Talk:Killing of Robert Dziekański/Archive 1

Stapler

"Shortly thereafter, about 25 seconds after they arrived on the scene, police tasered Dziekanski, even though he had calmed down and was standing with his hands at his side." - It's true that he had calmed down and that his hands were at his side, but he was holding a stapler. It's visible in the video shortly before he falls to the ground. The RCMP may have interpreted this as a threatening gesture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the stapler and a source to an eyewitness who mentioned it. A threatening gesture though? Um...yeah, if you say so. Besides, according to the audio and eyewitnesses, the police had already decided to use the taser even before they entered the room. bobanny 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Video link

Can we change it to a YouTube version? It is compatible with all OSes... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RupttozsEs0 Laubzega 09:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube links are generally not accepted in Wikipedia. Aquarius • talk 18:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I just added a YouTube link as a reference on the airport's translation service, but it's a video of a CTV newscast and so I believe it passes as a source and I haven't found anything else that deals with that issue. I chose the CBC link because that was one of the media outlets that bought the video, making it as close to the original as possible. Also, they don't make you watch ads before you can view the video like CTV and some other media. I also have a hard time believing that it's less compatible with various operating systems than YouTube. -- bobanny (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Term

Why is the term "incident" used instead of "death"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.54.185 (talk • contribs)

Because it's the entire event that's notable, all of the circumstances surrounding his death and including his death. If he died in different circumstances, it probably wouldn't merit an encyclopedia article. It's not an attempt to downplay the fact that someone was killed, if that's what you're getting at; the content of the article is explicit about what happened and the outcome. bobanny (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision

Sorry, Soggybread, if I stepped on your toes with my revision. I worked on the article offsite and tried to incorporate changes that had been made in the interim. Some changes I didn't leave in, such as the "righteous indignation," which seems to be pure speculation and WP:OR. I'll step back for now; it's good to see others jumping in. bobanny (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I was surprised to see such a well structured article after refreshing! Excellent work! I too will now be stepping back for a while. :) Soggybread (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful facts if anyone can find them

Does anyone know if the RCMPs are trained in CPR? Also, does the vancouver airport have defibrillators? Prompt CPR and a AED would have probably saved this guys life, it seems irresponsible to not have the RCMPs trained in at least basic CPR and first aid. 74.79.161.1 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure all police have CPR training; that's one of the big things they're getting flack over: not doing anything once he stopped moving. bobanny (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to have valid first aid certificate to apply for RCMP.[1]--Cahk (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To expand a bit on what Cahk said wrote above, all RCMP applicants must be certified in infant, child, and adult CPR before they begin training as an RCMP cadet (the link that Cahk posted), and CPR training does include training in how to use an auto defibrillator. These devices were available nearby, according to a National Post report: 'Paul Levy, the vice-president of operations with the Vancouver Airport Authority, confirmed that defibrillators are available in the international customs hall and airport information desks. "A number of people around the airport are trained in First Aid and the use of the automatic external defibrillator," he said.' Second-hand information cited in other news reports says that one of the security guards on the scene that night also had CPR training. Finally, airport policy should have triggered a call to the airport fire department, which could have had its first responders on the scene within two minutes, as opposed to the 11 minutes that the ambulance took. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlucas (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason why he spent 10 hrs on the airport.

I believe details about what kept him there 10 hrs are important. Now it's unclear if it was his or customs fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.94.230 (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the things that there doesn't yet seem to be a definitive answer for. If you want to add something, this article has the most info that I've seen on Dziekanski's time at the airport. bobanny (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted entire discussion that followed

Relax, I've archived it as a matter of record on my talk page. I shall endeavor to improve the introduction to the article, and I also think it should be tagged as a developing story. Fat lady's song has yet to be heard.--JohnClarknew (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed entire discussion that followed

--JohnClarknew (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article says he arrived at 4pm on the 14th of October, did not clear customs for 10 hours, and died on the 14th of October. 10 hours after 4pm would be 2am on the 15th of October, so one of those figures must be wrong. 193.95.165.190 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. It should have been arrived on the 13th and I have corrected it accordingly.--Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

See Also should not become a list of all Taser incidents

User:Sstteevvee added on 16:46, April 3, 2008 a link to Walter E. Haake Jr.. There is at the moment no such article in Wikipedia. I think it refers to the death of a person of that name who was hit by a Taser in Kansas and later died. Here's one April 2 news article about it. I'm not going to get involved in editing that article. However, I'd like to say that I don't think every article about a Taser controversy should make its way into the See also section of this article. Eventually we should make a List of Taser controversies article and link all such articles from there. --Jdlh | Talk 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is Taser controversy, and we should make sure that all included incidents are notable. Flatscan (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Gronkely gronk, debronk flonk. Sstteevvee (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Haake has been moved. Thanks for the article link, I used it as a ref. Flatscan (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

SCBCTAPS

User:Fbfree I've started a small section for the Taser controversy surrounding the Translink police force. If someone here would like to expand it and link it to this page, please do. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Service —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbfree (talk • contribs) 07:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name: "Taser" or "taser"?

We should get a consensus on whether the word "taser" in this article's should start with an uppercase or lowercase "T". Why? Because this title has gone back and forth several times, and I don't think the Brownian motion is productive. Here's some history. User:Bobanny created the article on 02:36, November 15, 2007, naming it Robert Dziekanski taser incident. 11 hours later, this same editor changed it to "Taser" (and put accent in "Dziekański") on 13:28, November 15, 2007, noting "accent in name; uppercase "Taser" because it's a brand name". About six months later, User:Longhair changed it to "taser" on 04:25, May 10, 2008, noting "mv to proper title". But 14 hours later, User:Longhair changed it to "Taser" on 18:26, May 10, 2008, noting "mv back to original naming convention". Today, User:Morhange changed it to "taser" on 09:32, June 6, 2008, noting "being bold and lowercasing the word 'taser' because it's not a proper noun. I thought the guy's name was Robert Dziekański Taser." I'll note that Taser is in fact a proper noun, though some people are also verbing it (see Taser article). But I don't have strong feelings which spelling we choose. I'd just like us to choose one, proclaim and justify it here on the Talk page, and then leave the title alone. --Jdlh | Talk 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I support "Taser". Longhair reverted his/her move after I left a Talk note that included this reasoning: "I disagree that 'Taser' should be uncapitalized, as a Taser, not a electroshock weapon made by a different manufacturer, was used." I wrote a brief style discussion at Talk:Taser#Capitalization of noun; general (not specific to this article's name) discussion can be placed there. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I notified User:Morhange of this discussion. If there are no further comments, I will move back to "Taser". Flatscan (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the lowercase used in the media as verb and noun, so there's no consensus in the real world and it needs to be decided here. It is nevertheless still a brand name for a stun gun, so IMO, it's slightly more appropriate to stick with uppercase. bobanny (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the verb in lowercase, but the noun seems to be capitalized most of the time, apparently depending on source. I looked at several refs from the article: CBC.ca, National Post, CNN.com, and others always capitalized "Taser" when used as a noun; The Globe and Mail was the only source reviewed that used "taser". The preferred generic term was "stun gun", but it was used in only a few of the articles. Flatscan (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved it the last time, but that was only because I thought it was simply an error :) If it needs to be capital T, then moving it back seems right. Morhange (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article back to the capitalized "Taser". Flatscan (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Immigration & English?

