Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Vandalism

I see that the beginning of this article talks about Joe Biden opening fire on a Lamborghini? May someone change this. 67.84.49.244 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Already done Looks like it got reverted. If you see something like that again, be bold and revert it yourself! This is Wikipedia, after all. Bowler the Carmine | talk 03:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That vandalism was reverted in one minute. Thanks to the bots and all the editors who fight vandalism 24/7 worldwide. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The lede

The lede is currently very awkwardly written. It needs to be restructured and clarified. I added one comma and was reverted because someone thought it made the attack and Tyre Nichols' death sound separate, so I need some help here. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Be bold. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 06:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a minor edit; hopefully this works. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: The comma makes the beating and Nichols' death sound separate. RS connect the two events, so there shouldn't be a comma. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

CJ-Moki, the comma serves to separate two statements. This doesn't mean they aren't related or one is not caused by the other. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar: I suppose I just think it reads better and makes more logical sense without the comma, because the two events are inseparable according to RS. Perhaps the opening phrase On January 10, 2023, could be removed to make the first sentence more concise without a comma? CJ-Moki (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree that the comma makes the beating and Nichols' death sound separate. starship .paint (exalt) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"On January 10, 2023," and "Tyre Nichols died" and "three days after a traffic stop..." are three separate parts of the sentence. I added a comma between the second and third, simply because it sounds easier to read; less awkward-sounding somehow. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 07:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Using pronouns might help with some clunkiness. There's no need to repeat "Nichols" when he's the central figure. In most paragraphs, he's the only one who wouldn't be "they". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

SCORPION unit success

I'll remove the following text: "The unit is very successful, with hundreds of arrests."

While the success of law enforcement is always a subjective matter, if one is to quantify it, the proxy should at least be convictions. Number of arrests include innocents, and cases where the police failed to gather sufficient evidence, neither of which is any way a success. EBusiness (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote is directly from the video source (timestamp: 3m13s) and although unattributed, it can be safely assumed to have originaly come from the Memphis PD. 2604:3D08:7386:200:E14F:F06D:9876:CB2D (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because a source write/say something doesn't mean it belong in the article. In this case it does seem plausible that the indirect source is the police department themselves, which is pretty much the worst imaginable source for a qualitative rating. EBusiness (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I think the fact that the officers were SCORPION officers is relevant, but I don't see how the overall performance of the SCORPION unit (success/failure, arrest rate, etc.) is relevant, as this isn't an article about SCORPION. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The idea behind inclusion of the quote was to demonstrate that SCORPION officers go hard on crime and basically hunt down and vacuum criminals off the streets, in direct opposition to the arrest rate of regular policemen in the same department. 2604:3D08:7386:200:E14F:F06D:9876:CB2D (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As already noted, we don't know who exactly they're "vacuuming" off the street -- "criminals"? Maybe, maybe not. E Eng 20:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The whole thing seems nonsense anyway. According to Memphis Police Department it has 2081 or 2142 officers although 1950 employees, don't ask me but either way we can say close to 2000. The population of their jurisdiction is 650,632. It's reasonable to assume even the normal police are making hundreds of arrests per month, probably even per week. So even if all the arrests were of criminals "The unit is very successful, with hundreds of arrests" [1] is pretty meaningless without a time period or direct comparison. Even accepting the unit only has 50 officers, it does not tell us it has a higher arrest rate. And a higher arrest rate even if all the people arrested are criminals doesn't prove one is more 'successful' which is frankly a silly term. For example I'm guessing homicide units generally make far fewer arrests per officer-time than street units often dealing with more minor crimes. Try telling a population you want to get rid of units dealing with complicated crimes which may sometimes require length investigations because they're 'unsuccessful' compared to street units since they make so few arrests and see how well that goes down. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

i'd like to know why there is no charge of depraved indifference against these officers, considering that they left him, handcuffed, for twenty+ minutes after their savagery. seems logical. also, is there any URL for mr. nichols's website?

Including the race of Nichols and the officers

Ponyo and WWGB have both removed text from the article indicating that Nichols and the officers involved were all African American, with WWGB arguing that "ethnicity is irrelevant". I disagree with this because reliable sources have chosen to mention the race of the people involved here, for example the first sentence of a NY Times article mentions Nichols's race: The death of Tyre Nichols has provoked outrage and prompted state and federal investigations in the weeks since Mr. Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, died after being pulled over by the police in Memphis.. Another article also mentions the race of the police: The police, in an initial statement, said that a “confrontation occurred” as the officers, all of whom are also Black, approached Mr. Nichols’s vehicle on the evening of Jan. 7 and he ran away.

