Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy/Archive 1

Wouldn't It be Fair to Note?

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

But then you'd have to balance this with the question if he's "explosive" as a matter of general personality. If so, then anything could set him, and race would have little to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.148 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article already covers that Gates could have (depending on which story one believes) overreacted and saw this as a racial profiling issue. To be more expansive, like the original anon suggested, we'd need to find an outside, non-fringe reliable source that makes that connection. My personal view is what he wrote on an undergraduate application is too tangential for this article.Mattnad (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscategorization

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

Removal of "your mama" quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HarvardGate

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

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

Gates-gate and Gatesgate are now official. Washington Post, The Telegraph in the UK (and others). They've (pun) crossed the gate.

View Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that was your first mistake. :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mug shot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems consensus is for the mug shot to stay. i can see the logic in the arguments for having it here, and for me, as long as the overall coverage here is NPOV, i dont think the photo is causing the problem i was concerned about. by this time, with so much discussion in the media, most people who can think are hopefully aware of the various issues, including subliminal perceptions caused by emphasizing this or that part of the story. Im surprised the media hasnt commented on our article (has it?).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloated title

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

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

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

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

The title contains grammatical errors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the arrest photo really in the public domain?

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

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

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

Aftermath doesn't sound right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCain

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

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

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

Ouch. That's unWikipedia-like. 65.248.252.99 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

TMI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't it possible that "your mamma" was confused with "Yo-Yo Ma?" The cellist has brought this up in the past. 65.248.252.99 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy of Cambridge Police Department arrest report

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Instead, the caller was a Harvard employee, whose office is near Gates' house, and who saw Gates on a regular basis. The article should be changed to fix this error. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104941 Source]Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EL's and See Also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

911 Call

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overkill

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

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

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

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

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

Lets address the 911 call in a proper light: Race, Gender, Height, Weight, Clothing, Vehicle, whatever... all valid information. Why is this 911 call, and the caller herself, being villanized? Focus article on the facts: Caller reported activity she was advised of from a third-party. Caller gave as detailed description as possible to the 911 operator. It doesn't matter if she shared or knew the race of the subjects or not - If she would have seen Gates more clearly and said "an older black male" would she have been burned at the altar? What gives? N7cav (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is in no way meant to be a forum. I am simply wondering if we should add a section on the overkill of the reporting. A recent survey here indirectly states how Bostonians feel about the issue as they are probably not supporting the idea because it has already garnered too much attention here. This reporting has been going on for a week and a half now. I'm way too young to remember the Rodney King incident, but i'm sure that it probably lasted at least this long, but with good reason as he was beat up. No one was hurt here, but the local news media is jumping on it because it is a "big" story as there are never any race issues to report on the news in this area. Now today there is a report that an officer called him a racial slur. This will now add another day or so of reporting. Hopefully this will all end tomorrow as Obama meets with them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:20, 30 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)

Ungrammatical redundancy

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

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

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

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

911 Caller's name

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

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

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

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

CNN quote from Colin Powell on Gate's behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pardon me, but doesn't topic ban mean you stay away from the articles and discussions? You don't get to contribute to the discussion, ether, Grundle. Sorry for the harsh, but you should really know better. I'm sorely tempted to yank the entire discussion section just on principle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban extends to talk pages for CoM, but Grundle is allowed to discuss on talk pages, according to this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles I should mention that CoM was just issued a 24 hour block for violating the topic ban, but that is still under discussion at WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:39, 29 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)

(indent) Perhaps wait for the July 30 White House beer (and hopefully handshakes), and then, given how Gen. Powell grew up in a diverse neighborhood, give his opinion it's due respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.148 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Smart advice, that call for waiting. Who here thinks we are in a hurry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to CNN video

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)

Other than the addition of Powell's non-sequitarian comments, the external links contain:

• The 2009 Cambridge police arrest report
• 911 call (transcript, audio)
• Police radio communications (The Associated Press)

All important, relevant, neutral documents. Now you have added Powell's comments, which come down directly on the side of the police...despite the fact that this was essentially a case of false arrest. There's no reason why Powell's comments should be the only ones linked to in the external links section, and there's also no reason to start adding links to the reams of commentary out there. The link to Powell's comments should be removed. If you want to treat it in the body of the article, go ahead and do that and move the link to Powell to the notes section. — goethean ॐ 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why it's OK to have in the article, but not as an external link. POV is not a disqualifier for ELs. That reservation aside, I completely agree that it should be included in the response section. We can state Powell's position and as reference link to the interview. I'd also suggest that Ronnote use the Web Cite, or News Cite reference template.Mattnad (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds fine. For the record, I was not the original contributor, I merely objected to the link's removal based on a POV argument and reinserted. Ronnotel (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No it should not be included as an EL. If you start to include some opinion then you have to include all opinion. Powell's opinion is just that and deserves no special mention. Arzel (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should (actually must) include all significant and notable points of view to the degree those POV's are supported by reliable sources and notability - see WP:UNDUE. Ordinarily I'm the first to invoke WP:UNDUE to remove material. However, Colin Powell's reaction in this case is particular apt. I base this on Mr. Powell's prominence, his willingness to cross party lines to assert his independence in his own POV, and his own personal experience in this regard. It should stay. I don't really care where it goes. Ronnotel (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. RECENTISM applies here. Everybody and their dear old Uncle Olaf is weighing on on this, so we need to step back from the media machine and refuse to get pulled into it. Why on Earth would we care what Colin Powell thinks on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Gates and Crowley are related to each other.

