![]() | 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 |
Wouldn't it be entirely fair to note that Gates has always sort of had a racial chip on his shoulder? For example, the Wikipedia entry for his bio indicates that Gates wrote this on his application to attend Yale as an undergraduate: "As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself." In other words, Gates was, over the course of his entire life, prone to making bold, taunting, race-tinged statements. And he apparently continued to do that with the cop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 ( talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Placing this article in "Category:History of Racism in the United States" is not NPOV because it assumes that this incident was triggered by racism. I am removing the category. Nutmegger ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It is racist to omit the "your mama" quote. It is a fact with a reference that provides insight into this "Professor's" character and intelligence. 76.126.239.199 ( talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree - Fact is there was no evidence of racial profiling, racisim or any other form of ethnic targeting in this entire case. The only person who was making racist statements was Professor Gates. Maybe the category of "Hatred of Whites and Law Enforcement" should be attached to this entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N7cav ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
I redirected that article here, but it may have some info we want to merge into this one. Here's what it looked like. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The Office Received A Break-in Call and then saw an open door. He would have been in trouble of he had not gone into the house to check. Why is no one mentioning that Crowley received a 911 call and was required to respond? Gates was not automatically a suspect from the police point of view due to his race, it was because someone else had called 911. And Crowley is not automatically a racist just because he is White. 75.252.134.230 ( talk) 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is severely lacking in details, as is the press coverage. What EXACTLY happened? I cannot even begin to discern whether it was bad judgement or racism until I really know what happened in detail. Just because he was black and a Harvard professor doesn't mean the cops weren't allowed to make a mistake. So, I need details. I came here because I thought this would be a good source for the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.22.232 ( talk • contribs)
My turn. It is a fact that it is standard operating procedure during a break-in investigation for the investigating officers to ask for identification, which Professor Gates refused to do. Had the good Professor complied with this initial request, we would have never heard about this at all. Instead, Professor Gates himself played the Race Card as the initial overreaction. The investigating officers tried to defuse the situation by apologizing to him, and informed him there had been an increased number of break-ins in the immediate area. At that point, Gates turned over his Harvard ID card and the investigating officers went outside to confirm that the ID was legitimate. Professor Gates, having ignored the officers instruction to wait inside, came out after them in a threatening manner in body and verbal language. He was placed under arrest for his safety and the safety of the officers involved for disorderly conduct, which is something that police officers do when things escalate out of control. It had nothing to do with race, but with failure to comply with lawful orders from police officers. Was this situation unfortunate? Yes, of course it was. It is also an example to all of us to do as we are told by police officers, regardless of who and what we are in our community. No one is above the law, and had Professor Gates been cooperative from the very beginning nothing would have happened. One does not have to be a lawyer to know right from wrong, and that was a cheap shot and had no place here. Thank you to the good folks at FOX News and CNN for releasing the police report. User:Stryteler —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
I am a lawyer with two cents. I question the bias observations of the poster. There are many lines supported by statements from Professor Gates but nothing from the police report about the attitude of, and performance given by, Professor Gates. Officer Crowley's duty was to protect the Professor by having him step outside and away from a possible intruder who may have entered his residence by force and be influencing his behavior. When Gates responded with, "Why, because I am a Black man in America?", and "… your Mama...", and so forth, it puzzled and further concerned Officer Crowley who was led to believe this man was a sophisticated Harvard professor. There are also many lines given to statements by the Mayor, Governor and the President of the United Sates, who all happen to be African Americans, who did not have all the facts yet took a position publically. Then there are many lines referring to "Racial Profiling" by police (Person of color + being in public = suspect). By omitting the performance by Professor Gates as reported by police, which may soon also be supported by a recording made by police during the investigation, the post leaves out a major part of the evidence which would allow the reader to reasonably conclude that Professor Gates may be a racist based on his statements which may amount to “Racist Profiling” by a minority person (White person + Police uniform = racist motive). Finally, the sentence, “Gates was arrested as he followed the arresting officer as he left his home to continue the discussion,” is totally misleading without the evidence from the police report. He was not arrested for wantng to continue a “discussion.” Thus the post is bias. ARK,Esq.
I feel like printing out the police report, and rewriting this article. ARK, you are right. The arrest resulted from disorderly conduct resulting from disturbing the peace, the use of body and offensive language, and interference with a police investigation. There would have been no arrest had he just allowed the investigating officers to have five or ten minutes to confirm the information from the ID and drivers license, and if a neighbor would have pulled him aside and told him to knock it off. His behavior, choice of words, and body language got him in trouble that day. What happened to him that day happens to a lot of human beings who can't or won't follow lawful orders from police officers, and race is not a factor. What people say or do may test constitutional waters or one's personal agenda, but the law is still the law and we all have to follow that law. - User:Stryteler
My two viewpoints as submitted here were an attempt to improve the article, and were never intended to start a forum, debate, or much of anything else. At the time they were submitted, the article was horribly written and somewhat bias. Since I am new to editing, I did not feel at all ready to take the bull by the horns and do a neutral unbiased piece based on the facts as we know them to be. Arcayne, I am the cause of this but I wanted you to know what was my intent really was. I will do better. Stryteler ( talk) 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
i would argue that the mug shot should be removed. the charges were dropped, and i believe we could find sourced material which shows that mug shots are often used to portray people as "guilty". the photos are unflattering, and will give the immediate impression that someone has "done" something to deserve the arrest. i would suggest that if this mug shot is used here, that mug shots be used for all major public figures that have ever been arrested, and absolutely include them if the charges were not dropped. that would be fair. in 10 years time, this mug shot will be of extremely questionable encyclopedic value. ALL arrested people are photographed, so its not notable that he was photographed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
How about if the mug shot is replaced with an acceptable image of Professor Gates that falls within our guidelines? Stryteler ( talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. I was just looking for clarification. Still learning the ropes as far as editing goes. Thanks. Stryteler ( talk) 20:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Editors. The neighbor's arrest photo was made of his or her own free will, and he or she has not laid claim to it as far as ownership. Arguably, this could mean that this photo can be used without a violation of our policies. The mug shot image has gone back and forth with interesting points of view, but I agree it should be deleted for cause of at least one category. While the criminal charge itself was dropped by the local jurisdiction, this is still a notable event that has many people learning a lot from in more ways than one. Keep the arrest photo by the neighbor, and dump the mug shot. It seems fair to me. Stryteler ( talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. Stryteler ( talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this title could use a revamp? I don't think too many people would type in 2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge police as its just too long and too technical. The title contains grammatical errors. Either it should be ...Gates, Jr. arrest by the Cambridge police or ...Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge Police. Finally, putting 2009 in the title makes it seem like Gates has a prior history of arrests, which isn't the case.
