Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols

Alleged copy violations rewrite
A copy-right violation was placed on the entire body of the article. I have utilized the temp rewrite page to rewrite Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols/Temp; though, it is not clear what the alleged violations are/were. A earwig report can be found (link here) TL:DR violation unlikely. AgntOtrth (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * AgntOtrth I agree with you that in this case, it is unlikely, but 39% can go either way. It only becomes clear that it is unlikely after examining it, and realizing that the commonalities are in the names of people, organizations, titles, and double-quoted text. If it wasn't close to 100% certain there was no violation at the outset, then you should not have copied the material to the temp page. If it turns out that there is no violation in the live article, then that's the end of it, and you're good. If, however, it turns out that there *is* a violation in the live article (or could have been, before investigation ruled it out) then by copying it to the /temp page you have made the problem worse, because now there are two pages that have to be REVDEL'd, instead of just one. Copyrighted material is not permitted on any page at Wikipedia, not just articles, but also subpages, talk pages, sandboxes, and so on. If you need to create a test page, you must do it away from any Wikimedia property.
 * I realize you are still new here, so no worries, you're good; but if you need to investigate a *possible* COPYVIO in the future, please do not copy the suspect page anywhere on Wikimedia. If you are done with the test page, you may request it to be deleted by placing at the top of the page. See WP:G7. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Tyre Nichols' autopsy reveals brain injuries from blunt force trauma, attorneys say
New article from NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173857299/tyre-nichols-autopsy-memphis-police


 * The attorneys for the family of Tyre Nichols say the medical examiner's official autopsy report shows he died by injuries from blunt force trauma — which they say is "highly consistent" with their independent autopsy conducted in January. The family of the 29-year-old who died after being beaten by Memphis police officers was briefed on his autopsy results Wednesday, nearly four months after his death. The Shelby County, Tenn., District Attorney's Office has not yet released results from the autopsy to the public. The DA's office did not respond to NPR's immediate request for comment on the results. "We know now what we knew then. Tyre Nichols died from blunt force trauma and the manner of death was homicide," attorneys Ben Crump and Antonio Romanucci said in a statement sent to NPR.

Important content for the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead Section
I have reverted these changes by. Nichols was not simply subjected to a traffic stop; he was killed. That's the title of the article, that's what the article is about, and that needs to be included in the lead. We cannot omit the killing of Tyre Nichols from Killing of Tyre Nichols.

I also took issue with other edits to the lead, including replacing the relative time to Nichols' death in the hospital with the date so as to further obscure its relation to the beating that caused his death.

It is well established by dozens and dozens of RSs that five officers of MPD killed Nichols. Persistently rewording the article to try to cast doubt on this established fact breaks WP:NPOV. Combefere ★  Talk  19:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead that you reverted to is verifiably FALSE. He was not killed on January  7. He was subjected to a traffic stop and beaten.And died 3 days later. To say he was killed on Jan 7, is so far from the truth.

He was not struck with "batons" (plural/multiple. He was struck several times with a single baton, by 1 officer. The lead as I edited it is so clear as to what happened to Nichols. I find it incredulous that someone could read the lead and think anyone was attempting to down play what happened to him.

Could you please explain how January 10, 2023" obscures anything? Three days later was January 10, 2023, so there is no obscuring anything.

Again, what you reverted to is verifiably false. AgntOtrth (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * On the section about him being struck, I'm happy to compromise and include your language. Also I'm happy to compromise and say that he died "three days later on January 10th, 2023."
 * On removing references to him being killed altogether, I will have to put my foot down. The first sentence of the article must include the fact that Nichols was killed by officers of MPD. I'm sure you recall the previous discussions about this phrasing that were had on this talk page, and the consensus that was formed in those discussions. Trying to circumnavigate that consensus by coming back to this page months later and quietly rewording the article in opposition to the consensus that was formed is not a productive way to edit. Combefere  ★  Talk  22:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it seems apparent you are not acting in good faith. You accuse me of trying to obscure things. You reverted edits without discussion, and a second time in the same day, and are dangerously close to violating the edit war policy.
 * That you are going to stomp your feet on a particular issue, tends to suggest an additional lack of good faith.
 * I also find it a lack of good faith, to read the edits I submitted could be read as to down play the role of the officers in Nichols death.
 * I corrected and removed FALSE information, you reverted to the false information twice. AgntOtrth (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not false to include the fact that MPD killed Nichols. It is the most critical point of information in the article, and two discussions were had on this very talk page over the issue. The first discussion was an overwhelming consensus that the phrase "Killing of Tyre Nichols" was true, verifiable, and the appropriate name for the article. You participated in that discussion, in the opposition. The next discussion, you initiated to try to revert the decision; this discussion was closed shortly thereafter when multiple editors pointed out that it was not appropriate to revisit such an overwhelming consensus so soon, and reminded you to drop the stick.
 * For the record, I didn't revert your changes without discussion. I created this topic here on the talk page specifically to open a discussion, and I even pinged you to alert you.
 * If you have issues with the phrasing of specific details and dates, I'm happy to work with you. If you want to beat around the bush and remove the word "killed" from the lead altogether, then I must ask you again to back away from the horse carcass.  Combefere  ★  Talk  23:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is false to start the sentence with January 7, 2023 and in the same sentence state he was killed by police; which gives the false impression that he was killed/died on January 7.
 * Again with the failing to act in good faith from you. Your lack of good faith continues to be that I am trying to obscure anything.
 * It is obvious I am not attempting to obscure or hide anything. I have repeatedly explained the factual nature of my edits, that you have reverted twice in a 24hr period. I have edited the lead to be even more clear that the death is associated and/or directly caused by the actions of the officers. AgntOtrth (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How about with the rest unchanged? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a great edit. The status quo of the article lead did not include the information added on May 4, 2023.
 * I support your edit, Firefangledfeathers. AgntOtrth (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that wording. Combefere  ★  Talk  01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Motive
Has any motive been established? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)