Talk:Death of Sandra Bland/Archive 1

Student voting rights
The section about college student voting rights is not written fairly. College student voting has long been an issue in the United States, especially when it comes to local elections (depending on where a student calls "home" for example).

Students at my college, when I was there, were not allowed to vote in local elections and it was a hotly debated issue on campus and more so in the community. The mostly white conservative upper class community didn't want the more liberal out of town student body changing local politics. I think this has changed over the years, but not without a fight. Race was not a factor in my college's case either. Joel S Bateman (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But is any of that directly related to Sandra Bland's death? I believe the entire Waller County, Texas section shifts the focus of the article away from Bland's arrest and death, into WP:COATRACK territory. But I didn't remove any content because the source articles are ostensibly about Bland.- MrX 18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I think you both should engage with The Atlantic article cited, and perhaps some of its sources, if we are going to discuss how to treat this issue. The article is closer to long-format, and explicitly links Bland's arrest and death with the history of civil rights in Waller County. This history includes the lynchings and KKK presence, the two voting struggles, and the police deputy scandal over brutality. The Atlantic is not the only source to have raised these issues, but I believe it's the best. Of course, Bland's case is not so noteworthy just by itself, but in context.


 * I did try to keep this section brief compared to what was available, but if you have other recommendations or proposals, I am happy to engage. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend deletion


 * I left the section in about Waller's police issues in the section, but removed the first paragraph as non-contributory. This is an article about Bland, not unrelated history of the county. If someone needs to know more about Waller, they could readily click the link to that section.MartinezMD (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * MartinezMD I thought the section you removed could have remained - because this is being talked about in terms of race, a brief mention of slavery, the KKK / Freedmen's Assn, and historically high number of lynchings gives regional background on the encounter. Furthermore, treatment of the matter by media would seem to confirm that the history of race within Waller County falls within the WP:SCOPE of the article. Nevertheless, I accepted the removal because I could see how very old history is less relevant than events in the last decade, and MrX was also asking about this.


 * However, I think that your removal of the text altogether is excessive and does a disservice to readers by artificially restricting the article's scope, certainly below the treatment of mainstream media, who view Waller County's history as pertinent. -Darouet (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At this time it's just way POV-pushing to include that in the article; it's adding speculation. Media speculates; Wikipedia does not. It's fine to have it in the Waller County article of course. But Bland did not die at a traffic stop. The only information we have is that she hanged herself in her cell after being there three days. If Waller County has a history of prisoners dying in their cells or a history of abuse or neglect at their jails (which can be all kinds of things from beating prisoners to denying them access to medication, etc.) then that would be relevant. Per the WP:BRD guideline, please do not add back removed information without consensus to do so. {{ping}Darouet}} I'm going to do an RFC about it so we can get more input and decide, OK? This is a hugely controversial and sensitive issue so we should get more input.  —Мандичка YO 😜 03:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for launching the RfC. I disagree with your contention re:BRD - it was I who reverted you. But I'd like to see a few more comments on the RfC before I return anything. -Darouet (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X Meddling
Mr X, why did you delete the 11 times detail, I think that was important to explain how the buildup of the encounter. Moon822 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because that detail did not appear in the source. If I missed it, please point it out. - MrX 21:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubious massive rewrite
Re: this edit

I won't speak to the actual content, but this edit removed by my count seven references, leaving five consecutive paragraphs and almost 3,000 words completely unsourced. I think it should be reverted on that basis alone. We can't allow edits that leave the article in such a state. Editors should not add massive content and expect other editors to do the research and add the corresponding references. Comments? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed it. I think much of the content was technically correct, but it was unsourced, and it's unclear to me if, in leaving some details out and placing others in, it really gave a balanced description of what occurred. -Darouet (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Given the amount of detail in secondary sources and in the dashcam video itself, I don't know that the article needs much detail about exactly what was said. Those details are inevitably POV fodder, and any selectivity inevitably involves cherry-picking. For example, one editor did nothing but add the officer's apparently insensitive and unprofessional response to Bland's statement that she had epilepsy. Any question about neutrality on that one? In this case I say less is more. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some part of me thinks it does belong, but I could easily see it replaced by other details, so if you want to remove it, that's fine. Charles M Blow has a commentary for the NYT in which he asks a series of questions about the event. I don't have time now but tomorrow, I'd like to make more of a commentary section where the national discussion on this event is summarized. -Darouet (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What has happened in this article is that people have removed from the dashcam the details that show how the issues started and how it continuously escalated. It is all find and dandy to just point out what the mainstream media does (I'm a liberal, so don't even try) to try to get ratings --- pulling out the officer's statement that "I will light you up." One would think from the media, and this article, that he started a fight with Ms. Bland. I have listened to, and transcribed, the entire video. I have listened to it multiple times. There are only a few words I can't make out. Consequently, when I added items, I at least have a basis for what they are, and they keep getting removed by someone who is essentially parroting CNN. (I can't use an account because I am at work.) So I am going to add my entire transcript here in the talk page so you can decide for yourself what is an accurate summary. I also urge you to look at the tape.


 * I have viewed the tape and read the transcript countless times. Unless we agree to post the whole transcript, and that seems like a bad idea for an encyclopedia entry, we need to make decisions about what to include and what to leave out. I think that we have included Encinia's statements "get out of the car," and "I will light you up," because they mark significant turning points in the transition from discussion to conflict. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you choose that, but not Bland's "Let's do this" when in the car. And her bringing up the South Carolina incidents. And that she predicts that he will want to throw her head on the ground. And then afterwards that she says he did it. His statement "I will light you up" did not turn it to a conflict. In fact, at that point, she resigns herself to having to obey him and gets out of the car. That's the end of the second conflict. Then there is the phone, the hand cuffing, the not moving around, the scuffle, the getting into the car. I don't know why you selectively think his statement starts a conflict, when it actually ends one. And you have so many from Ms. Bland to choose from.


 * I really do suggest you look at the text now and see what it reads like. It reads as if Ms. Bland was calm, cool, and collected, except that perhaps she was arguing with him after he forced her out of the car with a Taser. It was this type of summary of the situation that made me look at the tape and transcribe it for myself. And I found the opposite to be generally true. Yes, she got the best of him. But she baited him over, and over, and over. At first is was his decision to stop her. Then he wasn't doing his job. Then he asked her why she was irritated. Then she smoked and wouldn't put it out. Then she wouldn't get out of the car (making a call, he doesn't have the right, etc. etc.) It goes on to a vile accusation of a woman attempting to sexually belittle an officer, calling him a pussy ass multiple times. Insulting the town and the police. Telling him if he threw her down it would make him feel good. Doesn't he feel like a real man now, etc. So the tape makes it very clear what was happening. Your (or others') recent edits of this article leave that entirely unclear. Can it be encyclopedic and wrong? I suppose it can. And it is.


 * If I were able to log in with my account, I would add an NPOV to this article so that at least the casual observer might check out the talk page.


 * "I will light you up" was quoted in newspaper headlines around the country (171,000 google news results), while "let's do this" has hardly received mention (814). Similar, a LexisNexis Academic search reveals dozens of references repetitions of Encinia's "I will light you up," but I can find none reporting Bland's comment, "let's do this." I'm not trying to give you my personal interpretation of what happened: our text is following what papers have picked up on. -Darouet (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your personal interpretation of what happened is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the reliable sources are interpreting the event. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Spot on. - Darouet (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Question
Who gave her a bag? It appears this was not a little cheap grocery bag. Does Texas supply high strength large bags to all inmates - how about rope instead. If it wasn't her bag then a cop must have given it to her. How long does marijuana stay in your system - three days later is a long delay for a drug death, if that is what Texas is all a twitter about. Again who gave her a buff if it was less than three days. She just ran into a psycho cop - and of course a bag. 73.149.116.253 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As much as I'd love to speculate about this, WP:NOTAFORUM. GAB (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer the question, it was the bag liner from the garbage can. A photograph of it was published somewhere - it was twisted into a ligature. It's possible to strangle yourself with almost anything - that's why they even take shoelaces from people on suicide watch. And she didn't die from marijuana, which stays in your system up to a month. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "collapsed" content. The above questions are not a "forum".  They are indeed valid and relevant to the article. The whole "controversy" here is whether or not she committed suicide.  The original poster asked very relevant questions, pertaining to the article.  The OP was not starting a forum.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a video interview online with a jailer IN THE CELL who shows the newly relined 55 gallon trashcan, and also says that the "other female inmates in the cell" didn't see anybody else but Sandra Bland at the time of the hanging.

Dashcam audio transcript
For those who need the full transcript to decide what is the truth of the arrest part of this issue... I transcribed it myself. A few words I could not understand. I have tried to put the talking over each other as best I could. For really loud shouting, I used capital letters. Most of the conversation was elevated, but you should listen to the audio yourself to judge that. (Placeholder for later post. Work e-mail will not allow the curse words Ms. Bland used to be in incoming mail.)