It is mentioned in the the article that he was an immigrant and couldn't speak English. How could be if an IELTS test is required to establish English level? Also, what was his mother status in Canada? Something doesn't adds up in this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.171.148 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC) He was "family class" immigration, not "skilled worker class" so proficiency in an official language is not required. (Note that Canada has 2 official languages, not only "English"). His mother is a Canadian citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Officer charged with impaired driving causing death

Believe the sentence "Three of the officers remain on duty in Canada, the fourth is off duty and awaiting trial on a separate charge of impaired driving causing death." is properly referenced with a reliable source and is germane to a section of the article that addresses criticism of the officers and the RCMP. Please discuss here before deleting this content thanks. RomaC (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Information on this driving incident has been added/removed twice previously: added by 204.50.113.29, removed by Ckatz; added by Shadesofgrey, removed by Ckatz. I agree with Ckatz's edit summary, rv. - there has to be some connection other than just being the same officer, otherwise it is not relevant. I would support its inclusion if the later incident were more closely related, for example, involving Taser misuse or excessive force. Flatscan (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the above, I have tweaked the text to remove mention of the specifics of the case. Referenced or not, it is unrelated to the Taser incident. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments but please do not change the title of this talk page section, also there was not a discussion and wide consensus on the previous edits. Ckatz I see you and I assume Flatscan both agree that the information on the officer being off-duty (suspended?) while awaiting trial in a case of impaired driving causing death is properly sourced to a major newspaper, The Toronto Star, and was also reported by CBC News and other media.

I'm not bargaining here, but how does Dziekański's arrest for a non-violent burglary when he was a teen have more relevance? Yet that information appears near the top of the article. Further down, the article's section on criticism of the RCMP largely comprises accusations that the officers' irresponsible actions caused Dziekański's death. The fact is that one of the concerned officers is now involved in a case of impaired driving causing death. Respectfully, as this was reported in the context of the Dziekański incident by both Canada's national broadcaster and its largest-circulation city newspaper, I don't see why this information should be repeatedly deleted here. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the disputed content is properly sourced. WP:UNDUE: "Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements." One of the cited articles does not mention the status of the four officers; the other merely mentions it at the very end of the article. As I've written above, I support removing both this content and Dziekański's robbery conviction. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Flatscan I agree that proper sourcing and appropriate weight are different concerns. Moreover I would suggest that we'd have a problem with original research if the officer's arrest had not reported by major Canadian media in the context of the Dziekański incident. It was, both in the cited Toronto Star story and in this CBC article. I see that three different editors have now added the information to the "Criticism of the RCMP" section, and Ckatz has removed it each time. I am looking for a way to stop the repeated deletion of the content, so I added it again in a more compact form. We could say "The CBC reported that . . . " if there is some dispute about whether the officer was actually arrested? RomaC (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it because of concerns related to WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. I'm sorry, but - referenced or not - the onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed material relating to an individual, not the other way around. Without a direct link to the Taser case, there is no reason to include the specifics of the unrelated incident. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Three editors have added this information to the article and you have deleted the content every time. Excuse me but this is disruptive. Individuals and groups have argued that Cpl. Benjamin Monty Robinson's arrest for drunk driving causing death supports their criticism of the RCMP. Every news story I've seen about Robinson's arrest relates it to the Dziekański incident. Your personal opinion that it's "unrelated" is noted, but Wiki articles evolve from information that has been reported, not our personal opinions. The officer's name appears in this Vancouver Sun article, but I have not put it in the article as I am also aware of issues regarding WP:BLP. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people add certain text; the important factor is whether or not it is relevant. As such, you have to resolve it here first, instead of repeatedly restoring the text. That is the disruptive action; the material can easily be added if consensus dictates. Remember, this is not a news story, it is an encyclopedia article; just because a fact is mentioned somewhere else does not automatically make it fair game here. Als, you have not provided any rationale as to why it is necessary to include this material. If someone else - an official source - is suggesting there is an genuine connection between the two events, that would be different. However, no such connection has been provided, but including the material makes it appear as if there is. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the previous 2 editors attempted to discuss or to reinsert the information. The information was excluded from this article for over a month before you re-added it. It may be appropriate to raise this issue at the relevant noticeboard (WP:NPOV/N or maybe WP:BLP/N) as suggested by dispute resolution. If reliable sources are consistently and strongly linking the two incidents, please link them here for review. I don't see how the current status of any of the officers is of interest, and I support removing the sentence entirely. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flatscan, I don't think it matters that the two previous editors did not pursue the matter, what strikes me is that Ckatz has unilaterally deleted the information while arguing there is no consensus.

To answer your points: As he is one of the four involved officers in the Dziekański incident, I think we can include information on Robinson here. This CBC article, Mountie involved in fatal crash was supervisor at time of airport Taser death, links the incidents: "Dr. Mike Webster, a police psychologist, said while Robinson may have been fit for duty, he also would have been under a massive amount of stress. 'Not only is he worrying about the Dziekanski incident. Now he is worried about the outcome of this incident'..."

The concerned section of this article is called "Criticism of the RCMP." I believe this National Post story, titled B.C. RCMP face criticism over drunk driving death further qualifies the content for inclusion. As does this MacLeans piece.

As I wrote above, every one of the dozens of articles I've found about Robinson's drunk driving arrest relates it to the Dziekański incident. And most articles about the Dziekański incident that have appeared in recent weeks also mention the drunk driving incident. And why not -- an officer who has been widely criticized for irresponsible actions causing a violent death has been arrested and charged with irresponsible actions that caused another violent death.

I am more than willing to look at alternate phrasings of the information, please suggest some. But I strongly believe it belongs in the article. WP:UNDUE is not relevant -- that concerns minority views or fringe theories on a subject, there is no question on what has happened here. A question we could however address is whether Robinson and the other officers should be named in the article, as their identities have now been revealed by the Crown. I would not press for naming the other officers, as per WP:BLP. Appreciate Flatscan's suggestions, I have asked for opinions from uninvolved editors at WP:THIRD. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The presence of a "criticisms" section in this article is only for properly sourced critical commentary about the Taser incident, not about any other incidents. Furthermore, you should not be restoring the material until the discussion is resolved, given that it is disputed (and not just by me.) That aside, other opinions are certainly welcome. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RomaC, thank you for providing additional sources. I read through each of them, but found the articles to mention the two incidents without connecting them. The blog post is an opinion piece and not a reliable source. Webster does not say that the stress caused the fatal collision. The article for general RCMP criticism is Scandals surrounding the RCMP#Impaired driving causing death.

