This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I am loth to freely edit a current events page, but the released dashcam footage has some issues. For other potential editors I add these two data points.
Agree. No clue whether that first link above constitutes a reliable source. On the other hand, it isn't original research to simply observer that the reliable source of the DPS released a video that has several repeated loops in it. I get that this stuff requires some subtle judgments, so that's why I didn't just go edit the page itself. GeePawHill (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the complete dashcam footage is readily available directly from the Texas Dpt. of Public Safety at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8GR3OO9mU , the article needs to be updated to properly describe the incident. The "action" really gets going at around the 8 minute mark. Anyone viewing the entire first 12 minutes or so of the video will have a very clear idea of what happened.
I did expand the section but someone has decided, repeatedly, to remove the additional information and then charge me with not assuming good intentions. Hmmmm....
Well, unfortunately for a lot of folks, the dashcam footage shows Encinias forcing Bland out of her lane and then pulling her over for getting out of his way without signalling. She points this out to him in the video, and he ignores her, just like this article ignores the actual content of the video, which is pretty damning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added July 25, 2015 (UTC)
Student voting rights
The section about college student voting rights is not written fairly. College student voting has long been an issue in the United States[1], especially when it comes to local elections (depending on where a student calls "home"[2] for example).
Students at my college, when I was there, were not allowed to vote in local elections and it was a hotly debated issue on campus and more so in the community. The mostly white conservative upper class community didn't want the more liberal out of town student body changing local politics. I think this has changed over the years, but not without a fight. Race was not a factor in my college's case either. Joel S Bateman (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But is any of that directly related to Sandra Bland's death? I believe the entire Waller County, Texas section shifts the focus of the article away from Bland's arrest and death, into WP:COATRACK territory. But I didn't remove any content because the source articles are ostensibly about Bland.- MrX18:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think you both should engage with The Atlantic article cited, and perhaps some of its sources, if we are going to discuss how to treat this issue. The article is closer to long-format, and explicitly links Bland's arrest and death with the history of civil rights in Waller County. This history includes the lynchings and KKK presence, the two voting struggles, and the police deputy scandal over brutality. The Atlantic is not the only source to have raised these issues, but I believe it's the best. Of course, Bland's case is not so noteworthy just by itself, but in context.
I did try to keep this section brief compared to what was available, but if you have other recommendations or proposals, I am happy to engage. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend deletion
I left the section in about Waller's police issues in the section, but removed the first paragraph as non-contributory. This is an article about Bland, not unrelated history of the county. If someone needs to know more about Waller, they could readily click the link to that section.MartinezMD (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MartinezMD I thought the section you removed could have remained - because this is being talked about in terms of race, a brief mention of slavery, the KKK / Freedmen's Assn, and historically high number of lynchings gives regional background on the encounter. Furthermore, treatment of the matter by media would seem to confirm that the history of race within Waller County falls within the WP:SCOPE of the article. Nevertheless, I accepted the removal because I could see how very old history is less relevant than events in the last decade, and MrX was also asking about this.
However, Wikimandia I think that your removal of the text altogether is excessive and does a disservice to readers by artificially restricting the article's scope, certainly below the treatment of mainstream media, who view Waller County's history as pertinent. -Darouet (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this time it's just way POV-pushing to include that in the article; it's adding speculation. Media speculates; Wikipedia does not. It's fine to have it in the Waller County article of course. But Bland did not die at a traffic stop. The only information we have is that she hanged herself in her cell after being there three days. If Waller County has a history of prisoners dying in their cells or a history of abuse or neglect at their jails (which can be all kinds of things from beating prisoners to denying them access to medication, etc.) then that would be relevant. Per the WP:BRD guideline, please do not add back removed information without consensus to do so. {{ping}Darouet}} I'm going to do an RFC about it so we can get more input and decide, OK? This is a hugely controversial and sensitive issue so we should get more input. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for launching the RfC. I disagree with your contention re:BRD - it was I who reverted you. But I'd like to see a few more comments on the RfC before I return anything. -Darouet (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
There is disagreement on whether or not a section about Waller County's history and racial tensions should be included in this article. Please see this diff to see the content under discussion. Should this background information about Waller County be included in the article about the death of Sandra Bland? 03:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Votes
N - I feel it is POV-pushing and speculative. It has been mentioned that this information is being reported by reliable sources. My feeling is that media often speculates, Wikipedia should not. While Sandra is no longer living, there are individuals mentioned in the disputed section who are living, and it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies to bring them into this article, as at this point, we have no information linking any of them to her in any way related to her arrest or death. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for launching this well-written RfC. I strongly disagree that the media coverage or the text you removed is "speculative." It turns out that Waller County has a long history of violence against blacks, and the Sheriff in whose prison Bland died had been suspended, then fired as chief police deputy for policy brutality and racism. That same Sheriff is now overseeing a probe into her death in his own custody. These are facts that have been reported all over the news, and removing them is arbitrary and can only be justified by the political contention that they are irrelevant. If major newspapers report them, we should too. -Darouet (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether or not it is relevant to the article about her death. We have no RS that suggest the sheriff interacted with her at all. Pretty much every county in the U.S. has a record of racism since all of the U.S. has a record of racism; it doesn't mean there is a racial angle to every story. So to mention the sheriff is to hint that he is somehow involved or at fault in Sandra's death. We just don't have that information, nor has any reliable source specifically said he is to blame in any way (or created an atmosphere that led to her death, etc). The article should concentrate on the information as it relates to her arrest and death - the background of the arresting officer or prison guards on watch would be fair game to be included, if any of that were to be reported in RS, because of their direct relation to her. Media LOVE to speculate on these types of things, but Wikipedia holds itself to a higher standard. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as very similar to an RfC I ran, in a different article, about whether the races of the two participants, white and black, should be included in the article's lead. RS almost invariably mentioned the races in their coverage, but they never even attempted to actually make a case that race was a contributing factor in the subject incident. The white officer had no history of racism. Any evidence of a connection was completely circumstantial, and a lot of it had to do with a history of police racial issues in that community. On that basis, I felt the races, while being mentioned in the participants' mini-bio sections, should have been omitted from the lead. I lost that RfC by a substantial margin. The lesson I took from that: RS (especially mainstream) is king, and we don't second-guess it on such questions. ―Mandruss☎06:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unable to !vote on the question as stated. Google Search for "waller county racism bland" does show more RS coverage of the issue than the one source used in that content, and from non-fringe sources. It is not speculation, then, that RS sees this as significant, and, per WP:DUE, it is not POV-pushing to try to add related content (to the contrary, it could be reasonably characterized as POV-pushing to try to keep such content out). So I can't !vote No. That said, I am not saying this particular content is the best we can do — it probably is not — so I can't !vote Yes either. We should agree that some related content is needed, and then we can haggle over the details. ―Mandruss☎04:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mandruss. If you wanted to propose some amount of text in a new section, with material from The Atlantic and The Guardian or elsewhere linked in, I think that'd be interesting. I never felt the content was quite right as written, so seeing someone else take a stab at it would be great! -Darouet (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed - I placed the undue tag because the dedicated section changes the subject from someones death to local racial issues, which I found jarring and non-neutral. The first and third paragraphs were especially off-topic. I think the second paragraph content can be woven into other sections which will result in a more neutral presentation.- MrX11:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N - Credit to all for having this discussion early. I agree with the view that this may be coatracking (if unintentionally so). As an encyclopedic entry I think it's best to not include speculative associations. Unless it can be shown that the county's historical racial tensions directly contributed to the death, and from what I understand that answer is currently no, then it shouldn't be in the article even if some RSs have chosen to offer the association. Springee (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N - But if the racist history of Waller County, as cited (the Atlantic, etc.), can be directly linked to Sandra Bland's death, I'd quickly change my vote. I'd still vote for leaving out the student voting thing though as it has an unrelated history in the US. Joel S Bateman (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joel.sbateman, those articles are not about Waller County, they are about Sandra Bland. Bland was arrested by the Waller County Sheriff's office, and died in their custody. The current Waller County sheriff was suspended and then fired as police chief, previously, for allegations of racist brutality. -Darouet (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darouet, the section you wrote, the reason we are now voting, was only about Waller County, the citations in this section about Waller County were about Waller County to site facts about Waller County in a seeming attempt to make a causal link between the history of Waller County and the death of Sandra Bland. If it is proven that the history and consciousness of Waller County (rather than the sheriff, police, Ms. Bland herself, or someone else) caused, or at least created the context for, the death of Sandra Bland, like I wrote, I'll change my vote. However, your comment on my vote is even more off topic (the history of Waller County) than the original section we are voting on. Joel S Bateman (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N - A single source makes the claim, meanwhile there are open investigations into the matter that will be reported upon once findings are made. We should address that when the results are made public.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N - There's no evidence to suggest it was linked to the incident in any way. It might belong in an article about the county, but not about her death. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N I agree with Joel S Bateman. I think if someone can find a direct, reliable link between racism in Waller County and the death of Sandra Bland it is worth noting in the article. This early into the investigation it seems too speculative and unreliable. Let the facts unfold before we publish it in ink. ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro17:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N The history of the area is irrelevant, and would detract from the facts of the case as presented in the article. What happened was that a minor traffic violation led to someone's death, and that's something that can happen anywhere. "Racism in Waller County" is not the context of the article; the context of the article is deaths in police custody. Roches (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N The only thing that makes most of these facts race-related are the way they are presented. They could just as easily be presented without a consideration of race. Not only does it cause the article to lean POV, the information here seems to me to be POV on its own merit, without considerations of the proper scope of the article. 161.165.196.103 (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't speak to the actual content, but this edit removed by my count seven references, leaving five consecutive paragraphs and almost 3,000 words completely unsourced. I think it should be reverted on that basis alone. We can't allow edits that leave the article in such a state. Editors should not add massive content and expect other editors to do the research and add the corresponding references. Comments? ―Mandruss☎07:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. I think much of the content was technically correct, but it was unsourced, and it's unclear to me if, in leaving some details out and placing others in, it really gave a balanced description of what occurred. -Darouet (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of detail in secondary sources and in the dashcam video itself, I don't know that the article needs much detail about exactly what was said. Those details are inevitably POV fodder, and any selectivity inevitably involves cherry-picking. For example, one editor did nothing but add the officer's apparently insensitive and unprofessional response to Bland's statement that she had epilepsy. Any question about neutrality on that one? In this case I say less is more. ―Mandruss☎07:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some part of me thinks it does belong, but I could easily see it replaced by other details, so if you want to remove it, that's fine. Charles M Blow has a commentary for the NYT in which he asks a series of questions about the event. I don't have time now but tomorrow, I'd like to make more of a commentary section where the national discussion on this event is summarized. -Darouet (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What has happened in this article is that people have removed from the dashcam the details that show how the issues started and how it continuously escalated. It is all find and dandy to just point out what the mainstream media does (I'm a liberal, so don't even try) to try to get ratings --- pulling out the officer's statement that "I will light you up." One would think from the media, and this article, that he started a fight with Ms. Bland. I have listened to, and transcribed, the entire video. I have listened to it multiple times. There are only a few words I can't make out. Consequently, when I added items, I at least have a basis for what they are, and they keep getting removed by someone who is essentially parroting CNN. (I can't use an account because I am at work.) So I am going to add my entire transcript here in the talk page so you can decide for yourself what is an accurate summary. I also urge you to look at the tape.
