Jump to content

Talk:Arrest of Karen Garner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating, stay safe..

Celestina007 (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Valereee (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that a Colorado policeman told coworkers to "wait for the pop ... I think it was her shoulder" as they laughingly viewed video of a handcuffed 73-year-old woman being forced to the ground and hogtied? Source: Newly released video shows Colorado police officers laughing at footage of an arrest in which they allegedly injured a 73-year-old woman with dementia. ... "Ready for the pop?" Hopp said, referring to moment when Hopp and Jalali place handcuffs on Garner on the side of the patrol car. "Hear the pop?" Blackett asked Hopp what popped, and he replied, "I think it was her shoulder." ... Body cam footage of the arrest released earlier this month showed that Garner was forced to the ground multiple times and was hogtied on the side of a road. [1]

Created by Levivich (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 07:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • I saw the recent change from today to the DYK rules. It still says "While 200 is an outside limit, hooks slightly under 200 characters may still be rejected at the discretion of the selecting reviewers and administrators." So I do believe my point still stands. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no change today except to restore the wording that's been there at least seven years. EEng 05:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clicking edit on this or any other nomination states - "Hook Format – fewer than 200 characters (shorter is better) and meets the formatting guidelines". SL93 (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The DYK milieu is full of stuff that's out of sync with the actual rules. If you can't believe me maybe you can believe the wise Narutolovehinata5 (below). EEng 05:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to make the hook shorter? While hooks that are 200 characters long are allowed, they're usually discouraged especially if there's ways to make them any shorter. Also I noticed that the hook has a grammatical error: shouldn't "as they laughingly viewed video" be "as they laughingly viewed a video"? Although if this change was made, the hook would go over the limit, so my suggestion of making the hook even shorter stands. Finally, I'm very uncomfortable with the actual hook fact in the first place as it appears to be highlighting and making fun of the misery of a person. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't "as they laughingly viewed video" be "as they laughingly viewed a video" – Either is correct. Compare they viewed footage or they heard music.
  • appears to be highlighting and making fun of the misery of a person – Yes, the hook highlights this appalling mistreatment – it's supposed to. No, there is no conceivable way to interpret it as "making fun" of what happened. I can't imagine what could make you think that.
  • if there's ways to make them any shorter – Not without loss of details essential to the hook's impact. It's within length and I don't see any reason to drop any of its elements.
EEng 05:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article subject a BLP? If so, the hook is probably in bad taste either way. I don't think it's DYK's purpose to highlight hook about a woman, an elderly woman no less, going through much suffering no matter the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for hook length, it does remain under editor discretion as to if a hook of such a length would be accepted, and I would suggest at least attempting to write a hook that's at least slightly shorter before saying "no, nothing else will work". Personally I'd veto it unless other options were exhausted, and even then I have severe reservations about the hook fact itself regardless of its ultimate length. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and struck the original hook. Regardless of the length concerns, assuming that the article subject is a BLP, it just seems like in bad taste to run a hook like this. Given that criminal charges are involved, finding a suitable hook is a challenge to begin with, but I don't think hookiness is an excuse to highlight an unfortunate incident that happened to this poor woman (and I agree that the hook itself is interesting, just in bad taste). A new hook, one that is more suitable and does not fall afoul of BLP concerns, is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've unstruck. We have a rule on this, and it's that we should avoid Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals. The key word here is unduly. This isn't a bio of a prominent person, with a hook focusing on some one bad act. The hook comprehensively presents the entirety of the incident, and indeed the entirety of the article. EEng 06:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, once a hook is struck it should not be unstruck without permission from a reviewer or commentor. This isn't a bio of a prominent person And that is exactly why I believe that the hook is a very very bad idea. Remember, this is an article about a non-public person, and as such sensitive highlighting like this is in extremely bad taste and should be discouraged. I've re-struck the hook: do not unstrike it without permission from another reviewer, such as myself, MeegsC or SL93. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "this is not a bio" point, while technically true, it's arguable that the hook (and arguably even the article) go against the spirit of the idea. When the article has a loaded section header like "Officers laugh and joke while watching bodycam footage" instead of a more neutrally-worded title, I'd actually argue that the article right now cannot run on DYK unless that is resolved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tough, I've unstruck again anyway.
