Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

In the Killing of Tyre Nichols#Notes section of the article, somebody altered the quote from Police Chief Davis. According to the source it should be "We've looked at cameras. We've looked at body-worn cameras. Even if something occurred prior to this stop, we've been unable to substantiate it ..."

An editor switched out "prior to" and replaced it with the word "before", probably not realizing this was a direct quote. Thank you! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC) 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done CharredShorthand.talk; 21:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Good catch. It was me. When I saw the edit to revert it, I saw my error. In wikitext editing sometimes I miss the quote marks (or quotes buried in wall-of-text citations). Sorry. Thank you for seeing the problem, and fixing my mistake graciously. The Wiki is a beautiful thing. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 18:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2023

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

Moved. See below a strong consensus to rename this article. The title was moved on 29 January 2023 by editor CharredShorthand. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Death of Tyre Nichols → Killing of Tyre Nichols – This seems like a clear example of where WP:DEATHS can be used to provide some helpful guidance. The death was due to homicide (killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional), but there isn't a murder conviction, so "Killing" is the most appropriate, clear, and accurate title to use. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is the autopsy hasn't been released (yet, or at least, as far as I know it hasn't been released yet), and so we have no official determination that this was a homicide, which is what WP:DEATHS requires for "killing of...". I'm not sure why the autopsy hasn't been released, but there is no official cause of death yet (see e.g. [1], [2]), and the family's autopsy is not official. I don't see a lot of news reports refer to this as a "killing"; "death" seems more common. We have no source that says this was a homicide, even though it seems to very obviously be a homicide. I'm pretty close to an WP:IAR support here, but what's holding me back is RS support for this being a homicide aka a killing. I don't personally doubt it, but my personal opinions aren't an RS. Levivich (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Perhaps this is a little early, since the official cause of death would make it rock solid. Though on the other hand it is well established and reported he "succumbed to his injuries" after being severely beaten, which is the definition of a homicide, and there are plenty of sources that do say killing, including the AP and the headline of the NYT's ongoing coverage. I lean towards still moving to "Killing", but your point is well taken. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh! That changes my mind. My overriding concern is WP:V, that we can verify that this was a 'killing' and not just a 'death', and the AP and NYT calling it a 'killing' in their own voice satisfies WP:V in my opinion. Support. Also I'd point out that there is very little chance that they would be charged with 2nd-degree murder if there wasn't an autopsy that said the cause of death was homicide, even if said autopsy report hasn't been publicly released yet. RMs last 7 days, so I'm pretty sure we'll have either an autopsy report, or a lot more RS calling it a 'killing', before a week has passed. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now - it should remain "death" until we know that the cause of death is homicide, then it can be changed to "killing." We will know this when the autopsy report is released. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 15:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    I would like to add, just for clarity, that if an autopsy report is released confirming that he died by homicide before this RM is closed, I support. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    This seems in line with Murder of George Floyd, which was "Death of George Floyd" at the time of incident and was changed to "killing" once the homicide ruling was made. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 04:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    It's been a minute since I !voted in that discussion, but I believe you are correct. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 07:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless an autopsy says his death was a homicide. If it does, then I will support a name change. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support due to the AP and NY Times sources cited above, and assuming more media report the death as a killing in the coming days. Once the video is made public (as well as autopsy results), we'll see how this changes the language in news coverage. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the man was clearly killed as a result of physical violence. Spudst3r (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose of now - Let's until the cause of death is determined.Cwater1 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now or perhaps more accurately, Wait. This is a developing situation and I feel the next days/weeks will probably give us more clarity about what's going on here. Not A Superhero (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support – Waiting was very prudent. However, they are now charged with murder.[3] Homicide determination is a prerequisite of murder charges. We should in an orderly manner move this page before the release of the video. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it is legally determined one or more of the five cops killed him. Until then, it is a death. Innocent until otherwise proven in a court of law, and all that. XavierItzm (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    No, that's the wrong logic. See WP:DEATHS. EEng 22:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    Per WP:DEATHS when the cause of death is unknown, the name is "Death of". Damar Hamlin, a top athlete in the prime of health is 24 and almost died a few weeks ago of cardiac arrest. People die all the time and the reason is not necessarily the exact last thing you did. People are jumping to conclusions here, based on an emotional response.XavierItzm (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Fun Fact: Cardiac arrest is a sign of death, common to all, not a cause. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a waste of time right now. It's not critical that this be exactly right at the earliest possible moment. Let's wait a bit until the answer is clear (e.g. an official cause of death is available) and we don't have to dissect sources and argue about it. In the meantime we can spend out time doing useful things. EEng 20:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, but would support once we get an autopsy, given that his death happened after the encounter. If the cops are convicted, of course, should be moved to "Murder of", but we shouldn't jump the gun on any of this. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose because we don't know it was a homicide so we don't know it was a "killing." It's extremely unlikely that Nichols died of a heart attack before he was hit but WP:DEATHS (or at least the part of it that guides this situation) was created because such a scenario isn't 100% impossible. I bet I'll switch to support shortly but you didn't hear me say that. CityOfSilver 00:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose because realistically 'killing' vs 'death' is honestly not the debate. Regardless of an autopsy and a court outcome, we've all seen the video and KNOW he was killed. The real debate is 'killing' vs 'murder' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.41.91.234 (talk)
  • Oppose because the death could be a combination of multiple causes. I always wish Wikipedia is the source of information and fact but not opinion. Keep the title neutral and provide as mush information as we can would be better. The readers can blend the information with theirs knowledge. Seinlin (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Point of fact - autopsies don't determine the status of a death as a homicide. That's done in a court of law. Autopsy results are certainly relevant, but "homicide" is a legal term, not a medical one.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:3887:3041:8289:B0D7 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Actually at least with regards to most of the US that's incorrect. Autopsies are often the only thing which determines if something is a homicide especially in the case of police killings. Courts only generally get involved in determining if something is an illegal or unjustified homicide. They don't generally concern themselves whether something is a homicide except at a prerequisite for any case which requires something is a homicide. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Absolutely correct. We better brace ourselves for the onslaught of ill-informed amateur legal experts. EEng 01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    (EC) Besides police killings to give another obvious example, every successful use of capital punishment involves a homicide but after death courts if they do get involved only generally get involved in other things like whether the killing appeared excessively prolonged or traumatic so may be cruel and unusual punishment, not whether the death was a homicide. This implicitly or explicitly means the courts are accepting the death as a homicide but the lack of any court action doesn't make other such deaths not homicides. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Move - I just watched the video. I don't really feel like engaging in Wikilawyering over something you can see with your own eyes in a video released by the police. Courts may determine that police actions were justified, but whatever they conclude in the end, there is no doubt now that Nichols was killed. -Darouet (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Also note that Cerebral726 above (at the top of this section) cites links from the NYT and AP where those agencies describe Nichols' death as a killing. -Darouet (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. I implore anybody who opposes to simply watch the video. It is disgusting. This person was killed. Jackstraw97 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. As per WP:DEATHS flowchart, and reliable sources stating he was killed:
  1. "Fatal Beating" https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/01/27/us/tyre-nichols-memphis
  2. "Deadly beating" https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/officers-charged-tyre-nichols-death-96711213
  3. "Fatal beating" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/27/tyre-nichols-protest-video-release
I do not understand why we need a coroner's report, Wikipedia is not run on the basis of legal certification, it is run on the basis of citing reliable sources.
CT55555(talk) 02:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. If we have an autopsy which concluded the death was a homicide then sure.If we have the official autopsy results and it concluded the death was a homicide then sure. This case is somewhat unusual compared to most other high profile cases of a similar nature I recall given that we've had the videos releases and the officers indicted but don't yet have even a summary of the autopsy. However I think we need to wait for it at a minimum. If the autopsy is released without finding the death was a homicide, we can reasses based on the sources that emerge but I suspect the result will be us keeping 'death of'. While I don't know much about Tennessee law, I'd note that in general especially given that AFAIK (for some reason our article doesn't mention this) the charges came from a grand jury indictment, there's no guarantee the autopsy ruled the death was a homicide. Death of Elijah McClain is one notable case where there are charges relating to a homicide despite an undetermined cause of death and I seem to recall others. (Outside police killings, this also happens a lot e.g. Death of Caylee Anthony. I'd also note in plenty of these cases, we have people who insist we should call them killings or more based on some RS but we rightfully stick with 'death of'.) We obviously cannot OR based on viewing the videos and I don't think even what RS say based on assessment of less than 3 hours is very meaningful either. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think the concept of "reliable sources" is that we have deemed them to be reliable, rather than conditionally reliable. I think that editors have reached a clear consensus that the sources I mention above are reliable. CT55555(talk) 02:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yet in every other article, we do the same thing as here. If they say something which contradicts other RSes we do not take one as sancrosact because some editor feels it is. We are neutral and where necesssary mention both PoVs and otherwise use wording which applies to both PoVs. If you want to change policy so we take certain RS as sancosanct and ignore other PoVs, you're welcome to start a policy proposal in an appropriate place. I would add "deadly beating" is a terrible term to express the PoV that a beating caused a death since it's a term sometimes used when someone does not die Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I would find this more complicated if a reliable source said his death was caused by something other than the police officers, but I've not seen any do that. So I see no contradiction.
