Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy/Archive 3
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
RfC for "Beer Summit Beer"
Comments are requested on whether to include the brands of beer consumed at the "beer summit" between President Obama, Vice President Biden, Henry Gates, and Sgt. Crowley. If this information should be included, does it belong in the main text, or in the "references" section as a footnote? Arguments for and against can be found at Talk:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates#Beer Summit Beer. The most recent discussion on this topic can be found at Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident#A suggestion regarding the beer brands footnote--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Continuation of the "Beer Summit" section title discussion
No disucssion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 The start of this discussion has been archived here.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).
Viriditas, the common argument for all of those supporting the use of "Beer summit" note COMMON. How do you answer that? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:23, 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)
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)
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)
I've been away from this dicussion for a bit, but here a few comments:
Oh, and there have been a couple references to the idea that COMMONNAME is a guideline, not a policy. This isn't the case. COMMONNAME is part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, which is a policy.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
The Facts
Any questions? Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Viriditas has been reported for edit warring.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
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 , now 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 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) |
change the title
this is more than an arrest, this has touch the life of many minorities. Plain and simple. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Remarkable.... Mattnad (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I didn't have a problem with the old title. All arrests are incidents.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's rather what I've been saying for some time here. A couple of folk just make changes and fail to discuss. It won;t end well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't undo a lot of page name changes. Could some else revert it back until the editor actually deigns to discuss the proposed move? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's rather what I've been saying for some time here. A couple of folk just make changes and fail to discuss. It won;t end well. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I didn't have a problem with the old title. All arrests are incidents.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- I like controversy better than incident. I could go for "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy"--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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. –xenotalk 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 , now 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agreed, this is getting a wee bit personal. Let's AGF and move on. There's several proposals on the table for consideration:
- Arrest of Henry Louis Gates
- Henry Louis Gates case
- Henry Louis Gates incident
- Henry Louis Gates controversy
- Gates-Crowley incident
- Gates-Crowley controversy
- Henry Louis Gates arrest incident
- Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy
- We can eliminate half the choices by deciding whether to use incident, controversy, or neither.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 , now 02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I support the current title. It's in line with Air Force One photo op incident. –xenotalk 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- "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)
- Mattnad said, "'incident' still emphasizes 'Arrest' - Is there any arrest that is not an incident?"
- They are innumerable. An incident involving mistaken identity. An incident of dejavu. An incident of police brutality. (And on and on.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- "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)
- I support the current title. It's in line with Air Force One photo op incident. –xenotalk 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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 , now 02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Agreed, this is getting a wee bit personal. Let's AGF and move on. There's several proposals on the table for consideration:
- 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)
- 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).
- If nothing else, we could simply rename the article, the "Henry Louis Gates Arrest Kerfuffle" or "Harry Potter & the Henry Louis Gates Arrest". - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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 , now 11:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- (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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Now you have that darned song going through my head! I should block you.:)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
arbitrary break
(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.
- LATimes editorial "The Henry Gates case"
- NYT editorial "The Gates Case and Racial Profiling"
- BoHerald's Joe Fitzgerald "Gates case sure to set back race relations"
- From Skip's local paper in the Vineyard
- Clive Crook (The Atlantic)
- The Cambridge Chronicle
↜Just M E here , now 16:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "Gates-Crowley controversy" isn't bad, but it really was the arrest of Gates that was at the core of the controversy. I don't know that there was a "Gates camp" and a "Crowley camp" more than there was a "should have been arrested camp" and a "shouldn't have been arrested camp." To me, Gates-Crowley controversy overemphasises the players, and underemphasises the event. I still prefer "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" or "Gates arrest controversy" or something similar.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
My first choice would be Arcayne's Henry Louis Gates Arrest Kerfuffle. Haha, no really, Henry Louis Gates Arrest Controversy seems best to me, as that's the core of the controversy (Gates' arrest). There are some articles on the project that inappropriately use "Controversy" in the title, but this pretty much a perfect example of when it's appropriate. Lara 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like the discussion here has slowed down. Any major objections to "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy"? If not, I'll do an {{editprotected}}.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What is an "arrest incident"?
Shouldn't this page be titled "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy", or simpy the previous title, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates"? After all, an arrest is an incident, so the title is too long and redundant. Apparently this was a recent move, and the page got protected mid-edit war with the "wrong" title. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is being discussed further up the page. The suggestion you've made for a title is one of that is under consideration.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree "arrest controversy" is a bit clearer/more idiomatic. ↜Just M E here , now 16:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, Shark. Didn't know the above discussion was still active. It also occurs to me that the word "controversy" may partially alleviate BLP concerns about the article's existence as well as placement of the booking photo. It underscores the point that the arrest was in question, not the character of the individual. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree that the added word "incident" is not necessary. Shorter is better, and incident is an unnecessary distinction, as is the alternative "controversy". The main topic is what lead to the arrest, and all that flowed from it. Dhaluza (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Title changed
I've changed the title to what appears to be the consensus - "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy." It summarizes that it's both an arrest (a single event) and a controversy (debate/disagreement that flowed from that event).--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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]
References
- ^ citation
Notes
- 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.
- Kind of klugey and nontraditional, but an acceptable second option. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Oh yes, I agree Wikipedia for the masses. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oh yes, I agree Wikipedia for the masses. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I came up with 1,214 results on Google news. Still pretty decent coverage, especially if you look at the diversity in coverage and analysis.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- I'd be comfortable with this compromise. A "Notes" section seperate from the "References" section. A couple thoughts, though...