 * It is likely that many editing here have viewed the tape and read the transcript countless times. Unless we agree to post the whole transcript, and that seems like a bad idea for an encyclopedia entry, we need to make decisions about what to include and what to leave out. I think that we have included Encinia's statements "get out of the car," and "I will light you up," because they mark significant turning points in the transition from discussion to conflict. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We are here to write an encyclopedia article that reflects what the reliable sources state about the incident. Period. Personal opinions or interpretations have ZERO place here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * With all due respect TRPoD, that is nonsense - are you really proposing that we should put up the whole transcript of the encounter? If not, how do you propose deciding what to include, and what remove? As I pointed out above, Encinia's now (in)famous remark, "I will light you up," appeared in newspapers and even headlines all over the world. By contrast, Bland's statement "OK, let's do this" has received next to no traction. Your criteria imply that opinion only - yours in this case - should WHOLLY determine the content here. If you make a proposal based on content, that would be more understandable. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I am saying that this page is not a page to rant about conspiracy theories about her death. The purpose of this page is to discuss how to most accurately present what the reliable sources are stating about the event. see WP:NOTCHAT and WP:OR and WP:V and WP:RS and WP:TPG and WP:RGW and WP:UNDUE.
 * If the sources give little to no traction to "OK, let's do this" then our article gives little to no coverage to the phrase.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The mainstream media is very selective.  They "pick and choose" which "facts" to report, which to magnify and emphasize, and which to "sweep under the rug".  They are in the for-profit business, seeking to maximize profits.  So, they want to sell ("report") a "good story".  And, they usually have an agenda in their reporting.  No?  If it is factual that Bland said "OK, let's do this", why would you want to eliminate that fact?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Complain about the media elsewhere. Here we report what reliable sources say about the subject. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And how, exactly, does that answer my (valid) question?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm confused, what is your question? About eliminating the fact that she said "let's do this"? If we have a section describing her arrest, it seems like we should include that as it's been reported by RS and seems like it accelerated the already bad situation.,  —Мандичка YO 😜 23:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Now, I'm confused.  RS have reported that Bland said "OK, let's do this".  Someone above was advocating that we remove that fact.  Therefore, I asked a question.  My question was:  If it is factual that Bland said "OK, let's do this", why would you want to eliminate that fact?.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The so-called "mainstream media" is what Wikipedia relies on for sourcing. GAB (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See my above post. I stated as follows.  RS have reported that Bland said "OK, let's do this".  Someone above was advocating that we remove that fact.  Therefore, I asked a question.  My question was:  If it is factual that Bland said "OK, let's do this", why would you want to eliminate that fact?. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a good question. I don't see why it should be removed from the article. Seems pertinent information. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "OK, let's do this" is of minimal significance. In my opinion it means almost nothing. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's significant when you look at it in context. He was ordering her out of the car and basically said, "get out or I will pull you out", to which she said, "let's do this" to essentially challenge him to try to pull her out. Whether or not she had the legal right to stay in her car (to refuse to get out) at this point is a different matter, but she did for all intensive purposes challenge him to pull him out. That is why the media is reporting that particular comment, out of all the things she said. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WE do not look at the "context". We look at what the sources have said and attempt as best we can to represent the reliable sources proportionately. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Huh? Of course, we look at context.  Obviously.  In this and every Wikipedia article.  And your link of "no original research" (WP:OR) has zero to do with "context" of facts within an article.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree 100% with —Мандичка .  I disagree 100% with Bus stop.  It is highly significant when viewed in context.  As pointed out above, Bland viewed the officer's commands as a "challenge" to her.  And her reply ("OK, let's do this") indicates that she accepted that challenge (or, what she viewed as a challenge).  And, as pointed out above, this is exactly why the RS's are reporting on this direct quote/statement by Bland.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it was "essentially challeng[ing] him to try to pull her out." It was a nervous, almost humorous, reaction, to the ludicrousness of the absurd escalation that was transpiring at that moment. I know this is not a WP:forum, and we abide by what sources say, not by our own interpretations. But for whatever it is worth, I oppose misconstruing what I see (hear) as an almost meaningless remark. But in the final analysis we have to see what the best quality sources have to say about that remark. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the point. You see it as meaningless.  Others see it as meaningful.  RS's are reporting it because – at least, to them – it is meaningful.  RS's usually don't bother to report facts/information that they consider meaningless.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is axiomatic that anything reported by reliable sources can be included in our articles. But we exercise judgement. We weigh tangible and intangible factors. We would want to see that these words are not only reported by sources but that sources attribute significance to these words. We should want to know if the source is exercising judgement or if the source is merely repeating verbatim everything that was said. Unless we opt to hand over an unexpurgated transcript to the reader of everything that was said, we are necessarily exercising judgement as to what to include and what to exclude. If we are to pick and choose in this way, we have to be following the discretion exercised by the best quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of RS don't report "let's do this" in the least, as I well demonstrated above. That's because the officer had authority, arms, control, and the ability to walk away at any point. Bland had none of those - just a sharp tongue, which is anyone's right, and talk is cheap. "I will light you up" carried the threat of real violence, and was quoted in newspaper headlines around the country (171,000 google news results), while "let's do this" has hardly received mention (814). Similar, a LexisNexis Academic search reveals dozens of references repetitions of Encinia's "I will light you up," but I can find none reporting Bland's comment, "let's do this." -Darouet (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He also had the legal authority to order her to get out of the car, per Pennsylvania v. Mimms. The cop threatening to tase her by using that unusual phrasing ("light you up" - sure to be an entry in Urban Dictionary) is infinitely more salacious to the storyline/narrative (police brutality) that has gotten people upset. The number of hits in Google News is not accurate, as many are repeats of the same article (from wire services) and many are also blogs that appear in Google News. It is being reported in reliable sources  and it seems fairly relevant, as it's a big moment where things really escalate and the police officer really gets mad, as she is not only defying his lawful orders, but challenging him to do something about it.  —Мандичка YO 😜 03:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT has a good legal analysis pointing out that he does have the legal authority, but misuses it. In any event, I'd already seen the USA Today story you linked, but it's one of the few sources that quotes that particular line. The point of my evaluation was not to show exactly how many sources quote "I will light you up" versus "Let's do this;" rather, to show that Encinia's comment is quoted well cover 100x more frequently. -Darouet (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, the initial hit count you see in Google Search is a calculated estimate based on the known frequency of the component words, and is usually wildly inaccurate. Google never intended it to be used for anything as important as Wikipedia editorial decisions. If you click through the pages of hits (it saves time to jump as far as possible each time), the number eventually changes to something much smaller, which is the true hit count for the search phrase. For "light you up" bland, that number is currently 182. The same thing applies in Google News, and that number is currently 238. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * - I understand it gives little indication of the actual number of times the term is used in the news (LexisNexis Academic, which I also cited, is better) - importantly though it gives some sense of the relative frequency of phrase use. That's the point in this case - media consider Encinia's "light you up" critical, and don't view Bland's "Let's do this" in the same way. -Darouet (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me try again. Google knows the frequency of "light" with some accuracy. It knows the frequency of "you", and the frequency of "up". Based on those three data points, it (somehow) calculates an estimate of how often those three words occur together. That's the number initially shown, and as I said, it's usually wildly inaccurate. If you want to use Google, use the true hit counts; the estimate is useless for our purposes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure - using your method I count 6 sources that you "Let's do this," and 160+ that use "I will light you up." I'm not trying to nail down the exact number of times either phrase has been legitimately used, even within some order of magnitude. I'm just trying to point out that however you try and make the comparison, "light you up" is used with far, far greater frequency. -Darouet (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you're interested in comparing the hit counts related to this story, not in general usage of the two phrases. That means you have to qualify the search arguments. I don't know the specifics of your searches, but in Google Search I'm gettting 173 for "let's do this" bland and 183 for "light you up" bland, not a significant difference. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I searched in google news and have been adding the phrase "Sandra Bland" for each search. Did you scroll through to check that the results you were returning actually related to the case, and were from the last 10 days or so? Using your method just now, on google news I pulled hundreds of results for "Sandra Bland" "let's do this", but only the first six were from the last week and related to Bland. The rest were unrelated and from other months, years. That wasn't true of "Sandra Bland" "light you up" however. Unless I'm introducing an error by use of the apostrophe in "let's:" I"m not sure how google treats that. -Darouet (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeating this method again,, I get 10 hits for "let's do this" "Sandra Bland", instead of six. However, this is still the same major difference I found in google, google news, and LexisNexis Academic. -Darouet (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Point taken, I had never seen that phenomenon at Google News. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The behavior is strange - however your method does mean more that some raw unexamined number, especially if you scroll to check the results. -Darouet (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As another editor above pointed out, "I will light you up" is a nice, interesting, baiting, eye-grabbing headline. It's pretty unusual wording.  Yeah, of course, media is going to be all over that.  "Let's do this" is hardly as sexy and eye-catching.  It's a more routine and mundane phrasing.  This latter phrase won't sell newspapers.  The former will.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree: "light you up" is incredibly intimidating and frightening from a large man, armed with a gun, and a taser he is shouting his intention to use on you. -Darouet (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Such thinking only serves to replace the media's bias with your own, which is no better. It lumps all media into one money-grubbing basket, characterizing institutions such as NYT as interested only in profit, with no regard whatsoever for sound journalism, and it disregards history such as the Pentagon Papers (NYT) and Watergate (WaPo). It's simply not how conventional wisdom says we should be thinking as editors. If you want to discuss that, the place is WP:VPP, not here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? I was pointing out why the number of Google hits might be "lopsided".  Which is a valid point.  And relevant to the above discussion.  So, again, what on earth are you talking about?  Perhaps you should be going over to WP:VPP? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am talking about: This latter phrase won't sell newspapers. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I still don't get your point. When I am attempting to explain the "lopsided" Google hits, I am not allowed to use that phrase that you quoted?  Is that your point?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I read it, you're arguing that the media's profit motive is a reason to disregard the amount of coverage of one phrase versus another. And I'm saying that, for reliable published sources, we don't do that. If I misread your argument, I apologize and request that this be dropped forthwith. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. No problem.  I was explaining why one phrase will get a lot of Google hits and another phrase will not.  Matter dropped.  Thank you.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Autopsy Results
The autopsy results were released today (23 July 2015) and ruled her death a suicide. She had no defensive injuries from a struggle in her cell, the damage to her neck appeared to be from her hanging herself rather than someone strangling her, and she apparently had 30 partially healed cuts on her wrist consistent with self-inflicted injuries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * From NYT: "Examiners also found scars and scabs from about 30 cuts on Ms. Bland’s left forearm, which they said had probably occurred two to four weeks ago. Prosecutors declined to say definitively what caused them, but 'in multiple instances I have seen, those injuries, they are consistent with self-inflicted wounds,' Mr. Diepraam said."