    I consider "deadly" to be very widely understood to mean "causing death". CT55555(talk) 03:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    That's ridiculous. There's no requirement that sources need to directly contradict something if they do not state the same conclusion and especially if they say we do not know. And you can consider whatever you want. The fact remains plenty of reliable sources do not use it in that manner, whatever you want to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    If there are reliable sources that reach other conclusions? If so, please share. If not, please stop suggesting that alternative theories of his cause of death have been reported.
    The reality seems to be that some reliable sources say he was killed (see above) and some imply the same without stating it categorically and some are vague.
    I was being polite. "deadly" means "causing death"
    My comment was not "ridiculous" please be civil. CT55555(talk) 18:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Is there a source which contradicts the claim that Tyre Nichols was killed? --Jannes Althoff (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: - I'm a bit perplexed by this focus on a coroner's report or an autopsy. The assumption seems to be that those are more reliable than the slew of sources that have already indicated this was homicide. Is your insistence on the autopsy report something that comes out of policy, or just your own personal guideline? NickCT (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    There are many issues include WP:BLP which mean we have to be very careful about declaring something is a homicide based solely on the fact a few sources say it has. While a homicide can be lawful, in cases where the existence of a homicide may be in dispute, we have to be absolutely sure there is no reasonable dispute. While coroner verdicts are not perfect, they are far better than relying on what some sources have said based solely on non expert analyses of very limited evidence. (I'd note many of the sources people were referring to existed before the videos were released so they weren't even based on viewing these videos but instead third party reports from lawyers, family and the police. But these are precisely the sort of things people will say we have to be very careful with relying on when the alleged killing was not carried out by the police.) Coroners are supposed to be independent medical experts who look into the available medical evidence and determine whether the actions of one or more other humans directly caused the death of the person. While this doesn't always play out in practice, at least in most developed countries their verdicts are generally well accepted such that there's normally far less dispute in reliable sources and we have a BLP compliant reason to say something in Wikipedia voice. Note that we already mention the charges etc, so it's not like people reading the article will be in any doubt that some people say thay Nichols was killed, it's simply a matter of whether we should effectively say it's undisputed by saying in wiki voice that Nichols was killed. As I mentioned below, this doesn't mean coroners verdicts may not be disputed by defences (or sometimes in part prosecutions) but ultimately we have to draw the line somewhere and so provided there does not appear to be obviousy dispute in RS, we generally go by such verdicts. While this case involving a beating seems a case where there is less likely to be a dispute (although I'd also have said that of Rachel Nickell or even Death of Elliott Williams, Death of Darren Rainey and Death of Marcia Powell so what do I know?) than something more complicated, but it does seem more complicated than a shooting. Still even in the case of a shooting coroners help to rule out any complications e.g. if it turns out the deceased had actually taken a significant overdose or poison which it's found was the actual cause of death and almost definitely would have caused death even with the shooting. I'd note that if we went solely by what a few sources say, we'd be calling Casey Anthony a murderer, and also those involved in the killings of Killing of Natalie Connolly and Killing of Rachel Nickell and as I already mentioned Elijah McClain (which we still call death) likewise as murderers. For good reason we do not do so. Yet we do call Killing of Eric Garner a killing although it's my understanding lawyer for those involved still dispute that it was, and I think even some parts of the police union again based on the fact that the coroner's verdict is widely accepted in RS no matter what these other parties say. Additional, we have to take reasonable care with early reporting, and especially for analyses of the video but frankly for anything in this case (since although it has been nearly 20 days since the death a lot of the stuff is quite recent), as later reporting relying on more evidence and without the time pressures of early reporting can be more nuanced and balanced. Remember that by saying "death of" this doesn't mean it wasn't a killing, as I mentioned early on in we already go into detail and are likely to more over time over such things in the article. We are simply avoiding saying it definitely in wiki voice. Again BLP means we have to get things right so we should always defer to caution about being wrong when saying anything involving living persons. A final note probably my last in this entire discussion, I generally avoid them because while they matter for BLP reasons, I find them silly. I've already spent probably an hour or more discussing this and I'm sure when take other editors time it's been many hours and this is over something which is probably going to be resolved in a week or two at most. IIRC we had a similar issue with Murder of George Floyd where after the video came out there a strong push by some to name the article killing of but we waited until the autopsy summary. (My memory seems correct Talk:Murder of George Floyd/Archive 1#Requested