This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gates, Harvard, the police, race relations etc. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gates, Harvard, the police, race relations etc at the Reference desk.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights 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.
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.
A fact from Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 August 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Continuation of the "Beer Summit" section title discussion
This is a continuation of a discussion. The start of this discussion has been archived here. At issue is whether the title for the section dealing with the meeting between Obama-Crowley-Gates should be "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting." A poll was conducted in the archived discussion (which favored the former).
It ain't accurate. Polls do not equal consensus on any talk page. Consensus is achieved through discussion. Simply because a journalist decides to use a sensationalistic term doesn't mean we are also required to use it. Our standards are higher than the average media report which often glosses over the issues in favor of catchy, comedic words and phrases that capture the attention of an audience for their advertisers. We don't do that here. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Viriditas, what do you suggest? You've already intimated that won't discuss the matter with at least one other editor. No one is confusing polling for consensus, but it does illuminate the terrain we find ouselvs. Currently, you are the only person opting for a non-use of Beer Summit. Tell us what you would have us do. - Arcayne(cast a spell)04:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, I'm afraid that pretty much everyone disagrees with you. The reasons are listed in the discussion above. Are you saying that you have to agree in order for there to be consensus? 'fraid not. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polls aren't considered "consensus" and I haven't seen a single editor disagree with anything I've said on the subject. Why don't you be the first? And just so you know, consensus doesn't override our core policies. We don't use the term "Beer Summit" in a heading about a White House meeting because 1) There's no such thing as a "Beer Summit" 2) "Beer Summit" refers to an annual beer event in Boston, not an official White House event, and 3) "Beer Summit" is a sensationalistic term created by a journalist to attract attention. Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. 4) Our headings describe the content in an impartial, neutral, accurate, and serious manner. This isn't The Onion, and we don't use humorous terms to describe serious events. The event was not universally referred to as the "Beer Summit" and there are many sources that call it a "meeting", a "gathering", etc. We are writing encyclopedia articles, not news articles, and our headings must accurately describe the content. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offer accepted. Although it's inaccurate to say that not a single editor disagrees with your points.
There's no such thing as a "Beer Summit"
There is now. That's the term for the event that is being used fairly universally now.
"Beer Summit" refers to an annual beer event in Boston, not an official White House event
Apparantly the Boston event isn't very notable - there was no preexisting article or redirect about it. May I suggest a disambiguation page?
"Beer Summit" is a sensationalistic term created by a journalist to attract attention.
So was Watergate, the Checkers speech, and Whitewater controversy. Yet the articles aren't called Nixon burglary controversy, or the Fund speech, or the Clinton real estate controvery - all of which would be more formal.
Wikipedia doesn't operate that way.
You keep saying that. Is that your opinion, or is there a policy to back it up? All of the policies I've found say the contrary. (WP:COMMONNAME seems to be the most applicable)
Our headings describe the content in an impartial, neutral, accurate, and serious manner.
Are you claiming that "Beer Summit" is somehow POV? Please elaborate - seems pretty neutral to me. Is there a policy that says that we need to be "serious" (whatever that means) when we choose article/section names?
This isn't The Onion
If it were just The Onion that had been using the term, I wouldn't disagree with you.
The event was not universally referred to as the "Beer Summit"
As of 11:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) there are approximately 8,589 articles archived by Google News on the topic of the July White House invitation and meeting that do not use the term "Beer Summit". And, I'm only seeing 2,423 that do. Your confirmation bias is showing. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the other items, huh?
As I said, the term doesn't have to be universal, it just has to be common. I only found 2,409 "Beer Summit"s. Just looking at the first 10 pages of hits, there were references made by all of the following news outlets:
Print: Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, San Francisco Examiner, San Jose Mercury News, Kansas City Star, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, U.S. News & World Report, National Post, Newsday, Huffington Post, Boston Herald, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Baltimore Sun, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Women's Wear Daily (!), and dozens of other less-notable publications.
Television: Outlets from CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and ABC... and dozens of other apparantly unaffiliated news outlets.
Just because there are articles out there that don't use the term doesn't mean it isn't common. Although I can't think of a parallel example at the moment, try your experiment with any common event name and see what you come up with (I tried Whitewater - too old).--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't commented on the "other items" because they are simply wrong. The Boston event is notable and has been in existence for more than ten years; "Watergate", the "Checkers speech", and "Whitewater controversy" are serious, accurate names for those respective events; "Beer Summit" is not. It's a humorous, inaccurate term invented by the media to sensationalize a White House meeting. As an encyclopedia, we choose to use the most neutral name for an event, and the vast majority of the sources on the subject do not use the term, "Beer Summit". The guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), does not override exceptions for precision, disambiguation, and the core policy of neutrality. As Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Neutrality makes clear, "Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles -- only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity." "Beer Summit" is the sensationalistc POV of a Boston-area journalist who used the media to promulgate a humorous term. The most neutral term for the invitation is "White House invitation" and the most neutral term for the event is a "White House meeting", and these terms are the most common in news articles about the invitation and the meeting. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a fundamental problem with naming the section header "White House invitation and meeting" and mentioning in the first or second sentence that the press referred to it as the "beer summit"? JN46612:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This particular White House meeting has a commonly-accepted name. Same with the example above... would you call the Watergate scandal the "Nixon hotel burglary controversy"?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly hadn't heard the "beer summit" expression until I looked at this article. Watergate is an iconic term that has stood the test of time. Look at it the other way: no reader is inconvenienced if the headline says "White House invitation and meeting", everyone understands it. --JN46613:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, I wonder of this entire incident is going to stand the test of time. But, that aside, lots of people have been invited to the White House to work things out. This particuar meeting was unique in that it was over beer, hence the coined term. The section title should reflect this uniqueness - and utilizing the commonly accepted name is the most efficient way to do so. Originally Beer Summit was in quotes, but those got removed somewhere along the line.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing unique about it, except for the media attention that it received. Do you think alcohol has never been consumed in the White House? And what about champagne diplomacy? That's a real, notable form of a summit involving alcohol, and yet Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. This wasn't a "Beer Summit", no matter what the sensationalistic media wants to call it. It is perfectly fine to mention that some people in the media chose to give the meeting a humorous name, but our headings must remain neutral and our focus must remain dispassionate from the vicissitudes of the sensationalistic media who do not have our guidelines and policies to guide them. They rely on "if it bleeds, it leads", and we do not. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a much-anticipated "beer summit" on July 30, Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr, Mr. Gates and Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department sat down over beers at a table across from the Oval Office. No apologies were offered but Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley told the president that they had made plans to lunch together soon.---GATES'S NYT SIDEBAR PROFILE'S 3RD ¶↜Just M E here , now 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with the consensus in the room. I have been watching this discussion, and it seems to me that WP:Commonname would be appropriate if only as a point of reference within the section if not the header. As I mentioned, the name exists within the zeitgeist as the "Beer Summit" as do several other events previously mentioned. In addition, given the fact that credible news outlets have given it this title, the source of the original comment is irrelevant. Every term or common name for an event starts somewhere and then gets picked up by others. This is no different. Yes, polling is no substitute for consensus. But for consensus to occur, there usually has to be a discussion. At some points in this section of the talk page, that has no occurred. Sticking by ones guns when a consensus among active editors appears to have been reached several times is counter productive given the rationale presented by other credible editors.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explain again how neutrality comes into the picture. No one is advocating the name for negative of positive reasons. It is simply a name that has been adopted by the media for the event. Given the media's use of this name, regardless of their rationale or reason, it exists and is being used in MSM and in common parlance when discussed. Even on this article talk page most refer to the "Beer Summit" as the common name for the event. I agree that Wiki should be as professional as possible, but the use of the common name does not reduce the validity or value of the facts therein. This is not about playing into the media, but seems rather detailing what is currently being reported. Besides Viriditas, is there anyone else on this talk page of on wiki for that matter that also disagrees with the use of the term "Beer Summit"? (no offense Viriditas, but we all know where you stand and should hear any other opposition to the phrase)IlliniGradResearch (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article on scare quotes to understand why the term is not the most neutral description of the event. The term has not been adopted by the media; It has been used in a small percentage of articles about the topic, mostly in a sensational, humorous manner. Nobody is objecting to the use of the term in the article. Rather, I am reminding editors that the use of the term in our section heading describing a White House invitation and meeting, is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article that focuses on neutrality first and foremost above all else, unlike the media. Neutrality trumps what you describe as a "common name", every time. We do not do "infotainment" here. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "Beer Summit" is consistent with WP usage for other events that came to have colorful titles. See, for example, the entries for Boston Tea Party (which was not a party) and Beer Hall Putsch (not even how this German political event is known in Germany, but most English sources so style it). Also, both of these colorful examples are titled just this way in the current Encyclopedia Britannica. The suggestion that such common but colorful names for events are not used for encyclopedia article titles or headings is simply not correct. Pechmerle (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Beer Summit" has not stood the test of time, and this is yet-another-case of recentism rearing its ugly head again. Please give me an example of a White House meeting that has an established, inaccurate and humorous name. None exists. This isn't The Onion, and we don't play into the sensationalistic media's attempt to turn information into infotainment. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to note here two things. First, I keep my voice strongly behind "Beer Summit". Two, the reason the page is currently blocked is that Veriditas was reported for edit warring White House Meeting back into the section [1] repeatedly despite consensus. To be fair, since the poll one other vote has changed to his side, leaving two opposed - still a consensus to me. What is almost funniest is that when I asked the admins to consider unblocking the page and focusing on the actions of one editor, they told us "next time do a poll so we don't have to wade through all that verbiage". I'm ready to stop talking about this. Anyone else? Manyanswer (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, I just want to correct your errors, Manyanswer. The page was protected due to a request made by an editor at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection on August 5. That initial request did not name anyone other than to report "incessant edit-warring. many editors going back and forth". And, looking at the current edit history, we see there were in fact, multiple editors reverting each other over the inclusion of a mugshot. So, Manyanswer, the page is not currently blocked because of my edits to the White House invitation and meeting section, and I suggest you try to get your facts straight before you comment. If you had bothered to do the slightest bit of research on the subject, you would have noticed that User:SharkxFanSJ falsely reported me for 3RR violations at 04:11, 5 August 2009, but this page was protected at 03:46. I hope you now see the error of your ways. Obviously, the page could not be protected before the 3RR report was made as you claim above, and the initial request for protection described an edit war involving multiple users, primarily referring to an edit war over the mugshot, not the White House meeting. Furthermore, as it has been explained to you already, polls are not consensus and every argument that has been offered in support of using "Beer Summit" has turned out to be invalid. Neutrality trumps any common name claim (even though the term is not common according to the Google news site) and any word used in scare quotes is automatically non-neutral. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow my link [2] it says "Result: Prot" meaning that protection was in order. The fact that protection was issued for another reason 20 minutes before that is probably what saved you from being blocked from edit warring. It makes sense to me now. Manyanswer (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edit warring that resulted in protection had nothing to do with me, and you have already been corrected on this point. The fact that stick to your erroneous views after being shown your mistake is quite telling. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Manyanswer, that that has been little movement. While a poll may not equal consensus, the points of view expressed have not changed either. Consensus does not require unanimity to occur. Edit warring is not conducive to good communal living on the Wiki. While I respect his opinion, he has used "We are Not The Onion" argument four times so far, and his arguments havent changed. I recognize his opinion, but I would ask that given the pro outweighs the con, we utilize the term as it is. Should disagreement continue, we can always ask for peer review or arbcom. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Manyanswer and yourself and I still fail to recognize a single, valid argument in favor of using "Beer Summit" over the neutral term "White House invitation and meeting" or two separate sections describing an invitation and a meeting. We always use the most neutral terms possible, and words in scare quotes are automatically non-neutral by nature. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[ec]Actually, if Viriditas still wants to push the issue, since he has gained little currency with his straw man arguments here, what he *should* be doing-rather than edit warring-is taking the point to WP:NPOVN. I would encourage him to do this. Once he has exhausted that avenue as well, he will simply have to accept that his POV is not nearly as neutral as he assumes it to be. Peer review is more appropriate for a situation where multiple editors are in deadlock. This is simply one editor raging against a solid consensus behind COMMONNAME with a weak NPOV argument. If he truly believes it is so non-neutral, WP:NPOVN is the proper venue to pursue it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you should be doing is presenting a valid argument for using "Beer Summit". You haven't yet been able to present a valid argument, so you are reduced to making false claims of edit warring (who has been repeatedly edit warring the term "Beer Summit" into the article?) and you are forced to make false claims about a common name (the name is not common on Google news) and you also forget that Wikipedia uses the most neutral names over the most common, each and every time, and any term that appears in scare quotes is automatically non-neutral. You have the burden of proof to show that the term is neutral, common, accurate, and encyclopedic, and you have failed in every instance. Please take responsibility for your failure and do not blame me for your mistakes. Polls are not consensus, and no amount of popular opinion can change our neutrality policy. The most neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic terms describing our content are always preferred. No exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The burden of proof is on the editor seeking to make a change to the existing article. The section heading was "Beer Summit" long before you first came to this article. I don't know why you would even bother trying to deny edit warring. We all know it's why this page is now protected. I have already collected the diffs of your six cracks at the section heading, and will gladly share them with you or anyone interested, but I won't crowd this talk page with them here. I would also like to point out to you that not every term that appears in quotes is in "scare quotes". There's an example right there. Without compromising my neutrality, I just indicated that this was your term and not mine. It doesn't mean I'm calling the term sensationalistic, just indicating that it was someone else who introduced the term into the conversation. Please see Quotation mark#Signaling unusual usage - particularly the first bullet point: "People use quotation marks in this way to indicate descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy words or phrases." I rather think of this term as more a colloquialism than a startling or humorous phrase. As startling or humorous phrases go, you must admit it is remarkably tame. As I said, you're not convincing anyone here, so please, by all means, take it to WP:NPOVN if you think it's non-neutral. If you don't think it's non-neutral, then please don't waste our time with it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, again. You erroneously claim the section heading was "Beer Summit" long before you first came to this article and yet my first edit to this article was on 26 July[3] and "Beer Summit" wasn't added until 30 July by User:WilsonjrWikipedia.[4] using a link from CNN[5] in an article about the meeting that does not refer to it as a "Beer Summit" in any way except to quote Obama's comment about the misnomer. The CNN article actually uses the word "meeting" a total of 10 times to refer to the White House meeting over beers, and the term "Beer Summit" is only used once indirectly, in reference to Obama's opinion about it. Those wishing to add "Beer Summit" to a Wikipedia heading have the burden of proof. Simply describing the invitation and meeting as "White House invitation and meeting" is best practice. Using non-neutral, humorous terms is not. And further, your quoting of Quotation mark#Signaling unusual usage is simply off the mark. The term was created by a journalist as a humorous reference to the meeting and is not part of or characteristic of informal speech. In fact, it's a neologism that is used in a humorous fashion, hence the scare quotes. And by making the meeting out to be humorous, the use of the term is non neutral. We prefer neutral terms that accurately describe an event, and since the meeting was neither about beer or a summit, we don't use it. If a certain journalist uses a new, cutesy term in a sensationalistic manner to describe a serious event, we are free to mention that term in the appropriate context, but when it comes to describing the overall event itself, we stick to neutral descriptions and avoid giving weight or importance to any particular usage that isn't accurate or representative of the event in question. There was a White House invitation to a meeting, and the two paragraphs that described this invitation were appropriately labeled as "White House invitation" in the heading. There was no justifiable reason for the removal of this heading. And, the subsequent meeting section was labeled "White House meeting"; Again, there was no valid reason for deleting this heading. The term "Beer Summit" neither describes the previous invitation to the White House nor the meeting that took place, and is a non-neutral, humorous term that represents the sensationalistic POV of some media outlets rather than a factual, accurate, and observational description of the event. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, your repeated addition of the term "Beer Summit" in place of neutral descriptions of the event such as "White House invitation and meeting" is a violation of neutral point of view. It is non-negotiable and consensus cannot change it. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guys let me explain. There is a higher law here, and only V can see it. What we are doing is wrong and no reason we can give is valid, because of the higher law. Consensus can be denied to exist, because no reason given for the consensus opinion fails to violate the higher law. Apparently WP needs to be updated with WP:VIRIDITAS IS RIGHT. As an alternative path, I note we have two sides of an issue here that seem to view events differently. We could choose to get together and try to take the level of the discussion to a gentlemanly one. We all could get together to discuss over beer! Let's see, what can we call it... a "Beer Summit"! That has a ring to it. Manyanswer (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me. Which is a more neutral description of the event in question, "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting"? Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the right question. Let me frame the right question: "Given all the aspects to consider, what is the consensus opinion of editors on which option should be in the article?" You're appealing that there is some higher reason to trump our opinions, and of course W can't work that way for obvious reasons. Manyanswer (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I just finished explaining, consensus does not, at any time, override our core policies, so your question is irrelevant. The correct question, and the question that directly addresses the problem under discussion is, which is a more neutral description of the event: "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting"? In fact, it is the only question that matters here. Viriditas (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time in wikipedia, I have now seen the reason many editors choose to leave. One person puts their foot down, even in the light of consensus and other policies that show the use of a term is permissible, people get fed up with it. V asks everyone to offer an argument. If you read the arguments above, there have been dozens. In fact, -SharkxFanSJ pointed out point by point the flaws in your own arguments, and we have all given examples of of how other policies permit this use. V has used the same argument over and over, in what seems to be an attempt to wear others down, or to repeat his argument enough that it might be taken for gospel. When there was no direct consensus and V didnt like it, a vote what held. When it didnt come out the way he liked, he used the "polling is not consensus" defense. When we observe the discussion and suggestions by editors are still in line with polling and a consensus is being built, he uses the same argument. When we all post to show our consensus and argue against his interpretation of policy, he uses the "consensus doesn't trump policy" even while other editors give evidence of other policies permitting the use of the term. In fact, it seems whenever evidence is given or an argument is made that is not his, V simply claims no evidence has been given that refutes his argument. At this point, I would suggest that when the article is unlocked, the appropriate changes be made according to current consensus (Yes V, there is a consensus, just without you in it) and V can submit for an WP:NPOVN for a decision. If it is continuously changed by V, I would submit another lock be placed and it go to arbcom or peer review. They can review the notes and decide on final action if only to end the debate. If they agree with V, so be it. If not, it will at place the onus on V to comply with the decision. I have no intention letting V wear down the discussion with the same repeated lines of text to get his way on the matter. As I said before, it does not matter where the term started, it only matters now that it is used and is in the zeitgeist and is recognized for the event. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've only been here since June 10[6] and you have only made 210 edits in that time, so I doubt you could understand why editors choose to leave. Consensus does not override NPOV at any time, nor does it override BLP concerns. "Beer Summit" is neither the common name for the event, nor is it neutral; We also do not have any history of private White House meetings being referred to in this way. Wikipedia always defaults to the most neutral wording when faced with ambiguity. I am impressed that that you feel you are an expert on policy and guidelines after making only 6 edits to project space, but I think you have a lot to learn. Furthermore, your username is somewhat misleading, as "IlliniGradResearch" could "imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia" so you may want to consult Wikipedia:Username for more information. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People usually get personal when people do not respond to their arguments they way they would prefer.
V, I didn't challenge your education level, you personally, or anything other than your opinion on this particular matter. To address your issues, I actually have been editing quite longer than that as an anonymous user. However, I have always considered Wiki a serious project, and recently decided to put forth more time and effort into editing and posting content (commons, wiki). My direct statement about editors choosing to leave comes from discussions with other grad students, professors, and students that edit for a period and choose to discontinue. As for edit count, I would submit that edit quality matters more than edit count. I would prefer to discuss and debate rather than war on that page and deprive other editors the ability to add relevant content. Your 4+ years on Wiki obviously haven't freed you from the need to edit war yourself given your suspensions. I in no way said I was an expert, but a review of wiki policy offers one a good primer on how to conduct ones self here. As for my user name, anyone looking at my user page would clearly see why I use the name: 1) I am a graduate student 2) A graduate student at the University of Illinois 3) I conduct research - In fact, the userboxes state that pretty plainly. Oddly enough, your own user boxes say you dislike "edit wars", yet you seem to end up in them often enough. You are not the only person on this talkpage, this subject, or on Wikipedia that considers this a serious project and wants to see the best information posted on it. As a parent and a grad student working on research for publication, I dont have a great deal of time available. The fact I offer it here is due to my belief that wiki is an important tool for others. In short, this matters to me probably as much as it maters to you. I would submit you have alot to learn about working with others, rather than warring with them. So be polite and stick to the subject and stay off the personal. See WP:Civility if you require reference on how to do so. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not override core policies, of which NPOV is paramount. A group of editors cannot get together on a talk page and agree to ignore it. Neutrality always trumps any consensus, especially a consensus arrived at by arguments which have shown to be false. The term isn't common, accurate, or neutral, and that's why we don't use it as an enycyclopedic heading. It doesn't matter how many editors come here and say "metoo". Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away from this dicussion for a bit, but here a few comments:
SharkxFanSJ falsely accused me of 3RR (Viriditas)
Actually, I accused you of edit warring and gaming the system. I specifically pointed out how you were skirting 3RR. You were not absolved of wrong-doing on the noticeboard. The page just happened to become protected as I was writing up the report, which "resolved the problem." Blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, so blocking you after the page had become protected would have been inappropriate.
I would also like to point out that you have been blocked five times for edit warring/3RR. The most recent block was 2 months ago. You aren't exactly an angel when it comes to edit warring.
consensus does not, at any time, override our core policies (Viriditas)
This isn't always the case. Review WP:IGNORE and WP:UIAR. If you think that our consensus doesn't reflect the wider community view, then bring it up at RfC or NPOVN
There is no consensus (Viriditas)
You have has brought up arguments, and they have been responded to. The response to those arguments is disputed only by you. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean that there's "no consensus." Rather than edit war, why not try a little dispute resolution?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no dispute. NPOV trumps any attempt at adding a non-neutral name, and you are in a position where you are forced to compromise rather than forcing a non-neutral name of an event into a heading. Furthermore, all of the arguments presented in favor of "beer summit" have been shown to be invalid. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore, all of the arguments presented in favor of "beer summit" have been shown to be invalid." That statement is simply false. The arguments in favor of "beer summit" have merely not met with approval from one editor, is far different. Pechmerle (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You (and others) have not presented a single valid argument for inclusion. The term isn't common, isn't neutral, and isn't accurate. What argument do you then present for use as a section heading? NPOV comes first, before everything else. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to comment on the idea that because "Beer Summit" is a humorous name for a serious meeting that is somehow POV. How do you explain Checkers speech, then? The name is derived from a single sentence that made reference to (then) Senator Nixon's dog. Nixon preferred the name "The Fund Speech." Checkers speech is a term created by the media. The fact that a speech is named after a dog is decidedly humourous. And... the name isn't an accurate description of the event. Sound familiar? And Checkers speech is an article, not a section!--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Checkers speech" is the historical term for the event, which was indeed, a public speech, and the most notable aspect of the speech was Nixon's comment about a dog. The July 30th White House meeting was private, and was notable for bringing three men together to discuss (and hopefully resolve) their issues (Biden also attended but was not part of the dispute which drew them men together). Since this is a recent event, we do not have the benefit of hindsight to look back and see the use of the term in dozens, if not hundreds and thousands of publications like the Checkers speech. Wikipedia takes a long-term view and chooses to best represent the topic in the most neutral manner possible. We know that Nixon's speech is historically referred to as the Checkers speech, and for our purposes we use that name. I am not clear if the White House archives or the Nixon library uses that name or not. As for the July 30th White House meeting, the term "Beer Summit" is not the most common name for the event, does not accurately portray the event (there was no summit) and was not about Beer. Currently, I see at least 4,000 articles for this meeting that do not use the term "beer summit" and close to 1,500 that do. Perhaps in time this will be the common name for the event; At this time, we do not know if this true, nor should we participate in changing history. Per the neutrality policy, which is our core policy at the root of Wikipedia, we use the most neutral term for the event; "Beer Summit" is sensationalistic, humorous and ironic term that does not address the core issues discussed at the private meeting. This is unlike the term "Checkers speech" which accurately describes a public event (a speech) and uses the term "Checkers" to refer to the most notable content of the speech. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sports articles have a long history and tradition of using colorful names. Please show me where the same is true for private White House meetings. And while you are at it, please answer my question about neutrality which you continue to ignore: Which is a more neutral description of the event: "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting"? Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the only editor that is trying to describe "beer summit" as offensive is Viriditas. Furthermore, there was consensus on using "beer summit" as a title. GoldDragon (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As many of us have pointed out, "Beer Summit" has nothing to do with pov. It is neither pro-Gates nor pro-Crowley. It is merely a stylistic issue on which one editor has repeated his argument over and over, without persuading the group of editors active here. An assertion by one editor that he is the sole judge of whether a policy applies or not is not acceptable. Pechmerle (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with POV, and the use of scare quotes explains the POV. The private meeting was not intended to be humorous, nor was it intended to be about a beer, nor can it be considered a summit. The humor and irony of the term is not based on the actual event but a form of sensationalism introduced by a journalist and spread through some media outlets. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and we use the most accurate and neutral section headings to describe our content. I don't have to persuade you of anything; Since you are arguing for the use of the term "Beer Summit" as a section heading, you need to present a valid argument for inclusion. You have not, and you cannot. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Facts
Search indices show that "beer summit" is not the most common term for the event. We see many different terms in use, but the vast majority refer to the event as a "White House meeting" without also referring to a "beer summit", or if they do, the vast majority of sources on the subject use the term "beer summit" in passing. Most news articles do not use the term.
WP:NPOV always comes first, and whenever possible, we use the most neutral terms for an event to maintain accuracy.
Consensus does not override NPOV, no matter how many editors support an idea.
On Wikipedia, neutrality is our primary concern. If a word or term is used deliberately in an ironic or humorous way that does not also maintain accuracy and neutrality, we use the neutral term instead. We do not use sensationalistic or tabloid terms in our section headings. The major media is not under the same requirements as Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.