Regarding your WP:3O request, it may be declined due to three editors already participating in this discussion. I think that your statement is not neutral, and I urge you to consider revising it. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Flatscan for you good-faith examination of the sources. I understand what you're saying, and I suggest a reworking of the sentence in question so that it only reflects properly-sourced criticism of the RCMP that relates to both the Robinson drunk-driving incident that killed Orion Hutchinson and the Dziekanski taser incident. I ask your patience once more.

From the National Post article, "B.C. RCMP face criticism over drunk driving death":

The lawyer for Mr. Dziekanski's family says the shadow of the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Mr. Dziekanski is hanging over the investigation into last weekend's fatal collision (ed: the accident that killed Hutchinson). With the Braidwood inquiry repeatedly delayed, the public may perceive police are giving their own preferential treatment, said lawyer Walter Kosteckyj.

and:

(B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal) expressed his frustration with the length of time the Braidwood investigation is taking. . ."I just said that's just really unacceptable to have delays this long."

Further, from an editorial in the Vancouver Sun:

The fallout from the death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport has claimed two other victims - a motorcyclist who was killed in Delta on Saturday night and the off-duty RCMP officer whose vehicle collided with him... the RCMP revealed the Mountie was also involved in the Oct. 14, 2007 fracas at the airport in which the 40-year-old Polish immigrant was Tasered at least twice and died being subdued by the officers... The Mounties and Delta Police, who are investigating the weekend fatality, claim the cop hasn't actually been "charged" yet, so they're protecting his privacy until he appears in court. What a thoughtful thing to do. I can't believe these two police agencies have the audacity to pull a stunt like this - especially the RCMP. Doesn't the force realize the country has lost faith in it and that transparency, not secrecy is needed to rebuild the trust we once had in this national institution? Most people I talk to remain absolutely livid about what happened to Dziekanski, and they're astounded the RCMP seems to be thumbing their nose at the public's concerns.

I suggest reworking the last graph of the "Criticism of the RCMP" section as follows:

It was announced on December 12 2008 that the B.C. Crown had decided not to lay charges against the four officers involved in the tasering death of Mr. Dziekanski. Criticism of the RCMP resurfaced in the wake of the announcement, compounded by media coverage linking one of the officers, identified as Corporal Benjamin Monty Robinson, to a charge of impaired driving causing death resulting from an October 25 traffic accident in Delta, B.C. that took the life of 21 year-old Orion Hutchinson.

I hope this satisfies your concerns. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, RomaC, I read through the sources as well, and it was apparent they did not support inclusion of the text, as per what Flatscan has stated. Anyway, your compromise is still problematic in that the only part that is relevant to this article is the first one ("It was announced on December 12 2008 that the B.C. Crown had decided not to lay charges against the four officers involved in the tasering death of Mr. Dziekanski."). The article is not about the Delta crash, nor is it about general criticism of the RCMP. You are welcome to consider integrating your text into the relevant article(s), of course. However, the proper approach is still to leave the disputed text out of the article until this is resolved, especially given that there are two editors opposed to inclusion and only one supporting it at this time. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the attention to the sources above Ckatz. I am aware that "Criticism of the RCMP" section of the article is not about general criticism of the RCMP, but about specific criticism of the actions of the four officers at the scene and specific criticism of the actions of the RCMP afterward, as this is an ongoing subject. That's what this content addresses. After a lull in criticism of the RCMP related to the 2007 Dziekanski case, that criticism was reawakened in late 2008. Looking at the media, we can attribute this in large part to two events -- the first being the Crown's decision not to press charges against the officers, the second being the charge of drunk driving brought against one of the officers. My rewrite says just that, and I have provided a source to support the content. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me a hypothetical: There is a spectacular bank robbery, and John Smith is a suspect. A month later, while the public debates his guilt or innocence, Smith saves a baby from a burning building. The papers call him a hero.

Maybe the courts should disregard Smith's good deed, as it does not relate to the case of the bank robbery. Ok.

But in the Wiki article on the bank robbery, there is a section called "Public opinion of John Smith." In this section, surely we note the effect that saving the baby had on Smith's public image? RomaC (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on your hypothetical. If public opinion somehow affected the investigation or prosecution directly – let's say that Smith was dropped as a suspect partly or fully in response to public pressure, and this causal relationship was recorded in a reliable source – it would be relevant. Otherwise, the entire Public opinion of John Smith section has shaky relevance to the Bank robbery article. It may be relevant in the John Smith article, which may or may not exist separately due to WP:BLP1E. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Greetings. I saw this dispute posted on the Third Opinion noticeboard. I would like to begin by commending all involved for remaining extremely civil, and keeping the discussion on this talk page.

I am reading the article, discussion, and the sources mentioned. I will add my opinion in a moment. I hope that I will be able to assist. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky dispute, which appears to surround whether to include a line of text linking the fourth RCMP officer with a separate incident. The wording is at question: should the specifics of the driving incident be mentioned?

My opinion is that the specifics should not be mentioned. I would support noting that three officers remain on duty while the fourth awaits charges related to a separate incident. This allows the encyclopedia article to remain focused on the topic (the Taser incident), without undue weight. If the article concerned only the RCMP, or the 4th officer: then the situation would be different. In this article, however, the topic should be narrowly tailored around the Taser incident. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I have modified the text accordingly. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Lazulilasher for offering a third opinion. As per Wiki's policy on third opinions, I understand this is not binding (but it is appreciated). Three editors have now supported inclusion of the content, and three have opposed it. I do not see consensus yet I hope we will see real efforts here to find a compromise. RomaC (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely welcome for the third opinion; and, you are quite correct. A Third Opinion is by no means binding; it is just that: an unbiased third opinion. I hope that you are able to resolve your dispute, and I encourage continued efforts toward dispute resolution. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher, thanks for providing a third opinion and explaining your reasoning. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion (driving incident)

Copied from #Serious problems with this article (permalink) (diff) Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Believe there are serious POV problems with this article, which is supposed to be about an infamous incident in which a man died after being tasered by four policeman. Particularly noteworthy is that an eyewitness video brought the incident to a wide audience. This stirred up public criticism of Tasers; of the four officers involved; and of the RCMP in general.

1) "The 40 year old spoke no English." is unsourced and implies the victim had a problem that affected the incident. Note that Canadian international airports are officially bilingual.

2) The photo, to illustrate an incident in which a man was tasered and died, shows not the tasering by four officers, but rather the victim, looking wild and threatening.

3) The first line after the summary points to an arrest of the 40 year-old victim, when he was a teen, for a non-violent crime. This has been defended as follows "we have to present at least a few background details about Robert Dziekański for it to be a complete and accurate source of information."

