Talk:UCLA Taser incident

Cause of Incident

I found it a bit odd that the cause of the Taser Incident was the a student was shocked by a taser. That seems circular/redundant. Shouldn't the cause be that he refused to show identification and was allegedly defiant of the police? StatsJunkie (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree 64.223.121.6 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Update tag

71.232.103.200 placed an {{update}} tag. I agree with its placement, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I have been periodically checking for news coverage of the lawsuit, but have found nothing. Flatscan (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Underdroogles added a sentence noting that the case has not yet been heard. This concurs with a Reference desk thread that I started to find more information. Since the article has been updated with all the available information, I will remove the tag if there are no objections. Flatscan (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Section consolidation

71.56.118.64 consolidated/removed 3 subsections of Incident. I will undo the edits and discuss here.

1. Student Some of this may be a holdover from a WP:BLP1E biography article, but a brief bio subsection is fine. The Bahá'í Faith mention is too trivial for the lead section.
2. Taser "Drive Stun" capacity Due to errors in the initial reporting, it is appropriate to mention an important point – non-incapacitating – as well as the existing wikilinks and/or a {{main}} tag.
3. Number of stuns The reduced number of stuns was not reported until the release of the independent report, nine months after the incident. Merging it into Video and eyewitness accounts confuses the chronology.

Flatscan (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

welcome to the wonderful world of editing wiki. So mentioning his faith and ethnicity (which is crucial to his claim of racial profiling) is too trivial for the lead section so we need to devote an entire section to it? That doesn't sound too logical to me. Especially since the reworks relayed that information in less than two sentences. Point 2 - it is appropriate to mention errors in the initial reporting. That has nothing to do with that section however, as the information there is a regurgitation of the taser article. People would not come to this article to learn what is already laid out in the taser article - so no - that section does not belong. Point 3: The information does not necessitate its' own section (per WP:MOS). It does not confuse the chronology. If it happened nine months later - then you say that's what happened nine months later. Not the other way around. I would encourage you to incorporate the information you want in the article in the appropriate sections. Using those reasons as the basis for keeping unrelated information in poor form does not really stand up as a valid reason. 71.56.118.64 (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Post script - you may find WP:OWN useful. I see that you have contributed a great deal to this article and it may do some good to let others' edits stand on their own merit. 71.56.118.64 (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid the appearance of edit-warring and as a demonstration of good faith, I will not re-revert immediately. Thank you for the link to WP:OWN. I had not reviewed it recently. A suggested editing pattern is bold, revert, discuss. Please note that I made the effort to create this discussion section before reverting so that I could link it in the edit summary. The changed organization and content were long-standing (since at least September 2007) and could be assumed to have had consensus. Of course, Consensus can change.

• Do you have further reasoning – beyond your edit summary removed student section and incorporated it into other areas. No need for a section based on amount of content. – for deleting the bio subsection? I think that its brevity signals discretion in its inclusion standards: his birthdate, hometown, and altered Facebook profile are all excluded. Yagman linked Tabatabainejad's Iranian descent to his belief of profiling[1], but a link to Bahá'í Faith is less strong.[2] I don't remember a source stating that Tabatabainejad was identified as Bahá'í during the incident, either visibly or through self-disclosure.
• I see your point on the redundant content of the "Drive Stun" subsection. Do you have an opinion on adding a sentence to the main Incident section?
• The Number of stuns as concluded by the independent report does not fall under Video and eyewitness accounts. Do you have suggestions for a subsection rename? Would you support retaining a separate subsection if it were expanded in some way?

Flatscan (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• WP:MOS, WP:LAY & Help:Section will speak to a number of your points. When a section is only a small paragraph - it usually means it does not need its' own section. Especially when the information can be or already has been incorporated into other areas of the article. I also think that we're discussing two different things in. I am not nearly as well versed on the topic as you are. The format issue is not related to the substantive value of the content. I have no idea about the gentleman's religious affiliation, his background or anything else. I am simply looking at what is in the article and figuring out if it adds value. In other words, i'm not going to say: this section is good because there is nothing about his facebook profile in it. His facebook profile has no place in the article anyway.
• Adding a sentence should not be a problem at all provide that the content enhances the quality of the article. A single sentence that communicates exactly what a drive stun is would probably be a good thing.
• On the number of stuns - this would be a great opportunity for you to educate me...perhaps this will lead to good content for the article. What exactly is the significance of the number? Can that significance be explained succinctly and quickly or does it need to be fleshed out? 71.56.118.64 (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• As a post script - regarding consensus - just because something isn't edited does not mean there is a consensus. It just means that it hasn't been edited. There are things i come across all the time that are inconsistent for example: I will look at the format of content found inside infoboxes for a couple of athletes where identical information is displayed differently across articles. It's clear this is a failure of wiki editors. A further example of this - there are times when one person makes systemic changes to things and people leave it where it is because they don't like dealing with the particular editor. Thanks for engaging on the talk page - that's really the important thing here. 71.56.118.64 (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already read the Talk archive, you may find it informative. Not much of it is directly related to this discussion, but skimming it will provide some background. There is a /Archive 1#Baha'i? section that mentions a slow edit war between Muslim (unsourced) and Bahá'í (eventually sourced correctly). I found Wikipedia:Layout#Headings and paragraphs; did you have any other specific guidelines in mind? I agree that short, choppy sections should be avoided in general.