Yes, there are questions. Chief among them: Why does Viriditas keep repeating arguments that have not persuaded the group of editors active on this article? Most importantly, we have repeatedly pointed out that "Beer Summit" does not have any pov issue. NPOV has nothing to do with this. "Beer Summit" is neither pro-Gates nor pro-Crowley. Viriditas's position on this has only to do with Viriditas's persistent attempt to have his preferred styling accepted, as if only his voice counts here. Pechmerle (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards. The arguments for using the term "Beer Summit" need to be valid. In other words, I don't have to argue against the term, you need to argue for it, and all arguments for using the term are invalid. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we still discussing this here? I have already pointed out that the proper forum at this point is WP:NPOVN, but V's refusal to seek dispute resolution disproves good faith and invalidates his argument. He has long ago ceased to be a dissenting voice and become a disruptive voice. If we refuse to oblige his repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rubbish here, he will have no choice but to either seek the proper avenue or drop it altogether.
No, this is the proper forum, and consensus dose not override NPOV at any time. You need to present valid arguments for using the term, and you have failed to do this. The term is neither common nor neutral and should not be used as a section heading. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no questions here. I fully understand your viewpoint and have responded to all of the points you've laid out. I just don't agree with you, and neither do the vast majority of the editors here. If you think that this needs to be looked at by the wider Wikipedia audience, then you can pursue the dispute resolution avenues that have been presented to you. Consensus reached, conversation over. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments for using the term were shown to be false. The term isn't common, isn't neutral, and isn't accurate. A consensus of bad arguments does not a consensus make. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you are the only one that has that opinion. If you think that you can convince the wider community of your viewpoint on how this applies to NPOV, etc, I'd (again) suggest dispute resolution.--76.204.76.177 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. You need to convince me that "Beer Summit" is common, neutral, and accurate. Google News shows that the term isn't common, and according to Wikipedia, it isn't the most neutral term for the event, nor is it accurate. So, a consensus of false arguments isn't valid nor can it trump NPOV. A group of editors cannot get together on a talk page and simply agree to ignore policy. That's why consensus is not the last word nor binding. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't convinced me of anything, and I'm part of the community. You've simply repeated yourself over and over again without offering any evidence for your claims. There is no evidence that "Beer Summit" is either the most common or most neutral name for the White House invitation and meeting. Because you have offered no evidence, we default to NPOV, which takes precedence over any disputed claim an editor might make. The continued removal of neutral terms and descriptions from this article is a violation of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop filing false 3RR reports and address the question. Which is more neutral and accurate, "White House invitation and meeting" or "Beer Summit"? And please demonstrate that "Beer Summit" is more common than the term "meeting" which outnumbers the use of the term "Beer Summit" in the Google News archive. You are engaging in confirmation bias by only focusing on articles that use the term while ignoring the ones that don't. Neutrality takes precedence over false common name claims that cannot be supported with actual numbers. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question has been addressed. You just don't agree with the answer. If you really feel you are right, please pursue the dispute resolution avenues that have been offered to you rather than continuing to revert a title you disagree with.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
V, no one has filed a false claim of edit warring. A claim was filed based on your discussions and edit behavior and your insistence that your way was the only correct one. You have said several times that you honestly believe that the page editors have to convince YOU that we are correct, as opposed to making your argument to the room. The actual confirmation bias lies in your continued argument that in the face of every reason given by others, you are still infallible and correct and we all must accede to your interpretation of the event name. Both White House Invitation, and Beer Summit, are actually NPOV statements, conveying neither pro nor con statements about the event. The articles used as citations are sources from credible third party sources and therefore are valid. I take wikipedia as seriously as the other editors on this board, and would not make a false claim simply because I disagreed with someone. It was only after seeing the continued edits, the continued arguments, and your insistence to not relent did I choose the course of action so that the rest of us could focus on what maters most: creating relevant, reliable, and solid content for readers. I did not choose such a course of action lightly as again, I take wikipedia seriously.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate 3RR report you filed is completely bogus and does not show any 3RR. What it shows is normal, everyday editing supported by extensive discussion on talk. The continues to be no support for the claim that "Beer Summit" is the most common term when the Google News archive shows it is a minority term used by a small percentage of articles. And there continues to be no support for any argument claiming that it reflects naming convention of other White House meetings, when no such evidence exists. Furthermore, NPOV is our priority, above and beyond all other concerns, and unless you can show an actual reason why "White House invitation and meeting" is less accurate and neutral than "Beer Summit", I'm afraid you have no support for your edits. You see, it simply doesn't matter if 10 or 100 or 1000 editors come here and say "metoo". Unless you can support your arguments with evidence, they don't count. And to repeat myself, NPOV cannot be overriden by any consensus on the talk page. Neutrality and accuracy comes before everything else. Your assertion that you filed a false 3RR because of my "insistence to not relent" is quite telling. You have the burden of proof, not me, and it doesn't matter how many editors you rally around you. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've become very good at repeating yourself. You've also become very good at not listening. Both reports have been for edit warring and gaming the system.... NOT for 3RR.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both reports were completely false, and were made to distract the discussion. The reports were simply your attempt at forcing a chilling effect into place. To date, there is absolutely no evidence that the term "Beer Summit" is either a common or neutral name for the White House invitation and meeting, and there continues to be no support for the deletion of those neutral terms from the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, The report I filed simply used prior information for the purposes of clarity, uniformity, and continuity. As SharkxFanSJ mentioned, the filing was for both edit warring and gaming the system.... NOT for 3RR because that was not an issue that could be raised at the time of the filing. So your claim that a false 3RR report was filed is itself, false. Using the word "bogus" would imply either deliberate deception or lack of good faith, neither of which is the case here. Evidence was submitted, several times, in addition to a vote, endless days of discussion and debate, and warnings not to edit war on this issue but rather to seek outside review in lieu of edit warring. However, this was not the course you selected. therefore, in line with Wikipedia policy regarding edit warring, gaming the system, and how to resolve such issues, a report was filed in a format familiar to the admins that will be dealing with the matter. Furthermore, editors have no rallied around me in any way. We have chosen independently a different side of the argument than yours, which has formed into the consensus you deny exists. Regardless,discussions about the filing should be made on the review page dealing with this as a matter of propriety. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, your report was used for the purposes of a chilling effect, and to date, there remains no support for your arguments. The facts show that the continued insertion of the term "Beer Summit" into the article heading is not supported, and Wikipedia favors NPOV when the use of a term is disputed. Viriditas (talk)
Actually no, no chilling effect was intended. Rather, the issue of edit warring is the matter at hand. The talk page is for discussion and debate about edits. However, reverting edits when others have recognized a consensus is a different matter. Even if you did not agree, you could have chosen to take the issue to an admin or other committee for review as I suggested. You didn't however and that is the issue at hand. I do not want to stifle debate, just to avoid edit warring. If I wanted to stifle debate or discussion, I would not still be discussing the matter with you on the talk page. It does not make your argument any stronger by accusing me of trying to create a purposes of a chilling effect, which to me is akin to censorship of discussion. As someone who takes debate and free speech seriously, I would disagree with your assertion. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one continually adding "Beer Summit" into the article, so perhaps you should take your concerns about edit warring to your friends. After all, the edit history shows that every edit I've made to that section has been reverted by those wishing to add "Beer Summit", so perhaps you need to contact those editors who keep reverting my changes? Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again Viriditas, I would respectfully submit that the other editors are not "friends", but rather other concerned and dedicated editors of wikipedia. Edit earring has the same effect whether something is removed, or added. In all likelihood, you were aware that those supporting consensus and the use of the term would keep it there, however you removed it anyway rather than utilizing other methods for resolving such disagreements. As you pointed out, I am newer to wiki than you are. However, I do know enough to avoid edit wars and take such issues to those equipped to deal with them to avoid harming the content of wiki consumers. My preference is always for civility, consensus, and the avoidance of harming readers. May I ask, why you did not take the issue to committee if you disagreed with other editors so much?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for the edit because the argument supporting the term does not pan out and consensus cannot override NPOV. Just because someone says "metoo" does not consensus make. And if someone says consensus is based on x is y, and it turns out that actually, x is not y, then the consensus falls apart and we default to NPOV. This is not terribly complicated to understand, but for you and several other editors the term "Beer Summit" is important. For me, the most important thing at all times is to best describe our content in the most neutral terms possible. That's why "White House invitation and meeting" (and various versions of that term) were used. One does not edit war NPOV into an article. It's our bread and butter. If you feel strongly about the term "Beer Summit" then take it to mediation. The fact is, it is not the common term for the event and it isn't neutral. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bangs shoe on table. People, per the probationary directive, "Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead,"please discuss the above elsewhere. This page is about improving the article, not other editors' behaviors.↜Just M E here , now23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the fact is that "beer summit" is a common term for the event. And as "beer summit" has been established by many editors to have cause no offense or do no harm to either side, it can safely described to be a NPOV term. Furthermore, "beer summit" is specific to this situation, whereas there are countless White House invitations and meetings for innumerable issues. GoldDragon (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the upcoming meeting of the heads of state of the U.S., Canada and Mexico is being dubbed "The Three Amigos Summit" in the press, e.g. [7]--agr (talk)
Shift part of Obama involvement from Lead to Article
The lead is quite long, with a lot of details around Obama's comments - seems somewhat unbalanced. I'm thinking we may want to further summarize his comments, and shift some of the material down to the body of the article that isn't there already. Thoughts? Mattnad (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to talk about Obama, why not called it the Gates Controversy or something similar, after all no charges were file, the arrest got a wave a media attention because of the President's comment. The heart of the matter is not the arrest but the response and the comments after all. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So want my recommendation, plain english, cut the Obama remarks, nothing to do with the arrest, unless Obama was part of the incident. You americans, you think everyting is so simple, white/black, there no racial harmony, as a Latino a look at this discussion page at it amaze me how much people have to discuss, the beer, who the hell care? This is not the American Wikipedia, but the World Wide Wikipedia in the English language. You want my opinion here it goes trim the Obama part its not part of the arrrest narratative, unlees there is undertone. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an American, not that it matters to editing an article. But while I have your attention, you may want to read up on WP:Civil. You may be more persuasive it you avoid personal attacks. Mattnad (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "I don't like your tone" either, JMundo. had Obama kept his mouth shut and not commented on the matter, there would be no reason to include him at all in this article. But he did, and much of the aftermath is an outgrowth of that commentary. That's why its part of the arrest article. I'd also like to suggest that (as you pointed out) since this is the Wikipedia for the English language, why not port over some of the topics from the Spanish language wiki? "We Americans" could use all the culture we could get. - Arcayne(cast a spell)12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, I'm not sure the second part of that sentence is relevant to what title we should have here on WP. With all respect to minorities, of course!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I think there should be some discussion BEFORE moving the page, particularly in light of the fact that there is already some edit warring going on here. I would urge everyone to take a few deep breaths and count to ten before making major edits to this article. Also, please be aware that Beer Summit redirects to a section here, but that redirect rarely works because everyone keeps moving/renaming the target section. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im here to discuss... My point is that this is more than arrest, even the President had some comment, everybody in USA had a comment about it, so this article can be about the arrest, the incident or the aftermath of what happened next, beer summit, and other things that, may happen. "incident" or "controversy" maybe is not the best and open to suggestion, to discussion, but an arrest! This is not an article about arresting me in the street and going to the judge and paying a fine, this part of the modern american history and we just going to call it "arrest"!. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you finally came here, JMundo. Could you please self-revert, and discuss the change that you seek to make instead? After all, we don't need all the page moving back an forth. You need to build a consensus for something that significant. - Arcayne(cast a spell)03:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page is protected, so hopefully by the time the protection ends, there will be consensus as to the appropriate title. I think the current title is more encompassing. –xenotalk03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the pursuit of brevity - the previous title captured the "incident" and/or "controversy" best. Adding either qualifier is less inclusive. The change may seem better to the editor who made the, but calling it an "arrest incident" is somewhat redundant to me. Mattnad (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne, No. Im not going to self-revert, the page is protected anyway. What I want is to continue the discussion, was this a simple arrest? did they follow up? where are the charges? this is not the typical arrest,and we know that. My English sometimes plays tricks on me, so I want people to suggest name, a simple "arrest" is to naive of a tittle. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point about "arrest incident" and "arrest controversy" being redundant. How about "Henry Louis Gates controversy"? Seems brief enough. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the onus is on the name change crowd to move off of Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Some are starting this conversation without considering the fine previous title. It is elegant and accurate and it has served the article well since its inception. Arrest implies nothing about the accuracy of the charges or about conviction. It is clearly the flashpoint for the issue as had the confrontation ended without arrest, no one would have heard of it. As an aside, it's a bit comic that the name was temporarily changed (well almost) to Huey Lewis Arrest Incident. And this helped get the whole page blocked. Epic Fail. Manyanswer (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I will add that "Controversy" is overused in wikipedia titles and it shapes the article in one direction. The arrest was controversial, but the article covers a lot more than that. For instance, how is the "Beer Summit" a controversy? Mattnad (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" is probably better. The article, and the reality, has two closely related elements: (a) the arrest, what actually happened, divergent accounts of the facts, so on, and (b) the controversy that the arrest triggered, both because Gates is a prominent figure (so the news got on it right away) and because the President of the USA chose to comment on it. (And it's not redundant; one does not mean the other.) Pechmerle (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know how sometimes you accidently stumble on article. Well, that is what just happened to me, therefore I will give my humble opinion on the subject discussed here. I would re-name the article "Henry Louis Gates incident", simple as that. Happy editing to you all. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or even "Gates-Crowley incident". Gates was not a lone actor here. The way I see it, this article is about the incident surrounding a confrontation that took place primarily (though not solely) between Gates and Crowley, and since much of the coverage is centered on the implications this incident has had for Gates, I think it should be "Gates-Crowley incident" and not "Crowley-Gates incident". I would avoid "controversy" in the title, per WP:WORDS#Controversy and scandal. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I find disturbing is that JMundo does a page move and refuses to self-revert in the interest of seeking a consensus, using the page-protect as an excuse. We have a process of BRD here. If JMundo cannot follow that process, he might find editing elsewhere of more use. He lost a lot of good faith with that lame-ass excuse. - Arcayne(cast a spell)13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100%. It's rude and while i'm happy for someone to be bold, page moves are not the best place. Especially when you completely muck up the title, and then state that your English isn't good and you anticipate it having to be fixed anyway. We are happy to help you come up with the right title, please use discussion to do so. I'm not adamantly opposed to any of the offerings to date, but I'm adamantly opposed to how this is all going down. Manyanswer (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put in my 2¢ (or "!vote" -- here, about 5-pages-of-text down in this section of this discussion page, oh well) for Henry Loius Gates case. Whereas I personally think Gates-Crowley (or Crowley-Gates) somethingoranother is the most neutral, the media typically just name Gates in their "shorthand" for the affair, and using just the word case is the shortest and simplest way to neutrally mention the charge without implying Gates's guilt or innocense.↜Just M E here , now18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the amount of discussion here should provide ample evidence that doing page names without reaching consensus to do so first is dumb. Refusing to undo the page move when asked is disruptive. Hopefully, the editor in question has learned a lesson. If not, I am sure there are more stringent object lessons that can be learnt. - Arcayne(cast a spell)12:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that some people are more interested in talking about my "disruptive" move than having a serious discussion about the name of the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is getting a wee bit personal. Let's AGF and move on. There's several proposals on the table for consideration:
I would point to WP:WORDS#Controversy and scandal, to suggest that incident is more neutral than controversy. I'm not so sure case is the best choice, because it makes it sound like a court case, and this whole incident has played out entirely outside of any courtroom. So I support incident, but I'm happy to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right about case. (And maybe my suggestion of the word was my way to express my hope that Gates would disregard his friend the president's apparent wishes and go ahead and file some kinda false arrest case against the PD.)↜Just M E here , now02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"incident" still emphasizes "Arrest" - Is there any arrest that is not an incident? It sounds more important to some by adding another word, but it actually make the title narrower relative to the whole event.Mattnad (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad said, "'incident' still emphasizes 'Arrest' - Is there any arrest that is not an incident?"
