Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy

Wouldn't It be Fair to Note?

Wouldn't it be entirely fair to note that Gates has always sort of had a racial chip on his shoulder? For example, the Wikipedia entry for his bio indicates that Gates wrote this on his application to attend Yale as an undergraduate: "As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself." In other words, Gates was, over the course of his entire life, prone to making bold, taunting, race-tinged statements. And he apparently continued to do that with the cop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscategorization

Placing this article in "Category:History of Racism in the United States" is not NPOV because it assumes that this incident was triggered by racism. I am removing the category. Nutmegger (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "your mama" quote

It is racist to omit the "your mama" quote. It is a fact with a reference that provides insight into this "Professor's" character and intelligence. 76.126.239.199 (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Fact is there was no evidence of racial profiling, racisim or any other form of ethnic targeting in this entire case. The only person who was making racist statements was Professor Gates. Maybe the category of "Hatred of Whites and Law Enforcement" should be attached to this entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N7cav (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point . 79.210.56.119 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think you are confusing a "fact" with a statement on a police report. Those are frequently two different things. So long as it is stated that the "your mama" comment is from the police report, that's fine. I don't think we can state it unequivocally that he actually aid such. And let's try to avoid commentas trying to evaluate Gates' character intelligence - the dude is smarter than any three people you know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

a) Where is the "fact" contradicting the official police report ? b) Where is the "fact" to support your opinion that "the dude is smarter than any three people you know" ? Facts, not your personal opinion please. 79.210.56.119 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's begin with your assertion that Wikipedia functions on facts; it does not. As per the very first line of Wikipedia's Verification policy:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Secondly, let's address how that policy affects how we look at contradicting citation. We are not detectives or commentators; therefore, we do not favor one opinion over the other. If we have two contradicting citations, we list both, so long as they are both from neutral, reliable sources - that's Wikipedia policy. To reiterate: we don't chose one or the other - we list both. If you are steadfastly against this idea, Wikipedia might not be the correct place for you, as that policy and stance is rather unlikely to change.

Thirdly, the assessment of Gates' intelligence is a response to the somewhat - well, I am going to be polite by not terming it racist, so I'll just call it 'icky' - assumption that someone saying 'your mama' is somehow a denigration of someone's intelligence and character. It is like suggesting that uttering the word "fuck' makes you a stupid, low-class person. It does not, and I'd suggest you bring a lot more citations to the effect that it does before even thinking of arguing the contrary. The fellow has authored or edited over a dozen books, created a number of documentaries and been awarded fifty honorary degrees. Name three people that you personally know that have done the same, and I'll happily retract the comment. Until then, the comment - supported by examples - stands.

If you are sensing a little bit less good faith on my part than normal, I kind of find racist talk unpleasant and ugly, and the comment at the beginning of this section was pretty damn ugly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that one side reports that the professor referred to the officers "mama". The other does not. But the statements of neither side are facts. If only proven facts were recorded here, the article would be much shorter.JohnC (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but neither report addresses Gates' "character and intelligence". You did that. I found it pretty ugly. You can go away now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

HarvardGate

I redirected that article here, but it may have some info we want to merge into this one. Here's what it looked like. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed references to the terms "gatesgate" and "stupidgate". one is from a nonnotable blog, the other is from a fox news interviewer, who is using the term as shorthand, but is not reporting accurately that that is what its being called. if either term gets picked up widely, its worth noting, but its not notable that a controversial news story would get various nicknames. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

View Points

The Office Received A Break-in Call and then saw an open door. He would have been in trouble of he had not gone into the house to check. Why is no one mentioning that Crowley received a 911 call and was required to respond? Gates was not automatically a suspect from the police point of view due to his race, it was because someone else had called 911. And Crowley is not automatically a racist just because he is White. 75.252.134.230 (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, are you a lawyer? No editor here is claiming he is a racist. Please try to find a neutral place to position your edits; you are useless to the article otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, Arcayne, are YOU a lawyer? The poster made some astute observations that are what the discussion portion of Wikipedia is suppose to be about. All the accusations claim that Crowley is the racist, but it turns out that Gates brought it up making him the racist. All Crowley was doing was his job in a professional and respectful manner, which is what the above poster was trying to point out. --72.179.138.200 (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The news media talks about "racial profiling", presumably as a euphemism for "racism". I don't believe that there is any way this could be considered racial profiling. It could be if Cowley had simply stopped Gates in the street. But he was approached and treated as a suspect - rightly or wrongly- because there was a call about a possible break-in, and Gates was in the house concerned. He was an obvious suspect. Race is irrelevant. His belligerent attitude probably created further suspicion. If his subsequent arrest was unjustified, it might have been due to racism. But not racial profiling, that is a quite different thing.JohnC (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Gates made a complaint about racial profiling. But JohnC, our job is to capture what's out there among reliable sources. Since the media is using that term, it's not up to us to dissect it ourselves. If you can find a reliable source that makes the comment you just did, then we can take a look at it. I would expect future reporting to deconstruct the rhetoric surrounding this event.Mattnad (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is severely lacking in details, as is the press coverage. What EXACTLY happened? I cannot even begin to discern whether it was bad judgement or racism until I really know what happened in detail. Just because he was black and a Harvard professor doesn't mean the cops weren't allowed to make a mistake. So, I need details. I came here because I thought this would be a good source for the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.22.232 (talk • contribs)