 * Assistant DAs are not experts on what is or is not self-inflicted, and this man's opinion is no more significant than yours or mine. In addition, it clearly says forearm, not wrist, and the two words are not interchangeable. Self-inflicted wounds to the wrist imply suicide attempt; move them up a few inches and self-harm is at least as likely. I'm not asserting that it was murder, only that we need to be more careful about what we say. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The police have been saying since the beginning that Bland killed herself, and the Bland family have been contesting this, and have conducted a second autopsy. Results from that autopsy haven't been revealed yet, but hopefully they will shed more light on this situation. -Darouet (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

significantly grown
The Guardian 22 July 2015: Sandra Bland dashcam video shows officer threatened: 'I will light you up' - Texas police accused of editing video before its release.

The article hints at a Database ("The counted": http://www.theguardian.com) showing that there have been 644 people killed by police in 2015 (as of 23 July).

A comment in Süddeutsche Zeitung writes Die Polizeigewalt hat objektiv zugenommen; im laufenden Jahr gab es 637 Todesopfer, 2009 waren es 62. and also hints at that database.

Imo, there should be a sentence in the article saying that violence done by police has significantly grown in the last years. --Neun-x (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Her death has been ruled a suicide and autopsy results are consistent with that. Why she was still in jail after three days is troubling - she was either not denied bail (unlikely) or she didn't have the money to make bail (likely). There's nothing to suggest she was the victim of police violence, so it's irrelevant.  —Мандичка YO 😜 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikimandia, it has been all over the news that Bland was "the victim of police violence," and I am troubled that you could read news articles about this case, or view the video, and despite both, view police violence as "irrelevant." Also, though the police have contended that Bland killed herself for days now, and her family contested this, you are changing the article as if this is known. Above, you stated that this article is only for "facts." But that vision for inclusion is broken when you only view pronouncements by police officials as sources of those facts, and reporting by media as irrelevant. -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speculation by the mass media of what may have happened is irrelevant other than presentation as speculation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , because the truth is elusive, reliable sources are the only means we have for arriving at verifiability. Above, I was criticizing Wikimandia for declaring the cause of Bland's death to be known as suicide, though this has been contested for a week now, and remains so. As to the issue of police violence, I wonder how you propose to distinguish between news journalism and speculation? -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources report it as suicide. The reliable sources also report a significant conspiracy theory believed that the suicide reported is false. But that doesnt change that the reliable sources report it as suicide. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what reliable sources report the Harris County autopsy concluded, not what they state themselves. Pushing all other views to WP:FRINGE is about your personal political opinions and has nothing to do with reliable sources. I'm responding below to consolidate both our discussions. -Darouet (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems as though there is plenty of speculation that she is yet another victim of police violence and excessive force, and a rush to include her among police victims. But the autopsy report (as analyzed by CNN) stated she had no injuries outside of the single ligature mark around her neck that was consistent with suicide and inconsistent with strangulation in an attack, abrasions on her wrists consistent with being handcuffed, and healing/healed cuts/slashes on her wrists that predate her arrest. So how could she be a victim of violence and yet there be no evidence of this? People who are victims of violence have wounds or physical injuries that are apparent, especially in an autopsy.  —Мандичка YO 😜 22:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That autopsy also shows injuries around her arms and wrists related to her arrest, and Bland's family has said preliminary autopsy reports show deep tissue bruising on her back. Bland also stated that she feared her arm may have been broken during the arrest. So whether Bland hanged herself has no bearing on the issue of police brutality.
 * The family is furthermore awaiting the results of a second independent autopsy.
 * I think that if Bland's family and major newspapers concluded that Bland killed herself, we could do the same, even if she was indeed a victim of police brutality. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Injuries around her wrists were related to her being handcuffed, which is normal. I read two articles on her autopsy report and neither mentioned any injuries to her arms, only her wrists. She also had 30 cut marks on her wrists consistent with previous cutting/suicide attempts (doubtful anyone else was cutting her wrists). Media don't "conclude" cause of death in controversial cases as they don't participate in autopsies. Media report official cause of death as was stated by examiners, and in some cases, contact medical experts to see if they concur with the findings. Yes, they're awaiting a second autopsy result, but it won't take long. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again this it entirely inappropriate use of this page. This page is for how to most accurately represent what the reliable sources have reported about this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not "chatting" but clearly discussing content about this article concerning an ongoing event, in which media (RS) coverage is extensive and needs to be discussed. Everyone is being quite civil and our discussion is benefiting the article, so I don't quite see what your issue is. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

See Also section
What is the purpose of the see also section on Wikipedia? I don’t see why they are included. So yeah, what is its defined purpose and why do those links fall under it?


 * Generally speaking ... it offers similar-type reading (similar-type articles) for people interested in this particular article. See here at this link (WP:SEEALSO) for more details and more specifics.  Here is a hypothetical example.  We have an article for Barack Obama.  At the bottom of that article, there might be a "See also" section for (just as examples) articles on "List of judicial appointments made by Obama" or "Controversies within the Obama administration" or "Obama's foreign policy", etc.  Similar articles that are of interest to readers interested in the original article.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * These links don’t seem relevant in the way your Obama examples are. Plus aren’t there heavy implications being made by linking the two other cases? The BLM link makes sense but I think the other 2 are inappropriate.


 * (1) What are the heavy implications? (2) You should sign your posts.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to endorse the above, and point out this from the guideline: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."  I do so for the OP to contrast the different standards for "See also" and "External links".  "Indirect" and "tangential" indicate a low bar for inclusion here.    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So what youre saying is you know it’s a stretch and doesn’t really belong but “the bars low” so whatever?


 * They are – at a minimum – at least tangentially related. (Which is, essentially, the definition for a "See also" inclusion.)  So, what's the "stretch" exactly?  And why doesn't it "really belong"?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is another issue here, that needs pointing out, I will address it below. Yes, the bar is low, another example (I think clearer) than the one above  is George Washington:  There is a See also to Conotocaurious, so you can learn about a tangential issue in a foreign language, that has an article in English.  (Please, sign your posts with four tildes.)    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm replying to my own observation. There is a WP:NAVBOX navbar template at the bottom of the article, that is redundant to the "See also" links (currently 3 of them) at this moment in time.  However, the Navbox is currently undergoing a TfD, so I think it's better to leave this article's See also as it is (expand, don't delete) for now. (See Police brutality in the United States for an example of a lot of tangential articles in the See also.)    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is really not NPOV to have the deaths of Freddy Gray and Eric Garner in the "See also" as neither of these committed suicide, and police were charged with their homicides. Including them seems to hint that Bland was murdered. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We always have of think of what is in the interests of the reader. Yes, an argument can be made, and it seems valid, that we are challenging WP:NPOV by putting articles in the "See also" section that imply a paralleling between the topic of this article and the topic of other articles. That implication is real and must be given serious consideration. But the reader is primarily concerned with potential police misconduct and the reader is especially concerned with the possible confluence of police misconduct and racism. I think that these articles in the "See also" section don't have to truly parallel in subject matter this article in order to warrant presence, but the reader should be afforded the opportunity to continue their pursuit of related subject matter. If anything we should expand the "See also" section to include other directions of departure for further reading. Police safety seems an obvious choice. Legal matters would certainly warrant presence. The reader has questions and the "See also" section offers options for further reading within our project, just as an "External links" section does. While the implication of parallels can be seen, the reader has to be thought of as a thinking person, not likely to be lead to think what we would like them to think. They are a lot smarter than that. Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That might be a more persuasive argument if there were more entries in the "See also". Currently, there are only three.  Two related to police being charged with murders in non-suicide cases (as an editor above pointed out).  I'd feel more comfortable if those two were "couched" among others that have a variety of "spins" to them.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To that end, I just added another link (Pennsylvania v. Mimms). I also added an explanatory sentence alongside it.  Someone can feel free to clean that up a bit.  The wording is not perfect, and it's just off the top of my head.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are speaking of a "variety of spins". It is axiomatic that every other article is of a different spin. Sure, differences can be found and they are real, between this article and another article. Interpretation becomes a not unimportant factor here. I would say that we should not be tearing down this article when there is a connection between the general subject matter of this article and the 3 contested entries in the "See also" section now. Rather, if possible, the "See also" section should be expanded. Do we have articles on police safety? Do we have articles on related legal matters? There is a highly charged moment when an officer pulls over a vehicle for a traffic violation. Might not the reader want to peruse material related to traffic stops? Bus stop (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you see my last post? It states as follows. To that end, I just added another link (Pennsylvania v. Mimms).  I also added an explanatory sentence alongside it.  Someone can feel free to clean that up a bit.  The wording is not perfect, and it's just off the top of my head.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a link to Black Lives Matter, plus the Black Lives Matter template, that has all the links to these many cases. Deaths in custody is a better link. It's very NPOV to include links to murder cases due to subtle suggestion that this is in any way related to those. All RS, except for a family in denial and conspiracy theorists, point to suicide of a depressed person. Deaths in custody is the issue. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you are talking to me or to someone else? I certainly did not post those police/murder/death-of-Black-suspects links.  I simply posted the Supreme Court link  (Pennsylvania v. Mimms).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking to you but Bus Stop above who thought the "See also" links to Deaths of Freddy Gray/Eric Garner somehow serve the "interests of the reader." WP:SEEALSO states links shouldn't repeat links already in the article/nav box, which those links already are through the template at the bottom. Links must be clearly relevant and related; links to deaths of Gray/Garner aren't. Gray is more relevant as it is a death in custody, but it's still a bit of a leap to extend it to this situation. —Мандичка YO 😜 08:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio
Just a note about copyright violation and plagiarism: the text about the officer had been copied word-for-word from the source. Editors should try to summarize material in their own words. Many thanks, Sarah (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you post something like this on the appropriate user's talk page? That would be more likely to be seen by the person who needs to see it, and, at least in this article, this is certainly not a widespread problem that needs everyone's attention. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Autopsy report & inconcistencies
FYI, I put a link to the autopsy report in External links - issue is the article was claiming things not in report. I already removed the part where it said her ONLY injuries were the abrasions on her wrists (Postmortem details various scabs and contusions on her shoulder, back, etc.) and that the abrasions were consistent with being handcuffed - even if this is true about them being consistent, the autopsy report doesn't say it. Obviously it's a primary source but the autopsy report should be consulted for clarification if inconsistencies arise via reporting. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. It will help us consider secondary sources, in the context in which they need to be evaluated.    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I can has Cheezburger? (access dates)
I noticed in this diff that you pulled other editors attestations as to the dates they accessed WP:RS articles as refs, from the references. Editors such as myself, who fix dead links, because we think it is fun as volunteers, need this info to do our job. It is computer forensics. I will fix these in this article in 2020 after they die, but my job will be easier if an editor gives me a live date to work from.

