Talk:Killing of Eric Garner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:UNDUE in lead

In the current lead, we have the following sentence:

Many, including medical examiners, have described it as a chokehold,[10][11][12][6] while others argue it was a headlock and that no choking took place;[13][14][15][16].

Our citations in favor of "chokehold" are three BBC articles and an NYT article. One of the BBC articles refers to an "apparent chokehold." The remaining three the medical examiner's report.

By contrast, our citations for "headlock" are four YouTube videos:

1. This source, a video from PBS NewsHour, paraphrases a quote from the police union to say the maneuver used was "not intended to be a choke hold" (emphasis mine) but literally never mentions the word "headlock." It does note that the police department is conducting an internal investigation to determine whether the officer used a choke hold.
2. This source is a reposted Fox News video containing the opinion of Fox News contributor Bo Dietl offering a full-throated defense of the officer, including an out-of-hand dismissal of NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton's conclusion that the technique was a choke hold. I'm not sure his opinion is even noteworthy (that's a debate for another time), but as an opinion, this is not a reliable source to refute a claim of fact.
3. This video is another opinion, this time from what I (and many others) deem an utterly unreliable source for statements of fact: Newsmax. In this case, we don't even need to get into whether Newsmax is a reliable source for statements of fact because it's being used for the opinion of former NYPD officer Harry Houck, again being offered in opposition to a claim of fact.
4. Finally, we have a heavily-edited YouTube video by something called "Breaking News" featuring former LAPD detective and convicted perjurer Mark Fuhrman, who appeared on the Sean Hannity show to offer—once again—his opinion that it wasn't a choke hold. Amateur martial arts student Sean Hannity also offers his own opinion that it was a headlock rather than a choke hold.

If there's dispute among reliable sources as to whether or not it was a choke hold or a headlock, there must be better sources than this. I'll note that a Google search for "garner headlock" returns as its most prominent results such "reliable sources" as The Daily Caller, Ron Paul Forums, an opinion piece in the New York Post, and Newsbusters. As it stands, our current lead gives incredibly undue weight to the "headlock" crowd given the prominence of those sources. In any event, it is inappropriate in the extreme to cite these opinion sources in the lead.

I am not opposed to noting in the article (or even the lead) that dispute exists over whether or not the technique was a choke hold. I'm insisting that the dispute present—as we are required to do—"all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Dyrnych (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We should not, and are not claiming in Wikipedia's voice that it was or was not a chokehold or headlock. How can anyone know to a high level of confidence that he was or was not restricting Garner's airflow with his arm? Few if any reliable sources are stating a conclusion either. They typically call it an apparent chokehold, to make it clear that they are not making a definitive conclusion, and to acknowledge debate on the matter. Therefore we can also acknowledge debate on the matter. The factual claim that we are making in the article is only the fact that there is significant dispute about whether it was a chokehold. There can be no question that it is a fact that there is a dispute.

This chokehold question is not just a plain fact either. It's a matter of definition. Different people have different definitions for chokehold. It definitely is a chokehold by some people's definition. It definitely is not by other people's. Even if one reliable source declares it a chokehold, we know that their conclusion is not highly reliable, and therefore we need to take a more neutral stance as many of the other reliable sources do.

Furthermore, it is only fair to acknowledge Pantaleo's claim that it was not a chokehold. To not even acknowledge that it was an alleged chokehold which the accused denies, would be a BLP violation.

And it is important because many people don't realize that just because an arm is around someone's throat, doesn't mean that they are being choked. At Wikipedia we should let people see both (non-fringe) sides so they can come to their own conclusion. There are plenty of proponents to take it out of the fringe category, even if it is a minority. While you might say there are few reliable sources that conclude it was not a chokehold, there are also few if any that conclude that it was a chokehold without acknowledging doubt on the matter. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the point: the refs that we have are all terrible, and you've added another ref from the constantly-disputed-as-reliable Huffington Post. I'm removing all but the LA Times ref. Again, read what I've said above; I'm not arguing that we shouldn't acknowledge the other position, I'm arguing that it shouldn't be given the weight that it's being given. I'll note that your addition of two more references without removing others implies that there's more support for the proposition that it was a headlock and not a choke hold. Dyrnych (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care about the references. So it's ok if you remove them. Originally there was only one reference or maybe one, but an editor contended that nobody actually thought that it was not a chokehold. When I added a reference he added a comment to the article to disparage it based on it being a conservative pundit. So then I had to add multiple references to show a significant variety of people denying it was a chokehold, not just a tiny fringe.

I suspect the three BBC references to it being a chokehold are due to people making major changes to the article without removing references. Those references may have been there to back something else. People are perhaps rightly reluctant to remove references when they aren't sure of all the reasons why the reference is there. But on the other hand, it's not good to have references that don't support what they are attached to.

I never thought that the number of references for a proposition was a suggestion of weight. I still don't think it is. In fact it seems to me that more doubtful facts may need more references to barely give them notable weight, whereas strongly accepted facts may need only one or even no references. Therefore the presence of only one reference for a fact compared to many, may be a sign of relative strength rather than weakness.

You still seem to be missing the point of what fact our article is asserting and what the references are there to support. It would be improper for us to assert that it was or was not a chokehold, since neither we nor the reliable sources can reliably establish that. We need NO reliable reference to support that it was not a chokehold because we are not claiming that it was not a chokehold. We are claiming the fact that other people dispute that it was a chokehold. The references are only there to show that there are in fact other people disputing it. The reliable sources have considered these disputes notable enough to report the disputes, so we can report the dispute as well. The reliable sources don't attempt to settle the dispute and declare what it was, and neither should we. Do you see the distinction?

By the way, when you are editing the talk page, it is probably a good idea to leave a blank line between your comments and the previous editor's comments, to keep things clearer. Mindbuilder (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, we're getting nowhere with this argument. I'm going to take this to the RS noticeboard to get some other opinions. Dyrnych (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I revised it. It sounds neutral now, with "arm around the neck". It doesn't advocate it either being a chokehold or a headlock. Epicgenius (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is disappointing. First: what was the proximate cause of death? The article claims Garner had a heart attack, while the ME's statement claimed the cause was choking. The saying, in the days before death being defined as brain death, was "everybody dies of cardiac arrest". So, what was the direct cause of death? I think its important whether he died of asphixiation or heart malfunction (infarction). It seems to me that IF he lost consciousness immediately and the cops did NOTHING, then they are either guilty of gross derelection of duty, neglegent homicide, or murder. They claim he was breathing? How did they determine that? How do they explain them IGNORING his cries that he couldn't breathe?? Why didn't the paramedics intubate him? Why did they ALL do so little? There are massive holes in this narrative. How is what the police union (benevolent association? LOL) says relevant? The first thing that needs to be done (I'm not claiming wikipedia is the organization to DO it), is to understand how death can occur in severe asthmatics. Then we need to understand the chronology as his condition deteriorated. What was his condition when the EMT arrived (and how long did that take?), what was his condition upon arrival at hospital? I assume more facts will get into the record as the civil litigation proceeds (assuming no Federal charges are brought).Abitslow (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

He was DOA. We don't know why the police or EMTs did nothing, and we aren't going to guess. However, we can guess that Garner couldn't breathe, so he died. Epicgenius (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please revert your edit and discuss your change, per BRD. There is a clear consensus at the RS noticeboard that the medical examiner's report is a reliable source for the cause of death, and the ME report states that the cause of death was in part due to a choke hold. Further, the vast preponderance of reliable sources refer to the Garner case as "the chokehold case" or some variant. Dyrnych (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I will not please revert my edit. I was bold, I was reverted, and I have discussed. The best I can do is to rewrite again so that the chokehold is displayed in the lead sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you were bold, were reverted, re-reverted, and now maybe are starting to discuss now that your preferred version is the version that remains in the lead. That is not how BRD works. Dyrnych (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I started discussing after the first revert. No one responded. Epicgenius (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the RS/N discussion.- MrX 03:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a clear consensus about the reliability of a coroner's report for making unattributed statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Since I made the surprising new discovery that medical examiners may make their findings on a probability of mere "more likely than not", My count is only about 5 in favor of flatly stating ME findings as fact to 4 against, and another that is looking like he may be shifting against. Before my discovery of the low standards of autopsy findings, there were many more declaring them reliable, but that was when we all assumed that ME findings were done to a high standard. Regardless of the outcome in this article, I'm going to continue to push for policy declaration that ME findings of fact established to only 51% probability or unknown probability are not reliably established facts to be stated flatly in Wikipedia's voice. I'm amazed I even have to argue that. It should be blatantly uncontroversial. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing something like 12:3 in favor, with a couple of weak arguments on both sides.- MrX 13:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You're including opinions from before we found out that medical examiner's may establish their findings on a mere "more likely than not" probability. If you count that way, then you would have to count me on the other side in cases where the examiner's opinion was not disputed. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You contend that the mere fact that you posted a link to a twelve-year-old document which explicitly states that "[t]he recommendations contained herein are not standards and should not be used to evaluate the performance of a given certifier in a given case" invalidates every editor opinion that preceded it? Dyrnych (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using the recomendations to evaluate the performance of the examiner. The ME may well have performed perfectly. But we don't know what level of probability the findings were established to. It is plausible, even likely, that the ME used a similar standard. If we don't know to what level of confidence a fact has been established, then it would be unreasonable for us to assume that it is a fact. And yes, that changes everything enough that preceding opinions, including mine, based on false and fundamental assumptions, should not be considered still valid. I wouldn't say that about just any little point I introduced to the debate, but to find that the ME standard may be merely "more likely than not" is a whopper. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, actually you are, but more importantly you are suggesting that the guide represents standards (and note how many times you've just said "standard") when it explicitly disavows that it provides standards. Also, I would like you to show me the Wikipedia policy that establishes the degree of confidence necessary in a particular source's methodology for us to report its conclusions as fact. Finally, you'll note that none of the editor opinions following your "revelation" have given it any credence. Dyrnych (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Think about this way: If we'd applied Mindbuilder's standards he/she is arguing here and at RSN, we'd have to rewrite almost every article of the deceased unless their cause of death is verified by several or maybe even thousands of professionals, considering their climate change comparison at RSN. To question the ME (medical examiner) b/c some pundits and other non experts do is blog/forum material and below WP standards (no matter how low I personally perceive those).TMCk (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  And as GRuban puts it, "Lady Gaga" has no say in this.TMCk (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And that's an excellent point: it's a completely unworkable standard. In Mindbuilder-world, Wikipedia can virtually never state the cause of death of any decedent, which seriously undermines Wikipedia's utility as an encyclopedia. Dyrnych (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note Mindbuilder's forum shopping spree.TMCk (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As the discussion was closed at WP:RS I'll leave my reply to those comments here as well.