Well, that was your first mistake. :)

Wikipedia isn't intended to be your source for news. For a wiki-based news, got to Wikinews or one of the many, many outlets available online. Wikipedia is supposed to contain the stuff that you would find in an encyclopedia - which means, that it hapens after all the craziness of the news cycle and spin have been whittled away to the basic, reliably citable facts can be given in a neutral, dispassionate matter. As you can see, that isn't happening currently, as most newer users tend to misconstrue Wikipedia's purpose, and try to use it as a forum or a marketing site or a means to trash/elevate an person, place or thing. Thanskfully, there are lots of editors willing to throw an editorial beat-down into those type of folk. I hope that answers your question. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My turn. It is a fact that it is standard operating procedure during a break-in investigation for the investigating officers to ask for identification, which Professor Gates refused to do. Had the good Professor complied with this initial request, we would have never heard about this at all. Instead, Professor Gates himself played the Race Card as the initial overreaction. The investigating officers tried to defuse the situation by apologizing to him, and informed him there had been an increased number of break-ins in the immediate area. At that point, Gates turned over his Harvard ID card and the investigating officers went outside to confirm that the ID was legitimate. Professor Gates, having ignored the officers instruction to wait inside, came out after them in a threatening manner in body and verbal language. He was placed under arrest for his safety and the safety of the officers involved for disorderly conduct, which is something that police officers do when things escalate out of control. It had nothing to do with race, but with failure to comply with lawful orders from police officers. Was this situation unfortunate? Yes, of course it was. It is also an example to all of us to do as we are told by police officers, regardless of who and what we are in our community. No one is above the law, and had Professor Gates been cooperative from the very beginning nothing would have happened. One does not have to be a lawyer to know right from wrong, and that was a cheap shot and had no place here. Thank you to the good folks at FOX News and CNN for releasing the police report. User:Stryteler —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

I am a lawyer with two cents. I question the bias observations of the poster. There are many lines supported by statements from Professor Gates but nothing from the police report about the attitude of, and performance given by, Professor Gates. Officer Crowley's duty was to protect the Professor by having him step outside and away from a possible intruder who may have entered his residence by force and be influencing his behavior. When Gates responded with, "Why, because I am a Black man in America?", and "… your Mama...", and so forth, it puzzled and further concerned Officer Crowley who was led to believe this man was a sophisticated Harvard professor. There are also many lines given to statements by the Mayor, Governor and the President of the United Sates, who all happen to be African Americans, who did not have all the facts yet took a position publically. Then there are many lines referring to "Racial Profiling" by police (Person of color + being in public = suspect). By omitting the performance by Professor Gates as reported by police, which may soon also be supported by a recording made by police during the investigation, the post leaves out a major part of the evidence which would allow the reader to reasonably conclude that Professor Gates may be a racist based on his statements which may amount to “Racist Profiling” by a minority person (White person + Police uniform = racist motive). Finally, the sentence, “Gates was arrested as he followed the arresting officer as he left his home to continue the discussion,” is totally misleading without the evidence from the police report. He was not arrested for wantng to continue a “discussion.” Thus the post is bias. ARK,Esq.

The only thing that matters here are what reliable sources say. So, find a good newspaper article that says what you're saying, and we can probably include it. That said, if another newspaper article says something else, then we have to include both viewpoints. It's how we resolve conflicts, because every user thinks their ideas are the best (not saying anyone's aren't), so we need a neutral way to judge things. Formatting the references can be difficult, so if you want, you can put what you want the aritcle to say on this talk page, with a link to the article, and someone else will put it in for you (hopefully). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source = newspaper article? That would not be admissable in a court of law but a police report sure would be and since that evidence is missing in the Wikipedia page on this topic the page is bias. The report can be found in the list of "References. The post is bias because it fails to include information from the reports. ARK, Esq.

