Initial Police Report on Tyre Nichols Arrest Is Contradicted by Videos – The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2023

To add to article

Omega Psi Phi (historically black fraternity) revoked the membership of three members/officers involved. https://news.yahoo.com/omega-psi-phi-fraternity-revokes-193850761.html Broadmoor (talk)

Basic information to add to this article: exactly what did the two "confrontations" entail? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Video will be released on Friday evening, January 27, and the nature of the confrontations will be clearer at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What’s the copyright status of the bodycam Videos and police telephone pole footage? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Such videos and footage are always in the public domain. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:9BF:8418:261B:49FF (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Does the footage show the first "confrontation"? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There were no good reasons for the traffic stop in the first place... New hordak from 2018 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The only current media reports about their confrontation so far has been these two incidents that are on film, the earliest being the stop at the intersection. I also included a formal citation for the videos since before we just had hyperlinks.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

To maintain accurate and objective analysis of this tragedy, shouldn't we have a discussion of the extent to which Mr. Nichols was evading and/or resisting arrest? For example his flight on foot, which occurred after the officers' initial attempt to arrest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8300:C780:4CCC:D3E1:EFAA:E3C3 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The unvarnished facts are visible in the first video from MPD, i.e. the victim not following commands, not complying, running away. Completely leaving aside the actions of the victim prior to the first video frame available, it is obvious to the viewer that the police are attempting to take him into custody - merits notwithstanding - and he isn't following instructions and actively resisting efforts to restrain him and take him into custody. Broddonwallace (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears our comments were posted at a similar time, so to reiterate what I just wrote in a related section where you also made a similar comment: It seems to be original research that cannot be used in an encyclopedia article to have editors independently interpret the video. We also have secondary sources that can be used and have yet to be incorporated into the artice, e.g. 71 Commands in 13 Minutes: Officers Gave Tyre Nichols Impossible Orders (NYT, Jan. 29, 2023) "A Times analysis found that officers gave dozens of contradictory and unachievable orders to Mr. Nichols." Beccaynr (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Jeremy Levitt stated, "They clearly believe that he resisted arrest..." in an article about the police ‘not using appropriate police tactics’https://www.wftv.com/news/local/legal-analyst-says-officers-tyre-nichols-video-not-using-appropriate-police-tactics/3OSDFXYSXJDI3MDWND2VBVB3JM/

The Police Tribune states, "The video showed the suspect immediately began resisting arrest and despite his comments of “alright, alright, alright” to the officers, he refused to follow commands to lay on his stomach after they took the struggling man to the ground."https://policetribune.com/bodycam-shows-memphis-cops-beat-tyre-nichols-as-he-resisted-arrest-went-for-cops-gun/

Again, to be accurate and objective, the article should include the evidence of everything that contributed to the police escalation, whether the actions of the police were ultimately justified or not. 70.181.99.198 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Might be better to quote more of that statement from Levitt: As for a legal perspective about the force he saw used in the video clip, Levitt said, "They clearly believe that he resisted arrest, that he ran, that he fought them, that he tried to grab their gun. I don’t have any reason to doubt what they’re saying, but the way they used force against him wouldn’t be appropriate in any context because the man is unarmed," Levitt said.

As for the Police Tribune content, I do not believe that site would be considered as a reliable source. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the "original research" policy does not prohibit analysis of video by an editor. Here is a portion of the policy "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

If I posted "Around 8:33pm, an officer that remained at original traffic stop, put on his tactical vest, entered his duty vehicle and proceed South on Ross." That is verifiable in video 1. Nothing suggests the video is unreliable. The statement is neutral statement of verifiable fact. As such, it does not violate the original research policy.

Also consider how openly biased the The New York Times is in its analysis of the videos. "71 impossible commands". Except within the first minutes of the traffic stop Nichols stated "I am on the ground", someone respond "on your stomach", to which Nichols responds "Ok" AgntOtrth (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Falsely accused of reckless driving?

"On January 10, 2023, Tyre Nichols died three days after five Memphis Police Department officers falsely claiming to have observed reckless driving stopped him."

The source merely says that the probable cause wasn't substantiated. It could have occurred, but off camera. Schierbecker (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Schierbecker: - wording is gone now. starship.paint (exalt) 05:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: The current wording is still problematic. "The Memphis Police Department initially stated on January 8 that the traffic stop of Nichols was due to reckless driving, 'but' later on January 27 the Memphis police chief stated that footage showed no evidence of probable cause for the traffic stop." The two statements are not in conflict with one another. It's possible that he was initially stopped for reckless driving, AND the footage showed no evidence of it. The body camera perspective does not show the officer's point of view especially when sitting in the car. Baller McGee (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  But isn't only appropriate when statements are "in conflict"; it can be used any time there's an apparent tension. The two points (what the department initially said, what the chief said) are clearly linked and it's awkward to just throw them out as unconnected simple declarative sentences. I've restored but. as it's a perfectly appropriate way to join them (and making no sense at all), especially since the sentence goes on to clarify that the chief said her observation isn't dispositive. When there's further clarifying sourcing, we'll say more EEng 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The word initially in that statement combined with the 'but' suggests that they have retracted or changed the narrative of what happened. All they said was that they did not capture video evidence of what allegedly happened. That does not change the 'initial' statement or alter the official narrative.Baller McGee (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Also in the lede. As it stands at this time, the lede says "The officers stopped Nichols for reckless driving, pulled him from his car, and used pepper spray and a taser on him." which has not been verified at this point. It's true that the citation discusses the conflicting issues, but that does not make the declarative statement in the lede correct. At this point in time, we can only say the the stop was initially claimed to be for reckless driving.

I suggest changing the sentence to "The officers stopped Nichols (initially claiming reckless driving), pulled him from his car, and used pepper spray and a taser on him." This is accurate and supported by the citation. the other option is to remove the probable cause and just say "The officers stopped Nichols, pulled him from his car, and used pepper spray and a taser on him." If I don't get any negative feedback, and no one else makes the change, I'll address it tomorrow. Thank you!  • Bobsd •  (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the history and saw that PuppyMonkey just removed the word "alleged" commenting that "if the popo pulls you over it is always alleged."  While it may be true that facts behind arrests are only alleged until proven, in this case, we don't even know why the police, in their minds, pulled him over.   In any case, the point of using "alleged" is to show that the situation being described is what was "alleged", and not proven fact.  That is why the word exists, and I'm going to put it back.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The "alleged" here is very important. Especially given the chief of police says she hasn't been able to verify why they pulled Nichols over. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Expletives"

• We should quote what was said in full. No need to pull punches (so to speak). EEng 20:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. If we know the expletives, we should include them. We have no problems at Misplaced Pages illustrating articles with graphic images (Murder of George Floyd, Lynching of Jesse Washington, Henry Smith (lynching victim), Omaha race riot of 1919, etc. etc.). Why would we wimp out over mere words? We don't censor here. SecretName101 (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  We should also quote what was said in full when it comes to even the least offensive sentences. Too much "snipping" and "three word fragments" going on in Misplaced Pages "lately", it almost " sarcastic". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources on protests?

@Cerebral726: If you have sources on protests, then feel free to list them here for other people to use in the article, or integrate the info into the article yourself. If there's enough for the body of the article, then a summary in the WP:LEAD will be better justified. Boud (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There are actually two separate articles about the protests: Tyre Nichols protests and 2023 Memphis protests.

And there is an ongoing discussion about merging them. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

update needed: list of killings by police - Tyre Nichols

This needs an update, if anyone is up for it: List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, January 2023

The text regarding the death of Tyre Nichols is inaccurate and does not reflect the fact that he was beaten by police etc. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the text there based on this article. CharredShorthand.talk; 09:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD - Eric Adams Response