@Dyrnych - I wasn't aware that we were supposed to notify all the other editors of a discussion on an issue elsewhere. This is the first time I've been involved in a discussion on multiple Wikpeidia forums. Furthermore, I thought that you not only knew but had contributed to this discussion on the WP:RS page. Checking, I see I was mistaken about that.

Again, in regards to forum shopping, I only changed the forum once, to what I understand to be the proper forum for discussing my proposed change to the RS policy. The two forum changes before that were by Dyrnych, for reasons I'm not questioning the justification for. I don't believe I need any defense for changing the forum once to the proper forum for my proposal.

The recommendations of the medical examiners guide might not be a "standard", but that is irrelevant. They show that a very significant number of medical examiners, including the leadership of a national organization, MAY make their findings to a "more likely than not" personal standard, especially in non homicide cases. Any particular ME may be using these recommendations or some other standard of their own (or rule of thumb of their own, if you have a problem with the word standard). We don't know. These recommendations are a little old, but they don't appear to have been superseded, and we have no reason to think that they have been. It's not like 2002 was back in the dark ages before forensic science was well developed or something. The NYC ME might be using a more rigorous standard. But it would be absurd to suggest that we should just assume that the NYC medical examiner is reliable because he MIGHT be using standards more rigorous than the National Association of Medical Examiners recommends.

Although I quoted from a Guide for Manner of Death Classification, The quote states in part:

"In general, the certifier of death completes the cause-of-death section and attests that, to the best of the certifier’s knowledge, the person stated died of the cause(s) and circumstances reported on the death certificate. It is important to remember that these “facts” only represent the certifier’s opinion and are not written in stone or legally binding." [Bold emphasis added, quotes around "facts" in original]

And further, the paragraph heading the list of degrees of certainty starts out:

"Because the cause and manner of death are opinions..."[emphasis added]

It's true that the next sentence before the list of degrees of certainty turns to talking of manner of death, but I think similar levels of certainty are being used for cause of death as well. It hadn't occurred to me before, but I think examiners use the "more likely than not" standard because it is useful in civil cases. If they can make the determination at least to that level then they probably do, rather than making no determination, because many parties involved may need that determination to that low level, and find it very useful in civil cases, even if it is not highly certain. Another reason I think they find cause of death to "more likely than not" is that perhaps the main purpose of cause of death findings is for statistical purposes. The keepers of the statistics probably want a finding to whatever certainty they can get. I could be wrong. Maybe medical examiners make determinations of cause of death to a much higher standard. You can waste your time trying to hunt that down if you like. But until we know or have good reason to believe or assume that a source is using a reliable standard, it would not be reasonable to assume that their facts are reliable. And furthermore, we're not only talking about the factuality of the cause of death finding, we're also talking about the factuality of the manner of death finding. And the cited probabilities bear directly on that issue. If nothing else, we need a warning in the RS policy to prevent editors from citing the manner of death finding as reliable, absent confirmation of degree of certainty. Although in the one particular case of Eric Garner, I think the degree of certainty for the homicide finding is likely beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least very close.

TMCk wrote:

"If we'd applied Mindbuilder's standards he/she is arguing here and at RSN, we'd have to rewrite almost every article of the deceased unless their cause of death is verified by several or maybe even thousands of professionals, considering their climate change comparison at RSN. To question the ME (medical examiner) b/c some pundits and other non experts do is blog/forum material and below WP standards (no matter how low I personally perceive those).TMCk (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)"

And Dyrnych wrote:

"And that's an excellent point: it's a completely unworkable standard. In Mindbuilder-world, Wikipedia can virtually never state the cause of death of any decedent, which seriously undermines Wikipedia's utility as an encyclopedia. Dyrnych (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)"

There is little difficulty in my proposal. I'm only proposing a minor change. I still recommend reporting the opinions of medical examiners regarding the cause and manner of death, but as a credible opinion with a warning about the unknown probability, rather than as reliable fact. Many articles might need to be changed. But if they're based on unreliable facts, then they just need to be changed. It is no argument to say that it's too much work to make Wikipedia accurate, so lets just set our standards for reliably establishing facts down to "more likely than not", and revert corrections to this article from the reasonable state back to the unreasonable state. And if the work scares you too much, I wouldn't object to ignoring the uncertainty in articles where the cause of death is uncontroversial. What's more, many ME findings will be obviously beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Trayvon Martin case for example, the cause of death was obviously a gunshot wound, and the manner of death was obviously homicide. So no reliability of ME finding warning would be needed.

And I'm not just questioning the ME's findings because the police unions and some pundits do, I'm questioning them because of the recommendations regarding degree of certainty from the National Association of Medical Examiners.

Dyrnych wrote:

"I would like you to show me the Wikipedia policy that establishes the degree of confidence necessary in a particular source's methodology for us to report its conclusions as fact."

Incredible! Dyrnych appears to be right! I think I skimmed all the relevant guidelines, and I'm unable to find any Wikipedia policy that establishes the degree of confidence necessary in a particular source's methodology for us to report its conclusions as fact. I guess this is probably a result of our reliance on reliable sources and our expectation that they will follow a good standard of their own. And it may not have occurred to anyone that it needed to be made clear that "more likely than not" is a grossly inadequate standard. The closest I have found is from the WP:NPOVFAQ (which is an essay, not an official policy or even guideline). It states there that a "fact" is "e.g. information ... about which there is no serious dispute" I think a 49% possibility that a fact is wrong leaves ample room for serious dispute. But again, that's just an essay. It is now clear that we need new policy, not just about medical examiners but about sources and the reliability of facts in general. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What was the result of this debate? The tag disputing intro needs to be removed ASAP as it looks bad. Thanks. User talk:dghavens 04:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin in the "See also"

I think the shooting of Trayvon Martin is relevant enough to be included in the see also, especially as that is also a major reason for the protests along with Michael Brown. Keiiri (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Tagging this article for NPOV issues

According to news reports this article was being edited/or still being edited by one of the affected party to cast the NYPD in a more favorable light and lessen allegations of police misconduct. In my opinion it would be great if we semi-protected the article until the issue is resolved.--Chamith (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• The article is semi-protected; has been for months. I have removed your tag. If there are specific problems in the article, please point them out here on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for hasty addition of the tag. I'll review the page. Best--Chamith (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2015

after he was put in a chokehold

5.80.194.254 (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please request your changes in the form "please change X to Y".--Chamith (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits to this article from 1 Police Plaza

According to this article, many of the edits to this page were made by people at 1 Police Plaza.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8563947/edits-wikipedia-pages-bell-garner-diallo-traced-1-police-plaza Edits to Wikipedia pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1 Police Plaza

I think there's a need for a WP:COI disclosure. I am not employed by any organization with a stake in the Eric Gardner case.

I think everyone else should either make a similar statement, or disclose their employment. --Nbauman (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(Merged duplicate section. Wasn't there when I first clicked "New section." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC))

See here. Given the subject matter, allowing anyone from the NYPD to edit is at least as problematic as letting the Garner family edit this topic. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

...And so WP shows up in the news once again... --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Even though I'm uninvolved (never been to New York, no police in the family), this isn't the sort of article I'd usually edit, and I only came here because my mom brought the article to my attention. I'd really rather work on other stuff, and if I had to get involved, I'd only just blanket undo anything from the NYPD IP (treating them as close to topic banned as I can without violating anything like 3rr). I'm hoping someone more familiar with this can handle it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Should mention of this be in this wiki article, nypd cops editing these wiki articles they have conflict of interest in? I see other wiki articles have mention if a wiki article editing controversy becomes part of the topic. Maybe only if a secondary source also reports on this? Popish Plot (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also reported here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/13/nypd_wikipedia_edits_eric_garner_sean_bell_amadou_diallo.html - Cwobeel (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you know if capitalnewyork.com and slate.com are considered reliable sources? Popish Plot (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Both are perfectly established reliable sources--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also mentioned here, in a article that presents their other contributions as petty vandalism. Wonder if those edits would be enough to warrant blocking the IP? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

IP addresses can be blocked for persistent vandalism. That isn't needed yet in this case, but I'll keep watching. Jonathunder (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We could also request a bot that could monitor all the IPs from NYPD. I'm going to see if that is reasonable. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/nypdedits is a bot tracking any new edits, but no history as of yet. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Also reported here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/nypd-caught-red-handed-sanitizing-police-brutality-wikipedia-entries/ -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, here's the deal. In principle Slate is a perfectly reliable source, but for now we're talking about a blog on Slate now, which indicate that it is hardly a real big story now, nor do I see that this is of enduring importance--you may disagree with that after the situation gets so out of hand that ordinary editorial procedure or administrative action can't handle that. What we should aim for is not that we can include a section on COI editing of a Wikipedia article, but that we can read an article that is free of COI editing. So, for now I'm going to remove the paragraph as UNDUE and too soon. Its very presence reflects poorly on us and on the NYPD as a whole, which for all we know is getting its already spotty reputation tarnished by one or two people.

  In the meantime, if edits get out of hand, post on ANI or ping HJ Mitchell, who is always on the case. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's not just a Slate blog. It broke on Capital New York and has since appeared on Time (not on a Time blog), The New Republic, and others. I agree that our focus should be on making an article readable without COI editing, but if COI editing is part of the factual and historical record then the article should reflect that. Also, the "one or two" bad apples excuse is only tenable if NYPD makes it clear that such behavior will not be tolerated---and in any case the record should still show the facts. Appearing in publications as varied as Time, Ars Technica, and the New Republic clearly attests to the "enduring importance" of the facts. Thanks. Jalfrock Sat Mar 14 21:30 2015 UTC.