I feel like printing out the police report, and rewriting this article. ARK, you are right. The arrest resulted from disorderly conduct resulting from disturbing the peace, the use of body and offensive language, and interference with a police investigation. There would have been no arrest had he just allowed the investigating officers to have five or ten minutes to confirm the information from the ID and drivers license, and if a neighbor would have pulled him aside and told him to knock it off. His behavior, choice of words, and body language got him in trouble that day. What happened to him that day happens to a lot of human beings who can't or won't follow lawful orders from police officers, and race is not a factor. What people say or do may test constitutional waters or one's personal agenda, but the law is still the law and we all have to follow that law. - User:Stryteler

The police report would indeed be admissible in a court of law, and if any of it is false, that would be a violation of law. Let's suppose nevertheless that there is some slant or exaggeration. What is clear is that Mr. Gates completely misread the situation. Suppose I had copied his Harvard ID and, with an accomplice, broken into his home before he got back from his trip, and had been observed breaking in. The police officer appears at the door and asks me to step outside. I tell him I'm a Harvard professor and he'll never hear the end of this. Would Mr. Gates have been happy for the officers to be frightened off by my little scene with the false ID, as I plunder his home for all it's worth and then cart it off in a truck? In my judgement, Mr. Gates showed neither fairness nor decency, nor passable sanity; instead he went into a hysterical fit, following the officer into the front yard with insults and threats. I wonder how much of this was the exaggerated pride of someone (anyone) who made it to a chair at Hahvud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.121.131 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I know the name of the section si called viewpoints, but that didn't refer to your viewpoints. Your opinions are immaterial. Allow me to restate that: if you cannot be neutral, you need to leave. This is an encyclopedia, and one of the basic rules here is being neutral. Non-neutral chit-chat is useless here, as it doesn't contribute to a neutral environment. I will remind some of the folk here that Wikipedia is not a forum, and roughly half of the talk here, offering their personal views, doesn't belong here.

So please knock it off. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My two viewpoints as submitted here were an attempt to improve the article, and were never intended to start a forum, debate, or much of anything else. At the time they were submitted, the article was horribly written and somewhat bias. Since I am new to editing, I did not feel at all ready to take the bull by the horns and do a neutral unbiased piece based on the facts as we know them to be. Arcayne, I am the cause of this but I wanted you to know what was my intent really was. I will do better. Stryteler (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll take your word for it, but please review WP:NPOV and WP:V, two of the core policies of Wikipedia. Also, WP:CIVIL is always worth a read. Thanks for your input.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot

i would argue that the mug shot should be removed. the charges were dropped, and i believe we could find sourced material which shows that mug shots are often used to portray people as "guilty". the photos are unflattering, and will give the immediate impression that someone has "done" something to deserve the arrest. i would suggest that if this mug shot is used here, that mug shots be used for all major public figures that have ever been arrested, and absolutely include them if the charges were not dropped. that would be fair. in 10 years time, this mug shot will be of extremely questionable encyclopedic value. ALL arrested people are photographed, so its not notable that he was photographed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably have a better argument against it based on WP:NFCC and one of its rules. Not sure which rule, I don't follow it that closely anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How about if the mug shot is replaced with an acceptable image of Professor Gates that falls within our guidelines?Stryteler (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an article about his arrest, then it's not out of line; it's directly connected to the topic. If someone were to include this mugshot on Gates main BLP, that would be a different story. No doubt an arrest, justified or not, does not look good for anyone but removing the photograph doesn't change history or mute the controversy.Mattnad (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was just looking for clarification. Still learning the ropes as far as editing goes. Thanks.Stryteler (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked about it, here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stryteler, your point of view has some logic. I just came at it from a different perspective. Since you're new to wikipedia, let me be tell you that your opinion is as good as anyone else's. What I did was provide another opinion in the the pursuit of consensus. There are no concrete rules here, but we try to work within guidelines and our experience.Mattnad (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's up for deletion now at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 26. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. i hadnt thought about fair use for this. is the mugshot irreplaceable? i think the other photo taken by a neighbor shows it may not be. if we just want to document that he was arrested, the neighbors photo may do this. I would nominate it for deletion IF i felt informed about fair use/copyrights for such photos, which i dont yet. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

