Revision as of 21:41, 15 March 2023 editCombefere (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users853 edits →Article title should be "Death of"← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:35, 15 March 2023 edit undoAgntOtrth (talk | contribs)390 edits →Article title should be "Death of": ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
::Was ] reached through building, consideration of the quality of the arguments for or against? So much of the support is based on a version of "it is obvious from the videos" ] (]) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | ::Was ] reached through building, consideration of the quality of the arguments for or against? So much of the support is based on a version of "it is obvious from the videos" ] (]) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::You do realize that you are arguing based on your interpretation of the reliability of sources without actually providing any reliable sources that support your point of view? "]" might no longer be in the wording of the verifiability policy but the idea is still valid. You are trying to ignore consensus based on reliable primary and secondary sources because ''you'' (alone) believe that the sources were misused / are not reliable. And if you can provide reliable sources that support your point of view, ''then'' we can consider changing the title again. But at this point I can only echo Bowler's suggestion that you ] and accept that this is not how you change consensus. Regards ]] 20:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) | :::You do realize that you are arguing based on your interpretation of the reliability of sources without actually providing any reliable sources that support your point of view? "]" might no longer be in the wording of the verifiability policy but the idea is still valid. You are trying to ignore consensus based on reliable primary and secondary sources because ''you'' (alone) believe that the sources were misused / are not reliable. And if you can provide reliable sources that support your point of view, ''then'' we can consider changing the title again. But at this point I can only echo Bowler's suggestion that you ] and accept that this is not how you change consensus. Regards ]] 20:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::Serious questions is a wiki editor support based on "it is obvious from the video" a reliable source upon which to find consensus? ] ] Is the the attorney's self-interest extraordinary claim a reliable source? As for the news publications ] ss a Reliable Sources reliable for every subject they publish? ] (]) 22:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{Reflist-talk}} | {{Reflist-talk}} |
Revision as of 22:35, 15 March 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Tyre Nichols article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Other talk page banners | |||
|
Two additional officers have been suspended
2 deputies at Tyre Nichols’ arrest and beating have been suspended following investigation, county says - CNN, Feb. 16, 2023
Two Shelby County sheriff’s deputies who were at the scene of Tyre Nichols’ deadly arrest in Tennessee last month violated department regulations and have been suspended for five days each without pay, according to a news release from the sheriff’s office obtained by CNN affiliate WHBQ. The suspensions of both Shelby County deputies who were at the scene of Nichols’ beating by Memphis police became effective on Wednesday, the release reads.
Both Deputy Jeremy Watkins and Deputy Johntavious Bowers were found to have failed to report to dispatch or their supervisor that they were on the scene, failed to have their body-worn camera in record mode and failed to report to dispatch they were leaving the scene, the department said in investigative reports obtained by WHBQ.
Additionally, Watkins did not note in his daily log that he was on the scene, one of the reports says.
Pertinent info that should be added to article. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- If it could be attributed to causing the death of Nichols, I think it should be included. But there were only 4 LEOs present from 832pm to 836pm. At 836pm is when other LEOs/Sheriff Deputies showed up. The deputies failure to follow Sheriff policy about "report where you" cannot be attributed to a but for cause of Nichols death. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. This is not about if these officers contributed to Nichols' death, this is about the overall police response in and of itself, and issues related to that. Inclusion of this information helps present details about the bigger picture overall. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are wikiwikiwayne? It does not add value to the overall incident. Nichols was cuffed by the time they arrived. That they did not "call in" or turn on cameras is procedural issues in the Sheriffs Office. AgntOtrth (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural issues, related to a crime scene where alleged police brutality occurred. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- If the Sheriff had said something like that, then maybe. But as it is right now the Sheriff department is concerned about procedures regardless of crime scene. It is not relevant to the article AgntOtrth (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's a part of the story, and worth a mention. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- If the Sheriff had said something like that, then maybe. But as it is right now the Sheriff department is concerned about procedures regardless of crime scene. It is not relevant to the article AgntOtrth (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Procedural issues, related to a crime scene where alleged police brutality occurred. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Are wikiwikiwayne? It does not add value to the overall incident. Nichols was cuffed by the time they arrived. That they did not "call in" or turn on cameras is procedural issues in the Sheriffs Office. AgntOtrth (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. This is not about if these officers contributed to Nichols' death, this is about the overall police response in and of itself, and issues related to that. Inclusion of this information helps present details about the bigger picture overall. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Aftermath : claim not supported by the reference, remove sentence.