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers, how exactly is putting the video of Eric Adams speaking violating WP:UNDUE? The inclusion is not to highlight his personal thoughts in particular, its to display a public reaction to the incident. The only way I could see it violating WP:UNDUE would be if his opinion was the minority, which it clearly isn't. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with IARGAC, a video of the mayor of New York opining on an incident in Memphis is way over the top. What makes his commentary significant or important? WWGB (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It's just a speech of no significance. If I, John Q. Public, gave the same speech, videoed it, and uploaded it to commons should it be included just because it happens to regurgitate the majority opinion of most of the public? Of course not. Adams has nothing to do with this incident and the incident has nothing to do with him. Videos of speeches should be reserved for when they are significant and well covered in reliable sources, such as Obama's speech about Sandy Hook. Otherwise, it's giving undue emphasis. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 06:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So would a tweet from Biden be good just because he's a more public figure? @WWGB Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A tweet from Biden is just as relevant as one from the Memphis mayor or Tennessee governor (whose names escape me), as they were all elected to the same overlapping jurisdiction. It's a gesture of civic service that voters expect and (generally) respect. This Adams character seems a lot of things to a lot of people, but to Memphis people, I'll bet he's mostly just someone else's mayor. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that these particular comments by Adams do not belong in this particular article, but reasonable editors may disagree. I disagree with the response by Iamreallygoodatcheckers that comments by the mayor of the largest city in the United States are equivalent to comments by "John Q. Public". That is dismissive and disrespectful to an extreme regarding a highly notable elected official, and I remind the editor to review WP:BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The OP was arguing that Adams comments shouldn't be removed since they aren't representative of a minority response. The analogy was to show just because a statement represents a majority viewpoint doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 07:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Every mayor, every governor, every congressperson, the president, the director of the FBI, every chief of police, every legal analyst, every talking head, pretty much everyone with a microphone, had the same reaction as you and I and everyone else in the world. I don't think it adds much to highlight a specific person's reaction, unless it's been very widely covered by RS (e.g., the family's public comments), it's undue. I don't think the mayor of New York's reaction makes the cut, neither the video nor the mention in prose, I'd exclude mention of the mayor of NYC altogether. Levivich (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree with you about the specific content inclusion issue. I wish that you had also offered your assessment of the earlier comments that unnecessarily disrespected the mayor of the largest city in the United States, analogizing him dismissively to some random "John Q. Public". Perhaps you are OK with that for some unexplained reason. I am not. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Some say "It is important for Americans to recognize—especially for those Americans who reside in New York City—that the City’s Mayor, Eric Adams, is no friend of the common man even as his image-makers project him out to be just that." InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I think some version of prose about Adams could be included as WP:DUE - I also added a reference from Politico: New York mayor confers with White House ahead of expected Tyre Nichols protests (Jan. 27, 2023) that might help refine the content. Currently, this generally transitions to the mention of protests in the United States. A contrasting example is an opinion piece from Val Demings published recently in the Washington Post (Jan. 28, 2023), where it seems better to wait to consider inclusion until there is independent RS reporting about the commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: redundant coordinates

The coordinates are currently listed at the top of page, and also within the infobox. Seems like we don't need both instances. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

When coordinates are included in the Infobox, they also automatically display at top-right of the page. Removing them from the Infobox will cause them to disappear from both locations. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ohh, weird. It seems so redundant; when viewing on a large screen you are seeing the coordinates twice at the same time, just a few line breaks apart from one another. Thanks for the explanation. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

For about the 10th time, I've removed the coordinates because they're OR. In the name of Jesus, will whoever keeps readding them please cut it out until you have a source? EEng 05:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I only added them once. Perhaps this means that quite a few editors want the coordinates in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Bias on initial encounter

The paragraph on the initial encounter seems biased and internally contradictory. Nichols did not comply with multiple orders from the police. Why did they pull him out of his car? Because he did not comply with the order to get out of his car. The article then says "Officers pushed Nichols to the ground", and later says "they attempted to pin him to the ground". How could they be attempting to pin him to the ground if he was already on the ground? Also, if Nichols was complying with the order to get to the ground, why does the article say they "pushed Nichols to the ground"? And if he was completely compliant, then how was he able to run away? Media sources have noted that Nichols does not appear to be responding to the orders from the officers. https://www.foxnews.com/us/tyre-nichols-bodycam-memphis-authorities-release-video-deadly-traffic-stop --Westwind273 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not believe Fox News is an acceptable source for issues related to politics or controversial subjects such as this. Please see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Do you have any other sources, to back up your assertion that "Nichols did not comply with multiple orders from the police. Why did they pull him out of his car? Because he did not comply with the order to get out of his car." You'll need quality reliable sources to backup such a claim. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not think there are any other reliable sources at this time. Going forward, I think we need to be very careful about bias regarding the initial encounter. Due to the second encounter pretty much shaping up to be murder, there will be a temptation to describe the first encounter in a way biased against the police. Moreover, if the first encounter is described in a way biased against the police, it could conceal what triggered the police to commit murder in the second encounter. Specifically, some police conversation on the video seems to indicate that the beating at the second encounter was done as punishment for the resistance and running that Nichols did previously. George Mason professor RaShall Brackney spoke about this "retribution for resistance" aspect in her interview on NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/28/1152353126/a-former-police-chief-says-more-police-does-not-mean-less-crime --Westwind273 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Nichols did not comply with multiple orders from the police."

"You'll need quality reliable sources to backup such a claim"

The first video from Memphis PD documents compliance or lack of... no dispute. Speculate about the victim's motives, but his actions are not in question. FOX is reporting what any reader can verify from the video. Broddonwallace (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the video does not show him refusing to get out of the car. When the audio starts at 1:04, you see and hear a police officer yelling him from the right-side of the car, but he doesn't tell him to get out of the car. Then at 1:08, another officer opens the driver side car door and yells him to get out of the car while simultaneously reaching into the car and pulling him out of it. Zero chance given for him to comply with the order, hence claiming he did not comply with an order to get out of the car is not supported by the video. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You're misstating facts in this discussion. He did not comply with multiple orders. Broddonwallace (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Please cite a WP:RS to backup this claim of non-compliance with multiple orders. Thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

FOX News...as stated above. Unless your are claiming that this is a Political issue? Broddonwallace (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science." Except in this case? Which is "political"? And there is a video available? And FOX reports their take on the video which is at odds with other outlets wo make no mention of the context? Broddonwallace (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS entry includes For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Although a significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News. Based on the massive political reaction to this event, this does appear to be within politics, but it also seems to potentially be a misuse of the source to interpret the limited coverage for a general "he did not comply with multiple orders" statement, e.g. this source includes "For several seconds he repeats "Give us your hands!" Nichols looks limp or in a daze, and another officer can be seen punching him in the face". We also have more detailed analysis available from other sources that similarly examine these types of issues, but in greater depth. Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspected as much. "that's not how we see it" Intellectually bankrupt. Broddonwallace (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Broddonwallace: Well, this line of thinking about the reliability of Fox News is actually a product of broad community discourse and lengthy discussion. See here, for the most recent RfC conversation and rationale for this. There were definitely many diverse opinions on the topic. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• It seems to be original research that cannot be used in an encyclopedia article to have editors independently interpret the video. We also have secondary sources that can be used and have yet to be incorporated into the artice, e.g. 71 Commands in 13 Minutes: Officers Gave Tyre Nichols Impossible Orders (NYT, Jan. 29, 2023) "A Times analysis found that officers gave dozens of contradictory and unachievable orders to Mr. Nichols." Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  The secondary sources are the other "eyes on" the video... i.e. the NYT or FOX News. If the NYT is counting commands...FOX is reporting prima facia.. Broddonwallace (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  The NYT is a secondary analysis, not "counting commands". Primary sources are susceptible to misuse and require extra caution in an article about living and recently deceased people, per the orignal research policy. Beccaynr (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I just want to say in response to the top comment that pushing someone onto the ground, and then pinning him to the ground, is the correct order. First he goes to the ground, then you pin him there. Baller McGee (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Murder isn’t a political event - so Fox News should not be disqualified just for being Fox News. That being said, I agree with the original research point. Without denigrating some junior reporter, this sounds like one person’s non expert opinion only. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Photo website

Nichols' photo website referred to in news articles is heavily archived on the Wayback Machine over Jan. 27-29. The earliest capture is Jan. 23, which could have been simply because it was missed, but the page was blank then. The page was still blank until later on Jan. 27, with the tabs and photos being set up between the 17:21 and 20:17 captures. Is there any source that actually verified the website? Something seems fishy here. Maybe it was set up by his family as a tribute but it's odd as it is. KarlM (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

From the CNN source in the article: "Photography was a form of self-expression that writing could never capture for Nichols, who wrote that it helped him look “at the world in a more creative way,” on his photography website." Beccaynr (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

And from CBS News: "On the website, he had a gallery of what he considered his "masterpieces": bridges and railroad tracks rendered in black and white, the neon lights of Beale Street at night. He took pictures of pink flowers, sunsets over the Mississippi River, fields of grass, and statues of Elvis. He highlights a quote from another photographer: "A good photographer must love life," it begins." Beccaynr (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources

These sources may be useful for article development:

• 71 Commands in 13 Minutes: Officers Gave Tyre Nichols Impossible Orders (NYT, Jan. 29, 2023) "A Times analysis found that officers gave dozens of contradictory and unachievable orders to Mr. Nichols."
• What Memphis police videos show, and don’t show, about Tyre Nichols beating (WaPo, Jan. 28, 2023) "The videos, which were edited by police before their release, were shot between 8:24 p.m. and 9:02 p.m. that night. The four clips collectively run about an hour in total."

Beccaynr (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just added these to the {{Refideas}} banner at top of page. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I added something about the impossible orders given by officers. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice, thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Out of order use of taser

In the section "Traffic stop and death" the following is stated "At about 8:25 p.m., a struggle began between the officers and Nichols; they attempted to pin Nichols to the ground, threatened him, yelled expletives, and used pepper spray and a taser on him. The pepper spray also hit several of the other officers. Ultimately, Nichols broke free and ran south on Ross Road, where he was pursued by at least two officers." This gives the impression that the taser was used before Nichols began to flee which is not the case. According to the CNN article this section cites "At 8:25 p.m., one officer sprays Nichols in the face with pepper spray. Nichols then struggles to his feet and begins running from the officer as one another shoots a taser at him that apparently didn’t make contact."