The title, "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" is perhaps the best of the choices presented above. It invokes the dude, the arrest of the dude, and the fallout from that dude's arrest. I am mightily opposed to any wishy-washy political correctness, such as "affair" (what, they slept together? Not the kind of race relations we are talking about here), "incident" implies an isolated occurrence ('coz everyone knows that black folk have never been mistreated poorly by cops, or "case" (bluntly, there wasn't one, which is why it was dropped).
You certainly have a way with words, Arcayne! Actually, Mattnad, to clarify, I meant to drop "arrest" in favor of something like "Gates-Crowley incident" or "Gates-Crowley controversy" (there is, after all, plenty of evidence that it has been quite a controversy), but I would not be opposed to simply going back to "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates". Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(After edit conflict.) I vote incident. Alas, Arcayne first laments p.c., only to invokes the same against our best choice available, in my opinion. Think Goldilocks.
(affair? antiquated work no-one has suggested. Too bad it's not current! It'd perfectly "say nothing and yet everything" (if ya understand that phrase) about this otherwise inconsequential arrest involving Mr. Gates that has come to evoke such grand narratives of social order, civil liberties, social class/ranking, race, &c
arrest? Yes, essentially accurate...but, in my opinion, blp (or, um, p.c., if ya will) encourages us to find a more neutral choice, should a reasonable one present itself
arrest incident? Awkward extra word; skant, if any, extra precision
case? Concise, yet implying more than non-case case involved (excepting Gates himself files suit)
incident? Ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!; just right. (Controversy might even be better, but tends to be overused on Wikipedia, so maybe incident might be the best choice suggested so far, in my opinion.)↜Just M E here , now11:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "arrest" is neutral; it has the value of being both accurate and citable. And to the argument that posits that 'all arguments are incidents', it remains a poor choice, as not all incidents are arrests. I myself would prefer that we went back to the too-hastily-disfifured title, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates", but I think that the aftermath of the arrest has made it impossible to ignore (except for that insipid beer brand talk). How about "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy"? It borders on being too long, but maybe it will satisfy those who feel need to beat the reader over the head with the fact that the charge was dropped (despite the Lede and large body of text that explains precisely that).
And I thank you for the compliment (gosh, I hope it was - I pulled an overnight shift and am a wee bit tired - the corpus collosum interchange might be working overtime, or not at all). - Arcayne(cast a spell)12:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arcayne. "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" was fine. Remember, per WP:NAME, the purpose of the article name is to make it easy for readers to find the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Or for the other option, I think we should call it either an arrest or a controversy/incident. I don't think we should make the name too wordy (and I think "arrest incident" is too wordy), but I humbly submit that incident or controversy may be better than arrest for the sole reason that the topic of this article covers a whole series of events cascading out of an arrest, but the arrest itself is only the beginning. Still, I'm good with going back to the old name if that's what others can agree on. I'm easy like sunday morning. BTW Arcayne, yes, that was a compliment, sort of. ;-) Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the new section, the one up there's so long.) I'm neutral about title choice other than my slight preference of some alternative to arrest and my opinion that such compounds as "arrest incident" are pretty ungainly (unless one becomes associated with the incident through use in the news, or some coinage truly lends precision to our name for the affair). ANYwho -- with regard to the choice of Case: Is its implication of a complaint's going before a judge really that bad? How many cases, civil or criminal, really do? Most are settled out of court, a very substantial portion dropped altogether. What follows are press usages of its "pith": but 4-letters long.
My first choice would be "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy." Although controversy is overused, it does seem to fit here. There are differing opinions on whether the arrest should have been made and whether the president should have spoken the way he did about it. As much as I'd like to keep the title as simple as possible (Arrest of Henry Louis Gates), adding a word to indicate that it is a scandal/incident/controvery is what's normally done.
"Henry Louis Gates arrest incident" makes it sound confined to a single event. Like was mentioned above, the "Air Force One photo-op incident" was a single event and the associated fallout. There was little disagreement involved, so "incident" is appropriate. The Crowley-Gates thing was an arrest, followed by controversial comments by the president, followed by people from different sides weighing in, followed by a meeting, etc.
"Henry Louis Gates case" makes it sound like a court case or a case study. It falls short in the description of the event - not detailed enough.
"Gates-Crowley incident/controversy" has the same problem. It's not just Gates and Crowley that are involved. Plus, the controversy is about the arrest, not the two people that were involved.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to favor "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy." The WP policy on "controversy" stresses that there must be actual debate or dispute involved; never clearer that that is true than for this article. And the controversy that almost instantly arose is what makes this event notable in the first place. Pechmerle (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming around to controversy. As you rightly point out, Pechmerle, it was the controversy that made the event notable. But is it better to say "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" than simply "Henry Louis Gates controversy" or "Gates-Crowley controversy"? Granted, there have been others who have become involved (Obama, Barrett, and others), but it is essentially about the conflict (and resolution?) between Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley. I'm just not so sure we can call it a "controversy" and still assign full ownership of the controversy to Gates. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm, I understand your point about ownership of the controversy. But calling it "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" makes the phrase "Henry Louis Gates arrest" the antecedent of "controversy." If one tried to reverse it to "Crowley arrest controvesy," it highlights that it is the arrest of Gates that generated the controversy. Pechmerle (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I made my comment confusing, on second look, it doesn't seem all that clear to me either, but my preference would rather be "Gates-Crowley controversy". It indicates that the controversy has been over the confrontation between Gates and Crowley, states that there is/was a controversy, implies that ownership of the controversy is shared between the two camps, and implies little else. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion regarding the beer brands footnote
This is a continuation of a discussion. The beginning of this discussion has been archived and can be found here. At issue is whether the brands of beer consumed at the Obama-Gates-Crowley meeting should be included in the main text of the article, placed in a footnote/references section, or left off completely.
Instead of hiding the note about the beer brands in the references section, might it be better to use separate "Notes" and "References" sections, as was done at Rosewood massacre? Just a thought. Zagalejo^^^04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I feel that the information is "hidden" is that nearly every sentence in this article has an in-line citation. One would assume that each of these is a source for the preceding sentence/section. Making the in-line citation point to a different place doesn't solve the problem IMHO. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zagalejo: That is a useful suggestion. I would be OK with it as a method of resolving the dispute here. There would then be a few other things that I would also suggest taking down to notes, from the main text. Pechmerle (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For starters people in England, Ireland, Puerto Rico we care less what brand of beers these people where driking, why not concentrate on the result. Remember, this is not the American Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia reaching worldwide audiences that dont care about what american beer brand you have in your hand. What next? the type of clothing.... --J.Mundo (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a incident that doesn't really demand a worldwide view. It's a news story that touches on several decidedly-American themes: white cop-black suspect, the first African-American president facing his first race-related crisis, and the American fixation on beer. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, here's an article from England that mentions the beer brands, and here's one from Ireland. I couldn't find anything relevant from Puerto Rico, but this was published in El Mundo in Spain. (It gets a few things wrong, but it does show that there was international interest in the brands of beer.)
To reply to SharkxFanSJ'S earlier comment, I agree that adding a separate Notes section doesn't fully solve the problem, but I think it would alleviate things somewhat. I'd personally prefer to include the sentence in the body of the article, but I'm starting to think that's not going to happen so I'm willing to compromise. Zagalejo^^^05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this... (let's see if this works)
The families then continued their tours together while the principals had a friendly conversation over beer.[details][1]
Obama had a Bud Light, Crowley had a Blue Moon, Gates drank Sam Adams Light and Biden, who does not drink alcohol, had a Buckler, which is a non-alcoholic beer.
I believe that the brand should be listed in the body of the article. The fact that good references from multiple countries mentioned them shows interest all by itself. I also recall some trying to make political hay out of the fact that all three beers (this was when Red Stripe was still being reported) were owned by non-American companies.
It might seem very silly to some, but the brand selection has become notable, and burying it in a footnote is so unusual for this project, that it hides it from pretty much any reader (who's going to wade through all the references when in almost any other article they are only sources not additional info). —MJBurrage(T•C)06:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, go ahead and mention it, and even write in the lead, because that what is really what this consumerism society care about. Put a big picture just like in TMZ and nice caption. Lets forget about changing the name of the article, the beer "controversy" is more interesting than the racial profiling of white police officers in this country.--J.Mundo (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the choice of beer brands should, or should not, be notable, simply that they did become notable, and thus should be mentioned. The single sentence that is currently hidden in the footnotes should be visible in the body of the article. Even there, it is only one line in an article that has a pretty good length with much more detail (as there should be) on the prior events, and the ramifications of those events and the following commentary. —MJBurrage(T•C)07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way did they "become notable"? Do not confuse becoming noted with becoming notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't have to cover a 24-hour news cycle. Just because news sources have inflated some details that are of very little consequence does not mean we need to give equal coverage of those details. For the record, I'm okay with mentioning the beer brands in a footnote, but I don't think it merits much coverage in the article because it meant nothing to the outcome of events. It would have been the same if they all drank Pabst. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:WEIGHT - "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."
It doesn't matter what *we* think the importance of the topic is/should be. The topic's weight in the article is based on the prevelence in reliable sources. Nearly every article about the beer summit mentions the types of beers. This section is *about* the Beer Summit. Leaving out the types of beers would be like leaving out a quote by the president that was widely reported. It would be different if only one or two sources had latched onto this.
You're right, Wikipedia is not a newpaper - but this is an article about a news story - and the types of beer have garnered a fair amount of discussion and analysis. Apparantly worldwide (per above).--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The beer summit had symbolic meaning and it's been covered as such. Beer brands are strongly linked with individual and national identities. See this NPR story on the sale of Budweiser. Beer marketers make a big deal about this so it's no surprise that the coverage went deeper into the choices of the summit participants. Mattnad (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I completely reject that putting the beer names in the references is an attempt to hide them. They don't belong in the article (its undue weight, considering the subject), so it was a compromise to remove them from the article and put them in the references. We here at Wikipedia tend to put sources in our references section so that our readers can explore the minutiae of a subject on their own. With respect to the suggestion of a Notes section and the example of the Rosewood Massacre, the text that should have been incorporated into the body of the article. As it is, it looks like trivia. We should avoid such here. - Arcayne(cast a spell)19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arcayne, didn't mean to imply some sort of devious intent. I'm just saying that people see in-line citation links and assume that they usually don't lead to any content... just a bibliographical entry.