"This controversial tactic had a tendency of suddenly escalating with the use of aggressive tactics by the police with little supervision."
Reference 95 leads to an article title "New Question in Tyre Nichols Case: Where Were the Supervisors?"
"This controversial tactic..." not discussed in the article.
"had a tendency of suddenly escalating with the use of..." not discussed in the article.
"aggressive tactics by the police with little supervision." not discussed in the article. AgntOtrth (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- This doesn't address all of your concerns, but here is one relevant segment from the cited New York Times article:
But the unit quickly developed a reputation for heavy-handed tactics, and a lawyer for Mr. Nichols’s family, Ben Crump, said on Friday that Mr. Nichols’s death was the direct result of this aggressive style of policing.
"The Scorpion unit had a pattern and practice of doing this to Black people in Memphis — that's it," he said. "They trample on the constitutional rights and human rights of Black and brown citizens. They don’t do that in the white communities to white citizens."- It also looks like WWGB removed a couple of problematic words with this edit. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also of note, references to the "heavy-handed tactics" and the "aggressive style of policing" relate to the previous paragraph in The New York Times story, which talks about the SCORPION unit:
The five officers charged ... had been part of a specialized street crime unit called Scorpion, which was formed in late 2021 with a mandate to help bring down rising crime rates. Driving muscle cars and wearing modified police uniforms and plainclothes, officers from the unit pulled over countless motorists for low-level violations, which regularly led to drug and gun seizures.
- Hope that helps! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- AgntOtrth – Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. As such, you can only regurgitate what has already been said – but, you cannot copy what has been said. You need to research, read, and then put it in your own words. You keep deleting things for not being written verbatim, but again, that would be copying, which is a copyright violation.
- I also sense that you are being myopic. Read ALL the sources before you dispute a statement. There is a rafter of references here, that cover a lot of stuff. Don't get too stuck on the reference that hangs on them. Look around. Only dispute OR and controversial stuff. If it's true, find the citation. Cheers!
{{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}
03:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)- Fair Use under international copyright law allows for it quotes.AgntOtrth (talk)
- We don't use non-free content if we can help it. What that means in practice is that we paraphrase and summarize, and directly quote our sources as little as possible, ideally not at all. Bowler the Carmine | talk 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Misplaced Pages pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,
<blockquote>
,{{Quote}}
, or a similar method." It is not prohibited by wikipedia policy. It is not prohibited by US Copyright. It is not prohibited by International Copyright law. Under both US copyright and International copyright it is protected under "fair use". AgntOtrth (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)- If I may be so frank, I'm beginning to doubt your competence to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Throughout discussions on the talk page, you've been Wikilawyering, and badly at that. You've been removing properly sourced info for tiny mistakes, rather than fixing them. We've been trying and trying to set you on the right track, yet you refuse to listen, so that's why I'm being so direct now. Start listening, or log off, just stop disrupting work on the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bowler the Carmine – You reinstated a "tag" that does not indicate what the specific issue is - why did you reinstate the tag? And since the tag was put in place without identification of the specific issue; how is anyone suppose to know what needs to fixed? What is disruptive is placing a tag, without identifying how the issue can be corrected. So are you willing to identify the specific content that needs to be addressed / rephrased, so it can be corrected? AgntOtrth (talk) 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- If I may be so frank, I'm beginning to doubt your competence to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Throughout discussions on the talk page, you've been Wikilawyering, and badly at that. You've been removing properly sourced info for tiny mistakes, rather than fixing them. We've been trying and trying to set you on the right track, yet you refuse to listen, so that's why I'm being so direct now. Start listening, or log off, just stop disrupting work on the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fair Use under international copyright law allows for it quotes.AgntOtrth (talk)
Article title should be "Death of"
Much of "support" for keeping it "Killing of" is based on original research, and biased original research at that.
Removing the "it is obvious" type comments there are roughly 10 editors supporting "killing of".