Since reliable sources include this information, and therefore deem it relevant enough to the event to include, there is not a valid justification to exclude it here. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. These are factual statements (supported my many reliable sources). Both Tyre Nichols and all five of the officers involved are black. Simple. No commentary necessary. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I added the race of Nichols and the officers given that it is pertinent to understanding the significance of the topic. Readers may assume that the officers are white (as I did).

This discussion has happened plenty of times before, but the ultimate deciding factor is how reliable sources treat this topic. Here's a compilation of reliable sources highlighting the race of Nichols and the officers:

CNN: 1, 2, 3.

ABC News: 1

CBS News: 1

The New York Times: 1

BBC: 1

NBC News: 1

Reuters: 1

Associated Press: 1

The Washington Post: 1 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately without an explicit mention of race/ethnicity, "whiteness" may often be assumed as the default. And I agree that how reliable sources treat the topic should be the deciding factor. Thanks for the breakdown, with links. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include although not for the same reason as the first two editors here seem to have. (Are they both prepared to add this information to every single person on Wikipedia whose ethnicity can be reliably sourced?) Instead, I'm beyond bewildered that, in 2023, anyone still believes "'ethnicity is irrelevant, this is not a race-based matter'" when the subject at hand is another unarmed Black man dying after violence from police. Is this whole situation really being reported and really affecting people exactly the same as it would have if all the officers had been white? Come on. CityOfSilver 00:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Include. Anyone who thinks that because the cops and the corpse have the same skin color, there can't be a racial element, doesn't know what he's talking about. E Eng 00:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Cite a source. In other words, prove that you know what you're talking about.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:640C:6C8C:CC5C:68A0 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Here you go: The police who killed Tyre Nichols were Black. But they might still have been driven by racism ― CNN, Jan. 27, 2023 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Include obviously.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Include, given the racial dynamics of policing in the United States. -Darouet (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Exclude. The names of the victim and officers are clearly minority. Plus by excluding the racial descriptions along with the obvious national interest by the media it's a "wink wink, nod nod" as to which minority that all the actors and victim belong. Let's not mimic the sensationalistic media but instead take the high road and leave race out of the equation. Otherwise the trolls will appear and criticize the fitness of the police officers based on.. well.. race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.251.100.160 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying we don't need to mention the ethnicity of the involved because they have Black names like "Justin Smith." Wow. CityOfSilver 03:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. This is a matter of WP:RELEVANCE. This was a black-on-black issue, and there is no evidence that race played any part in the incident. Deaths like Murder of Jared Lakey, which was a white man's death by white police, does not mention ethnicity anywhere in the article. To include ethnicity in a black-on-black issue has a racist undertone. And WP:NOTEVERYTHING in the media needs to find its way into Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of racism is not a particularly good high-note to what you're attempting to state. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include because all the RS include it, which means we do include it, because we do in fact include everything -- all significant information -- that's in the RS. Suggesting race isn't relevant because it's black-on-black betrays a misunderstanding of how systemic racism works. Readers will obviously want to know the races of the police and the victim in any American police brutality case--that's why all the RS give that detail. To suggest race isn't relevant is just ignorant. That the victim is black is an important detail regardless of the race of the cops. That the cops aren't white is also an important detail.
Also, I'm tired of fighting WWBG on this issue on every article. Race will be included in every article about police killing an unarmed person in the US, because it's always highly relevant to the topic. WWBG loses this argument every time. At some point, it become tendentious to push this issue at every new article about this topic. Levivich (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Oh, really? We fight "this issue on every article"? And I "lose this argument every time"? I would REALLY like to see evidence of these assertions. Come on, show us what you've got! WWGB (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  Friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  
  Sorry WWGB, I owe you an apology, I was confusing editor names, my comment was unwarranted. Levivich (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. Every reliable source that I have read has noted that the victim and attackers are Black. If reliable sources widely consider it relevant, I think that is the indicator we need to look for. CT55555(talk) 02:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include - This is a fact noted by RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include - it's clear from RS this is a major issue in this case, and even both the family and police chief talked about it in some way. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Include This is noted in reliable secondary sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. Prominent WP:RS including CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC, NBC, Reuters, AP, etc., all have noted that the victim and attackers are black. When reliable sources widely consider it relevant, that's your clue. XavierItzm (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. We lose context to understanding. We cause no harm or misrepresentation by including it.