• I think that the bio content in Student is relevant/encyclopedic/interesting enough for inclusion. The section is short, but I think merging it into the lead (or any other existing section) is not appropriate. Given the sources I linked (copied from the article), do you agree that the Bahá'í link is too weak to include in the lead?
• I added a "Drive Stun" sentence to Incident.
• I think the number discrepancy as covered in the article is of appropriate length. My thoughts on expansion are more along the lines of adding content from the independent report.

Flatscan (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the archives and appreciate the direction. I don't know what relevance the information in the "student" section has with regards to the article. In fact, i think that some of the info is ideal for the lead section as it is not worthy of its' own section. I tried to extract the one piece - the religious affiliation - i felt was significant and relevant. What he studies or studied seems totally irrelevant and to me - his age is somewhat trivial. That said, noting in the lead that he was 23 at the time wouldn't hurt. I cannot remember where to find it - but there is some advice on wiki that talks about using terms that become dated. The student section showed how this is problematic AND how to fix it at the same time. Saying he "is a fourth-year student" is bad. Saying he was 23 at the time is good. I would say a 23-year-old fourth-year student at the time. The fact that he is of Iranian decent had already been established by the lead. I just can't see how having a section consisting of one sentence benefits the article.

There are some serious voice/tense issues with that section. I think the officers section is out of place. It is clear that the information is relevant and important to the article, but that section does not tie together very well. As an unaware passerby of sorts - how does duren's history speak specifically to the incident? Also, the section is titled officers but it really is only about one of the officers. Perhaps titling it "Officer controversy" (or something of that nature) would be beneficial. I would introduce all of the involved officers and then focus on duren.

As for the # of tasers issue - I am not sure why it is important. I read the content, but I can't figure out why its' in there. Not to sound insensitive, but does it matter if he was tasered 5 times or 3 times? I could see some relevance if there was a greater discrepancy (like 10 times versus 2 times) but as it stands now - it just appears to be an inconsequential fact that is disputed. Again - i'm not sure what the meaning is and if you can enlighten me (and the other readers) - i'm all for it. I do like the sentence you added. 71.56.118.64 (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis is the most relevant section, but it could go either way. Since you mentioned the Officers section, what do you think of a merged section Participants? I had previously opposed that suggested reorganization, but I'm reconsidering it now. Assuming that the Student content is excluded from the body, I agree with your suggestions for the lead.
• The section could use some cleanup. The single sentence on the other officers is fudged and in Officers, not above in Incident, due to a discrepancy in sources. Please see /Archive 1#Officers section for more information. If the section were renamed to focus on Durden, that sentence would have no appropriate place. Whether Durden had a history of brutality is relevant to the allegations related to this incident.
• The number, especially the number occurring after restraint (assumed to be 3), was a key point in the outrage as well as the aborted brutality lawsuit. From the article: According to one witness, "[Tabatabainejad was] no possible danger to any of the police. [He was] getting shocked and Tasered as he was handcuffed." Since there are good sources for each, both counts should be mentioned. Most of the length is due to the lengthy quotation that lists each of the inconsistent counts. I find it interesting, but I can see how it's excessive. How about deleting the quotation or reducing it in a footnote, and moving the two remaining sentences into Incident? Also, I'm warming to overall expansion based on the independent report, so that's still on the table.

Flatscan (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support that merger given my thoughts on the student section. I agree with your points on Durden & thanks for catching me up on the # of tasers issue. I almost think that we should have a section for controversial/disputed facts, but again - i'm pretty ignorant to the event in its' totality. I just remember when it happened and seeing the video. 71.56.118.64 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll consider the various options more. You may be interested in reading the independent report, especially its detailed account of the incident. Flatscan (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited the lead slightly, but I have not implemented any of the changes discussed here. Flatscan (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit settlement

I added a {{Citation needed}} tag on the settlement amount. The cited UCLA release does not give the amount. The best source I found is a Los Angeles Times blog, with which I'm not entirely comfortable. A reader may notice that its background is closely paraphrased from this WP article. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Imhyunho provided a valid citation from the Daily Bruin. Flatscan (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Not really sure what the standard procedure is, but half of the links in the references section come back with errors. Do we just remove the links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.184.82 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please tag them with {{dead link}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)