Its good to see Wikipedia doing its job. Would there be a sort of group chat for all the pages effected by WP:COI? What about this New York Post online article reporting the NYPD computers editing Wikipedia pages to be used as a source for future editing on related Wikipedia pages? Also this other NY Post article which reports further edits to other Wikipedia pages. Article. However in the second link this particular Wikipedia page is not mentioned as one of the edits--Rent A Troop (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's WP:COIN. If the NYPD really makes a habit of this, it should go on their article, if it's properly sourced and outlasts a single news cycle (NYP typically doesn't hold much sway). As long as it's not a problem for the article it doesn't need to be mentioned in here, as far as I'm concerned--and even then there is the question of UNDUE. I mean, if we get a memo from 1 Plaza or whatever it's called telling individual employees to edit this or that, yeah, that's different. For now, we probably have a cop or secretary or two editing a topic they find interesting, a topic they have an opinion on--not a conspiracy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Why not on both/all articles? People reading about, say, police brutality and cover-ups in general, might be interested in cases rather than police departments. Assuming good faith on the part of NYPD, it's more a part of this article than a part of their article. In case of bad faith on the part of NYPD it should go in all relevant articles (NYPD, this one, other related articles, etc.) as readers should be aware of the extent of its reach. Thanks. Jalfrock Sat Mar 14 21:30 2015 UTC.
•  Comment: If you're looking for allegations of NYPD corruption, misconduct, etc., you should go to this article, which is where the NYPD editing section should really go. Not that the NYPD is bad or anything, but this about the wiki editing should go to the article about such allegations. Epic Genius (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Left hand

The video of the incident clearly shows that Garner raised his left arm and held his left hand open and out from his body, without ever hitting or grabbing anyone. It was an obvious sign of "raised hands" non-resistance and surrender (his other hand was held, so he couldn't raise it). Has any RS commented on this fact? If so, it should be mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What video are you talking about. They just had witnesses that said that.Popish Plot (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2015

Cain071546 (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC) I would like to see the page reverted to the version available on March 9 2015 concerned that recent edits may be purposely incorect or untrue seeing as recent edits have been done by police officers who may have bias personal opinions that may be contradictory to the accuracy of this article

The only major difference I see between 9 March and now is the addition of the Wikipedia editing section. Stickee (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The edits happen a far back as December 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.120.216 (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that due to conflict-of-interest editing on this article from disgruntled police officers, we post a link to the conflict-of-interest article in the 'see also' section? Conflict of interest editing has been reported by several media outlets. I believe this article is a fine example of biased editing from police officers. Also, reference to conflict-of-interest editing on this article will hopefully deter biased police officers in the future from engaging in wrongful edits. I could be wrong though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia

50.160.59.107 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith-"disgruntled police officers". Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Some of those edits flagged as problematic in the blogosphere seem reasonable to me, some don't, but that's wikipedia. There are a lot of bad edits. There are multiple sides to the story and cops are subject matter experts, even if they do work for NYPD. It would definitely be COI _if_ they were paid edits, but I've seen no evidence of that, so the accusation of COI depends on the question of whether editing something related to your employer is COI, particularly with a very large employer like this, with close to 40,000 employees. That's a lot of people with potentially useful input to exclude based on a COI presumption. And you know, if they're bad edits, you can always fix them or take them out. Tarchon (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

NYPD edits

I am not sure if this is "unnecessary", but shouldn't this now-deleted section be moved to New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct? Epic Genius (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. It's already on that page. Epic Genius (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It is worthy of mention, as there are almost 100 articles on the subject! If nothing else, there needs to be a brief mention in this article and a link to its place. User talk:dghavens 05:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree, as well. I believe the content I'd adapted from New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct is worthy of at least a referenced mention in cases where we have reliable sources that cite the article by name. (And just to be clear, this "now-deleted section" was deleted by User:Epicgenius. His comment implies otherwise.) It is buried in the massive New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct list: readers of this article will never find it there. To delete any mention appears to me to have the effect of further masking NYPD actions in this case, and indeed, in this article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dghavens and Shawn in Montreal: In retrospect, I don't really see how editing Wikipedia is related to Garner dying, except that both are examples of the NYPD's supposed lack of accountability. I will ping Drmies, as they were the editor that first removed the content. Dr, do you have any comments about this matter? Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Pinging editors. Epic Genius (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

agents of the NYPD were involved in the death of Eric Garner and Agents of the NYPD were involved in trying to whitewash it, per dozens of reliable sources. Multiple reliable sources have cited the changes that happened in this very article, not on that article on NYPD misconduct.User talk:dghavens 20:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and agents of the NYPD also use the bathroom and probably wear socks. Dozens of reliable sources--a report or two which gets blogged and reblogged, no doubt. Again we get the charge that making sound editorial decisions, which takes into account the reliability of sources and the encyclopedic value of information, is "masking NYPD actions"--sorry, but that is nonsense, and insulting to boot. We're not the news, and we're not Twitter, re-tweeting every bit we can source. Until there is evidence of a conspiracy of some sort, there is no pressing reason to include this. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is already ample evidence of a long-term NYPD effort, from reliable sources. I don't know what other evidence you require. It's notable, and to characterize it as somehow akin to "agents of the NYPD who use the bathroom and probably wear socks" is one of the feeblest strawman arguments I've heard in some time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Shawn. It is relevant and mentioned my hundreds of reliable sources. wikipedia airs on the side of inclusion.User talk:dghavens 01:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it airs on the side of notability, and we certainly have the refs for that. I'm not saying there needs to be a huge section on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Barring WP:SELFREF, it could be included, but then this Wiki editing controversy would have to be mentioned in the Akai Gurley and Sean Bell articles as well. Epic Genius (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it's the NYPD article, not this one. Jonathunder (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification, the NYPD allegations of misconduct article. There is so much controversy that we can't possibly include all of it on the main NYPD article. Besides, it is already on the NYPD allegations of misconduct article. Epic Genius (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why it shouldn't be in both articles? Or in any article it pertains to. I am thinking of adding it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_controversies for example. Popish Plot (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I had already added it to the Sean Bell shooting death article -- though of course it may have been removed there, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Popish Plot: It's kind of for the same reason that it's not in the Garner or Gurley articles. It is not as important and puts undue weight on Wikipedia editing as part of a major controversy that the NYPD partook in. In fact, it is a quite minor issue. Epic Genius (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you actually read undue? It begins: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We're talking about a small mention, hardly disproportionate, of a minor -- yes -- aspect to this controversy that has nevertheless been widely reported and clearly considered by independent reliable sources to be notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, undue was written to offer advice on how to deal with "minority viewpoints" on matters, such as, explicitly, whether Flat Earth theory need be incorporated into the article on Earth. That NYPD members attempted to rewrite this article and others isn't a "minority viewpoint." It happened, it's been reported on, is being investigated by the NYPD, etc. UNDUE is not a carte blanche for WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, which appears to be how it is being invoked, badly, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

1) I meant WP:UNDUE for the main NYPD article, not the articles about the three men. 2) Yeah, and this Wikipedia editing controversy is important to the deaths of these men exactly how...? The only thing it shows is that the NYPD is trying to cover something up. Epic Genius (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That "something up" is the death of eric garner User talk:dghavens 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least the NYPD didn't flat out deny it, they just treated it like it was minor, so yeah, that's a little problem right there. Epic Genius (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I know it's not "the NYPD" editing Wikipedia, but one or more editors who are sometimes editing from the police station--that is a big and important difference. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's minor compared to the main issues of this article. Popish Plot (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/nypd-wikipedia-edits-punishment_n_6880020.html --that is a link stating that it was NYPD officers involved. I think we have made strong case for inclusion User talk:dghavens 03:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a "close connection" template added to the top. Illegitimate Barrister 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Please undo if this is not appropriate. Epic Genius (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"See Also" Section

I've removed a link to the shooting of Trayvon Martin article, it wasn't as closely related to this case as the other pages linked in the section and there wasn't consensus for the addition. Pishcal — ♣ 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The shooting of Trayvon Martin is relevant enough to be included in the see also, especially since it's one of the major reasons for the protests along with Michael Brown. It also inspired the Black Lives Matter movement used in the protests. It's more relevant than the other shootings are. Keiiri (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Death of Garner Talk

WP:NOTFORUM

Seriously? Lavall Hall, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner are all black Americans, and they were all shot down by white police. Shouldn't we do something about this? I mean, the police are getting like OVERKILL right now. not kidding. Ryguyrocky (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC) This is not a forum for discussing the general topic of police shootings of black Americans. Dyrnych (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The first paragraph is terrible. User talk:jumplike23 04:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)04:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that. Dyrnych (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Pishcal — ♣ 06:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to coordinates

Old coordinates: 40.637147°N 74.076574°W / 40.637147; -74.076574

New coordinates: 40.63716°N 74.07674°W / 40.63716; -74.07674

For anyone who cares about such minutiae, I'll explain my adjustments to the coordinates.

• The old coords showed the event occurring in the middle of Bay Street. For purposes of coordinates, we don't need secondary RS support to show that it happened right next to the building; the video is enough.

• At least for me in Google Maps, the old coords were more in front of 204 Bay, not 202 Bay.

• I reduced the coords precision by one decimal position to reflect some uncertainty as to the exact spot. Per WP:OPCOORD, to use six decimal positions, we would need to know that the event occurred within a circle with a diameter of about three meters. Close examination of the video might get us that close, but it's borderline, and it's better to err on the side of less precision.

• I changed |display=inline to |display=inline,title, which I believe is the more common practice. I removed the text "Location of event:" as redundant, and added the region and type values. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You better watch out, the other editors around here may accuse you of doing a texture and color analysis of the surface to determine if it was sidewalk or street, and a geometric analysis to determine how far from the buildings it was. Then you would be considered in violation of the original research policy. Of course any normal person would consider it obvious that it was on a sidewalk, but then any normal person can also tell if there is an arm around the neck or not in a clear video, and read off the seconds when it happened, without doing any real analysis. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, but I've found that a little OR/SYNTH is tolerated for coordinates that are uncontroversial, that are not central to the national debate of the subject. I think that's sensible. And I did do some OR/SYNTH here, using visual clues from Google Maps, Google Street View, and the video. I would not have done that for controversial coords. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

15 seconds

Re: my revert

@Mindbuilder: I understand your point, but it's inconsistent with my understanding of common practice. I hope my edit summary explains that sufficiently. But the disagreement may be moot.

For one thing, the lead should summarize the information in the body, so there should be no information in the lead that is not also in the body. The body does not say anything about the duration of the chokehold.

For another, my less-than-exhaustive look into the sources for 15 seconds shows nothing much besides opinion. The one source given is second-hand from a column in the New York Daily News. That's pretty flimsy sourcing in the first place, and if nothing better can be cited I think the 15 seconds reference should be removed.

