The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
... that after police beat and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, and said "That shit hurts, doesn't it?" while pepper-spraying him in the face, one officer was reprimanded for poor courtesy? Sources: "troopers ... put him in a chokehold and punched him in the face" [1] "uses of force ... included dragging him facedown by his ankle shackles and spraying him in the face with pepper spray... investigators wrote that “Greene’s eyes are squeezed shut as he shakes his head back and forth moaning in pain, movements consistent with having been sprayed in the face with (pepper) spray.” The records noted that around this time ... a local deputy assisting in the arrest added, “Yeah, that sh– hurts, doesn’t it?”" [2] "DeMoss got a “letter of counseling” and a “letter of reprimand," ... He was found to have violated rules on “courtesy” and body-worn or car cameras, officials said." [3]
Please hold off on reviewing while some new material is added to the article. EEng 07:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Have you finished adding the material, EEng? starship.paint (exalt) 08:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this was about adding the new developments from Friday/the weekend (police released all videos in full, some additional details reported such as the police using chemical weapons, and I think DeMoss was fired)... I was going to update the article but I've gotten busy IRL and haven't had time to thoroughly read the newer sources (I've only skimmed the headlines). Starship.paint, if you or E have time to update it (or maybe you already have, I haven't looked at the recent expansions to the article) please by all means go for it and don't wait for me. Thanks either way, Levivichharass/hound 13:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I added a bit, no, I haven't added the full videos, the chemical weapons, DeMoss. I'm busy for the next 72 hours so it won't be me in this period of time, Levivich. starship.paint (exalt) 14:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, ready for review. EEng 03:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Review:
Article:
New Y
Length Y
Policy: Neutral, sources check out, no close paraphrasing, etc. Y
Hook N Comments and suggestions follow.
QPQ Y
Thank you for this interesting and encyclopedic article. (I made several copyedits to it before reviewing, and I have no remaining concerns about the page itself.) My only concern is with the hook. I believe that it is unnecessarily verbose, and some of the word choices are not quite in keeping with the source material. About the latter, I think that "was reprimanded for poor courtesy" is not strictly in keeping with the source material, and needs to be precise per WP:BLP. For these reasons, I suggest:
ALT 1:
... that after police beat and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, and pepper-sprayed him in the face, one of them received letters of counseling and reprimand for violating courtesy rules?
Apologies for the verbosity, but I feel the beating, the face-down dragging, and the officer's apparent desire to confirm that he was successful in inflicting pain are all essential. Do you not feel that "poor courtesy" is a fair representation of the source's "violated rules on courtesy"? I mean, I don't think it's unwarranted to assume that the courtesy rules call for officers to exercise courtesy. EEng 23:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
ALT 1 still includes the beating, the face dragging, and even the pepper spray. So that leaves us with the quote. According to the source cited, The records noted that around this time Trooper York asked Greene if he has his attention now and a local deputy assisting in the arrest added, “Yeah, that sh– hurts, doesn’t it?” It was DeMoss who got the courtesy-related letters. It's probably DeMoss who was that "local deputy", but it still requires WP:OR to conclude that it was definitely him, and the way that ALT0 is worded, it clearly implies that he said it. I don't think I can approve the hook with that quote, per WP:BLP. And it's definitely not "essential" to include it in the hook.
As for "poor courtesy", I can certainly agree that it's more than likely that the courtesy rules call for exercising courtesy. But the wording used in the cited source is DeMoss got a “letter of counseling” and a “letter of reprimand,” according to the state police. He was found to have violated rules on “courtesy” and body-worn or car cameras, officials said. ALT 1 uses language that adheres to that description. ALT 0 says: "one officer was reprimanded for poor courtesy." Do we know whether the courtesy issue was in the "letter of counseling", in the "letter of reprimand", or in both? Did both letters also address the camera-use issues? I could actually make a case that we need to include the camera-use in the hook, as long as we refer to courtesy, but I think it's reasonable to be flexible about that, because the reference to courtesy is what makes the hook catchy.
I'm very disinclined to approve ALT 0. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: Thanks, yes, that's absolutely a helpful source. I would strongly urge updating the page to include it, particularly because it updates the disciplinary decisions about the police officers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added the most essential part of the new material to the page, but please feel free to expand on what I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
it clearly implies that he said it – Oh, I completely disagree. I worded it carefully: After police (overall) did X, one of them (in particular) received Y".
OK, how about: ALT2 ... that after policemen beat and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, and said "That shit hurts, doesn't it?" while pepper-spraying his face, one was found to have violated rules on courtesy?
We might be able to tighten ALT 2 up a bit, so that's a possibility, but after having just read the new source provided by Levivich, I'm having some doubts about the overall approach to the hook. It turns out now that DeMoss is going to be fired. Given that, it may be misleading to base the hook on being counseled or reprimanded over courtesy. (Did you know ... that he got in trouble for a lack of courtesy? Yes, and they fired him.) I appreciate that it was amusing to make a humorous hook over the courtesy thing, but since the page subject is such a serious one (and there are BLP issues about whatever we say here about the police), it may be wrong to put all the emphasis on just one of the rules that he violated and make it sound like he got off with a slap on the wrist.