Incase I need to recite the article https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-memphis-friday/index.html LetsMakeThingsRight (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The NYT timeline https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-police-beating-timeline.html says they used a stun gun before Nichols began to flee. Also, a stun gun is different from a taser, so that's another small contradiction between our sources. Can anyone watch the video and comment on the correct order? CharredShorthand.talk; 03:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just watched Video #1 again.

A bit after the 1:25 mark they start screaming and threatening to deploy the taser (during the struggle, and the taser is pressed against Nichols while on the ground, but does not appear to be deployed at that point).

Shortly after 2:05 the officer raises the taser and aims it at Nichols as he runs. Then at about 2:10 you can hear the electric clicking sound, likely meaning it was deployed at that point.

Later on in the video, at about the 6:20 mark, you can hear the officer saying "Okay, I gotta find my glasses and get this damn taser loaded" and then you can see him fumbling with the taser, and reloading it.

Does that help? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. I'll try to fix the order in a bit. CharredShorthand.talk; 02:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@CharredShorthand: Also, I think the New York Times source cited above is using the word "stun gun" in place of the term taser for some reason, I'm not sure why. The cops are very clearly yelling that they are gonna tase him over and over many times. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Traffic stop and death; biased opinionated statements

'In the released videos from after the beating, two officers claim Nichols reached for their weapons. This claim is not substantiated by the videos, ...'

The second sentence is attributed to the New York Times. The New York Times reported "That was not visible on any of the four videos released by the city on Friday night." Quote the New York Times, do not put a opinionated spin on it. 2601:681:5780:AB76:981E:1462:CA87:2341 (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"not substantiated" is shaded enough to make the point clear that it was not on the videos. I believe the editor that put that in read the turn of phrase from a different source, but cited the NYT, perhaps in haste. Let's call it paraphrasing. Abductive (reasoning) 09:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That statement was not substantiated by any video evidence, including the video that allegation was recorded on. The New York Times is not required to know this. The videos that were released are enough to say video evidence of that claim has not been brought forward. LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is prejudicial, "not seen" does not equal "was not on the videos". It is not paraphrasing. It completely misses the point the New York Times made. Lastly, the side comment should not be included in the Traffic Stop and Death section; this section should only chronicle the events as they happened as based on verifiable evidence. What the officer did and what the officers said is verifiable - it is on body cam footage. The veracity of the Officers claims should be and a different section - possibly Media Analysis. AgntOtrth (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Prejudicial" means you think this Misplaced Pages article will have an effect on the trial of the officers or on public opinion generally. That is unlikely. Social media, which is outside anyone's control, means that the reputation of the police across the US has taken a big hit. Nothing can be done about it here. Abductive (reasoning) 13:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not neutral, which violates Misplaced Pages Neutral Point Of View. Abduction you stated "enough shade" according to Meriam-Webster "Shade is a subtle, sneering expression of contempt for or disgust ..." By your own words, the phrasing is an opinion, and not neutral.

As for prejudicial, you are incorrect as its meaning/definition. Meriam-Webster defines it as "1. tending to injure or impair. 2. leading to premature judgment or unwarranted opinion". The unwarranted opinion is the gross mischaracterization of the New York Times statement that specifically says "That was not visible on any of the four videos released by the city on Friday night." The way to fix the biased, opinionated, prejudicial, non-neutral phrasing is to simply directly quote the New York Times article. AgntOtrth (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You really don't get it; "shading" (Dictionary.com says, "'a slight variation or difference of color, character, etc.") is an entirely different thing from a slang term "throwing shade". Abductive (reasoning) 21:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The way it's worded is fine. We don't need to quote every single article directly that describes the circumstances. And if you doubt the veracity of the statement, watch the videos yourself. The videos are reliable sources in and of themselves. It's fact that he never reaches for any officer's weapons in any of the videos. This whole proposed change is preposterous. Wes sideman (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not a neutral statement. It is a simple edit, copy and paste, the citation does not need to edited. Why promote biased opinion? Promotion of biased opinions in Misplaced Pages, is why a reason so many see Misplaced Pages in a negative light. AgntOtrth (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You just called a statement of simple fact "a biased opinion". I think you should probably take a look at what you're trying to accomplish here, and reconsider the method you're using to go about that. Either way, the statement is fine in the article as is. Wes sideman (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also additional secondary sources that can be reviewed and incorporated, without resorting to original analysis of the video. "Not substantiated" can be legal jargon, and I think as we continue to review and incorporate sources, we can find a neutral compromise about how to convey the information if sources are not using this terminology. Beccaynr (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The neutral and clear statement is to copy and paste the exact statement of the New York Times. My goal is to be neutral, not biased as abductive indicated with throwing "shade". As worded in its current form, it misrepresents the New York Times. Keeping the mischaracterization speaks volumes lack of neutrality of this article. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree it would likely be helpful, per WP:WIKIVOICE, to add an attribution, e.g. "According to a review by a New York Times reporter, this was not visible in the videos" and include a direct link to the statement. I also think we have further sources available to help develop content for this, and we can be cautious in the meantime.

Also, I think the "expert" generally referred to in the following sentence from the New Yorker source should be identified, and the content in the article potentially refined, because the source includes "Later, in an exchange recorded after the beating, the officers suggested to one another that he had reached for their handguns. But the video footage makes that claim highly implausible, Seth W. Stoughton, an expert on the use of force and a former patrolman, told me." This source also states "Stoughton, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, who testified at the 2021 trial of a Minneapolis officer convicted of murdering George Floyd, noted that an officer typically shouts it out immediately if he sees a suspect reach for a weapon, and none did anything like that in the videos of their struggles with Nichols." Beccaynr (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, "According to..." constructions run afoul of WP:INTEXT. Misplaced Pages reports the consensus view of the secondary sources, puts the sources' info into the refs. Abductive (reasoning) 21:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As to attributing the NYT source, this is a suggested placeholder compromise while we review secondary sources - it appears to be one of the early reports, and based on what I have been reviewing, I think we have better sources. As to the vague wave at an "expert" in the next sentence, that seems different, and adding the identity of the expert seems important because this is their analysis. Beccaynr (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a judgement call in articles on politically charged topics. Were this an article on an earthquake or something, I would remove "According to the Los Angeles Times ..." immediately. Abductive (reasoning) 00:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Age of Tyre's son

In a live televised interview this morning, Tyre's mother corrected an interviewer when she mentioned Tyre's son as being 4, saying that his son is actually 5 years old. I have not seen a source quoting her on this yet, and so far all sources that ID the son's age say he's 4. Just something to keep an eye on, even though we probably can't change that yet. Wes sideman (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Coordinates

Given this NYT article, can we add in the coordinates to this location? I was looking at the Killing of George Floyd article, which includes coordinates, but couldn't find a source that states the actual numbers, just a myriad of sources stating the address or showing it on a map. This feels like enough information that no actual WP:OR is occuring if we do 35°01′48″N 89°50′20″W / 35.0301°N 89.8390°W / 35.0301; -89.8390, but was wondering if anyone had any opinions on the matter. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Obtaining a location from reliable secondary sources and using Google Maps or OSM to get the raw numbers for the coordinates is acceptable to me. The region:XXXX should be US-TN, though. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Traffic stop and death: clarity of events

Ultimately, Nichols broke free and ran south on Ross Road, where he was pursued by at least two officers. Two more police units arrived at the scene of the traffic stop around 8:29 p.m. Footage showed that one officer who remained at the area of the traffic stop said, "I hope they stomp his ass".

Suggested rearrangement, Ultimately, Nichols broke free and ran south on Ross Road, where he was pursued by at least two officers. 'Footage shows two officers remained at the original traffic stop. Other Law Enforcement units arrived at the original traffic stop and were advised of the direction Nichols ran. At approximately 8:32pm, one of the Officers that remained at the scene of the original traffic stop said ""I hope they stomp his ass". At approximately 8:34pm, the other Officer that remained at the scene of the original traffic stop, drove away with the vehicle lights and siren on, in direction Nichols ran. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

New development - 6th officer

Memphis police suspend officer after firing five in Tyre Nichols case (Reuters)

Days after five Memphis police officers were fired and charged with murder in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols, a sixth officer was suspended pending an investigation into his role in the case, the department said on Monday.The suspended officer - identified as Preston Hemphill - was relieved of duty with pay pending a hearing, a Memphis Police Department spokesperson said, noting that an investigation was under way. Hemphill is white.

Sixth officer suspended in Tyre Nichols death investigation (WaPo, January 30, 2023)

“Officer Preston Hemphill has been relieved of duty pending the outcome of the administrative investigation,” the police department told The Washington Post late Monday morning. “Officer Hemphill was hired in 2018.” Hemphill, a White man, was relieved of duty at the same time as the other five officers charged in the incident, said Kim Elder, a spokesperson for the Memphis Police. Hemphill has not been charged, Elder said. Hemphill’s body camera captures part of the initial confrontation with Nichols. In the video, Hemphill can be seen using a Taser on him. Later, a voice on the body cam that seems to be Hemphill’s says, “I hope they stomp his a--” after Nichols escaped."