The flow chart clearly points to "Death of", Is the person dead = Yes; What was the manner of death = UNKNOWN = Death of
Reliables sources are not reliable 100% of the time.
The article title is not a neutral point of view; it reflects the bias of editors that said "it is obvious". Additionally, the article content can present the biased point of view of the reliable sources; but, again, neutral is about editing biased context.
The article title is does not present a neutral point of view. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- An independent autopsy has indicated that Tyre Nichols has died from bleeding from the police beating. According to that same flowchart, it is homicide and not capital punishment, and there isn't a conviction yet, so it is a killing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- The autopsy was commissioned by attorneys representing the family. It has not been released; and there is no indication that news orgs have been permitted to view a copy of the report; which suggests it is not from verifiable source, secondary source. So the unofficial unpublished autopsy is not relevant; nor are the news publishers providing medical opinions. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed here in January 2023. There was a strong consensus to revise the title from "Death of Tyre Nichols" to "Killing of Tyre Nichols." The consensus was that this title is consistent with WP:DEATHS - because this was a homicide; the title should be "Killing of..." This consensus was reached just six weeks ago. Unless there is some substantial update from primary sources (i.e. new information indicating that this was not a homicide), I can't see any justification to open another discussion so soon. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- No there was not a strong consensus. The overwhelming majority of the "support" comments are original research of the editors. Almost all the support comments are a version of "If you only watch the videos you would know". That is original research, and it is not a neutral point of view. Of course I posted this in my first paragraph in when I created this topic.
- I will also note that you labeled it a homicide without offering any support as to why it should be considered a homicide - you are making an assumption, whilst relying on unverifiable comments from an attorney, and there is no secondary source to verify the the original claim. When the biased original research is removed, the consensus is Death of.AgntOtrth (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Referring to a video is, by definition, not original research. Primary sources are explicitly excluded from the original research policy, and a plethora of secondary sources from all sides of the political spectrum interpret the video as homicide. We are simply following reliable sources here, and labeling sources that don't fit your position "biased" simply makes you look like a fool.
- This discussion has been settled weeks ago. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
- Bowler the Carmine | talk 06:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is not referring to a video; it is analysis and opinion of the video - which is original research. Again, when the "support" comment that are based on analysis and opinion of what the videos show are exclude; the clear majority is the title should be "Death of". Your claim about primary sources is incorrect. Please also see 4, from page you linked '''Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself'''; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Also, per wikipedia, news organization are not qualified to make medical opinions - and, the autopsy claim is not verifiable. And please abide by wikipedia policies and cease the name calling/personal attacks. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- This matter is settled. Drop it. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is not settled. As you have multiple times reverted from "Death of". And it is entirely telling, that rather than discuss wikipedia policies/guidelines, etc, you make personal attack, make claims about NOR that are verifiable false, and just stomp your feet exclaiming "it is settled". The overwhelming consensus was "Death of" when the original research and bias is excluded. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let me be more straightforward: by continually ignoring consensus, twisting the verifiability policy to suit your own ends, and persistently arguing this specific point long after the discussion has closed, you are disruptively editing. Stop now or risk being sanctioned or blocked from editing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- It would be helpful, if you attempted to explain how I am "twisting", or ignoring, or being disruptive. I have provided details as to why the title should be death of. Yet in return I have received threats and insults. So I ask you kindly, please explain how I am twisting verifiability? And could you also help me understand how "consensus" can be founded on editors opinions, analysis, interpretation of a primary source. I have not changed the article title, I have kept my concerns about it on the talk page. I have been civil, when you have not. I have made know my reading of specific rules/policies/guidelines; despite that you made a false claim about NOR. So, as for disruptive, twisting, and violating the pillar of civility....it is not me.
- Are you willing and able to discuss, the issue of the title? Are you willing and able to discuss what you consider me twisting veribility? AgntOtrth (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the title: overwhelming consensus is to keep the title as "Killing of Tyre Nichols". Your selective reading of the discussion on this issue, i.e. rejecting any arguments you believe are biased, is out of line.
- Regarding sources: primary sources are acceptable as sources; the Verifiability policy says as such. We are meant to refer to secondary sources for interpretation, and we have done so. Again, rejecting interpreting primary sources when such interpretation is well-sourced by secondary sources, simply because they are primary sources, explicitly goes against policy.
