Talk:Death of Sandra Bland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 1 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Death of Sandra Bland → Sandra Bland – Articles about a person's death when that person is not otherwise notable are always placed under the person's name. See, e.g., Emmett Till, George Tiller Rodney King. Likewise when they are arguably slightly notable in life but chiefly notable for their death but not so much as to have a separately named article about their death (e.g., Karen Silkwood). Only in one circumstance are there "Death of..." articles, namely, when the person is sufficiently notable in life to merit an article solely about their life and their death was sufficiently notable in itself to merit an entirely separate article: (Archduke Franz Ferdinand, death of AFF; Abraham Lincoln, death of AL; Nicholas II of Russia, death of Nicholas' family. Sandra Bland is not in the latter category, so there should be no Death Of article. Mathglot (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Just for clarification, Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Walter Scott, etc., etc., are about deaths of persons who are not otherwise notable, while George Tiller and Emmett Till are full bios about the persons, not merely the deaths and associated controversy. So you're saying that Bland warrants different treatment than Brown et al because her death has been ruled a suicide? Could you drop a more specific reference to policy on this? You're making a lot of policy assertions with nothing but a general link to WP:N, and I'm an extremely slow reader. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that Bland deserves different treatment; whether she did or didn't commit suicide is irrelevant to the article title. Thanks for finding the examples of Brown and Scott, these articles should also be moved and represent, imho, a more recent trend in article naming due to the spate of unfortunate recent events. I'll try to find a more specific policy reference per your request, but in the most general sense, it's about usefulness to someone searching Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; one searches for "Emmett Till" not "Death of Emmett Till", "Karen Silkwood" not "Death of Karen Silkwood", and so on. Ditto "Rodney King" who I forgot to list among the examples--do you remember how King was killed? Sorry, that was a trick question, he wasn't killed--but it would not be helpful to readers searching for it to entitle the article Beating of Rodney King.

In the final analysis, the main policy item is just usability as an encyclopedia. Taking it from another angle: where would you search for Sarah Bland in a print reference like Encyclopedia Britannica, under 'B' for "Bland" or under 'D' for "Death of..."? Digital is different of course but analogous, and I guess I just can't see users typing "Death of" into the search box when searching for anybody (unless you're really sure about a very specific article subject you want--e.g., "death of Abraham Lincoln").

I disagree with your assertion that the article on Till is a "full bio"--it certainly is not: the lead section makes clear what it is about--five lead paragraphs about Till's death and the resulting trial, and not a word about his life before age 14 when the events leading to his death occurred. The main body of the article gives some detail about young Emmett's background as well it should, providing some background to fill out his story and to humanize him beyond a mere cipher that died; but it's very clear from the lead and from the way the article is structured that, sadly, Till is notable only in death.

The George Tiller example I grant you is a poor one resulting from hasty research. It's clear to me now that Tiller was sufficiently well known in life to have a WP article about him as far back as 2006 and there were already over a hundred edits to it while he was still alive; so the article about him is irrelevant to the rename request. So let's strike Tiller as an example and subsitute the one of Rodney King instead.