Why are you making it harder for us to edit this information resource?

I admit I may have missed a policy change that deprecated the parameter. Can you please refer me to a policy or guideline under which you pulled this information from an information resource, namely, Wikipedia?

I recently revived a dead link here, it took well more than an entire 8 hour business day, but I accomplished the task (a single edit that consumed most of two business days, but it rocks). Why should you make more work for me here than is necessary? Have you not heard that with computer networks, this work of deletion is ultimately futile? Have you not gotten yet what age you live in? I live in it without fear.

Furthermore, you pulled information from the information resource, under the logged attestation "ce" which I take to to mean "copy edit". Pulling information from the information resource is never a "ce", by any definition of copy editing. I'd like an apology for misrepresenting the nature of your edit. You know better.

Look, it isn't a "ce" when you remove 495 bytes of data. You didn't change a comma to a semicolon. It's in the logs, ferchissakes.

Give up on the "ce" and tell us what you're really changing. Stop lying to us and pretending that you're "flighty". You are not. I'm calling you on this now. I've put up with this for almost ten years. You need to 'fess up or go.

I just spent six hours of my life repairing the damage to this article. Will you justify my time? Thanks. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Crap, I knew I'd forget this. Before posting this, I mentioned this, my intended post, here.    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hamburger.svg Dude, 2,000 words to say: Hey SV, why did you remove those accessdates? Apology, 'fessing up, and going aren't likely to happen, and "stop lying to us" violates WP:AGF. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are, without a doubt, correct. I did violate WP:AGF.  However, this has been going for over ten years, in SV's case (I've studied the diffs to pre-2004), and nearly ten in mine.  When, exactly, do you stop assuming, and actually know?  Do we stop assuming good faith in 20 years?  When we are dead?  Please, give me your standard.  We are creatures of 60 years survival.  How long do I to have to hide the criticism?  (Was that really 2,000 words, please don't impress me with myself.)    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The reasoning goes something like this: A user is either within the bounds of acceptable behavior, as established by the community in policy and guideline, or they are not. When they are not, our choices are to report them at WP:ANI, or to decide that it's easier to tolerate or avoid them than to report them. Harassing them on article talk pages (or anywhere else) is not an available option. It disrupts the collaboration process, and I've never seen it have any beneficial effect (aside from making the harasser feel better, at the community's expense). There are a few longtime editors who I feel are habitual disrupters and/or just bad editors, and I have successfully avoided them, or tolerated them for short periods. I don't see it as my job to fix them for Wikipedia's sake, even if they were fixable. (Disclaimer: These comments are in no way about anyone being discussed in this thread.) Does that help? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What was actually visible on dashcam
I just had my edit undone by Mandruss. I had changed the beginning sentences of the traffic stop section to remove the part about it showing he placed her on the ground and arrested her. It does not show that. Really doesn't matter if that is what is believed to have happened. It is not shown on the dashcam. Period. I'm not into edit wars and I've never had any revision undone that I'm aware of or immediately like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Sandra_Bland&type=revision&diff=673129247&oldid=673128785 2601:190:4001:1FA9:C4D5:EA18:B31:1210 (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * She is shown on the ground in the bystander video. Additionally, multiple RS sources say she was placed on the ground. We don't need to hedge the fact that she was placed on the ground because one video does not show that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this will address your concerns. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, the first revert is completely routine and not edit warring. It notifies the other editor that their edit is disputed, while returning the article to its status quo ante, where it should stay until consensus is reached for the change. Any subsequent reverts of the same content are edit warring. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff R. Glenn Smith
Reliable sources indicate the Sheriff in charge of jail where Bland died has a history of discriminatory behavior toward black people specifically . Considering this page is related to "black lives matter" etc I think this information should be added. Also, Waller County has been dinged by the feds as early as 2003 for requiring owned property as a prerequisite to voting. These cases were prosecuted against students or faculty from the college where Bland was heading to teach. Thoughts? Bjn5089 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015


 * Both would be covered by the open RfC,, above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been added with this diff. WWGB (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not have been added. It can go in the article about Waller County, but there is no consensus to include this background information in this article. I agree with Mandruss that this is covered by the RfC. Please do not add it back without consensus.  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be better to protect this page until the event is just a bit further in the past?
I ask this because I see the article looks to be averaging an edit every 5 minutes... if not more. That doesn't achieve the goal of a stable, encyclopedic entry. Would it be better to simply agree to wait until more facts are known? 108.205.228.188 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Pages only get protected when there is a high level of vandalism or edit warring. I will ask as it does have a lot of reverts. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article needs protection. It is being developed by multiple edits. Sometimes editors disagree. This is normal. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The content is very contentious however, with insinuations or statements that she was murdered (placing undue, premature blame on living people). That can be problematic. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be protected, not because it's necessarily changing too much, but because the edits being imposed are slanting it in a way where it makes the officer appear the only one that is escalating the situation, for instance, how the officer tried to ask over a dozen times for her to get out (I sourced that too and someone deleted it all) plus Bland's comment people have mentioned "Let's do this" which is part of the mutual discordance in the audio. It's really not an accurate sketch as it is as of now Moon822 (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources are saying the officer escalated the situation."The conversation quickly turns hostile when the officer asks Ms. Bland to put out her cigarette and she asks why she can’t smoke in her own car. The trooper then orders Ms. Bland to get out of the car. She refuses, and he tells her she is under arrest." Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We know that, but the media (and footage) also show that she does too. Not taking sides here, that is just how it went down. There seems to be a lot of biased voices on this page for some reason. You can defend citizen rights and still report the story accurately! "Bland is asked more than a dozen times to get out before Encina, by then visibly annoyed at her refusal, reaches into the car." Moon822 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your edit here and I agree it is a good edit. You made many other good edits refining that edit. The information you added was removed. I don't think the removal of your added information benefitted the article. The article does presently say that "she repeatedly refuses to exit". But I think your "Encinia tells her more than a dozen times" is more accurate. My opinion is that we should err on the side of including more information rather than less. My personal feelings are that the officer, more than the motorist, escalated the interaction. But I am only saying that in the interests of full disclosure. What matters here are what sources say. Concerning the interaction, the facts matter most. A detailed accounting of what transpired at the traffic stop is of greatest importance. I would tend to support your re-adding of detailed and well-sourced information. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen some of what Bus stop speaks of — including one very compelling opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune, criticizing Encinia very articulately for things like "Are you done?". The same writer says Bland should have played along and taken it to court if she felt she was treated unfairly or unprofessionally. Who escalated how much is central to the story, or at least the traffic stop part of it, and therefore should be addressed. I'm talking about discussing that directly, rather than just selectively quoting the two parties. Making that neutral is a tough writing challenge and I haven't felt up to it. That is, unless we would be satisfied with something lazy like, "Sources are divided as to who was more responsible for the escalation, Encinia or Bland." That would be little better than nothing, imo. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We should favor facts over characterization. We should also separate facts from characterization by paragraph. The first thing should be a detailing of facts. The following paragraph should contain varying characterizations of who bears the brunt of the blame for the spiraling out of control situation. Various characterizations can be attributed to specific sources to cover the spectrum of opinions. But concerning the preceding paragraph—detailing the sequence of events—we should be as detailed as sources allow. We should err on the side of providing too much detail. I see a potential problem in glossing over the facts, because doing so constitutes a form of characterization. A source saying "more than a dozen times" is more precise than a source saying "repeatedly". A crucial paragraph in this article is the paragraph detailing precisely what transpired at the traffic stop. Bus stop (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * we should be as detailed as sources allow — Are you talking about only secondaries? We're not going to include a word-for-word transcript of the dashcam video, and including every detail of the stop available in any secondary source would be too much as well. If a reader just wants to know who said what when, that is clearly heard on the video, which is prominently linked and only a click away, and will forever be so. We add nothing by putting that into writing, except for deaf readers, who can get what they need from printed sources or ask someone to listen for them. Our contribution is in (1) a good overview of the stop without a lot of detail, and (2) a comprehensive summary of the RS reaction to what was said and done. The detail should be at a minimum, not a maximum. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  22:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking that the initial details, if reliably sourced, could be included. He inquires about her seeming irritated. She explains, and then he says "Are you finished?" Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But most or all of the significant parts will have RS reaction and could be addressed in that context, and only in that context. Instead of stating that Encinia said, "Are you done?", we would discuss what sources think about Encinia saying, "Are you done?". In other words, I think it's fair to assume that the reader watched the video first; if they didn't, they'll quickly realize that they should. Here is the Trib piece; it's good reading. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to reach that article by that link? Include an excerpt from it; then I can search for it. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this it? Bus stop (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, ping me if it's been awhile since my last comment, or risk being missed. I'm generally in ten discussions at once and it's hard to keep track of them. No, it's an op-ed piece by Eric Zorn and titled, "Why, yes, Sandra Bland was 'irritated'". That link still works for me, and it's formatted the same as yours above, so I don't know why it wouldn't work for you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Charge of editing dashcam footage
I am loth to freely edit a current events page, but the released dashcam footage has some issues. For other potential editors I add these two data points.