move 27 May 2020. Indeed it came out before the RM was due for closure which could even happen here.) I've never understood why people feel it's so urgent we risk violating BLP by saying something which we ultimately cannot take back when when if they're right and there is no dispute it's very likely we can say it in a week or two at most and where as I already noted, we do already provide the context and it's only a matter of whether we say it in wiki voice. Admittedly this case seems a little different gives the charges have happened but there's still not even a summary, however I haven't read anything to suggest it's going to take that long. If it turns out the autopsy verdict isn't as clear as we'd like well then as I said, we can assess what sources say at the time. It may be like with Elijah McClain they accept there's dispute and so are nuanced in what they say. Or maybe they'll won't be. We can deal with that if we come to it. (Likewise if it's a month later and there's still no autopsy, we can deal with that at the time.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support. I think that, even though the autopsy has not been released (to my knowledge), the video of his death is evidence enough that this was a homicide. Technicalrestrictionadjustment (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - My "gut" is to go w/ "Death of.." until there's a conviction. That said, as User:CT55555 astutely notes, the policy illustrated by the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths)#Flowchart seems to clearly indicate that when one person kills another, it's "Killing of..". I haven't really delved into the sources, but it seems pretty clear that this guy was killed by others at this point. NickCT (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    @NickCT: Can you further explain how following the flow chart leads to that conclusion? The flow chart says "What was the manner of death?" There's no direct explanation for what this means in the flowchart itself but in the "How to use the flowchart" section it says: "A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization. This determination becomes eligible for use on this flowchart only after it is reported by a secondary source.". Who is the official authority here? The grand jury? The prosecutor? The police chief? The editors of the NYT? Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: - I think the answer is the editors at the NYT. The basis for WP is that we defer to reliable sources. If a bunch of RS's say someone was killed, we defer to that. We don't second guess or question whether the folks at NYT are smart enough to figure when someone was killed. We just assume they're smarter than us. They actually get paid to write.... Good work citing the "should be made by some official authority". I think that's probably generally true (that's why it's a "should" rule). Certainly in cases where there's ambiguity. But in this case, the RS's are pretty overwhelming. As is the face-value evidence. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support he was killed by police, see bodycam videos DefendingFree (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support he was clearly killed. Body cam footage helps support that. Wikepediathefreeencyclopedia1 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support he was literally beat to death in the video
Chicken4War (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support--We do not need a conviction or an autopsy to rule this a killing. There is a video of this man being beaten to death. He was killed. Natural causes did not claim his life and the technicalities of how he died don't matter. He was put into critical condition by five people who quite frankly didn't care if he died but he did. He was killed. Settlementboa (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I support once there is more reliable confirmation (of the obvious): that the actions of the police were the "but for" cause of his death. SecretName101 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support - This is a killing, there is no doubt. The article may later be changed to "homicide" after a murder conviction is obtained, until then we have more than enough evidence to call this a killing and not a death. 47.145.248.81 (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.145.248.81 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
One alternate option could be something along the lines of "Beating and death of Tyree Nichols" SecretName101 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Homocide requires a "but for" act (either an action or act of omission) by another individual. We all know there was one. Problem is, we don't verifiably know it (in the sense that a source has outright declared it to be the case in writing).
Us declaring, "well, we know it based off of the conclusions we've reached ourselves watching the video" probably violates to "no original research" principle at Wikipedia. SecretName101 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but that's simply incorrect. If it's a killing it a homicide as the flow chart says, that's what we mean by killing, a person was killed by one or more other people whether legally or illegally i.e. a homicide. There's no such thing as a killing which is not a homicide. As I explained above, if it's a homicide, the court case ultimately only deals with whether it's a legal homicide. (Of course a defence in a court case can also dispute whether something is a homicide, an autopsy is not treated as a sacrosanct decision that cannot be overruled either way. However at least in the US, while juries and judges may decide this, it's not generally directly part of their ultimate verdict as that only deals with the entire case including whether it's unlawful. For decisions by judges, the decision may sometimes include an explanatory which discuss the aspect however for juries there is generally no such thing and instead you only have comments later made by individual jurors which are not in any way part of the actual verdict.) Therefore coroners are often the only official party to make a verdict on whether something is a homicide. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Createangelos: Respectfully, when 5 men step on a bug, and it dies, they can't just remove themselves from the equation because it was an accident, or because the bug tried to run away, or because the bug did something wrong, or because the bug has unhealthy habits. The death would not have happened the way that it did without their involvement. They killed him.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