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I came up with 1,214 results on Google news. Still pretty decent coverage, especially if you look at the diversity in coverage and analysis.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Example
Take a look here for an example of how this might look. I only found 2 items that could be moved from References to Notes. Thoughts?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Is this ready for prime-time? If so, I'll do an {{editprotected}}--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. Good work! I'd say go with it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Change made.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. Good work! I'd say go with it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Mugshot adds nothing to the article
No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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. –xenotalk 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Time Magazine have an article here, 3 in fact and I am still looking for the mugshot? [here]
I would say that time have given it little prominence or exposure.(Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
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 , now 08:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
<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)
|
Crowley's scowl
No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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? --JN466 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
|
Harm Test
No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
For those who feel the booking photograph harms gates, I'd like your explanation of how it might fail the Wikipedia:HARM#TEST Mattnad (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
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))
I have sent this to the Harvard email address. 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) 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)
|
Arrest and booking photos missing in action
No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
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)
This has also been discussed at the following, and these arguments should be weighed as well so that they do not have to again be made here:
|
Gates Mug shot and arrest pictures, in or out.
I've reverted two recent IP edits - either or both edit may be fine as a content matter but I'm uncomfortable with the reason given in one case, and the lack of reason in the other. The first was the removal of an arrest photo and mug shot on the grounds that anyone who adds them must be racist. It is not fair to accuse editors of racism here, and any edit based solely on an uncorroborated feeling that another editor is racist is, in my opinion, an invalid edit on the face of it. There is a legitimate WP:BLP question, though, as to whether we should include the mug shot and arrest photograph of a man who was never charged and likely did not commit any crime. By showing a professor in an upset, undignified setting we are demeaning him perhaps. The counterargument would be that it is a historically important event that we are reporting, and that the injury was not done by us - the loss of face arose from the incident, not our showing a photo. Another argument is that the arrest photo does not comply with WP:NONFREE. It was taken by a private photographer and reprinted in various newspapers. The owner / source is listed as "B. Carter/Demotix Images", which means it seems to be owned by a company in the business of selling news photographs. It is tricky perhaps to argue from a copyright perspective that we have a right to use for free a commercial photograph, for the very purpose the photograph was taken - to illustrate the news. One would have to argue that the photo itself is a matter of historical importance, and I don't think we hit that threshold. The incident is important for sure, but this particular photograph is not noteworthy is it? It is the fact of his arrest, not the photo of his arrest, that is important. That is a lot different than, say, the video of Neda, the Iranian protester - in that case it was the video that galvanized protests and we have sourced commentary about the video. Okay, the second part of the revert ended up removing the navbox again (which is under discussion). I don't have a strong feeling about whether it should be there or not, but on process grounds I feel uncomfortable allowing a contentious IP with no demonstrated edit history to be reverting other editors without offering a reason. Thanks all, Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well said, wikidemon, strange edits from that ip especially removing the navbox and doing it from the hilton hotel.new mexico (Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps its a joke and its an editor having a laugh, stirring up a bit of controversy Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- And perhaps he/she isn't. Let's leave them alone, hope they will find something shiny to play with and go away. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that noone has thought to ifd the B. Carter/Demotix "porch" image had given me hope for it but if the kill-all-fair-use posse is joined by such reasonable voices as Wikidemon's in such a deletion discussion, its days may be numbered. (Still, you never know!) ↜Just M E here , now 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty funny. Hey, I don't make the image use policy. If it were up to me we would encourage lots of fair use images but then include an easy tag so that anyone copying the articles to create a mirror or derivative article could easily remove different kinds of nonfree images to suit their use, jurisdiction, level of comfort with copyrighted images, etc. But sometimes you have to uphold a policy even if you don't agree with it. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The default position for both of these contentious pictures is out until there is either an end to discussion or a clear consensus to keep them in. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC):
- Actually, per WP:BRD if someone adds content in good faith, including images, the default position is to leave them in until and unless someone reverts with a good faith objection. You don't need prior consensus. My point is that the IP editor's accusation of censorship is on the face of it not a good faith content objection, so we haven't gotten to the "R" part of BRD. I've engaged the editor on my talk page, and it's clear that he/she is editing in good faith but not terribly familiar with our civility and content policies, so I'm trying to explain patiently. If you also think the images don't belong, then that is a bona fide objection, and I would not restore the photos (and would urge others to do likewise) until we have a clear direction for this. You're certainly free to remove the images and that would not be edit warring. But in the interest of stability you might want to leave them in until we can see if there is significant support for keeping them out. Please be aware that arrest photos and mug shots for innocent, uncharged, wrongly arrested, unconvicted, etc., people is a subject that often comes up, and I think the results are mixed. I'm pretty sure we have Mel Gibson's and Bill Gates' mug shots somewhere in the encyclopedia and (other than Mel Gibson looking rather handsome and in good spirits) they aren't exactly flattering either. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument, I'm just trying to figure out whether there is a wider consensus on this issue. Perhaps a friendly query to WP:BLP/N? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- There has been a lot of discussion about this and there are plenty of editors that want the photo's out, it's time for a head count. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay....