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)

How is that coincidental relationship relevant to the story, other than for its obvious amusement value? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it kind of means they are the same race, not a different race. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They're both mixed race? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I said "kind of" - they're both Irish. That's not a race, but they are related to each other. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then Obama missed a chance. He's going to serve Bud Light. He should serve Guinness. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And again, Grundle, if you are banned from these articles, it means you do not get to offer input into them, not even on the talk page,. You and another have been advised of this before. They have displyed the wisdom and aplomb to back off, and so should you. Do it again, and Bad Things will happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not banned from the talk pages. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the arbcom page on this matter, that is correct. CoM is banned from both. Grundle is not banned from the talk pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My apologies, Grundle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I accept your apology. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Jungle Monkey" email

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 just added a little blurb which has the two main articles about the incident... it needs expanding and copy editing no doubt. gren グレン 01:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added more about this as it has passed into print -- Barrett referred to Gates not just as a "jungle monkey" but as a "banana-eating jungle monkey." This is a pretty sad aspect to the incident, but interesting, as he also referred to a Boston Globe column by Yvonne Abraham that supported Gates as "jungle monkey gibberish" -- which probably explains why he sent the Globe a copy of the email (although we can't say that, of course, as it is a guess). And then he went on television and declared he was "not a racist." Sigh. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if we had some e-mails about what he calls some of the white folks he's picked up, we'd see a different pattern emerge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:39, 31 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

I tend to think it should stay. In terms of the dynamic (competing narratives of public safety and racial profiling) of the whole episode, the Barrett incident is very central: racist slurs, enforcement of political correctness, responsibilities of an officer of the law, what happens when somebody touches the 'third rail' of race in American society -- the Barrett incident is not a mere side show to this whole episode. In some ways, its the perfect illustration why the overall story 'has legs.' IMHO. Pechmerle (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pechmerle. The question of whether it would "survive AfD if split off" is a straw man. It is a section of THIS article, and it is, as Pechmerle notes, "not a mere side show to this whole episode." In fact, it goes right to the heart of the issue, and demonstrates the cultural subtext that has given the arrest story such traction in the first place. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate section @ 'Boston Police' article

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)

Pechmerle, It's now changed it Boston PD. Thanks! ↜Just M E here , now 09:08, 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)

There's "see also" -- ↜Just M E here , now 09:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems better. Pechmerle (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucia Whalen (911 caller) refutes Crowley's police report

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)

are you "the" cat yronwode? If so, cool! Major props! Manyanswer (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, she is. (Hmm - did she take in ComicCon, this year (or ever) I wonder?) ↜Just M E here , now 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Manyanswer: Yes, i am "the" cat yronwode and as a Wikipedia editor i am user catherineyronwode. Thanks for the props. To Justmeherenow: I didn't make it to ComicCon this year, but i have frequently attended -- and i have even won an Inkpot Award there. cat yronwode (not logged in, just passing by on the fly) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:39, 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)

Agree that refutes has too much POV. I've changed it to "differences." Pechmerle (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Differences" is imprecise and unreasonably passive, given her lawyer's and her very clear statements. I have changed it to "contradicts," which is lexically more precise. cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "conflicts" or something like it? I still think that refutes, and contradicts, carry too much POV. Pechmerle (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Contra" = "against" and "dict" = "speak." Thus, "contradict" = "speak against," which is precisely what she did, first through her lawyer's press conference and then at her own press conference: She spoke against Crowley's report.

"Refutes" means "to disprove my means of evidence or argument" and is simply wrong because she presented no refutational evidence.

"Differences" is not accurate because it contains no inherent reference to human will and could be passively categorical (a flower differs from a tree), whereas she hired a lawyer to hold a press conference and then held a press conference herself specifically to express her willful contradiction of Crowley's report.

"Conflict" is an opposition of needs, values, or interests -- but we have no information from her about those topics so it is way out of range of what we know.

"Contradict" is therefore the most precise and value-neutral word available, in my opinion. We have evidence that she spoke against his report, nothing more and nothing less.

cat yronwode (not logged in) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:12, 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)

There was no "conlfict." Whalen simply and clearly "contradicted" Crowley's report.

Coinflict is more oppositional and stressful than contradiction. "Conflict" implies an opposition of values or desires, which is not what i saw at her press conference. For instance, two nations are in conflict when they both want the same land (a war is an "armed conflict"), but when a person says, "Your report is inaccurate," she is "contradicting" it -- she is contradicting the report, but is not necessarily carrying on a "conflict" with the police officer who wrote it.

It is sloppy writing to say, "their accounts conflicted" because words have no wills and therefore have no nneds or desires with which to oppose one another. People and other willful beings engage in conflicts, but words do not.