For George Floyd’s murder we mention Chauvin’s race within the first sentence of the lead. SecretName101 (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include Reliable sources have made mention of it.★Trekker (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. Multiple reliable sources have not only mentioned it but stressed that the fact that all involved were black demonstrates that police brutality is a problem that transcends the racism often associated with it. Regards So Why 16:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Include. Reliable sources are routinely including the race of the officers and the victim as relevant facts in this case, so they should be included in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

why newsworthy? why Wikipedia article?

Killed by law enforcement does not seem to be a rare or extraordinary event, even if considering only the ones involving illegal actions by law enforcement. As evidenced by Wikipedia's own record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States So why is this one blown out of proprtion and treated in this sensational way? "why newsworth" is not controlled by Wikipedia, but the second question is --Felixkrull (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an article for all or even most police killings. But some police killings are high profile and receive significant coverage in reliable sources, such as this one and others like the murder of George Floyd. The same is true for civilian killings. Most don't have an article, but the ones that receive significant coverage do, such as the murder of Gabriel Fernandez and killing of JonBenét Ramsey Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 18:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This event has drawn coverage in reliable secondary sources that establishes long-term notability as an event. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not simply cover topics deemed a "rare or extraordinary event". We follow the reporting of reliable sources. There could likely be many more articles about officer involved killings, high profile or not, given enough coverage by media. That's simply up to editors to create said articles or not, and to justify WP:NOTABILITY etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Police beat people to death all the time so we might as well mind our own business and get used to it. E Eng 20:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Assuming that's sarcasm, heh. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM. Regardless, the answer is because the video illustrates a murder with no justification whatsoever. A police officer who shoots someone can conceivably offer a justification for their actions, but there's no justification for five police officers brutally beating someone for no reason. A second reason is because reliable sources consider this newsworthy. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

facts based article

since this is an ongoing issue at the moment, I think there's a need for fact-checkers to support reliable references. and perhaps anyone writing on this could hopefully spare themselves sentimental or emotional tones in their writing. 158.140.162.238 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Go for it! Although you should probably get an account first since this article is probably going to be put under protection and anonymous editors won't be able to change it. CityOfSilver 04:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"Tyre Nichols" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tyre Nichols and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 29 § Tyre Nichols until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The early lives of the five former officers

According to details I just found, four out of the five arrested officers were originally Memphis-area citizens (including cities in Mississippi surrounding the Memphis area). But only one officer (Desmond Ainsworth Mills Jr.) is originally a resident of Bangor, Maine, Hartford, Connecticut, Bloomfield, Connecticut, and Charleston, West Virginia. Mills (B. 3/16/90 according to Shelby County inmate search) was notable for forming a local business called D&M Relations, LLC, registered in Memphis.

Various newspapers and outlets across Connecticut, including CBS station WFSB, FOX station WTIC-TV, and NBC station WVIT-TV, reported that Mills Jr. was a former graduate of Bloomfield High School in Bloomfield in 2008 before settling in West Virginia. However, it was unclear when he moved to Memphis but he did join law enforcement and the MPD in March 2017.

Olive Branch, Mississippi-native Tadarrius Bean (B. 9/18/98 according to Shelby County inmate search) joined MPD in 2020 at the age of 21 and was the youngest to be arrested out of the five involved it.

Does anybody have more information involving the five former officers? ImDeadAsADoornail (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You have been asked repeatedly across many articles to stop delving into trivia and minutiae attached to an incident. Topics like the cops' place of birth and high school are irrelevant to this incident. We are not writing a biography on the accused. You are neither an investigative journalist not a commentator. Your contributions to Wikipedia will be better accepted if you stop this personal research. Thanks, WWGB (talk)

Well yeah, having quality sources would definitely improve the chances for any of this stuff to be included. But certainly, what some may consider "minutae" or trivia probably has a slim chance for inclusion in this article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Media outlets reported that..."