  • once a hook is struck it should not be unstruck without permission from a reviewer or commentor. – That's a rule ... where? There's no one-man veto here, and by striking against the wishes of the nominator you pretend that there is. We can all discuss this, but not from the position of a fait accompli.
  • As for the "this is not a bio" point – I didn't say this isn't a bio (or, more to the point, a BLP). I said it's not a bio of a prominent person, with a hook focusing on some one bad act. The rule is against undue focus on negative stuff, not any focus.
  • Article has a loaded section header like "Officers laugh and joke while watching bodycam footage" instead of a more neutrally-worded title – How is it loaded? It's exactly what they did, as described in reliable sources. But if you don't like it, I doubt the article's creator, Levivich would mind if you WP:SOFIXed it.
EEng 06:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you propose any alternative hooks then? As for nominator's wishes, while we try to accommodate them as much as possible, there are times when this is simply not feasible, and I feel that this is one of those cases. We cannot always allow nominators to get their way 100% of the time if their wishes are contrary to the productiveness and goals of the project. Finally, as for the section title, it's loaded because it seems intended to make readers mad, but also because it's almost as if it's pushing some kind of point of view instead of adhering to NPOV, not to mention possible BLP concerns. Perhaps a more neutral title like "Bodycam footage" would be more appropriate here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last fucking time:
  • We cannot always allow nominators to get their way – I am not insisting on "getting my way"; I'm pointing out that you don't always get your way either. If I, who proposed the hook, acceded to your strike then that would be one thing, but I don't accede so you're just going to have to live that with unless and until there's consensus that the hook is unusable, at which point it will be struck. By continuing to strike it you mislead others into thinking a decision's been made.
  • If their wishes are contrary to the productiveness and goals of the project – Well, yeah ... if. So far that's just your opinion.
  • Can you propose any alternative hooks then? – If the proposed hook's ruled out I'll think about it. You should feel free.
  • Perhaps a more neutral title like "Bodycam footage" would be more appropriate – It's beginning to look like you haven't actually read the article. The topic of that section isn't the bodycam footage, but rather what the officers did while watching the bodycam footage.
Now cut it out with the striking and let others comment. EEng 07:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not unstrike the hook, at least until either MeegsC or SL93 have given their opinion on their suitability. If they give the go-ahead and that the hook is suitable, you will be free to unstrike then. Note that the next time you revert the striking, 3RR will apply, so I would highly suggest waiting this time. And what is wrong with something neutral like "Bodycam footage" or "Booking footage", or even "Officers reacting to the booking footage"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At long last, what is wrong with you? You don't have the right to make unilateral decisions like that. EEng 09:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've unstruck it, because frankly your argument is ludicrous. If you have an alternative, propose it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying an alternative. How about
ALT1 ... that while watching footage of the arrest of a 73-year-old woman, a police officer was heard saying "Bodycams are my favorite thing to watch. I could watch livestream bodycams all day."?
In this case it puts focus away from the arrest itself and more to the reaction. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most ridiculous mismatch between a hook and article content I've ever seen. You make it sound like they were using the video as a training opportunity -- you know, improving their relations with the community by taking advantage of a teachable moment. Here, let's really accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and latch on to the affirmative:
ALTEVENMOREPREPOSTEROUS1 ... that police in Loveland, Colorado, managed to arrest a 73-year-old woman without killing her?
ALTEVENMOREPREPOSTEROUS2 ... that police in Loveland, Colorado, gave a confused old lady a free ride?
ALTEVENMOREPREPOSTEROUS3 ... that in Loveland, Colorado, there are flowers you can pick beside a road near the Walmart?
EEng 09:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work then?