I will continue to look for a policy to quote, as WP:TITLE says nothing about this point. It could be, that it just isn't discussed on a policy page anywhere (and ought to be) and this could account for the inconsistent current state of article-naming, per the counter-examples you raised. If that's so, then perhaps there should be a discussion on the relevant policy page to come up with a consensus, which we could then follow. It's just as likely that I just can't find it, there are so many policies out there, that even the ones I already know about I have a hard time finding, if I haven't bookmarked them. So I'll keep looking, and in the meantime, if you can find a policy supporting the "death of..." type of naming, please let me know. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for Sandra Bland? You might want to give that a shot and see what happens. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a shot, and it goes to the Sandra Bland article, because, it turns out, there's a redirect there. Just as searching Murder of Emmett Till goes to Emmett Till because someone put a redirect there. (But "shooting of Emmett Till" goes to a SRP with "Emmett Till" as #1 result, and "death of Emmett Till" goes to a SRP with a Bob Dylan song by that name at the top.) I would merely argue that "Shooting of Sandra Bland" should redirect to "Sandra Bland" rather than vice versa, so I don't see how this helps us move forward in the absence of anybody quoting guideline one way or the other. I would be curious, though, to know how many people typed 'Sandra Bland' and how many typed 'Shooting of Sandra Bland' into the search box, if that's something we can ask of an admin. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I have no doubt that many, many, more type "sandra bland", having no knowledge of the common titling convention in these articles. But redirects free us from having to think about that at all. The "what will people search for?" argument comes up in virtually every move discussion, and it never has any relevance. For search purposes, redirects are essentially alternate titles, full stop. The word "search" should never be seen in a move discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Reading the article, the article explains the death investigation in great detail. Her bio is just... too minimal to scrap out "Death of". This isn't Chandra Levy... well, I did request name change some time ago, which didn't work out as I hoped for. --George Ho (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If you oppose the move here, would you support a move request of Emmett Till to "Death of Emmett Till"? I wouldn't, because I find it over-specific and not helpful to readers doing a search, but consistency would seem to require it. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is a person that was otherwise not notable until the incident that led to her death. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about Emmett Till, if the death of Sara Bland reaches the historical relevance of Till, one day we can rename this article as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Sarah Sara Sandra Bland. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sandra Bland is not notable for the encyclopedia beyond the event of her death, and Death of Sandra Bland follows examples set by the Shooting of Walter Scott, the Shooting of Akai Gurley, the Death of Freddie Gray, the Shooting of Tamir Rice, the Death of Eric Garner, the Shooting of Samuel DuBose, the Shooting of Michael Brown, the Death of Mark Duggan, and so forth. Agree with Cwobeel above that Emmett Till is a more significant historical figure, and would add that the Till article contains a great deal of political and historical context, whereas we have almost none of that in this article. @Mathglot:, if we did ultimately standardize many articles of this kind, I think that the article title Killing of Emmett Till would be justified. -Darouet (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

So far, Darouet's argument is the only one that has some persuasive effect on me. All of the other "oppose" or "strong oppose" seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.

Now, I'm not sure that the right thing to do is to simply follow previous usage ipso facto, if indeed the Scott, Gurley, Gray, etc. examples are an accurate demonstration of a trend. WP is a big place, and I've seen usage trends develop before that aren't necessarily following policy but are nevertheless sufficiently widespread to the point of becoming ineradicable; putting it in other words, "because everybody does it" does not seem like good enough reason to do it that way to me. (I have lots of pet peeves there, and though a bit OT for this discussion, a favorite one is that imho 98% of articles about a single book title do not meet existing policy guidelines of notability, but there are just too many of them to do anything about it). By the way--if I'm wrong here, if "everybody does it" is a good reason per WP policy to do it that way, then I retract my move request, per Darouet's list of examples, if they are representative.

What I find most valuable here is the comment about "if we did ultimately standardize..." - what I think Darouet is alluding to here (correct me if I'm wrong) is that it would be a good idea to have a policy guideline stating how to name articles about a person (living or not) who is chiefly, or entirely notable for a single event, and I agree with them on that. Whether the event was their death, as in many cases, or a beating, as in the case of Rodney King, or some other event in their life which caused the person to become notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia but which lacking this event would have precluded their inclusion. If there is no guideline about this, then we should encourage a discussion about it on the appropriate policy guideline page, and then follow the recommendation of the consensus reached there.

