Talk:Death of Sandra Bland

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WikkiBig6 (article contribs).

Civil settlement

New York Times, today: Sandra Bland’s Family Is Said to Settle $1.9 Million Civil Suit

I've rarely seen NYT waffle so much. Details of the settlement attributed variously to the family's lawyer, Bland's mother, and a local TV station. And the article's title equivocates as well. I hesitate to use wiki voice for any of the details, but all that attribution seems cumbersome too. Editorial opinions? @Ianmacm, MrX, and Gaijin42: ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We can simply write that her family has settled for $1.9 million according to their attorney. It has been covered by several other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad option for the lead, but we need body language (hey I invented a cool new Wikipedia term) supporting it first. For the body language, we could say basically the same thing, or we could give more detail such as at Shooting of Samuel DuBose#Legal proceedings, last paragraph. I like giving more detail in the body, per the principle that lead should summarize body. If they're the same level of detail, there's no summarizing going on. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess we could go into some detail in the body. If there's not any meaningful detail available, it's perfectly fine to simply place a short summary in the lead.- MrX 14:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Define meaningful. There is enough detail in the Times article to fill 3 or 4 sentences with the same kind of thing that is in the DuBose article. Which takes us back to my opening question about attribution. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a simple financial settlement, so you could certainly write about the reforms in jail procedures and such.- MrX 15:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar enough with this to make a detailed comment. The settlement seems to have been agreed out of court, so there is a certain amount of "sources said" rather than direct confirmation of what was agreed. The CNN cite in the article says that an agreement has been reached, but the NYT article is more cautious and says that "there was no final agreement".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hanged vs hung

This has been a matter of ongoing slow-burn edit warring at this article, but it has never been discussed on this page. While dictionaries are inconsistent and unclear on the question, the prevailing view among experienced Wikipedia editors is that coats are hung, and people may be hung upside-down by their ankles, but people are hanged when they die of asphyxiation or strangulation by having something wrapped around their necks and supporting their weight. Thus the word "hanged" is less ambiguous, since Bland could have been found "hung" by something other than her neck, with some other cause of death. The word "hanged" currently occurs three times in this article and the word "hung" zero times. This should not be changed without prior discussion and consensus here. Bring evidence to support your opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The OED describes the verb to hang: "to put to death by suspension by the neck. In this sense, hanged is now the specific form of the past tense and past participle; though hung is used by some, esp. in the south of England." Almost all examples given by the OED use the past participle hanged, and of the few that use the word "hung," most of those examples also include also the word "hanged" as an explanation or correction. -Darouet (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said dictionaries are inconsistent and the OED is surely not the best source for American English (this is an AmEng article). Merriam-Webster hanged says: "Hanged is most appropriate for official execution...but hung is also used...Hung is more appropriate for less formal hangings." Dictionary.com hanged example for sense 5: "He hanged himself from a beam in the attic." And so on. When dictionaries are inconsistent or unclear, I look for other reasoning. In this case, the other reasoning is: 1. "Hanged" is more specific and less ambiguous, as I indicated above. 2. "Hanged" sounds more natural to my 60-year-old, finely-tuned American ear. That probably means far more to me than to others, granted. I could be swayed by compelling evidence for "hung", but I've yet to see it. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Best practice is hanged for death by hanging.[1] Some people disagree, but I dislike hung for death by hanging.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

more video

• https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/721086944/sandra-blands-phone-video-of-her-own-arrest-surfaces-reviving-calls-for-new-inqu

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"by a Latino police officer"

An IP keeps adding these words to the lead. This is WP:UNDUE, as reliable sources have not lent significance to Encinia's race, or even mentioned it in most cases. The body includes sourced content stating that he is listed as "Hispanic" in voter records. Even that would be WP:UNDUE for the lead, and, per Latino, Latino is not even synonymous with Hispanic. Those five words need to be removed from the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

I just wanna say I really don’t understand why her fines are mentioned and the source is some low level news site. Whether false or not, this woman was attacked in broad daylight. I also so don’t understand why it is important we know where the attacker (“officer”) went to university. I want to know why he was shouting at her and literally made her get out of her car at GUNPOINT because of a traffic ticket. He is a monster. He pointed a gun at her and yet he had the nerve to say he felt he was in danger. He is a spineless unworthy weed of the earth. A black woman’s life was taken away for no reason. How many times have one of you white people ever been scared for you life because of a TICKET. come on. She deserves her story to be told very well. She deserves so much more than this. So please do your jobs. RESEARCH. And then maybe you’ll have more useful information and less useless fluff. 2A01:4B00:EC23:D900:EC21:5C77:6C7D:4822 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you're here to right great wrongs then you're at the wrong place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done? LOL What has outstanding fines got to do with this woman's death? She was a victim. The only reason her transgressions are listed are to mitigate the cop's actions in relation to her death. Through innuendo - oh she wasn't that good a person - the cop's racial profiling was justified and it wasn't wrong to stop her. Honestly!! I am disappointed that Hitler's profile doesn't make it more clear he was a vegetarian artist who loved nature and animals. It might help with all the other stuff history records him doing. Sarcasm aside. Bland is not on trial. The need to mention she had convictions is irrelevant to the traffic stop because the cop was unaware of them at the time of his racial profiling. This info is only there to present an antecedence that diminishes the worth of this woman's life. It almost suggests she got what she deserved because she owed a few thousand dollars in fines. Spineless editors on this site. LOL most of them are white males in their 20s and 30s who live with their parents, so what should we expect? 81.159.166.13 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)