I haven't been involved in this article much, and I'm not feeling motivated to put a lot of energy into this, but that's my take and I hope more involved editors here will consider these things. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The time was good enough for Democracy Now to quote without qualification and for New York Daily News to publish as well. The undisputed video of the event clearly and plainly shows the time that Pantaleo had his arm around Garner's neck was less than 17 seconds. A frame by frame viewing of the video shows the time to be clearly, though not plainly at normal speed, to be 15.3 seconds. Although the 15.3 second time is clear, it is not so plain, as it requires frame by frame viewing to confirm with that precision. A couple seconds is immaterial anyway. Wikipedia policy does allow the use of primary sources, and the video is undisputed, widely published and plain and clear to a careful look. We don't even need a secondary source. No special expertise or analysis is needed, just careful monitoring of the seconds count of your video viewer, and maybe replaying it several times or in slow motion to establish the start and end seconds. Reference 56 from Time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U has perhaps the clearest video of the event I've seen. When you view it on Youtube you can click the gear icon to play it back at 1/4 speed. Pantaleo's arm goes around Garner's neck at 1:29 and at 1:46 both of Pantaleo's hands can be plainly seen pushing down on Garner's head, neither wrapped around his neck. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, it's been a while. I'd have to agree with you Mandruss, the video citation is pretty weak, and it honestly kind of slipped into the article unnoticed or unrecognized after everybody got tired and the debate sort of stopped. I still believe that how long the chokehold lasted is pertinent information that should be included as early in the article as possible, but the fact still remains that the sourcing for it is weak. Also, we've had this whole primary source debate before, we cannot point to a video and say "look, this lasts X seconds", because it is OR, plain and simple. Please note that I am notifying editors who have taken part in this discussion previously in order to achieve a consensus. Pishcal — ♣ 21:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pretty obvious to me that what Mindbuilder's attempting to do is OR. This isn't a routine, simple calculation; it's analysis of the video (i.e., when Pantaleo's arm is and is not on Garner's neck). Dyrnych (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the 15 seconds is a number published now by several media outlets, so it is not original to me. Here's a NYT link stating the time as "a few seconds" http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/us/2014-12-03-garner-video.html?_r=0 Here's another news source for the 15 second number http://www.blackstarnews.com/ny-watch/politics/chokehold-nan-sharpton-eric-garner-family-demand-pantaleo And another http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8782353/eric-garner-breathe-ambulance I'll put these references in the article.

Second, the Wikipedia prohibition of doing analysis should not be interpreted to use a definition of the word analysis that includes careful looking that nearly anyone can do without any expertise. Anyone can see if an arm is around a neck. A definition of analysis that broad would make virtually all use of primary sources an analysis. And use of primary sources is allowed. And simple addition and subtraction is explicitly excepted from being original research.

And besides, what's the objection when it is obviously true from watching the video that Pantaleo took his arm off from around Garner's neck after about 15 seconds anyway? Do we not want people to know that because we're trying to make it look bad for the cop? Are we worried about a misleading impression that might be caused by being off by a fraction of a second or a few seconds? One approximate estimate was 19 seconds. Does it make a material difference. It's an important fact. If there is a good faith question about the accuracy, we can reflect that in the article. If anyone questions the 15 second number, let them state at what second they see the arm go around and what second it is clear it's not around. If they don't want to take the time to look carefully, that's fine, but that's not a justification to disregard a reliable primary source. Mindbuilder (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

http://www.shalomlife.com/news/29410/watch-jewish-comedian-tries-to-get-arrested-to-see-if-white-privilege-is-real/?PageSpeed=noscript

http://bks1radio.com/index.php/live-with-alisha-lee-and-rpaige

Mindbuilder (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-picture-that-exposes-americas-racist-double-standards--bye_dpCCcbl?js=false

Ok that should suffice.

Mindbuilder (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at the Vox, Independent and Black Star references. They do say 15 seconds, but I can't help but think they were getting that number from this article which had “15 seconds” at the time each was written (Vox June 15, 2015, Independent June 18, 2015 and Black Star May 28, 2015). If they did their own analysis then why not 16, 17, 18 or 19? Can anyone find an original source for the particular number “15” apart from this article? See Circular reporting and the particular examples related to the Independent using Wikipedia as a source.--Nowa (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I was invited here, forgot why, but remember now. This is a tough thing to explain to someone who doesn't understand the difference between a blood choke, air choke and headlock. And even if I do, the sources will still say what they do, and the whole thing will still be tainted by controversy and cherrypicking. In any case, the choke itself wasn't on nearly enough to kill him, or even 15 seconds, but if that's the commonly reported number and angle, go with it.

And citations go after claims, not words or numbers, midway. That disrupts reading. Either the whole claim's in the source, or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging and found a CNN source from December 4, 2014 that says “at least 16 seconds” Former prosecutor Adam Kaufmann in the Daily News from December 4, 2014 has From my view of the video, the “chokehold” applied by the police officers lasted approximately 19 seconds. So based on these references, I would be comfortable with “15 to 19 seconds” in the lede with a more expanded discussion of the various estimates in the body of the article.--Nowa (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support placing "15 to 19 seconds" in the lead given the sources provided, given that the inconsistency / discrepancy in what the sources say is mentioned later on in the article. Nice job spotting the potentially circular reporting by the way, I completely missed that. Also, User:InedibleHulk, I notified you of this discussion because of your participation in the previous discussion on this subject. Pishcal — ♣ 02:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Only confused for a few seconds. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd just unlinked chokehold and replaced it with "chokehold", since it's clear the sources equate general neck compression with a chokehold, unlike our article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with using a range of 15-19 seconds, but we don't need to report the approximate estimates when we have the undisputed primary source, and a frame by frame viewing establishes the time at 15.3 seconds, and there is no real controversy, just different rough estimates, and also the difference is immaterial. If the 19 second estimators were doing a frame by frame analysis and disputing the 15 second number, then it would probably be appropriate to put in the range, but they're not, they're just doing good enough rough estimates.

The references might have found out about the 15 second value from Wikipedia, And thus be circular, or they may have copied Democracy Now or NYDailyNews. But since we assume they do their own fact checking when the facts are so easy to check, those references are as good as any other "reliable source", especially since we're not blindly trusting them since we can easily verify for ourselves.

The CNN "at least 16 seconds" number refers to not just the chokehold time but also includes the time he had a "hold on Garner's head" Mindbuilder (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another source:

http://www.garycrusader.com/%28S%28g5phd1gtw1crddwxtczrh0yy%29%29/chicago/News-Detail.aspx?typeID=1&newsID=8289&CityID=1 Mindbuilder (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are the frame by frame timings of Pantaleo's arm around Garner's neck from the Time video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U The times are as follows: (where f is the frame number at 30frames/sec) At 1:28f25 Pantaleo (shirt 99) puts his arm around Garner's neck. Pantaleo's arm is clearly around Garner's neck until 1:33f9 when another officer (I think Justin Damico - shirt back D.D.) blocks the view, though the arm is still almost certainly around Garner's neck during the blocked time of the takedown. At 1:35f21 Pantaleo's locked fists and arm around Garner's neck becomes clearly visible again as Pantaleo is on Garner's back and Garner crawls on his hands and knees a short distance. There is a very brief, less than one second, blockage of the view by D.D. again from 1:37f25 to 1:38f17, but that is too brief for the arm to have come away and gone back around the neck. Continuing, Pantaleo's arm is clearly around Garner's neck until 1:41f27, when another officer blocks the view. It's hard to see at full speed, but in frame by frame mode, at 1:44f5, you can see Pantaleo's left fist come away from the right side of Garner's face, and the arm is clearly no longer around Garner's neck. At 1:46f0 Pantaleo is above Garner and clearly has both arms nearly straight down and clearly has both hands, and notably, all fingers, on Garner's head, not around his neck. If you can't see the hand come away at 1:44f5, then there is an uncertainty of four seconds about when Pantaleo's arm came away from Garner's neck between 1:41f27 and 1:46f0. So the time is 1:44f5 minus 1:28f25, or 15 seconds plus 10 frames, or 15.3 seconds, give or take two seconds at the end if you cant see the release at 1:44f5. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You can also copy and paste the URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N__5p_dNW3U into the VLC media player's open network stream dialog to enable playback in slow motion and even frame by frame. In VLC the e key on the keyboard goes one frame at a time, and the minus key pressed once or a few times, gives slow motion. The plus key returns to normal speed. Unfortunately Few video players list the frame numbers, apparently because video files don't store frame numbers and so the only way to determine them is for the video software to process the video from the start and keep careful track of the frames. You probably need video editing software to follow the frame numbers. Mindbuilder (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So now we're counting neither choking nor compressing, but arm around neck time? This sort of complexity is exactly why your "routine calculation" case doesn't work. You're original researching the hell out of this, and apparently making up the rules as you go.

And for what? No source has blamed "arm around neck", and the police don't prohibit that, because it's basically hugging. Only the pressure matters, death-wise. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There are three who find "15 to 19 seconds" in lede acceptable with further elaboration in the body. Any opposed?--Nowa (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the 19 second number because it's a known incorrect rough estimate. When we know a reliable source has made a slightly off rough estimate, and we have other reliable sources that give the correct value, we can go with the known correct sources alone. Just leave it as is.

InedibleHulk makes a good point about the difference between the arm around neck time vs choking time, but there is no way we or any reliable source can get anything close to an accurate number for how long the choking lasted or even if there was any choking at all. The arm around neck time is the upper limit of how long the chokehold lasted. We could and probably should change the article to reflect that the time is for arm around neck, not choking. I just didn't push for that before because it was hard enough to get the 15 seconds past the anti-cop faction, let alone replacing their beloved chokehold word with arm around the neck. I also didn't think it was worth wasting time arguing over since it is obvious that even a full 15 second choke hold, ending with him talking, wasn't the primary cause of death. Mindbuilder (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, make that two of us who find "15 to 19 seconds" acceptable with one opposed based on 19 seconds being inaccurate. Any other comments?--Nowa (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Without better sources, I'm opposed to including the duration at all. Dyrnych (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "better sources"? What would you consider be be adequately reliable sources?--Nowa (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, you can't claim that something is a "known incorrect rough estimate", or that "we" know something. You simply cannot. Again I must direct your attention to WP:OR, and I suggest that if you have a problem with that policy you take it up somewhere else. According to whom is 19 seconds a "known" rough estimate? Who decides which source has made the correct estimate and which one hasn't? You? Saying 15 to 19 seconds encompasses what the different sources have all claimed the time to be, and is not based on any Wikipedia editor's analysis of a video. Pishcal — ♣ 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what source actually says 19 seconds? The Kaufmann CNN one explicitly says "approximately 19 seconds". Anyone here that is willing to take a few minutes viewing frame by frame, can verify that approximation is off by four seconds, or at least two, so it shouldn't override the multiple sources that explicitly and flatly say 15 seconds.