Media occasionally get things wrong. We should not publish an assertion that is not verifiable with the qualification that "media outlets reported" it. This is in response to the statement "Media outlets reported that the footage did not show Nichols resisting [or appearing to provoke] officers during the beating." It is true that the BBC, a reputed source, reported that Nichols did not appear to resist officers. The statement by the BBC is not credible. Video is released and the consensus of sources is that the video shows Nichols resisting and fleeing. Baller McGee (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Unmarked police cruiser image

@EEng:, I saw you removed the image of the unmarked cruiser. I added the photo because it was of a type of vehicle the police officers specifically used: an unmarked Memphis police cruiser, as used by SCORPION: seen in this video, and mentioned to be of relevance in this article. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, where in that source is that particular style of vehicle described as being the one used in this incident? And even if it is, how would the reader's understanding of the incident be enhanced by their seeing that one or more of the cars was (I dunno) a Chevy versus a Dodge -- in a random photo from 10 years ago? And were they all the cars the same? E Eng 20:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Benjamin Crump

@EEng:, I'm a little confused while you think it's not worth noting the family hired Benjamin Crump, the attorney for the families of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Jacob Blake. That is highly publicized and notable. Regardless, with the number of sources stating he has joined the case, it is at least worth mentioning in a single sentence. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this could be better phrased as something like "Benjamin Crump, an attorney with past experience representing the families of police brutality victims." To readers who might have zero familiarity or poor recollection of the other cases, that list of names is meaningless/provides zero context. SecretName101 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, the presence of protests is part of what makes the case notable. It is very odd to not include even a single sentence mentioning that they have already started. Cerebral726 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If sources on Nichols say that Crump was the attorney in those other cases, then it's definitely worth reporting that "The family hired attorney BC, who had represented X, Y, and Z." Just saying they hired an attorney is not surprising.
The article's text said, literally, nothing more than that "there were protests" -- nothing about where, when, how extensive, anything. WP:DUH! That tells the reader nothing. In a few minutes, no doubt there will be something far more substantial to report, so let's just wait a bit and there will be plenty of sources with lots of detail.

E Eng 00:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

While the fact that they hired an attorney isn't surprising, given that the particular attorney is notable there is no reason to not include a mention of who they are. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tyre Nichols section RE: unsourced opinion

In the Tyre Nichols section a statement that he was underweight is attributed to the Family Attorney, the source is a New York Times article. This is what the attorney said, "Ben Crump, a lawyer for the family, noted that Mr. Nichols suffered from Crohn’s disease, and as a result was almost impossibly slim: six-foot-three and 145 pounds." The "under weight" wording should be removed. First it is a medical/scientific assesment; second absent the proper background, it is an opinion; third it is unsubstantiated that the attorney said "under"weight 2601:681:5780:AB76:981E:1462:CA87:2341 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Done I have reworded this a bit. Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Biased statement about conduct.

"Various incident videos did not show Nichols doing anything to provoke the beating.[8]"

This is a biased statement, even though sourced to CNN. The statement is subjective, opinionated, and should not be included. The Memphis Police Department Policies and Procedures Revised 01-31-2020, discuss Response To Resistance Continuum. As "resistance" is a justification to increasing use of force, the statement from the CNN article is of no merit and entirely biased. Additionally to say did not do anything to the beating, is suggesting that there could be adequate provocation for such a beating; which still is a biased statement. AgntOtrth (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I partly agree in that this seems poorly worded. Theoretically there should be nothing someone can do to provoke a beating from police officers like that shown on the videos since police are only supposed to use force as necessary to effect an arrest and protect others, not because you sufficiently annoyed them. So the wording seems concentrated on the wrong thing. The fact that even if it was a gang or something interacting with him, what Nichols did didn't seem to justify/provoke a beating like that shown doesn't seem that germane. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - I updated the lead to reflect this concern and WP:NPOV policy, and added one of the sources I suggested above. Beccaynr (talk) 05:03, 30 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)

Falsely accused of reckless driving?

"On January 10, 2023, Tyre Nichols[a] 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 E Eng 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)

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? E Eng 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)

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)

"Expletives"

We should quote what was said in full. No need to pull punches (so to speak). E Eng 20:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. If we know the expletives, we should include them. We have no problems at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia "lately", it almost "[sounds] sarcastic". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 29 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)

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^t@lk 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^t@lk 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 [2] (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)

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)

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)

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)

#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" [3], 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, is why a reason so many see Wikipedia 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 [4] 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. Wikipedia 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)

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 [ MOS:OVERLINK ] 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 [5], in addition to the sources. Wikilinks had been removed because the term seemed easily understood [6], 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 "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 Wikipedia'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 [ MOS:RACECAPS ] 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^t@lk 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^t@lk 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)

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: [ MOS:EXPABBR ]. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of information about the police report

Specifically [7]. Fine to add some of this, but there are several issues I perceive.