I know this changes the hook from a witty one to a deeply sad one, but I'm thinking that it would be more appropriate to do something like:
Again, I recognize that this would be an abrupt change to a deeply tragic hook, but after all, the subject of the page is a tragedy and travesty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
It may be that DeMoss is going to be fired now -- two years and a firestorm of national outrage later -- but for the preceding two years the totality of consequences was the two letters, which was indeed a slap on the wrist; there's nothing misleading about how A2 reflects that. The appeal (if the term may be pardoned) of A2 is the contrast between what was done to Greene and the consequences (for one of the officers, anyway), and that contrast (or anything like it) is entirely absent in A3 and A4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you be open to something along the lines of ALT 2, but with "for two years after, one of them was reprimanded only for violating courtesy and camera-use rules?" (This would also require updating the page to reflect the new source before this DYK could be passed.)done --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
ALT 5 ... that in the two years after police beat, choked, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, and asked "That shit hurts, doesn't it?" while pepper-spraying his face, one of them was reprimanded only for violating courtesy and camera-use rules?
If hooks could be 252 characters that would really hit the nail on the head. Your concern is BLP but if anyone's actions are being (ever so slightly) misrepresented (and I don't think they are), it's not DeMoss's actions but those of the nameless, faceless police disciplinary apparatus, and a nameless, faceless apparatus isn't an LP. EEng 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Great minds think alike (and so do ours): I was just checking the character count, too. (said before you added the sentences after the first one) Could you accept losing the quote ("and asked... his face"), and just having "beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged" (194 characters) ? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not giving up yet on A2 (I really want the "shit hurts" quote in there, and truth be told, I want it all). Re your latest suggestion, I'm not sure the source supports the "only" bit -- all the source says is that he did get these letters, not that there was nothing else. So I'd argue there's way more of an accuracy problem there than with A2 (and I really don't think A2 is inaccurate). EEng 00:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand how (1) it's possible that he was reprimanded for courtesy, camera use, and even more, (2) it's not misleading to describe it as only courtesy, in order to make it sound outrageous that he wasn't sanctioned further. It's fine with me, however, to delete the word "only". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you're still on A5, but I'm back on A2. I'm not sure what you mean by your (1). As for (2), A5 doesn't say only, nor does it imply that. The point of A2 isn't that he was only reprimanded re courtesy (and, again, it doesn't say that), but rather the bizarreness of someone bringing that up (whether or not more serious issues were raised). It's like if someone's found guilty of murder and also littering. But I'm beginning to lose track of where we differ. Tell me again, in light of all this discussion... what issue)(s) do you still see with A2? EEng 18:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, first, I find it helpful that you explained your thinking re: the bizarreness. I can understand that you intend it that way, but I need to ask you please to understand that people reading the hook will not necessarily take it the way that you intended. Until just now, it did not strike me that way, even though I suspected that was the intention.
By (1), I was referring to what you said in the comment just before. You objected to ALT 5 on the grounds that it should not say only, because we don't know if there were sanctions for courtesy, camera use, and something else. In (2), I was not talking about ALT 5. I was talking about ALT 2. You are arguing that ALT 2 is OK when it only tells readers about courtesy, but you object to ALT 5 because it tells readers about both courtesy and camera use but not anything else. That doesn't, on its face, make sense. It can make sense (sort of) if one clarifies that ALT 2 is only about bizarreness whereas ALT 5 is not. But I'm telling you that that isn't as clear as you think.
My ongoing objections to ALT 2: (aside from some minor and easy wordsmithing), "one was found to have violated rules on courtesy". That's true, insofar as it goes. But it omits too much. There was no one who was found to have violated rules on courtesy, full stop. And it sounds like we are saying that there was. Yes, the attorney for the defense of the DYK nominator can say, "But your honor, the exact words don't say explicitly that there was not anything else." But the DYK reviewer has denied the motion (and is getting close to losing patience). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
ALT 6
... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", courtesy rules were listed as something that was violated?
197 characters. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Another option would be to omit the quote and end with "something one of them had violated". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd be OK with A6. Or, rearranging a bit, how about
ALT6a ... that when police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", rules on courtesy were said to have been violated?
ALT6b ... that rules on courtesy were said to have been violated when police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?"?
Note the delicious punctuation at the end of 6b. We might need someone from the WP:LQ Police to take a look. EEng 20:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Looking again, I worry you might dislike that 6a and 6b omit the "something" aspect, that is, that courtesy rules were only a subset of what was said to have been violated, but I'm hoping you can get past that. EEng 20:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The good news: I'm a member of the LQ Police, and I have plenty of pepper spray for you, and 6b is correct per LQ. On the other hand, "were said to have been" is passive voice times two. Also, if you look back at the page and the sources, the actual quote was "Yeah, that shit hurts, doesn't it?" So "that" should be lower case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
So are we ok with 6b (he said tentatively)? EEng 20:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No (to both a and b). Awkward wording, too much passive voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd really like to wrap this up. Or have someone else review it. You said that you would be OK with ALT 6. Can we just go with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. Um, well, your A6 says "rules were listed as something that was violated", so I don't see how that's any better. But I'll make that my last point, and having made it I'll let you take your pick of 6, 6a, and 6b. EEng 20:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
As I said, we can modify A6 to say "something one of them had violated", which really is better wording, but we have to prune out something else to make the word count. I'd be happy to delete the quote, but if you are willing to delete anything else, that's an option. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll point out: talking about "that shit hurts" actually is a courtesy violation, albeit an extreme one, whereas all the other stuff is blatant physical assault. Omitting the quote arguably makes the bizarreness more obvious. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No, talking about "that shit hurts, doesn't it" is what a sadist-torturer does, because he takes pleasure in knowing his victim's in pain. But anyway, I'm fine with A6 as is. EEng 21:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
ALT 6
... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", courtesy rules were listed as something that was violated?
Good to go, with ALT 6. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments and suggestions follow.
Good to go, with ALT 6. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)