I propose that this article be changed to the simple, yet effective Gatesgate. The -gate suffix denotes that a wider controversy has arose. This article is about more than about just an arrest, it's about the controversy surrounding it too. A quick look through the 155,000 results that Google gives you reveals that the majority of the links are dealing with this episode. [2] The BBC has used Gatesgate [3], so has NPR [4], the Wall Street Journal [5], TIME Magazine [6], The Cleveland Plain Dealer [7], and so on.
-- Tocino 02:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent). There's only one Henry Gates of prominence that I'm aware of; there's only one arrest at issue. Suggest we make the move.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I know it was in the news media. I wonder if all rights to it were really relinquished? Geo8rge ( talk) 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
We should find some better section titles for the ones that start with "Aftermath". Maybe "Reaction" and "Obama comments" or something. Not really sure. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This incident certainly was news well before Obama commented on it. If you want to make a political point about Obama -- fine, start a blog of your own. Pechmerle ( talk) 07:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I will re-phrase my comment- there would have been far less coverage if Obama had not become involved. And his comments are a legitimate part of this discussion: it's the primary reason why there still is debate on the subject. If Cowley is called a racist for having arrested a disorderly man who just happened to be black, isn't it possible that those who have assumed that Cowley is a racist are themselves racist for having made that assumption, without any evidence? Or is it OK (and not racist) to assume that whites are always racists? JohnC ( talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not OK to assume that whites are always racist. It is also not OK to assume that a black man who when accosted by police while entering his own home loudly complains about such treatment is disorderly. It is certainly true that press commentary greatly increased after Obama commented at the press conference. Pechmerle ( talk) 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems unusual to have police fraternities around the nation jumping on Obama's statement. Much of the criticism, I suspect, is political in nature. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25381.html Scribner ( talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to reiterate entire police reports or responses to them. We are supposed to briefly summarize the points - that's our position as an encyclopedia, and our jobs as editors. I am starting to see far too much all-or-nothing style edits, and I'm going to offer the good faith to assume that its about politics, and not as something ugly and racial in nature.
Re: Wikipedia:Copyrights we cannot reproduce works word for word here. At the same time, I agree that it is better for the article if we give full and equal weight to both versions. For now I am going to remove both, and set up the section so that it refers to the original source for each. Over time, we should figure out a way to summarize both accounts. - Classicfilms ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there any source giving analysis of the known facts within some interpretation where both sides' versions could be reconciled without either party's having lied?
Crowley asserted that Gates, after he had been asked to step outside in order to receive the officer's badge number, had said something along the line of "I'll talk to your momma"; whereas Gates asserted that Gates never even uttered the expression "your mamma." The sources establish that Gates was trying to get Crowley's name and badge number to file a complaint with Gates's contacts in local government and beyond; yet, as a counter to Gates's accusations, Crowley was attempting to document Gate's allegedly illegal uncooperation and/or public boisterousness via a criminal complaint. After Gates starts asking for Crowley's info in order to fill a complaint about Crowley over telephone, Crowley informs Gates that Crowley will provide Gates Crowley's identifying information outside. Then, outside, Crowley arrests Gates.
In my opinion, if this Harvard professor's motivation was to move the discussion along to the point where this Cambridge officer relinquishes authority and if this officer's motivation was to insist that the professor not cross the line into disrespecting this officer's necessary authority nor cross the line into public disruption, then their motivations would seem to have been at cross purposes. The officer by necessity would have adopted the stance that the circumstances had provided the officer authority in the resident's home; whereas the resident would be hoping to trump this stance so that at the moment that the resident's true status would be revealed that the officer would quickly reliquish the officer's stance of authority. However, this simply isn't gonna happen due to the fact that the officer's reactions to the resident's strenuous advocacy is to deem it itself as interfering with the officer's being able to conduct his business on behalf of the people and also as disturbing the public's peace.
Has any source suggested some reasonable explanation for how both parties' assertions with regard to the "your mamma" being/not being said could be true? (For example, through a mishearing of Gates by Crowley?)