4) Assuming background information on the principals in the incident is valid, there is a serious conflict in that such information on the supervising officer at the scene, Corporal Benjamin Monty Robinson, has been repeatedly deleted by a single editor (see next point).

5) In the section "Criticism of the RCMP," information on the fact that criticism of the officers increased significantly after one was arrested for drunk driving causing death has been repeatedly deleted. Three editors have placed this content, and three editors have opined against it. This is hardly a consensus for removal.

I have assumed good faith and rewritten the content to address concerns about Wiki policy; the other editor has not worked for a compromise, only for deletion.

Tagging for now and will start a WP:RfC if there is no good-faith effort to find compromises. RomaC (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Roma, with regards to the details about the officer, I'm not sure how you can imply bad faith on the part of others when:

• several editors have disagreed with your opinion, stating their opposition to including specific details of the charges against the officer;
• the sources you have provided do not support the connection you are trying to make between the two incidents;
• you have repeatedly restored the disputed text, despite requests to resolve the issue first;
• the third opinion you requested did not agree with including the details about the officer

It is also important to note that the three editors who have added this content are:

• the IP 204.50.113.29 whose only edits to the article involved the initial placement of the details in question;
• user Shadesofgrey, whose only edits to the page occurred approximately 10 hours after the IP, and who - after reverting my edit in order to restore the text - promptly commented it out, saying "Reference to involved police officer involvement in fatal crash supressed until good location can be found for information or information is made public.";
• yourself.

--Ckatz^chat_spy 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ckatz, but I am not satisfied that you have addressed my points here on the talk page.

It is equally important to note that while three editors have added this content, the editor who has repeatedly deleted this content is:

• yourself.
• yourself.
• yourself.

RomaC (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Flatscan removed your addition the first time... and it is possible that the IP might also be Shadesofgrey, based on timing and similar edits. More importantly, however, you have been repeatedly reverting the material back in, despite several objections and opinions that it is not warranted here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake Ckatz, one of the content deletions was Flatscan. I remain concerned however that you have only selectively addressed my comments here, and so I'll ask again: How does his content, from a Vancouver Sun editorial, not connect criticism of Dziekanski taser officer Robinson with his Delta drunk driving causing death charge: "The fallout from the death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport has claimed two other victims - a motorcyclist who was killed in Delta on Saturday night and the off-duty RCMP officer whose vehicle collided with him... the RCMP revealed the Mountie (Robinson) was also involved in the Oct. 14, 2007 fracas at the airport in which the 40-year-old Polish immigrant was Tasered at least twice and died being subdued by the officers... The Mounties and Delta Police, who are investigating the weekend fatality, claim the cop hasn't actually been "charged" yet, so they're protecting his privacy until he appears in court. What a thoughtful thing to do. I can't believe these two police agencies have the audacity to pull a stunt like this - especially the RCMP. Doesn't the force realize the country has lost faith in it and that transparency, not secrecy is needed to rebuild the trust we once had in this national institution? Most people I talk to remain absolutely livid about what happened to Dziekanski, and they're astounded the RCMP seems to be thumbing their nose at the public's concerns." Cheers RomaC (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article you've quoted is an opinion piece, not a news story, and that the conclusions are entirely Ian Mulgrew's opinion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ckatz's objection. Flatscan (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

← RomaC raises new points that do not have existing discussions. Would anyone mind if I moved most of the discussion here to a new subsection under #Officer charged with impaired driving causing death? Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flatscan, I have no objections if you think the move will make the discussion clearer. Cheers RomaC (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only taken part in editing the 'Investigations' section of the article so I think I will throw in my 2 cents to RomaC comment:

1) Yes, Canadian airports are officially bilingual - but the person in question was not reported to speak French either so this comment is irrelevant

2) I think you forgot how the RCMP got involved in the first place - IF he was not acting the way he did (as with a normal passenger), the RCMP would not have got involved and thus this incident would not have taken place but I do agree the choice of picture can and do influence how one sees the issue.

3) I am not seeing the lines in question?

4) and 5) I understand how one of the arresting officer got arrested himself is relevant in terms of describing the officers in question - that being said, can you connect the dot for me? It's like saying all cases conducted by a police officer who got arrested him/herself should be dug out and be reviewed because of an incident?--Cahk (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from #Serious problems with this article (permalink) (diff) Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

RomaC, thank you for continuing the discussion. I encourage you to pursue further dispute resolution by requesting more outside input from the relevant noticeboards mentioned previously or through article WP:RFC. Flatscan (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RCMP jobs and salaries

Taking in consideration how high salaries have the RCMP officers, it's real shame for 4 officers to use the tasers against one stapler... isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.202.248 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that each immigrant pays so called "landing fee" of approx. 1000 CAD. Maybe this is the money that pays for the tazers...

I "landed" myself in VIAP in 2005. I was happy enough to evade tazing but should note that I would appreciate some basic attention from authorities that was not there. Сергей Олегович (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Have begun work toward removing the tag, would like to bring a neutral POV to the article and any editors who want to help are welcome, thanks. RomaC (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working on cleanup. I restored a sentence you removed as uncited, as the {{fact}} tag was only relevant to the airport's translation service, originally cited to a YouTube copy of a newscast. There is probably an alternate source available, or the newscast itself if identifiable. I was able to use an existing ref for the English language part. I think you may have trimmed too much detail, as some is necessary for understanding the lead-up to the actual incident. Flatscan (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The YouTube video appears to be discussed in #Video link above. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Batons

On the Youtube video it clearly shows that the RCMP used batons on Robert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairsenses (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see batons? Maybe also spears and swords? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This was explained in testimony at the Braidwood Inquiry. The RCMP use collapsible batons, and once they are extended it is somewhat difficult to collapse them. In the video you can see one officer collapsing his baton by pushing it against the ground, near Dziekanski's head. But the officer was not striking Dziekanski with the baton. --Mathew5000 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Charges?

There isn't any information in this article about charges being laid in relation to this death. I've been looking for any information on criminal or disciplinary action that has been taken in relationship to this death but haven't found any yet. If anybody has any information it would be good to include it here. --Sumthingweird (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no criminal charges being laid against the 4 RCMP officer involved as of yet- the Crown Counsel is still deciding on the matter (according to Global BC News)--Cahk (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

On 2008-12-12 B.C. Crown Counsel released a statement explaining its decision not to approve charges in relation to the incident. See also news coverage from CTV. --Mathew5000 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Quilem Registre Taser incident

A related article, Quilem Registre Taser incident, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation

In the artical it says that when he was tasered he was standing calmly with his hands at his side... I have seen the video and this is misleading! He was standing with his hands down... but one of them was holding an improvised weapon (the stapler... and yes a stapler makes an effective impact weapon in the hands of a strong individual) and he faced the police with one foot in front of the other with his knees flexed in readiness for sudden action. His whole body language was threatening. How can you expect an officer to aproach an individual like that? He was clearly planning to fight. Pepperspray, battons, and taser were the only options. Pepperspray is often inefective against enraged individuals, and batons are more likely to cause permanent injury than Tasers, so I think the Taser was the apropriate choice... tragicly a fatal one in this instance... but the right choice with the information available to the officers.