ALT2 ... that police officers were charged after footage of them emerged laughing and fist-bumping while watching body cam video of a 73-year-old woman's arrest?
I was thinking the point here was that they were laughing at the video footage, maybe the focus should be in that instead of the actual arrest? This hook could also be reworded into something like"
ALT3 ... after police arrested a 73-year-old woman, surveillance footage emerged of them laughing and fist-bumping to footage of her arrest?
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, Narutolovehinata5's hooks read as an attempt to tone down the actions of the police, to make them seem far less offensive than they clearly were. It make me wonder why s/he feels this is necessary. Perhaps s/he is less concerned about the BLP of the victim than the officers? Is it concern that the officers might try to sue Wikipedia? MeegsC (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was never my intention "to tone down the actions of the hooks", I just felt very sorry for the woman and thought that the original hook was a bad idea (I don't think it's a good idea to highlight unfortunate events in the lives of people, especially BLPs) and was offering possible alternatives. If these don't work out and the consensus is to go with the original, I won't object. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, I would argue that highlighting this unfortunate event is not only appropriate, but necessary. This woman was appallingly manhandled. This treatment has been life-altering for her; she has lost the use of her left arm. Why would you want to tone that down? All of your hooks do so. They don't mention anything about her rough treatment at the hands of the arresting officers, only that they "laughed at the bodycam footage". I reviewed the article because of the original hook. (As a UK resident, I hadn't heard anything about the original arrest.) I doubt I would have clicked on any of your hooks - "so they laughed, so what? Presumably because she was 73. Next." I must admit that it does strike me as bizarre that you blasted EEng#s for reverting your strike, but were perfectly happy to strike a hook I'd approved, without giving me a chance to respond first. I still approve of the original hook, personally. If you're worried about the grammar or the length, I'm happy to work with the nominator to find something acceptable to everyone who has now gotten involved. MeegsC (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, my original concern was indeed the hook length and not the tone of the article and I would admit that perhaps I got carried away at some point (hence the repeated strikings, which admittedly were an impulse decision and were not my initial intention). I'd like to apologize for my attitude earlier, and I'd be happy to work out a compromise that would be satisfactor. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. I only hope I'm in time to recall the killer robot drone. EEng 16:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we're just talking about the length, would removing "woman" from ALT0 do the trick? It's implied by "her shoulder" and the police shouldn't treat 73-year old men like that either. —Kusma (t·c) 10:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to suggest this. The woman aspect is largely unimportant. If we are altering hooks just to satisfy a word limit, take that one out. The police shouldnt be hogtieing 73 year old dementia sufferers regardless of gender. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this has been addressed already, as I kind of got lost in all the discussion, but "wait for the pop" is presented as a direct quote despite that wording not being used in the supporting reference. That would be a factual error in the blurb. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. No idea how I did that. EEng 15:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree that 200 characters is "too long" (given our rules), and while I'm unclear why my "reviewer's discretion" apparently doesn't hold any merit here, I will try to find a compromise acceptable to everyone who has weighed in thus far. Levivich, EEng#s, SL93, Narutolovehinata5, Khajidha and Only in death, what do you think about these possible alternate hooks?
or
  • ALT5 ... that a badly-injured 73-year-old dementia sufferer waited six hours for treatment while three Colorado police officers laughingly reviewed bodycam footage of her arrest?
The first is 197 characters and the second is 169. MeegsC (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like your second suggestion.--Khajidha (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second suggestion is probably the better one here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. ALT5 omits any suggestion of how she got injured. EEng 15:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was fine with the original hook if it was slightly shortened or there was a good reason to use IAR for it. I'm also not sure how I started a fight among editors in two places either. SL93 (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just spreading sunshine and happiness wherever you go ;P. EEng 14:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the quoting error has been brought up, let's go with the second one. SL93 (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SL93, the quote has been corrected in the first hook. MeegsC (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MeegsC: Thanks. I just woke up and missed it. I'm fine with either that hook or the recent second suggestion. SL93 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd definitely be for ALT4, because ALT5 omits how she got injured. However, the word reviewed makes it sound like they were carrying out a customer-satisfaction audit. (You know... "This arrest may be recorded for training and quality control purposes.") Thus:
    ALT6 ... that a Colorado policeman told coworkers "Ready for the pop? ... I think it was her shoulder" as they laughingly watched footage of a handcuffed 73-year-old being forced to the ground and hogtied?