So I think continuing the discussion here is pointless, neither I, nor any of the "oppose" camp, seems able to quote a policy in support of their position. Can we agree to suspend the discussion (which means leaving things alone here on the Sarah Bland article--i.e, no rename for now) and instead open a discussion on the appropriate policy guideline talk page? If there is agreement about that, can someone suggest which is the correct page? My guess would be WP:TITLE. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As it stands today, Wikipedia (en-wiki, at least, I can't speak for others) is designed to drive sensible and intelligent people insane. On the one hand, we are supposed to be guided by policies, as you say. On the other, policy is supposed to reflect community consensus, and I've had more than one very experienced editor tell me that the correct way to change community consensus, and eventually policy, is to willfully deviate from the policy you disagree with. No discussion necessary, just do your own individual thing and hope a lot of others do the same individual thing. In other words, wikianarchy. Many of the most experienced editors will defend it to the death, which may well be the result of doing so. Less experienced editors see them doing it and follow their example, assuming from their edit count that they know what they're doing. That is how we end up in situations like this. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, I'm up-voting (liking, starring, rec'ing) this comment as best-of-thread. Golden sash, let's all go home! Srsly, how do we stop the comments, just put this to bed, either dead, or frozen, and either move on to guideline talk page thread (or not)? (Comments below Mandruss are no slackers, either! Can I get one salt-free, no butter? Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• These "Death of XYZ", "Killing of XYS", "Shooting of XYZ" are silly names caused by our notability policy.

-"XYZ isn't notable, delete it"

-"I changed it to 'Shooting of XYZ', it's notable, see these references"

-"Darn, foiled again"

An RfC needs to be done on a higher level policy page, and all these articles should be named after the person who died. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do I bid on the popcorn concession for that one? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, Peregrine Fisher, and Mathglot, you are all making fair (and sometimes humorous) points. For my part, I'm not sure we really need to standardize this - the Wikianarchy works with enough input from thoughtful and well-intentioned people. But Mathglot, Peregrine Fisher, if you feel there are very compelling reasons for renaming all these articles from "Death of XYZ" to "XYZ," it could be worthwhile to hold a broader community discussion. Maybe that discussion has already happened and I'm not aware of it. However, I have a feeling that people may wish things to stay as they are, because the "Death of XYZ" title reflect how the community has achieved consensus on notability regarding the deaths of these individuals. -Darouet (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Very compelling? Nope, not me. Seemed like the right thing at the time, didn't realize this would stir up the hornet's nest that it did and lead to the word expenditure it did. I plead WP:SALIERI (shortcut for a hitherto unwritten policy guideline, but basically amounting to, "Too many notes.") We've all said enough about this, back to our irregularly scheduled editing? Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No harm in having initiated the conversation. I like both Mozart and Salieri. -Darouet (talk) 07:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is meant to cover a news event and its consequences. It is not a biographical article about the entire life of the deceased. The title "Death of" distinguishes between those two article types. WWGB (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – The article is about the death of a person; it is not a biography of that person. There are many, many other Wikipedia articles entitled "Death of ...". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, there are indeed many others. I find this argument unpersuasive, however, as of the top ten results here which are people articles, six were notable in life and have non-Death-of articles as well (Cobain, Poe, Diana, Senna, Alexander, Mozart), and thus are excluded by the original argument; furthermore, many does not equal right. Nevertheless, other arguments have carried the day in your favor, so at this point, it's moot. Mathglot (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, there are many articles entitled "The Death of ..." that relate to people who were not-notable prior to the death. I don't have time at the moment to find them. Some have been cited above, however. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, your argument does not make any sense. You cite "the top ten results" in a Google search. Of course, the "famous" people are going to rank higher in a Google search. Famous people are "searched for" more than non-famous people. So, would it really be a surprise that Curt Cobain's death (or Edgar Allan Poe's or Princess Diana's) ranks higher in a Google search than Death of Robert Hamill? Of course not. By definition, the more famous people will rank higher in a Google search. And, therefore, they will constitute the Top Ten. Your argument does not make any logical sense. Honestly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose nominator is wrong, they are not placed under their names if the person is not otherwise notable. Indeed, it is a violation of WP:AT to place it under their names, when the scope of the article is only their death and not their entire life, since the title of the article would not then describe the content of the article properly. And a violation of WP:N to have an article on a non-notable person in the first place. WP:NOTINHERITED, the person does not inherit the notability surrounding the circumstances of their death. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a full bio, like George Tiller and Emmett Till, but an article about her death and its fallout. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Withdrawn this isn't going to gain consensus so let's put this to bed. Whether to raise the larger issue on a policy page is an open, but separate question. Thanks to those who actually read and responded to individual concerns and offered policy and guideline support and examples for their position, you are what makes for a constructive discussion. Happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Committed suicide, or found dead in her cell?