I have viewed the tape and read the transcript countless times. Unless we agree to post the whole transcript, and that seems like a bad idea for an encyclopedia entry, we need to make decisions about what to include and what to leave out. I think that we have included Encinia's statements "get out of the car," and "I will light you up," because they mark significant turning points in the transition from discussion to conflict. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you choose that, but not Bland's "Let's do this" when in the car. And her bringing up the South Carolina incidents. And that she predicts that he will want to throw her head on the ground. And then afterwards that she says he did it. His statement "I will light you up" did not turn it to a conflict. In fact, at that point, she resigns herself to having to obey him and gets out of the car. That's the end of the second conflict. Then there is the phone, the hand cuffing, the not moving around, the scuffle, the getting into the car. I don't know why you selectively think his statement starts a conflict, when it actually ends one. And you have so many from Ms. Bland to choose from.
I really do suggest you look at the text now and see what it reads like. It reads as if Ms. Bland was calm, cool, and collected, except that perhaps she was arguing with him after he forced her out of the car with a Taser. It was this type of summary of the situation that made me look at the tape and transcribe it for myself. And I found the opposite to be generally true. Yes, she got the best of him. But she baited him over, and over, and over. At first is was his decision to stop her. Then he wasn't doing his job. Then he asked her why she was irritated. Then she smoked and wouldn't put it out. Then she wouldn't get out of the car (making a call, he doesn't have the right, etc. etc.) It goes on to a vile accusation of a woman attempting to sexually belittle an officer, calling him a pussy ass multiple times. Insulting the town and the police. Telling him if he threw her down it would make him feel good. Doesn't he feel like a real man now, etc. So the tape makes it very clear what was happening. Your (or others') recent edits of this article leave that entirely unclear. Can it be encyclopedic and wrong? I suppose it can. And it is.
If I were able to log in with my account, I would add an NPOV to this article so that at least the casual observer might check out the talk page.
"I will light you up" was quoted in newspaper headlines around the country (171,000 google news results), while "let's do this" has hardly received mention (814). Similar, a LexisNexis Academic search reveals dozens of references repetitions of Encinia's "I will light you up," but I can find none reporting Bland's comment, "let's do this." I'm not trying to give you my personal interpretation of what happened: our text is following what papers have picked up on. -Darouet (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article hints at a Database ("The counted": http://www.theguardian.com) showing that there have been 644 people killed by police in 2015 (as of 23 July).
Imo, there should be a sentence in the article saying that violence done by police has significantly grown in the last years. --Neun-x (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her death has been ruled a suicide and autopsy results are consistent with that. Why she was still in jail after three days is troubling - she was either not denied bail (unlikely) or she didn't have the money to make bail (likely). There's nothing to suggest she was the victim of police violence, so it's irrelevant. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia, it has been all over the news that Bland was "the victim of police violence," and I am troubled that you could read news articles about this case, or view the video, and despite both, view police violence as "irrelevant." Also, though the police have contended that Bland killed herself for days now, and her family contested this, you are changing the article as if this is known. Above, you stated that this article is only for "facts." But that vision for inclusion is broken when you only view pronouncements by police officials as sources of those facts, and reporting by media as irrelevant. -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheRedPenOfDoom, because the truth is elusive, reliable sources are the only means we have for arriving at verifiability. Above, I was criticizing Wikimandia for declaring the cause of Bland's death to be known as suicide, though this has been contested for a week now, and remains so. As to the issue of police violence, I wonder how you propose to distinguish between news journalism and speculation? -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources report it as suicide. The reliable sources also report a significant conspiracy theory believed that the suicide reported is false. But that doesnt change that the reliable sources report it as suicide. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what reliable sources report the Harris County autopsy concluded, not what they state themselves. Pushing all other views to WP:FRINGE is about your personal political opinions and has nothing to do with reliable sources. I'm responding below to consolidate both our discussions. -Darouet (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though there is plenty of speculation that she is yet another victim of police violence and excessive force, and a rush to include her among police victims. But the autopsy report (as analyzed by CNN) stated she had no injuries outside of the single ligature mark around her neck that was consistent with suicide and inconsistent with strangulation in an attack, abrasions on her wrists consistent with being handcuffed, and healing/healed cuts/slashes on her wrists that predate her arrest. So how could she be a victim of violence and yet there be no evidence of this? People who are victims of violence have wounds or physical injuries that are apparent, especially in an autopsy. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That autopsy also shows injuries around her arms and wrists related to her arrest, and Bland's family has said preliminary autopsy reports show deep tissue bruising on her back. Bland also stated that she feared her arm may have been broken during the arrest. So whether Bland hanged herself has no bearing on the issue of police brutality.
