![]() | 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 |
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)
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 The start of this discussion has been archived here.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) |
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)
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)
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)
(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.
↜Just M E here , now 16:11, 8 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)
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)
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)
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 families then continued their tours together while the principals had a friendly conversation over beer.[ details [1]
References
Notes
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)
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)
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)
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. – xeno talk 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)
|
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? -- JN 466 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)
|
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)
|
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:
|
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)
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)
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)
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) |
{{ 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)
{{ 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)
Since I ruffled feathers last time I did this myself... what do you all think of archiving the following sections:
-- SharkxFanSJ ( talk) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Going once? twice? sold.
![]() | 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 |
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
(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.
↜Just M E here , now 16:11, 8 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)
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)
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)
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 families then continued their tours together while the principals had a friendly conversation over beer.[ details [1]
References
Notes
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)
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)
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)
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. – xeno talk 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)
|
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? -- JN 466 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)
|
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)
|
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:
|
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)
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)
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)
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) |
{{ 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)
{{ 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)
Since I ruffled feathers last time I did this myself... what do you all think of archiving the following sections:
-- SharkxFanSJ ( talk) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Going once? twice? sold.