I see the arrest, presidential comments, beer summit, etc as individual chapters tha make up the whole incident. It's important to tell the story that goes along with each of these. There should be a reasonable level of detail about the arrest, same with Obama's involvement, etc. When you are describing the Beer Summit to someone, it should include the public and media fascination over the types of beers consumed. You could really go overboard with this, and tell all the backstories involved, or you can simply state "A fair amount of media attention was paid to the brands of beer each of the four men selected; Obama drank Bud Light, Gates drank Blue Moon....."--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharkx, I wasn't suggesting devious intent, just flawed content. ;) I simply don't see the value or importance of naming the beers that folk chose, and find absolutely no underlying symbolism beyond a simple preference in a brand. Indeed, all of this content feels like marketing consumerism. Of course beer manufacturers are all for this; after all, it pushes beer, right? - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the brands of beer should not have become an issue. But that does not change the fact that the brands chosen were scene by many as important, leading to them being mentioned and discussed in much of the main-stream press. So silly or not, they are notable enough that they should be mentioned in the relevant section of the article.
As to how they became relevant in the first place; my recollection is that right-of-center media tried to make hay out of the fact that the beers were all from foreign owned companies (this was when it was erroneously reported that Gates drank Red Stripe). Again silly in my opinion, but notable due to the attention it got anyway.
The attention in the press was never about marketing the brands in question, but rather what people think it says about the men choosing the brands in question. It is not our job to decide if the notability was justified or not, but to create an article covering what became notable without judgment. —MJBurrage(T•C)15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I first heard about the brands from right-leaning media (talk-radio), but this Wall Street Journal article also covers the expected brands as foreign owned. Googling "beer summit" with the brands gets over 40,000 Google hits, with many of the articles discussing what the actual brand choices is perceived as saying about the men involved. —MJBurrage(T•C)19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When citing a Google test, it is usually helpful to link the results here, so we can see what search parameters were used. You say it gets 40,000 Google hits, but what were the search terms, and were those news hits, scholarly journal hits, or just web hits? Scholarly journal searches and Google books searches are generally more helpful, and web hits can be particularly problematic. Most web sites are not reliable sources, and many will provide 'false positives' (web sites that happen to include all the target words, but lend nothing to our understanding of this topic). Also, if you take a look at WP:GOOGLE, you will see why Google tests are not the ultimate proof of notability. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one of the points made by Viriditas (and I, to an extent) that sometimes, Google results are not truly demonstrative. Anyone who's watched The Daily Show has seen time and again how media outlets will parrot a single source, which allows these sources to grow by leaps and bounds - all based off of one source that might or might not be fully accurate. Secondly, beware of Google-bombing, which can manipulate search results. Let's step away from that particular argument, shall we? - Arcayne(cast a spell)08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever you look it up, every major news source has covered the brands of beer. Multiple comments above have pointed this out. The way we currently have it is very odd for Wikipedia. Content should be in the body, with sources in the footnotes. Putting the brands in a footnote is hiding material—that silly or not, has become notable—from most readers. —MJBurrage(T•C)15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think using footnotes to disclose such details "hides" them from the reader any more than this use of footnotes hides the information from readers of that article. It's just a way of putting information that needlessly bogs down the text, but may be useful to the reader, somewhere where it is out of the way and yet accessible. One point, however, these are FOOTNOTES distinguishable from the REFERENCE NOTES. Maybe that would help here. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a separate section for footnotes adding detail vs. footnotes that are simply references, that would solve the fact that the way it is (as I write this) does "hide" the information. However such a new notes section would only have the one note, and would actually then draw more attention to the brands than just simply mentioning them in the body of the article, as all the journalistic (paper and online) articles have done. —MJBurrage(T•C)15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be comfortable with this compromise. A "Notes" section seperate from the "References" section. A couple thoughts, though...
(1) The Notes section should come first, since it has actual content and
(2) The in-line citation(s) that point to the Notes section should be something other than a number, in order to differentiate it from a bibliographical cite. I suggested one way to do this earlier by using [details], but we can look at other ways to do this.--76.204.76.177 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)My apologies, didn't realize I wasn't logged in.[reply]
It need not be a single note. There are some other items that I would move to Notes as well. (For example, the sentence in reference 58. But also some other minor items in the main text.) I also agree with (nowiki's) two preceding comments. Pechmerle (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few suggestions: 1) indeed the Notes section usually does come before the References section 2) this also allows reference tags to be used within the footnotes themselves 3) if you look again at the Swedish heraldry article, this is how it is done there 4) we could use the same {{fn}} tags that are used there. I would also suggest that any notes we have that are more than a simple bibliographical reference should also be added to the Notes section. Hope that helps! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mugshot adds nothing to the article
I don't think the mugshot adds anything to the article. I think the picture of Gates being escorted out of his house is far more descriptive and should take the place of the mugshot. The shot's copyright status is also being disputed at the commons [8], so there is another reason take it off for now. –xenotalk16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree with you on the underlying issue, I'm going to take leave of this discussion, as I've been accused of edit-warring above, and had my concerns dismissed by nothing more than a blatant red herring argument. My position is now known, and we'll see now whether or not BLP concerns hold sway here or not. UnitAnode16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(imo)The mugshot should be removed until the discussion and contentiousness is worked out. It is a matter of showing him in a bad light and deformation of character. He is a totally innocent man and the new name of the article is a bit better but it should also have the word 'wrongful' included in the title. From the general discussion over this I would say that there is a good measure of support for giving the subject of the booking shot the same protection as if it were a BLP. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yikes!like it. Perhaps you are right but we shouldn't use this demeaning mugshot of an innocent, wrongfully arrested, living person to demonstrate the police's foolishness. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Who says it was a "wrongful" arrest? They had a specific reason for arresting him. The prosecutor decided not to press charges. That happens all the time. It doesn't mean the arrest was legally "wrongful". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I just point out the exact same thing on the BLP board. Also, I think the photo of the actual arrest is more "useful" than the mug shot, but thats me. --Tom(talk)20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it isn't defamation of character to use the image, as mugshots are used in lots of other articles, most notably in the FA, Rosa Parks. I'd point out that this article is not the main article for the person, so the more strident concerns about how we are "deforming" the character of Gates by showing his mugshot are somewhat less. This subarticle is exactly about that arrest and its aftermath. I spent days just keeping the racist crud out; I would hate to see the pendulum of unintelligent edits swing towards those coming from the over-politically correct. Ask yourself if you would be throwing such a tantrum if the fellow weren't black - but before you answer, realize that we have tons of articles with mugshots in them, including thoise of GA and FA quality. - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your comments are a bit near the bone Arcayne, you seem to be very involved in this. I have been looking through a lot of the mugshot articles over the last 3 or 4 days and mostly I agree with the usage. This is a usage that I find to be a bit contensious and unnecesary. The Parks case that you quote , she was a freedom fighter and her mugshot in that case was well deserved and worn with pride, this is very different.The mugshot should actually be removed straight away until this is settled. Perhaps we can start offering our final opinions on the matter' I am for Remove (Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I agree the mugshot doesn't belong here, you have already the image of Gates in handcuffs in his home. The only consequence of this mugshot is to keep adding fuel to the racial tension. Why two image of Gates subjected to the police? It seems to have an underline tone. The mugshot didnt produce no controversy, nobody talks about it except in this talk page. In other Wikipedia terminology the mugshot is not notable as it was notable in the Rosa Park case. The mugshot is not important to the bigger discussion about race, police, and the US. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I seem a bit near the bone, Off2riorob; I recently had some tool essentially accuse me of being a racist for wanting to keep the mugshot image in, so he got my Irish up a bit. The subject of the article is the arrest and aftermath of Henry Louis Gates (or was, until an editor up and changed it without discussion or consensus). I am not sure about the provenance of the handcuffs image, which is to say that I don't imagine it is going to last long as an uncontested image. The mugshot image - which we use in Wikipedia with frequency, negating the nonsense arguments of "derogatory" or "demeaning" - is public fare (ie, from a police agency, and therefore free). The arrest is what sparked the rest of it. The opinion that this image is less important than others currently in use in the wiki-en is, well, just that - an opinion, unproven by policy. - Arcayne(cast a spell)20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As another point, I did a google search [[9]] for the mugshot and only some few blogs appeared and I also notice one of the links was to flickr [here]with all rights reserved. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The photo also appears in Time magazine and on a Newsweek blog when I looked around. But the person who posted it on flickr has no rights to the photo. He can reserve all he wants but it's a public record supplied by the Cambridge Police.Mattnad (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only explanation I've seen to why we need to remove this is that a booking photo can imply the subject is a criminal. So it's agreed that any use for any article must be connected to the topic, as it's done with Rosa Parks (a positive event), or Larry Craig (a negative event). In each case, the context is provided. So must we do it here if the photo is to remain. I'll put it back to the people against this photo: do you think that in the context of this article, someone might assume Gates was guilty due to the photograph? There are thousands of words in the article that say he was not. What I don't agree with is the calls for censorship on the basis that it looks bad. We have many articles in Wikipedia that say a lot worse about the individual than this photo shows about Gates.Mattnad (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to Craig, his case is again different altogether. It is a section in his BLP and he was found guilty, so this situation is fine. What I don't agree with is what has also happened to Craig, another article (which is bigger than his bio) has been written and the mugshot is used there in the lede, here it is Larry_Craig_scandal. His situation is awful, the craig scandel is more of an attack piece, I would delete it and keep the section in his bio, enough isn't it. I should mention that of the millions of articles here at Wikipedia, that is a very very rare situation. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Time Magazine have an article here, 3 in fact and I am still looking for the mugshot? [here]
Ta, I notice there are about 3 main articles about him, all without the mugshot, and 3 smaller articles all without the mugshot, and they have almost hidden it away there in the viewpoint section, almost bloggy with the headline of, 'The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest'. Looking at time's coverage, has strengthened my opinion that we shouldn't use the mugshot in the wikipedia article.
Perhaps, but I think it's important to note that Time's editors felt it was OK with proper context. And the photo is at the top of the article, very prominently displayed. Time is hardly a fringe publication with junior editors lacking any experience on these matters. Mattnad (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, time had the option of adding their slant on it, there it is written in favour of the subject, like see what the cops did to this poor inocent man. We however havn't got that way out to comment in a way so as to protect the subject from the demeaning nature of the picture. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Do we have to have a slant to make it clear that he wasn't convicted? I now come back to this article - would anyone who understands the English language come away from reading it assume Gates was guilty just because we have the booking photo in it. Are the words in the article not clear enough on the facts and opinions?Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, problematic BLP material should stay out. Unless, of course, one can get it protected with the problematic material in the article. The burden of proof here is on those wishing to include it, not those arguing for exclusion. What does the photo add to the article? How does having it there help improve the article quality in any measurable way? If the answer is, "it doesn't" or "I don't know", then the photograph should not be here. UnitAnode21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt the material is contentious. WP:BLP says we need to take care and make sure information is accurate and well sourced. But the threshold you've created that problematic (whatever that means) material must stay out is not supported by the policy:
BLP explicitly says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." But that's not the case with the photograph.
So then it comes down to relevance: is the photograph reasonably connected to the topic. I think the article about the arrest of gates could allow for a booking photo, as did Time Magazine and Newsweek. And for those who say that this is an encylopedia, I have examples for you too. I suggest you look at the Rosa Parks article: she was also unjustly arrested and we have her booking photo there.Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So then is there any harm to Gates' reputation by publishing the photo? Is there any doubt he was arrested? Is the photo public information? Is it untrue? False? A lie? Agreed a booking photo isn't pretty, but neither are the police report descriptions of his conduct. Should we eliminate this information? Should we also eliminate commentary that perhaps Gates could have handled things better? And how about comments about Sgt. Crowley; should we excised content that suggests he overreacted?