- There has been a lot of discussion about this and there are plenty of editors that want the photo's out, it's time for a head count. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, per WP:BRD if someone adds content in good faith, including images, the default position is to leave them in until and unless someone reverts with a good faith objection. You don't need prior consensus. My point is that the IP editor's accusation of censorship is on the face of it not a good faith content objection, so we haven't gotten to the "R" part of BRD. I've engaged the editor on my talk page, and it's clear that he/she is editing in good faith but not terribly familiar with our civility and content policies, so I'm trying to explain patiently. If you also think the images don't belong, then that is a bona fide objection, and I would not restore the photos (and would urge others to do likewise) until we have a clear direction for this. You're certainly free to remove the images and that would not be edit warring. But in the interest of stability you might want to leave them in until we can see if there is significant support for keeping them out. Please be aware that arrest photos and mug shots for innocent, uncharged, wrongly arrested, unconvicted, etc., people is a subject that often comes up, and I think the results are mixed. I'm pretty sure we have Mel Gibson's and Bill Gates' mug shots somewhere in the encyclopedia and (other than Mel Gibson looking rather handsome and in good spirits) they aren't exactly flattering either. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument, I'm just trying to figure out whether there is a wider consensus on this issue. Perhaps a friendly query to WP:BLP/N? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The default position for both of these contentious pictures is out until there is either an end to discussion or a clear consensus to keep them in. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC):
- That's pretty funny. Hey, I don't make the image use policy. If it were up to me we would encourage lots of fair use images but then include an easy tag so that anyone copying the articles to create a mirror or derivative article could easily remove different kinds of nonfree images to suit their use, jurisdiction, level of comfort with copyrighted images, etc. But sometimes you have to uphold a policy even if you don't agree with it. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that noone has thought to ifd the B. Carter/Demotix "porch" image had given me hope for it but if the kill-all-fair-use posse is joined by such reasonable voices as Wikidemon's in such a deletion discussion, its days may be numbered. (Still, you never know!) ↜Just M E here , now 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- And perhaps he/she isn't. Let's leave them alone, hope they will find something shiny to play with and go away. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I Support the removal of the mug shot as unencyclopedic, and degrading to Gates without having a real purpose. The article already makes clear that he was arrested. There is nothing particularly germane or enlightening to adding the mug shot.
I am neutral about the arrest photo because it gives a little more context, and it was widely circulated, meaning that it has somewhat more explanatory value. However, it too is degrading and I can see a valid objection on BLP grounds. Further, there is a WP:NONFREE question I raised above, but that might better be handled by nominating the image for deletion because we probably can't get a full discussion of nonfree images on this page. Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Gosh, it's too early to call but I predict a "no consensus". Which means no consensus to add or no consensus to delete? Wikidemon (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support'The mugshot and the arrest photo as they are both demeaning and unnecessary to the article, the protection of the innocent person should be paramount. We should give Gates here as an innocent person in this incident the same high level of protection as if it was his WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The mugshot is part of the story, cannot be reproduced in words, and we do not censor. While the arrest photo is nonfree, it complies with applicable policy and again cannot be reproduced in words.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support the removal is not about censorship but our WP:BLP policy about individuals: "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity". I agree that is degrading and doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article. --Jmundo (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support the removal of the mugshot. Gates has been released and the charges dropped, so there is now reason to put a mugshot on wikipedia. Mugshots should only be used for those convicted or possibly waiting trial in prison. Martin451 (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the Removal the booking photo (mug shot) was used in news reports, raising its use as fair. It does not violate WP:BLP as written, just the opinions of some editors that we need to be super nice to everyone. There is a perfectly fine middle ground, with support on the BLP discussion of this, that booking photos should generally not be in BLPs unless the person is primarily known as a criminal, and should be used in other articles only when the article is about an arrest. This use meets both requirements as the article is not a BLP and is certainly about the arrest. Other editors have pointed out that to read a booking photo as demeaning is to miss half the story: as in the use of Rosa Parks's booking photo, it can be read to document an injustice. And that is the specific intent of this article, to document the events. Readers can judge appropriately for themselves with more info, let's trust them to read and understand as well as to see. The other photo should stay for similar reasons. Manyanswer (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Do we need the photos? Assuming there is consensus that the photos do not do harm to anyone and do not violate BLP guidelines, and assuming that they are deemed appropriate, are they needed? Does the article truly suffer by their removal? Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Or does it? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Broadening such thoghts to the entire project, Should we do it in general? (Leading to my votes, below... )
- Keep Mugshots are used all over the project; make a broad policy removing front-and-profile booking shots from "arrest" type sections throughout the project or be consistent and keep these here of Gates.
Yet I'm conflicted, so,neutral, about the "porch" photo: which may be famous enough in connection with the event to merit inclusion but, on the other hand, I've read Gates's account of how he'd been complaining loudly about the officers' having, at first, handcuffed him from behind (since Gates would certainly usually descends his steps of his house using a cane)...so it's a little painful for me to even look at the shot. <editorial>The responding officer had called in to keep the cars coming, after the ostensibly suspicious acting respondent did not comply with his request to step out on the porch; yet once the adrenaline is up and backup has already been called, I think cops at that point unfortunately have got to find a reason not to run ya in for something or another.</editorial> ↜Just M E here , now 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC) - Seems unnecessary - Yes the article is about the arrest, but the charges were later dropped. Not sure what purpose is being served by retaining a mugshot of an arrest that did not lead to charges. Tarc (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the removal. These photos are accurately sourced; they are highly relevant to the article. In context (which is very important for this article), they are not degrading to Gates nor does he need protection from them. The Rosa Parks analogy, while not perfect, is germane. The existence of the photos plus the charges being dropped is a combination of facts that is of high notability. Gates has already indicated that he will use this incident for public discussion of racial profiling arrests and similar issues. In this context, it would be better to leave the photos in. Pechmerle (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- 'Tho I remain innerly conflicted, Pechmerle's thoughts make me change my neutral on the porch shot to a keep, based on this reading of Gates' statements as his desire to publicize the various issues he had confronted because of his [wrongful] arrest. ↜Just M E here , now 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC).