 * 1) This site alleges tampering and uses the youtube version of the footage to make its case for tampering: http://bennorton.com/dashcam-video-of-violent-arrest-of-sandra-bland-was-edited/
 * 2) According to the Texas DPS press release, the youtube version in question is the actual released video: http://www.dps.texas.gov/director_staff/media_and_communications/2015/pr20150721.htm

I have no claim to expertise in this matter and have not formed an opinion on the charge of tampering. GeePawHill (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, those videos are clearly doctored. The article can't say that however unless reliable sources do. -Darouet (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. No clue whether that first link above constitutes a reliable source. On the other hand, it isn't original research to simply observer that the reliable source of the DPS released a video that has several repeated loops in it. I get that this stuff requires some subtle judgments, so that's why I didn't just go edit the page itself. GeePawHill (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here you go, from NBC News. -Darouet (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that the complete dashcam footage is readily available directly from the Texas Dpt. of Public Safety at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8GR3OO9mU, the article needs to be updated to properly describe the incident. The "action" really gets going at around the 8 minute mark. Anyone viewing the entire first 12 minutes or so of the video will have a very clear idea of what happened.


 * Dead link, but the video is still available on YouTube. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did expand the section but someone has decided, repeatedly, to remove the additional information and then charge me with not assuming good intentions. Hmmmm....


 * Well, unfortunately for a lot of folks, the dashcam footage shows Encinias forcing Bland out of her lane and then pulling her over for getting out of his way without signalling. She points this out to him in the video, and he ignores her, just like this article ignores the actual content of the video, which is pretty damning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added July 25, 2015

In my opinion, there is a big difference between: - a police officer adresses a car, and, after a brief exchange, asks for putting out the cigarette, and then asks to get out of the car or on the other hand - a police officer comes back after the control of the papers and then, after a brief exchange, orders to get out of the car in immediate reaction to the refusal of his demand to put out the cigarette that had been lit while waiting for his return (instead of answering the question why I should not smoke in my own car). Rondo33 (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC) @Mandruss: In my opinion, it is not "anti-COP" to elaborate this difference. Please contribute with your huge experience to find a consensus formulation - in order to elaborate this important difference.Rondo33 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

PVPD dashcam video
Edits 1, 2, and 3

Please do not edit war. If your edit is disputed, either give it up or discuss in talk; do not re-revert. Thank you. My edit summary speaks for itself. Other comments? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Fix ping. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mandruss, this video by the TPD covers much to the first dash cams out of view scenarios. It also supports the bystanders video. Bland was not taken to prison in the van, some viewer may belive. This is not an issue of supporting a view, it is located of the third place, to provide some missing information. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The video shows nothing of what happened when Bland was on the ground. How does it support the bystander's video, and what part of the bystander's video needs support? I didn't know anything about rumors she was transported in a van, but so what if she was? Is someone suggesting a Freddie Gray scenario and being taken seriously by any reliable source? Not that I'm aware of. Is it police brutality to make someone sit in the back of a van for transport to jail a few miles away? Adding a 17:26 video to counter such a rumor does not serve readers in my opinion, but I will of course defer to consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * They linked to that video: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sandra-bland-crying-not-eating-texas-jail-prisoner-article-1.2304097 -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this is what they said about it. "It shows Bland sitting in the back of a squad car. A female officer takes the handcuffed Bland from the vehicle, pats her down and then places her back in the car." That's all they said about it. Do you read anything in that that justifies linking to that video in the same box with two far more significant and informative videos? If you want to stick it in External links, I won't object although I can't say how others might feel about it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to be little other interest in this discussion, which presents a problem. The article was not returned to status quo ante when this discussion started, and I let it slide since my restoring status quo ante might have been seen as further edit warring. Now, the content remains in the article without consensus for it. At this point I'm going to remove it, pending consensus for it here. As I said, you can try adding the link to External links if you want, and I won't object. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I support to keep it, but not on the first place. Mandruss, I have seen You removed it aging. I also used this video for proof the location. -- Hans Haase (有问题吗) 08:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a long video to watch...for nothing... I see no reason to have it in the article except perhaps a link.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Policy violations at jail section
Re: this

Please explain how much of this is not inconsistent with your opposition to the RfC. Your words: we have no information linking any of them to her in any way related to her arrest or death - I'm confused. Where is the demonstrated linkage between that content and her arrest or death? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Her death resulted in an internal investigation → 2. The investigation revealed policy violations at the jail → 3. People will be disciplined over these policy violations. Does that make sense? I don't know how to else to explain this. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I guess, sorta. A linkage in the opposite direction, with her death as the cause rather than the effect. I'll think on it. In any case, the 2012 bit obviously didn't result from her death. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As the NYT stated, the previous death in 2012 seems to represent a pattern. This is not the first time an inmate hung themselves using something in their cell. They already underwent an investigation that found operating violations, yet still nothing changed - they're still violating the rules. The were required to undergo mental health training (two hours seems woefully inadequate, but that's my opinion) and they never did it. The red flags are all there that she could have been suicidal with her previous suicide attempt and the cuttings on her arm. The autopsy stated she had 25 or 30 still healing cuts on the volar surface of her forearm - how did nobody notice this?? If you handcuff someone with arms behind their back, this side of the forearms are exposed. The investigation concluded that they should have put Bland on suicide watch; this is a huge failure on the county jail's part. Thus the discipline people will receive, including people getting fired.  —Мандичка YO 😜 00:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that without question she should have been on a suicide watch - all the signs of risk were quite evident: She admitted to a past attempt. She had physical marks on her arm that may have represented an attempt.  She was placed in solitary confinement and it seems that her phone, her only connection to any form of emotional security, was not working properly. And a woman in an adjoining cell said she was not eating, distraught, and often crying.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: History of Waller County
There is disagreement on whether or not a section about Waller County's history and racial tensions should be included in this article. Please see this diff to see the content under discussion. Should this background information about Waller County be included in the article about the death of Sandra Bland? 03:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Votes