The second thing I would like to comment on is the noise from the taser. When you hear that loud crackleing noise it means that the taser has not conected properly to the individual... making it less effective. I causes pain rather than incapacity because the energy from the weapon is not able to penetrate deeply enough into the subjects body... this is covered in taser use training. This sort of conection often leads to the necessity of applying the taser multiple times because it fails to incapacitate completely.

This in no way mitigates the fact that the officers involved failed to respond to the fact that their prisoner stopped breathing while in their custody... calling an ambulence is all very well, but CPR should have been started immediately. The issue over taser use is to me, moot, because it was faliure to provide first aid to an injured suspect that caused this death. Suspects can be injured in any number of ways when resistin police, and police should be trained to deal with this, and be held accountable if they fail to take action. There was no continuing danger that prevented them from doing so.

Jlinman (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)jwinman

That's all very well, but how will you apply that to improving the Wikipedia? We maintain a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, so we can't put in biased text. We do Wikipedia:No original research. We can only put in material which is found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Can you point to a source which says Dziekanski's "whole body language was threatening"? That the Taser didn't connect properly in this case? If so, cite the source, and add it to the article. --Jdlh | Talk 13:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but its all conjecture. He did raise his hands while holding the stapler momentarily, as it has been testified in the Inquiry. As for a final response; I can disarm a man holding a club. Why can't 4 RCMP officers do it? That is also conjecture and cannot be put in a real encyclopedic article. Annihilatron (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

Please, keep the category "Terrorism". This wasn't an accident, He was killed. --212.183.251.103 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if the incident was indeed not an accident (which the Briadwood Inquiry will determine), it is not a terrorist act (terrorist is defined as "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon") - how is this political or radical? --Cahk (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose including Category:Terrorism unless a valid and specific reliable source is found. Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if he was killed on purpose (he wasn't) it wouldn't be terrorism. Lots42 (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. +1. --Jdlh | Talk 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. This is not terrorism. This is at most, aggravated assault causing death or 2nd degree murder (unplanned).Annihilatron (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Occupation, robbery conviction

Thisglad added information on Dziekański's occupation and his conviction for robbery as a teenager to the top of Robert Dziekański Taser incident#The incident. Believing these details to be irrelevant, especially where placed, I reverted, and Thisglad re-reverted.

1. For incident/event articles, I generally do not oppose the inclusion of some biographical details. In this case, I would suggest a separate section that provides general background information leading up to the confrontation.
2. The robbery conviction occurred many years ago, and its inclusion appears to violate WP:UNDUE.

Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If McLeans reports the robbery conviction it is not only a reliable source by any standards, it also merits inclusion as the criminal record of any person who has not been at least pardoned is worthy of inclusion in their biographical details along with his career, George Bush was a drunk driver and it 'occurred many years ago' but it is still mentioned on wikipedia, this article is mostly about the taser incident, but we have to present at least a few background details about Robert Dziekański for it to be a complete and accurate source of information, this does not violate WP:UNDUE in any way Thisglad (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Macleans.ca seems to be an acceptable source, but WP:UNDUE covers more than sources alone. I don't agree that Dziekański's minor criminal record is relevant. A stronger argument could be made if he had had a history of violence. The article memorializes Dziekański and includes many details that are irrelevant to this article. Few negative items are mentioned, and I find the inclusion of one here questionable. Why not mention a more recent, positive trivial detail like his becoming a godfather or quitting smoking before the flight? Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Flatscan Dziekański's robbery conviction while a teen does not relate to this incident. RomaC (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Agree with removal of biography. The point of this is not necessarily Dziekański's history, it is the incident itself.Annihilatron (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Names of officers

I think the names of the 4 RMCP officers who tasered Dziekanski should be included in this article. I googled around but couldn't find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.246.31 (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's probably dozens of legal reasons why this would be, for lack of a better phrase, not a good thing. Lots42 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RomaC added the names of the officers. It appears that their names have been released and may now be included in the article. I do not strongly oppose inclusion of the names, but they seem sort of pasted-in in their current location. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

70.79.210.104 added their full names. As before, it would be nice if the names were integrated into the surrounding text. Flatscan (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the full names should be introduced on first reference. RomaC (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tasered 3-4 times?

There are rumors that Dziekanski was tasered 3-4 times. In the video, you can hear that he was tasered 3 times, not 2. A fourth time could have been distorted by all the noise created by the video but it appears he was tasered 3 times, not two. Frankyboy5 (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Only two were apparent to myself, but more importantly, in all the media reports I've seen that discuss the video. That's not meant to be definitive, but at this point it's all that there's a reliable source for, SFAIK. The article does mention the eyewitness that claimed four taser jolts, and if any of those investigations ever conclude, something more definitive will eventually come out. There's also a video on YouTube showing the audio frequencies on the video that suggests there were 4 jolts. I've been watching this article and trying to faithfully adhere to WP:RS because it's a current event around which are a lot of speculation, rumours, and strong opinions, and it could quickly get messy and bloggy. bobanny (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC

I believe 5 has been reported recently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.128.61 (talk • contribs) 19:34, February 24, 2009

Information downloaded from the Taser itself indicates that it was "deployed" five times, but that is different from saying Dziekanski "was tasered" five times, since one or more of the deployments may have been unsuccessful. --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He was hit five times, according to the coroner[3], and the weapon was discharged five times.[4]. Suggest that we merge some of the taser talk sections together, as they discuss the same stuff. Annihilatron (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Annihilatron, why do you say that "according to the coroner" Dziekanski was hit five times? The CBC article you link to here does not mention the coroner. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another article on CBC that I can't find stated that. It was months ago, and thus difficult to find. I found the closest thing *shrug*. Annihilatron (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well if the article you want to cite cannot be found at the CBC web site, maybe it was removed because it was inaccurate. The coroner's report has not been released to the public as far as I know, and it's unlikely the coroner would say that Dziekanski was hit five times. --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Stapler

It might be worth mentioning, that Polish Consulate in Vancouver has a translator made available 24/7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.8.38 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the video it seems like one of the officers administers two more jolts to the victim after he's on the ground. That would be a total of 4 jolts. Or am I not seeing it clearly? Also, it seems like the officer has his shin across his neck and is putting his entire weight on it. Could that have caused the death? Too bad the video was taken from so far away. Edrigu 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

one eyewitness reported that he was tasered four times. All of the reports I've seen say that only 2 jolts are captured on the video, and that's all I can make out as well. The autopsy did not determine a cause of death; I would think if it was from a cop's knee/shin suffocating him, they could have made that determination. But then, I'm no Quincy. bobanny 02:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He was hit five times, according to the coroner[5], and the weapon was discharged five times.[6]Annihilatron (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The coroner has not said that Dziekanski was hit five times by the Taser; see discussion below. It is information downloaded from the Taser itself that says it was deployed five times, but that does not mean that all five hit the target. --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article

Believe there are serious POV problems with this article, which is supposed to be about an infamous incident in which a man died after being tasered by four policeman. Particularly noteworthy is that an eyewitness video brought the incident to a wide audience. This stirred up public criticism of Tasers; of the four officers involved; and of the RCMP in general.