6th Memphis officer relieved of duty in Nichols arrest (Associated Press)

Officer Preston Hemphill was relieved of duty shortly after the Jan. 7 arrest of Nichols Hemphill’s lawyer, Lee Gerald, said in a statement that Hemphill was the third officer at a traffic stop that preceded the violent arrest and that he activated his body camera. But Hemphill was not at the scene where Nichols was beaten, Gerald said. Hemphill is white. On body camera footage from the initial stop, Hemphill is heard saying that he stunned Nichols and declaring, “I hope they stomp his ass.”

6th Memphis Police Officer Suspended in Tyre Nichols Death (NYT)

The sixth officer, Preston Hemphill, has been placed on administrative leave; it is not clear exactly what role he played in the encounter. Officer Hemphill’s lawyer, Lee Gerald, said in a statement that one of the four videos of the encounter that were released by the city on Friday, labeled Video 1, came from Officer Hemphill’s body camera.

Beccaynr (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been incorporated into the article? The article is missing some core information to the story and actual events by excluding the sixth police officer. I'd make the edit myself but I don't have the required user access level. Hayakoa (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

#SunsetsForTyre

I noticed that the content about the social media campaign (sourced to Hassan, Jennifer (January 29, 2023). "Tyre Nichols loved sunsets. People are sharing glowing skies in his honor". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 January 2023.) was removed with the edit summary "unencyclopedic" , and it is not clear to me if this is due to a lack of a citation at the end of this sentence or another objection related to its inclusion. The source has further explanation that could help develop the content, and I think it is encyclopedic within the section - from what I understand from the source, this campaign is also a reaction to the wide sharing of the graphic videos depicting the violence. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Magnolia677. Beccaynr (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Lack of citation, and why is an encyclopedia listing hashtags? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Magnolia677 - I think I either had or should have cited the sentence when I added the information about the social media campaign (because I would not randomly add social media hashtags), but in the interest of reducing refclutter, another editor may have removed it so the cite is only at the end of the paragraph. Would you agree to restore the content with the citation at the end of the sentence? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Only one media outlet, The Washington Post, seems to have reported on it. This isn't a memorial or a biography, so I'm not sure of the encyclopedic value of informing readers that photos of sunsets are being posted to a hashtag. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

WaPo is a national news outlet, reporting on a public reaction, including to the widespread publicity of the videos, so it seems more than a memorial. The encyclopedic value seems supported by the national coverage and the reported public reaction to the event beyond Nichols, and the included content could be revised to make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick to put up video

I wonder why wiki is quick to put this heinous video up and but did not put up the video of Chauvin killing George Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.144.21 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the video depicting the killing of Tyre Nichols was made available to the public much faster than the video footage regarding George Floyd, but I could be wrong about that. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is edited by random people, you can add videos if you like. There is not a professional team of people making this article who also made the George Floyd article so I am not sure what you are suggesting. There also may have been copyright questions on the George Floyd video because it was recorded (and owned) by a bystander, while in this case the videos were recorded by the police department. Baller McGee (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of "black"

Capitalizing "black" as a descriptor for the race is dumb and unnecessary. It may be part of the AP style guide now but it isn't part of Misplaced Pages's, and most other articles on this site don't capitalize the word even in the context of being a descriptor of the race. I suggest someone edit the article to revert the unnecessary capitalization which goes against the style principles most other articles use. 2601:405:4400:9420:116E:C6BF:4E8:E78 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I was confused by this as well, but then I started to notice that many of the reliable sources from which we quote and reference do in fact capitalize the word "Black" to denote race. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is based on sources, e.g. in the NYT article Tyre Nichols Beating Opens a Complex Conversation on Race and Policing, it begins "The five officers charged with the murder of the young Black man are also Black, complicating the anguish and efforts at police reform.", in the WaPo article Black Memphis police spark dialogue on systemic racism in the U.S., "For the mother of Tyre Nichols, the fact that five Memphis police officers charged with beating her son are also Black has compounded her sorrow as she tries to cope with his violent death at age 29.", in NBC News: What we know about the 5 Memphis police officers charged with beating Tyre Nichols to death, "Like Nichols, all five former officers were Black." Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

According to it can be upcased, downcased, or even omitted. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 03:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate that this whole “Black” or “black” issue hasn’t been resolved at MoS. IMO, lowercase just looks better, but it doesn’t really matter that much. Some similar articles, like Murder of George Floyd, appear to do lowercase. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 04:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it is widely understood, at least in the United States, "Black" is the standard usage, and the lowercase may have offensive connotations when describing people, e.g. AP changes writing style to capitalize ″b″ in Black (AP, 2020, ""The lowercase black is a color, not a person." The Los Angeles Times, USA Today and NBC News last week embraced capitalization, and the National Association of Black Journalists urged other news organizations to follow. The death of Floyd, a Black man who died after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed a knee to his neck, sparked nationwide protests and lent momentum to a variety of social changes, from police reform and the public removal of Confederate statues and flags to the capitalization of Black.")

So it seems to be a potential problem in need of attention for the lowercase "black" to be used in the article of the man whose murder fueled a shift towards a more respectful use of language. I have previously looked to the sources for guidance on what to do in a particular article, given the state of the MOS, so perhaps that can help the Murder of George Floyd article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't think it matters a whole lot. Your arguments about the way RS use "Black" in the context of this event and others is compelling. "Black" (with capital) seems to be the most correct thing to do here based on what we've got. I'm merely saying I wish MoS had a blanket answer. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 05:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and I wish the MOS had clear encouragement to look to the sources discussing the subject to help determine usage in particular articles, because my understanding is there can be regional variations. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

So long as we're not mentioning "white" people in the same article, I think it's OK. Not aesthetically pleasant, but fair. If we start mentioning white people, remember to treat both common nouns/adjectives equally (I think that's based on a guideline, too.) InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Police report contradicts evidence

First police report in Tyre Nichols case contradicts video evidence and didn't mention beating by police – CNN, Jan. 31, 2023

Initial Police Report on Tyre Nichols Arrest Is Contradicted by Videos – The New York Times, Jan. 31, 2023

More to come once report is fully released. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Overlinking to common words

According to we should not be wikilinking to Black, Black Americans, Afro-American, African Americans, etc. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 06:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I had restored one wikilink because Black links to a capitalized "Black American", as a way to further support the capitalized usage in this article , in addition to the sources. Wikilinks had been removed because the term seemed easily understood , but perhaps it is helpful here, given the Talk page discussion about capitalization and the various changes between "Black" and "black" in the article - the guidance of MOS:OVERLINK includes, "what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others". Beccaynr (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A common word that's central to a subject is still worth a Wikilink. You wouldn't link car here, for instance, but you wouldn't link black there. Here, the six main characters aren't black like cars, but they're black like African Americans, and that certainly has a lot to do with why anything links here. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of "SCORPION"

Street Crimes Operation to Restore Peace in Our Neighborhoods, or SCORPION. It is like STRESS, or Stop the Robberies, Enjoy Safe Streets - 91.54.6.249 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It can be scorpion, Scorpion, or SCORPION. Most RS use Scorpion unit. If you expand it, then downcase each word. SCORPION (a mouseover). See: . Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of information about the police report

Specifically . Fine to add some of this, but there are several issues I perceive.

1. Cite to NY Post - considered unreliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
2. Over-quoting.
3. Written as a narrative - it could be much more concise.
4. We probably don't need all those extra small sections.

CharredShorthand.talk; 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• @CharredShorthand: - great catch, check article now? Better? starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint yep, looks good! CharredShorthand.talk; 14:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we please stop the biased commentary in the Traffic Stop and Death section

Let's just make a separate section titled Media Analysis. CNN, New York Times, Washington post, like all other media outlets have a narrow and biased point of view to publish.