This edit changed the first sentence of the article to state, in accordance with statements by the police and the ruling of the Harris County coroner, that Bland committed suicide. The previous text stated that Bland was rather found dead in her cell, and that police and the coroner ruled her death a suicide.

The previous text is more accurate: we don't know how Bland actually died, however authoritative or informative one might feel the coroner's report to be. But we do know she was found hanged in her cell, and that the coroner ruled her death a suicide. That is sufficient: there is no reason to editorially endorse the coroner's report, and make it into an encyclopedic fact, not a report. -Darouet (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Darouet: I'm fine with that, but I think this needs some work: "ruled a suicide by prison officials and by the county coroner". Prison officials are not authoritative on means of death and cannot have "ruled" this a suicide. I don't know the best way to fix it and was hoping you would. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to "classified as" - is that better? Gandydancer (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gandydancer, that's acceptable to me if Mandruss thinks it is accurate. -13:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed "prison officials" to "police" per body content. It was a jail, not a prison, and I doubt any prison officials had anything to say about what happened in a county jail. Otherwise I guess it's ok for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No follow up, no references

The "Did You Know" page (2015/09/10) has this:

.. that before her death in police custody, activist Sandra Bland posted, "In the news that we've seen as of late, 
you could stand there, surrender to the cops, and still be killed"?

But the article does not reference this quote or indicate in any way why she is referred to as as "Activist". The Daily Mail and National Enquirer do as well as that, WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.106.190 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

DPS reason for arrest

Re: [1]

Before:

DPS stated that Bland was arrested because she kicked Encinia, saying she was "argumentative and uncooperative", and she was charged with assaulting a public servant.

After:

According to DPS, Bland was arrested because she kicked Encinia, and she was "argumentative and uncooperative". She was charged with assaulting a public servant.

First, no qualification is needed, and it is actually misleading to include one. The text does not say or imply that the arrest was justified. It does not say or imply that Bland kicked Encinia. It says only that their reason for the arrest was that she kicked him. That fact is not in dispute, no one is saying that they actually arrested her for a different reason, the reason for arrest is most likely a matter of public record anyway.

Second, the After text implies that the reasons for the arrest also included the "argumentative and uncooperative", which is false. They only said that incidentally. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The "Before" version is more accurate, and uses slightly better grammar. - MrX 12:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Fistly, please note that I removed the grammatically incorrect "allegedly" from the sentence, ("DPS stated that Bland was arrested because she allegedly kicked Encinia") and only later returned to further improve it. It is surprising that no one had corrected this mistake, given the intense scrutiny now being applied.

The first quote implies, though without being explicit, that her being "argumentative and uncooperative" helps to explain her arrest. The second quote does not, and cannot imply this (or anything else). It precisely states the reason for her arrest, and the description of her demeanour, as two separate claims. (Also, note that the supposed "Qualification" is equivalent ("According to DPS" vs "DPS stated"), and you did not explain how you find either one "misleading"). (zzz (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing "allegedly". One editor in particular has been inserting that in all these articles. In some cases it's an innocuous change so I've been leaving it alone. In some others, including this one, it's just flat wrong and, you're right, we missed it. You're incorrect as to the equivalence of the two forms; "According to" is the phrase often used for attribution and so carries a special meaning. Beyond that, I will await further comments and your edit currently lacks consensus. I hope you're not one of those who believes that you can make the change unless we convince you you're wrong; that's not how it works at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