Cite to NY Post - considered unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.
Over-quoting.
Written as a narrative - it could be much more concise.
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)

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)

Wikipedia 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)

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: "Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editor is near worthless as WP:OR, and instead we can rely on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Inaction of the paramedics

The video footage also shows that the paramedics who were called did not provide any assistance. The New York Times reports that paramedics did not examine Nichols for 19 minutes. An emergency medical technician who worked on the investigative report into Nichols' case said there was reason to believe that the paramedics' inaction contributed to the patient's demise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/03/us/memphis-emt-suspended-preston-hemphill-fired.html

An ambulance was requested after their initial interaction with Nichols, the department said, and an emergency unit was dispatched at 8:46 p.m. The department said the unit arrived at the scene at 8:55 p.m., and initiated care and took Nichols to a hospital at 9:08 p.m. — about 27 minutes after Long, Sandridge and Whitaker arrived at the second location.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/memphis-emts-terminated-response-fatal-beating-tyre-nichols-rcna68284

91.54.8.251 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 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)

Nichols did not comply with multiple orders from the police!!? Because he couldn't: Officers ordered Nichols on the ground, giving him conflicting commands... --91.54.8.251 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 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)

Sixth Memphis police officer fired for role in arrest of Tyre Nichols (Guardian/AP, Feb 3, 2023)

While some delay to allow the information to develop seems reasonable, I think this information seems ripe for inclusion at this point. Beccaynr (talk) 20:52, 4 February 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)

Was the change made? It still seems to have the same order. LetsMakeThingsRight (talk) 00:52, 5 February 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

This edit request to Killing of Tyre Nichols has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Please revert a portion of this unexplained previous edit, and add the following text back into the article:

The New York Times reported that Nichols repeatedly cried out for his mother and "[did] not appear to ever strike back" during the beating.

Thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The same editor, AgntOtrth, has now changed this portion of the article again, this time removing sourcing from The New York Times and replacing the reference with a link to a Fox News story. Please revert this change, and roll back to the original wording and sourcing from The New York Times. Thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The edited captures that he cried out to his mother. The edit also captures the effect the beating had on him in the very moment of the beating. The edit reflects greater insight. What would be your rationale for removing the edit, that supports the prior version, and adds greater insight? AgntOtrth (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@AgntOtrth: Your edits absolutely do not add "greater insight"; as you have very intentionally removed this from the article:

The New York Times reported that Nichols repeatedly cried out for his mother and "[did] not appear to ever strike back" during the beating.

This is correctly attributed to The New York Times and is an important part of the overall story, and yet you have sought to delete it from the article, and replace the information with less detail. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not recall seeing/reading in the wiki article the effect the beating had on his mental state in the very moment, so yes greater insight. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, I don't understand the complaint. The diff you cite by your opponent does not remove a NYT reference, so "the New York Times reports" was kind of hollow. I don't see how their edit is worse than the text we had before. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for pointing that out. I don't know how the citation got removed, but here it is:

<ref name="stomp">{{cite news |last1=Bogel-Burroughs |first1=Nicholas |date=January 27, 2023 |title=Videos show Memphis police kicking and beating Tyre Nichols as he begs them to stop. |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-video-memphis-police.html |url-access=registration |access-date=January 28, 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.is/eR3JR |archive-date=January 28, 2023}}</ref>

This citation was referenced earlier on in the article, a few sentences up from that spot, and is the source for the removed content. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is a complete quote from the above referenced New York Times article:

"Throughout the beating, which lasts about three minutes, Mr. Nichols does not appear to ever strike back. Several times, he moves his hands to cover his face, seeming to cower from the officers' blows."

Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added this; does that address the concerns? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very very much. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

This edit request to Killing of Tyre Nichols has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Add to the Aftermath section

"U.S. Representative Steven Horsford, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), invited Tyre Nichols' mother and stepfather, RowVaughn and Rodney Wells, to attend the 2023 State of the Union address. They accepted the invitation and attended the 2023 State of the Union address.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tyre-nichols-mother-stepfather-attend-biden-state-union-speech-2023-01-30/ Hulemann (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Done Tails Wx 15:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

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’[8]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."[9]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 Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] 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)