Original research: "Your mamma" and "Obama" sound similar. Eg in a scenario with Gates' saying, "Give me your badge number. I'll call the police headquarters and file a complaint against you; you don't know who you're dealing with here..." -- and Crowley's interrupting, "Step on the porch, sir; we can talk there" -- but with Gates' continuing, "...I'll talk to Obama, that's what I'll do." -- could have led to a misinterpretation of Gates's statement by Crowley as having been "I talk to yo mamma, that what I do." :^)
↜Just M E here , now 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"A police officer who’s proud of his reputation for getting along with black officers, and for teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling, feels maligned to be cast as a racist white Boston cop. A famous professor who studies identity and summers in Martha’s Vineyard feels maligned to be cast as a black burglar with backpack and crowbar. Race, class and testosterone will always be a combustible brew."---MAUREEN DOWD ↜Just M E here , now 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The Boston Globe put this up on its web site and then quickly took it down. Three page PDF,
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF
--
CliffC (
talk)
19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that President Obama, despite the lack of facts, made a statement calling the police actions stupid, so several figures from law enforcement criticized him for taking sides. It didn't diffuse the controversy that Obama also admitted that he didn't have all the facts, it is because he went ahead anyway to make an initial judgment. GoldDragon ( talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC) GoldDragon
Instead, the caller was a Harvard employee, whose office is near Gates' house, and who saw Gates on a regular basis. The article should be changed to fix this error. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104941 Source] Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read the police report. It does not characterize the witness as a "passer-by". A more accurate term, for the purposes of the article, is "neighbor". The possibility that she may have, or should have known gates by sight is speculation. Mattnad ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We could also just say "a witness" without getting too detailed. Mattnad ( talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The See Also link was to a completely unrelated case. Inclusion is a NPOV to try and frame what the police did as a similar action. Additionally, the Huffpo EL is undue weight. If there is information within that article it should be incorporated into the body of the article. Jon Shane is an unknown. His personal point of view borders on Undue Weight, and a EL to him reeks of advertisement. Arzel ( talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that this statement is factual, but including the date that the law was enacted in THIS article seems like it's solely intended to make the reader say "gosh, arrested for a law written in the 1800s? How silly." It seems to me that this kind of wording would not appear in an article describing, say, murder charges, for example. I would guess that murder has been illegal since further back than 1800. Just saying. No doubt this is a sensitive article as is easily seen from the debate on the talk page. We need to make sure we fight off "sly" edits from both sides. 70.95.252.87 ( talk) 08:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The 911 Caller did not state race in her call. [10] This is an interesting situation because thousands of RS's are reporting it differently, but even the Cambridge Police Commissioner is backing up her claim. Not sure about the best way to go about fixing this. Arzel ( talk) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And for the record, this is precisely why we do not rely on primary sources. Viriditas ( talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I am in no way racist, but it seems like this story really being over reported by local news media. I don't know how much it is being covered in other parts of the country, but in the Boston area, it is being mentioned every day. My dad once had a situation like this in the town where he worked, and he said it was very similar to this. Does anyone think a section on this over reporting would be necessary in an article like this? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, no hope of getting an overkill characterization on this story. Guarantee you there will be many more media stories about it in the next few days after the "beer summit" at the White House. It's in fact hard to think of a news story that has gone from local cause celebre to meeting with the President in the White House in quite the way this one has. (And, alas, the army of volunteers here will certainly start adding those stories to this article too.) Pechmerle ( talk) 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If someone can remove the bit added here [12] that would be helpful. This information is already included and as written it doesn't make any sense. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the caller's name should be omitted. I don't see any encyclopedic value and all acounts this is not a public person. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this CNN quote from Colin Powell on Gate's behavior should be in the article. I cannot add it myself as I am topic banned from political articles. However, if someone else thinks that it would make the article better, please add it. Thanks.
"I would say, the first teaching point is when you’re faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something. This is not the time to get in an argument with him. I was taught that as a child. You don’t argue with a police officer. In fact, in our schools today, in order to make sure that we don’t have things escalate out of control and lead to very unfortunate situations, we tell our kids, when you’re being asked something by a police officer, being detained by a police officer, cooperate. If you don’t like what happened, or if you think that you have been exposed to something that’s racist or prejudicial or something that’s wrong, then you make a complaint afterwards and you sue him."
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think Powell's POV is relevant, given how this article/event is at the intersection of race and politics but I don't think it should be given too much weight. I would suggest that we have a single line that summaries his perspective, and in the reference have an external link to the interview. Perhaps we might write, "In a CNN Interview, former secretary of state, Colin Powell suggested that Gates should have been more deferential to the officer's requests." or something equally brief with the link. I know there's outrage about how Gates was treated on these talk pages, but I'd suggest we focus on writing an article. Mattnad ( talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why would a clip of Colin Powell commenting on this issue not be considered relevant and appropriate? Of anyone who's insight would be relevant, I can think of few people more qualified. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
ABC news link I am topic banned from political articles so I can't add this myself, but perhaps someone else might like to add it, if they think it would improve the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Breaking story today concerns Boston police office Justin Barrett suspended for sending out mass email to his National Guard cohorts and to the Boston Globe calling Henry Louis Gates Jr. a "jungle monkey." The mayor of Boston calls Barrett a "cancer on the department" and there will be a hearing on his behaviour. I think that this is relevant to the arrest story, as it is direct fall-out from the arrest. Interestingly, as a police office, Barrett attended racial profiling sensitivity classes of the same type that Crowley taught.