 * ❌ - I feel it is POV-pushing and speculative. It has been mentioned that this information is being reported by reliable sources. My feeling is that media often speculates, Wikipedia should not. While Sandra is no longer living, there are individuals mentioned in the disputed section who are living, and it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies to bring them into this article, as at this point, we have no information linking any of them to her in any way related to her arrest or death.  —Мандичка YO 😜 03:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for launching this well-written RfC. I strongly disagree that the media coverage or the text you removed is "speculative." It turns out that Waller County has a long history of violence against blacks, and the Sheriff in whose prison Bland died had been suspended, then fired as chief police deputy for policy brutality and racism. That same Sheriff is now overseeing a probe into her death in his own custody. These are facts that have been reported all over the news, and removing them is arbitrary and can only be justified by the political contention that they are irrelevant. If major newspapers report them, we should too. -Darouet (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether or not it is relevant to the article about her death. We have no RS that suggest the sheriff interacted with her at all. Pretty much every county in the U.S. has a record of racism since all of the U.S. has a record of racism; it doesn't mean there is a racial angle to every story. So to mention the sheriff is to hint that he is somehow involved or at fault in Sandra's death. We just don't have that information, nor has any reliable source specifically said he is to blame in any way (or created an atmosphere that led to her death, etc). The article should concentrate on the information as it relates to her arrest and death - the background of the arresting officer or prison guards on watch would be fair game to be included, if any of that were to be reported in RS, because of their direct relation to her. Media LOVE to speculate on these types of things, but Wikipedia holds itself to a higher standard. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this as very similar to an RfC I ran, in a different article, about whether the races of the two participants, white and black, should be included in the article's lead. RS almost invariably mentioned the races in their coverage, but they never even attempted to actually make a case that race was a contributing factor in the subject incident. The white officer had no history of racism. Any evidence of a connection was completely circumstantial, and a lot of it had to do with a history of police racial issues in that community. On that basis, I felt the races, while being mentioned in the participants' mini-bio sections, should have been omitted from the lead. I lost that RfC by a substantial margin. The lesson I took from that: RS (especially mainstream) is king, and we don't second-guess it on such questions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - This aspect of the story has been covered in part or in detail by The Atlantic, the International Business Times, The Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and The Independent, among other papers . This context is part of what has made this case so noteworthy. Readers come to an encyclopedia for more than a news summary. Excluding any aspect of much-reported context would determine the WP:SCOPE of this article not by WP:WEIGHT of coverage in major newspapers, but by the WP:POV that despite their coverage, the context is irrelevant. -Darouet (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Unable to !vote on the question as stated. Google Search for "waller county racism bland" does show more RS coverage of the issue than the one source used in that content, and from non-fringe sources. It is not speculation, then, that RS sees this as significant, and, per WP:DUE, it is not POV-pushing to try to add related content (to the contrary, it could be reasonably characterized as POV-pushing to try to keep such content out). So I can't !vote No. That said, I am not saying this particular content is the best we can do — it probably is not — so I can't !vote Yes either. We should agree that some related content is needed, and then we can haggle over the details. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . If you wanted to propose some amount of text in a new section, with material from The Atlantic and The Guardian or elsewhere linked in, I think that'd be interesting. I never felt the content was quite right as written, so seeing someone else take a stab at it would be great! -Darouet (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Mixed - I placed the undue tag because the dedicated section changes the subject from someones death to local racial issues, which I found jarring and non-neutral. The first and third paragraphs were especially off-topic. I think the second paragraph content can be woven into other sections which will result in a more neutral presentation.- MrX 11:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Integrate some of the text into other sections in the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Credit to all for having this discussion early. I agree with the view that this may be coatracking (if unintentionally so).  As an encyclopedic entry I think it's best to not include speculative associations.  Unless it can be shown that the county's historical racial tensions directly contributed to the death, and from what I understand that answer is currently no, then it shouldn't be in the article even if some RSs have chosen to offer the association.  Springee (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ - But if the racist history of Waller County, as cited (the Atlantic, etc.), can be directly linked to Sandra Bland's death, I'd quickly change my vote. I'd still vote for leaving out the student voting thing though as it has an unrelated history in the US. Joel S Bateman (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , those articles are not about Waller County, they are about Sandra Bland. Bland was arrested by the Waller County Sheriff's office, and died in their custody. The current Waller County sheriff was suspended and then fired as police chief, previously, for allegations of racist brutality. -Darouet (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , the section you wrote, the reason we are now voting, was only about Waller County, the citations in this section about Waller County were about Waller County to site facts about Waller County in a seeming attempt to make a causal link between the history of Waller County and the death of Sandra Bland. If it is proven that the history and consciousness of Waller County (rather than the sheriff, police, Ms. Bland herself, or someone else) caused, or at least created the context for, the death of Sandra Bland, like I wrote, I'll change my vote. However, your comment on my vote is even more off topic (the history of Waller County) than the original section we are voting on. Joel S Bateman (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * do not include in that format, particularly based solely on a single source making such analysis -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - A single source makes the claim, meanwhile there are open investigations into the matter that will be reported upon once findings are made. We should address that when the results are made public.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - There's no evidence to suggest it was linked to the incident in any way. It might belong in an article about the county, but not about her death. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ I agree with Joel S Bateman. I think if someone can find a direct, reliable link between racism in Waller County and the death of Sandra Bland it is worth noting in the article. This early into the investigation it seems too speculative and unreliable. Let the facts unfold before we publish it in ink. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 17:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ The history of the area is irrelevant, and would detract from the facts of the case as presented in the article. What happened was that a minor traffic violation led to someone's death, and that's something that can happen anywhere. "Racism in Waller County" is not the context of the article; the context of the article is deaths in police custody. Roches (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ The only thing that makes most of these facts race-related are the way they are presented. They could just as easily be presented without a consideration of race.  Not only does it cause the article to lean POV, the information here seems to me to be POV on its own merit, without considerations of the proper scope of the article. 161.165.196.103 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Institutional dysfunction in Waller County is ancillary to the death of Sara Bland for the following reasons. First, the prosecutor reviewing this case has a documented history of public misconduct including threatening a local pastor who spoke of bias against African Americans. Secondly, the sheriff in charge of the investigation into Bland's death at the jail was fired for discrimination  practices in hs previous law enforcement position. This article is about the death of Sandra Bland, and understanding that requires a certain trust regarding the institutions that control and decimate information about the death. Bjn5089 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ If sources draw an explicit connection between the death and the county's racist history then we can report that. I do not think though that the source does that.  Just talking about the county's history gives the reader an impression that it was the cause of the death which projects a POV into the article.  TFD (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - As the information, while possibly useful for an article about racism in Waller County, is not related to her death, at least not that any of us know about, it is speculative and strictly adds WP:Undue to the conversation.  Her arrest may have been motivated by some nefarious reason, but her death appears to be a circumstance of her own personal struggle with mental health issues.  I feel that at this point, the information is not warranted.  Wikipedia is not an investigative journal, it sources known facts.  If and when more facts come out, we can revisit this conversation Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Judae1—you say "it is speculative". No, it is not "speculative". We would be using sourced material. You express concern with neutral point of view. We would be providing material on the topic. We would not be endorsing in Wikipedia's voice that Waller County is racist or is not racist. There are two sides to that story, factors that would suggest one characterization of Waller County and factors that would suggest a different characterization. You say racism may not be "related to her death". This article is about two subjects—a death and a traffic stop. Is the traffic stop unimportant? Good quality sources question the interaction between the white officer and the black motorist. Many good quality sources raise a question pertaining to the possible presence of racism. Racism does not have to be overt and an incident does not have to be proven to be racially motivated for a suspicion of racism to linger over it. I think reliable sources allude to the possibility of racism when they evaluate the uncanny escalation of hostilities between officer and motorist. In my opinion the reader would be interested in knowing a little bit about the recent history of Waller County vis-a-vis black-white relations. In the final analysis we should not be saying Waller County is or is not racist. We should give the reader the most prominent facts from varying perspectives. This is information that I think a curious reader would like addressed to some degree. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bus stop - I would not be opposed to adding something of the back story to the Traffic stop portion of the discussion, but not a section unto itself. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ I concur with   —Мандичка .  Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that some of you may want to re-evaluate your !votes based on new and emerging coverage, like this article that was just published today. The NY times, at least, is explicitly linking the town's history of racism to Bland's death (and discussing it in detail). Fyddlestix (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, that's an ✅ for me, although I would be sure to write the section with newer sources like the one I just linked (which discuss both the town's history of racism and bland's death). Fyddlestix (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ per Fyddlestix. This has evolved from a question about some specific content to a referendum on inclusion of Waller County racism background in general. That being the case, and given the widespread MSM coverage including the NYT piece mentioned above, this !vote is dictated by WP:DUE. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT article did not explicitly link the town's history of racism to her death. The article is looking at the history of racism in this area and discussing it, but in no way are they stating her death was explicitly related. This is more media speculation that we leave out of WP for a reason. For example, they note:
 * "But at a time when deaths of African-Americans after confrontations with law enforcement already have the nation on tenterhooks, the county’s legacy of racial disparities has only catalyzed suspicions about almost everything that happened to Ms. Bland, a 28-year-old aspiring researcher who had proclaimed solidarity with the movement against racial bias in law enforcement. Here and across the country, her last days — from the moment the trooper pulled her over on July 10 for failing to signal a lane change to her death by hanging in the jail, ruled a suicide — are being exhaustively parsed for evidence of bias ." ← it's being analyzed and searched for bias. It's not saying any bias has been found or is likely. Was she treated any differently than a white person would be is the question they asking....
 * "He acknowledges the jail’s failures to protect Ms. Bland by not placing her on a suicide watch, not checking on her in person and leaving her with a plastic trash bag that became the makeshift noose from which she was found hanging. Those appear to reflect a more general pattern; state inspectors also cited failings in 2012 when a white inmate hanged himself with a bedsheet." This is a direct situation that should be used in the article; this is where the officials have admitted the failings are and as pointed out by the NYT, appears to be the same pattern of neglect, in which failure to follow their own rules allowed someone to commit suicide while in custody. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please show the policy that says sources have to show a connection to be included, I may be unaware of that. Written correctly, our content does not have to state or imply any more connection than our sources do. But, as I read it, WP:DUE says we say something. Yours is the same argument I described above about races in the lead, which, as I said, failed decisively with an independent and experienced closer. It would be both astonishing and unacceptable to get direcly opposed answers from two very similar RfCs. This stuff is fundamental. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about in terms of "connection" - Fyddle claimed the NYT piece "is explicitly linking the town's history of racism to Bland's death" and I said it did no such thing.  —Мандичка YO 😜 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read their comments closely enough. "per Fyddlestix" was misplaced and I have stricken it. But that does not change my position or argument. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  11:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Guess I chose my words poorly there. By "explicitly link" I did not mean to suggest that NY times says the area's history of racism caused Bland's death or anything - simply that reliable sources like the NYtimes have treated that history as relevant to Bland's death (and the controversy that it caused). Given the coverage in RS, I don't see how wikipedia's article on Bland's death can avoid discussing and addressing that broader context & history. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Include background information such as the information in the NYT article. I base my decision on other similar articles.  See for instance the Treyvon Martin article where a great deal of historical information is included, though there are many others.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Trayvon Martin article is a biography of him, so that's not really "background" information but sourced information on details of his life - are you suggesting we do a biography of Sandra Bland? —Мандичка YO 😜 14:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please avoid snarky comebacks which can be irritating when I'm sure we are all doing our best to come to a good decision. I assumed that readers would take a look at the article. See Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Gandydancer (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Include. There is a history of racism in Waller County's recent past according to this article. We also read that "Some African-American elected officials also insist that the vestiges of racism are being addressed." This is not a simple question. But we should take some steps to address it. I think it is a not unreasonable assumption that some readers would be curious about possible recent indications of racism in Waller County. They would also want to know of opinions expressed in good quality sources that racism is insignificant or nonexistent. All opinions expressed should be attributed to sources, such as "elected officials", in the example above. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Gandydancer, Bus stop, and Fyddlestix, this is an important part of the Sandra Bland story at this point, at least so far as reliable sources are concerned, and I think many who voted "no" expressed interest in inclusion in some context other than my initial proposal. Would any of you consider drafting some small section of proposed text that we could work on and discuss? Then, we could ask previous RfC responders for comment on the text proposal. -Darouet (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I second Mandruss' comments above. Some content needs to be added. How this is written needs to be judged separately. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Driving record
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Relatives-question-death-of-woman-found-hanging-6388529.php