The fact that you see "contradicted" as non-neutral makes me wonder if you may have internalized an unusual or non-standard connotation to this word.

Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:02, 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)

Allen Counter Reference

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)

Done. Manyanswer (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps adding this politcal cartoon as an external link could improve the article.

link. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny cartoon, but I don't see that it would anything to this article. Pechmerle (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Additionally, we'd never get permission to use it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic either, since it requires additional cultural knowledge of a US-specific ad campaign from 15 years ago to even understand. Manyanswer (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Beer summit photo

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)

It might show up at the The White House blog. ↜Just M E here , now 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, their might be a free image of Crowley out their, if his police department put images of their officers online. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't use this here, obviously, but the photo on this page [13] shows some interesting body language, i.e. Gates and Crowley seemingly sitting as far apart from each other as is practical at that small table. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, actually Biden is the furthest from Crowley. What you see in the photo is probably the optimum seating plan. They had to pull the people so it's two on each side of the table, not four equally spaced, so the photographer could get a good shot. And if Obama and Biden were at one end of the table, it would look like they were lecturing the other two. If the table was black on one side and white on the other, that wouldn't work for all sorts of reasons. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that they are sitting as far away as they can for being put on adjacent sides of the table. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pew Reseach Poll

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)

After the Beer Summit

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)

^YI added a link to the [edited: partial] transcript of its "breaking news" broadcast coverage on CNN. ↜Just M E here , now 03:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Edited. ↜Just M E here , now 04:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's not the full 15 minutes worth, though. Pechmerle (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Maybe a full transcript will show up somewhere. (PS here's a quote from Gates to Abby Goodnough of the NYT: "When he’s not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy.") ↜Just M E here , now 04:42, 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)

Huge subject missing, Sgt. Leon Lashley

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)

Sgt. Lashley is quoted in the "Response" section of the article, as well as being shown in the key photograph. Pechmerle (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• In an update by the Associated Press, Lashley, maligned as an "Uncle Tom,"

  "...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)

XX Ware Street all over the internet

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)

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1187334

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/27/raw-data-transcript-cambridge/

http://www.kansascity.com/437/story/1349278.html

I was OK with Ware Street, without the number. But this private individual's home address adds nothing to the substance of this article. I think better to just leave it out. IMHO. Pechmerle (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. It is not important. We are an encyclopedia, not a media outlet. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the entire Internet was going to jump off the Empire State Building, does that make it right for us to do it? Besides, Jimbo has made it clear we observe a higher standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Wales respond on this particular topic? I wasn't aware. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. Wehwalt was probably referring to some past discussions on having extra standards for BLPs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of double image

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)

It would provide more neutral of imagery is both parties to the controversy were illustrated, in my opinion. Which leaves us with one person believing the Crowley pic more POV (Arcayne) and one person believing it very much less POV (namely me). Would anyone else wish to chime in with their opinion, as well? ↜Just M E here , now 16:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We've got to use free pics. Why don't we not put them together, or use the photo of gates from his article next the crowley one. They're similar. I still like the neighbor photo somewhere. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep a Crowley separate from the arrest shot given they are taken in very different contexts. The juxtaposition can carry unintended messaging. And if we were to have in elsewhere in the article, it's not the end of the world to have some redundancy for a more closely cropped image until we find a better substitute IMHO. Mattnad (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved a pair of public domain pix of the event's principals, Crowley and Gates, to the article's "Response" section. ↜Just M E here , now 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I wouldn't mind the usage of the image of Crowley next to that of the image of Gates (in suit and tie) from the Gates article in a section below. The image of Gates' arrest should be all by itself, and I feel pretty strongly about this point; the unequal visual portrayal is reminiscent to that of the description of Hurricane Katrina victims - the white survivors are "finding" supplies, while the black survivors are "looting"(1). Simply stated, we don't need this. As well, we have an image of Crowley from the beer summit; why the need to use a redundant image? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Justmeherenow's latter image placement is better, though the cropping of the image from the beer summit make their faces look like they are floating in a void. I hope better images do pop up to use. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I probably will adjust the cropping of the pair of images for a more aesthetic layout. ↜Just M E here , now 16:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up: please don't wiki-link Ed Davis, Justin Barrett

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)

A thought

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 will be an old topic soon enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And your subtle mockery was indeed caught. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I share your first wish, but your final comment doesn't follow. Books on history can only retread the same primary sources and not find new ones like today's journalists do. They are very far from the numerous contemporary sources we have available to create this article. If there were sufficient news articles from 1050-1200 available online for me to help describe the Second Crusade with more than a Featured, Good article as the main and several long supporting sub-articles, I'd be the first to sign up to help. Manyanswer (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True, journalists are generating new primary source content, whereas books about long ago generally aren't, but I mentioned books because for most historical articles, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of books specifically on the subject, and I think most of these books haven't been looked through for information. Not to mention that even if lots of books retread the same sources, they approach the subject in different ways, and provide unique analysis which would useful to illustrate all the different POVs. So I think your comment would be more relevant if the people who have worked on (say) the Assassination of Julius Caesar, had looked through all the books available on the subject. 80.229.188.40 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)