Thanks for keeping this article up to date as the news unfolds. "Boston Cop Suspended for Using Racial Slur to Describe Harvard ... - FOXNews
catherine yronwode (not logged in, sorry, because i'm at work) 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a whole section on this sideshow is a bit much -- it has little to do with the topic of the article and would never survive AfD if split off. I'd rather see us gloss this whole thing into a section or two in the reactions section (while keeping the refs for those who really want to delve). What do y'all think? -- Kendrick7
At this time, Boston Police are of particular note due to the Barrett emails. Please contribute to the " Boston Police" page whatever concise treatment of this event would be appropriate; thanks much! ↜Just M E here , now 08:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Barrett is not a member of the Cambridge Police Department, but of the Boston Police Department. This cross-referencing therefore seems a bit faulty. Pechmerle ( talk) 09:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Calling Boston Police Department the main article doesn't seem quite right either. The Barrett story is more thoroughly covered here than there. Is there some other cross-referencing label to use besides "main article"? Pechmerle ( talk) 09:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems better. Pechmerle ( talk) 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Another portion of this story broke today -- Lucia Whalen, the 911 caller, has held a press conference and is flatly contradicting Cambridge police officer Jim Crowley's account of events per his official police report. Among other things, she says that the ONLY words she said to him when he arrived on the scene were "I was the 911 caller" and the ONLY words he said to her were "Stay right there." She flatly denies mentioning "black men" or "back packs" either on the phone or in person. The tape of the phone conversation backs her up. There is no recording of the in-person conversation, but she is indicating that she is aware that Crowley fabricated this portion of their conversation in his police report. This is important to the story, for obvious reasons. Here is a write-up: "Diplomacy at a Picnic Table" Washington Post - Michael A. Fletcher, Krissah Thompson.
Thanks again for all the hard work on this article.
catherine yronwode (still not logged in; sorry) 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"refutes" is the wrong word altogether. A "he said, she said" exchange is not a refutation. This section of the article should probably be called "Discrepencies between Lucia Whalen (911 caller)and the Police Report." Bundas ( talk) 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, she did provide evidence tending to refute Crowley's written report: her own eyewitness testimony, which she gave at the press conference. That is evidence; it would even be admissible in court (first hand account). So it's not mere terminology that I am concerned with, but whether we should seem to be taking her side over his. On a purely neutral field, her testimony (even as to what she herself said) is not necessarily entitled to more weight than his -- he was there too, and says she said what she says she didn't. (How's that for mangling the language.) What we do have here is conflicting accounts of the same events. Can we find some neutral way to convey that? (Not a big deal, really; just wondering if we -- since I know you to be a reasonable person (too) -- can agree on a wording.) Pechmerle ( talk) 07:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Context is relevant to what is value laden. Contradicts is value laden here. I'm sure you saw Ms. Whalen's press conference (it's readily available on video), where she was nearly in tears over the disjunction between what she says she said and what Crowley says she said. There was no conflict between her and the officer -- but she just thought she'd bring a lawyer along for the fun of it? Your analysis departs from common sense. "oppositional and stressful" -- that precisely describes Whalen's presentation at her press conference. Please give this some more thought. Regards. Pechmerle ( talk) 08:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The three citations after the comment about Allen Counter all fail to support the statement in the article. If someone can provide a proper reference, please do. Otherwise, I'll delete the statement. Manyanswer ( talk) 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
link. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know where the white house would put an image on the web if a government photographer captures the moment (public domain and all that). - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 22:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add this poll that shows most people disapprove of obama's handling of this. [14] The Red Peacock ( talk) 02:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Anybody have a link to a transcript (not a video) of Crowley's press conference remarks after the White House meeting? Pechmerle ( talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's not the full 15 minutes worth, though. Pechmerle ( talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw that quote from Gates. Liked it. I've added two more general quotes from each man showing their overview of how the meeting went. Pechmerle ( talk) 04:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the link to go to the full transcript now. Pechmerle ( talk) 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A huge topic is missing. Sgt. Leon Lashley, who is prominently in the photo in front of Professor Gates in handcuffs is well covered on CNN and the internet, except in Wikipedia.
Yet, the monkey e-mail cop has his own big section. Let's fix this! Acme Plumbing ( talk) 05:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"...gave a letter to Sgt. James Crowley to give to President Barack Obama during their so-called beer summit with Gates on Thursday night at the White House. In the letter, which was also sent to CNN, Lashley says Gates 'may have caused grave and potentially irreparable harm to the struggle for racial harmony.'" (link) ↜Just M E here , now 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree if the address is not known, WP should not break news of it. However, it is all over the internet. At least, Ware Street is reliably sourced info if we want to censor the xx part. Acme Plumbing ( talk) 06:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The double image of Crowley and Gates, featured in the Arrest section, presented an interesting and subtle lack of neutrality: a serious-looking white man in a suit and a black man, mouth agape and upset, being led away in cuffs. It isn't neutral. It isn't even in the same postal code of neutral. As the image of Crowley is just a cropped image from the beer summit image lower down, it also has the baggage of being redundant. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well-intentioned folks are testing wiki-links on Ed Davis (Boston Police Commissioner) and Justin Barrett (suspended Boston police officer) and when the links come up good (blue), they are leaving them in place without clicking on them to see where they lead -- but in both cases they lead to other folks. Both the Ed Davis and the Justin Barrett in this story are non-notable per WP and have not been added to disambig pages as they do not have their own entries. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 17:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I wish Wikipedia and 24/7 media was around hundreds of years ago. This article is incredibly detailed (like all current events articles) but it would've been nice if (say) the Battle of Hastings or the Assassination of Julius Caesar, or hell, even the Emancipation Proclamation were equally detailed in proportion to their importance. If all your energies using Google News was instead expended on Google Books... hey, a guy can dream...