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/07/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-sandra-bland-case/

- 184.12.249.147 (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes she had multiple run-ins with police and previous arrests. I don't know that it's directly relevant to her death. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be pertinent as background information, and it might actually be relevant to her being taken into custody (which is a part of this article); people with a history of trouble with the law tend to be more likely to be poorly disposed towards law enforcement officers. That said, unless a RS ties a direct link between the two, it would be original research. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless there's a RS that makes a connection, it's OR. It's somewhat interesting for speculation purposes but UNDUE in the same way that the history of Waller County is UNDUE for this article.  —Мандичка YO 😜 06:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:OR. Whether to include it or not is a matter of editorial judgement. I don't think that it is clear that it is irrelevant. Also, the history of Waller County vis-a-vis racism is not irrelevant. Racism does not occur in a vacuum. Even if Waller County has a good recent record vis-a-vis racism, that too is arguably relevant to this article. Everything is not a matter of bias one way or the other. We also have to think about supplying the reader with information. Every argument for the omission of information should be regarded skeptically. The reader is a lot smarter than we give them credit for being. I read above that "Just talking about the county's history gives the reader an impression that it was the cause of the death which projects a POV into the article." I oppose that sort of reasoning. A good article shines a light into every nook and cranny. A smart reader will recognize thoroughness as a virtue in article-writing and will not be swayed by merely the presence of some subject matter. An important point is that any racism that can be found will not be overt. Blatant racism is a thing of the past. I think a thorough article can include a history of recent racism in Waller County and can include past legal infractions concerning the motorist. In my opinion the reader wants impeccably sourced facts. That is what is of paramount importance. These are topics that are not clearly irrelevant to this article, and omission cuts down on the usability of the article. It should be a resource. The reader should not have to look elsewhere just in case they are interested in the recent history of racism in the county or the motorist's past legal record, therefore I argue for the inclusion of good quality material related to these facets of this story. Another point: this article is not just about the death, but also the traffic stop. In a sense, these are unrelated. But in another sense, of course, one leads to the other. Bus stop (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bus stop put it very well and I agree with him/her. Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK can you guys come up with the text you want to add about her past driving record, so we can discuss it and make sure we have a good consensus to add it, in case someone reverts it? I haven't really read any RS that discussed it - I've only seen it in news comments from trolls that were bashing her, so you can probably see why I was hesitant. So if you can get some solid sources on it that would be good - the Houston Chronicle article only mentions three incidents I think. PS "Supplying the reader with information" is not the goal of WP. That argument can be used to include anything and everything in an article. WP is not Buzzfeed (see Articles for deletion/List of Eminem feuds ← an argument for keeping this is "we're just supplying the reader with information.") Information must be relevant and pertain to the subject of the article and not violate BLP.   —Мандичка YO 😜 01:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Supplying the reader with information" is not the goal of WP. Couldn't agree more, and closely related is, "Lots of readers would be interested in x". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should simply mention that her driving record was not spotless and that she was previously ticked for speeding. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's not added in some form editors will constantly add it with a note about how biased the article is. What about the shoplifting charge?  I see no reason to include that.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the details should be left out. We should briefly allude to an imperfect driving record. The most immediate encounter with the law was relatively minor according to the best sources. But brief references to a not-quite-unblemished driving record for the motorist and a slightly tarnished recent history regarding racial relations in Waller County should be mentioned. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The history of racial relations in Waller County is covered by the RfC above. Her driving record/past arrests are what is being discussed here. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You said above that "It's somewhat interesting for speculation purposes but UNDUE in the same way that the history of Waller County is UNDUE for this article." I am arguing the opposite. I don't think these things should be gone into in great depth. But I think they can be mentioned briefly. Of the two I think the mention of racism in the county is of greater importance. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Brian Encinia ethnicity
The source listed indicates that Brian Encinia is (voter) registered as Hispanic, not "White Hispanic".

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Sandra_Bland&oldid=673574439 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Sandra_Bland&oldid=673345479 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.16.119 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, reliable sources are very confused about that. Some say white, some Hispanic, and some White Hispanic. I'd be inclined to show him as "non-black". That's what all sources agree on, it's all anybody cares about, and it's all that's necessary to make this story fit with the popular narrative. But I don't think that would fly, so we're left with choosing one of the other three, and voter registration (Hispanic) is probably the best we have at this point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC
 * I don't see many sources saying Hispanic. But in any case, Hispanic is not a race. More recent sources and the U.S. census generally classify Hispanics a white / caucasian considering Hispanics are not a race. Kiwifist (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be, but the content does not say that his race is Hispanic, that's something you read into it. It says he is a Hispanic man. You're overthinking. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Best to leave race out of it altogether then, considering Bland's race isn't mentioned in that section either. Kiwifist (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't make changes while this is under discussion (the clear status quo ante was Hispanic), but I'm letting it slide this time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Help me understand your position, Kiwi. First you tell us that "Hispanic" is not a race, then you remove that word saying "It's best to leave his race out."  If Hispanic is truly not a race, it follows that we didn't include his race in the first place.  In any event, we need not say in Wikipedia's voice that Encinia is Hispanic, only that he is listed in public records as such.  In the context of a racially-charged incident where such nuances can make such a huge difference, I am not comfortable with the omission.  Eclipsoid (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute in this section is clearly over whether or not Hispanic can be classified as white or not. Obviously, some disagree that he is white. Like Mandruss said about the sources "some say white, some Hispanic, and some White Hispanic". I agree that the incident and protests are racially charged, in which case Sandra Bland's race should be mentioned too.
 * I think what's really relevant is that he was a police. For example, the majority of the officers involved in Freddie Gray's were black. Kiwifist (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such dispute. We have a reliable secondary source that references a primary source without interpretation: "... listed as Hispanic on Texas voter registration records..."  There is no controversy.  There is no need to consider whether Hispanic is a race, our source has mitigated that issue for us quite diligently.  Eclipsoid (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the source also verifies that he is white. Therefore, white Hispanic could also fit. I don't see why that can't be included then. Kiwifist (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The source (Guardian) doesn't even contain the word "white". Eclipsoid (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The two sources I mentioned above does. Don't see why it can't be added. Kiwifist (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but those two sources are the same source. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, one reason not to add it might be that it conflicts with better information (the voter records). Eclipsoid (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking. When reliable sources disagree, we look for an authoritative tie-breaker, even a little one. We have no idea where or how the others got their information, it could easily have been just copied from another source that got it wrong. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well technically, white Hispanic does not contradict each other. But in any case, I'm fine with the current wording now. Kiwifist (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, going with Guardian's approach comports with WP:MOSIDENTITY, in that we are honoring the person's self-identification. Eclipsoid (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank God he wasn't born Brianna. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We should write that Encinia is variously reported as Hispanic and white. We should put a citation after the word "Hispanic" and a citation after the word "white", each citation supportive of that particular assertion. Bus stop (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Toxicology
Re: this edit

From the two sources currently cited, the following summarizes the opinions given:


 * Goldberger, toxicology professor, president of the American Board of Forensic Toxicology: "I don’t think it’s possible to rule out the possibility of use while in jail." Bland had a "remarkably high concentration" of THC for someone who had been in jail for three days. While chronic users who stop using the drug will have higher concentrations than non-chronic users, "the concentrations do not persist at this level, at least in my opinion."
 * Johnson, Tarrant County chief toxicologist: Bland "either had access to the drug in jail or she was a consistent user of the drug and her body had accumulated THC to the point that it was slowly releasing it over time." But, "I have never seen a report in the literature or from any other source of residual THC that high three days after someone stops using the drug."
 * Diepraam, assistant DA, non-expert: Wouldn't rule out the drug being smuggled into the jail. A more likely scenario is that Bland ingested a very large amount of marijuana prior to her arrest. [Note, this reads as not the same as frequent prior use of marijuana. Ingest generally means swallow, and "a very large amount" implies "at one time", so the suggestion is gorging on brownies or something]