We had a bitter dispute once before about a wikilink, and I discovered later that you were right and I was wrong in that case. I've learned from that that it's best to leave things... but I am right in this case. zzz (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues here. The grammatical one, which I'm right about, and the "qualification" one, which is more involved. The circumstances of the case, and the entire focus of the article, lead me to believe that the nuance of "According to" is absolutely necessary here, though normally one would aim to state the reason for an arrest more plainly. This is the same (presumably intended) nuance that I had removed with the word "allegedly", so I hope I managed to adjust my correction and leave the meaning as intended - which you refer to above as an "innocuous change". zzz (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In short, it was a good edit and I'm surprised and disappointed it was reverted. zzz (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: "Innocuous change" referred to the other editor I mentioned; it had nothing to do with you. I'm having a bit of trouble sorting all this out, I don't have a good handle on what all your concerns are. Would you care to propose some alternate text that you feel might work for all of us? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Without wishing to seem belligerent, I think my version, the second quote, is better. I honestly don't see any problem with it, so I can't propose an alteration to it. I thought I answered your concern. zzz (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it says "according to", and my concern about that has not been answered. As I said, that phrase carries special meaning, it's used to avoid an inappropriate use of wiki voice, and the use of wiki voice is not inappropriate in this case. I suspect the "argumentative and uncooperative" thing could be clarified in a way that satisfies both of us, probably by splitting it into a separate sentence. The "Before" seems clear enough to me in that regard, but it could be more explicit if you feel that's necessary. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Try this:

DPS stated that Bland was arrested because she kicked Encinia, and she was charged with assaulting a public servant. DPS said that she was "argumentative and uncooperative" during the traffic stop.

―Mandruss ☎ 14:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The first quote is imprecise, as it allows the implication that her demeanour was part of the reason for her arrest. The second quote grammatically excludes this implication. Also, the use of wiki voice to imply certainty regarding the reason for her arrest is inappropriate. I don't know why your not seeing that. Your third quote removes the unintended implication, but retains the unwarranted and authoritative tone regarding the reason for her arrest. It is also significantly longer and doesn't read as well. It's an improvement on the first quote (as it removes the grammatical shortcomings) but far worse than the second quote, which I still don't see any problem with. It seems ok though. zzz (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done I made the change. As far as I can tell, you don't object. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Modified to "became argumentative and uncooperative" during the arrest per the source given. The difference is significant. I hope you approve. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That is an improvement. I'm glad I could be of help. zzz (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion

"Death of John Doe", "Shooting of John Doe", "Murder of John Doe" vs "John Doe" - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

wow, what an offensive bunch of privilege. Duckduckstop (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Pennsylvania v. Mimms

No problem with that being in the article, but it says "Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case holding that a police officer has the legal right to order a driver out of a car during a traffic stop." That's not entirely accurate, as the page for the case states this in the ruling: "Officer ordering defendant out of his car following a traffic stop and conducting a pat-down to check for weapons held not to violate the Fourth Amendment, reversing Pennsylvania Supreme Court." It doesn't mean a police officer can just simply order one out of their car, it means that they can order one out of their car in the event that the officer has reasonable suspicion or has safety in mind (for the officer, driver, and/or others). In that case, the officer had already decided that Mimms was detained. Whether or not that case is applicable in this incident isn't up to me, so I have no issue with its inclusion. I suggest just having Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1997) or something similar. 24.75.113.48 (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Adjusted wording to reflect your reading of the decision. zzz (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

footnote #42 does not make sense. Article not written by the person cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.115.85 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Re to stale comment: Citation [42] in the article at the time of your comment appears to show the correct author name. Next time, please use "New section" at the top. This puts your comment in a new section (hence the name), making it less likely to be missed for two months. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Her death was Murder, it doesn’t need to say murder but suspected murder, the women physically could not have hung herself in that cell it is not possible 74.214.144.163 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hanged vs hung