I notice, with interest, that you've completely avoided my question regarding what having the photo actually adds to the article. Just because something is "well-sourced" doesn't mean it's either necessary or appropriate. UnitAnode00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked so nicely, it's a photographic representation of a portion of his arrest. As an official document of the Cambridge police, it captures both the banality of the police booking process, and as an archetype, it also symbolizes the injustice of black man being arrested in his own home. As such the photograph is both a record of the arrest, and a touchstone for concerns around racial prejudice in the police. For those seeking to censor this photograph, I'd ask you whether you're losing sight of the importance of this image to capture the injustice of the event. Gates certainly didn't shy from taking this head on. Why should this article?Mattnad (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this whole incident started because of his arrest, the mugshots should remain in the article although perhaps a better description than "Gates booking photo" could be added BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's you choice make this part of a mockery. An image can talk more than a thousand words.Again this is not about an arrest but the reality of the United States. You want to put the mugshot of a distinguished professor, an continue the racial profiling, forgetting about BLP policy that's fine with me. This article is a reflection of white america, that thinks that everything is funny and simplistic. Go ahead, keep making jokes, do your contribution to Wikipedia. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please save your personal commnetary for your blog and stick to commenting on how to improve this article, thank you. --Tom(talk)05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What racist comments? Are you talking about my putdown of the police? Where did I say anything about the cops' color? It's not about the cops' color anyway - it's about the police arresting a black man in his own house just because he wouldn't kiss up to them the way they expected him to. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots06:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't, but you keep talking about the "black man".Bugs repeating the same accusation against the cops doesn't make it true. I am not saying that it couldn't be, but that is for a court of law to decide. What if the "a black man" was a white man that was arrested. Let me guess, if the prof. was white this would never of happened of course. Ok, got it. --Tom(talk)13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What ""racist claim", Threeafterthree/Tom? Maybe you are going to find Bugs (and the rest of us) a lot more receptive if yiu not call folk racists without some damn good information to back it up. - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading along? I never called Bugs a racist. I said the claim was racist, big difference. The racist claim is that Gates was arrested because he was a "black man" not kissing up to the "white man" rather than for disorderly conduct. And again, Iam not saying that claim is true or false, just that it is a claim of racism on the part of the police. --Tom(talk)17:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I think you should be saying "racism claim". I think that people usually consider the term racist to reflect back on the claimant, because if the claim is racist, so is the claimant at least in the moment. The better word to use is "racism" claim to describe what you mean. People are only responding to your use of the word. You seem to be trying to say there is a claim of racism, and "racist claim" is going to miss your target for most people. Manyanswer (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I think I did say racism claim above, and I do agree with you, and I did not mean to call anybody a racist, and I don't think I ever did, but at this point, whatever, my head is going to explode :) Seriously, no need for more drama and hopefully this will be the last post :) Cheers! --Tom(talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)ps, I reread my comments and agree that "racism claim" would have been better and less inflamitory to all. I apologize. Anyways, --Tom(talk)19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a valid point Bugs, but the mugshot only adds to the racial tension between minorities and the police. How many times we have to see minorities subjected to the "authority". The mugshot is not notable, nobody talks about it, can you find news report about it (only about the mugshot) ? The mugshot is only a memorabilia for some white supremacists, and Wikipedia is not about that. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A public person arrested for a petty crime has that arrest (and mugshot) part of his public profile. One public faction believes arrestee Gates did something that should be discouraged, this faction's essentially citing the doctrine that society benefits when cops make arrests when a crime, seen as a petty by some, is anything but. (Shoplifting, etc.) Yet there's another public faction that sees that society is actually hurt when cops arrest motivated mostly by cop - versus - private-citizen oneupsmanship, when a citizen had dared to insist on being provided a badge number. (& there's lotsa commentary along these lines out there (including mention of mugshots). For ex, see here.)↜Just M E here , now08:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dismiss the reasoning presented by JMundo that the our inclusion of the mugshot "adds to the racial tension between minorities and the police", as well as the insipid and no-so-sly implication that anyone who wants the image in is a white supremacist. Wikipedia did not create the image of the arrest. It's public domain. We have examples of its use in other articles, and this image is not being used in the main article but rather is a sub-article specifically dealing with the arrest and aftermath itself. The image doesn't get much more relevant than that. The so-called "derogatory" and "demeaning" nature of the images is a label we -as individuals - are applying it it. As editors, we have to separate from our ego and personal opinions; its often the most difficult thing for any wiki editor to do, even seasoned vets of the wheel wars. The image, neutrally, should remain. I am of two minds as to whether it should be the placeholder image. As it and the beer summit image are going to be the more enduring of this incident (if "enduring" is the right word to use here), I am thinking it should be. No matter what, though, this image should be in the article.
The picture of him being led out of the house is a much more relevant depiction of the "Arrest" section. As I said above, the mugshot adds nothing at all to the understanding of the article. –xenotalk16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not committed to the position that the mug shot belongs in or out. But it does add something to the article. It illustrates a comment made by several of the legal experts on this arrest, in discussing it as a 'contempt of cop' arrest: you can beat the rap (disorderly conduct charges may well be dropped, as they were here), but you don't get out of the ride downtown and getting booked. I think this has relevance to a situation in which a protesting citizen was arrested for disorderly conduct, taken down and booked - with mug shot, and then the police and D.A. drop the charges as an "unfortunate and regrettable incident." That's a perspective on the mug shot that I think should be seriously considered. Pechmerle (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument that can be made in good faith. But I think if it were me, if I had been arrested without having broken the law, and had been very upset about it, I would prefer not to have to see that mugshot prominently displayed in every google search for my name, for the rest of my life. I think the handcuff picture already communicates the situation well enough; the mugshot just feels gratuitous, a bit like rubbing it in. We should be above that. --JN46621:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec 2x) Pechmerle hits the nail on the head here. Add to that the fact the porch image is not a free image, and no more explanatory (and somehwat less complimentary to the man, his mouth agape and bewildered appearance) than the booking photo, and the booking photo proves ever more useful, neutral and usable. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the same could be said for the porch image as well, Xeno. The fair use is holding for now, as the periodic purges that sometimes claim the existence of many a FUI are as regular as the tides. Most of us know this. keeping the fair use image creates more long-term problems than free ones. Also, it is our job to try and create Featured Articles, which means a preference of free images over non-free. - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How does the porch image present a one-sided view? It shows both the arrested and the arrestors. Not so with the booking photo. –xenotalk22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the mugshot is worse, as it depicts a suprised and open-mouthed Gates cuffed on his porch - if anything, its less flattering than the booking photo. By contrast, the cops look quite professional and calm. I'd also point out that Crowley, the other player in this event - is nowhere to be seen here. Therefore, his arrestor is not there. Now, the booking photo is representative of the not only the arrest, but that he wasn't just cuffed until cooler heads prevailed, but rather that Gates was processed into the system, which - as the text of the article details - occurred. And, as has been pointed out one or two times before, the image is free, and could conceivably be used in Mainspace, were this article to at some point qualify for FA (non-free images cannot be used there). I am concerned that some hardliner NFC8 devotee is going to come along and purge it aat some point. Free images are pretty much bulletproof by comparison. - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the porch shot is worse? Leaving aside the issue of whether it's a better image in terms of presenting both sides, it's a better image in terms of providing a visual depiction of the event. I think the FUR will hold, fwiw. The mugshot could be moved further down. –xenotalk19:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent>If we look back to the start of this thread, I think we've seen quite a few reasons the official booking photo can add value. Not only is it free, but it's the official photo document of the arrest. But I don't see this as a competition. The article is long enough to have more than two photos. And if there are too many pictures, I'd argue the cropped photos currently in the lede are less on topic than the others. Mattnad (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it isn't a knife fight over the last piece of cake, after all. Were it an either/or, I respectfully disagree that the porch image is a btter representation of the arrest (and no, I am not going to call it an "incident", which is just lame pc lingo for 'someone fucked up huge'). I don't mind if the porch image is in the article, but not to the exclusion of the booking photo. And Xeno, I do hope the porch photo survives the periodic fair-use purge. If it doesn't, I promise not to say I told you so. ;)
Lastly, I agree with Mattnad that the kludged image of Crowley and Gates are not very good at expressing the topics of the issue, and are a magnet for an image purist seeking to delete decorative images; it's pretty much an IfD waiting to happen.- Arcayne(cast a spell)08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??FYI, the Crowley-and-Gates double-image is already in a deletion discussion and is going to be saved. (Only licensing concerns matter on Commons, and there is absolutely no challenge to the images' license cos both are fully documented as appropriately free use -- ) Arcayne, a question: How does an existent deletion discussion, in fact one you'd already contributed to (where, incidentally, you inexplicably asserted the two images are solely licensable under fair use) become "a deletion discussion waiting to happen"? I hope this ain't on-purpose bluster and instead is mere sloppiness: something even the very best are prone to.↜Just M E here , now14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crowley's scowl
Crowley's scowl in the lead image makes the juxtaposition of the two images look like something from the National Enquirer. Suggest we lose the double image and just use the "Beer Summit" picture in the info box. It has the added advantage of showing the three main protagonists who contributed to making this news in one picture. Thoughts? --JN46612:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was your image, wasn't it? I had suggested earlier that the image should have been flipped, so that Gates would be on the left. In Englsih-speaking countries, language is read from left to right, and imagery is read in the same way. As the article is primarily about Gates, the image places subtle preeminence on the white fellow. That's probably not the message that we want to communicate, especially when the image had to be specifically crafted to put Crowley on the left (in the parent image the collage is culled from, Crowley appears on the right). - Arcayne(cast a spell)12:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my image. At the time, we had the mugshot in the info box. I suggested using the beer summit image in the infobox, but a couple of editors suggested using the double image instead. I was keen to get the mugshot out of the infobox, a decision that has wide support. I inserted the two images with the double image template, but the template caused problems in the infobox; so I went ahead and created a single picture. JN46612:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I was asking why the image was formed with Crowley's on the left, not the problems with two images in the infobox. Maybe the problem could be easily resolved by simply reversing the image, so as to display in proper order the participants of the arrest article.
Additionally, I'd point out that I am not convinced by the arguments about the mugshot image not being in the infobox; an opinion shared by others here. - Arcayne(cast a spell)13:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that the dual image is starting to push the boundaries of overly creative license with photographs. While the original images were free, the close cropping and arrangement transforms both of their meaning. I'll grant you it's a subtle point, but I think these go beyond simply capturing information and creates new meaning (and thereby becomes a visual form of WP:OR).Mattnad (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In the original photo you can clearly see he is concentrating on cheersing properly (wouldn't you be nervous cheersing with the POTUSA?) but the derivative definitely looks like a scowl. –xenotalk13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking personally, no. I am convinced that because of the subject matter - Gates' arrest - that the lead image needs to be the mugshot. Using the aftermath of the beer summit as the lead puts the carriage before the horse. Additionally, it would be placing a fair use image above that of a free image. - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Arcayne, while recognizing it's a contentious image. But....the booking photo (as I prefer to call it), is the official recorded image of his arrest and it's free of copyright. There is no other image that is so central to the topic. I feel that political sensitivities have blinded some to the topic of the article.Mattnad (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the image that capture the topic is the one of Gates being arrested. Is not about "political sensitivities", but according to our BLP policy "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist."--J.Mundo (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer JMundo's qualms about the image being "sensationalist", I'd point out that the image is free, extremely well-cited, neutral and unassuming of anything other than the man's arrest. Any additional meaning tossed into that is simply editorial opinion. we don't conceal arrests, even those that are dismissed. Wikipedia is not censored. - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then debate it in the appropriate thread. Here, we're talking about Crowley's scowl. There's no need to hijack this or any other thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the writing is on the wall for the removal of the image due to WP:OI which is why a discussion of alternatives was started. Mattnad (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I do support the suggestion of switching the two men, I strongly disagree that the dual image is an example of WP:OI. We crop images all the time. Crowley' s expression is typical of most published images of him. But if you really believe there is an OI issue the place to settle the question, per the OR policy, is WP:IFD.--agr (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the left and right, you guys had it like that in the article before I made up the image: [11]. I couldn't get the double image template to display correctly within the infobox, so I joined the two images together. I don't think that's creating a new composite meaning. Lots of news agencies created similar composites: [12][13]. FWIW, most of these seem to have Crowley on the left, perhaps a subconscious cause-and-effect thing. I do wish Crowley had less of a scowl in ours, but I note that some of the composites out there on google images don't exactly have him smiling either. I still think the Beer Summit would make a better lead image though, as it's got Obama in it and focuses on the peaceful outcome of the affair. JN46621:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the suggestion for a switch as more of a "now that I think about it, it would make more sense the other way" rather than a criticism of your edit. However, if people want an even more neutral image for the talk page, I would suggest the top photo in http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Over-Beers/, cropped to show the three men. It was suggested earlier on this talk page by Grundle2600, but dismissed on the grounds that we have enough pictures already. Evidently, we don't. This image portrays both men in a positive light -- Crowley is helping Gates down the White House steps -- and sums up the aftermath of the overall event, which was an attempt at reconciliation. The image is unquestionably PD and the cropping I suggested would not change the context in any way.--agr (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jim Crowley - Skip Gates.pngSgt. Crowley assists Prof. Gates to descend steps across from Oval Office enroute to WH Rose Garden That would be a great suggestion. I put a comment in on the White House website addressed to its webmaster asking for a link to a higher def of that picture in order to capture the closeup you mention. (I hope they email or text me back such a link but I'm certainly not optimistic. I imagine instead my special request will generate but a quick, form-letter type reply accompanied by no especially made download link.)↜Just M E here , now16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed out before that that is putting the cart before the horse, chronologically-speaking. The reader who sees the article will be confused by the image and the text that describes an event a lot less friendly than three folk sitting down over a beer. - Arcayne(cast a spell)19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is supposed to summarize the article. There is no reason the lead photo can't be a summation of the events as well, as opposed to being in some chronological order. There are three individuals mention in the lead, Gates, Crowley and Obama, so it is reasonable for the lead photo to show all three together. I would crop the photo differently to accomplish that. --agr (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Obama too. Of course, Arnold, the question is academic cos we don't have a high-definition pic for us to crop a close-up outta. (The one of the 3 summiters toasting, taken before the VP arrived, was taken by a different White House photographer than the one shown here on the right margin; and, instead of its being posted in a tiny illustration to the official White House blog -- as the one on the talkpage margin was, see File:Jim Crowley - Skip Gates.png -- the "cheers" photo was uploaded instead to Flickr, ultra pixeled: see File:Beer summit cheers.jpg.)↜Just M E here , now02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of this?