"the bug did something wrong"
who did something wrong? Are you replying about wp:nor and wp:npov Createangelos (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Createangelos: "wp:npov" as well as the broader notion that no impartial observer can watch somebody be violently attacked and be unsure if they were "killed" or just "died" at the same time. Regardless of intent, the violence cannot be divorced from the result.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support There now exists 4 separate video angles of Tyre Nichols being severely beaten. As one of the officers involved stated, immediately after removing his body camera and pointing it at the sky: "I was hitting him with straight haymakers, dog." Tyre Nichols didn't punch, kick, or bat himself in the head. He would not have died the way that he did if he were not beaten as severely as he was. I think the officers' behavior immediately after the incident, including their characterization of the confrontation, including the claim that he reached for their weapons, implies that they knew they went too far and were trying to create an excuse for how far they went.LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Excellent point. It proves consciousness of guilt. I hope the prosecutors notice this. Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Death of… was appropriate until the autopsy report was released. Now the language should be Killing of… then once the officers are convicted in court it should be changed to Murder of… just my two cents Michael-Moates (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Debating semantics over autopsy is one thing, but we know what we saw in the video. If someone pushed someone into a 1000 foot deep well, and we had a video of it, it would be a "killing", even if the body was never retrieved for an autopsy. The lack of an autopsy does not mean that it is not a killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iowauniguy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:DEATHS. This was a homicide. It was not capital punishment, and there has not (yet) been a murder conviction, so the appropriate title is "Killing of Tyre Nichols." Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:DEATHS: "A determination of the manner of death should be made by some official authority, such as a coroner, coroner's inquest, medical examiner or similar expert person or organization [who is also an official authority]." Cause of death not official (an autopsy was performed but not an official one) and no WP:COMMONNAME yet (too early, and some outlets are calling it "Death of ..." such as NYT). —Alalch E. 04:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    The AG would not bring murder charges without a finding of the manner of death as homicide. I literally wrote the line you are quoting, I never imagined it would be misunderstood/bastardized to such a degree. We are way beyond the autopsy/homicide stage. The flowchart was written in such a way because we are often stop after a finding of homicide and before charges are filed. I never imagine that we would be at the murder charges stage and people would be looking for sources to mention a determination of manner of death. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    I appreciate your reply, but regarding The AG would not bring murder charges without a finding of the manner of death as homicide, WP:DEATHS says "This determination becomes eligible for use on this flowchart only after it is reported by a secondary source." Such a determination has not been reported by a secondary source to my knowledge (edit: NYMag today: "... The Shelby County Medical Examiner’s Office has not yet confirmed Nichols’s cause of death. ..."[4]). People can be charged based on inferences. A prosecutor can assert in court that something is homicide (and, on top of that, that it is murder) without a cause of death but he doesn't get to make the determination that it's homicide. —Alalch E. 05:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Just so. I repeat that perhaps the least important thing about this article is that the title be exactly right for the next 96 hours. We can wait for a source. It's no big deal temporarily. EEng 05:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Until the officers are convicted or at least charged I believe "Death of" is adequate. If it is covered in many factual sources such as autopsy reports then I would be inclined to support. For the record I personally believe it was a killing, but what is appropriate for a Wikipedia title is another thing entirely in my view.TJD2 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    @TJD2: They have been charged. —Alalch E. 05:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    I found that out shortly after typing this and forgot to update it. I will ammend. TJD2 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Need to note. The aforementioned independent autopsy has not actually been released yet or reviewed by any news agency or second source, as far as I can see: Its findings have merely been summarized by Crump (the lawyer for Nichols’ family). SecretName101 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - editors may want to keep in mind the difference between a cause of death and a manner of death. "Homicide" is one of a few possible manners of death, listed at Manner of death#United States. Levivich (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support The family's autopsy report said he died from a beating. What the cops did to him killed him. He was killed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment while our consensus process meanders to a conclusion, is it ok to create a redirect from the "Killing of" title to here, in cases like this? It might help with searches. I guess one issue is it makes it slightly more annoying to move the page if the consensus comes out like that. CharredShorthand.talk; 11:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:DEATHS. It's understandable to keep it as Death if there is any ambiguity, but in this case there is no contention that it was a homicide. Blocod (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I'd archived this discussion; I unarchived it as per the rationale here. CharredShorthand.talk; 14:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I would have added this above but since it's been closed in questionable circumstances I can't. As I noted above, I don't want to continue to be involved in this but since one thing I neglected to do before leaving was to provide sources, I'll provide a few.