The traffic stop should only be the events of the initial stop and were he was tackled, beaten, and cuffed. There is zero reason to interject the biased commentary of a media outlet in the Traffic Stop and Death section. The Traffic stop and death section does not have a neutral tone. AgntOtrth (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@AgntOtrth: "CNN, New York Times, Washington post, like all other media outlets have a narrow and biased point of view to publish." These are called reliable sources, whether you like it or not. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter if they are considered "reliable". What matters is the lack of neutrality. The traffic stop and death section does not need and should have the biased opinions of the "reporters". Just MOVE the biased commentary to a new section. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"What matters is the lack of neutrality." Irrelevant. We are supposed to be neutral, not our sources. Per policy on Biased or opinionated sources: "Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Context matters

Shortcuts

• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
• WP:RSCONTEXT

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly do you believe that the sources aren't appropriate or reliable? Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject. I have questioned a lack of neutrality in a specific context. The commentary from the news outlets is not relevant to the Traffic Stop and Death section. The news outlets biased commentary are not relevant at all. However, I understand that some think the opinions of a news outlet should be included. The simply solution is to have a separate section where news outlets opinions, expert opinions, and other opinions can be acknowledge. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not changing the subject; you started this discussion by saying that media outlets are biased, and I wanted clarification on why you believe that is the case here. Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any consensus is going to come about to not use the NYT, WaPo, etc. as reliable sources of facts that can be used for analysis of complex topics, and used in the way it is currently in the article (regarding the impossible commands given). Any analysis by a Misplaced Pages editor is near worthless as WP:OR, and instead we can rely on Misplaced Pages policy and strong sources to authoritatively state the events that unfolded, with attribution as necessary. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"we can rely on Misplaced Pages policy and strong sources to authoritatively state the events that unfolded". The events that unfolded, not the biased statements of a source given the context of the events. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose we reference what happened? Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the Traffic Stop and Death section, I don't see any NPOV violations. The few comments by media outlets are properly attributed and marked as such, and the rest of the section can be verified by looking at the footage. There isn't enough commentary to justify creating a new section anyway. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

someone added the supposed contradictory impossible/contradictory commands. Each of those bullet point would take large part of a media analysis section. Also, whether the commands were impossible or contradictory is a matter of opinion. And there are other parts that can be moved AgntOtrth (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The commands can be verified to be contradictory/impossible by looking at the footage, so including them in a media analysis section would be inappropriate. As for the "matter of opinion", how would you expect someone to show their hands while restrained? Or to roll onto their stomach while being held to the ground? Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No they cannot be confirmed. It is you opinion, which matches the opinion offered by a news outlet. In video 1, Tyre states "I am on the ground", he had turned his body at his waist, he had plenty of bodily movement to lay on his stomach in that instance. And here we can see whether something was impossible is a matter of opinion. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@AgntOtrth: "he had plenty of bodily movement to lay on his stomach in that instance" How could you even begin to claim to know this? What a person in a physically violent (and mentally abusive) situation is or is not capable of? This sounds like WP:OR to me. The difference between you, and The New York Times, is that they have an editorial board, oversight, and rigorous journalistic integrity standards by which they must adhere to. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

What a person in a physically violent (and mentally abusive) situation is or is not capable of? How can the any news outlet claim to know it? Context matters, that is a WP policy. There is no reason to think that a news outlet is qualified or reliable to make claims in context of a person in a physically violent (and mentally abusive) situation is or is not capable of.

Further WP:OR does not prohibit a wiki editor from reviewing a video and describing the events therein. WP:OR applies when there is not a source to go to. Video 1, posted by the Memphis Police Department is the source. AgntOtrth (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are really not understanding how Misplaced Pages works. Hopefully a more experienced editor can break it down and explain to you the importance of reliable sources. This really is the bedrock foundation from which a lot of everything here is built upon. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

context matters, reliable sources are still held to context standard AgntOtrth (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

How would context change the suitability of a source in this case? Bowler the Carmine | talk 00:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Occasionally secondary sources with a reputation for reliability will say something that is false, especially in current events where all investigations have not been completed and all information is not yet known. For example, a previous edit of this article cited a BBC article which said that Tyre Nichols did not resist officers at all, which is verifiably false if the reader looks at other sources (including primary sources) that have been cited. False information should be removed even if it comes from what are usually reliable sources. As for the New York Times, they are great at fact-based reporting, and they also publish opinion and commentary. The NY Times article in question contains their interpretation of the videos and is colored by commentary. For example, they take issue with the fact that Nichols was ordered to lie down in the middle of the road, even though there is nothing impossible or contradictory about that. I agree with AgntOtrth's assessment that it does not have a neutral tone. It does contain facts that we can use but we don't need the commentary. Baller McGee (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and well-reasoned response. While I disagree with your assertion that we don't need the commentary, and think that such commentary is WP:DUE as long as it is properly attributed and framed as commentary, I am glad that we're sharing our differing views on the issue. I am aware of how context matters, and I asked that question to try and get AgntOtrth to properly explain their views on treatment of sources. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What about the white cop?

In the first line of this article there is reference to five black police officers. Why is the white cop exonerated for his actions? Is Misplaced Pages following three lead of the Memphis police in attributing immediate guilt to only the black police officers present? 87.208.172.98 (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hemphill is not charged with the death of Nichols. Where would you recommend he and hos race be mentioned? AgntOtrth (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The video only showed the five officers.Cwater1 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2023

Death of Tyre Nichols → Killing of Tyre Nichols – This seems like a clear example of where WP:DEATHS can be used to provide some helpful guidance. The death was due to homicide (killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional), but there isn't a murder conviction, so "Killing" is the most appropriate, clear, and accurate title to use. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the autopsy hasn't been released (yet, or at least, as far as I know it hasn't been released yet), and so we have no official determination that this was a homicide, which is what WP:DEATHS requires for "killing of...". I'm not sure why the autopsy hasn't been released, but there is no official cause of death yet (see e.g. , ), and the family's autopsy is not official. I don't see a lot of news reports refer to this as a "killing"; "death" seems more common. We have no source that says this was a homicide, even though it seems to very obviously be a homicide. I'm pretty close to an WP:IAR support here, but what's holding me back is RS support for this being a homicide aka a killing. I don't personally doubt it, but my personal opinions aren't an RS. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Perhaps this is a little early, since the official cause of death would make it rock solid. Though on the other hand it is well established and reported he "succumbed to his injuries" after being severely beaten, which is the definition of a homicide, and there are plenty of sources that do say killing, including the AP and the headline of the NYT's ongoing coverage. I lean towards still moving to "Killing", but your point is well taken. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh! That changes my mind. My overriding concern is WP:V, that we can verify that this was a 'killing' and not just a 'death', and the AP and NYT calling it a 'killing' in their own voice satisfies WP:V in my opinion. Support. Also I'd point out that there is very little chance that they would be charged with 2nd-degree murder if there wasn't an autopsy that said the cause of death was homicide, even if said autopsy report hasn't been publicly released yet. RMs last 7 days, so I'm pretty sure we'll have either an autopsy report, or a lot more RS calling it a 'killing', before a week has passed. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - it should remain "death" until we know that the cause of death is homicide, then it can be changed to "killing." We will know this when the autopsy report is released. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 15:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to add, just for clarity, that if an autopsy report is released confirming that he died by homicide before this RM is closed, I support. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  This seems in line with Murder of George Floyd, which was "Death of George Floyd" at the time of incident and was changed to "killing" once the homicide ruling was made. 04:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's been a minute since I !voted in that discussion, but I believe you are correct. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 07:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose unless an autopsy says his death was a homicide. If it does, then I will support a name change. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support due to the AP and NY Times sources cited above, and assuming more media report the death as a killing in the coming days. Once the video is made public (as well as autopsy results), we'll see how this changes the language in news coverage. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support the man was clearly killed as a result of physical violence. Spudst3r (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose of now - Let's until the cause of death is determined.Cwater1 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now or perhaps more accurately, Wait. This is a developing situation and I feel the next days/weeks will probably give us more clarity about what's going on here. Not A Superhero (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Waiting was very prudent. However, they are now charged with murder. Homicide determination is a prerequisite of murder charges. We should in an orderly manner move this page before the release of the video. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose until it is legally determined one or more of the five cops killed him. Until then, it is a death. Innocent until otherwise proven in a court of law, and all that. XavierItzm (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's the wrong logic. See WP:DEATHS. EEng 22:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:DEATHS when the cause of death is unknown, the name is "Death of". Damar Hamlin, a top athlete in the prime of health is 24 and almost died a few weeks ago of cardiac arrest. People die all the time and the reason is not necessarily the exact last thing you did. People are jumping to conclusions here, based on an emotional response.XavierItzm (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fun Fact: Cardiac arrest is a sign of death, common to all, not a cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as a waste of time right now. It's not critical that this be exactly right at the earliest possible moment. Let's wait a bit until the answer is clear (e.g. an official cause of death is available) and we don't have to dissect sources and argue about it. In the meantime we can spend out time doing useful things. EEng 20:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but would support once we get an autopsy, given that his death happened after the encounter. If the cops are convicted, of course, should be moved to "Murder of", but we shouldn't jump the gun on any of this. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because we don't know it was a homicide so we don't know it was a "killing." It's extremely unlikely that Nichols died of a heart attack before he was hit but WP:DEATHS (or at least the part of it that guides this situation) was created because such a scenario isn't 100% impossible. I bet I'll switch to support shortly but you didn't hear me say that. CityOfSilver 00:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose because realistically 'killing' vs 'death' is honestly not the debate. Regardless of an autopsy and a court outcome, we've all seen the video and KNOW he was killed. The real debate is 'killing' vs 'murder' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.41.91.234 (talk)
• Oppose because the death could be a combination of multiple causes. I always wish Misplaced Pages is the source of information and fact but not opinion. Keep the title neutral and provide as mush information as we can would be better. The readers can blend the information with theirs knowledge. Seinlin (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Point of fact - autopsies don't determine the status of a death as a homicide. That's done in a court of law. Autopsy results are certainly relevant, but "homicide" is a legal term, not a medical one.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:3887:3041:8289:B0D7 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Actually at least with regards to most of the US that's incorrect. Autopsies are often the only thing which determines if something is a homicide especially in the case of police killings. Courts only generally get involved in determining if something is an illegal or unjustified homicide. They don't generally concern themselves whether something is a homicide except at a prerequisite for any case which requires something is a homicide. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely correct. We better brace ourselves for the onslaught of ill-informed amateur legal experts. EEng 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  (EC) Besides police killings to give another obvious example, every successful use of capital punishment involves a homicide but after death courts if they do get involved only generally get involved in other things like whether the killing appeared excessively prolonged or traumatic so may be cruel and unusual punishment, not whether the death was a homicide. This implicitly or explicitly means the courts are accepting the death as a homicide but the lack of any court action doesn't make other such deaths not homicides. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Move - I just watched the video. I don't really feel like engaging in Wikilawyering over something you can see with your own eyes in a video released by the police. Courts may determine that police actions were justified, but whatever they conclude in the end, there is no doubt now that Nichols was killed. -Darouet (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Also note that Cerebral726 above (at the top of this section) cites links from the NYT and AP where those agencies describe Nichols' death as a killing. -Darouet (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Move due to released footages. If he was not beaten he was alive home now. Talking about "multiple causes: he was beaten multiple times, tasered, got head injuries and died after injuries. Gharouni 01:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The COD is still open, the death may have been (partly) due to natural causes. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Cerebral726. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. I implore anybody who opposes to simply watch the video. It is disgusting. This person was killed. Jackstraw97 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. As per WP:DEATHS flowchart, and reliable sources stating he was killed:

1. "Fatal Beating" https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-memphis
2. "Deadly beating" https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/officers-charged-tyre-nichols-death-96711213
3. "Fatal beating" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/27/tyre-nichols-protest-video-release

I do not understand why we need a coroner's report, Misplaced Pages is not run on the basis of legal certification, it is run on the basis of citing reliable sources.

CT55555(talk) 02:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. If we have an autopsy which concluded the death was a homicide then sure.If we have the official autopsy results and it concluded the death was a homicide then sure. This case is somewhat unusual compared to most other high profile cases of a similar nature I recall given that we've had the videos releases and the officers indicted but don't yet have even a summary of the autopsy. However I think we need to wait for it at a minimum. If the autopsy is released without finding the death was a homicide, we can reasses based on the sources that emerge but I suspect the result will be us keeping 'death of'. While I don't know much about Tennessee law, I'd note that in general especially given that AFAIK (for some reason our article doesn't mention this) the charges came from a grand jury indictment, there's no guarantee the autopsy ruled the death was a homicide. Death of Elijah McClain is one notable case where there are charges relating to a homicide despite an undetermined cause of death and I seem to recall others. (Outside police killings, this also happens a lot e.g. Death of Caylee Anthony. I'd also note in plenty of these cases, we have people who insist we should call them killings or more based on some RS but we rightfully stick with 'death of'.) We obviously cannot OR based on viewing the videos and I don't think even what RS say based on assessment of less than 3 hours is very meaningful either. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think the concept of "reliable sources" is that we have deemed them to be reliable, rather than conditionally reliable. I think that editors have reached a clear consensus that the sources I mention above are reliable. CT55555(talk) 02:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yet in every other article, we do the same thing as here. If they say something which contradicts other RSes we do not take one as sancrosact because some editor feels it is. We are neutral and where necesssary mention both PoVs and otherwise use wording which applies to both PoVs. If you want to change policy so we take certain RS as sancosanct and ignore other PoVs, you're welcome to start a policy proposal in an appropriate place. I would add "deadly beating" is a terrible term to express the PoV that a beating caused a death since it's a term sometimes used when someone does not die Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would find this more complicated if a reliable source said his death was caused by something other than the police officers, but I've not seen any do that. So I see no contradiction.

  I consider "deadly" to be very widely understood to mean "causing death". CT55555(talk) 03:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's ridiculous. There's no requirement that sources need to directly contradict something if they do not state the same conclusion and especially if they say we do not know. And you can consider whatever you want. The fact remains plenty of reliable sources do not use it in that manner, whatever you want to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  If there are reliable sources that reach other conclusions? If so, please share. If not, please stop suggesting that alternative theories of his cause of death have been reported.

  The reality seems to be that some reliable sources say he was killed (see above) and some imply the same without stating it categorically and some are vague.

  I was being polite. "deadly" means "causing death"

  My comment was not "ridiculous" please be civil. CT55555(talk) 18:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Is there a source which contradicts the claim that Tyre Nichols was killed? --Jannes Althoff (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: - I'm a bit perplexed by this focus on a coroner's report or an autopsy. The assumption seems to be that those are more reliable than the slew of sources that have already indicated this was homicide. Is your insistence on the autopsy report something that comes out of policy, or just your own personal guideline? NickCT (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  There are many issues include WP:BLP which mean we have to be very careful about declaring something is a homicide based solely on the fact a few sources say it has. While a homicide can be lawful, in cases where the existence of a homicide may be in dispute, we have to be absolutely sure there is no reasonable dispute. While coroner verdicts are not perfect, they are far better than relying on what some sources have said based solely on non expert analyses of very limited evidence. (I'd note many of the sources people were referring to existed before the videos were released so they weren't even based on viewing these videos but instead third party reports from lawyers, family and the police. But these are precisely the sort of things people will say we have to be very careful with relying on when the alleged killing was not carried out by the police.) Coroners are supposed to be independent medical experts who look into the available medical evidence and determine whether the actions of one or more other humans directly caused the death of the person. While this doesn't always play out in practice, at least in most developed countries their verdicts are generally well accepted such that there's normally far less dispute in reliable sources and we have a BLP compliant reason to say something in Misplaced Pages voice. Note that we already mention the charges etc, so it's not like people reading the article will be in any doubt that some people say thay Nichols was killed, it's simply a matter of whether we should effectively say it's undisputed by saying in wiki voice that Nichols was killed. As I mentioned below, this doesn't mean coroners verdicts may not be disputed by defences (or sometimes in part prosecutions) but ultimately we have to draw the line somewhere and so provided there does not appear to be obviousy dispute in RS, we generally go by such verdicts. While this case involving a beating seems a case where there is less likely to be a dispute (although I'd also have said that of Rachel Nickell or even Death of Elliott Williams, Death of Darren Rainey and Death of Marcia Powell so what do I know?) than something more complicated, but it does seem more complicated than a shooting. Still even in the case of a shooting coroners help to rule out any complications e.g. if it turns out the deceased had actually taken a significant overdose or poison which it's found was the actual cause of death and almost definitely would have caused death even with the shooting. I'd note that if we went solely by what a few sources say, we'd be calling Casey Anthony a murderer, and also those involved in the killings of Killing of Natalie Connolly and Killing of Rachel Nickell and as I already mentioned Elijah McClain (which we still call death) likewise as murderers. For good reason we do not do so. Yet we do call Killing of Eric Garner a killing although it's my understanding lawyer for those involved still dispute that it was, and I think even some parts of the police union again based on the fact that the coroner's verdict is widely accepted in RS no matter what these other parties say. Additional, we have to take reasonable care with early reporting, and especially for analyses of the video but frankly for anything in this case (since although it has been nearly 20 days since the death a lot of the stuff is quite recent), as later reporting relying on more evidence and without the time pressures of early reporting can be more nuanced and balanced. Remember that by saying "death of" this doesn't mean it wasn't a killing, as I mentioned early on in we already go into detail and are likely to more over time over such things in the article. We are simply avoiding saying it definitely in wiki voice. Again BLP means we have to get things right so we should always defer to caution about being wrong when saying anything involving living persons. A final note probably my last in this entire discussion, I generally avoid them because while they matter for BLP reasons, I find them silly. I've already spent probably an hour or more discussing this and I'm sure when take other editors time it's been many hours and this is over something which is probably going to be resolved in a week or two at most. IIRC we had a similar issue with Murder of George Floyd where after the video came out there a strong push by some to name the article killing of but we waited until the autopsy summary. (My memory seems correct Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 1#Requested move 27 May 2020. Indeed it came out before the RM was due for closure which could even happen here.) I've never understood why people feel it's so urgent we risk violating BLP by saying something which we ultimately cannot take back when when if they're right and there is no dispute it's very likely we can say it in a week or two at most and where as I already noted, we do already provide the context and it's only a matter of whether we say it in wiki voice. Admittedly this case seems a little different gives the charges have happened but there's still not even a summary, however I haven't read anything to suggest it's going to take that long. If it turns out the autopsy verdict isn't as clear as we'd like well then as I said, we can assess what sources say at the time. It may be like with Elijah McClain they accept there's dispute and so are nuanced in what they say. Or maybe they'll won't be. We can deal with that if we come to it. (Likewise if it's a month later and there's still no autopsy, we can deal with that at the time.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support. I think that, even though the autopsy has not been released (to my knowledge), the video of his death is evidence enough that this was a homicide. Technicalrestrictionadjustment (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - My "gut" is to go w/ "Death of.." until there's a conviction. That said, as User:CT55555 astutely notes, the policy illustrated by the Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths)#Flowchart seems to clearly indicate that when one person kills another, it's "Killing of..". I haven't really delved into the sources, but it seems pretty clear that this guy was killed by others at this point. NickCT (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  @NickCT: Can you further explain how following the flow chart leads to that conclusion? The flow chart says "What was the manner of death?" There's no direct explanation for what this means in the flowchart itself but in the "How to use the flowchart" section it says: "A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization. This determination becomes eligible for use on this flowchart only after it is reported by a secondary source.". Who is the official authority here? The grand jury? The prosecutor? The police chief? The editors of the NYT? Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: - I think the answer is the editors at the NYT. The basis for WP is that we defer to reliable sources. If a bunch of RS's say someone was killed, we defer to that. We don't second guess or question whether the folks at NYT are smart enough to figure when someone was killed. We just assume they're smarter than us. They actually get paid to write.... Good work citing the "should be made by some official authority". I think that's probably generally true (that's why it's a "should" rule). Certainly in cases where there's ambiguity. But in this case, the RS's are pretty overwhelming. As is the face-value evidence. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support he was killed by police, see bodycam videos DefendingFree (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support he was clearly killed. Body cam footage helps support that. Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support he was literally beat to death in the video