This has been a matter of ongoing slow-burn edit warring at this article, but it has never been discussed on this page. While dictionaries are inconsistent and unclear on the question, the prevailing view among experienced Wikipedia editors is that coats are hung, and people may be hung upside-down by their ankles, but people are hanged when they die of asphyxiation or strangulation by having something wrapped around their necks and supporting their weight. Thus the word "hanged" is less ambiguous, since Bland could have been found "hung" by something other than her neck, with some other cause of death. The word "hanged" currently occurs three times in this article and the word "hung" zero times. This should not be changed without prior discussion and consensus here. Bring evidence to support your opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The OED describes the verb to hang: "to put to death by suspension by the neck. In this sense, hanged is now the specific form of the past tense and past participle; though hung is used by some, esp. in the south of England." Almost all examples given by the OED use the past participle hanged, and of the few that use the word "hung," most of those examples also include also the word "hanged" as an explanation or correction. -Darouet (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said dictionaries are inconsistent and the OED is surely not the best source for American English (this is an AmEng article). Merriam-Webster hanged says: "Hanged is most appropriate for official execution...but hung is also used...Hung is more appropriate for less formal hangings." Dictionary.com hanged example for sense 5: "He hanged himself from a beam in the attic." And so on. When dictionaries are inconsistent or unclear, I look for other reasoning. In this case, the other reasoning is: 1. "Hanged" is more specific and less ambiguous, as I indicated above. 2. "Hanged" sounds more natural to my 60-year-old, finely-tuned American ear. That probably means far more to me than to others, granted. I could be swayed by compelling evidence for "hung", but I've yet to see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Best practice is hanged for death by hanging.[2] Some people disagree, but I dislike hung for death by hanging.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

more video

• https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/721086944/sandra-blands-phone-video-of-her-own-arrest-surfaces-reviving-calls-for-new-inqu

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"by a Latino police officer"

An IP keeps adding these words to the lead. This is WP:UNDUE, as reliable sources have not lent significance to Encinia's race, or even mentioned it in most cases. The body includes sourced content stating that he is listed as "Hispanic" in voter records. Even that would be WP:UNDUE for the lead, and, per Latino, Latino is not even synonymous with Hispanic. Those five words need to be removed from the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Civil settlement

New York Times, today: Sandra Bland’s Family Is Said to Settle $1.9 Million Civil Suit

I've rarely seen NYT waffle so much. Details of the settlement attributed variously to the family's lawyer, Bland's mother, and a local TV station. And the article's title equivocates as well. I hesitate to use wiki voice for any of the details, but all that attribution seems cumbersome too. Editorial opinions? @Ianmacm, MrX, and Gaijin42: ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We can simply write that her family has settled for $1.9 million according to their attorney. It has been covered by several other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad option for the lead, but we need body language (hey I invented a cool new Wikipedia term) supporting it first. For the body language, we could say basically the same thing, or we could give more detail such as at Shooting of Samuel DuBose#Legal proceedings, last paragraph. I like giving more detail in the body, per the principle that lead should summarize body. If they're the same level of detail, there's no summarizing going on. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess we could go into some detail in the body. If there's not any meaningful detail available, it's perfectly fine to simply place a short summary in the lead.- MrX 14:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Define meaningful. There is enough detail in the Times article to fill 3 or 4 sentences with the same kind of thing that is in the DuBose article. Which takes us back to my opening question about attribution. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a simple financial settlement, so you could certainly write about the reforms in jail procedures and such.- MrX 15:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar enough with this to make a detailed comment. The settlement seems to have been agreed out of court, so there is a certain amount of "sources said" rather than direct confirmation of what was agreed. The CNN cite in the article says that an agreement has been reached, but the NYT article is more cautious and says that "there was no final agreement".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Also typically exact details and information of out of court settlements may be kept hush hush. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)