The BBC [5] calls it a fatal encounter in the subheadline (I have no idea whether subheadlines at BBC should be treated as headlines i.e. ignored or they go through the same editorial process as the rest of the text but in any case fatal encounter doesn't mean someone was killed as e.g. if a person goes into cardiac arrest after being legitimately pulled over without being touched, yelled at, or has anything applied to them, etc it may be called a fatal encounter but probably not a killing) and a caption (which I'm fairly sure should be treated as a headline i.e. discarded) but notably says "Although it is clear Mr Nichols was severely beaten, we still do not know what actually caused his death in hospital three days later.".

CBS [6] says "Three days later, on Jan. 10, Nichols "succumbed to his injuries," the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said, but did not elaborate on what those injuries were. An official cause of death has not been released." and also mentions the charges etc. AFAICT, they don't say anywhere in their editorial voice that he was killed, fatally beaten, deadly beating, beating death or anyway else imply in their own editorial voice that he was killed.

USA Today [7] says "Video released Friday shows Memphis police officers brutally beating a 29-year-old Black man, shouting expletives and using pepper spray and a baton on him while he called out for his mother in a traffic stop that left him hospitalized and, three days later, dead." but again AFAICT stops short of implying he was killed in their own editorial voice.

I'm sure there are plenty of others but this isn't easy to search since you need to look at each source to see whether any words they used are in their own editorial voice or coming from someone else. While the majority of sources do I think use stuff like fatal beating etc, as I noted above there are good reasons we should not go by a majority but instead follow the likely substantial minority which are more circumspect and recognise our picture is still incomplete and go by the more neutral option which does not preclude us mentioning other essential details in the body. (Note while some do say killing, AFAIS very few actually say that particular thing so it's clearly not the common name. You cannot use a source which calls it a killing by a different wording to say killing is the common name.)

I'd also note I already addressed the AG charge thing. Despite our article still not mentioning this, plenty of sources including the CBS one I included earlier mention it was a grand jury indictment. This makes it very unclear that the autopsy needed to have a finding of homicide. We know that with Elijah McClain it wasn't needed and while that was in Colorado and not Tennessee, AFAICT no evidence has been provided it is different here.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

BBC right now: Mr Nichols, 29, was fatally beaten by five police officers in January. "fatally beaten" == homicide == "killed". Similarly, the USA Today quote is police officers brutally beating a 29-year-old Black man...in a traffic stop that left him hospitalized and, three days later, dead. USA Today is saying they killed him, by beating him in a traffic stop that left him dead. So is it only CBS that's not saying "killed" or "beaten to death by police" in their own voice? Levivich (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The title should be Death of. Wiki editors are not required to give blind deference to reliable sources: "It will normally still be necessary to analyze how much weight to give the source and how to describe its statements. Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing, e.g., the material is contradicted by more authoritative sources, it is outside the source's accepted areas of expertise (a well-established news organization is normally reliable for politics but not for philosophy), a specific subcategory of the source is less reliable (such as opinion pieces in a newspaper), the source is making an exceptional claim,"