There has been some dispute here about the exact time, but that seems to be only because nobody else is willing to look at it frame by frame or at least nice slow motion. InedibleHulk looked at it with some care and got a significantly smaller number, but that seems to have been mainly because he was trying to determine the choking time instead of the arm around neck time. We'll never be able to agree on the exact choking time, I wouldn't even try to figure it out. You might say we shouldn't waste time doing such original research, but just viewing a video slowly to verify which sources are right and which are likely slightly different approximations, I don't think qualifies as OR. This is not a problem with the OR policy, it is a difference in our interpretation of that policy. We the editors of this article can decide collectively if some articles are using slightly off estimates by viewing the primary source and still be within Wikipedia policy. But nobody else here seems to want to take the time to look at it closely enough to verify or refute my numbers. It may take some back and forth discussion for us to iron out our miscommunications about the start and end times, but I believe we could fairly easily if we tried. The original research policy is not an excuse for us not to come to agreement on the time. I may have to post a few screen captures with time stamps to get us all on the same page. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this discussion is likely to go on for a while, I've removed the likely circular sources for 15 seconds. I've also removed "15 seconds" from the lede until consensus is reached. I've kept 15 seconds in the body of the article since the Democracy Now reference from December 4, 2014 appears to be RS and not circular to WP. This article did not mention 15 seconds at that time.--Nowa (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources are given for 15 seconds in the lede and the Democracy Now source can apply as well. You can't just dismiss a source as circular unless you have some evidence of that. Those publications could have VERY easily verified the 15 seconds for themselves, and they probably did, and they may well be based on the Democracy Now or NYDN source and not be circular at all. It's not just coincidence that they came up with 15 seconds like I and DemNow and NYDN did, that is the exact number, to the second, revealed by careful observation. Those references are solid. There is especially no reason to doubt the sources when we can easily (and have) confirmed it with the primary source. The 15 second fact is also clearly notable as it has been mentioned even in articles where very few other facts of the case have been.Mindbuilder (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) I thought the debate over whether to include the 15 seconds was basically over. I thought we were only debating now whether to include 19 seconds as well. Of course now that I realized there is no source for the 19 seconds other than an explicitly approximate one, I expect that debate shouldn't last long either. Mindbuilder (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So what is wrong with the sources? We have Black Star News, edited by a Columbia School of Journalism graduate, who being black, is unlikely to minimize the time or fudge the numbers in favor of the white cop. We have the Independent, a major British newspaper with a print circulation of 100,000. And a Vox article by Spencer Platt of Getty Images Reportage. We have the New York Daily News source repeated by Democracy Now that came to the 15 second number independently and non-circularly, even before I did. Even the New York Times reports the chokehold lasted "a few seconds" not a lot of seconds or minutes. And again to cinch it all tight, we can verify the secondary sources are correct with a frame by frame viewing of the primary source. The editing policy page states "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." So the 15 second number should stay up until a plausible refutation of it or the sources is brought forth. This is also one of the most important facts in the article, because of the myth that he was choked to death, and therefore it belongs in the lede. Mindbuilder (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Mindbuilder. Here are a couple of responses to your concerns

• Multiple reliable sources are given for 15 seconds in the lede As indicated above, there is a wide range of times reported by reliable sources. I just found one for 13 seconds in the Wall St. Journal from July 18, 2014. So that makes the reported range of 13 to 19 seconds. And don’t forget, we also have the CNN source that says “at least 16 seconds”.
• You can't just dismiss a source as circular unless you have some evidence of that. We’ve provided evidence of the fact that the numbers reported in some of the more recent references match the number in this article at the time. Granted it’s not proof of circularity, but since these sources merely state “15 seconds” without any further discussion or analysis, they don’t add strength to the number either.
• And again to cinch it all tight, we can verify the secondary sources are correct with a frame by frame viewing of the primary source. Here’s where you and I strongly disagree. I have looked at the Time video in some detail and it is not at all clear to me when an actual chokehold is placed on Eric Garner and for how long. Referring to the Time video: At 1:29 I see a hand go around E.G.’s neck, but I do not see a choke applied. At 1:30 E.G. turns away from the video and you can’t tell what’s going on. At 1:32 E.G. turns back and there is a possible choke. At 1:33 E.G.s head is no longer visible and you can’t tell what’s going on. At 1:34 it does not appear as if anyone’s arm is around E.G.’s neck. At 1:35 it appears as if a choke is being applied. At 1:38 E.G.s head is no longer visible. At 1:38 it appears as if a choke is being applied. At 1:42 E.G.’s head is no longer visible. At 1:46 E.G.’s head is being pressed down and thereafter it does not appear as if a choke is being applied. So for me personally, I only unambiguously see a continuous choke between 1:38 and 1:42 or about 4 seconds. Now we can go on and on about what probably happened when his head wasn’t visible and what exactly a choke is, but the bottom line is if we have to have this discussion at all, then any conclusion we come to is impermissible OR, at least as far as I’m concerned.
• This is also one of the most important facts in the article, because of the myth that he was choked to death, and therefore it belongs in the lede. Now I think we are getting to the crux of the matter. I don’t know of any other secondary source or even other person besides yourself that believes that this is one of the most important facts of the article. None of the references so far do anything more than merely mention a time. There is no analysis, discussion, or debate in the literature. And if your point is that the fact that he was “choked to death” is a myth, then you need to find a source that directly says that. To make an important point by insisting on putting a particular fact in an article is impermissible synthesis. I certainly won’t join a consensus on that approach.--Nowa (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

”A few seconds” and “banned choke hold” in the lede

Regarding choke hold duration, I like the wording “a few seconds” backed up by the NYT article. They seem to have done a detailed analysis of the full video. Also, the still they show from the video to illustrate the banned choke hold is the point in the video where I personally felt a choke hold was used. Since the reference clearly states “banned choke hold” and since this is the most recent reliable source, I think the lede should reflect that language as well. How do others feel about it?--Nowa (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need the duration at all, but "a few seconds" seems fine if sourced to the NYT article. I also don't think we need the word "banned" when we state the policy on chokeholds in the next sentence. What I'd specifically like to avoid is the multiplicity of sources that we've got for many claims in the article when one source is sufficient, especially when (as with the 15-19 seconds claim) most of those sources are beyond low-quality. Dyrnych (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree.--Nowa (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to the reduction of references as Dyrnych sees fit, since I put them there almost entirely for him. I think it would be a good idea to have a link to the original video, because readers might like to verify it for themselves, but I think there is such a link elsewhere in the article. Right at the beginning of the article would be a great place for it though. The original source of the video, NYDailyNews has finally put it up on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfXqYwyzQpM That's probably the link we should use for the primary source instead of the Time video.

Here's another source I just found that does a precise timing and gets 15.5 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK-yFWLdGXY I don't think this source qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia, but I think it is noteworthy that the only other source in the world besides me that we know of, that timed it to the tenth of a second, got practically the same result as me. And the same result, to the second, as all the media sources except the explicitly approximate one.

What is it that you guys think is wrong with the sources? Circularity is not a problem because NYDailyNews and Democracy Now published it before we did, and the time is easily verifiable by anyone, even if you call it original research. None of the published sources give different times by enough to matter, since a difference of four seconds is unimportant to anything. None of the sources claim any of the other sources is in error. We have several decent news media sources that are all in practical unanimous agreement. There is no controversy about the 15 second number. When you have an extraordinary claim, even a top notch source like the NYTimes may not be good enough. But the opposite is also true, that when you have an uncontroversial fact from several lesser sources, which can be easily verified by anyone, then the sources don't need to be as airtight. Mindbuilder (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Side note: The body of Shooting of Walter Scott links to two youtube videos using an {{External media}} box, here. This has stood for months without so much as a peep of objection. I see no problem with this usage provided the presentation is neutral, and I think it adds reader value. The box is small and the link texts are as brief as possible. We deliberately chose video versions without annotations, other editorializing, or advertising, and readers can watch and form their own opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Medical Examiner's exact wording again

@Mandruss - We had an exact quote of the Medical Examiner and we did at one time have a reliable source reference that quoted the ME exactly and correctly. See the green quote at the end of this talk archive section for an interesting email response from the ME to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Eric_Garner/Archive_1#Regarding_.22Compression_of_neck_.28choke_hold.29.22 References keep getting changed for various reasons. I don't know what happened to the proper reference for this quote. This email from the M.E. to me does not qualify as an acceptable source for Wikipedia. I just put it on the talk page to inform editors. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mindbuilder: Thanks for the info, but I'm not clear what you're suggesting or advocating, if anything. Is there something wrong with the status quo wording and ref? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I got mixed up. I thought you removed quotes from a proper quote, but I see that you removed the quotes Nowa added where the quotes Nowa added don't seem to be an exact quote of the ME. So I'd say your current version is ok. The info box however used to have quotes around the ME's cause of death, and so I think I'm going to put them back on. The NYT reference does have the correct exact quote. People have repeatedly tried to change it, especially the spelling of choke hold, which I think should probably be spelled as the ME did when quoting the ME. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We already include the full quote in the Investigation section. In the infobox, a brief summary form seems more appropriate. Cause: choke hold, compression of chest, poor health. I've actually never seen a quote in an infobox. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't care if you removed "compression of neck", as it's redundant to chokehold, and "during physical restraint by police", as it is probably unnecessary, but I don't think "prone positioning" should be removed. And I'm not sure if poor health is needed as it was only a contributing condition rather than a primary cause. I don't see how it could be simplified much more. If I remember right, contributing causes of death are called contributing if the death would likely have occurred even if those causes hadn't be present. Thus it may not be accurate to blend the two categories together under causes of death. It might be best to add a contributing conditions section to the info box if that were to be included. I'd probably just leave it as is though since it is not excessively long. Having the quotes in the info box is probably unusual, but I don't see anything wrong with it and they don't take up significant room and they are useful info to the reader. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External video

Re: this edit

@Mindbuilder: Concerns, comments, questions.

• I think it stretches the definition of external video. Lots of news articles contain imbedded video, and we cite them rather than putting them in this box. A youtube link is something different, as it doesn't also contain a news story.

• The video of the event is the second of two in the news article, the first being a one-year retrospective. To see the video that the box represents, one has to scroll down, which could be confusing.