Chicken4War (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support--We do not need a conviction or an autopsy to rule this a killing. There is a video of this man being beaten to death. He was killed. Natural causes did not claim his life and the technicalities of how he died don't matter. He was put into critical condition by five people who quite frankly didn't care if he died but he did. He was killed. Settlementboa (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I support once there is more reliable confirmation (of the obvious): that the actions of the police were the "but for" cause of his death. SecretName101 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per CT55555; the flowchart on WP:DEATHS clearly indicates "killing" at this time. (due to the absence of a murder conviction) Aaryan 06:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This is a killing, there is no doubt. The article may later be changed to "homicide" after a murder conviction is obtained, until then we have more than enough evidence to call this a killing and not a death. 47.145.248.81 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.248.81 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

One alternate option could be something along the lines of "Beating and death of Tyree Nichols" SecretName101 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Homocide requires a "but for" act (either an action or act of omission) by another individual. We all know there was one. Problem is, we don't verifiably know it (in the sense that a source has outright declared it to be the case in writing).

Us declaring, "well, we know it based off of the conclusions we've reached ourselves watching the video" probably violates to "no original research" principle at Misplaced Pages. SecretName101 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but that's simply incorrect. If it's a killing it a homicide as the flow chart says, that's what we mean by killing, a person was killed by one or more other people whether legally or illegally i.e. a homicide. There's no such thing as a killing which is not a homicide. As I explained above, if it's a homicide, the court case ultimately only deals with whether it's a legal homicide. (Of course a defence in a court case can also dispute whether something is a homicide, an autopsy is not treated as a sacrosanct decision that cannot be overruled either way. However at least in the US, while juries and judges may decide this, it's not generally directly part of their ultimate verdict as that only deals with the entire case including whether it's unlawful. For decisions by judges, the decision may sometimes include an explanatory which discuss the aspect however for juries there is generally no such thing and instead you only have comments later made by individual jurors which are not in any way part of the actual verdict.) Therefore coroners are often the only official party to make a verdict on whether something is a homicide. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support He was killed. WP:DEATHS TarkusAB 07:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose wp:nor - two ambulance tech workers were fired because..., blood loss was fatal because... wp:npov - police intentions were...Createangelos (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Createangelos: Respectfully, when 5 men step on a bug, and it dies, they can't just remove themselves from the equation because it was an accident, or because the bug tried to run away, or because the bug did something wrong, or because the bug has unhealthy habits. The death would not have happened the way that it did without their involvement. They killed him.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"the bug did something wrong"

who did something wrong? Are you replying about wp:nor and wp:npov Createangelos (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Createangelos: "wp:npov" as well as the broader notion that no impartial observer can watch somebody be violently attacked and be unsure if they were "killed" or just "died" at the same time. Regardless of intent, the violence cannot be divorced from the result.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Support There now exists 4 separate video angles of Tyre Nichols being severely beaten. As one of the officers involved stated, immediately after removing his body camera and pointing it at the sky: "I was hitting him with straight haymakers, dog." Tyre Nichols didn't punch, kick, or bat himself in the head. He would not have died the way that he did if he were not beaten as severely as he was. I think the officers' behavior immediately after the incident, including their characterization of the confrontation, including the claim that he reached for their weapons, implies that they knew they went too far and were trying to create an excuse for how far they went.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent point. It proves consciousness of guilt. I hope the prosecutors notice this. Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support It's a matter of fact. Per above and RS stating he was killed. Shouldn't be a point of contention. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support WP:DEATHS says that the title should be "Killing of" when the cause of death is known, not that a specific document is required. RS clearly say he was killed. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Everyone knows it was a killing, everyone is calling it a killing.★Trekker (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support As per WP:DEATHS. "Death of" is pseudoneutrality which arguably shifts agency away from those who killed him.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 15:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support In addition to the video footage that has been released, reliable sources such as (but not limited to) The New York Times quote an independent autopsy that says Nichols died from "extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating". It's clear that the word "killing" is both more accurate and less ambiguous than "death" and the title should be changed accordingly. — Hunter Kahn 16:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The vast majority of reliable sources attribute the death to the actions of the police officers. Regards SoWhy 16:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Per the flowchart in WP:DEATHS, the more appropriate title would be Murder of Tyre Nichols, since all officers have been charged with murder. MaterialWorks _(talk) 16:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Charged does not mean convicted. The presumption of innocence still applies. Which is why the flowchart also asks "Is there a murder conviction in the case?" (emphasis added). Regards SoWhy 16:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with SoWhy. For example, we didn't change "Killing of George Floyd" to "Murder of George Floyd until Chauvin was convicted of murder. We didn't change it when he was charged. Labeling the killing a "murder" is the job of a court of law, and reputable outlets also wait for the conviction. DecafPotato (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  This would be factually inaccurate and could open up Misplaced Pages to libel claims until the officers are charged. Wanna protect the project. ~~~ Michael-Moates (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support The flowchart at WP:DEATHS clearly leads to "Killing". As for reliable sources....are the videos of the killing considered reliable sources? So many of the videos, photographs and news stories that we see these days are are manipulated, fiction is the new reality. Can we trust the videos? I put that out there as a rhetorical question. If you answer "yes" then the evidence before your eyes leads inevitably to "Killing". Captain Infinity (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the independent autopsy, at least the part released, said he died from extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating. There is 0 chance this is not a homicide, and the passive death is silly here. nableezy - 18:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Technically, only those seven italicized words were released, "he died from" is someone else's addition. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - For all reasons given above. MainePatriot (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The flowchart on WP:DEATHS should also be updated, if there is consensus for the update, that if someone has been arrested and charged for the death, then it's "Killing of." Fishermansworf (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Unequivocally support – "Come on, guys, can we really conclude JFK was killed? I mean sure he had his brains blown out on live TV in front of millions, but I think we should just stick to misleading euphemisms until Bethesda Naval is done with the autopsy. What's that? An autopsy revealed that he died from 'extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating?' 'extensive intracranial hematoma caused by a bullet wound'? Well gee, who knows? Could be anything." TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Reliable sources are reporting that he was killed by the officers, so that is the appropriate title for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support as his cause of death was homicide. --Rockstone 22:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per BBC News, the autopsy finds that Nichols died due to "extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating", and all the sources agree that the beating was by the police. This was a killing by police. Boud (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Support per Boud. DecafPotato (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Death of… was appropriate until the autopsy report was released. Now the language should be Killing of… then once the officers are convicted in court it should be changed to Murder of… just my two cents Michael-Moates (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support Debating semantics over autopsy is one thing, but we know what we saw in the video. If someone pushed someone into a 1000 foot deep well, and we had a video of it, it would be a "killing", even if the body was never retrieved for an autopsy. The lack of an autopsy does not mean that it is not a killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowauniguy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. This was a homicide. It was not capital punishment, and there has not (yet) been a murder conviction, so the appropriate title is "Killing of Tyre Nichols." Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:DEATHS: "A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization ." Cause of death not official (an autopsy was performed but not an official one) and no WP:COMMONNAME yet (too early, and some outlets are calling it "Death of ..." such as NYT). —Alalch E. 04:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  The AG would not bring murder charges without a finding of the manner of death as homicide. I literally wrote the line you are quoting, I never imagined it would be misunderstood/bastardized to such a degree. We are way beyond the autopsy/homicide stage. The flowchart was written in such a way because we are often stop after a finding of homicide and before charges are filed. I never imagine that we would be at the murder charges stage and people would be looking for sources to mention a determination of manner of death. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate your reply, but regarding The AG would not bring murder charges without a finding of the manner of death as homicide, WP:DEATHS says "This determination becomes eligible for use on this flowchart only after it is reported by a secondary source." Such a determination has not been reported by a secondary source to my knowledge (edit: NYMag today: "... The Shelby County Medical Examiner’s Office has not yet confirmed Nichols’s cause of death. ..."). People can be charged based on inferences. A prosecutor can assert in court that something is homicide (and, on top of that, that it is murder) without a cause of death but he doesn't get to make the determination that it's homicide. —Alalch E. 05:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just so. I repeat that perhaps the least important thing about this article is that the title be exactly right for the next 96 hours. We can wait for a source. It's no big deal temporarily. EEng 05:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now Until the officers are convicted or at least charged I believe "Death of" is adequate. If it is covered in many factual sources such as autopsy reports then I would be inclined to support. For the record I personally believe it was a killing, but what is appropriate for a Misplaced Pages title is another thing entirely in my view.TJD2 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  @TJD2: They have been charged. —Alalch E. 05:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  I found that out shortly after typing this and forgot to update it. I will ammend. TJD2 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