First, the authoritative source is the official autopsy; the authoritative source after that is a judge or jury; after that is any appeals ruling. Additionally, WP:ROpinion "sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." Also, WP:HEADLINES "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. ... Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article." The manner of Nichols unalivedness is not an matter of fact; the reliable source sensational headlines, assert a statement of fact. Nichols is no longer amongst the living in physical form. In others words he is deceased. What caused his death is not fact, as asserted by the sensational headlines oof the reliable sources. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What in the article makes you think we're using headlines as sources? All news stories cited use the body for information, like they're supposed to. Notably, nothing in the article directly connects the police beating to his death; only that preliminary findings from the autopsy suggested he died from internal bleeding. Which I guess makes the move somewhat premature; but I am more concerned about your overzealous interpretation of policy. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Overzealous indeed. And not understanding or respecting the importance of reliable sources to boot. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
You keep saying that, but you do not explain anything. Reliable sources are not given blind acceptance. You can provide sources - yes plural - that shows reliable sources are not questioned. I have repeatedly used WP policies to show that Reliable Sources do not have a blank check, context matters, the subject matters, attribution to an expert matters. Nothing zealous about actually following guidance of WP. But again, I am open to correction provided you demonstrate my misapplication of WP guidance. AgntOtrth (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
what is disturbing is the desire for so many here to manipulate the reader, rather than present facts and let the reader decide what adjective to use to describe something. What so many are promoting Wikipedia articles being "we will tell you what to think, and we will tell you how to 'feel'". All the opinionated commentary can easily be put in a new section of "Critical Analysis" section, nothing prohibits that. And it allows for all the information to be added. AgntOtrth (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@AgntOtrth: You said: "what is disturbing is the desire for so many here to manipulate the reader ... What so many are promoting Wikipedia articles being 'we will tell you what to think, and we will tell you how to feel' " Hmm. Are you possibly projecting a bit? I really do believe the vast majority of editors here are well intentioned and striving to be working together as a team in good faith, and with WP:NPOV in mind. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Leave it as "Death of Tyre Nichlos" for now until the cause of death is determined.Cwater1 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment ― Here are some recent sources:
What the Charges Against the Cops Who Killed Tyre Nichols Really Mean ― The Nation, Feb. 2, 2023: "The five officers who beat Tyre Nichols to death have been charged by the state of Tennessee with murder in the second degree."
What we know about the killing of Tyre Nichols ― NPR, Jan. 28, 2023
Tyre Nichols' killing revives calls for Congress to address police reform ― NPR, Jan. 31, 2023
Harrowing videos show police fatally beat Tyre Nichols, who cries out for his mother ― NBC News Jan. 27, 2023
What We Know About Tyre Nichols’s Lethal Encounter With Memphis Police ― The New York Times, Feb. 1, 2023
Timeline: Tyre Nichols police killing key events ― The Guardian, Jan. 28, 2023
The Killing of Tyre Nichols and the Issue of Race – The New Yorker, Jan. 31, 2023
Tyre Nichols' Killing Is The Result of a Diseased Culture – Time Magazine, Jan. 31, 2023
Tyre Nichols killing shows that to some cops, even Black ones, Black lives don't matter – USA Today, Jan. 27, 2023: "The killing of Nichols will be another one of those markers because of the callousness and viciousness displayed by the officers. We will look back at this moment as one of the ugliest we’ve experienced as a nation."
The BBC and the AP have also referred to this as a killing. Please see comments and links to other sources in the discussion thread above. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything.[1] AgntOtrth (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Yep, very true! That's why multiple sources are listed. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Does not matter how many news outlets publish something, it is an opinion of the outlet as to the words chosen to describe events. AgntOtrth (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand how Wikipedia works, or don't want to understand. We rely on our reliable sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Just because a "reliable source" publishes it; does not mean the information us reliable; that s how wikipedia works. AgntOtrth (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
LOL okay. We'll just change Wikipedia policy and start citing AgntOtrth from now on in all controversial articles. Brilliant! :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Fox News, is listed as a reliable source; is it your position that everything Fox News publishes is reliable? Context matters, AgntOtrth (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, from the perennial sources noticeboard, about Fox News: "There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science ... For politics and science, there is consensus that the reliability of Fox News is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use. As a result, Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a 'high-quality source' for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas. Although a significant portion of the community believes Fox News should be considered generally unreliable, the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions. Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions." Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
exactly, everything a reliable source publish is not reliable; context matters. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@AgntOtrth: And Fox News is especially considered to be unreliable in cases of controversial claims. Also, your recent edit which removed sourcing from The New York Times and was replaced with attribution to Fox News seems incredibly inappropriate. Please revert, thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you appearing to express you agreement that everything a reliable source publishes is not always reliable. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Reliable sources", Wikipedia, 2022-12-25, retrieved 2023-02-03

Return name to status quo

Since the close was undone, the title should be changed to “Death of Tyre Nichols”. The change shouldn’t have occurred until this discussion met a proper conclusion. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