The family is furthermore awaiting the results of a second independent autopsy.
I think that if Bland's family and major newspapers concluded that Bland killed herself, we could do the same, even if she was indeed a victim of police brutality. -Darouet (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Injuries around her wrists were related to her being handcuffed, which is normal. I read two articles on her autopsy report and neither mentioned any injuries to her arms, only her wrists. She also had 30 cut marks on her wrists consistent with previous cutting/suicide attempts (doubtful anyone else was cutting her wrists). Media don't "conclude" cause of death in controversial cases as they don't participate in autopsies. Media report official cause of death as was stated by examiners, and in some cases, contact medical experts to see if they concur with the findings. Yes, they're awaiting a second autopsy result, but it won't take long. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not "chatting" but clearly discussing content about this article concerning an ongoing event, in which media (RS) coverage is extensive and needs to be discussed. Everyone is being quite civil and our discussion is benefiting the article, so I don't quite see what your issue is. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. X Meddling
Mr X, why did you delete the 11 times detail, I think that was important to explain how the buildup of the encounter.
Moon822 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those who need the full transcript to decide what is the truth of the arrest part of this issue... I transcribed it myself. A few words I could not understand. I have tried to put the talking over each other as best I could. For really loud shouting, I used capital letters. Most of the conversation was elevated, but you should listen to the audio yourself to judge that. (Placeholder for later post. Work e-mail will not allow the curse words Ms. Bland used to be in incoming mail.)
It is likely that many editing here have viewed the tape and read the transcript countless times. Unless we agree to post the whole transcript, and that seems like a bad idea for an encyclopedia entry, we need to make decisions about what to include and what to leave out. I think that we have included Encinia's statements "get out of the car," and "I will light you up," because they mark significant turning points in the transition from discussion to conflict. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to write an encyclopedia article that reflects what the reliable sources state about the incident. Period. Personal opinions or interpretations have ZERO place here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect TRPoD, that is nonsense - are you really proposing that we should put up the whole transcript of the encounter? If not, how do you propose deciding what to include, and what remove? As I pointed out above, Encinia's now (in)famous remark, "I will light you up," appeared in newspapers and even headlines all over the world. By contrast, Bland's statement "OK, let's do this" has received next to no traction. Your criteria imply that opinion only - yours in this case - should WHOLLY determine the content here. If you make a proposal based on content, that would be more understandable. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I am saying that this page is not a page to rant about conspiracy theories about her death. The purpose of this page is to discuss how to most accurately present what the reliable sources are stating about the event. see WP:NOTCHAT and WP:OR and WP:V and WP:RS and WP:TPG and WP:RGW and WP:UNDUE.
I disagree. The mainstream media is very selective. They "pick and choose" which "facts" to report, which to magnify and emphasize, and which to "sweep under the rug". They are in the for-profit business, seeking to maximize profits. So, they want to sell ("report") a "good story". And, they usually have an agenda in their reporting. No? If it is factual that Bland said "OK, let's do this", why would you want to eliminate that fact? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Sorry if I'm confused, what is your question? About eliminating the fact that she said "let's do this"? If we have a section describing her arrest, it seems like we should include that as it's been reported by RS and seems like it accelerated the already bad situation. [7], [8]—МандичкаYO 😜 23:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now, I'm confused. RS have reported that Bland said "OK, let's do this". Someone above was advocating that we remove that fact. Therefore, I asked a question. My question was: If it is factual that Bland said "OK, let's do this", why would you want to eliminate that fact?. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my above post. I stated as follows. RS have reported that Bland said "OK, let's do this". Someone above was advocating that we remove that fact. Therefore, I asked a question. My question was: If it is factual that Bland said "OK, let's do this", why would you want to eliminate that fact?. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant when you look at it in context. He was ordering her out of the car and basically said, "get out or I will pull you out", to which she said, "let's do this" to essentially challenge him to try to pull her out. Whether or not she had the legal right to stay in her car (to refuse to get out) at this point is a different matter, but she did for all intensive purposes challenge him to pull him out. That is why the media is reporting that particular comment, out of all the things she said. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Of course, we look at context. Obviously. In this and every Wikipedia article. And your link of "no original research" (WP:OR) has zero to do with "context" of facts within an article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree 100% with —Мандичка. I disagree 100% with Bus stop. It is highly significant when viewed in context. As pointed out above, Bland viewed the officer's commands as a "challenge" to her. And her reply ("OK, let's do this") indicates that she accepted that challenge (or, what she viewed as a challenge). And, as pointed out above, this is exactly why the RS's are reporting on this direct quote/statement by Bland. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it was "essentially challeng[ing] him to try to pull her out." It was a nervous, almost humorous, reaction, to the ludicrousness of the absurd escalation that was transpiring at that moment. I know this is not a WP:forum, and we abide by what sources say, not by our own interpretations. But for whatever it is worth, I oppose misconstruing what I see (hear) as an almost meaningless remark. But in the final analysis we have to see what the best quality sources have to say about that remark. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. You see it as meaningless. Others see it as meaningful. RS's are reporting it because – at least, to them – it is meaningful. RS's usually don't bother to report facts/information that they consider meaningless. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is axiomatic that anything reported by reliable sourcescan be included in our articles. But we exercise judgement. We weigh tangible and intangible factors. We would want to see that these words are not only reported by sources but that sources attribute significance to these words. We should want to know if the source is exercising judgement or if the source is merely repeating verbatim everything that was said. Unless we opt to hand over an unexpurgated transcript to the reader of everything that was said, we are necessarily exercising judgement as to what to include and what to exclude. If we are to pick and choose in this way, we have to be following the discretion exercised by the best quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of RS don't report "let's do this" in the least, as I well demonstrated above. That's because the officer had authority, arms, control, and the ability to walk away at any point. Bland had none of those - just a sharp tongue, which is anyone's right, and talk is cheap. "I will light you up" carried the threat of real violence, and was quoted in newspaper headlines around the country (171,000 google news results), while "let's do this" has hardly received mention (814). Similar, a LexisNexis Academic search reveals dozens of references repetitions of Encinia's "I will light you up," but I can find none reporting Bland's comment, "let's do this." -Darouet (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He also had the legal authority to order her to get out of the car, per Pennsylvania v. Mimms.[9] The cop threatening to tase her by using that unusual phrasing ("light you up" - sure to be an entry in Urban Dictionary) is infinitely more salacious to the storyline/narrative (police brutality) that has gotten people upset. The number of hits in Google News is not accurate, as many are repeats of the same article (from wire services) and many are also blogs that appear in Google News. It is being reported in reliable sources [10] and it seems fairly relevant, as it's a big moment where things really escalate and the police officer really gets mad, as she is not only defying his lawful orders, but challenging him to do something about it. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT has a good legal analysis pointing out that he does have the legal authority, but misuses it. In any event, I'd already seen the USA Today story you linked, but it's one of the few sources that quotes that particular line. The point of my evaluation was not to show exactly how many sources quote "I will light you up" versus "Let's do this;" rather, to show that Encinia's comment is quoted well cover 100x more frequently. -Darouet (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the initial hit count you see in Google Search is a calculated estimate based on the known frequency of the component words, and is usually wildly inaccurate. Google never intended it to be used for anything as important as Wikipedia editorial decisions. If you click through the pages of hits (it saves time to jump as far as possible each time), the number eventually changes to something much smaller, which is the true hit count for the search phrase. For "light you up" bland, that number is currently 182. The same thing applies in Google News, and that number is currently 238. ―Mandruss☎04:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss - I understand it gives little indication of the actual number of times the term is used in the news (LexisNexis Academic, which I also cited, is better) - importantly though it gives some sense of the relative frequency of phrase use. That's the point in this case - media consider Encinia's "light you up" critical, and don't view Bland's "Let's do this" in the same way. -Darouet (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again. Google knows the frequency of "light" with some accuracy. It knows the frequency of "you", and the frequency of "up". Based on those three data points, it (somehow) calculates an estimate of how often those three words occur together. That's the number initially shown, and as I said, it's usually wildly inaccurate. If you want to use Google, use the true hit counts; the estimate is useless for our purposes. ―Mandruss☎05:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - using your method I count 6 sources that you "Let's do this," and 160+ that use "I will light you up." I'm not trying to nail down the exact number of times either phrase has been legitimately used, even within some order of magnitude. I'm just trying to point out that however you try and make the comparison, "light you up" is used with far, far greater frequency. -Darouet (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: I assume you're interested in comparing the hit counts related to this story, not in general usage of the two phrases. That means you have to qualify the search arguments. I don't know the specifics of your searches, but in Google Search I'm gettting 173 for "let's do this" bland and 183 for "light you up" bland, not a significant difference. ―Mandruss☎05:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I searched in google news and have been adding the phrase "Sandra Bland" for each search. Did you scroll through to check that the results you were returning actually related to the case, and were from the last 10 days or so? Using your method just now, on google news I pulled hundreds of results for "Sandra Bland" "let's do this", but only the first six were from the last week and related to Bland. The rest were unrelated and from other months, years. That wasn't true of "Sandra Bland" "light you up" however. Unless I'm introducing an error by use of the apostrophe in "let's:" I"m not sure how google treats that. -Darouet (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating this method again, @Mandruss:, I get 10 hits for "let's do this" "Sandra Bland", instead of six. However, this is still the same major difference I found in google, google news, and LexisNexis Academic. -Darouet (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior is strange - however your method does mean more that some raw unexamined number, especially if you scroll to check the results. -Darouet (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As another editor above pointed out, "I will light you up" is a nice, interesting, baiting, eye-grabbing headline. It's pretty unusual wording. Yeah, of course, media is going to be all over that. "Let's do this" is hardly as sexy and eye-catching. It's a more routine and mundane phrasing. This latter phrase won't sell newspapers. The former will. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree: "light you up" is incredibly intimidating and frightening from a large man, armed with a gun, and a taser he is shouting his intention to use on you. -Darouet (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such thinking only serves to replace the media's bias with your own, which is no better. It lumps all media into one money-grubbing basket, characterizing institutions such as NYT as interested only in profit, with no regard whatsoever for sound journalism, and it disregards history such as the Pentagon Papers (NYT) and Watergate (WaPo). It's simply not how conventional wisdom says we should be thinking as editors. If you want to discuss that, the place is WP:VPP, not here. ―Mandruss☎05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? I was pointing out why the number of Google hits might be "lopsided". Which is a valid point. And relevant to the above discussion. So, again, what on earth are you talking about? Perhaps you should be going over to WP:VPP? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't get your point. When I am attempting to explain the "lopsided" Google hits, I am not allowed to use that phrase that you quoted? Is that your point? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, you're arguing that the media's profit motive is a reason to disregard the amount of coverage of one phrase versus another. And I'm saying that, for reliable published sources, we don't do that. If I misread your argument, I apologize and request that this be dropped forthwith. ―Mandruss☎06:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it perhaps be better to protect this page until the event is just a bit further in the past?