80.229.188.40 ( talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Wouldn't it be entirely fair to note that Gates has always sort of had a racial chip on his shoulder? For example, the Wikipedia entry for his bio indicates that Gates wrote this on his application to attend Yale as an undergraduate: "As always, whitey now sits in judgment of me, preparing to cast my fate. It is your decision either to let me blow with the wind as a nonentity or to encourage the development of self. Allow me to prove myself." In other words, Gates was, over the course of his entire life, prone to making bold, taunting, race-tinged statements. And he apparently continued to do that with the cop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 ( talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Placing this article in "Category:History of Racism in the United States" is not NPOV because it assumes that this incident was triggered by racism. I am removing the category. Nutmegger ( talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It is racist to omit the "your mama" quote. It is a fact with a reference that provides insight into this "Professor's" character and intelligence. 76.126.239.199 ( talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree - Fact is there was no evidence of racial profiling, racisim or any other form of ethnic targeting in this entire case. The only person who was making racist statements was Professor Gates. Maybe the category of "Hatred of Whites and Law Enforcement" should be attached to this entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N7cav ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
I redirected that article here, but it may have some info we want to merge into this one. Here's what it looked like. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The Office Received A Break-in Call and then saw an open door. He would have been in trouble of he had not gone into the house to check. Why is no one mentioning that Crowley received a 911 call and was required to respond? Gates was not automatically a suspect from the police point of view due to his race, it was because someone else had called 911. And Crowley is not automatically a racist just because he is White. 75.252.134.230 ( talk) 17:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
This article is severely lacking in details, as is the press coverage. What EXACTLY happened? I cannot even begin to discern whether it was bad judgement or racism until I really know what happened in detail. Just because he was black and a Harvard professor doesn't mean the cops weren't allowed to make a mistake. So, I need details. I came here because I thought this would be a good source for the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.22.232 ( talk • contribs)
My turn. It is a fact that it is standard operating procedure during a break-in investigation for the investigating officers to ask for identification, which Professor Gates refused to do. Had the good Professor complied with this initial request, we would have never heard about this at all. Instead, Professor Gates himself played the Race Card as the initial overreaction. The investigating officers tried to defuse the situation by apologizing to him, and informed him there had been an increased number of break-ins in the immediate area. At that point, Gates turned over his Harvard ID card and the investigating officers went outside to confirm that the ID was legitimate. Professor Gates, having ignored the officers instruction to wait inside, came out after them in a threatening manner in body and verbal language. He was placed under arrest for his safety and the safety of the officers involved for disorderly conduct, which is something that police officers do when things escalate out of control. It had nothing to do with race, but with failure to comply with lawful orders from police officers. Was this situation unfortunate? Yes, of course it was. It is also an example to all of us to do as we are told by police officers, regardless of who and what we are in our community. No one is above the law, and had Professor Gates been cooperative from the very beginning nothing would have happened. One does not have to be a lawyer to know right from wrong, and that was a cheap shot and had no place here. Thank you to the good folks at FOX News and CNN for releasing the police report. User:Stryteler —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
I am a lawyer with two cents. I question the bias observations of the poster. There are many lines supported by statements from Professor Gates but nothing from the police report about the attitude of, and performance given by, Professor Gates. Officer Crowley's duty was to protect the Professor by having him step outside and away from a possible intruder who may have entered his residence by force and be influencing his behavior. When Gates responded with, "Why, because I am a Black man in America?", and "… your Mama...", and so forth, it puzzled and further concerned Officer Crowley who was led to believe this man was a sophisticated Harvard professor. There are also many lines given to statements by the Mayor, Governor and the President of the United Sates, who all happen to be African Americans, who did not have all the facts yet took a position publically. Then there are many lines referring to "Racial Profiling" by police (Person of color + being in public = suspect). By omitting the performance by Professor Gates as reported by police, which may soon also be supported by a recording made by police during the investigation, the post leaves out a major part of the evidence which would allow the reader to reasonably conclude that Professor Gates may be a racist based on his statements which may amount to “Racist Profiling” by a minority person (White person + Police uniform = racist motive). Finally, the sentence, “Gates was arrested as he followed the arresting officer as he left his home to continue the discussion,” is totally misleading without the evidence from the police report. He was not arrested for wantng to continue a “discussion.” Thus the post is bias. ARK,Esq.
I feel like printing out the police report, and rewriting this article. ARK, you are right. The arrest resulted from disorderly conduct resulting from disturbing the peace, the use of body and offensive language, and interference with a police investigation. There would have been no arrest had he just allowed the investigating officers to have five or ten minutes to confirm the information from the ID and drivers license, and if a neighbor would have pulled him aside and told him to knock it off. His behavior, choice of words, and body language got him in trouble that day. What happened to him that day happens to a lot of human beings who can't or won't follow lawful orders from police officers, and race is not a factor. What people say or do may test constitutional waters or one's personal agenda, but the law is still the law and we all have to follow that law. - User:Stryteler
My two viewpoints as submitted here were an attempt to improve the article, and were never intended to start a forum, debate, or much of anything else. At the time they were submitted, the article was horribly written and somewhat bias. Since I am new to editing, I did not feel at all ready to take the bull by the horns and do a neutral unbiased piece based on the facts as we know them to be. Arcayne, I am the cause of this but I wanted you to know what was my intent really was. I will do better. Stryteler ( talk) 14:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
i would argue that the mug shot should be removed. the charges were dropped, and i believe we could find sourced material which shows that mug shots are often used to portray people as "guilty". the photos are unflattering, and will give the immediate impression that someone has "done" something to deserve the arrest. i would suggest that if this mug shot is used here, that mug shots be used for all major public figures that have ever been arrested, and absolutely include them if the charges were not dropped. that would be fair. in 10 years time, this mug shot will be of extremely questionable encyclopedic value. ALL arrested people are photographed, so its not notable that he was photographed. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
How about if the mug shot is replaced with an acceptable image of Professor Gates that falls within our guidelines? Stryteler ( talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. I was just looking for clarification. Still learning the ropes as far as editing goes. Thanks. Stryteler ( talk) 20:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Editors. The neighbor's arrest photo was made of his or her own free will, and he or she has not laid claim to it as far as ownership. Arguably, this could mean that this photo can be used without a violation of our policies. The mug shot image has gone back and forth with interesting points of view, but I agree it should be deleted for cause of at least one category. While the criminal charge itself was dropped by the local jurisdiction, this is still a notable event that has many people learning a lot from in more ways than one. Keep the arrest photo by the neighbor, and dump the mug shot. It seems fair to me. Stryteler ( talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. Stryteler ( talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else think this title could use a revamp? I don't think too many people would type in 2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge police as its just too long and too technical. The title contains grammatical errors. Either it should be ...Gates, Jr. arrest by the Cambridge police or ...Gates, Jr. arrest by Cambridge Police. Finally, putting 2009 in the title makes it seem like Gates has a prior history of arrests, which isn't the case.