To minimise disruption how about the discussion continue and after an appropriate period of time, if there is either no consensus or consensus is for "death of", we move it back?
But whatever is fine; it does not matter much. CharredShorthand.talk; 06:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Cause of death is unknown. Cnn, NYT, any other media outlet is unqualified to identify the cause of death. Those who say "no one can watch the videos and not know it was murder" are using the "No true Scottsman" fallacy . Additional those saying "it is obvious" are engaged in original research. AgntOtrth (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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

The lead is too wordy

Please trim to less words, and about 4 true paragraphs. A guide essay to follow is: WP:CREATELEAD. Take care. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 12:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Allegedly" assaulted

The word allegedly should be removed from the lead when it's pretty obvious the police officers assaulted him as there is video evidence of them doing so... Inexpiable (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources also don't talk about this as an "alleged" assault. It undoubtedly happened. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
The police have been charged with assault. That crime remains "alleged" until there is a court finding of guilt. WWGB (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Any criminal conduct is certainly alleged, but Nichols was clearly beat up by the police, which is not in question. Maybe the language could be refined to make that more clear? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@WWGB: This is getting absurd. Of course Nichols was injured at the hands of the police before arrest. Nothing about that statement is incorrect. What is going on here with denying reality and the sources? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Where is it said he was injured BEFORE arrest? WWGB (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay fair point, it depends on what is considered "being arrested" (the process of, versus the final outcome of such an event). I changed it to say "while being detained" which should work. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Ref using Archive as title

The ref using "Archive" as its title should be changed to this |title =: 'Deputy Chief Cerelyn "C.J." Davis'. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 04:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Resolving vs wikilawyering

Hey, all. I am here in good faith to improve this article and the wiki within our boundaries. I abhor conflict and wikilawyering and to that end, I am getting fresh eyes on the conflict with many of AgntOtrth's content edits and their conduct around their editing, and their battling with me.

Come here if you can help resolve the conflict. Please comment and add your perspectives, own issues, and solutions (with me or them).

I wish them no harm, and I will assist them if they ask, and if I am able. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 15:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You engaged in at least two edit wars in the article, could explain how that is being here in good faith?
You have made almost 22% of the total edits, seems like you are trying to take ownership, yet you label my < 7% as trying to take ownership - could you explain how that is being here in good faith?
An editor identified that a copyvio search found it unlikely their were violations, without utilizing the talk page you reverted multiple times - could you explain how that is editing here in good-faith?

AgntOtrth (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't use an editor's history in other topic areas against them. It's low, and a personal attack. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Bowler the Carmine and AgntOtrth – I truly appreciate your replies and I hear you both. AOT is assuming bad faith. That's not the wiki way. But, I hear and see their point(s), even if it's unfounded and violates our 5-pillars.
In the past 3 days, I have seen that 98℅ of the editors assume bad faith and that the worst are our admins. It's super toxic. The admins are trying to indef ban and block me, and I had zero chance for due process.
AOT: You have to assume good faith. Otherwise, there's drama. Drama is toxic to the movement.
The edit count does not mean much. Some editors add 5000 words in one drop and walk away. I edit by section, not by the page, and I hit every section. I also have user scripts that do not allow bundling the edits. I am shocked about having 300+ edits here but many are 0-5k in size. I mostly MOS, style, format, unify, and minor copy edits... so those edits pile up quickly. I do delete for redundant redundancy. But, mostly I just try to polish up what you "guys" put up.
Another editor might make 100 edits and only add 10 words.
I have never made an ownership edit in my 37,000 edits over 11 years. AOT, it's none of my business but why are you so rabid, cocksure, and combative about this one article? And, only this one. I would like to understand. Also, I truly appreciate and acknowledge the time you asked for my advice. I know you're not a sockpuppet tooling us. You might be a meatpuppet. I don't know, and I don't care right now.
Bowler: Thanks for having my back. My whole world turned upside down on Friday... and your kindness and looking out are appreciated and timely.
Can't we all just get along? I apologize for anything I have done to frustrate that. Take care always. PS: AOT, if you add even a single dot to your user page, your username will stop being red. It makes our pings to you easier to proofread. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
It is your choice for us to get along. Your conduct speaks against the assumption of good faith. You have spent so much time in past 24 hrs doing so much; except for helping the article. And now two editors have posted they do not understand your claim. And instead of helping them or helping me, you persist in only claiming good faith, and you have not engaged in discussion to resolve anything. Your actions speak volumes against your words. AgntOtrth (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols/Archive_2&oldid=1150803113"