Talk:Erica Garner

Death of Eric Garner
We have Death of Eric Garner. This article appears to be a fork of that. It was created on the day of her death and appears to be a memorial page. What else is she known for besides the death of her father and the notable aftermath of that event covered in the Death of Eric Garner? --DHeyward (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

She supported her love for family and Justice for equality. GaryJr40 (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Death of Eric Garner
This article needs to be merged with that of Death of Eric Garner. With all due respect and condolences to her loved ones after her tragic and untimely death, her article is completely derivative of that of her father. Quis separabit? 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It does not need to be. She and her life are not "completely derivative of ... her father". She had an independent existence and achieved notability on her own merits. And we have sufficient space for this article. There's no good reason to merge. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What other notability has she achieved outside speaking out about her fathers death? Certainly there is nothing notable prior to his death. Her death, of heart disease and asthma, is even related to her father.--DHeyward (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * She has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nikkimaria -- I respectfully disagree. Quis separabit?  19:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * She is known for her activism, which was sparked by her father's death, yes, but that work exists and has been reported on independently of his death. Should not be merged. MurielMary (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for merge in this case. She is notable on her own.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * She is never mentioned outside the incident involving her father. How is that notability beyond the event?  She didn't have her own article until she died which also highlighted the similarities to her father wrt heart disease and asthma.  Her father doesn't even have an article per BLP1E.  A lot of people are activists but her coverage as an activist only relates to the BLP1E Death of Eric Garner  --DHeyward (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This just betrays an ignorance of her work: it's a kneejerk reaction to reading that she was an activist with the father she had. She was an outspoken civil rights activist on a range of issues very well-covered in reliable sources. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They kneejerk reaction was the creation of the article after her fatal heart attack. Nothing she had done prior to dying spurred an article to cover any "notable" activity.  There are many activists that were created and motivated by the death of Eric Garner.  She is one of thousands covered in our articles about the Death of Eric Garner.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no need for such action; it would just push content around to no purpose. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have seen several reliable sources refer to Erica Garner primarily as an activist. That her father's death was a catalyst for her activism does not negate three years of work. Knope7 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge No significant difference between thousands of other protesters/activists of Eric Garner's death. Creation on the day of her death appears to violate WP:NOTAMEMORIAL rather than a reflection of independent notability that didn't exist prior.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The date of creation is irrelevant to her notability. There are many notable people who don't have articles and then, on their death, their published obituaries provide sufficient reliable sources for an article to be created. MurielMary (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article was created before the announcement of her death. This was in response to the massive news coverage of her illness.  It was also easy to find a substantial source for the article which pre-dated both the illness and death.  That's fundamental notability per WP:BASIC.  Moreover, in this case, it would be especially imprudent to suggest that the subject's life did not matter. Andrew D. (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose per Tagish, Andrew, and Knope's reasons above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - Per WP:GNG I see no reason for merging this artocle.BabbaQ (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose she is independently notable and passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. She's an indisputably notable civil rights activist going far beyond issues relating to her father. Passes WP:GNG by a million miles. I think the instant merge nomination at someone reading about who her father was, in ignorance of who she was, is pretty disgusting.The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "instant" merge nomination came after the "instant" article creation memorializing her death. It wasn't nominated sooner because it didn't exist sooner.  The real question is why was it created to memorialize her death rather than an ongoing addition to her "notable" contribution.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge - This isn't going to be merged simply because of the WP:RECENTISM curse editors are put under but she undeniably is notable as the daughter of her father who was tragically killed. She isn't known as "Erica Garner, the activist", she is "Erica Garner, the daughter of police brutality victim, Eric Garner", and that is reflected in the news reports. Quis separabit? your best bet is to wait a few months after this brief wave of news disappears and nominate for deletion. I realize it probably sucks to be patient when you are in the right but c'est la vie when dealing with current events.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Agree, she is known as the daughter of Eric Garner. All news reports start with that.  Donaldd23 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow. Robert F. Kennedy is primarily known as the brother of John F. Kennedy, but he isn't made not notable because he first came to public attention because of his brother. It takes (either deliberate or otherwise) ignorance of the abundance of media coverage of Garner's civil rights activism outside of those relating to her father and long preceding her death to suggest this. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That follows even less! She is never mentioned outside the incident involving her father. Robert Kennedy was a senator. And, although he started with being known as JFK's brother he became known on his own.  