They're both irreplaceable, since the moment has passed, and we can't expect that neighbor to release their image under a free license (although I'd love to email them and ask them if I had their address). If we want to keep either one, we'll probably need a source or two which actually discusses the image itself. The neighbor's photo has actually received a bit of coverage, so we might want to try and keep that one.Boston.comMay or may not be reliablethis one makes me want to keep it. The mugshot probably has sources too, but I don't really care about that one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. To my knowledge, the neighbor's photo isn't free either, and could only only qualify for inclusion under fair use. Wikipedia has many articles that have fair use, but not free content. The difference is that these article cannot be readily republished outside the US without modification which is one reason we try to have copyright free content. However, articles like this one are unlikely to be sought after for inclusion in other media outside the US.Mattnad (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WOuld the arrest photo be better to use as the main photo than the mugshot? The arrest photo shows the actual event and mugshots are a bit provocative. I think both are worth including, along with perhaps a more neutral photo?, but I definitely think the prof with cops is the fairer and superior (nmore encyclopedic photo). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not for non-US users, it's for free reuse users. In any case, we need a good reason to keep it (aka refs discussing it), if we decide we do want to keep it. Yeah, I like the arrest photo. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Now, given that neither photo is free, do we need to pick only one of them for this article?Mattnad (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, fellow Editors. The neighbor's arrest photo was made of his or her own free will, and he or she has not laid claim to it as far as ownership. Arguably, this could mean that this photo can be used without a violation of our policies. The mug shot image has gone back and forth with interesting points of view, but I agree it should be deleted for cause of at least one category. While the criminal charge itself was dropped by the local jurisdiction, this is still a notable event that has many people learning a lot from in more ways than one. Keep the arrest photo by the neighbor, and dump the mug shot. It seems fair to me. Stryteler (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• The file for the mugshot is now licensed as free (per research done by User:Mattnad). ↜Just M E here , now 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it turns out, in Massachusetts all public records are free of copyright by law:

• The guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law states "The Massachusetts Public Records Law applies to records created by or in the custody of a state or local agency, board or other government entity" (P. 1) and "These records include minutes of local board meetings, town meeting documents, warrants, street lists, municipal financial documents, etc." (p.3) See: [1], and;
• Here's a quote from the Massachusetts secretary of state website which states, "Records created by Massachusetts government are not copyrighted and are available for public use." Mattnad (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.Stryteler (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

minor point: unless the neighbor has specifically released the photo to the public domain, it remains inherently copyrighted, and they can claim copyright at any time, in which case we must only use it under fair use, which is always debatable here. just because someone doesnt exercise their copyright, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. and again, this is a minor point, which may not effect the outcome of this discussion. a fair use argument would cover most of the rationale for ANY use of a photo, as i see it. information in an article must be useful, and fair use establishes the usefulness of an image to the article. even a free use image can be removed if its really not needed (think of fluffy kitties everywhere if we didnt do that, and i have a VERY CUTE KITTEN that would accent EVERY article on WP)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I heard that their was another 911 call that evening claiming the house was full of cute kittens. There's your fair use rationale for this article. But in all seriousness, the photograph of Gates in front of his home is very topical. While any photograph could be partly replaced with text, there is some truth to the saying "A picture's worth a thousand words."Mattnad (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloated title

Does anyone else think this title could use a revamp? I don't think too many people would type in 2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge police as its just too long and too technical. The title contains grammatical errors. Either it should be ...Gates, Jr. arrest by the Cambridge police or ...Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge Police. Finally, putting 2009 in the title makes it seem like Gates has a prior history of arrests, which isn't the case.

I propose that this article be changed to the simple, yet effective Gatesgate. The -gate suffix denotes that a wider controversy has arose. This article is about more than about just an arrest, it's about the controversy surrounding it too. A quick look through the 155,000 results that Google gives you reveals that the majority of the links are dealing with this episode. [2] The BBC has used Gatesgate [3], so has NPR [4], the Wall Street Journal [5], TIME Magazine [6], The Cleveland Plain Dealer [7], and so on.

--Tocino 02:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved to a better title. It's going to take some research to figure out which is best, and is also WP:NPOV. I redirected HarvardGate here, for instance. Maybe we could start by removing "2009" from the title, and then compare various google news hits numbers for whatever we think is the best name. I'll remove 2009 for now. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert, although it may require admin assistance, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The title contains grammatical errors.

Such as? — goethean ॐ 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge police needs an article before it (the Cambridge police) since police is not capitalized. If police were capitalized then it's OK not to have the infront of Cambridge Police. --Tocino 03:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it, as you can see. One thing I'd like to add is that although people won't be typing in that exact phrase, it will still be the first hit for stuff like "Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest" and whatnot. We should probably just redirect Gatesgate and GateGate here. I won't do that yet, in case we decide that is the real name, and we want to move it without admin help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The new title is definitely an improvement --Tocino 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank God it wasn't renamed Gatesgate,or some such thing. I would have had to revert on principle. I mean, seriously - how short of an education must one require to actually name any prolonged controversial issue |insert name here|-gate? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for insults. There are many controversies/scandals that are widely known with the -gate suffix. Take a look: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix --Tocino 16:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne; "Gategate" is completely inapt. — goethean ॐ 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What about "Arrest of Henry Gates"? And if there is a problem with the move, I'm an admin. Yes, it is a pity about the Gatesgate, but give the media time, give them time.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we use the Louis and the Jr. The media seems to mix it up a bit, as well.[8][9] I like the idea of getting rid of the "by Cambridge police" part, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). There's only one Henry Gates of prominence that I'm aware of; there's only one arrest at issue. Suggest we make the move.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Concise page names are great, and the current name is better then the one prior, but this name should match the name of the parent article, which is currently named Henry Louis Gates, Jr.. The main article should probably be Henry Louis Gates. Per WP:NC, Jr.'s and Sr.'s should not be part of the article name and "Henry Louis Gates" gets the most ghits. Ideally, the names of the two articles should be Henry Louis Gates and Arrest of Henry Louis Gates.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brewcrewer - the names need to match. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. I boldly moved both pages to Henry Louis Gates and Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Move back if anyone strongly disagrees. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This is appropriate, as we don't want to confuse with William Henry Gates. GoldDragon (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the arrest photo really in the public domain?