- Oppose the removal of the booking photo. I could go either way on the "porch" photo, as it is more inflammatory and is not a free image, but the booking photo is free and more importantly, it depicts what the article is about. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose removal on BLP grounds, for the reasons stated by Pechmerle. I do not agree that these pictures are inherently degrading. The arrest itself may have been degrading, but that is why it is notable; the photos are facts (or perhaps, artifacts of an event) whose meaning is something for the reader to determine based on the reader's interpretation of the circumstances. And in this article, which deals specifically with the arrest as a notable event, they are relevant and significant.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- On what BLP grounds? BLP is about protecting the individual. We are not bots searching for free images, Wikipedia should be neutral, free of bias, and racially sensitive. Yes, of course is degrading, did the police ask him for permission to publish his image (personal rights)? Do we need the mugshots in case he breaks "the rules" again or escape the authority? Go ahead, keep propagating the stereotypical image of a black man in America. --Jmundo (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I came here because of canvassing at ANI. The mug shot is the most important photo. All other photos are not as important. I don't know if it is free use or stolen. A lawyer should look into it. Federal government photos are free use but I don't know about police. If it is free use, I choose keep. If not free use, oppose. Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support inclusion. Editors above have mentioned that it is degrading and unencyclopedic, which makes sense if the article under question was Henry Louis Gates. However, there's no pic that's more appropriate to an article about an arrest then then the arrest mugshot. --Pink Bull (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Include - the photo documents the event (the arrest), is a free image, and there's no indication that the subject feels it is degrading. Rather, Gates has professed that he will use the arrest as a teachable moment. The same image has appeared in several magazines and newspapers without incident.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I support the removal of both photos on the basis that the photos themselves are not sufficiently noteworthy. The noteworthy thing is the arrest and surrounding incident. Including the photos doesn't add anything of encyclopedic worth to the article that the text does not already convey and will serve only to mislead the reader and cause potential harm to the reputation of their subject, who was not charged, tried, nor convicted of any crime. -- Hux (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I support the removal of the mugshot. The subconscious biasing effect of mugshots is well documented, and part of why juries are not allowed to see mugshots of a defendant. As a general principle, I believe we should not have mughots from wrongful arrests or arrests that later turned out to unwarranted and did not result in charges being brought. I think that is actually quite important. Including mugshots from such arrests is equivalent to presenting the subject in a false light. (I am in favour of retaining the picture showing Gates being arrested on his front porch.) JN466 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the booking photo in the article Rosa Parks is inherently degrading? Cause I certainly don't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- When there is an issue in an article bout the usage of mug shots, each situation should be evaluated on its own merits. Falling back on "other stuff" arguments is not terribly convincing. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am absolutely amazed at the tenacity with which the Rosa Parks argument is brought up. First, Rosa Parks is not a living person. Second, she was arrested, charged, found guilty, and sentenced. All the charges against Gates, on the other hand, were dropped. About the only thing Parks and Gates have in common is that they are both well-known African-Americans.
- The principle proposed is simply this: Do not show mugshots of arrests of living persons if the charges were dropped, or the defendant was subsequently cleared of all charges. Neither of these two criteria apply to Rosa Parks. JN466 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's a proposed principle, but I think what makes more sense is a broader test of relevance rather than guilt or innocence. I've heard complaints that mugshots are my their nature demeaning - innocence or guild doesn't change that. I've also heard some questions of whether or not a mugshot adds anything to an article - innocence or guilt doesn't change that either. The current harm test, as well as the broader BLP guidelines allow for editor to make a judgment based on the context. An article focused on an arrest can allow for a booking photo, whereas a typical BLP should not allow it unless the arrest is the significant portion of a person's notability.Mattnad (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be some misunderstanding of the Parks example. Yes, she was convicted of disorderly conduct at trial. But she appealed that. Though her appeal was dismissed, a parallel federal civil case from the Montgomery NAACP went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that segregated public bus systems were unconstitutional. Thus, Parks's position was vindicated in the courts. Gates was vindicated quicker, with the Cambridge official statement that the charge against him was dropped as an "unfortunate and regrettable incident." But Parks was ultimately also vindicated at law. Thus, the use of arrest photos is relevant, in both cases, to show the treatment that was subsequently found to be unjustified at law. Pechmerle (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are arguing from a position of moral equivalence, but it just doesn't fit. Rosa Parks' arrest was not a mistake. She broke a law, albeit an unjust law, and broke it knowingly, intentionally, to make a point about its unjustness. She was found guilty and retained a criminal record to the day she died. It was only after her death that the Rosa Parks Act was passed, enabling people like her who had taken part in protests to have their criminal records expunged. Gates did not break any law, just or unjust. His arrest was declared an "unfortunate and regrettable" mistake. The other difference of course is that he is a living person ... I continue to believe that we should not show mugshots of people arrested by mistake. It presents them in a false light. You see, with Rosa Parks, we know that segregation laws in the 50s were unjust. Someone violating those laws, being arrested under them, makes them a hero from today's perspective. Gates was arrested in the present day, where these oppressive laws no longer exist. Someone being arrested today creates a different impression. At the very least, if we keep this picture, we should say, in the caption, that the police department issued a statement saying the incident "was regrettable and unfortunate" and should not "be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department." JN466 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your point, JN. But