Articles and books written about him do not say, "RFK, known as the senator brother of JFK". All articles on her death say that she was the "activist daughter of Eric".  See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/erica-garner-activist-daughter-eric-garner-dies-27-after-coma-n832626 Donaldd23 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. I see absolutely no reason to merge. Her work, while driven by what happened to her father, is still independent from her father's death. MB298 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, no reason to merge. Obviously her work will be related to her father to some degree, but there is enough in this article to warrant its separate existence. Suggest close given strong oppose consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It seems to me that she was known for more than her father's death. She appeared in an ad for Bernie and have set up a foundation. Of course, that alone isn't enough to establish notability, but as it's an article featured on the Main Page, I guess more quality edits will come. Since I'm not too familiar with the topic, it's a Weak Oppose. BytEfLUSh Talk 04:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They are separate, keep them that way.  Also I will probably never agree with someone who writes, "Robert F. Kennedy is primarily known as the brother of John F. Kennedy,"  Maybe that is true for the writer, who I very much doubt remembers either one, but not for a lot of other folks .  Wait, I am agreeing with that editor.  Oh well. Carptrash (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Garner became independently relevant and notable as a significant and influential activist. Evolauxia (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Garner had established a well respected career in her very short activism life following her father's death. Very well known and the article itself is in very good shape alone to depict her importance. RIP to Ms. Garner indeed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Subject is notable for only WP:ONEEVENT and has not received significant coverage outside of her relation to a notable person. Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is manifestly not true. There are (at least) hundreds of articles covering her broader civil rights activism. An article subject having a relation to another article subject does not create a presumption that they have not themselves received significant coverage. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hiro's second link is also nonsense as it is to arguments to avoid. Such links such not be used to suggest that they are any kind of policy when they are quite the opposite. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN Note that this page is now listed on the main page in ITN, where it has been accepted and posted. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Suggest those arguing merge on the basis that Erica Garner is known for her relationship to her father review WP:INHERITED: “Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG.” Which Erica Garner abundantly does by present standards; I see essentially no chance an AfD would close as anything but keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Erica Garner is not known for her relationship to her father. Her father is not notable.  However, both are known for Eric Garners's death and its aftermath.  Neither have notability beyond the Death of Eric Garner and it is why there is also no biographical article for Eric Garner.  This article is simply a WP:MEMORIAL piece created when she died and all her notability derives from that single event we already cover.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The voluminous and sustained coverage of her life and work you can see in, e.g., a Google News search for the period prior to her recent hospitalization and death (in addition to the coverage since) indicate she does have the notability WP:MEMORIAL requires for inclusion. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the guidelines currently are understood: Erica Garner has no serious notability outside of being her father's daughter, but our guidelines don't differentiate between organic coverage and coverage that results from attachment to a serious event. I think it's wonderful that she was able to do good works as a result of her father's tragic death, but I seriously question whether those good works will be remembered in a year (i.e., whether they will have the permanence to go beyond recentism). But, as the notability guidelines are presently understood and applied, Erica Garner qualifies for a freestanding article, even if it's unlikely that a length greater than a stub would be legitimate in light of WP:UNDUE and similar policies. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose NOTINHERITED was meant to stop siblings, parents and children of notable people from getting an article just for being a relative, not for someone launching her own career based of her father's death. An independent career may have been inspired by the death but she's got her own coverage as proven by the NYT obit (usually the gold standard of notability), as such she passe GNG pretty obviously. GuzzyG (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose yes the subject is notable because of her involvement of the incident and aftermath of her father's death, but most of the coverage distinguishes the two and as the above !votes suggest the subject is independently notable in her own right. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a notable activist in her own right. Ausir (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Although her father's death served as the catalyst for her activism and this is invariably pointed out, her connection to his death does not mean that this is a BLP1E. There's sufficient secondary, independent, reliable coverage outside the obituaries to establish notability. Since she was notable independent of her father's death there's no need to merge. Ca2james (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While I see the arguments for 1E, NOTMEMORIAL, and NOTINHERITED, she has independent GNG coverage of her own, prior to and unrelated to her recent death. Perhaps this can be revisited in the longer scheme of things. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Independently notable for her activism in the Black Lives Matter movement, not just for being the daughter of Eric Garner. NOTINHERITED does not apply in this case. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Move to close