I ask this because I see the article looks to be averaging an edit every 5 minutes... if not more. That doesn't achieve the goal of a stable, encyclopedic entry. Would it be better to simply agree to wait until more facts are known? 108.205.228.188 (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pages only get protected when there is a high level of vandalism or edit warring. I will ask as it does have a lot of reverts. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article needs protection. It is being developed by multiple edits. Sometimes editors disagree. This is normal. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The content is very contentious however, with insinuations or statements that she was murdered (placing undue, premature blame on living people). That can be problematic. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be protected, not because it's necessarily changing too much, but because the edits being imposed are slanting it in a way where it makes the officer appear the only one that is escalating the situation, for instance, how the officer tried to ask over a dozen times for her to get out (I sourced that too and someone deleted it all) plus Bland's comment people have mentioned "Let's do this" which is part of the mutual discordance in the audio. It's really not an accurate sketch as it is as of now Moon822 (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who gave her a bag? It appears this was not a little cheap grocery bag. Does Texas supply high strength large bags to all inmates - how about rope instead. If it wasn't her bag then a cop must have given it to her.
How long does marijuana stay in your system - three days later is a long delay for a drug death, if that is what Texas is all a twitter about. Again who gave her a buff if it was less than three days.
She just ran into a psycho cop - and of course a bag.
73.149.116.253 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question, it was the bag liner from the garbage can. A photograph of it was published somewhere - it was twisted into a ligature. It's possible to strangle yourself with almost anything - that's why they even take shoelaces from people on suicide watch. And she didn't die from marijuana, which stays in your system up to a month. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "collapsed" content. The above questions are not a "forum". They are indeed valid and relevant to the article. The whole "controversy" here is whether or not she committed suicide. The original poster asked very relevant questions, pertaining to the article. The OP was not starting a forum. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a video interview online with a jailer IN THE CELL who shows the newly relined 55 gallon trashcan, and also says that the "other female inmates in the cell" didn't see anybody else but Sandra Bland at the time of the hanging.
Autopsy Results
The autopsy results were released today (23 July 2015) and ruled her death a suicide. She had no defensive injuries from a struggle in her cell, the damage to her neck appeared to be from her hanging herself rather than someone strangling her, and she apparently had 30 partially healed cuts on her wrist consistent with self-inflicted injuries. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From NYT: "Examiners also found scars and scabs from about 30 cuts on Ms. Bland’s left forearm, which they said had probably occurred two to four weeks ago. Prosecutors declined to say definitively what caused them, but 'in multiple instances I have seen, those injuries, they are consistent with self-inflicted wounds,' Mr. Diepraam said."
Assistant DAs are not experts on what is or is not self-inflicted, and this man's opinion is no more significant than yours or mine. In addition, it clearly says forearm, not wrist, and the two words are not interchangeable. Self-inflicted wounds to the wrist imply suicide attempt; move them up a few inches and self-harm is at least as likely. I'm not asserting that it was murder, only that we need to be more careful about what we say. ―Mandruss☎07:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The police have been saying since the beginning that Bland killed herself, and the Bland family have been contesting this, and have conducted a second autopsy. Results from that autopsy haven't been revealed yet, but hopefully they will shed more light on this situation. -Darouet (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Also section
What is the purpose of the see also section on Wikipedia? I don’t see why they are included. So yeah, what is its defined purpose and why do those links fall under it?
Generally speaking ... it offers similar-type reading (similar-type articles) for people interested in this particular article. See here at this link (WP:SEEALSO) for more details and more specifics. Here is a hypothetical example. We have an article for Barack Obama. At the bottom of that article, there might be a "See also" section for (just as examples) articles on "List of judicial appointments made by Obama" or "Controversies within the Obama administration" or "Obama's foreign policy", etc. Similar articles that are of interest to readers interested in the original article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These links don’t seem relevant in the way your Obama examples are. Plus aren’t there heavy implications being made by linking the two other cases? The BLM link makes sense but I think the other 2 are inappropriate.