And I'm striking ALT0 now. EEng 15:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Canvassing disclaimer: This DYK nom was linked in a Discord channel. However, there were some raised eyebrows at this nomination, not merely by me, among surprised people there. Suggest rejection of nomination. Not every article is suitable for DYK, even high-quality newish articles or GAs. To be clear, this is not a censorship request, DYK covers a lot of horrible stuff. However, all of the suggested hooks are jokey fun-time hooks that, while harmless for a certain audience, are deeply unsuitable and unwise for the main page, and a PR nightmare waiting to happen. DYK criterion 4a directly says:
Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.
Let's please keep a real-life horrible incident professional. At the bare minimum, the hook should not focus on a negative aspect of living individuals, and more judiciously, the article as a whole shouldn't be featured for the same reason. But a neutral hook is the bare minimum, even at the risk of being boring.
ALT7: ... that the arrest of Karen Garner triggered the resignation of the police officers involved and multiple investigations?
Per earlier comments, I'd actually rather the nom be pulled entirely, but something like this is better if it proceeds at all. SnowFire (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT4 or ALT6 and I cannot for the life of me understand how any of these hooks could be interpreted as unduly focusing on negative aspects of living individuals or as jokey fun time hooks, or why this is being canvassed on Discord. Levivich harass/hound 18:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm more interested in who did the canvassing. SL93 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SL93: Canvassing only in the broad sense of "attention was brought to it", not in the sense of "call to action, everybody come here and stack the vote" (especially since DYK isn't a vote). I stand by my comments as my own opinion. DYK nominations are expected to receive scrutiny from the community, there's no issue with bringing community attention to a contentious discussion as long as it's disclosed. SnowFire (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Levivich: For Garner herself, what could have been a humdrum every-day police blotter item became a humiliating incident magnified to national news. How many minor shoplifting incidents get such reach? And now some people making fun of her at a low moment is everywhere for consumption, like a YouTube bum fight video? Yikes. For the police officers themselves, it's their own fault, but this also just about the worst incident in their lives, their fifteen minutes of fame, the one piece of misconduct they'll be known for. Maybe some of them were just nervously going along so as not to rock the boat and are normally nice people. Maybe they just have a sense of black humor but are normally decent people. We don't know. Regardless, they haven't been charged with a crime yet, and consider all of the hoops Wikipedia jumps through to not "pre-convict" people who are actually accused of crimes, people who haven't been indicted yet deserve a similar courtesy. It's clearly a "negative aspect of living individuals", which is best avoided, or if done at all, treated with extreme care. SnowFire (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • the one piece of misconduct they'll be known for – That's right and, ya know, boys will be boys!
      • normally nice people – No doubt when they're not beating up senior citizens they're very fine people.
      • just nervously going along so as not to rock the boat – "First they came for the disabled old ladies, but I said nothing because I was not a disabled old lady..."
      • they haven't been charged with a crime yet – Reprehensible conduct is rephrehensible conduct, whether prosecuted or not.
      • negative aspect of living individuals – For the nth time, we're not supposed to "focus UNDULY on negative aspects of living individuals". ==> Unduly <== Here's that word again: unduly. Unduly means disproportionately or out of balance. Here, I'll make you a deal: if more information comes out, like that the sadist cop was a star athlete in high school, we can change the hook to say that John Smith, the cop who laughed about hogtying an old lady by the road and breaking her arm, was a standout pole-vaulter in high school? That way we'd be balanced.