 * Let's close this as there is obviously not going to be a consensus for Merge.BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As BabbaQ has recommended, let's close this discussion as "no consensus". MurielMary (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A 513 split after only 32 hours open is not a WP:SNOW situation. For comparison, RMs almost always remain open for at least 7 days, and there is less at stake there. This needs to stay open, and the tag needs to be restored per standard process. (I have not taken a position as to this merge, my interest here is in process integrity. It always fails the smell test when the only editors pushing for an early close are those whose position is currently leading.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. A proposal that is losing 72-28%, having already received significant interest, is toast. Just because people on the losing side, as they always do, hope in vain that thirty editors who agree with them might suddenly fall out of the sky, doesn't make that actually a rational possibility. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because people on the losing side - I just finished making it crystal clear that I am not "on the losing side". But you're entitled to your opinion and I'll just disregard your pejoratives. My opinion is that that is a distortion of the SNOW concept. I remain strongly opposed to such an early close. If you can find an uninvolved editor to close it anyway, more power to you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mandruss have you actually read WP:SNOW? Some statements which you need to bear in mind are, for example: "The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone's time." and "Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse ... However, process for its own sake is not part of Wikipedia policy." MurielMary (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's not that there's no consensus either way; it's that there's a consensus for 'oppose'. For a 'merge' consensus to develop, there would have to be about twenty more merge !votes with no more oppose !votes. I think that qualifies as SNOW, and therefore this discussion should be closed. Davey2116 (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment--This does not qualify under the provisions of IAR Snow-close even tangentially and I would urge the discussion to be continued and more editors to chime in. Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 06:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no snowball chance that this will reach a consensus for Merge. That is why it should be closed. BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that the ardent opposition to closure from one or two editors has now successfully blown out the margin against this proposal from 72-28% to 83-17%. At what point do you people want to give up the ghost? This has been quite an example of Wikipedians behaving badly in regard to articles on the recently deceased. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Since the last comment on this move to close, six more editors have chimed in, with not a single one of them supporting the merge. Even if there had been before, there is now absolutely no chance for a 'merge' consensus to emerge. It's time to move on. Davey2116 (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow Davey, you have been on wikipedia for four months and already you can tell when something has "absolutely no chance" of happening. Must be nice. Carptrash (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not take a genius to figure out that a 20-to-5 (including the original nom) result against a merge is a clear consensus. By the way, what a way to be welcoming to new editors! Must be nice to sling your 13 years here around to discourage others. Davey2116 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:MERGECLOSE strongly implies that the default duration is 30 days. With standard processes such as this, the question is not "Why should we leave it open?" but "Why should we close it before the default duration?"; i.e., we err on the side of more participation. The argument that we need to get rid of the tag ASAP out of respect for Garner appears to be a personal viewpoint unsupported by guideline or other community consensus. There is no other argument for an early close that I can see; it costs nothing to leave a discussion open as nobody is forced to participate in it. That said, I would not oppose a close on 8 January, which I think is a reasonable minimum amount of time for comment given this level of participation. That would include one non-holiday weekend. If the Opposes still have more than 75% at that time, I wouldn't see the need for an uninvolved closer. In theory, it's not about about numbers; in practice, uninvolved closes never go against numbers like that, no matter what the arguments. Unless there is objection, I would be happy to do the close myselfI am not !voting, but I could be considered involved anyway. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  06:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The very next sentence after the one you quoted states "There is no required 30-day discussion period. If a consensus in favor of the merger is formed in less than 30 days, then anyone may perform the merger whenever they want." I'm not sure I've ever seen Wikipedians try so hard to keep flogging a dead horse, particularly when past attempts to do so have only strengthened the consensus against the proposal. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The very next sentence after the one you quoted states "There is no required 30-day discussion period. If you read what I wrote I think you'll find that I am not advocating a 30-day discussion period. You appear to have completely ignored my second sentence above, which I believe has strong community support. I'm prepared to compromise away 70% of the default duration, and your position appears to be one of no compromise at all, based solely on your personal agenda that has no community support. Sorry, but your position is exceedingly weak here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I absolutely do not consider you to be an uninvolved closer for this discussion. Given your numerous comments on this page, you clearly have a close interest of some kind and are refraining from !voting for the purpose of being able to close the discussion in the manner you see fit. This is a discussion involving nearly thirty people, and you're acting like you run the show. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (bewildered head shake) To be clearer than before, I do not consider myself to be an uninvolved closer, either, but close procedures do not require an uninvolved closer in all cases. If you want to wait for a closer from WP:ANRFC, that's fine with me. I am ignoring your repeated attempts to make this personal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