AgntOtrth, the "original research" policy does in fact prohibit analysis of video by an editor. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. This is my understanding. The Video is the source - it has been published. An analysis by an editor, that cites the source is verifiable analysis. Unless the community agrees otherwise, the Memphis Police Department is a reliable source of the video. So reliable, verifiable, the Wiki Editor is not the source. The Wiki Editor is no different than an editor rephrasing an article with proper citing to the original source for verifiability AgntOtrth (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"Transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources is not considered original research", however, that caveat does not extend to the interpretation of visual imagery. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a Wikipedia source to support "that caveat does not extend to the interpretation of visual imagery"? Per Wikipedia NOR Policy " The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia 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 "Preston Hemphill has been identified as the former officer whose body-cam footage is video 1 as titled and provided by the Memphis Police Department.(I provide a verifiable and reliable source) In video 1, Hemphill arrives on at the traffic stop at 8:24pm. (verifiable fact based on time stamp in video 1)" The reliable source is the memphis pd vimeo, the published source is the video, video 1 showing Hemphill arrived at 8:24pm Hemphill arrived, is verifiable. Statement of fact attributed to a reliable, published source, in which source the statement of fact is verifiable, and Wiki Editor does not reach or imply a conclusion not in the sources, would mean it is not original research. AgntOtrth (talk) 07:44, 5 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 Wikipedia 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)

i would like to know about why there are any references to race. this swould be equally valid were no reference to race be made. one poor fellow was killed by overzealous and self entitlesd coppers. i was directed to the killing of Tyre Nichols from Quora where some right wing nut job was complaining why the police officers involved were condemned so quickly...especially in contrast to the killing of Breonna Taylor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Breonna_Taylor). they mention that Breonna is black but dont mention race when i comes to the seven WHITE cops involved??! Coshydrogeo (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"especially in contract" Which contract are you referring to? Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

i have corrected the typo...not contract, but meant contrast Coshydrogeo (talk) 00:05, 7 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)

The 6th officer has been verified as the one that deployed a taser and verified as the one who said "I hope they stomp his ass". I believe it is video 1. The 6th has not been charged with the death of Nichols. I agree with you that videos 2, 3, and 4 do not show Hemphill. AgntOtrth (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement attributed to the Chief is not supported by evidence

The lead paragraph mentions 10 officers responded to the traffic stop. The evidence available does not support the statement. Does it stay in the article? AgntOtrth (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the cited source: " 'About 10' Memphis Police officers responded to the Jan. 7 traffic stop in Hickory Hill, Police Chief C.J. Davis told city council Tuesday."

Do you have another reliable source that contradicts or calls into question this information? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove redundant references to race

The race of the individuals that beat Nichols is mentioned in the opening paragraph. The race of Nichols is mentioned in the opening paragraph. Can we remove the redundant references to race in the People involved section? AgntOtrth (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No. Content in the lead is a summary of content that appears in the body of the article. WWGB (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The former officers are charged with committing assault

The former officers are charged with assault. Tennessee does not have a battery crime statute. The United States nor individual States have a universally accepted definition for criminal battery or criminal assault. AgntOtrth (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The officers were charged with assault. There is no legal basis to say that Nichols was "battered". WWGB (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

WWGB – We do not know yet what caused his death. The original word was "beat". "Beat" was not the best descriptor. "Beat" leaves out the assault, the pepper spray, and the taser. All of which may have pushed him towards death. Assault is a threat. Battery is the doing. He was battered. Battery encompasses all the harm done to him. Assault does not. It is not properly descriptive. I had an RS tagged to "battered" in the lead, but you removed it, and look where we are. There are acres of the use of battered to justify battered, plus it is the correct nomenclature. Assault is not robust enough, and beat is too narrow. The expansion of all the details is in the body. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I will make a few points. Use of pepper spray and a taser are legitimate police tools, and there is no evidence that their use on Nichols led to the criminal charges. Citations are not required in the lead, as all lead content should be repeated, with sources, in the body of the article. I agree that reliable sources like the NYT say that Nichols was "battered" but I reiterate there is no legal basis for that term. WWGB (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Pepper spray and tasers can be legitimate police tools when used under legitimate circumstances. CharredShorthand.talk; 02:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead section of the article currently says Nichols "was assaulted" and "The detainment and assault were shown" in video clips. However, the body of the article says that the officers are only accused of assault, and apparently have not yet been convicted. To me it seems better to say he was beaten, tased and pepper sprayed (as statements of fact) than to say that he "was assaulted". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Better to be specific. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)