I propose that this article be changed to the simple, yet effective Gatesgate. The -gate suffix denotes that a wider controversy has arose. This article is about more than about just an arrest, it's about the controversy surrounding it too. A quick look through the 155,000 results that Google gives you reveals that the majority of the links are dealing with this episode. [2] The BBC has used Gatesgate [3], so has NPR [4], the Wall Street Journal [5], TIME Magazine [6], The Cleveland Plain Dealer [7], and so on.
-- Tocino 02:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent). There's only one Henry Gates of prominence that I'm aware of; there's only one arrest at issue. Suggest we make the move.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I know it was in the news media. I wonder if all rights to it were really relinquished? Geo8rge ( talk) 03:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
We should find some better section titles for the ones that start with "Aftermath". Maybe "Reaction" and "Obama comments" or something. Not really sure. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 03:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This incident certainly was news well before Obama commented on it. If you want to make a political point about Obama -- fine, start a blog of your own. Pechmerle ( talk) 07:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I will re-phrase my comment- there would have been far less coverage if Obama had not become involved. And his comments are a legitimate part of this discussion: it's the primary reason why there still is debate on the subject. If Cowley is called a racist for having arrested a disorderly man who just happened to be black, isn't it possible that those who have assumed that Cowley is a racist are themselves racist for having made that assumption, without any evidence? Or is it OK (and not racist) to assume that whites are always racists? JohnC ( talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not OK to assume that whites are always racist. It is also not OK to assume that a black man who when accosted by police while entering his own home loudly complains about such treatment is disorderly. It is certainly true that press commentary greatly increased after Obama commented at the press conference. Pechmerle ( talk) 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems unusual to have police fraternities around the nation jumping on Obama's statement. Much of the criticism, I suspect, is political in nature. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25381.html Scribner ( talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
We aren't supposed to reiterate entire police reports or responses to them. We are supposed to briefly summarize the points - that's our position as an encyclopedia, and our jobs as editors. I am starting to see far too much all-or-nothing style edits, and I'm going to offer the good faith to assume that its about politics, and not as something ugly and racial in nature.
Re: Wikipedia:Copyrights we cannot reproduce works word for word here. At the same time, I agree that it is better for the article if we give full and equal weight to both versions. For now I am going to remove both, and set up the section so that it refers to the original source for each. Over time, we should figure out a way to summarize both accounts. - Classicfilms ( talk) 15:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: Is there any source giving analysis of the known facts within some interpretation where both sides' versions could be reconciled without either party's having lied?
Crowley asserted that Gates, after he had been asked to step outside in order to receive the officer's badge number, had said something along the line of "I'll talk to your momma"; whereas Gates asserted that Gates never even uttered the expression "your mamma." The sources establish that Gates was trying to get Crowley's name and badge number to file a complaint with Gates's contacts in local government and beyond; yet, as a counter to Gates's accusations, Crowley was attempting to document Gate's allegedly illegal uncooperation and/or public boisterousness via a criminal complaint. After Gates starts asking for Crowley's info in order to fill a complaint about Crowley over telephone, Crowley informs Gates that Crowley will provide Gates Crowley's identifying information outside. Then, outside, Crowley arrests Gates.
In my opinion, if this Harvard professor's motivation was to move the discussion along to the point where this Cambridge officer relinquishes authority and if this officer's motivation was to insist that the professor not cross the line into disrespecting this officer's necessary authority nor cross the line into public disruption, then their motivations would seem to have been at cross purposes. The officer by necessity would have adopted the stance that the circumstances had provided the officer authority in the resident's home; whereas the resident would be hoping to trump this stance so that at the moment that the resident's true status would be revealed that the officer would quickly reliquish the officer's stance of authority. However, this simply isn't gonna happen due to the fact that the officer's reactions to the resident's strenuous advocacy is to deem it itself as interfering with the officer's being able to conduct his business on behalf of the people and also as disturbing the public's peace.
Has any source suggested some reasonable explanation for how both parties' assertions with regard to the "your mamma" being/not being said could be true? (For example, through a mishearing of Gates by Crowley?)