GNG
I've removed the orange tag for non-notable as there are plenty of secondary sources cited in this article on Garner's impact on social justice and civil rights movements. Please discuss here any concerns. MurielMary (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of merge tag
Re

I wasn't aware that articles shouldn't contain tags when linked from the main page, and I don't know why we would want to hide routine editing processes from the general public. Where is the guideline to that effect? ― Mandruss  &#9742;  09:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a poor look when people looking for information on a person who has recently died from the front page instead get an argument between Wikipedia editors over whether they're significant enough for an article. This is all the more so when the proposal is dying in the arse as badly as this one is. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Where is the guideline to that effect? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Use some sense. The proposal is being snowball-defeated - what is the point of marking your territory so that anyone looking for information on a recently deceased (and, by consensus, notable) person has to first be shown your opinions about their significance? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't suggest that your viewpoint is obvious, so much so that anybody holding a different viewpoint simply needs to "use some sense". One can reasonably be philosophically opposed to putting lipstick on this pig we call Wikipedia editing. Further, the proposal is all of 16 hours old, making it a bit premature to call it failed, let alone a snow fail with 5 Merge !votes. But one way to help prevent the !voting from swinging the other way is to reduce the visibility of the discussion by removing the tag. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where it's documented – per WP:CREEP, we have so many policies and guidelines that's hard to keep track of them all. But I've certainly seen other cases where being on the main page meant that there was a moratorium on tagging of this kind.  In this case, the ITN process has reviewed the article and found it acceptable.  An admin has then placed a corresponding entry on the main page and so that seems reasonably official though the admin in this case is newly appointed.  If Mandruss wants to dispute this further then I suggest that they raise the matter at WP:ITN/C or WP:ERRORS where others may know more. Andrew D. (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the ITN process has reviewed the article and found it acceptable - The ITN process is not a substitute for a merge proposal. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The tag should not be placed there again. Especially not in this cade were it is obvious that there will be no consensus for merge.BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's obvious, why is the proposal still open? Per WP:MERGECLOSE, involved editors don't get to close a controversial merge proposal, and it follows that editors don't get to declare that it will close a certain way and take action based on that assumption. WP:Process is important. Wait until there has been sufficient time for community input, get a close, and then remove the tag. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It hasn't closed because no one has gotten around to closing it. There is overwhelming opposition to the merge and not much interest in continuing the discussion. The insistence on marking your territory on the biography of someone who has recently died, when there is no possible road to consensus support for that outcome, is gross and pointlessly disrespectful to readers interested in the subject. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is first and foremost an encyclopedia. We're here to provide information, not tribute. Within reason, respect for the recently deceased should never be a factor in the application or haste of process, except where BLP is concerned. Please be patient. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The tag is not information. We can have a open discussion without the tag and then take as long as we like about it.  The tag needs to go because it is derogatory.  We already have enough editors here to establish a clear consensus and so its job is done. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your arguments have no foundation in policy or guideline. We can reach a local consensus to override p&g per WP:IAR, but we have not done so. The tags are there to increase participation; if the existence of the talk page discussion were enough we could dispense with the tags completely. To remove the tag because of the large Oppose lead is to presume the outcome of the proposal, which is wrong in principle even if the outcome is almost certain. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The most relevant policy here is WP:BDP and that's a strong one. Such tags are commonly complained about at OTRS because they are perceived as derogatory.  In this case, the tag is suggesting that this person's life did not matter; that they were a person of no account; merely their father's daughter.  This implication seems likely to give offense to the relations and acquaintances of the subject and so it should not be maintained any longer than is necessary.  Common decency, as specified by the policy, now requires that the tag be removed.  Mandruss should please revert. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Now at Village pump (policy). I am more than happy to defer to any consensus there. I do ask that the tag remain pending that consensus. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  10:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Erica's offical Twitter account.
A tweet was posted from Garner's official Twitter account, requesting that "out of respect to Erica please do not request comment if the journalist is not Black".