I just wanted to ask why the sentence, "Gates is African American and Crowley is white." is included. Why does it have any importance in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.226.116 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Xeno - that bit of over-the-top political correctness was a bit jarring to me as well. To answer the anon's question, the race of the two was the preemininet issue surrounding the initial event of the article subject - the arrest of a black man in his own house by a white cop. Not an unknown or uncommon issue in America, and it is because of that that there was a flap over the arrest. I think everyone here understands that had Gates not been black, this article would not exist, as little would have been made by it in the local and national media. - Arcayne(cast a spell)15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I was doing my cleanup edits before the block, I also wondered whether this should come out. I left it in because part of the media coverage included concerns about racial profiling, and some quote attributed to Gates that suggested racial conflict. But it's a bit jarring and probably could be removed without harming the article.Mattnad (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you delete it, a reader ten years from now in China might wonder why US President Obama is mentioning race in connection with the arrest of some Harvard professor named Gates.↜Just M E here , now19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This goes to lasting value for the article. Right now, most readers know perfectly well which racial group each man belongs to (not counting that G, C, and O are all Irish-American ;-) ). But that will later be less true. As noted by others, whole article gets its notability from a well-known black man getting arrested on his own front porch by a white officer under disputed circumstances. The simple sentence identifying the race of these two participants is relevant, and neutral as to who was right or wrong about the validity of the arrest. I'd say leave that sentence as is. Pechmerle (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with keeping black and white, with the exception of the usage of African American that is used initially. for the most part, white Americans identify primarily as White Americans, not European Americans (I'd never heard that term in Europe or Asia, though at times, they've had some choice nicknames for all Americans!). - Arcayne(cast a spell)21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this jarring in the lead. I would say take it out. We have entire paragraphs that talk about any racial controversy. Keeping it in the lead prompts readers to infer that race was a motivating factor in the arrest, which is pretty questionable given all that's come out since then. It also creates a false racial dichotomy, making it sound like everyone in Cambridge is either black or blue-eyed Anglo white, which is most definitely not the case. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to come out exactly let’s just edit it! It does start to offer the context of why the arrest became noteworthy, but doesn't go far enough. Here's what I'd put in for further editing when the page is unblocked, perhaps we can edit on the tp and then insert when done and “live” again. The incident generated national media coverage and a debate about racial issues and whether or not the incident represented an example of racial profiling by police. Professor Gates’s African-American ethnicity and involvement with studying the history of African-Americans, along with a comment on the incident by President Barack Obama, put a national media spotlight on the events.Manyanswer (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a start when I look at it. We need to clean up my run on ands in the first sentence and someone needs to track that Obama's ref in the next paragraph, which this leads nicely to, must change from the full name to Pres. Obama since he's mentioned already here.Manyanswer (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redundant usage of 'African American' doesn't work for me. Nor does all the political correctness. the Lede is mostly fine the way it is, at least where it refers to the racial difference being white and black. We aren't deeming everyone in Cambridge as either white or black, and African American is simply not as useful a term, since there is no opposite correlation with white folk (as per my earlier post about how white Americans self-identify). - Arcayne(cast a spell)22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can be neutral on PC issues since there are two opportunities and that addresses the redundancy! The incident generated national media coverage and a debate about racial issues regarding whether or not it represented an example of racial profiling by police. Professor Gates’s African-American ethnicity and involvement with studying the history of black Americans, along with a comment on the incident by President Barack Obama, put a national media spotlight on the events.Manyanswer (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the non-answer. J. Mundo, I can also (and do) say WP:BLP allows for this photograph. The essay is a deeper dive into when we can include factual information that some might think is harmful. I'd like your and others who bring up an abstract claim of "harm" to consider this. Mattnad (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All should remember that the mug shot cuts both ways. All opposed to it are reading it as somehow demeaning to Gates; however it can equally stand as a symbol of wrongful arrest: why is an honored professor in a mug shot? Anyway it has certainly been used in news articles on the topic [14]. Also, I agree with Mattnad that I haven't seen a valid citation from BLP that says not to use it. Keep. Manyanswer (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a booking photo (mug shot) harms the subject depends on context. In the Gates - Crowley incident, Gates immediately asserted that the arrest was racial profiling. Subsequently, Gates has indicated that -- in terms of his longer-term involvement with the issue of racial profiling -- he intends to seek use of the incident as a 'teachable moment.' Gates is well known in that area, and this WP article makes clear that the charges on which Gates was arrested were promptly dropped by the authorities. In this particular context, I don't think it can be said that showing the booking photo is harmful to Gates. Pechmerle (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to show the mug shot and the picture of his arrest. That is the topic of the article. It would not be fair to include them in Gates' bio without the context of the incident. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The contentious disputed demeaning pictures of the innocent person needs removing, while the dispute is ongoing the default position is out of the article, there is no consensus to insert these two pictures. I took them out, twice to protect Gates from further harm. When they were out the world did not end, the article did not fall from the sky, there is a newspaper in England called the daily star, a tabloid, I sometimes buy it to look at the pictures. Other more broadsheet papers I buy for the reading. Nine out of ten people never get past reading the lede and looking at the pictures. Every time I look at the I want to take them out. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Tabloid comparisons are not apt here: NPR, Time, Newsweek have all published the booking photo. Now, back to our efforts to examine from an encyclopedia point of view - how do these photos fail the "harm test" cited above? Mattnad (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back to your efforts, yes. You can puff and puff but it will not remove the obvious reality that there is a lot of opposition to having the mugshot in the article, and it will not go away, I repeat, there is no consensus to insert the mugshot and it should be removed until the dispute is sorted out. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Editors here are claiming consensus on the BLP board for inclusion, but I don't see that at all. Wikipedia isn't NPR, Time, or Newsweek. The style of writing, focus, and perspective that might be acceptable there wouldn't work in a neutral encyclopedia. Unlike those sources, we write for the long-term, and with a focus on longevity. Some of the editors are this page cannot seem to separate what other sources do with what Wikipedia does, and that's a problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to my comment below, I think I said "there seems to be a consensus forming around [inclusion]" on this page. I still think there is a consensus forming up around inclusion. You seem to be the dissenting voice. I certainly don't mean to discount your opinion in any way. I just want to know why you think the photo fails WP:HARM#TEST. If I thought it did, I would be advocating it's removal as loudly as you, but I think it passes the test for inclusion. Would you please explain to me why you see it as failing the Harm test? Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted my opinions about this mugshot at numerous venues. I have twice removed the pictures, feel free to check my edit summaries for my standpoint. It is time we found out if there really is community support for inclusion and put it to the vote. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
By the way, I just want to point out that WP:BLP says potentially harmful information about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed without discussion, not that information that is unflattering should be removed without discussion. This isn't a mugshot that was dug out of the archives of Massachusetts police booking photos; it has been widely published already, and the arrest is not something Gates seems to want to hide or want not to talk about publicly. I'm sorry, but I don't care to look for your comments in "numerous venues", I just want a direct answer to a direct question: What part of the WP:HARM#TEST does the image fail? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the harm to his reputation has already been done, and the inclusion of the demeaning booking shot is a continuation of that harm. The article goes on happily without the mugshot, so I would say, it is far better to err on the side of caution. Perhaps in an interview he will comment that he is ok with the mugshot, perhaps email him and ask him if he is ok if we put it on this page? When all the hurrah has died down and no one is bothered any more in a couple of weeks this article will sit here forever demeaning this innocent person. Actually the article is a way around policy by giving the incident a page of its own you circumvent the BLP issues, there is no way this mugshot would be inserted in his BLP and the innocent person should imo be protected to the same level in this article. Lets find out if there is any community support for the inclusion of this mugshot and put it to a vote. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Have a look at the viewing figures, here is the article [[15]] and here [[16]] is the talk page and here is his biography [[17]] you'll see that all the traffic is to the biography and that there is a lot less traffic to this article and in fact, if you remove the wikipedian traffic there is little or no interest from the outside world to this article, these figures show that too much is being made of this story here and actually it would be better to cut out all the excessive material and return it to gate's bio where it would at least get read.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry if my above comment sounded like I was getting impatient. I didn't mean it that way, but on a second look... Anyway, I think I can see your point about there being a lot more Wikipedian hubbub about this article than actual readers reading it, but my position is actually to move the article a little further away from Gates, because this whole thing wasn't all about Gates. I don't think he has sole ownership of the controversy. This was an event that centers around a conflict between Gates and Crowley, and then Obama and others stepped in. Personally, I'd rather see it moved to "Gates-Crowley controversy" than merged into Gates' bio article. I do also think you have something with 'let's see if we can really determine just what Gates thinks of the photo'. I haven't seen anything where he directly commented on the circulating photo, but does anybody have a good indication in a reliable source? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be sorry for, I was fine with you. Is it possible that we could get his email and draft a little letter to him to get his opinion? I would prefer "Gates-Crowley controversy" to what we have now, agreed he does not have sole ownership of the incident. 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
snailmail address: Harvard University's WEB Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, 104 Mount Auburn Street # 3R, Cambridge MA 02138
Ok, I missed the older figures, however as things stand now the traffic has settled down, anyway the figures were really just a little way to try and get the perspectives in line with reality. There is one page where three editors are in dispute after dispute over the detail and asking RFC after RFC and when I checked the figures the page was getting 3 or 4 viewings a day and the talk page like a hundred and fifty. I will write to him later today if no one else does it, could someone draft up a simple neutral letter(not leading him in either direction) and lets ask him, saying this I am not suggesting that it is up to him whether we insert it or not, but it would add weight to one side or the other. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Dear mr Gates, I am the wikipedian editor Off2riorob. We are requesting your opinion regarding a matter we are discussing on the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
The discussion is over the insertion of the police booking shot of you into this article Henry Louis Gates arrest incident which you can see and read [here]. The discussion is over whether including the booking shot in the article is demeaning or harmful to you in any way. We would greatly appreciate your comment over this issue by way of a reply to this email. You are of course very welcome to discuss the issue with us online on the talk page [here]You also have your own biography on Wikipedia, if you would like to read it you will find it [here] Very best regards. Wikipedian editor Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't work, I just got the email back..This account has been permanently disabled. What is the other option? facebook? Is it really his account? Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess that's 4 cents. I think the article should tell the brands of beer served at the beer summit. This is something people will continue to be interested in. Also "African American" and "white" is not really a problem. If two matching expressions were used (either way) it would actually make a greater impression of racial conflict. (Off-topic, President Obama should have just served everyone the same beer -- Sam Adams since they are all Yankees) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While that's usually a god thing, and the right thing in this instance, take a look at the sections above - they are pretty frakkin' long. Taking a breath and starting a new section, summarizing the points of the earlier one sounds like a pretty sane thing to do. It also allows for less scrolling to reply in a section, and allows older sections to be archived. While SteveD went about it in the wrong way, he has the grain of the right idea. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)08:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link primary source of The Root's Gates interview?
Per WP:EL, since the police arrest report and dispatch radio transcript, etc., make for an imbalance, I suggest we add the primary source of a Gates' interview about the events (as Gates posted on the black issues/genealogy website he publishes) to the article's external links.↜Just M E here , now12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled about it, but when Jmhn asked on my talk page after I deleted it, I saw the logic in it. Though it is really more a defense, well after the event and with plenty of time for consideration and legal advice (and probably after looking at the report and transcript), so they don't totally balance. But I guess it is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say do it. I think it contained stuff not found in other interviews with him, not all of it flattering in hindsight. It's fair. Manyanswer (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Wehwalt's concerns, but balance would keep the article about the subject, and keep it fromt he muck and more that heralded the underbelly of this event. - Arcayne(cast a spell)19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[...] § "To put cuffs on somebody is a grave matter, and it has to be for more than an officer just having a bad day," says George Kirkham, a former cop who's now a criminology professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee. As employers and others increasingly use background checks, even a trivial arrest can be potentially damaging. § And subjective arrests of people who challenge an officer's authority also undermine community trust needed to catch and investigate real criminals, says Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason Magazine. § Police defenders counter that the citizenry needs to respect officers who, day in and day out, perform a dangerous job, with few accolades. "The rule is, if a police officer stops you in a car or on the street, he's the captain of the ship, and whatever he says goes," says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police's legislative division. "If you've got something to address, do it later. Do what he says, or else only bad things can happen." § [...]
I suggest that the CSMonitor piece be added to the WP Contempt of Cop article, which is what it most strongly relates to. In addition, consider adding a "See also" reference to that article here. Pechmerle (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't anticipate a "See also" as prominent as this. It tends to have a POV problem in this format. I had expected only a footnote type see also reference. More in keeping with a balanced approach. Pechmerle (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also links are useful when there is a good probability they will be eventually incorporated into the article. If you feel the links meet that criterion, add them back in. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the See Also section with cross-referencing footnote in the article text, where the concept of contempt-of-cop was already mentioned in this article's main text. To eliminate the undue weight contempt-of-cop would have as a stand-alone See also section. Pechmerle (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A POV edit to the arrest photo caption:
JMHN has added a quote from Gates to the photo caption. Take a look. This change gives a strong highlight to Gates's version of the event, and therefore breaks NPOV. I think we should take the quote back out. Pechmerle (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and move it to the article text for now, before others come along and start a 'caption war.' That's without prejudice (oops) to JMNH's views, which I am glad to consider if he wants to comment further. Pechmerle (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the now-deleted addition to the caption and would be in favour of restoring it. To make the caption as a whole more neutral, we could add Crowley's side too. E.g. something along these lines:
"Gates on the front porch of his home, being arrested; Sgt. Leon Lashley in the foreground, Sgt. Crowley on the right.[10] Gates later wrote: "A crowd had gathered, and as they were handcuffing me and walking me out to the car, I said, 'Is this how you treat a black man in America?'" Sgt. Crowley wrote in his report, "Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him."