      EEng 20:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • EEng: "unduly" is a word with some latitude, but I believe that DYK should be stricter on this, it's not unique to this nom. I'll pass on your attempts at humor, I've already said that many of these hooks come across as inappropriately comedic about a serious event and fall flat to me, as do your suggestions. I have had DYK noms myself of someone accused of murder where I tried to be as careful as possible to keep it to the non-controversially true, so I'm not against negative information about BLPs being in a DYK, but there needs to be a high threshold. We can all agree that these hooks are concerning deeply negative aspects of living people. SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will add that clearly my attempt at emphasizing the unknowns probably hurt more than it helped, judging by the reactions and your mockery of it. I'm certainly not saying that it's likely these cops are nice, normal people. They're bastards and I hope they suffer. That doesn't change the fact that anybody featured on the front page deserves the absolute most ironclad BLP compliance possible, the most deferential assumptions, and so on, which is what I was attempting to raise. And just to be crystal clear, this applies equally to when the cops collar somebody and accuse them of horrible activities as well - in fact that case is what happens 99% of the time, complete with media stories parroting the official police version for Wikipedia to cite. We should exercise extreme care with anybody accused of anything horrible, and keep hooks as neutral and professional as possible. SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How did it get magnified to national news? Because Garner filed a lawsuit, obtained and released the videos, and her lawyer and daughter have been giving media interviews. As a result, we are not protecting her from anything by not running this article on DYK. As for "some people" making fun of her, those people were the same cops who injured her (and falsely arrested her in the first place). They are the only people who made fun of her, and their making fun of her is part of what they're being sued for, why the public is outraged, why they were fired, etc. This has all been covered in international media. The argument that this is undue attention holds no water. The DYK rule says to avoid "hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals." It's not undue to relay the basic facts of the notable event. And it doesn't matter if the cops are charged or convicted; it's a notable event even if they are cleared of all wrongdoing. Most importantly, none of the proposed hooks mock or make light of Garner or the cops or the event; it's the cops who made fun of her; the hooks just relay that fact. Levivich harass/hound 19:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a fair point that Garner & her family themselves brought the issue to light. I respect that the intent of the proposed hooks is not to mock Garner, but they are broadcasting the actual mockery right on the front page, so the result is blurry. I don't think we should do that, hence my suggested ALT. Also, since it can get lost in the shuffle, good work on starting the article and expanding it - it's certainly great that Wikipedia is covering the incident. I just think that, when it comes to a deeply horrible incident, we should be as professional as possible, which is a standard I don't feel most of the proposed hooks meet. SnowFire (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • " ... all of the suggested hooks are jokey fun-time hooks". What?! I'm sorry SnowFire, but what universe are you from, where talking about a badly-injured 73-year-old dementia sufferer having treatment denied while cops laugh at videos of themselves hurting her is a "jokey fun-time hook"?! I can only assume that you, like another previous editor, are perhaps more worried about hurting the feelings of the cops who have chucked in their jobs as a result of all this. "Normally nice people" don't break the arms and dislocate the shoulders of 90-pound old women. And if they do, nice normal people certainly don't laugh and joke about it afterwards. SMH. At this point, I am removing myself from this conversation for my sanity. I still think the suggested hooks are completely appropriate. This is an event which has been well-covered in the press. We don't not cover things because it might hurt somebody's feelings. MeegsC (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm removing myself also. This is too much. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MeegsC: I realize you said you were removing yourself from this conversation, but since you pinged me on this and then assumed my position was "please don't hurt the cops feelings", just to be abundantly clear, I agree with all of what you said (except that the hooks are appropriate). This event was monstrous, as should go without saying. Precisely because it's a serious issue, I myself was offended at raising this horrible jocularity about a real person to the main page, and I don't find the attempted humor of the cops funny at all - which is precisely why I don't want it stuck loudly on the front page. I recognize that you are reading the hooks as "see what documented monsters these people are", but there's unfortunately another reading as well, "check out this funny bit of humor to somebody in trouble!" I don't want to get anywhere close to that other reading, but many of the proposed hooks would have the effect of elevating such mockery rather than condemning it, IMO. I'll leave it at that. SnowFire (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          there's unfortunately another reading – Such a reading requires mental gymnastics of a kind not normally seen among humans. We're all used to fractured reasoning in DYK discussions, but this takes the cake. EEng 22:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The alt shortlist CMD (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT5 ... that a badly-injured 73-year-old dementia sufferer waited six hours for treatment while three Colorado police officers laughingly reviewed bodycam footage of her arrest?