This is inaccurate. It was from a fake account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.48.190 (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed


 * "A tweet was posted from Garner's official Twitter account, requesting that "out of respect to Erica please do not request comment if the journalist is not Black" until we can determine if it really came from the family. Carptrash (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple newspapers reported it, the account has a blue checkmark. Source for it being fake? NPalgan2 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The account has been active for 18 months, a tweet from Garner from 2016 is the source of her birthday. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone here has suggested it is fake. Wikipedia is not a news agency, we do not need up-to-the-hour reporting.  Since there is a question about it I prefer to err on the side of caution, you  do not, being happy with the sources.  I also do not intend to edit war about this. Carptrash (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was from her actual account as confirmed in abundant reliable sources. We do not believe anonymous claims on talk pages over reliable sources, especially when there is no dispute in said sources. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How many tweets were made at that account over the years? And why is this one to be highlighted?  Because it tickled the newspeople, that's why? Carptrash (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you and I'm fine with it being removed for that reason, just not because an anon IP claimed her official, verified Twitter account was illegitimate. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Carptrash, 3 different RSs thought it was worth mentioning. Wikipedia's coverage of the BLM/social justice movement should objectively document all noteworthy aspects - including the more controversial ones, like the current of I suppose one could call it black racial separatism someties apparent. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't know why they posted that either. How about, white reporters "don't get it" and ask stupid, insulting questions and the family does not want to deal with stupid right now? Carptrash (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the source, both comments came from the administrator of her account and not Garner herself. I think it should be worded as such or removed altogether. —  Wylie pedia  03:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The administrator of the account was commenting on her death, so it rather obviously follows that Garner herself was not tweeting from beyond the grave. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet: "Tweets were subsequently posted from Garner's official Twitter account blasted Mayor de Blasio demanding that he "explain how she died with no justice." and requested that "out of respect to Erica please do not request comment if the journalist is not Black"." Should someone have to read that twice to make the post-mortem connection? —  Wylie pedia  04:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Both the "subsequently posted", coming after the article referred to her death, and the "from her official Twitter", as opposed to "from her", make it pretty obvious to the reader that she has not mastered the art of tweeting from the dead. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Obvious" or not, the statements didn't come from her and therefore violate neutrality and a few other biography standards. —  Wylie pedia  04:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drover's Wife. I don't see that this statement could be confused as coming from Erica. It's also not clear what neutrality is being violated in its current presentation. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Image of Erica Garner
Hey, DHeyward. The PROD tag on File:Erica Garner.png was removed. Well, the removal of the image was attempted, but then I found out it was de-PRODded. If you wish to pursue, then please feel free to take the image to FFD. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually... Um, Mr Davidson (or Andrew :P) and Ronhjones, I found out that the photo came from Getty Images. Therefore, I added "db-f7". George Ho (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * An attempt was made to remove this image claiming claiming that there was "no evidence of attempt to source a free image". This claim is false, as before uploading this image, I conducted a search for free images and found none.  As evidence of this, note the FSS template at the head of this talk page which contains a link "free images" to facilitate such a search.  I repeated this just now and there is still nothing relevant (there is one image but it doesn't show the subject and so seems to be a false positive).  It remains my position that we should continue to use this image per the Non-free use rationale which states "As the subject is deceased, no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to replace this media...".