1) "The 40 year old spoke no English." is unsourced and implies the victim had a problem that affected the incident. Note that Canadian international airports are officially bilingual.

2) The photo, to illustrate an incident in which a man was tasered and died, shows not the tasering by four officers, but rather the victim, looking wild and threatening.

3) The first line after the summary points to an arrest of the 40 year-old victim, when he was a teen, for a non-violent crime. This has been defended as follows "we have to present at least a few background details about Robert Dziekański for it to be a complete and accurate source of information."

4) Assuming background information on the principals in the incident is valid, there is a serious conflict in that such information on the supervising officer at the scene, Corporal Benjamin Monty Robinson, has been repeatedly deleted by a single editor (see next point).

5) In the section "Criticism of the RCMP," information on the fact that criticism of the officers increased significantly after one was arrested for drunk driving causing death has been repeatedly deleted. Three editors have placed this content, and three editors have opined against it. This is hardly a consensus for removal.

I have assumed good faith and rewritten the content to address concerns about Wiki policy; the other editor has not worked for a compromise, only for deletion.

Tagging for now and will start a WP:RfC if there is no good-faith effort to find compromises. RomaC (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied to #Further discussion (driving incident) above – Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Copied to #Further discussion (driving incident) above (permalink) (diff) Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Roma, with regards to the details about the officer, I'm not sure how you can imply bad faith on the part of others when: several editors have disagreed with your opinion, stating their opposition to including specific details of the charges against the officer; the sources you have provided do not support the connection you are trying to make between the two incidents; you have repeatedly restored the disputed text, despite requests to resolve the issue first; the third opinion you requested did not agree with including the details about the officer It is also important to note that the three editors who have added this content are: the IP 204.50.113.29 whose only edits to the article involved the initial placement of the details in question; user Shadesofgrey, whose only edits to the page occurred approximately 10 hours after the IP, and who - after reverting my edit in order to restore the text - promptly commented it out, saying "Reference to involved police officer involvement in fatal crash supressed until good location can be found for information or information is made public."; yourself. --Ckatzchatspy 10:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry Ckatz, but I am not satisfied that you have addressed my points here on the talk page. It is equally important to note that while three editors have added this content, the editor who has repeatedly deleted this content is: yourself. yourself. yourself. RomaC (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, Flatscan removed your addition the first time... and it is possible that the IP might also be Shadesofgrey, based on timing and similar edits. More importantly, however, you have been repeatedly reverting the material back in, despite several objections and opinions that it is not warranted here. --Ckatzchatspy 10:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC) My mistake Ckatz, one of the content deletions was Flatscan. I remain concerned however that you have only selectively addressed my comments here, and so I'll ask again: How does his content, from a Vancouver Sun editorial, not connect criticism of Dziekanski taser officer Robinson with his Delta drunk driving causing death charge: "The fallout from the death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport has claimed two other victims - a motorcyclist who was killed in Delta on Saturday night and the off-duty RCMP officer whose vehicle collided with him... the RCMP revealed the Mountie (Robinson) was also involved in the Oct. 14, 2007 fracas at the airport in which the 40-year-old Polish immigrant was Tasered at least twice and died being subdued by the officers... The Mounties and Delta Police, who are investigating the weekend fatality, claim the cop hasn't actually been "charged" yet, so they're protecting his privacy until he appears in court. What a thoughtful thing to do. I can't believe these two police agencies have the audacity to pull a stunt like this - especially the RCMP. Doesn't the force realize the country has lost faith in it and that transparency, not secrecy is needed to rebuild the trust we once had in this national institution? Most people I talk to remain absolutely livid about what happened to Dziekanski, and they're astounded the RCMP seems to be thumbing their nose at the public's concerns." Cheers RomaC (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Note that the article you've quoted is an opinion piece, not a news story, and that the conclusions are entirely Ian Mulgrew's opinion. --Ckatzchatspy 05:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC) ← RomaC raises new points that do not have existing discussions. Would anyone mind if I moved most of the discussion here to a new subsection under #Officer charged with impaired driving causing death? Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Hi Flatscan, I have no objections if you think the move will make the discussion clearer. Cheers RomaC (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please direct discussion of (3) to #Occupation, robbery conviction and of (4) and (5) to #Further discussion (driving incident). Flatscan (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've only taken part in editing the 'Investigations' section of the article so I think I will throw in my 2 cents to RomaC comment:

1) Yes, Canadian airports are officially bilingual - but the person in question was not reported to speak French either so this comment is irrelevant

2) I think you forgot how the RCMP got involved in the first place - IF he was not acting the way he did (as with a normal passenger), the RCMP would not have got involved and thus this incident would not have taken place but I do agree the choice of picture can and do influence how one sees the issue.

3) I am not seeing the lines in question?

4) and 5) I understand how one of the arresting officer got arrested himself is relevant in terms of describing the officers in question - that being said, can you connect the dot for me? It's like saying all cases conducted by a police officer who got arrested him/herself should be dug out and be reviewed because of an incident?--Cahk (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, to who it may concern, I remain aware of some policy problems with the activity on this talkpage. I've been busy with non-Wiki stuff and a few Wiki articles, I will be back to work on this article, where many problems remain, such as three OR violations in the first five lines. RomaC (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1) sourced [1]

2) You could google images for some public-domain photos of the mounties piled on top of him.

3) The teen event is completely unnecessary, as the only way it is related to this incident is that it was the same person.

4) The supervising officer is definitely required in the article; he is even testifying at the inquiry (spelling?)[7].

5) The drunk driving incident should be included, although perhaps not stated as a drunk driving incident. It would be more relevant as the 'aftermath' as to where the officers are now, rather than part of the main article concerning the actual Taser Incident.

While I concur with some parts of both sides of the argument, it is important to cite your sources, which Ckatz has not done. An encyclopedia is not a place for the winners to write history by majority vote; it is a NPOV place where sourced material can be put together.

Annihilatron (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Annihilatron, do you think you could add the information for points 4) and 5)? The officers have all been named and Robinson the supervising officer has been featured in numerous media reports due his testimony at the Braidwood inquiry, where the other criminal proceedings against him have been cited. This is now clearly a major part of the aftermath of the incident. RomaC (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Annihilatron, but your post is confusing; what sources have I not cited, and where exactly are they needed? My argument - supported by several other opinions here at the time - was that certain information was both improperly sourced and also not relevant in the context it was presented. As such, at the time it needed to be removed. I would ask two favours of you: first, could you please elaborate as to your statement? Two, if you haven't already, could you please review the entire discussion that took place regarding this matter? Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, it is good, even in discussion, to source your points (and thus make them irrefutable). Unfortunately, my source for dziekanski only speaking polish seems to have vapourized, although it's in the article now.