• Need to note. The aforementioned independent autopsy has not actually been released yet or reviewed by any news agency or second source, as far as I can see: Its findings have merely been summarized by Crump (the lawyer for Nichols’ family). SecretName101 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - editors may want to keep in mind the difference between a cause of death and a manner of death. "Homicide" is one of a few possible manners of death, listed at Manner of death#United States. Levivich (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support The family's autopsy report said he died from a beating. What the cops did to him killed him. He was killed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment while our consensus process meanders to a conclusion, is it ok to create a redirect from the "Killing of" title to here, in cases like this? It might help with searches. I guess one issue is it makes it slightly more annoying to move the page if the consensus comes out like that. CharredShorthand.talk; 11:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DEATHS. It's understandable to keep it as Death if there is any ambiguity, but in this case there is no contention that it was a homicide. Blocod (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I'd archived this discussion; I unarchived it as per the rationale here. CharredShorthand.talk; 14:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I would have added this above but since it's been closed in questionable circumstances I can't. As I noted above, I don't want to continue to be involved in this but since one thing I neglected to do before leaving was to provide sources, I'll provide a few.

The BBC calls it a fatal encounter in the subheadline (I have no idea whether subheadlines at BBC should be treated as headlines i.e. ignored or they go through the same editorial process as the rest of the text but in any case fatal encounter doesn't mean someone was killed as e.g. if a person goes into cardiac arrest after being legitimately pulled over without being touched, yelled at, or has anything applied to them, etc it may be called a fatal encounter but probably not a killing) and a caption (which I'm fairly sure should be treated as a headline i.e. discarded) but notably says "Although it is clear Mr Nichols was severely beaten, we still do not know what actually caused his death in hospital three days later.".

CBS says "Three days later, on Jan. 10, Nichols "succumbed to his injuries," the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said, but did not elaborate on what those injuries were. An official cause of death has not been released." and also mentions the charges etc. AFAICT, they don't say anywhere in their editorial voice that he was killed, fatally beaten, deadly beating, beating death or anyway else imply in their own editorial voice that he was killed.

USA Today says "Video released Friday shows Memphis police officers brutally beating a 29-year-old Black man, shouting expletives and using pepper spray and a baton on him while he called out for his mother in a traffic stop that left him hospitalized and, three days later, dead." but again AFAICT stops short of implying he was killed in their own editorial voice.

I'm sure there are plenty of others but this isn't easy to search since you need to look at each source to see whether any words they used are in their own editorial voice or coming from someone else. While the majority of sources do I think use stuff like fatal beating etc, as I noted above there are good reasons we should not go by a majority but instead follow the likely substantial minority which are more circumspect and recognise our picture is still incomplete and go by the more neutral option which does not preclude us mentioning other essential details in the body. (Note while some do say killing, AFAIS very few actually say that particular thing so it's clearly not the common name. You cannot use a source which calls it a killing by a different wording to say killing is the common name.)

I'd also note I already addressed the AG charge thing. Despite our article still not mentioning this, plenty of sources including the CBS one I included earlier mention it was a grand jury indictment. This makes it very unclear that the autopsy needed to have a finding of homicide. We know that with Elijah McClain it wasn't needed and while that was in Colorado and not Tennessee, AFAICT no evidence has been provided it is different here.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

BBC right now: Mr Nichols, 29, was fatally beaten by five police officers in January. "fatally beaten" == homicide == "killed". Similarly, the USA Today quote is police officers brutally beating a 29-year-old Black man...in a traffic stop that left him hospitalized and, three days later, dead. USA Today is saying they killed him, by beating him in a traffic stop that left him dead. So is it only CBS that's not saying "killed" or "beaten to death by police" in their own voice? Levivich (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The title should be Death of. Wiki editors are not required to give blind deference to reliable sources: "It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim,"

First, the authoritative source is the official autopsy; the authoritative source after that is a judge or jury; after that is any appeals ruling. Additionally, WP:ROpinion "sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." Also, WP:HEADLINES "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. ... Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article." The manner of Nichols unalivedness is not an matter of fact; the reliable source sensational headlines, assert a statement of fact. Nichols is no longer amongst the living in physical form. In others words he is deceased. What caused his death is not fact, as asserted by the sensational headlines oof the reliable sources. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What in the article makes you think we're using headlines as sources? All news stories cited use the body for information, like they're supposed to. Notably, nothing in the article directly connects the police beating to his death; only that preliminary findings from the autopsy suggested he died from internal bleeding. Which I guess makes the move somewhat premature; but I am more concerned about your overzealous interpretation of policy. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Overzealous indeed. And not understanding or respecting the importance of reliable sources to boot. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but you do not explain anything. Reliable sources are not given blind acceptance. You can provide sources - yes plural - that shows reliable sources are not questioned. I have repeatedly used WP policies to show that Reliable Sources do not have a blank check, context matters, the subject matters, attribution to an expert matters. Nothing zealous about actually following guidance of WP. But again, I am open to correction provided you demonstrate my misapplication of WP guidance. AgntOtrth (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

what is disturbing is the desire for so many here to manipulate the reader, rather than present facts and let the reader decide what adjective to use to describe something. What so many are promoting Misplaced Pages articles being "we will tell you what to think, and we will tell you how to 'feel'". All the opinionated commentary can easily be put in a new section of "Critical Analysis" section, nothing prohibits that. And it allows for all the information to be added. AgntOtrth (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@AgntOtrth: You said: "what is disturbing is the desire for so many here to manipulate the reader ... What so many are promoting Misplaced Pages articles being 'we will tell you what to think, and we will tell you how to feel' " Hmm. Are you possibly projecting a bit? I really do believe the vast majority of editors here are well intentioned and striving to be working together as a team in good faith, and with WP:NPOV in mind. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Leave it as "Death of Tyre Nichlos" for now until the cause of death is determined.Cwater1 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment ― Here are some recent sources:
What the Charges Against the Cops Who Killed Tyre Nichols Really Mean ― The Nation, Feb. 2, 2023: "The five officers who beat Tyre Nichols to death have been charged by the state of Tennessee with murder in the second degree."
What we know about the killing of Tyre Nichols ― NPR, Jan. 28, 2023
Tyre Nichols' killing revives calls for Congress to address police reform ― NPR, Jan. 31, 2023
Harrowing videos show police fatally beat Tyre Nichols, who cries out for his mother ― NBC News Jan. 27, 2023
What We Know About Tyre Nichols’s Lethal Encounter With Memphis Police ― The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2023
Timeline: Tyre Nichols police killing key events ― The Guardian, Jan. 28, 2023
The Killing of Tyre Nichols and the Issue of Race – The New Yorker, Jan. 31, 2023
Tyre Nichols' Killing Is The Result of a Diseased Culture – Time Magazine, Jan. 31, 2023
Tyre Nichols killing shows that to some cops, even Black ones, Black lives don't matter – USA Today, Jan. 27, 2023: "The killing of Nichols will be another one of those markers because of the callousness and viciousness displayed by the officers. We will look back at this moment as one of the ugliest we’ve experienced as a nation."
The BBC and the AP have also referred to this as a killing. Please see comments and links to other sources in the discussion thread above. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. AgntOtrth (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, very true! That's why multiple sources are listed. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Does not matter how many news outlets publish something, it is an opinion of the outlet as to the words chosen to describe events. AgntOtrth (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

References

1. "Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources", Misplaced Pages, 2022-12-25, retrieved 2023-02-03

Return name to status quo

Since the close was undone, the title should be changed to “Death of Tyre Nichols”. The change shouldn’t have occurred until this discussion met a proper conclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

To minimise disruption how about the discussion continue and after an appropriate period of time, if there is either no consensus or consensus is for "death of", we move it back?

But whatever is fine; it does not matter much. CharredShorthand.talk; 06:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Black Lives Matter articles
• Mid-importance Black Lives Matter articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Law enforcement articles
• Mid-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• C-Class Tennessee articles
• Low-importance Tennessee articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report