 * The editor is now edit-warring to remove this image again. Note also that this editor was recently in conflict with me over an unrelated matter, displaying some antipathy.  Following me to this unrelated article to oppose me here too seems to be somewhat retaliatory in nature, contrary to WP:HARASSMENT.  Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Press Agency images cannot be used for non-free images - Item 7 at Non-free_content Ron h jones (Talk) 21:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation as this was not explained clearly. I have added another image – a still taken from the Bernie Sanders campaign video, "Erica".  This is a bit fuzzier but seems more historic, given its usage, and so serves the reader better.  Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

DHeyward, the "db-f7" tagging on File:Still from Erica.png (screenshot) is incorrect. The Bernie Sanders campaign video was not part of the press agency or the photo agency; rather I think the video was released with non-commercial intention. Also, I think that claims about the image being irreplaceable is potentially valid. If you want evidence providing how obtaining free images is attempted, I emailed the Garner family, the Bernie Sanders campaigners, and iHeartMedia. Well, iHeartMedia told me to request a permission from another source, which I've done lately. I am still awaiting their responses. Back to the screenshot itself, may you replace the db-f7 tag with the FFD procedure instead? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Without knowing the copyright holder, its hosting on a commercial site, and the fact that the picture itself is not the subject of the article still makes the db-f7 tag valid. In addition, the rallies were widely attended and photographed.  It seems premature to presume a free version does not exist or would be difficult to obtain.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I replaced one screenshot with another. BTW, do you refer "a commercial site" to CNN or YouTube or the Bernie 2016, which was already over? George Ho (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was confused at first when you said "commercial site". However, I figured that you were referring to the whole video. Therefore, I reverted back to the rally screenshot for now. George Ho (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the video was released with non-commercial intention is insufficient fair use rationale. --DHeyward (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Surname
I think the surname needs to be consistent throughout. One source refers to Erica as "Garner-Snipes" but all the others refer to her as "Garner". Any thoughts on which one to use? MurielMary (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME would suggest Garner. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Unlawful" or "illegal" chokehold
There is no need to edit war this.

I don't dispute that some number of sources use "unlawful" or "illegal". It took me about 30 seconds to find two of them. It would be so much simpler if we could always just stop there, but sometimes we need to take a closer look. For example, take this piece in The Atlantic dated 4 December 2014. The piece is a fairly detailed analysis of the whole NYPD chokehold issue. It includes the following paragraph:

So here we have a quote by the police commissioner stating that there is currently no law against chokeholds. The Atlantic piece takes an anti-police stance on the issue. That being the case, if there were a law, why wouldn't The Atlantic point out the glaring inaccuracy in Bratton's statement?

Reporters can be mistaken or use words carelessly. Until somebody produces RS that says, yes, there is a law and here it is, I oppose "unlawful" and "illegal" in reference to the chokehold. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I call it editorial judgment, which we do routinely. Do you want to conduct a comprehensive survey of RS and compare how many call it illegal to how many do not? We can't say that based on a couple of cherry-picked sources that don't cite a specific statute. As I said below, why are we discussing this at this article anyway? Don't you think the two articles should agree on this point? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sheesh, I lost track of which article I was in. Considering that Death of Eric Garner doesn't say "unlawful" or "illegal", why is this even in dispute? For Pete's sake, people, use some sense. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  00:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In my view, since this article is not about Eric Garner's death, I don't see any reason to address the legality/illegality of the chokehold here. Just mention the chokehold (which nobody disputes), link to the other article for more information, and leave it at that. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  00:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed the description of it as "improper" which would imply the technique was poor. The cited source does not clarify this. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * has reverted...again...Marek you are not respecting the consensus of the talk page. You've got text in there that is not supported by the source. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 21, some consensuswhile there are at least 5 others involved in the slow burn edit war. If more people won't participate on the talk page, this may need DRN or RfC. Sad we can't do it the easier way. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)