I don't like the assumption you're making that I haven't reviewed the discussion. The difference is that RomaC argues with sources, while you argue with logic. Both are valid methods, but one is usually stronger as it has the weight of official news documents. If an item is improperly sourced, it should not be removed. If an item is 'not relevant in the context of presentation', the presentation could be fixed. Remember to WP:PRESERVE. If you felt like it needed to be removed, it is allowed to come back, assuming it doesn't violate anything else. People are being WP:BOLD in editing (notice how they edit and don't come back), and we should WP:AGF and try to correct mistakes, rather than delete first (twice!) and ask questions much later.

As for adding the 'drunk driving incident', bits and pieces of the information we have wanted to add are already in there; I may simply tweak the article a bit to note which officers were where and who was the supervisor, to line up with our sources.Annihilatron (talk) 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't assume anything - that is why I said "if you haven't already." Unfortunately, the discussion around this matter is split between two sections, and in addition part of it is hidden in the "copied to" banner above; following all of the branches can be confusing. I also have to take issue with your assertion that improperly sourced material shouldn't be removed, especially in this case. You've mentioned WP:PRESERVE, but there is an equally important aspect of the editing policy that immediately follows that section:

"Questionable material about living people in any article should be removed immediately, pending subsequent discussion."

We are under no obligation to retain text that a) is not supported by the supplied sources, and b) is opposed by several editors on the grounds that it is inappropriate. At the time this discussion began, the text in question implied a connection between the Taser incident and an RCMP officer's separate charges; the only source provided was an opinion piece, not a news story or a comment from an expert. Such allegations are potentially harmful to an individual, and while we are certainly not here to sugar-coat details about the officer, we are also not supposed to permit speculation about him. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The event happened, didn't it? Therefore there should be some note. An opinion piece is still a valid resource if you don't use the opinions in it for information; it must still be based on real facts. Annihilatron (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I think an opinion piece, especially one that appeared in major media, can be used with in-line citation. RomaC (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from other editors, including the third opinion Roma requested, supported the idea that the events had not been shown to be connected, and as such the specifics of the later charges are not relevant here. It is not our role to interpret events, or to suggest that there is a connection, especially when dealing with living persons. Per WP:BLP, we certainly need something more than just an opinion from a newspaper columnist. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz you may be correct that there is no direct connection between the tasering and the drunk driving charge, but the discussion here is not about whether there is a direct connection between them. The article is not only about the tasering, it also covers for example the video and the aftermath. In the aftermath there was intense criticism directed toward the involved officers, that is within the scope of this article, and it is not our role to interpret, judge or censor the criticism. Again, opinion pieces can be used with in-line citations. RomaC (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct - we are not here to "interpret, judge, or censor" - and this is not a case of censorship. Per the third opinion that you requested, "the topic should be narrowly tailored around the Taser incident". --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the RCMP Officers

Believe this needs to be readdressed. My reasoning is that a Wiki article on the Robert Dziekański Tasering has to go beyond the tasering death, to include the matter of the video and the public reaction, specifically the criticism of the officers which has been front page news in Canada for many weeks now. RomaC (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing others' comments

Ckatz, I am concerned about this edit. Can you please show me the Wiki policy that permits you to remove others' comments? RomaC (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already replied at length on your talk page to explain how that account is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Please review my post, as it clearly delineates why a banned user is not permitted to evade said ban through the use of alternate accounts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So this person stalked you? I only saw that user:coastme20 was blocked, I didn't know the rest of the story, or that you can delete any talk page comments in that case. Also you edited my comment, that's what caught my attention, since we were both critical of your approach here on this article. But nevermind. I will start a new section below to address the inclusion of public criticism of the officers involved in this tasering. In the future, please ask me first if you want to edit/delete my comments. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since we've resolved this (and as it has little to do with the page) I plan on archiving it to my talk page, unless you would prefer it on yours. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Image choice

The article's lead picture looks like Jack Nicholson from The Shining, suggest this CC image more accurately represents the incident. RomaC (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good comparison to use (Jack), but the image you've posted already appears in the article. If you want to use an image that already appears in the article, I suggest this one. Its probably a more accurate representation of the incident, as you can clearly see the victim and one of the officers. Some kind of combination of the two images would be best, though, as it would clearly represent the tasering, and the four officers on top of the victim. Annihilatron (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

An OTRS email suggested the image from this news article. BJ^Talk 23:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BJ, strongly support leading with that picture alongside the one Annihilatron suggested. RomaC (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming silence=consent, replacing the lead image portraying Dziekanski as crazed belligerent with an image of the tasering incident itself. RomaC (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This CC image was in the article but has disappeared I know very little about how to use images in Wiki can someone help restore it? RomaC (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Translation of the video?

Are there any translations available of what he said in the video? --69.255.17.40 (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what I would like to know. Someone called "diplomat" commenting on this news opinion blog article claims "He kept yelling (in Polish) for someone to call the police."

The moment he saw police he started to shout "policja, policja", which means "police, police" and is a phrase used to call police for help. I think this fact could be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.194.219 (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This Vancouver Sun article says that he says "F---! I will not let you accuse [charge] me of anything."--Timtak (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The enhanced audio was translated by two professional translators, one of whom testified at the Braidwood Inquiry on 2009-02-02. The transcript is in this PDF, about 10 to 15 pages in. Also see news coverage from Canadian Press and CBC. --Mathew5000 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Found a translation here at the CBC web site. --Mathew5000 (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias Sourcing

Given how contentious the topic is, we should not be using any source directly involved in the incident itself, or who is accused of wrongdoing. For instance we say:

Cisowski had been making enquiries of airport staff since the early afternoon, but could not provide information about the airline, flight number or scheduled arrival time