  • ALT6 ... that a Colorado policeman told coworkers "Ready for the pop? ... I think it was her shoulder" as they laughingly watched footage of a handcuffed 73-year-old being forced to the ground and hogtied?
  • ALT7: ... that the arrest of Karen Garner triggered the resignation of the police officers involved and multiple investigations?

I think it's time for a straight vote among the hooks still live at this point, which I believe are ALTs 5, 6, and 7. (If I'm wrong about that feel free to vote for some other.)

  • ALT6. A5 doesn't say how she got injured, and A7 doesn't even say she got injured. EEng 22:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference remains ALT5 but I will not oppose ALT6. ALT7 is too vague. As admittedly much of what has happened here was my fault I will not comment here any further. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer ALT7. Would accept ALT5. Firmly oppose ALT6. --Khajidha (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT6. 5 "whitewashes" the fact that the police caused the injuries. 7 is too vague and (ironically) draws too much attention to the victim by including her name but almost no key info about the arrest. I'd also support some variation of 6, eg that omitted the word "hogtied" (which was mentioned at talk:dyk). Levivich harass/hound 04:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT6 as the only one that does not sidestep and whitewash either who caused the injuries or their later inappropriate reactions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT6. Let's call a spade a spade. It was a horrible incident with disgusting reactions from the cops involved and shouldn't be sugar coated (and it can't really be either given the nature of the article). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT5 first, then ALT6 without the hogtie mention, and some kind of modification of the quotation into prose. I would really prefer if DYK avoided such recent and raw subject material involving criminality and BLP, but if we must, we should not attach an upsetting level of detail. What do commenters here make of WP:AVOIDVICTIM? — Goszei (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered AVOIDVICTIM, but since Garner went out of her way to make sure that both videos were released in full, it's apparent she wants everyone to see and know every detail. EEng 14:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from promoter: I read this discussion and decided this wasn't unduly negative, promoted the ALT that was preferred by most of the commenters. Open to alternate opinions, please open a talk discussion if there is further discussion needed.—valereee (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Timeline and details

[edit]

EEng - [2] - you removed a department statement because you don't see what the department statement it tells us. Here's my explanation. It offers an explanation on why no action was taken against the officers from July 2020 to March 2021. Apparently the Department was unaware of alleged wrongdoing. You also removed the dates of events - [3] - again, because you think they are insignificant. However, they establish the timeline of departmental action. Three officers were placed on administrative leave, and three officers resigned, only after the laughing video was published. starship.paint (exalt) 07:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the statement says is that they hadn't received a complaint. That doesn't explain why no action was taken, since clearly a number of people in the department knew what had happened, complaint or no complaint. As for the dates, the reader is told that the lawsuit, video releases, and placings-on-leave were i sequence, and the dates given show it's a compressed timeline, so I don't see how the specific dates and intervals tell the reader much of anything. EEng 07:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EEng: - the dates matter because they clarify the sequence. In the version of the article since your last edit, we have actually gotten the sequence wrong (some of which is my fault as well). On April 19 the DA requested Fort Collins Police Services / United States Attorney for the District of Colorado / Federal Bureau of Investigation investigate. On April 26 the police station surveillance video footage of the laughing officers was uploaded. In the text, the order is reversed. It's not automatically apparent to me that the dates are all automatically chronological. It would be better to err on the side of clarity. starship.paint (exalt) 07:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the sequence. starship.paint (exalt) 08:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrest_of_Karen_Garner&oldid=1256989264"