• How is that second video better than other versions available on youtube? It has a big DAILY NEWS EXCLUSIVE plastered on it, and we don't need to be providing free advertising if we can avoid it. I don't think the Daily News owns the copyright. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This youtube video also advertises the Daily News, but it lacks the other problems. It may have been edited a little, but it appears to include all the significant parts. It's also less likely to go dead than a NYDN article. Wouldn't it be an improvement in that box? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually prefer the Youtube version because it can be easily viewed in slow motion. But I kind of thought we should include the link to the NYDN version because that is the original source. The NYDN claims they paid Orta for exclusive use of the video. We could link directly to the video instead of the article, but I thought it might be better in context, and I thought the article was rather interesting as well. This video is probably the most important piece of information in the entire article and maybe more important than the entire rest of the article, so I think it deserves a place near the top. I think readers would want an easy link to it at top. I was thinking about putting a section in the infobox linking to it just below where Orta is referenced there now. That seems like a logical location. I don't have time to edit now though. I'll be back this evening. Mindbuilder (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It belatedly occurred to me to compare the lengths, and 2:55 vs. 11:08 is probably too much editing. This youtube version is 11:08 and appears to be an exact copy of the one in the NYDN article. It also was uploaded by the Daily News, so there shouldn't be any issues about using it. There's something to be said for providing readers a single common platform for external videos, where possible, and, again, a youtube video stands a better chance than a news article of surviving "forever" (whatever that means). If the article is interesting, it could be in External links or we could find a way to cite it. As for placement of the video link, I think it's more conspicuous and less easily missed in the Death section, but then I'm influenced by the placement in Shooting of Walter Scott. I think it makes sense to put it beside the most detailed prose description of the event. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mindbuilder: Have I swayed you at all? Looks like it's just you and me at this point. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the issues we sometimes have of spending significant time tracking down original sources, so you could change the link to the Youtube one, but you should attach a reference to the NYDN article, especially because it explains not just the organization the video comes from, but how that organization obtained the video. The article about how they obtained it is kind of interesting, but probably doesn't rank anything more than a reference in the Wiki article. We definitely should link to one of the 11:08 versions. I still think the video should be linked from near the top, but I probably won't bother to change it if you leave it in the death section. Often people don't even read any more than the lede, so the important parts should be linked there. Mindbuilder (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

New chokehold edits

67.4.41.67 first made these two edits, which I reverted as unsourced original research. They then came back with two similar edits, replacing the existing New York Times source with a New York Post opinion piece written by Bo Dietl.

This is clearly improper, but I don't know whether another simple revert is in order or whether the Dietl view should be added with attribution. Comments?

Since you can't ping an IP, we can only hope that they know what article talk is and happen to notice this thread. I will post on their talk page, maybe that will help. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP's edits until this can be discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that Pantaleo puts one arm under Garner's arm rather than around Garner's neck at first, Pantaleo soon transitions his right arm into holding his left fist to form a headlock. The short period of Pantaleo's right arm under Garner's arm seems hardly worth mentioning, and of little if any value in attempting to establish that Pantaleo was not choking Garner. I don't think describing the plain occurrences of this primary source is original research any more than the explicit OR exception for describing a book plot, but that is an issue we don't need to reach here. Mindbuilder (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's one RS and another where Pantaleo's attorney gives his interpretation of what Pantaleo was doing in the video regarding "arm under arm". I think these RS are fine, but difficult to use since we have to make it clear that this is what Pantaleo's attorney's says. The attorney has a conflict since he can't make any statement adverse to his client's interests.--Nowa (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That Times piece talks about Pantaleo's grand jury testimony, so why not add a sentence or two about that to the grand jury section? Leave the mouthpiece out of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Times piece makes it sound like reporters were there. In fact, they weren't. The only information the NYT has is what Pantaleo's attorney related to them. "But the officer’s testimony, as recounted by Mr. London,..." Pantaleo's attorney would only have revealed this information if he had specific authorization from Pantaleo to reveal it. So I think it is essential for the readers of this article that we make it very clear that any interpretation of the video or recounting of otherwise secret testimony to the grand jury is by Pantaleo's attorney and not a relianble secondary reference.--Nowa (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok, "According to his lawyer, Pantaleo testified that ...". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Spoiler

Shouldn't the last section be flagged with a spoiler warning for the TV show Orange is the new black? I was reading the article and was completely taken by surprise by the spoiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.43.80.14 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Prior arrests

Per the recent discussion raised at Talk:Shooting of Akai Gurley#Removal of irrelevant material, should the prior arrests on these type of articles be removed? I am in favor of removing them due to not being relevant to the actual incidents, however, I want to get others' opinions on this. Kiwifist (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There is also negative information about Pantaleo, which is also irrelevant to the actual incident. If you remove one, you have to remove the other. Taking that to its logical conclusion, per WP:NPOV, you would have to remove all irrelevant bio information about either party that tends to shed either a positive or a negative light on the person. That wouldn't bother me since I like a high relevance bar, but I've found that I'm in the minority on that. Most editors seem to want readers to "know" the individuals involved.
I do object to using a result at one article to help justify the same kind of change at another, since that fosters the mind-set that we need to be consistent between articles on things like this, which we do not. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. You want to give readers what they want but without bias, and here I'd say making mention of previous offenses is relevant. The material is well-sourced and not targeted toward disparaging the subject. Everything certainly varies given the circumstances, so actions taken on one article should not be inherited elsewhere without broader consensus — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the Akai Gurley case. In some cases prior arrests may be irrelevant. But often they are relevant. In this case it definitely helps to understand the situation. In the video Garner complains they're just harassing him and that he wasn't selling cigarettes and that he only just broke up a fight. The arrest record is very significant info relating to those questions. If he was actually being harassed, then it is relevant to explaining why he might be fed up and unwilling to take it any more. In court, an arrest record might be excluded from evidence, but the general public often has to make judgments even when there is insufficient evidence either way to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. The arrest record doesn't just cut one way either. If these officers knew that he had gone peacefully many times, then they would be less justified in using aggressive arrest techniques. Finally, many reliable sources have mentioned his arrest record, clearly establishing it as notable. Mindbuilder (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm reviving this discussion! Mentions of "prior arrests" with no mention of the outcome of those arrests (whether charges were laid, plea, trial, conviction, sentence, etc.) is absolutely not neutral, and adds nothing to the article. Further, weasel words including "...charges such as..." make it seem as if charges were so numerous that they cannot possibly be listed. Of course, you'd think then that there might be some references! This is a crystal clear example of bias. User:Epicgenius ignored my cogent and transparent edit summaries, instead shifting onus onto me for removing uncited and unduly-weighted text to justify reverting 3 edits in one minute (being a manual editor who strives to do right by Wikipedia, my edits took 33 minutes). Furthermore, I find Mandruss ☎' point to be bogus, as equating unspecified "charges" (again, without stating outcomes) with Pantaleo's documented civil rights lawsuits is a false balance. The only thing that being arrested many times proves is...well, that you've been arrested many times! As with every other police-related article, this one has "devotees" who make it all but impossible to effect any changes...unless they favour the cops. Seriously, is this Wikipedia or Cop-a-pedia???184.145.42.19 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were incorrect and not policy-based, so I reverted 2 of your edits (not 3). I assumed good faith on your part and tried to reword the other two edits. However, I see nothing wrong with the article as it is right now. Garner did get arrested on these charges you mentioned. However, you have to take responsibility for your own edits, so yes, "the onus is on you."

Also, lay off on the accusations. It sounds like you are blaming other editors for your edits being reverted. Please keep this in mind. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sentence from a police union to rebut a medical finding?

"However, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association stated that no chokehold had been used" appears in the Death_of_Eric_Garner#Investigation. It looks quite odd to me for two reasons. 1) A police union/lobby is not a reliable source for what in this case is essentially a medical claim. 2) It is in the subsection "Investigation". I do not understand how a lobby's opinion on what is a medical finding is directly relevant to the investigation itself. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

That information is already included in the police reaction section, where it should be, in my opinion. I removed the sentence from that section. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Biosthmors wrote "A police union/lobby is not a reliable source for what in this case is essentially a medical claim." In fact, Berran (the medical examiner who performed the autopsy) was not making "a medical claim" when he wrote "choke-hold" since the he cannot have known that it was a "choke-hold" that caused or contributed to Garner's death. A "choke-hold" is not a medical condition, so how could he possibly deduce a "choke-hold" from examining Garner's neck? Were there fibers from Pantaleo's shirt embedded so deeply in Garner's flesh that it was the only possible cause of constriction? Apparently not. So how could Berran know that Garner's death was contributed to by Pantaleo using a prohibited "choke-hold" rather than a permitted "submission hold", as he and the police assert? He couldn't. So in fact it's Berran's theorizing outside of his scope that is at fault for introducing ambiguity here. The police organization was correct to insist upon accuracy, and that is why I quoted them. Berran's claim is as nonsensical as if he stated that a victim killed by a hit-and-run died because the driver was texting at the time. Could he deduce that the driver was texting (rather than say, had fallen asleep at the wheel) by examining the body? Of course not. ALL he can determine are the effects upon the body, not the activities -- much less the intent -- of the driver. That's why determinations of intent are left up to grand juries, who can examine medical evidence, eyewitnesses, video, etc., to establish that. Bricology (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Eric Garner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226194343/http://blacklivesmatter.com/activists-blast-nypd-attempts-to-silence-movement-for-change to http://blacklivesmatter.com/activists-blast-nypd-attempts-to-silence-movement-for-change/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Eric Garner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501013056/http://gothamist.com/2014/07/20/nypd_strips_badge_gun_from_cop_invo.php to http://gothamist.com/2014/07/20/nypd_strips_badge_gun_from_cop_invo.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231220707/http://chicagoist.com/2014/12/16/breathe_easy_dont_break_the_law_t-s.php to http://chicagoist.com/2014/12/16/breathe_easy_dont_break_the_law_t-s.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Eric Garner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226205743/https://www.elephrame.com/textbook/protests to https://www.elephrame.com/textbook/protests
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.elkharttruth.com/sports/college-sports/notre-dame-university/2014/12/14/Notre-Dame-women-s-players-wear-I-Can-t-Breathe-T-shirts-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Erica Garner

Erica Garner article needs to be merged with 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? 18:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, she's become independently notable enough to have her own article and her death was mentioned in the NY Times, LA Times, WA Post, and many other news sources. MB298 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Erica Garner's Cause of Death

@General Ization: I'm not clear on what your objections are. Please explain a little more. The fact that his daughter died from an asthma attack and that he also had severe asthma and died complaining of breathing difficulty when there was no apparent reason for that difficulty after the headlock was released, is extremely relevant. Yes, compression of chest and prone positioning was a plausible explanation absent the obvious severe congenital susceptibility to asthma death, but Erica's death raises serious doubts about the even previously uncertain cause of death. So it is very relevant. At any rate Wikipedia is supposed to maintain neutrality and include relevant information, not hide relevant information. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mindbuilder: See Synthesis of published material. Your claim that the role of asthma in Erica Garner's death must be stated in the lead of this article because it implies (to you) that asthma was a factor in Eric Garner's death, when no cited source makes that inference based on her cause of death, is synthesis. Your claim of relevance is based on your assumptions, and you cannot telegraph your assumptions to readers in statements in the lead of this article. If you find a reliable, published source that makes that inference, it perhaps can be stated here (though it still would not belong in the lead). Also, please note that just typing an "@" followed by another editor's name doesn't summon them here. View the edited Wikicode to see how that is done. General Ization ^Talk 02:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

(@General Ization: Tech note: Adding a ping after the fact does not generate a notification, it only makes it look like one was sent. I didn't receive a ping for that.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

(Good; I wasn't intending to ping you, only to show Mindbuilder how it's done. General Ization ^Talk 02:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC))

@Mandruss: What do you think? Is Erica Garner's asthma death important? Mindbuilder (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the General, putting it in the lead (or anywhere else in this article) implies an unsourced conclusion. Less important, there shouldn't be anything in the lead that does not summarize body content. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Is what you are objecting to that I stated that she died of an asthma attack rather than a heart attack or that her death isn't relevant at all? Ok there is a remote possibility that the asthma attack wouldn't have killed her if her heart hadn't been weak, so how about we say she died of a heart attack brought on by an asthma attack? I can also add it to the body of course. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Her death is already described in the body, and that is where it belongs. Statements about her cause of death should reflect only the statements made by medical professionals who treated her, and nothing more. General Ization ^Talk 02:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying her death isn't relevant unless RS says it's relevant. I wasn't aware it was already in the body until now, but its treatment there appears to be a "by the way" in the same category as the rest of that subsection, rather than implying relevance to Garner's cause of death as a lead mention would do. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

MTV Spam?