We source it to the Vancouver Airport Authority's preliminary report [8]. Given that this is a very negative claim (against the mother), and the source is not independent, with a strong motive to shift blame, this seems like a blatant violation of WP:BLP. Using the Authority's report as a source for what the report says, is ok. But it can't possibly be a source of facts, particularly when their version of the facts, makes them look less to blame. Removing such sources, may mean we have less detail, but that's ok. If an involved-party says something, that's not been covered by third-party reliable sources, we shouldn't mention it. I plan on removing any bias sources, and suggest, anyone wishing to keep the information, find a third-party reliable source, in order to keep the claims. --Rob (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I think it's generally appropriate to attribute in-text, e.g. "According to the Vancouver Airport Authority's preliminary report", instead of outright removal. If multiple sources are in contradiction, we may juxtapose them based on their independence and reliability, or we may omit the weaker ones, all in accordance with WP:NPOV. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you give a single highly bias source, and report their version, which is self-serving, than that's a gross violation of WP:NPOV. In Wikipedia, "neutral" doesn't mean repeating whatever is said (even with attribution). It means accurately representing what reliable sources have said. Until you have at least one reliable source (which must be a third-party) you can't possibly present it neutrally, and any attempt to do so, is original research. Also, WP:BLP is very clear, that without third-party reliable sources, it's never permissible to report contentious negative material about a living person. --Rob (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On the point of what information was provided to airport staff, it may be helpful to look at the Braidwood Commission testimony of Richard Gerald Hutchinson (who accompanied Ms Cisowski at YVR) [9] at pages 27 and 34. According to his testimony, he did know the correct flight number, 6070, but he seemed to think the name of the airline was Concord rather than Condor. And he thought it was a flight from Poland (when in fact that flight was from Frankfurt). --Mathew5000 (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One other point about that statement in the Vancouver Airport Authority preliminary report [10] at page 9, paragraph 29, which says that when Ms Cisowski was talking to "CSA3" she could not provide the airline, flight, or scheduled arrival time. CSA3 is Janet Sullivan, and when she testified at the Braidwood Inquiry she specifically said "I didn't think to ask them about the airline or flight number because all the flights from Europe were already in, had already arrived" ([11]). --Mathew5000 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Back on YouTube

A 3:41 version of the incident is available NOW, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdPgF6trtjA

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As It Happens interview with Dziekanski's mother

Heard it on the radio recently (late March, 2010). I don't remember the details, unfortunately, but they mentioned a settlement agreement. Sergivs-en (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of news articles on the net about this, though no settlement details will be released. See RCMP tarnished by Dziekanski case: expert at CBC News, for example. Mindmatrix 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Video Terming - sold/released

The article linked regarding the video clearly states that Pritchard sold the video to local media. While "released" is OK, "sold" or "released for X amount of money" is better as it more clearly conveys the facts. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eetwr (talk • contribs) 06:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eetwr. My concern is that saying he sold the video does not seem relevant. For example if someone writes a guest editorial for the Vancouver Sun, I think what s/he says in the column itself is where we should focus, not whether or how much they might have been paid for writing it. RomaC (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that following a good source (I haven't looked at this specific source) closely is fine, although the specific amount is probably excessive detail. The Rodney King article does not specify if George Holliday was compensated for his video, but I was unable to find a source on cursory review. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the responses guys. I think that it is relevant to mention that it was "sold" to the media rather than released, as that may convey that the media was perhaps less than altruistically motivated to promote the video to the public and may also imply some bias. I actually agree that the video clearly shows excessive force being used by the RCMP, but I think that it's intellectually honest to use the word "sold" instead of "released" (not to mention, that's clear from the source). Eetwr (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Having read the source, which is entirely about Pritchard's selling the video, I support "sold" as the verb to use. Flatscan (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree, because in this phrasing there is something of an implication, intentional or otherwise, that Pritchard exploited the Dziekański killing for financial gain. I do see that there is a source which uses 'sold', and explores this; but I would bet that there are hundreds of sources that do not go into whether money changed hands. (Actually, almost everything we see on television has been bought and paid for.) And so selecting this particular source seems to give the detail undue weight. However, I won't revert, just want to weigh in. RomaC (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He did not "sell" the video; rather he sold nonexclusive licenses to broadcast the video. The original recording was never sold, nor was the copyright. --Mathew5000 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah OK, perhaps we should change it to "released to the media in exchange for monetary compensation" or something then? I think the fact that he was paid for it is important to mention. Eetwr (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are the terms under which the video was provided to the media noteworthy with regard to this incident? RomaC (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing. The Pritchard video is extremely important in relation to this incident. Without this video, the officers' version of events could never have been effectively challenged at a public inquiry. The circumstances of the video, therefore, are appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia article, and in that respect the current version of the article is lacking. For example, the article does not mention that Pritchard just happened to be in the airport at that hour on his way back from a trip. The article does not mention that Pritchard was told to stop recording but he continued anyway. The article doesn't mention that security guards were told to stand in front of the glass pane, to block Pritchard's view of the unconscious man. The article doesn't mention that the video hit Youtube within three minutes of Pritchard releasing it, then was removed for terms of use violation. Reading the current version of the article you might assume that Pritchard was a freelance reporter, or maybe an airport employee, rather than a random citizen with a camcorder. At present the Pritchard video is discussed for only two paragraphs in the article; that section needs to be expanded and in the context of the expansion it is worth mentioning parenthetically that Pritchard received a fee for the broadcast rights. I disagree with Eetwr's assertion that the fact of this payment constituted a motive for the media to "promote" the video or implied media bias, and I also disagree with RomaC's view that mentioning payment implies that Pritchard "exploited" this death. --Mathew5000 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mathew5000. This video is very central in the public and media reaction, and actually is the primary reason this incident has gotten the coverage and attention that it has, including this Wikipedia article. The circumstances of Pritchard, who recorded the video, the device he used, his issue with getting his memory card back from the police, this is all relevant. I remember reading that he was using a digital camera, with video capability, which is why his video was not longer. Pritchard witnessed more, but did not record it because he was limited to about 10 minutes recording time. These facts, verifyable, are relevant to this incident and relevent to people, even in the future, having a contextual understanding of how the events unfolded, and how the video came to be known by the public. —fudoreaper (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad that this has generated so much discussion. Hopefully a clearer picture is now evident. I'm content with the current wording. 222.182.2.17 (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between being greedy and being an idiot. There's no reason he should have called up all the media he could think of and said, "Here, here's video I just had to file a lawsuit to get back after taping four police officers murdering somebody. You can can have it! I love making your station more advertising revenue and I just know that nobody would air this otherwise. No, no money, I'm trying to become some kind of bizarre 21st century Canadian Christ figure." When he could have just asked them how much they'd give him for it. If he wanted to make tons of cash, he would have been better off dumping it on youtube and linking it to a few personal websites with badly designed spur of the moment anti-taser products. EyeExplore (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Responsibility

It's not clear from the article if anyone was held responsible for his death. Did any of these cops go to jail for manslaughter? Fired from the force? Anything at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.199.53 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They will not face charges [12]Annihilatron (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that the cops failed absolutely outright to "serve and protect" the distressed victim of their fatal attack, and hence they are directly responsible. However, they were most likely following training and a written directive from senior police administration. Has this also been looked into to avoid future public casualites at the hands of the police? What ever happened to community policing, "softly softly" it used to be called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.22.70 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Outdated August 2010 removed

It is unclear how this article is outdated, so I've removed the tag. Overall it is comprehensive and does not have obvious gaps. - RoyBoy 22:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

New news item on this case

I haven't fully read it yet but this and its content should be added to the article.Skookum1 (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)