Original research: "Your mamma" and "Obama" sound similar. Eg in a scenario with Gates' saying, "Give me your badge number. I'll call the police headquarters and file a complaint against you; you don't know who you're dealing with here..." -- and Crowley's interrupting, "Step on the porch, sir; we can talk there" -- but with Gates' continuing, "...I'll talk to Obama, that's what I'll do." -- could have led to a misinterpretation of Gates's statement by Crowley as having been "I talk to yo mamma, that what I do." :^)
↜Just M E here , now 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"A police officer who’s proud of his reputation for getting along with black officers, and for teaching cadets to avoid racial profiling, feels maligned to be cast as a racist white Boston cop. A famous professor who studies identity and summers in Martha’s Vineyard feels maligned to be cast as a black burglar with backpack and crowbar. Race, class and testosterone will always be a combustible brew."---MAUREEN DOWD ↜Just M E here , now 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The Boston Globe put this up on its web site and then quickly took it down. Three page PDF,
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF
--
CliffC (
talk)
19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that President Obama, despite the lack of facts, made a statement calling the police actions stupid, so several figures from law enforcement criticized him for taking sides. It didn't diffuse the controversy that Obama also admitted that he didn't have all the facts, it is because he went ahead anyway to make an initial judgment. GoldDragon ( talk) 21:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC) GoldDragon
Instead, the caller was a Harvard employee, whose office is near Gates' house, and who saw Gates on a regular basis. The article should be changed to fix this error. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104941 Source] Grundle2600 ( talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read the police report. It does not characterize the witness as a "passer-by". A more accurate term, for the purposes of the article, is "neighbor". The possibility that she may have, or should have known gates by sight is speculation. Mattnad ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
We could also just say "a witness" without getting too detailed. Mattnad ( talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The See Also link was to a completely unrelated case. Inclusion is a NPOV to try and frame what the police did as a similar action. Additionally, the Huffpo EL is undue weight. If there is information within that article it should be incorporated into the body of the article. Jon Shane is an unknown. His personal point of view borders on Undue Weight, and a EL to him reeks of advertisement. Arzel ( talk) 04:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that this statement is factual, but including the date that the law was enacted in THIS article seems like it's solely intended to make the reader say "gosh, arrested for a law written in the 1800s? How silly." It seems to me that this kind of wording would not appear in an article describing, say, murder charges, for example. I would guess that murder has been illegal since further back than 1800. Just saying. No doubt this is a sensitive article as is easily seen from the debate on the talk page. We need to make sure we fight off "sly" edits from both sides. 70.95.252.87 ( talk) 08:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
The 911 Caller did not state race in her call. [10] This is an interesting situation because thousands of RS's are reporting it differently, but even the Cambridge Police Commissioner is backing up her claim. Not sure about the best way to go about fixing this. Arzel ( talk) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
And for the record, this is precisely why we do not rely on primary sources. Viriditas ( talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I am in no way racist, but it seems like this story really being over reported by local news media. I don't know how much it is being covered in other parts of the country, but in the Boston area, it is being mentioned every day. My dad once had a situation like this in the town where he worked, and he said it was very similar to this. Does anyone think a section on this over reporting would be necessary in an article like this? Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, no hope of getting an overkill characterization on this story. Guarantee you there will be many more media stories about it in the next few days after the "beer summit" at the White House. It's in fact hard to think of a news story that has gone from local cause celebre to meeting with the President in the White House in quite the way this one has. (And, alas, the army of volunteers here will certainly start adding those stories to this article too.) Pechmerle ( talk) 06:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If someone can remove the bit added here [12] that would be helpful. This information is already included and as written it doesn't make any sense. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the caller's name should be omitted. I don't see any encyclopedic value and all acounts this is not a public person. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this CNN quote from Colin Powell on Gate's behavior should be in the article. I cannot add it myself as I am topic banned from political articles. However, if someone else thinks that it would make the article better, please add it. Thanks.
"I would say, the first teaching point is when you’re faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something. This is not the time to get in an argument with him. I was taught that as a child. You don’t argue with a police officer. In fact, in our schools today, in order to make sure that we don’t have things escalate out of control and lead to very unfortunate situations, we tell our kids, when you’re being asked something by a police officer, being detained by a police officer, cooperate. If you don’t like what happened, or if you think that you have been exposed to something that’s racist or prejudicial or something that’s wrong, then you make a complaint afterwards and you sue him."
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think Powell's POV is relevant, given how this article/event is at the intersection of race and politics but I don't think it should be given too much weight. I would suggest that we have a single line that summaries his perspective, and in the reference have an external link to the interview. Perhaps we might write, "In a CNN Interview, former secretary of state, Colin Powell suggested that Gates should have been more deferential to the officer's requests." or something equally brief with the link. I know there's outrage about how Gates was treated on these talk pages, but I'd suggest we focus on writing an article. Mattnad ( talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Why would a clip of Colin Powell commenting on this issue not be considered relevant and appropriate? Of anyone who's insight would be relevant, I can think of few people more qualified. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
ABC news link I am topic banned from political articles so I can't add this myself, but perhaps someone else might like to add it, if they think it would improve the article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Breaking story today concerns Boston police office Justin Barrett suspended for sending out mass email to his National Guard cohorts and to the Boston Globe calling Henry Louis Gates Jr. a "jungle monkey." The mayor of Boston calls Barrett a "cancer on the department" and there will be a hearing on his behaviour. I think that this is relevant to the arrest story, as it is direct fall-out from the arrest. Interestingly, as a police office, Barrett attended racial profiling sensitivity classes of the same type that Crowley taught.