I know it was in the news media. I wonder if all rights to it were really relinquished?Geo8rge (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, no. Remove it or add a fair use rational. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you're talking about File:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates.jpg, it isn't in the public domain, and it does have a fair use rational. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath doesn't sound right

We should find some better section titles for the ones that start with "Aftermath". Maybe "Reaction" and "Obama comments" or something. Not really sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "Response" and "President Obama" for the headers? -Classicfilms (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a lot better than what we've got. Go for it, or I'll do it in a bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done-Classicfilms (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This incident would not have been news without President Obama's intervention. He admitted knowing little of the facts, but despite that presumed that the police were not only unjustified, but racist. Surely to assume racism played a part then there was no evidence that race was relevant is itself racist. Do we need an article on Obama's (possible) racism?JohnC (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This incident certainly was news well before Obama commented on it. If you want to make a political point about Obama -- fine, start a blog of your own. Pechmerle (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I will re-phrase my comment- there would have been far less coverage if Obama had not become involved. And his comments are a legitimate part of this discussion: it's the primary reason why there still is debate on the subject. If Cowley is called a racist for having arrested a disorderly man who just happened to be black, isn't it possible that those who have assumed that Cowley is a racist are themselves racist for having made that assumption, without any evidence? Or is it OK (and not racist) to assume that whites are always racists?JohnC (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCain

Seems unusual to have police fraternities around the nation jumping on Obama's statement. Much of the criticism, I suspect, is political in nature. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25381.html Scribner (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it is, but we'll need a reliable source to say so, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I utterly agree. Far too much speculative work going on by all our little junior detectives here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

TMI

We aren't supposed to reiterate entire police reports or responses to them. We are supposed to briefly summarize the points - that's our position as an encyclopedia, and our jobs as editors. I am starting to see far too much all-or-nothing style edits, and I'm going to offer the good faith to assume that its about politics, and not as something ugly and racial in nature.

The article needs some serious trimming. Its far too long, what with everyone tossin g in their version of the kitchen sink. I'll wait the weekend, and then I'll do it if no one else does. I hope I don't have to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Copyrights we cannot reproduce works word for word here. At the same time, I agree that it is better for the article if we give full and equal weight to both versions. For now I am going to remove both, and set up the section so that it refers to the original source for each. Over time, we should figure out a way to summarize both accounts. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to create two subarticles, one on each version and link both to this page. It would mean using more than one source to create each article but I think it would be the best way to maintain WP:NPOV and avoid WP:UNDUE. In this case, it might be worth it to wait awhile for more articles and essays on the subject to appear. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't create articles for both sides, I don't think, per Wikipedia:Content forking. WP:NPOV says we should just represent both sides here, giving them the correct amount of weight, which I think is roughly half and half. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what was removed, that was a good call, but we should have a larger summary of what the two sides said. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the question is form. I hadn't thought of Wikipedia:Content forking, but ok that is a fair point to make. How about just one article devoted just to the two versions, rather than two? I ask because I think that in order to present both versions according to WP:NPOV, we may end up with WP:UNDUE. I'm trying to think of the best possible way to present both sides of the story . -Classicfilms (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The two sides stuff should go in this article. It's actually the only thing this article doesn't go into right now, so WP:UNDUE tells us to add it to balance things out. It wouldn't be those two giant quotes that were taken out, though. It should be a summary of a news sources summary. We should let them filter it, instead of summarizing the primary sources ourselves. The one thing we have to much of right now is Obama quotes. Those should be reduced to short summaries or removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to news sources here if they gave a balanced view of all sides, though I think it useful to refer to the original sources here. Perhaps you can put together a draft and post it here for review? And certainly, trim and edit the Obama section as needed. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree if the aforementioned news sources were summarized, and not repeated verbatim. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: Is there any source giving analysis of the known facts within some interpretation where both sides' versions could be reconciled without either party's having lied?