It seems to me the caption should mention the fact that he is being led out of his own home. That is an undisputed fact and central to the controversy. Perhaps "Gates is led out of his home in handcuffs after being arrested. Sgt. Leon Lashley is in the foreground." This version also better describes what is happening to readers with visual impairment.--agr (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see Jayen466's suggestion before I plugged in Arnold's, immediately above, {sighs} but I like it. I think it helps to fill in and humanize the narrative by captioning each side's decription of the scene being depicted in the pic.↜Just M E here , now02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lashley's name could be left out of the caption. But he is identifiable, and he is also quoted in the Response section, where his remark that he 100% supported Crowley's decision to make the arrest is noted. Pechmerle (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the photo caption should be simple, and without argumentative content. Readers can judge for themselves what the photo shows. The main text is the place for the positions the two sides have taken on the validity/invalidity of the arrest. Pechmerle (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And the current caption -- "led out of home" -- is POV. Part of the legal foundation for the arrest was that Gates was making a public disturbance outside his home. Better, legally neutral language is "led from home" which I will insert now.Mattnad (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captions of prominent images are among the most-read parts of articles. It would be useful to the reader here to describe the different points of view from which the two protagonists viewed the situation, providing context to the image. JN46616:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our article right now mentions Lashley in the caption, then in the "Reactions" there's mention of Lashley as a black officer who witnessed the arrest and fully supports the actions of his colleagues.
I suggest we consider some further bits from Lashley's account. As characterized by Lashley, Gates was saying things along the lines of "This is how a black man in America is treated!": apparently perfectly legal to say inside Gates's house. The officers requested Gates to please step outside. Lashley: "[...O]nce he came out of his own home, it became something different. It was -- he was in -- he was in the public view, and he was causing much of a -- it was just getting out of control after he came outside."
Lashley: "I arrived on the scene. There was -- Officer Crowley -- Sergeant Crowley and Officer Figueroa were inside the building -- or inside the house. I stepped on the sidewalk where the call -- the caller was on scene. And she was giving an interview with Officer Rosa {phonetic}, who was speaking to her. And I sent another couple officers inside to see what was going on. I stayed out with Officer Rosa."
CNN's Anderson Cooper: "And, so, you -- you could hear conversation inside the house, though. What did you hear?"
"I heard some conversation inside the house. And as -- then, all of a sudden, it got a little bit louder, with the -- I heard the comments of: 'This is how a black man in America is treated. And I'm being placed under arrest in my own home because a white woman called the police.'"
"You know, the -- one of the questions a lot of people would have on this is, why -- why arrest Professor Gates? I mean, if -- if he's just talking back to police, and -- and President Obama says overreacting, perhaps, why not just let him do that in his own home and -- and leave the scene?"
"Well, once he -- once he came out of his own home, it became something different. It was -- he was in -- he was in the public view, and he was causing much of a -- it was just getting out of control after he came outside."
What's needed from Lashley's interview is his comment that if he had been the first officer on the scene, he thinks that there would have been no arrest. He puts it that 'black man to black man,' he believes it would have gone differently. That goes to the overall subject of the controversy, which is, was the arrest racial profiling (or not), was it just sound law enforcement (or not). It's a quote that I would favor including -- readily sourceable and highly relevant. Pechmerle (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yes, I agree. Here's the rest of the interview.
But he was on his front porch, right?
He's outside.
So, you have absolutely no qualms at all that he should have been arrested, that he should have been taken in?
I have no qualms with that. And one of the things that we want to -- would it have been different had I shown up first? And I think it probably would have been different. And [...] But had he acted that -- because of the black man to black man, it probably would have been different. And had he continued to do the -- ended up -- if it didn't go the way that I would assumed it would had gone had I been there first, I, too, would have probably had placed him under arrest, if it had gotten too much further out of control. But I believe Sergeant Crowley was within his rights to make that arrest at that location and at that time.
Sergeant Lashley, I know you are a busy man. I appreciate your time. And I appreciate all you do. Thank you.
I propose putting at the end of the paragraph in the article text: "Sgt. Lashley added that he thought it would have gone differently, with no arrest, if he had been the first officer to arrive on the scene and the initial encounter with Gates was "black man to black man." [cite CNN interview with Lashley]
I like it. ('Though also I still think it would be good if we could somehow mention Lashley's analysis that it was the officer's [strategic?] invitation for Gates to step outside that rendered his complaints against how he was being treated into an [ostensible] crime against the public at large.)↜Just M E here , now12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arrest and booking photos missing in action
I thought there was considerable agreement here that the arrest (porch) photo and the booking photo were informational to the reader of this article, and should be presented. I favor bringing them back, as we recently had them -- stacked in the Arrest section. I've reverted on the basis that the predominant view here is to keep them, and they do not violate policy as properly applied. This is not the case of a purely private individual whose arrest is about the only thing that gains wider attention. Instead, the arrest photos have a proper place in the life history of a person who has prominently addressed racial profiling issues prior to this incident. Pechmerle (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I haven't been very vocal on this discussion, but I have been following it, and from what I have seen, there seems to be consensus forming around retaining both photos in the Arrest section, possibly even putting one of them as lead image, but keeping the booking photo off the Henry Louis Gates article. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm hearing too, both here and on BLP, with an addition that the booking photo also might be best (as it has been for a while) in lower portions of the Arrest incident article (i.e. not in the lede) Manyanswer (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the image layout currently in use best serves the article. The more neutral dual photos work well as the lead image, as leading with the booking photo could be seen by some (???) as sensationalistic. I am of two minds over each of the photos, but the argument for removing the booking photo is weak (despite initial appearances), but leading with it may be a bit much. The booking photo most directly relates to the arrest, so I think it best serves the article there. Same with the arrest photo. I also agree with the distinction that placing the booking photo here is appropriate and is a valid exception to BLP, while placing it on the Gates article would be less appropriate and BLP would be a much stronger argument there. But that's just me, and I'm just one editor. ;) Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything close to a consensus on the issue. Personally I can accept using the mugshot if it is placed in context as one of the degrading aspects of an arrest, however this has not been achieved to date in our article. Without such context, I don't see the need to exhibit two highly negative photos of Gates. The mugshot coveys no new information about the arrest--that such photos are taken during the arrest process is common knowledge and not the subject of the article. We already have a better photo of Gates. Perhaps it is time for a straw poll on the issue.--agr (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knock yourself out, agr. I think our differences in what booking photos are as different as night and day. Your litmus for inclusion far exceeds what is currently in place. The kludged image is both misleading and inaccurate. The porch photo - essentially a perp walk - is unduly demeaning, to my reckoning, far more so than any reasonable person could consider the booking photo to be.
So no, we do not have a consensus on the use of the booking photo. The article should be using two photos, and two photos only: the booking image of Gates taken at the police station, and the Beer Summit image. The first shows the image that sparked the controversy, and the latter shows the conclusion of the matter. -Arcayne(cast a spell)18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current four photo layout is better. (If we ever hear back from Mr. Gates, that will be highly relevant information. But until then ...) The arrest (porch) photo is highly relevant for why this incident generated so much controversy. It shows the black man in question being led off his own porch in an arrest for charges that were dropped within days. I do not see the porch photo as harming Gate's reputation, because he has himself frequently drawn attention to the issue of racial-profiling arrests. And the Beer Summit photo is quite related to the article text that shows that the event resulted in the two principals getting together with the President for what appears to be -- and what they themselves reported to be -- a friendly conversation to share views on the incident. The photos accurately track the arc of the controversy. Pechmerle (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, it needs to be done both ways concurrently. I.e., keep the main points of a topic's discussion (perhaps summarized), and then the most recent comments on that topic. I don't know if this method can be employed without too much effort, though. 67.170.223.12 (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been brought up here and one archive has already been completed. I went ahead and archived based on the criteria Arcane used last time. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely bad form for editors deeply involved in a disputed, ongoing discussion to archive that same, ongoing discussion when it suits them. Please do not do this again. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was done at the request of other users on the page. If you have an issue with the archiving method I used, then make the argument - don't just blanketly reprimand me for doing something that you've determined is "bad."--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who requested it. Users who have a conflict of interest in an active discussion should not attempt to archive the same active discussion. It makes it look like they are trying to close the discussion and hide it. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you only had an issue with this after you were reported for edit warring. Nonetheless... if you feel something needs to be unarchived, then make the argument and the "uninvolved" can make the decision. I think I have been fair in the way that I archived, but if you disagree, show me the way...--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "if you are involved in a disputed, active discussion, don't archive that discussion" are you having problems understanding? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you've argued is that I shouldn't have done the archiving. You haven't supported this view with any policies, guidelines, essays, etc. You haven't claimed that I was unfair in the way I did this. You just don't like that I did it. I suspect you're just upset about the ongoing discussion on the edit warring board and are using this as a defacto ad hominem attack against me.
I continue to invite you to propose sections to be "unarchived." As I've said in another discussion, the ongoing discussions that were archived had jumped to another section heading. I was very careful to make it easy for the archived discussion to be accessed. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Talk about refusing to get the point. Look, we avoid conflicts of interests whenever possible. That means, if you are involved in an active discussion that involves a dispute, you do not archive the active discussion. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on probation now. Let's both agree to stop talking about each other, and focus on the article. For my part, I agree to not archive the page again. If there's something that I've archived that you'd like to see put back, let's talk about it.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey people, something just archived can simply be un-archived, no problem, folks. Is there a thread archived today that now needs to be restored to this page?↜Just M E here , now22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, V just wants to continue jamming up our talk page. If he had a real objection about a specific section, he would have made it already. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to come across impertinently to your discussion of V's behavior, Wilhelm -- but this is just a reminder that we are to bring up such things on user talk pages (or even on the probation page) but not here. Note the stipulation "assume good faith."↜Just M E here , now12:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Features of "Obama article probation" that pertain to this page
The Henry Louis Gates arrest incident became of note due to its linkage with the administration of Barack H. Obama, therefore the community has deemed this article to be a part of "Obama article probation." (See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation for what added features thereby exist to counter contentious behaviors.) Please do not discuss meta issues related to behavior on this article's talkpage -- as, rather, they are to be brought up and on the appropriate sub-page over at Obama article probation page.
Its most basic "stips":
Editors may be sanctioned for disruptive edits, including
edit warring
personal attacks
incivility
assumptions of bad faith
making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article
making repeated comments about the subject of the article
repeatedly discussing other editors.
Basically, on the talk page discuss the article.
"Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian. We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people. Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban -- take a break and come back refreshed."
Another point of information is that under probation there is to be zero edit warring at all, not edit warring up to 3 reverts. For example, should editors disagree with how the White House invitation to Gates and Crowley should be phrased in the article, speaking only hypothetically of course (bad joke), they must not revert more than once per editor per day but must take such disagreements to an appropriate forum such as mediation.↜Just M E here , now23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about this. Tarc added it, with an edit summary which didn't actually say what he did, and so now this article is part of article probation? What if I removed it? I think there should be an individualized determination of whether article probation is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. Didn't mean to imply that it was one person doing both things, but rather Tarc adding it to the template is the only basis on which you do the article probation. Obviously this is an extensively discussed topic, but it has been relatively civil and I am not sure there is a need for same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that about half of the articles in that template don't seem to be under article probation. It may be a good idea to have this under article probation, but I'm concerned about process here. As I'm gathering, the article is, you say, under article probation because 1) it's in that template and 2) you say it is. I'm not clear that this is good enough, and admin action could easily be challenged.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice timing! :) But unless I see something convincing, or a discussion either here or at AN/I with a consensus this article needs to be on article probation, I'm minded to remove the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article probation template should be placed by an administrator willing to oversee it... (Removed for now). –xenotalk14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community decided to place Obama-related pages under probation. No separate consensus is required on a page-by-page basis before placing notices. In general, being on article probation does not prohibit any behavior that is not already prohibited - personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, using talk pages to make accusations, soapboxing, edit warring shy of 3RR, etc., are already prohibited. Article probation simply means trying extra hard, and heightened enforcement. Edit warring over removing Obama article probation notices could also be considered a violation of Obama article probation. Having said all that, the tendency for the most part has been to construe "Obama-related" fairly narrowly for purposes of article probation - books by or about him, articles about him and his political achievements, his family members, and so on, not his associates, friends, cabinet members, and so on. That could change I suppose. If I had to guess, Gates' long-term notability is 80% for being a professor and 20% over Obama's comments relating to his arrest. Thus, although the recent difficulty with the article is Obama-related, the article is not primarily Obama-related. Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC) - italicized because discussion has now moved to WP:AN/I.[reply]
Done. Thanks, Pechmerle. ↜Just M E here , now 02:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Henry_Louis_Gates,_Jr._mugshot.jpg){kind=link}