Unless I've missed someone, we have two experts and one non-expert. I propose we disregard the non-expert, and suggest that the language was better before the above edit. Instead of "experts disagreed", we might say, "experts were undecided". Both experts are waffling and hedging. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Diepraam is just extrapolating; experts are better RS and are discussing specifics of the actual toxicology results based on their experience. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I guess that brilliant minds think alike...:P I had not noticed this before I made a change just now or I would have commented first.  Is it OK now?  Gandydancer (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're asking. I'm proposing a revert of your edit linked above, with the possible change of "experts disagreed" to "experts were undecided". In my opinion, it's not OK now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we don't want to include Diepraam... he seems to be suggesting that she ate all her weed right before the arrest (ie, she was extremely high during the arrest). I think we should just have the two experts' commenting. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Mandruss because the "experts" were not undecided. They both found it very unlikely that Bland would have such a high blood level unless she had recently ingested mj.  As for including the local officer, Diepraam, it's generally a good idea to include an opposite point of view if it is available.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not when the subject is extremely technical and the speaker is not an expert. This man, in particular, has demonstrated a tendency to offer public opinions about things outside his area of knowledge. And neither expert says anything as strong as "very unlikely", read again. For example, Johnson says, "I have never seen a report ...", deliberately leaving open the possibility that such a report exists that he has not seen. These guys are experts at speaking carefully and precisely, and we should read their words just as carefully and precisely. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (I had an edit conflict at this point...)I don't agree with you on either count. They both find it highly unlikely. From the NYT: The most likely explanation for this high concentration of T.H.C. in her blood is the use of cannabis within hours of her death,” Dr. Goldberger suggested. A “highly unlikely” possibility would be that Ms. Bland consumed a T.H.C.-infused edible before her arrest that persisted in her gastrointestinal tract for days, “providing a continual source of T.H.C.,” he said.  As for Johnson, he is a toxicologist and has seen (I assume) thousands of reports and for him to say "I have never seen" is as much as saying "highly unlikely".  As for Diepraam, in my experience while I may find the person that holds an opinion opposite to mine to be incompetent, that is not our decision to make for this article.  If the news articles we are presenting have his opinion, we use it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't read that NYT source, and all of this discussion is based on the sources that were cited. while I may find the person that holds an opinion opposite to mine to be incompetent. Please be advised that (1) that in no way reflects what I and Wikimandia have said about Diepraam, and (2) I don't hold an opinion on this, because I'm well aware that I know nothing about the subject area; so how could Diepraam hold an opposite opinion? I also have little point of view about anything regarding this article, and what I have I successfully check at the door when I come here. Just wanted to clear that up for you. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - I think that I did not phrase that very well. I don't mean to say that either of you are biased or have not left your POV at the door.  Quite the opposite, in fact. Gandydancer (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * K, thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In NYT Goldberger says it's highly unlikely she ate gobs of pot shortly before her arrest. And the article said nothing about that theory until your edit. Goldberger is not saying anything there about the chronic-use theory, which both he and Johnson mentioned in the other source. So I don't think the NYT piece changes anything as far as I can see. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should use the words "decided" or "disagreed/agreed" for experts - I think it would be better to simply express their opinion; ie Bland had an unusually high THC etc; expert A commented this and expert B commented that. And nothing from the Diepraam as he's not referring to any clinical  knowledge and is not able to offer an expert opinion. He's adding his personal theory.   —Мандичка YO 😜 14:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Seems like too much detail, not to mention very hard to write. I still like the "before" language in the above diff. But care to propose something specific, something you feel could be dropped into the article unchanged? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I like Wikimandia's solution. As for Diepraam, I'll continue to argue on that one... :)  Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, my suggestion would be:

"An initial toxicology report released by the Harris County medical examiner's office found 'a remarkably high concentration' of THC for someone who had been in jail for three days. Robert Johnson, a toxicologist for the Tarrant County medical examiner's office, said that Bland 'either had access to the drug in jail or she was a consistent user of the drug and her body had accumulated THC to the point that it was slowly releasing it over time.' Professor Bruce Goldberger, president of the American Board of Forensic Toxicology, said, 'I don't think it’s possible to rule out the possibility of use while in jail.' While chronic users who stop using the drug will have higher concentrations than non-chronic users, 'the concentrations do not persist at this level, at least in my opinion,' Goldberger said." I think this provides the info without too unnecessary speculation. —Мандичка YO 😜 15:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a little more dependence on quotations than I'm used to (that's what I meant when I said it would be very hard to write), but I could live with it. We could drop "Professor", as the other credential is more impressive. I'd like to hear from first, if you can hold off a little longer, since s/he and I crafted the original language and both thought we had it nailed. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  16:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No prob. I'd rather work together so we get it right. I think it's a good idea to let these quotes speak for themselves without wiki interpretation that may give undue emphasis (eg saying words like "Goldberg agreed" etc). —Мандичка YO 😜 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will endorse the text as presented here. We actually have to drop 'Professor', per WP:CREDENTIAL. Eclipsoid (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Intake videos
Re: this edit, which cited this source and these YouTube videos.

As far as I can see, the only informational value in these videos is to dispel rumors that she was dead before she got to the jail. No reliable sources are giving that any credence, and I don't see it as part of our function to debunk the PWICs (Paranoids With Internet Connections). We keep the conspiracy theory out of the article, but we don't go out of our way to counter it. I could maybe see the videos linked in "External links".

Interested in other opinions. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. I don't see that mention of the video serves any real purpose, nor does there seem to be anybody sane or reputable raising questions about which day that Bland died. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the videos are fairly remarkable and should not be omitted. The reader should be apprised of their existence. Perhaps links to them could be gathered together in the "External links" section as suggested by Mandruss. Bus stop (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey ... you're the "a lot of readers would be interested" guy. I thought we settled that over at Walter Scott. But, for the sake of discussion, what's fairly remarkable about them? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see I've gained a reputation for wanting to include material simply because it may be of interest to a reader. Yes, I think writing is an art. I always try to abide by policy, but I have a strong belief in WP:IAR. Seen in these videos are the interior of the jail that is so much a part of this story. The reader is afforded a glimpse of this. It is of human interest. In such a circumstance my inclination is to turn the question around: Why should these videos be omitted? I don't know how to be more specific but there is body language that even in the silent footage of these videos provides the reader with some sort of "information". I would be perfectly amenable to leaving the links to these videos out of our article if a good argument could be made for that point of view. The only such argument I can think of is that it may be insensitive to the family of Sandra Bland. If anyone wants to make that argument I would patiently listen to it. Bus stop (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In hindsight I should have omitted the previous, since you're amenable to placement in External links, as am I. And I'll resist the temptation to go all meta about Wikipedia editing (wouldn't object to doing that in user talk). Let's leave it there and await a few more comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm amenable to elaborating on that which calls for no further elaboration. Bus stop (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't show anything related to her death, but I think they can be mentioned in the chronology. The fact that the police/judge held another press conference in which they said various things and showed the video to dispel absurd rumors/conspiracy theories etc (whatever the RS). —Мандичка YO 😜 13:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the videos included. They can be a link or in the text IMO.  It seemed to me that she was crying most of the time, not someone so dangerous that she needed to be put in isolation.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if the videos are included, I don't think they really show much or give any clue as to her state of mind. But it will maybe stop some conspiracy theorist from believing she was dead before she got there, so might as well include them. The ones I saw were her in front of the judge, and the coming out to use the phone, and she looked normal in both. And then one where she was sitting and she looked upset/crying, but not unusual for her situation (normal as in, "this sucks"). Her bond was only $500 so I think (and yes I know this is not a forum but I just feel like saying it!) that she grew more and more despondent that nobody had paid her bail. She kept calling people and I think she must have been crushed. I know I would be. The other inmate described her as being completely distraught, which was days after any video.  —Мандичка YO 😜 16:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on the comments, I think this should satisfy most or all. The video titled "Intake" says it includes the mug shot, but I don't see it and she's still in her own clothes anyway. I haven't watched every second of the videos, but I've skimmed most of it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Found the mug shot at the beginning of "Inprocessing". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced statement in lede
"Bland was 28 years old when she died, and had been a critic of police brutality in the United States."

I don't see anything in the article about her advocacy. The last half of this sentence should be removed. Incidentally, what is the test for determining if someone is an advocate/critic? Does posting to your facebook page (if that is indeed the source) really count? 131.137.245.206 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This source, from the article, states "She had a voice and following on social media for speaking out about racial injustice and police brutality" so it is clear she was a critic. Perhaps the body of the article needs to better reflect this. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit skewed to have this in the lede - was she just doing stuff online? (voicing outrage on Twitter, etc) I thought she was an active leader in this campaign, like organizing stuff, leading in-person activities etc. If she was just commenting on social media, I don't believe that belongs in the lede as particularly relevant. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it should not be in the lead. There is nothing to make us think the police officer was aware of her relatively minor activist roles via social media. I would remove the second half of the sentence. Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it shouldn't be in the lead at this point, at least not as presented by AP News which is not exactly a neutral voice in the controversy. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made this edit, though discussion can of course proceed and of course a different solution to the question raised remains a possibility. Bus stop (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 👍 &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Results of second autopsy
What are the results of the second autopsy? The article says that they have not been released. Are they available and the family has decided to not release them? Or are they just not yet ready? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry JAS, I haven't seen anything and haven't been following as closely recently. I don't know if it's not done yet, or if it is and the family is considering legal consequences, etc. -Darouet (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It would seem to me that it should be "done" by now, no?  (Seeing as how the first one is completed.)  And I was wondering if the results are simply not being released because the results don't say what some people wanted them to "prove"?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)