I'd like to endorse the above, and point out this from the guideline: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I do so for the OP to contrast the different standards for "See also" and "External links". "Indirect" and "tangential" indicate a low bar for inclusion here. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what youre saying is you know it’s a stretch and doesn’t really belong but “the bars low” so whatever?
They are – at a minimum – at least tangentially related. (Which is, essentially, the definition for a "See also" inclusion.) So, what's the "stretch" exactly? And why doesn't it "really belong"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is another issue here, that needs pointing out, I will address it below. Yes, the bar is low, another example (I think clearer) than the one above (@Joseph A. Spadaro:) is George Washington: There is a See also to Conotocaurious, so you can learn about a tangential issue in a foreign language, that has an article in English. (Please, sign your posts with four tildes.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying to my own observation. There is a WP:NAVBOX navbar template at the bottom of the article, that is redundant to the "See also" links (currently 3 of them) at this moment in time. However, the Navbox is currently undergoing a TfD, so I think it's better to leave this article's See also as it is (expand, don't delete) for now. (See Police brutality in the United States for an example of a lot of tangential articles in the See also.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is really not NPOV to have the deaths of Freddy Gray and Eric Garner in the "See also" as neither of these committed suicide, and police were charged with their homicides. Including them seems to hint that Bland was murdered. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We always have of think of what is in the interests of the reader. Yes, an argument can be made, and it seems valid, that we are challenging WP:NPOV by putting articles in the "See also" section that imply a paralleling between the topic of this article and the topic of other articles. That implication is real and must be given serious consideration. But the reader is primarily concerned with potential police misconduct and the reader is especially concerned with the possible confluence of police misconduct and racism. I think that these articles in the "See also" section don't have to truly parallel in subject matter this article in order to warrant presence, but the reader should be afforded the opportunity to continue their pursuit of related subject matter. If anything we should expand the "See also" section to include other directions of departure for further reading. Police safety seems an obvious choice. Legal matters would certainly warrant presence. The reader has questions and the "See also" section offers options for further reading within our project, just as an "External links" section does. While the implication of parallels can be seen, the reader has to be thought of as a thinking person, not likely to be lead to think what we would like them to think. They are a lot smarter than that. Bus stop (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: That might be a more persuasive argument if there were more entries in the "See also". Currently, there are only three. Two related to police being charged with murders in non-suicide cases (as an editor above pointed out). I'd feel more comfortable if those two were "couched" among others that have a variety of "spins" to them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are speaking of a "variety of spins". It is axiomatic that every other article is of a different spin. Sure, differences can be found and they are real, between this article and another article. Interpretation becomes a not unimportant factor here. I would say that we should not be tearing down this article when there is a connection between the general subject matter of this article and the 3 contested entries in the "See also" section now. Rather, if possible, the "See also" section should be expanded. Do we have articles on police safety? Do we have articles on related legal matters? There is a highly charged moment when an officer pulls over a vehicle for a traffic violation. Might not the reader want to peruse material related to traffic stops? Bus stop (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my last post? It states as follows. To that end, I just added another link (Pennsylvania v. Mimms). I also added an explanatory sentence alongside it. Someone can feel free to clean that up a bit. The wording is not perfect, and it's just off the top of my head. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a link to Black Lives Matter, plus the Black Lives Matter template, that has all the links to these many cases. Deaths in custody is a better link. It's very NPOV to include links to murder cases due to subtle suggestion that this is in any way related to those. All RS, except for a family in denial and conspiracy theorists, point to suicide of a depressed person. Deaths in custody is the issue. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph A. Spadaro: I wasn't talking to you but Bus Stop above who thought the "See also" links to Deaths of Freddy Gray/Eric Garner somehow serve the "interests of the reader." WP:SEEALSO states links shouldn't repeat links already in the article/nav box, which those links already are through the template at the bottom. Links must be clearly relevant and related; links to deaths of Gray/Garner aren't. Gray is more relevant as it is a death in custody, but it's still a bit of a leap to extend it to this situation. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I put a link to the autopsy report in External links - issue is the article was claiming things not in report. I already removed the part where it said her ONLY injuries were the abrasions on her wrists (Postmortem details various scabs and contusions on her shoulder, back, etc.) and that the abrasions were consistent with being handcuffed - even if this is true about them being consistent, the autopsy report doesn't say it. Obviously it's a primary source but the autopsy report should be consulted for clarification if inconsistencies arise via reporting. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about copyright violation and plagiarism: the text about the officer had been copied word-for-word from the source. Editors should try to summarize material in their own words. Many thanks, Sarah(talk)16:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: May I suggest that you post something like this on the appropriate user's talk page? That would be more likely to be seen by the person who needs to see it, and, at least in this article, this is certainly not a widespread problem that needs everyone's attention. ―Mandruss☎02:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can has Cheezburger? (access dates)
@SlimVirgin: I noticed in this diff that you pulled other editors attestations as to the dates they accessed WP:RS articles as refs, from the references. Editors such as myself, who fix dead links, because we think it is fun as volunteers, need this info to do our job. It is computer forensics. I will fix these in this article in 2020 after they die, but my job will be easier if an editor gives me a live date to work from.
Why are you making it harder for us to edit this information resource?