here is the element of analogy: The point that Gates asserted, immediately when he was confronted by the officer, is that he was being suspected of being a burglar -- and then arrested for disorderly conduct even after he had shown he was the home's resident -- only because he is black. In other words, he has asserted 'unjust law enforcement.' The point about racial profiling cases isn't that the law is unjust on its face anymore, but that it is still being enforced in a discriminatory way. Pechmerle (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you do understand. Rosa Parks' mugshot being shown elevates her in the reader's estimation because the reader knows that the 1950s laws she violated were unconstitutional and offensive. There is no comparable widely held view that contemporary legislation or police behavior is unconstitutional and offensive; most people would agree that it is nowhere near comparable to the situation that obtained in the 1950s. Therefore a contemporary mugshot, resulting from an arrest that the Police Department described as unfortunate and regrettable, and given without immediate balancing context, may be perceived to "demean the character and reputation of Professor Gates" in a way that is simply not possible with Rosa Parks, or with anyone else arrested by a regime generally known as oppressive. So if we have to have the picture, let's at least put in the caption that Gates and the police department described the incident as regrettable and unfortunate and that the police department dropped all charges. Any objection? JN466 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Jayen, note that the statement on the events being "regrettable and unfortunate" was a JOINT statement by Gates and police. Meaning that both sides were careful not to admit guilt. The article is properly NPOV on this. I think the idea of putting the other quote in the caption of the photo is a great idea. I also suggest that to balance the article a bit, someone get in there the repeated statements by police in support of Crowley, as these seem to have disappeared. As a side note, no one should take the dropping of charges as exoneration of Gates - disorderly is often just a tool for the moment for cops, to shut down a problem situation, and is often not prosecuted. Just like actions against protestors - they drag them all in on charges to shut down the incident, but few end up getting prosecuted. I doubt that Crowley was at any point thinking that the charges would stick, or that he wanted Gates to do time. What we need for these situations is a civil fine that cops can give out... if you get hit with a $250 fine and don't slow down within about 10 minutes, then you probably need to go to jail. Cops don't have the right tools right now. Wow way off topic - sorry for a second I thought I was editing the Cambridge Municipal Code. 71.137.10.255 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- A suggestion for the caption in the info box: Bold the line that says the charges were dropped. It should be completely clear that the arrest was not pursued, without getting too wordy, is my thought. Pechmerle (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your point, JN. But here is the element of analogy: The point that Gates asserted, immediately when he was confronted by the officer, is that he was being suspected of being a burglar -- and then arrested for disorderly conduct even after he had shown he was the home's resident -- only because he is black. In other words, he has asserted 'unjust law enforcement.' The point about racial profiling cases isn't that the law is unjust on its face anymore, but that it is still being enforced in a discriminatory way. Pechmerle (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are arguing from a position of moral equivalence, but it just doesn't fit. Rosa Parks' arrest was not a mistake. She broke a law, albeit an unjust law, and broke it knowingly, intentionally, to make a point about its unjustness. She was found guilty and retained a criminal record to the day she died. It was only after her death that the Rosa Parks Act was passed, enabling people like her who had taken part in protests to have their criminal records expunged. Gates did not break any law, just or unjust. His arrest was declared an "unfortunate and regrettable" mistake. The other difference of course is that he is a living person ... I continue to believe that we should not show mugshots of people arrested by mistake. It presents them in a false light. You see, with Rosa Parks, we know that segregation laws in the 50s were unjust. Someone violating those laws, being arrested under them, makes them a hero from today's perspective. Gates was arrested in the present day, where these oppressive laws no longer exist. Someone being arrested today creates a different impression. At the very least, if we keep this picture, we should say, in the caption, that the police department issued a statement saying the incident "was regrettable and unfortunate" and should not "be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department." JN466 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be some misunderstanding of the Parks example. Yes, she was convicted of disorderly conduct at trial. But she appealed that. Though her appeal was dismissed, a parallel federal civil case from the Montgomery NAACP went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that segregated public bus systems were unconstitutional. Thus, Parks's position was vindicated in the courts. Gates was vindicated quicker, with the Cambridge official statement that the charge against him was dropped as an "unfortunate and regrettable incident." But Parks was ultimately also vindicated at law. Thus, the use of arrest photos is relevant, in both cases, to show the treatment that was subsequently found to be unjustified at law. Pechmerle (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's a proposed principle, but I think what makes more sense is a broader test of relevance rather than guilt or innocence. I've heard complaints that mugshots are my their nature demeaning - innocence or guild doesn't change that. I've also heard some questions of whether or not a mugshot adds anything to an article - innocence or guilt doesn't change that either. The current harm test, as well as the broader BLP guidelines allow for editor to make a judgment based on the context. An article focused on an arrest can allow for a booking photo, whereas a typical BLP should not allow it unless the arrest is the significant portion of a person's notability.Mattnad (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the booking photo in the article Rosa Parks is inherently degrading? Cause I certainly don't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. How many threads is this going to be discussed in? It is ridiculous at this point. Multiple threads on multiple talk pages including WT:BLP. An abundance of arguments for why the images should be included from me and others are there. Lara 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Over at BLP/N I see you state "Consensus seems to be not to use mug shots in BLPs unless the subject is currently incarcerated", though. Since the charges were dropped in the Gates case, isn't this a contradiction, or am I misinterpreting something? Tarc (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't his biography, it's the article on the arrest. Lara 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Include the pictures and note that local consensus (e.g., on this talk page) cannot override global consensus, such as on WP:BLP/N. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Originally I thought it (the mugshot) should be best left out. I still don't see that it adds much to the article, but it's a free image so keep per Lara. I think the fair-use image should be kept in as well. It does add to the understanding of the article. –xenotalk 17:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- include the photos as relevant to this subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- include the arrest and mug shot photos, after all this article is about the incident and debate, and not Professor Gates himself. GoldDragon (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- include both arrest related photos. Topical and relevant. BLP allows for factual, if not flattering information. Booking is an official record of the arrest and Free. Porch image is also topical, but subject to removal since it's not free.Mattnad (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- include both photos of the arrest and mug shot, but only in the arrest section. Obiviously this should not in the the introduction.MaxForce (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Uh. This article is about his arrest. It is not a biography of Professor Gates. When the subject of the article is about his arrest, then surely, an image of his mugshot is appropriate? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that is the question of the hour. My post above is pretty much a "weak remove" as I'm not really rabidly for or against it, though I believe there should be more consideration for the fact that the charges were dropped. But it appears that consensus is to keep it. If so though, then the "porch" image, File:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates.jpg should be tossed, as a non-free image should not be used when a free one is available. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Changing a page name from Off2riorob's false arrest and using the fact that it is now not in my bio and reducing the protection due to me just because you have changed the name of the page is wrong, and then from this page where I have no care at all even if I am completely innocent, this page is then linked to the page where I am offered a degree of protection, it is wiki lawyering at its worst.
- In regard to the head count, there is looking like a leaning towards keeping the mugshot in and perhaps removing the arrest shot, however would anyone mind leaving it another day and asking an admin to count up and close tomorrow? There has been soooo much discussion that another day to allow late-comers to perhaps turn up will not matter much. Then whatever the count is, the outcome will have a fair bit of added weight.Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. WP:CONSENSUS does not support removing the image. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- In regard to the head count, there is looking like a leaning towards keeping the mugshot in and perhaps removing the arrest shot, however would anyone mind leaving it another day and asking an admin to count up and close tomorrow? There has been soooo much discussion that another day to allow late-comers to perhaps turn up will not matter much. Then whatever the count is, the outcome will have a fair bit of added weight.Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I still support keeping the photos, if not all that strongly, because they are germane to this article and I don't see a compelling reason supported by WP policy to remove them. If there were consensus to remove them, I would abide the consensus on the face of it. Short of that, I think we need a policy reason to remove. The protections offered in BLP do not support the blanket removal of material that is unflattering, only the removal of material that is unreliable. BLP doesn't say we can't report something that isn't nice, just that we can't report something that isn't verifiably true. We won't spread rumors, but not all news is good news. Nor are we a newspaper, so we need to check our tone. For that reason, I am glad to see that this question has had this healthy response, and my sincere thanks go out to all of the editors who have voiced their opinions here. I don't see the inclusion of the photos here as "wikilawyering" because they could be considered inappropriate but not impermissible on the Gates bio article. Again, they are unflattering, but not fake or dubious. The booking photo in particular has a strong case for inclusion, as it is free use and is already a relatively widely published photo. Again I go back to the point that Gates himself has not expressed any desire to suppress the photo or downplay the incident. I don't see the case for inclusion of either photo as bulletproof, because as I pointed out earlier, just because we can doesn't mean we need to. But I see a net benefit to the article and no compelling policy-driven need to remove either photo. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep arrest picture only The arrest picture conveys an enormous amount of information about the arrest and lets our readers form their own opinions. The mug shot conveys no new information--we already know what Gates looks like through a better photo--while making one participant in a controversial event look like a criminal. The mug shot in the Rosa Parks article is one image among many that form a photo essay of the whole incident and place the mug shot in an historic context. That is not done in this article. The visual impact is totally different. --agr (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Rosa Parks article is relevant to this discussion in the respect that an innocent person (an appeals court reversed her conviction) has a booking photo in an article, but with Parks it's in her main biography article and not a separate article. If we were to combine the main Gates article with this one, we'd have a similar balance between content and photos, but I suspect that would cause even more concern among those against the pictures in first place.Mattnad (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Re the Rosa Parks argument, see my post above at 16:05, 13 August 2009 and hundreds of articles like [18]. Parks died with a criminal record, without a pardon. JN466 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have had a bit of a look at the comments and it looks like (a couple of opinions were a bit unclear) there was about a 2 to 1 in favour of keeping both pictures, approx fifteen to keep the mugshot and 7 to remove, more or less the same for the arrest shot, so there you go. Thanks to all for your comments.Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep pics - seems like a no-brainer to me. What could better illustrate the topic? Dlabtot (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing
- Comment There was a clear consensus to keep the mugshot, before canvassing at ANI and WT:BLP ( a hangout for those who try to make every biography a resume ). Keep in mind that most of the editors who showed up in the past week or so are not a random sample. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there was never a clear consensus at any time to keep the mugshot, and Archive 2 supports that fact. And asking the broader community to comment on an article talk page that involves community-wide policies like BLP is standard practice, not canvassing. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, there was. Search down the page for the phrase "24 hours" and you'll see the conversation between me and Arcayne discussing that fact. It wasn't until Aug 3 that anybody questioned the mugshot, and it was a small group of people who came from outside the article. That booking photo had been up for a long time before that, and while the regular editors of the page debated many things, there wasn't a controversy over including the photo. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- There has never been "clear consensus" on the inclusion of the mugshot in this article, so please stop saying that; It simply isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be more appropriate to say the photo was unchallenged until that point? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- No. The photo was challenged the first day it was added to the parent article and it has been challenged on a daily basis ever since. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the early debate centered around the copyright status of the photo, not pie-in-the-sky BLP concerns. Then the photo was left unchallenged for about a week while editors worked on the "beer summit". There was a debate during that time about using that photo in the article about Gates himself, but since the arrest was split to its own article, most of the regular editors of this article didn't support that position. However, that debate was brought to WT:BLP, which brought a new debate here as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, silence = consent and respect for stability, not to mention the article being edit protected right now, so the photos are staying in while we discuss. A week or two probably buys a little deference to the status quo but it's not nearly long enough to suggest that a photo becomes immovable. Mug shots are indeed an issue throughout Wikipedia and I'm not sure we have a consistent answer. I hear the concern about the canvassing and I agree that it was posted a little too widely but I see no bad intent here or attempt to stack the decks, just an effort to solicit wider opinion. Anyone reading this to gauge consensus is free to discount opinions that seem hasty or that do not indicate familiarity with the article or issues. Wikidemon (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- There has been no canvassing, I felt that as many people as possible should comment so I left a neutral comment at 3 or 4 high profile locations. This conversation is a distraction to the in or out comments, would some one please close it up. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, silence = consent and respect for stability, not to mention the article being edit protected right now, so the photos are staying in while we discuss. A week or two probably buys a little deference to the status quo but it's not nearly long enough to suggest that a photo becomes immovable. Mug shots are indeed an issue throughout Wikipedia and I'm not sure we have a consistent answer. I hear the concern about the canvassing and I agree that it was posted a little too widely but I see no bad intent here or attempt to stack the decks, just an effort to solicit wider opinion. Anyone reading this to gauge consensus is free to discount opinions that seem hasty or that do not indicate familiarity with the article or issues. Wikidemon (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the early debate centered around the copyright status of the photo, not pie-in-the-sky BLP concerns. Then the photo was left unchallenged for about a week while editors worked on the "beer summit". There was a debate during that time about using that photo in the article about Gates himself, but since the arrest was split to its own article, most of the regular editors of this article didn't support that position. However, that debate was brought to WT:BLP, which brought a new debate here as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- No. The photo was challenged the first day it was added to the parent article and it has been challenged on a daily basis ever since. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be more appropriate to say the photo was unchallenged until that point? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- There has never been "clear consensus" on the inclusion of the mugshot in this article, so please stop saying that; It simply isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, there was. Search down the page for the phrase "24 hours" and you'll see the conversation between me and Arcayne discussing that fact. It wasn't until Aug 3 that anybody questioned the mugshot, and it was a small group of people who came from outside the article. That booking photo had been up for a long time before that, and while the regular editors of the page debated many things, there wasn't a controversy over including the photo. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there was never a clear consensus at any time to keep the mugshot, and Archive 2 supports that fact. And asking the broader community to comment on an article talk page that involves community-wide policies like BLP is standard practice, not canvassing. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that mentioning it on WT:BLP isn't canvassing, but the continued creation of new threads on the same thing is getting out of hand. Diluting discussion and frustrating others into walking away. Lara 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I also believe Off2riorob exercised good faith and did not engage in a type of WP:CANVASSING beyond what seems to be envisioned by this directive. (Which WP page sez you can, if liked, post
- a few notices (not "over-posting": basically meaning, "not posted more broadly than to send out some notices in such a way as to attract a reasonable number pairs of fresh eyes who'd likely have familiarity, knowledge and/or interest in whatever issues are involved"?)
- neutral in their wording (to which I'd add, neutral in the venues posted?).) ↜Just M E here , now 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, despite the early rollup I'd like to add a few things. The comments about "canvassing" were not directed at Off2riorob, who was not the first to bring up Gates' booking photo on WT:BLP. They were a warning to anyone counting !votes in the above straw poll that there was an influx of people new to the article that were coming in with their minds already made up. I'd also like to point out while on noticeboards such as RSN and NORN you will see a range of opinions, editors are basically applying the same principles in judgement.
- The BLP talk page however is not a noticeboard, but a page for discussing changes to policy. There are some who wish to restrict the use of booking photos far beyond what I'd say is reasonable for a non-tabloid U.S. media outlet, and I do not see this article as a test case for those views. At present booking photos are allowed, and we should only discuss whether they are used properly in this article according to the present standard. PS. You can roll this back up if there's no comments. I didn't want to edit the rolled-up version per common practice. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Err...