Crowley asserted that Gates, after he had been asked to step outside in order to receive the officer's badge number, had said something along the line of "I'll talk to your momma"; whereas Gates asserted that Gates never even uttered the expression "your mamma." The sources establish that Gates was trying to get Crowley's name and badge number to file a complaint with Gates's contacts in local government and beyond; yet, as a counter to Gates's accusations, Crowley was attempting to document Gate's allegedly illegal uncooperation and/or public boisterousness via a criminal complaint. After Gates starts asking for Crowley's info in order to fill a complaint about Crowley over telephone, Crowley informs Gates that Crowley will provide Gates Crowley's identifying information outside. Then, outside, Crowley arrests Gates.

In my opinion, if this Harvard professor's motivation was to move the discussion along to the point where this Cambridge officer relinquishes authority and if this officer's motivation was to insist that the professor not cross the line into disrespecting this officer's necessary authority nor cross the line into public disruption, then their motivations would seem to have been at cross purposes. The officer by necessity would have adopted the stance that the circumstances had provided the officer authority in the resident's home; whereas the resident would be hoping to trump this stance so that at the moment that the resident's true status would be revealed that the officer would quickly reliquish the officer's stance of authority. However, this simply isn't gonna happen due to the fact that the officer's reactions to the resident's strenuous advocacy is to deem it itself as interfering with the officer's being able to conduct his business on behalf of the people and also as disturbing the public's peace.

Has any source suggested some reasonable explanation for how both parties' assertions with regard to the "your mamma" being/not being said could be true? (For example, through a mishearing of Gates by Crowley?)

Original research: "Your mamma" and "Obama" sound similar. Eg in a scenario with Gates' saying, "Give me your badge number. I'll call the police headquarters and file a complaint against you; you don't know who you're dealing with here..." -- and Crowley's interrupting, "Step on the porch, sir; we can talk there" -- but with Gates' continuing, "...I'll talk to Obama, that's what I'll do." -- could have led to a misinterpretation of Gates's statement by Crowley as having been "I talk to yo mamma, that what I do."   ^{:^)}

↜Just M E here , now 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"A police officer who’s proud of his reputation for getting along with black officers, and for teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling, feels maligned to be cast as a racist white Boston cop. A famous professor who studies identity and summers in Martha’s Vineyard feels maligned to be cast as a black burglar with backpack and crowbar. Race, class and testosterone will always be a combustible brew."---MAUREEN DOWD ↜Just M E here , now 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy of Cambridge Police Department arrest report

The Boston Globe put this up on its web site and then quickly took it down. Three page PDF,
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF
--CliffC (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, its a right wing extreme website. Viriditas called referred to it as unreliable. Since there is an external link to the arrest report in the article (or was when I put it there a few days ago), I am inclined to agree with him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I thought this was fresh news and the only available source when I posted it, sorry. Although both copies of the report appear to be identical, I agree it's better to send folks to the link the article uses,

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF . --CliffC (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The issue is that President Obama, despite the lack of facts, made a statement calling the police actions stupid, so several figures from law enforcement criticized him for taking sides. It didn't diffuse the controversy that Obama also admitted that he didn't have all the facts, it is because he went ahead anyway to make an initial judgment. GoldDragon (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC) GoldDragon

OK, but is it worth four reverts and counting on your part doing so? You need to take a break.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

At least one of these reverts were for an anon user and not for Viriditas. GoldDragon (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I wasn't counting that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The person who called the police was not a "passer-by."

Instead, the caller was a Harvard employee, whose office is near Gates' house, and who saw Gates on a regular basis. The article should be changed to fix this error. SourceGrundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The caller knows Gates so well that the magazine she works for did many articles on him. Source Grundle2600 (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to edit a magazine. We often published articles, some of which I wrote, about people I had never met. Just because her magazibe wrote about him doesn't mean that she had even heard of him, much less knew him by sight.JohnC (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

More proof that she was not a "passer-by." She was inside, not outside, when she saw Gates and called the police. Source Grundle2600 (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Now, if only that source could have been a reliable one, insteadof a blog. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To look for a reliable source, use google news. Not everything they have is reliable, so try and find a site for a newspaper or a magazine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the police report. It does not characterize the witness as a "passer-by". A more accurate term, for the purposes of the article, is "neighbor". The possibility that she may have, or should have known gates by sight is speculation.Mattnad (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone's worded it as "nearby resident". That's even worse. The witness did not live in Cambridge, she was working in an office down the street. About 100 yards away. How good are you all about recognizing people the length of a football field away? Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Grundle's Daily News link backs up all this if we need a cite to fix that wording. One issue though is it uses the witness's name in the title, something we've kept out of this article so far. How should we handle citing this? Is the name now famous enough that it's not a problem if it appears in a footnote, or should we redact it to initials, or wait for other sources to come out? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to back the hell off of this, as the situation is still volatile and unstable. Recentism applies. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We could also just say "a witness" without getting too detailed. Mattnad (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