Thanks for keeping this article up to date as the news unfolds. "Boston Cop Suspended for Using Racial Slur to Describe Harvard ... - FOXNews
catherine yronwode (not logged in, sorry, because i'm at work) 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think a whole section on this sideshow is a bit much -- it has little to do with the topic of the article and would never survive AfD if split off. I'd rather see us gloss this whole thing into a section or two in the reactions section (while keeping the refs for those who really want to delve). What do y'all think? -- Kendrick7
At this time, Boston Police are of particular note due to the Barrett emails. Please contribute to the " Boston Police" page whatever concise treatment of this event would be appropriate; thanks much! ↜Just M E here , now 08:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Barrett is not a member of the Cambridge Police Department, but of the Boston Police Department. This cross-referencing therefore seems a bit faulty. Pechmerle ( talk) 09:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Calling Boston Police Department the main article doesn't seem quite right either. The Barrett story is more thoroughly covered here than there. Is there some other cross-referencing label to use besides "main article"? Pechmerle ( talk) 09:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems better. Pechmerle ( talk) 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Another portion of this story broke today -- Lucia Whalen, the 911 caller, has held a press conference and is flatly contradicting Cambridge police officer Jim Crowley's account of events per his official police report. Among other things, she says that the ONLY words she said to him when he arrived on the scene were "I was the 911 caller" and the ONLY words he said to her were "Stay right there." She flatly denies mentioning "black men" or "back packs" either on the phone or in person. The tape of the phone conversation backs her up. There is no recording of the in-person conversation, but she is indicating that she is aware that Crowley fabricated this portion of their conversation in his police report. This is important to the story, for obvious reasons. Here is a write-up: "Diplomacy at a Picnic Table" Washington Post - Michael A. Fletcher, Krissah Thompson.
Thanks again for all the hard work on this article.
catherine yronwode (still not logged in; sorry) 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"refutes" is the wrong word altogether. A "he said, she said" exchange is not a refutation. This section of the article should probably be called "Discrepencies between Lucia Whalen (911 caller)and the Police Report." Bundas ( talk) 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, she did provide evidence tending to refute Crowley's written report: her own eyewitness testimony, which she gave at the press conference. That is evidence; it would even be admissible in court (first hand account). So it's not mere terminology that I am concerned with, but whether we should seem to be taking her side over his. On a purely neutral field, her testimony (even as to what she herself said) is not necessarily entitled to more weight than his -- he was there too, and says she said what she says she didn't. (How's that for mangling the language.) What we do have here is conflicting accounts of the same events. Can we find some neutral way to convey that? (Not a big deal, really; just wondering if we -- since I know you to be a reasonable person (too) -- can agree on a wording.) Pechmerle ( talk) 07:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Context is relevant to what is value laden. Contradicts is value laden here. I'm sure you saw Ms. Whalen's press conference (it's readily available on video), where she was nearly in tears over the disjunction between what she says she said and what Crowley says she said. There was no conflict between her and the officer -- but she just thought she'd bring a lawyer along for the fun of it? Your analysis departs from common sense. "oppositional and stressful" -- that precisely describes Whalen's presentation at her press conference. Please give this some more thought. Regards. Pechmerle ( talk) 08:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The three citations after the comment about Allen Counter all fail to support the statement in the article. If someone can provide a proper reference, please do. Otherwise, I'll delete the statement. Manyanswer ( talk) 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
link. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know where the white house would put an image on the web if a government photographer captures the moment (public domain and all that). - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 22:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add this poll that shows most people disapprove of obama's handling of this. [14] The Red Peacock ( talk) 02:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Anybody have a link to a transcript (not a video) of Crowley's press conference remarks after the White House meeting? Pechmerle ( talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's not the full 15 minutes worth, though. Pechmerle ( talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw that quote from Gates. Liked it. I've added two more general quotes from each man showing their overview of how the meeting went. Pechmerle ( talk) 04:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the link to go to the full transcript now. Pechmerle ( talk) 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
A huge topic is missing. Sgt. Leon Lashley, who is prominently in the photo in front of Professor Gates in handcuffs is well covered on CNN and the internet, except in Wikipedia.
Yet, the monkey e-mail cop has his own big section. Let's fix this! Acme Plumbing ( talk) 05:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"...gave a letter to Sgt. James Crowley to give to President Barack Obama during their so-called beer summit with Gates on Thursday night at the White House. In the letter, which was also sent to CNN, Lashley says Gates 'may have caused grave and potentially irreparable harm to the struggle for racial harmony.'" (link) ↜Just M E here , now 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree if the address is not known, WP should not break news of it. However, it is all over the internet. At least, Ware Street is reliably sourced info if we want to censor the xx part. Acme Plumbing ( talk) 06:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The double image of Crowley and Gates, featured in the Arrest section, presented an interesting and subtle lack of neutrality: a serious-looking white man in a suit and a black man, mouth agape and upset, being led away in cuffs. It isn't neutral. It isn't even in the same postal code of neutral. As the image of Crowley is just a cropped image from the beer summit image lower down, it also has the baggage of being redundant. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well-intentioned folks are testing wiki-links on Ed Davis (Boston Police Commissioner) and Justin Barrett (suspended Boston police officer) and when the links come up good (blue), they are leaving them in place without clicking on them to see where they lead -- but in both cases they lead to other folks. Both the Ed Davis and the Justin Barrett in this story are non-notable per WP and have not been added to disambig pages as they do not have their own entries. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 ( talk) 17:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes I wish Wikipedia and 24/7 media was around hundreds of years ago. This article is incredibly detailed (like all current events articles) but it would've been nice if (say) the Battle of Hastings or the Assassination of Julius Caesar, or hell, even the Emancipation Proclamation were equally detailed in proportion to their importance. If all your energies using Google News was instead expended on Google Books... hey, a guy can dream...
80.229.188.40 ( talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)