No discussion for 7+ days. Feel free to uncollapse if needed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sorry to rain on the party - but why is this article so long and should it really exist separate from Obama and Gates articles (i.e. WP:NOT#NEWS)? We have no idea of the significance of this event, but I'd take a good stab and say there won't be volumes written about it in fifty years time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As there's clearly a hell of a lot of distance between myself and most other editors here, I've asked for comments here at the BLP noticeboard.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
2 edit requests
Deletable image-caption
{{editprotected}}
Add
{{deletable image-caption|Wednesday, 19 August 2009}}
to the File:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates.jpg image caption, pls. I believe consensus is coming out solidly on the side of keeping the PD mugshot image, which will make the non-free image unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a disputed tag to that (the photo adds a lot over and above the mugshot which adds nothing really); should the image caption still be tagged? –xenotalk 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would object to this edit request. The arrest photo uniquely shows the actual arrest. The mug shot is not a substitute. --agr (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're splitting hairs on this one - both photos are part of the arrest. It's debatable which one is better, but one is definitely free and the other is not. But I'd like to hold off on this edit request until the IFD process is completed.Mattnad (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Debatable? How so? The mugshot explains nothing, the porch shot adds a lot of context. –xenotalk 20:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The booking photo an official record of the arrest (usually considered a good thing from an illustrative point of view). We have many booking photos in Wikipedia for this reason and mainstream publishers, including NPR, Time, and Newsweek thought so too about this photo in particular. What I find it paradoxical that people will argue on the one hand that it adds nothing, while on the other hand it adds too much (and so it must be removed because of harm etc. etc.)Mattnad (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Booking photos contain little information beyond what any good photo of the subject contains, but they contain a great deal of insinuation, "laden for characterizing the defendant as a careerist in crime." (Comm. Mass. v. Martin) The fact of the arrest is not in dispute and does not need to be "documented." The arrest photo, however, is the only known photograph of the arrest itself. In addition to showing Prof. Gates in handcuffs being led from his home, it shows several arresting officers, including one, Sgt. Leon Lashley, who is quoted in the article (as far as I know there is no free image of Lashley available). These details are highly germane to the article--agr (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, but you might take a cue from the professional editors at NPR, Time, New York Magazine, The LA Times, Newsweek and The Black Christian News (among many others) who felt the booking photo was appropriate for articles about the arrest. In other words, there's a mountain of easily sourced evidence that these photographs are relevant. Mattnad (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's beside the point of this thread which seeks to have the arrest photo removed on NFCC grounds. Do you think the mugshot helps the reader understand the article better than the arrest photo? (I've nullified the edit-protected request, this clearly doesn't enjoy consensus) –xenotalk 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think both are important for different reasons. But I note that those saying the mughot adds nothing have argued against it for other reasons too. They are desperately trying to protect the porch photo so they can eliminate the PD booking photo "as adding nothing". It's gaming the system in my opinion which is why I've taken pains to point out that many mainstream professional editors see both photos as adding something as a counterpoint. Mattnad (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies, I thought you were also arguing for removal of the arrest image. I think they can both stay, though still don't think the mugshot adds much, if anything, to the readers' understanding of the article. However, it's a free image so there's less of a need for it to satisfy such a criteria. –xenotalk 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think both are important for different reasons. But I note that those saying the mughot adds nothing have argued against it for other reasons too. They are desperately trying to protect the porch photo so they can eliminate the PD booking photo "as adding nothing". It's gaming the system in my opinion which is why I've taken pains to point out that many mainstream professional editors see both photos as adding something as a counterpoint. Mattnad (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's beside the point of this thread which seeks to have the arrest photo removed on NFCC grounds. Do you think the mugshot helps the reader understand the article better than the arrest photo? (I've nullified the edit-protected request, this clearly doesn't enjoy consensus) –xenotalk 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're entitled to your opinion, but you might take a cue from the professional editors at NPR, Time, New York Magazine, The LA Times, Newsweek and The Black Christian News (among many others) who felt the booking photo was appropriate for articles about the arrest. In other words, there's a mountain of easily sourced evidence that these photographs are relevant. Mattnad (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Booking photos contain little information beyond what any good photo of the subject contains, but they contain a great deal of insinuation, "laden for characterizing the defendant as a careerist in crime." (Comm. Mass. v. Martin) The fact of the arrest is not in dispute and does not need to be "documented." The arrest photo, however, is the only known photograph of the arrest itself. In addition to showing Prof. Gates in handcuffs being led from his home, it shows several arresting officers, including one, Sgt. Leon Lashley, who is quoted in the article (as far as I know there is no free image of Lashley available). These details are highly germane to the article--agr (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The booking photo an official record of the arrest (usually considered a good thing from an illustrative point of view). We have many booking photos in Wikipedia for this reason and mainstream publishers, including NPR, Time, and Newsweek thought so too about this photo in particular. What I find it paradoxical that people will argue on the one hand that it adds nothing, while on the other hand it adds too much (and so it must be removed because of harm etc. etc.)Mattnad (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Debatable? How so? The mugshot explains nothing, the porch shot adds a lot of context. –xenotalk 20:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're splitting hairs on this one - both photos are part of the arrest. It's debatable which one is better, but one is definitely free and the other is not. But I'd like to hold off on this edit request until the IFD process is completed.Mattnad (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would object to this edit request. The arrest photo uniquely shows the actual arrest. The mug shot is not a substitute. --agr (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Infobox image caption
{{editprotected}}
Since a new image was uploaded (with Gates on left, Crowley on right), change ordering of the names in the caption accordingly. ↜Just M E here , now 09:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Another archive?
Since I ruffled feathers last time I did this myself... what do you all think of archiving the following sections:
- 3 Shift part of Obama involvement from Lead to Article
- 8 What's the point of this?
- 10 Two cents on two topics
- 11 Link primary source of The Root's Gates interview?
- 12 Heads up - phenomenal CSMonitor news piece wrt civil liberties
- 13 (1) Arrest photo caption (2) Sgt. Lashley
- 15 Archiving
- 17 Navbox
- 19 Canvassing
--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Going once? twice? sold.