EL's and See Also

The See Also link was to a completely unrelated case. Inclusion is a NPOV to try and frame what the police did as a similar action. Additionally, the Huffpo EL is undue weight. If there is information within that article it should be incorporated into the body of the article. Jon Shane is an unknown. His personal point of view borders on Undue Weight, and a EL to him reeks of advertisement. Arzel (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, but just to be n the safe side, you might want to offer folk the opportunity to post it on the RS noticeboard, so they can be told the same thing by a larger group of folk. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Written in the 1800s" -- weasel words?

I don't doubt that this statement is factual, but including the date that the law was enacted in THIS article seems like it's solely intended to make the reader say "gosh, arrested for a law written in the 1800s? How silly." It seems to me that this kind of wording would not appear in an article describing, say, murder charges, for example. I would guess that murder has been illegal since further back than 1800. Just saying. No doubt this is a sensitive article as is easily seen from the debate on the talk page. We need to make sure we fight off "sly" edits from both sides. 70.95.252.87 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That's POV. I'll check the article and if it is not already gone, I'll take it out. Anyone who makes such good points as you should register an account by the way!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would register, but I find that the problem with trying to contribute to Wikipedia, generally speaking, is Wikipedians. 70.95.252.87 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, some people would rather complain about the piles of crap than pick up a shovel. To each their own. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

911 Call

The 911 Caller did not state race in her call.[10] This is an interesting situation because thousands of RS's are reporting it differently, but even the Cambridge Police Commissioner is backing up her claim. Not sure about the best way to go about fixing this. Arzel (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed it after reading the exact same story. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The police report cited the race. The fact is, race was discussed in the call, and to the best of my knowledge is one of the things the dispatchers always ask. Now, when the transcripts are released in the next day or so, we may see that the caller's description and the actual police report are completely different, since the police report said that the witness saw "what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the front porch". Now, why would the report say that? Did someone make a simple mistake? In any case, since you folks are so fond of citing the police report, you don't have to because the secondary sources have already done it for you.[11] Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, this is precisely why we do not rely on primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The secondary sources were -very- objective throughout this whole matter (not). Actually the police report did not say whether race was mentioned during the 911 call, if you read closely. It did contain some quotations that may or may not have been said at the scene, which many secondary sources reported as coming from the 911 call.

Now, I did read the entire article, including the statement by the police commissioner confirming what she said, and how the police report was meant as a summary and the information on race was not collected during the initial 911 call. That's why I deemphasized the mention of race when we quoted the report.

Anyway you seem to be splitting hairs in a fit of pique. Perhaps "could not give" a race is a more accurate wording than "never mentioned race" but that's not something to get hot under the collar about. Or are you so keen on bringing race into the issue that you think the "one might be Hispanic" description ( after repeated questioning ) is important? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Race is almost always mentioned in a 911 call when a witness is reporting a crime, and the news story says that race was mentioned. Are you referring to a source that isn't being used? Haas said “it was very clear that she wasn’t sure’’ what the men’s race was. He also said that when the dispatcher questioned Whalen for more details, she told police she could only guess about the race of the two men. “She speculated . . . that one might be Hispanic.’’. What do you think "the dispatcher questioned Whalen" about? Viriditas (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course race is mentioned in a 911 call, I just don't think a conversation on the order of "Can you give a race?/I don't know/You have to pick one/Umm, one might be Hispanic" is really a material mention of race. I'm fine with having the more accurate wording in the article, it just seems like a dotting the i's and crossing the t's kind of proofreading, and not something to start accusing other editors about. The contrast between "never mentioned race" and the other is miniscule compared with the contrast between those and what was initally reported. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You originally wrote, "the initial caller never mentioned race during her 911 call", which ignored the fact that 1) she was unsure about their race (since she only saw their backs) and 2) when prompted for a description, she thought one of them might be Hispanic. So saying that she "never mentioned race" wasn't accurate. When you call 911, you respond to questions from the dispatcher. And questions were asked about race, were they not? I guess we will know more when they release the full transcript. Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Overkill