I admit I may have missed a policy change that deprecated the parameter. Can you please refer me to a policy or guideline under which you pulled this information from an information resource, namely, Wikipedia?
I recently revived a dead linkhere, it took well more than an entire 8 hour business day, but I accomplished the task (a single edit that consumed most of two business days, but it rocks). Why should you make more work for me here than is necessary? Have you not heard that with computer networks, this work of deletion is ultimately futile? Have you not gotten yet what age you live in? I live in it without fear.
Furthermore, you pulled information from the information resource, under the logged attestation "ce" which I take to to mean "copy edit". Pulling information from the information resource is never a "ce", by any definition of copy editing. I'd like an apology for misrepresenting the nature of your edit. You know better.
Look, it isn't a "ce" when you remove 495 bytes of data. You didn't change a comma to a semicolon. It's in the logs, ferchissakes.
Give up on the "ce" and tell us what you're really changing. Stop lying to us and pretending that you're "flighty". You are not. I'm calling you on this now. I've put up with this for almost ten years. You need to 'fess up or go.
Dude, 2,000 words to say: Hey SV, why did you remove those accessdates? Apology, 'fessing up, and going aren't likely to happen, and "stop lying to us" violates WP:AGF. ―Mandruss☎07:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are, without a doubt, correct. I did violate WP:AGF. However, this has been going for over ten years, in SV's case (I've studied the diffs to pre-2004), and nearly ten in mine. When, exactly, do you stop assuming, and actually know? Do we stop assuming good faith in 20 years? When we are dead? Please, give me your standard. We are creatures of 60 years survival. How long do I to have to hide the criticism? (Was that really 2,000 words, please don't impress me with myself.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning goes something like this: A user is either within the bounds of acceptable behavior, as established by the community in policy and guideline, or they are not. When they are not, our choices are to report them at WP:ANI, or to decide that it's easier to tolerate or avoid them than to report them. Harassing them on article talk pages (or anywhere else) is not an available option. It disrupts the collaboration process, and I've never seen it have any beneficial effect (aside from making the harasser feel better, at the community's expense). There are a few longtime editors who I feel are habitual disrupters and/or just bad editors, and I have successfully avoided them, or tolerated them for short periods. I don't see it as my job to fix them for Wikipedia's sake, even if they were fixable. (Disclaimer: These comments are in no way about anyone being discussed in this thread.) Does that help? ―Mandruss☎08:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She is shown on the ground in the bystander video. Additionally, multiple RS sources say she was placed on the ground. We don't need to hedge the fact that she was placed on the ground because one video does not show that. ―Mandruss☎09:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the first revert is completely routine and not edit warring. It notifies the other editor that their edit is disputed, while returning the article to its status quo ante, where it should stay until consensus is reached for the change. Any subsequent reverts of the same content are edit warring. ―Mandruss☎09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, this video by the TPD covers much to the first dash cams out of view scenarios. It also supports the bystanders video. Bland was not taken to prison in the van, some viewer may belive. This is not an issue of supporting a view, it is located of the third place, to provide some missing information. --Hans Haase (有问题吗)09:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The video shows nothing of what happened when Bland was on the ground. How does it support the bystander's video, and what part of the bystander's video needs support? I didn't know anything about rumors she was transported in a van, but so what if she was? Is someone suggesting a Freddie Gray scenario and being taken seriously by any reliable source? Not that I'm aware of. Is it police brutality to make someone sit in the back of a van for transport to jail a few miles away? Adding a 17:26 video to counter such a rumor does not serve readers in my opinion, but I will of course defer to consensus. ―Mandruss☎09:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hans Haase: Yes, and this is what they said about it. "It shows Bland sitting in the back of a squad car. A female officer takes the handcuffed Bland from the vehicle, pats her down and then places her back in the car." That's all they said about it. Do you read anything in that that justifies linking to that video in the same box with two far more significant and informative videos? If you want to stick it in External links, I won't object although I can't say how others might feel about it. ―Mandruss☎16:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sheriff R. Glenn Smith
Reliable sources indicate the Sheriff in charge of jail where Bland died has a history of discriminatory behavior toward black people specifically [1]
. Considering this page is related to "black lives matter" etc I think this information should be added. Also, Waller County has been dinged by the feds as early as 2003 for requiring owned property as a prerequisite to voting. These cases were prosecuted against students or faculty from the college where Bland was heading to teach. Thoughts?
Bjn5089 (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015
- I feel it is POV-pushing and speculative. It has been mentioned that this information is being reported by reliable sources. My feeling is that media often speculates, Wikipedia should not. While Sandra is no longer living, there are individuals mentioned in the disputed section who are living, and it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies to bring them into this article, as at this point, we have no information linking any of them to her in any way related to her arrest or death. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- This aspect of the story has been covered in part or in detail by The Atlantic, the International Business Times, The Guardian, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and The Independent, among other papers ([1], [2],[3],[4],[5],[6]). This context is part of what has made this case so noteworthy. Readers come to an encyclopedia for more than a news summary. Excluding any aspect of much-reported context would determine the WP:SCOPE of this article not by WP:WEIGHT of coverage in major newspapers, but by the WP:POV that despite their coverage, the context is irrelevant. -Darouet (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