We have a whole paragraph about a song about the death being sold by MTV whose only sources are MTV and the song itself. Would anyone object to its removal on WP:SPAM / WP:SELFPUB grounds? Is that song's existence anything more than WP:TRIVIA? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Federal judge recommends Pantaleo be fired

Per the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49200240--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:58CC:C983:EAB3:71FF (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Already done: "Two months later, it was reported that the administrative judge presiding over the disciplinary hearing recommended to New York Police Department Commissioner James O’Neill that Pantaleo should be fired." General Ization ^Talk 04:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the administrative judge here is not a federal judge. Dyrnych (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. "US judge" in the BBC report referred only to a judge in the US, not a judge presiding at a US (federal) court. The judge in question was NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Trials Rosemarie Maldonado. General Ization ^Talk 14:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Cause of death

There is a disagreement about the cause of Mr. Garner's death. I believe that the cause of death should be quoted from the autopsy (via the NYT) as follows: "Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police". Mindbuilder believes the article should use the medical examiner's 2019 testimony as follows: "The medical examiner indicated that Garner's death resulted from an asthma attack caused by an officer's chokehold". Right now, the article says slightly things in different places, which makes it confusing. SunCrow (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be happy to make the different parts exactly the same if you prefer. The original autopsy cause of death was highly questionable by itself due to the shortness of the chokehold and him still being conscious afterwards, whereas the ME's current theory clarifying the asthma factor, especially after Garner's daughter's asthma death, makes perfect sense. It's very important that we make the asthma factor clear. Do you have some reason you don't want to mention Garner's asthma as the cause of death as currently stated by the medical examiner? Mindbuilder (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, I want the article to be accurate and consistent. There is no other agenda. Why do you describe the original autopsy cause of death as "highly questionable?" Is there a source for that, or is it your opinion? SunCrow (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Mindbuilder, this comment sounds like original research. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Definitely OR. "Highly questionable" is not something a Wikipedia editor decides. Dyrnych (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hearing no further discussion, I have restored the cause of death set forth in the autopsy to the lede. The article is now clear and consistent on this point. The medical examiner's 2019 testimony regarding asthma is still included in the section on the Pantaleo administrative proceeding. SunCrow (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Non-free photos of Eric Garner are not banned by Wikipedia guidelines

This box at the top of the talk page is inaccurate.

In fact, it is flat out ridiculous to say that a "biographical image of Garner" can not be used in this article. Whether free or non-free.

We had this discussion before, and it was settled in another article: Emmett Till.

There are 2 non-free images of Emmett Till (while alive and deceased) in that article:

• File:Emmett Till.jpg
• File:Emmit Till body.jpg

See the talk archives of that article for more info. -- Timeshifter (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Repeated source

Sources 23 and 27 (both from The New York Times by Goodman) are the same, they were repeated. Could anyone fix this please? Thanks in advance. 177.225.172.224 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out, 177.225.172.224. SunCrow (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining chokehold on the ground. Cause of firing by Police Commissioner James O'Neill

This is currently not in the article. 19 Aug 2019: Eric Garner: NY officer in 'I can't breathe' death fired. BBC News. From the article (emphasis added):

In explaining his decision, Mr O'Neill said mobile phone video of Garner's death clearly shows the officer used a chokehold, which is banned by the New York Police Department (NYPD). ... Mr O'Neill said Mr Pantaleo's decision to maintain the chokehold on the ground is what led to his firing. ... A city medical examiner ruled the chokehold contributed to Garner's death. ... The firing comes as California enacts one of the strictest laws limiting police force in the US.

-- Timeshifter (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the info to the article. -- Timeshifter (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Switching the graphic image of Garner in a choke-hold with the other graphic

I would be bold and do it myself but I don't have the technical skill on Wikipedia yet. I'd recommend switching the map with the graphic imagery so that people do not have an adverse reaction (e.g. a psychological trigger, flashback, etc.) when mousing over a link to this article, or in the embed when providing a link to the article on many social media platforms. (edited to fix signature; missing left round bracket) DancingGrumpyCat^talk | (ze/zir or she/her) 18:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin D'Amico's named misspelled as Justin Damico in three instances?

It seems that Justin D'Amico's name is spelled Justin Damico in three instances in the article, even though else where it is spelled "D'Amico"? Google search results all refer to the seplling "D'Amico". Eric.c.zhang (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed that, though it is spelled as Damico here, so they are both probably accepted spellings. I too feel like we should make the spelling consistent, but I'm not sure what the common practice is in such situations. Bubka42 (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The vast majority of news articles seems to spell it D'Amico. I think I'm just going to change it pending some other sources. If we could find some sort of court document spelling his name maybe that'll settle it. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Death of Eric Garner → Killing of Eric Garner – In the recently concluded discussion on the renaming of the earlier page titled Death of George Floyd to Killing of George Floyd, many of those against the move cited this page as a precedence. However, the motion has passed, and one of the deciding arguments was that the autopsy reports have ruled the death of George Floyd it as a homicide. Since this is also the case for Eric Garner, for the sake of consistency we should also rename this page. Bubka42 (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per nom. Love of Corey (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• The justice system has not ruled against anybody, yet activist here still insist on rewriting history: Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. 2601:602:9200:1310:93B:1B27:C783:41DD (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support according to the same rationale I voiced in the George Floyd move. The word "killing" does not necessarily imply murder. "Kill" only really implies that one did not die from some cause like disease or suicide; it implies that one's life ended upon action by another human being. In the case of Eric Garner, which was ruled a homicide, it is clear that Garner's life ended upon action by other human beings. Additionally, there is already precedent in such examples as Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, Shooting of Michael Brown, etc. which use more specific terms besides merely "death". There are already around 53 such "Killing of" article names, as can be seen in a prefix search: [1] BirdValiant (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support – same rationale as with the article about the killing of George Floyd Ca1ek (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per "The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide.", in other words, "killing". - MrX 🖋 22:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for consistency. Feelthhis (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Six years ago it was named "Death" and no one complained. Now it's not good anymore, certain users want to turn Wikipedia in a politicized tool, always sided with an apparent position on social matters. "Killing" implies that he was effectively killed, still no one was indicted—are we sure we should call it this way? I am not, the term proposed is not neutral. --Foghe (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S: The autopsy motivation is so precarious: an autopsy is not a trial—it didn't state a ruling, there was no right for the suspect to defend his innocence. The usual frase "everybody knows it" is not enough for settling the truth, we need certainty. It will be named "killing" or "homicide" only when the Justice system will have proven it has been a killing, not when some activist says it. --Foghe (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not you who is doing what you accuse "certain users" of?[2] - MrX 🖋 00:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we here to talk about this page or that page, attempting to take distraction for this matter here? In case, do you really think this topics are neutral and objective, or you are just trying to take advantage of the left-leaning majority on en.wiki to weaponize the site for political purposes? And by the way, what about this, this, and this your edit summary? --Foghe (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Foghe, I see seven comments from you in this thread; in at two of these you cast imputations on the good faith of the editors in favour of the move, as indicated by phrases like certain users want to turn Wikipedia in a politicized tool... and ...not when some activist says it, and in two others you resort to direct personal attacks, with phrases like you are just trying to take advantage of the left-leaning majority on en.wiki to weaponize the site for political purposes and you should learn a bit of education. I must remind you that in discussions such as these you are expected to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. You should also remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing political inclinations. I can see two points you raise, and I will try to answer those below:

(1) That this was accepted over the past six years, so there is no need to change it now. To this I think the reply of Althunyon below is adequate; as was clearly indicated by the discussion under the George Floyd move, if the editors by and large feel like it's more acceptable to name similar cases 'Killing of...' instead of 'Death of...', older articles should be changed to reflect this change of attitude. In Wikipedia consensus is more important than tradition. (2) That the coroner's report doesn't justify calling it a 'killing' till we get an indictment from a court. As was heavily discussed in the case of George Floyd, 'killing' is different from 'murder', which is 'killing with intent'. Most editors agreed that the coroner's report is the authority on whether someone was killed, i.e., died due to the actions of another person, irrespective of intent. A court does not judge how a person died, but to what degree another party is accountable for it. I heavily recommend you to browse through that discussion; I think you will find your answers there. (Also, can you cite the court ruling you keep referring to? The article itself does not mention any similar ruling.) Bubka42 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Foghe, there's plenty of issues with Wikipedia due to old outcomes of decisions. Just because a decision was made once doesn't mean we always have to live by it and can never revisit the issue. That reasoning is shaky even outside of Wikipedia; should we never attempt to right past mistakes? Your reasoning makes no reference to WP policy, so I cannot comment in that regard.

  A lack of an indictment isn't doesn't really change the fact. It was ruled a homicide, which means the death was caused, which is the very definition of 'killing'. The proposal is not to change it to murder, so the fact that nobody was charged is not relevant - I feel you're mixing up 'killing' and 'murder' here. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, whatever, in any case I'm in large minority. It would be useless to carry on the unbalanced discussion. I'm just very disappointed for the foreseeable outcome—just want to reaffirm my opposition.. --Foghe (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Six years ago a mistake was made. The detailed discussion under the George Floyd move is applicable here as well. It was an oversight then, and we have the opportunity to correct it now. Althunyon (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually that discussion has nothing to do with this case: here we have a ruling by Courts that states that no one is responsible—the policeman is no killer, hence no killing by him. --Foghe (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Now you're just making shit up. The courts did no such thing. - MrX 🖋 00:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's what what they did, the policeman did not commit killing. And instead of being very vulgar with people who disagree with you, you should learn a bit of education (or maybe is this the long-awaited socialism!?) --Foghe (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Foghe, I can see the reason for your opposition, in that you feel this is a politically fuelled and biased move. I would note that killing and murder are not the same thing. The proposal here is not to rename it to murder, it's to rename it to killing. The nature of what happened fits the definition of killing, even though it may not fit murder.