- Now, drop the discussion. I will not warn you again. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please have a discussion. I am using the talk page as intended and as requested, Requested move 27 January 2023 "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. " AgntOtrth (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- And did you talk to the closer? Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please have a discussion. I am using the talk page as intended and as requested, Requested move 27 January 2023 "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. " AgntOtrth (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let me be more straightforward: by continually ignoring consensus, twisting the verifiability policy to suit your own ends, and persistently arguing this specific point long after the discussion has closed, you are disruptively editing. Stop now or risk being sanctioned or blocked from editing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also from wiki:about The content must conform with Misplaced Pages's policies, including being verifiable by published sources.
- The autopsy is not published, the claim of the lawyer it is not verifiable.AgntOtrth (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- The move request was discussed for almost a month and closed on February 21st. You participated in that discussion. The discussion is closed now. A consensus has been reached. It is over. You have not brought up any new information, or any reason for reopening the discussion aside from your own personal disagreement with the decision. You are at this point violating a number of Misplaced Pages standards of editing behavior, as multiple other users have already pointed out. Take a sober look at this section of the talk page that you've created. You'll find that the only new consensus emerging is the consensus that this sort of behavior is exactly the type of disruptive editing that typically results in a ban or sanction. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is not settled. As you have multiple times reverted from "Death of". And it is entirely telling, that rather than discuss wikipedia policies/guidelines, etc, you make personal attack, make claims about NOR that are verifiable false, and just stomp your feet exclaiming "it is settled". The overwhelming consensus was "Death of" when the original research and bias is excluded. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- This matter is settled. Drop it. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is not referring to a video; it is analysis and opinion of the video - which is original research. Again, when the "support" comment that are based on analysis and opinion of what the videos show are exclude; the clear majority is the title should be "Death of". Your claim about primary sources is incorrect. Please also see 4, from page you linked '''Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself'''; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Also, per wikipedia, news organization are not qualified to make medical opinions - and, the autopsy claim is not verifiable. And please abide by wikipedia policies and cease the name calling/personal attacks. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Consensus from the move discussion is "Killing of" Iamreallygoodatcheckers 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Was WP:CONS reached through building, consideration of the quality of the arguments for or against? So much of the support is based on a version of "it is obvious from the videos" AgntOtrth (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- You do realize that you are arguing based on your interpretation of the reliability of sources without actually providing any reliable sources that support your point of view? "Verifiability, not truth" might no longer be in the wording of the verifiability policy but the idea is still valid. You are trying to ignore consensus based on reliable primary and secondary sources because you (alone) believe that the sources were misused / are not reliable. And if you can provide reliable sources that support your point of view, then we can consider changing the title again. But at this point I can only echo Bowler's suggestion that you drop the stick and accept that this is not how you change consensus. Regards SoWhy 20:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Serious questions is a wiki editor support based on "it is obvious from the video" a reliable source upon which to find consensus? WP:ECREE WP:SOURCE Is the the attorney's self-interest extraordinary claim a reliable source? As for the news publications WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ss a Reliable Sources reliable for every subject they publish? AgntOtrth (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- You do realize that you are arguing based on your interpretation of the reliability of sources without actually providing any reliable sources that support your point of view? "Verifiability, not truth" might no longer be in the wording of the verifiability policy but the idea is still valid. You are trying to ignore consensus based on reliable primary and secondary sources because you (alone) believe that the sources were misused / are not reliable. And if you can provide reliable sources that support your point of view, then we can consider changing the title again. But at this point I can only echo Bowler's suggestion that you drop the stick and accept that this is not how you change consensus. Regards SoWhy 20:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Was WP:CONS reached through building, consideration of the quality of the arguments for or against? So much of the support is based on a version of "it is obvious from the videos" AgntOtrth (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- Carter, Nakylah (January 25, 2023). "Tyre Nichols suffered from 'extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating': Independent autopsy". ABC News.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - Wendling, Mike (January 25, 2023). "Autopsy indicates Tyre Nichols was beaten by police - lawyers". BBC News.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
- 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 History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report