I am in no way racist, but it seems like this story really being over reported by local news media. I don't know how much it is being covered in other parts of the country, but in the Boston area, it is being mentioned every day. My dad once had a situation like this in the town where he worked, and he said it was very similar to this. Does anyone think a section on this over reporting would be necessary in an article like this? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the mention from the FOP from Florida is political, along with much of the Cambridge indignation about Obama's remark. The arresting cop said he didn't vote for Obama in an interview. Why'd he feel the need to state that fact? I've been waiting for the other shoe to fall, looks like it started today with the officer lying on the arrest report. Busted. Scribner (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

if there is a major news or opinion outlet, or major public figure, that does an editorial, or even reportage, on whether there is undue weight being given here, or why its being talked about so much, then we can surely report on that report. and of course, rebuttals that say its appropriate to be talked about so much, if its from major sources, lets report on that. i know it seems to ME like there is undue media attention, but that only gives an angle to any research I do on any analysis that is being reported, and hopefully i would be NPOV in reporting any such editorials or investigations.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It also doesn't help with not being a minority. I'm sure that any non-caucasian will have a very different view of this. My father told me the other day that there are people out there like Gates who will make a big deal out of a minor thing because of their race. Ultimately, cops are told not to arrest those people if they feel like that will eventually be the case. I don't think that the media wants to touch the overkilling of this subject because someone will surely call them a racist organization. This all makes me wonder what the founders of the civil rights movement would say about all or this today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but can we please avoid the forum-style posts and focus on those parts that are key to improving the article, please? If we do not allow the ass-clown racists to post here, we cannot let white guilt or personal feelings take up space here. Objective neutrality; its a guiding principle. Unless it specifically addresses improving the article, it is not needed here. I am very tempted to simply remove this. Please stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ungrammatical redundancy

If someone can remove the bit added here [12] that would be helpful. This information is already included and as written it doesn't make any sense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It look like it was addressed somewhat here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And I further addressed it by removing the parenthetical comment completely. From and editorial point of view, it's important to first present both accounts of the event (police report and gates) as straight forward as possible. Then we can explore the disputes around the stories, which we do. Mattnad (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the play by play is needed. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. I would just state the notable parts of what happened and then the notable areas of dispute. The two sections seems a bit weird to me, but I guess it will get worked out over time. I find the whole article is quite bloated with things that seem irrelevant, but that one side or another feels are somehow helpful to their case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

911 Caller's name

I think the caller's name should be omitted. I don't see any encyclopedic value and all acounts this is not a public person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, although the news stories have identified her. However, this has become an Obama-related topic, and you should do no more editing on these pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am indifferent about the 911 caller's name and Gates' exact address. Neither really help the article, but both have been reported in all the major national news outlets. I've seen it on the 8:00 news here in Japan, so it's not like we're divulging private information at this point. I don't think they have to be struck from the article, but they don't serve any useful purpose to an encyclopedia, so I don't think they need to be included. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to the reliable sources most likely have that info already, and it's not overly important to the article. Certainly the address doesn't really matter to the story, except maybe if it helps define the type of neighborhood it was, which I gather was a university neighborhood, as opposed to the country club or the trailer parks, for example. If she gets dragged into some sort of court case about it, that might be a different story, but since charges have been dropped, it's unlikely there will be a court case - unless Gates decides to sue for false arrest or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

CNN quote from Colin Powell on Gate's behavior

I think this CNN quote from Colin Powell on Gate's behavior should be in the article. I cannot add it myself as I am topic banned from political articles. However, if someone else thinks that it would make the article better, please add it. Thanks.

"I would say, the first teaching point is when you’re faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something. This is not the time to get in an argument with him. I was taught that as a child. You don’t argue with a police officer. In fact, in our schools today, in order to make sure that we don’t have things escalate out of control and lead to very unfortunate situations, we tell our kids, when you’re being asked something by a police officer, being detained by a police officer, cooperate. If you don’t like what happened, or if you think that you have been exposed to something that’s racist or prejudicial or something that’s wrong, then you make a complaint afterwards and you sue him."

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a random quote, and doesn't belong. I could just as easily bring in a quote from someone else (such as the President and the Governor) who says the cops were out of line. P.S. As a practical matter, I think Powell's right - it's best to kiss up to the cops. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he's right too. I don't think the quote is "random," because Powell is one of the most well respected and well known African Americans. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then it might be fair to include it, if it's juxtaposed with criticism. Like maybe a quote from Al Sharpton. That's in theory. In practice, bringing in quotes from people is not a good practice unless it directly affects them in some way or adds new information. Otherwise it's just subtle POV-pushing or editorializing. Because while I might agree with Powell in a certain way, I'm also fairly outraged that the cops arrested him for being "uppity" in his own house. Maybe Gates could have done a better job of defusing the situation. But the cops didn't do a very good job either, as I see it. Once it was clear he was the resident, they should have simply said, "Sorry to have bothered you, Mr. Gates," and left the scene. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well--"sorry to have bothered you, professor Gates"! 207.157.121.50 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)