I'd also note that you're mistaken in what the courts did. The case never reached a trial, and hence the courts never commented on the matter. There was a civil case, and that was settled out of court, with the City paying out to the family. But that's all irrelevant, because the change proposed is not affected by conviction, or lack thereof. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support, the medical examiner for Eric Garner found that the chokehold caused a cascade of events that led to his death (Source). She ruled it a homicide and despite the outcome of the case, Eric Garner didn't just happen to die, he was killed (Source). Following the decision with the George Floyd article, I agree with the move of this article. TJScalzo (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, the medical examiner is not a judge, and her report (refuted by the Jury) is not a sentence—the fact that she "ruled it a homicide" has really little significance, since it's not up to her to emanate the verdict. The assumption that "he was killed" doesn't actually find corroboration in the trial records, it's your opinion, since the Court could not be able to assert that Garner had been killed. We like it or not, in other words, the Court did not find Garner had suffered a killing. This appears to me to be well enough to settle once and for all the question. --Foghe (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As the officer was never changed, there are significant BLP concerns here, as "killing" often implies a deliberate killing rather than an unintentional or accidental one: "killing--an act in which someone is deliberately killed"[3]. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

"The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide." When someone dies of homicide, they have been killed. - MrX 🖋 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

But they have not necessarily been killed deliberately. Homicides can be accidental or unintentional. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not the examiner that makes senteces, it's the Court: and it said they couldn't prove the policeman was responsible of a killing. --Foghe (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The proposed article title is not about a criminal sentence at all, and please cite a source for the court ruling that you keep referring to? - MrX 🖋 10:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and per "support" arguments presented above, especially those by BirdValiant at 20:51, 2 June 2020 and by TJScalzo at 00:28, 3 June 2020. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons given above. "Killing" is more specific than "death", and there is more than enough evidence to justify calling this a killing. Will also be consistent with the newly moved George Floyd article.3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support – This is a good precedent and I am glad the dam has broken. Whether or not he was murdered is not being discussed here. Whether or not he was killed is the question at hand. The answer to that question has been confidently shown in RS as yes. He was killed. The title should reflect that for NPOV. Our policy on NPOV is not blind like Lady Justice. We follow the majority consensus opinion of reliable sources, which includes the medical examiner. The consensus is that one person caused the death of another, and therefore killed the latter. As per usual, COMMONNAME is no help because the Google search results show almost equal number of hits for both titles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

So the fact that the policeman was declared not to have killed Garner is just my idea. So stupid I am to cherish Justice, you already know everything, don't need proof nor corroboration. --Foghe (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there was no such finding. The grand jury simply decided not to prosecute. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. epicgenius (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support A ruling of homicide in the inquest means Garner was killed. The fact that no one was charged is irrelevant; a lack of criminal charges does not negate the fact that it was a killing. Waterfire (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support even though either is a travesty as it is undoubtably murder, ruled as homicide, even with no charges given. ɱ (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Dying after being assaulted, especially with such a crime as homicide, sounds more like being killed than dying. To use the word "dying" removes responsibility from the officer in question in much the same way as newspaper titles such as "Officer-involved shooting" do. Support also for consistency, and because a lack of criminal charges does not negate the fact that it was a killing, as people above have stated. DancingGrumpyCat^talk | ze/zir or she/her) 05:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support I actually brought this up in the discussion of the George Floyd article. In moving his article to 'killing', a new precedent has been set. Thornsie (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. RopeTricks (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is first of all not a natural death anyway and it was a murder so the article can be better titled as Killing of Eric Garner. Abishe (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. If Eric Garner had simply just died, there would be no article here. How and why he died--he was killed--is why we are here. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per most of what other "supporters" have said - such as specificity, consistency, the very reason for the article ("alleged killing" could also be a reason but is not the case here). 151.177.57.24 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME: For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. There is no convicted killer, so legally, this is not a killing. Nihlus 22:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As per the consensus reached recently in George Floyd's case, the term killing indicates that the actions of one person or a group of persons caused the death of another person, without assuming criminal intent on the part of the first group (as opposed to murder, which would indeed be inappropriate here). Hence the requested move should not violate WP:BLPCRIME. Bubka42 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Bubka42, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy. Nihlus 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not suggest a policy violation. From your quoted passage: ...has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime...; thus this policy is only violated when the title suggests a crime. As per reliable dictionaries, to kill is to commit a homicide (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Advanced Learners'), while murder or manslaughter are unlawful homicides, i.e., crimes (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford Advanced Learners'). The consensus I mentioned was simply on interpreting these words as such. Unless there's global consensus or an explicit policy to treat killing as suggestive of committing a criminal homicide, the proposed move does not violate WP:BLPCRIME, so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply. Bubka42 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As Bubka42 says (and several others). Of course no one in their right senses wants to be associated with having killed a person. But if someone happens to hit a person with their car and that person dies, it is what it is: a killing, however accidental and unfortunate. Same in principle with this. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Manslaughter is still a crime and accusing a person of a crime without a conviction is against policy. Nihlus 20:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobody proposes "manslaughter" as far as I can see. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, accusing a living person of manslaughter without conviction would be against policy. However, there's also non-criminal homicide, which is neither murder nor manslaughter. Bubka42 (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, 'manslaughter' and 'murder' are legal terms. There was no conviction, so I agree, we shouldn't use these words. "Killing" is not a legal term; it simply means the causing of death by another. Homicide ⇒ killing, but homicide ⇏ murder. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and other supporting comments. "Killing" does not imply a crime or intent, it's a neutral description of what actually happened. ThunderBacon (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support because it was a homicide. "Homicide of Eric Garner" just doesn't flow as well as "Killing of Eric Garner". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, I think we could save ourselves some time by having one large RFC proposing that every article about a homicide be named "Killing of [victim]" by default (i.e., such moves could be done boldly, but individual articles could still be moved to a title other than "Killing of..." by move request, if there's consensus to do so). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom. When deciding terminology between active "killing" and passive "death", it makes sense to me to go with a medical examiner's opinion rather than the findings of a court of law. We're not talking about changing it to "Murder of Eric Garner", which would imply criminal action that was never found in a court. See also Shooting of Samuel DuBose for instance.--Unionhawk ^Talk 14:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for reasons of both accuracy and consistency. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Death" is more neutral. As noted by Bagumba at Talk:Shooting of David McAtee, dictionaries typically define killing as being an intentional act to cause death, as found at this link. It is not completely clear (or at least was apparently not clear to a grand jury) that Mr Garner's death was intentional. Wikipedia should not appear to express an opinionated judgment about people's actions. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree that this is a comparable case: this article uses a passive voice to begin with. "Shooting of" vs "Killing of" on the other hand is fairly semantic. The emphasis is still the same in either case there, either David McAtee was killed, or David McAtee was shot to death. Neither proposed title says that David simply died. I furthermore disagree with the idea that dictionaries "typically" define killing as an intentional act, every dictionary that I can find simply defines "kill" as "to cause the death of". It's not about intent, it's about cause. --Unionhawk ^Talk 04:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Same reason as for Killing of George Floyd. "Killing" is a fairly neutral term, validated by the autopsy and video evidence. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Killing is more accurate and consistent with similar articles on Wikipedia. Megs (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment I've noticed that, already, there have been several allegations that this move request or its supporters have not been in good faith. I would encourage all participants to assume good faith and focus discussion on the topic at hand. BirdValiant (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have not yet voted as I do not feel strongly either way, but as to the consistency argument I am wondering which usage is truly more common. BirdValiant points to 53 "Killing of" articles, but I also see 501 "Death of" articles, including numerous homicides/killings/more specific manners of death, such as (in the order I see them from the frst couple pages of the prefix search and excluding this article) Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Aiyana Jones, Death of Joseph Smith, Death of Muammar Gaddafi, and Death of Marvin Gaye. I think that if consistency is the goal, most "Death of" articles should probably be re-named to be more specific to the manner of death, but I wonder if there is a preference for the passive voice rather than active voice in regards to article titles, and if perhaps an RFC regarding naming conventions should move to a larger, project wide platform, rather than being this having to be discussed on each individual page. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment "re-named to be more specific to the manner of death" Do you mean things like "Death by strangulation", "asphyxiation", "cardiac arrest", etc. to match the autopsy results? Dimadick (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment You have a point. Death by killing is often traditionally called just "death". On the other hand: when the person concerned is a hero or public figure, s/he is already notable for other reasons; that isn't relevant when the person became known because s/he was killed. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Comment Yes, something along those lines. My point was that there is currently very little consistency in the titling of articles. "Murder of" seems to be the most common (890 articles), but is obviously only appropriate when it has been determined to be a murder in the legal sense, with "Death of" being second most common (501 articles). Less common are "Shooting of" (134 articles), "Killing of" (54 articles), "Suicide of" (49 articles), and "Stabbing of" (6 articles). My point about consistency was that we have, within the larger categories, many articles that could also just as easily fall into one or more of the other categories. Death of Marvin Gaye, Death of Mark Duggan, Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, and Death of Aiyana Jones could all be "Shooting of" or "Killing of", Death of JonBenét Ramsey could be "Killing of" or "Murder of", Death of Vincent van Gogh could be "Suicide of", etc. Like I said, my point was that there currently seems to be very little consistency on the naming conventions. It seems that what consistency there is tends to suggest "Murder of" for legally defined murders, and "Death of" for most others. That is why I think if consistency is the argument being used for the change, that might be a worthwhile discussion to have in regards to overall naming conventions, rather than the individual articles. I am all for consistency, and consistency is best achieved with policies that can be applied equally. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Comment I agree: that would be a worthwhile discussion. But I am also afraid a total standardisation would take forever or longer if changes along the way should be routinely stifled until an overall policy is set out. In my feeling, there is a level of exactness between the general "death" and the very specific "strangulation", "asphyxiation", "cardiac arrest" etc. that Dimadick mentioned - a level which I imagine many others also recognise and where words like "murder" and "killing" dwell. Perhaps also "suicide", if not too many argue that may still be too stigmatising in some quarters. But of course, this is already a start of the discussion. 151.177.57.24 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eric Garner

The article BLATANTLY lies by saying the Cops continued the “choke hold” after Garner was unconscious. The “choke hold” was released seconds after Garner was taken down. RobWatts17 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Chokeholds banned line in intro

I think the part that reads “despite chokeholds being banned in NYPD since 1993” belongs in the body of the article rather than the intro. It’s undoubtedly worth having in the article.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)