Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RfC for "Beer Summit Beer"

Comments are requested on whether to include the brands of beer consumed at the "beer summit" between President Obama, Vice President Biden, Henry Gates, and Sgt. Crowley. If this information should be included, does it belong in the main text, or in the "references" section as a footnote? ~~Arguments for and against can be found at Talk:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates#Beer Summit Beer.~~ The most recent discussion on this topic can be found at Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident#A suggestion regarding the beer brands footnote--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of the "Beer Summit" section title discussion

No disucssion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is a continuation of a discussion. The start of this discussion has been archived here. At issue is whether the title for the section dealing with the meeting between Obama-Crowley-Gates should be "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting." A poll was conducted in the archived discussion (which favored the former).

It ain't accurate. Polls do not equal consensus on any talk page. Consensus is achieved through discussion. Simply because a journalist decides to use a sensationalistic term doesn't mean we are also required to use it. Our standards are higher than the average media report which often glosses over the issues in favor of catchy, comedic words and phrases that capture the attention of an audience for their advertisers. We don't do that here. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Viriditas, what do you suggest? You've already intimated that won't discuss the matter with at least one other editor. No one is confusing polling for consensus, but it does illuminate the terrain we find ouselvs. Currently, you are the only person opting for a non-use of Beer Summit. Tell us what you would have us do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm afraid that pretty much everyone disagrees with you. The reasons are listed in the discussion above. Are you saying that you have to agree in order for there to be consensus? 'fraid not. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Polls aren't considered "consensus" and I haven't seen a single editor disagree with anything I've said on the subject. Why don't you be the first? And just so you know, consensus doesn't override our core policies. We don't use the term "Beer Summit" in a heading about a White House meeting because 1) There's no such thing as a "Beer Summit" 2) "Beer Summit" refers to an annual beer event in Boston, not an official White House event, and 3) "Beer Summit" is a sensationalistic term created by a journalist to attract attention. Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. 4) Our headings describe the content in an impartial, neutral, accurate, and serious manner. This isn't The Onion, and we don't use humorous terms to describe serious events. The event was not universally referred to as the "Beer Summit" and there are many sources that call it a "meeting", a "gathering", etc. We are writing encyclopedia articles, not news articles, and our headings must accurately describe the content. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Offer accepted. Although it's inaccurate to say that not a single editor disagrees with your points.

There's no such thing as a "Beer Summit"

There is now. That's the term for the event that is being used fairly universally now.

"Beer Summit" refers to an annual beer event in Boston, not an official White House event

Apparantly the Boston event isn't very notable - there was no preexisting article or redirect about it. May I suggest a disambiguation page?

"Beer Summit" is a sensationalistic term created by a journalist to attract attention.

So was Watergate, the Checkers speech, and Whitewater controversy. Yet the articles aren't called Nixon burglary controversy, or the Fund speech, or the Clinton real estate controvery - all of which would be more formal.

Wikipedia doesn't operate that way.

You keep saying that. Is that your opinion, or is there a policy to back it up? All of the policies I've found say the contrary. (WP:COMMONNAME seems to be the most applicable)

Our headings describe the content in an impartial, neutral, accurate, and serious manner.

Are you claiming that "Beer Summit" is somehow POV? Please elaborate - seems pretty neutral to me. Is there a policy that says that we need to be "serious" (whatever that means) when we choose article/section names?

This isn't The Onion

If it were just The Onion that had been using the term, I wouldn't disagree with you.

The event was not universally referred to as the "Beer Summit"

Pretty darn close. Done a google search on the term lately? The name doesn't have to be universal. It just has to be common.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As of 11:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC) there are approximately 8,589 articles archived by Google News on the topic of the July White House invitation and meeting that do not use the term "Beer Summit". And, I'm only seeing 2,423 that do. Your confirmation bias is showing. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the other items, huh?

As I said, the term doesn't have to be universal, it just has to be common. I only found 2,409 "Beer Summit"s. Just looking at the first 10 pages of hits, there were references made by all of the following news outlets:

Print: Associated Press, Reuters, USA Today, San Francisco Examiner, San Jose Mercury News, Kansas City Star, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, U.S. News & World Report, National Post, Newsday, Huffington Post, Boston Herald, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Baltimore Sun, Fort Worth Star Telegram, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Union Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, Women's Wear Daily (!), and dozens of other less-notable publications.

Television: Outlets from CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and ABC... and dozens of other apparantly unaffiliated news outlets.

Just because there are articles out there that don't use the term doesn't mean it isn't common. Although I can't think of a parallel example at the moment, try your experiment with any common event name and see what you come up with (I tried Whitewater - too old).--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the "other items" because they are simply wrong. The Boston event is notable and has been in existence for more than ten years; "Watergate", the "Checkers speech", and "Whitewater controversy" are serious, accurate names for those respective events; "Beer Summit" is not. It's a humorous, inaccurate term invented by the media to sensationalize a White House meeting. As an encyclopedia, we choose to use the most neutral name for an event, and the vast majority of the sources on the subject do not use the term, "Beer Summit". The guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), does not override exceptions for precision, disambiguation, and the core policy of neutrality. As Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Neutrality makes clear, "Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles -- only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity." "Beer Summit" is the sensationalistc POV of a Boston-area journalist who used the media to promulgate a humorous term. The most neutral term for the invitation is "White House invitation" and the most neutral term for the event is a "White House meeting", and these terms are the most common in news articles about the invitation and the meeting. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a fundamental problem with naming the section header "White House invitation and meeting" and mentioning in the first or second sentence that the press referred to it as the "beer summit"? JN 466 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This particular White House meeting has a commonly-accepted name. Same with the example above... would you call the Watergate scandal the "Nixon hotel burglary controversy"?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't heard the "beer summit" expression until I looked at this article. Watergate is an iconic term that has stood the test of time. Look at it the other way: no reader is inconvenienced if the headline says "White House invitation and meeting", everyone understands it. --JN 466 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I wonder of this entire incident is going to stand the test of time. But, that aside, lots of people have been invited to the White House to work things out. This particuar meeting was unique in that it was over beer, hence the coined term. The section title should reflect this uniqueness - and utilizing the commonly accepted name is the most efficient way to do so. Originally Beer Summit was in quotes, but those got removed somewhere along the line.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing unique about it, except for the media attention that it received. Do you think alcohol has never been consumed in the White House? And what about champagne diplomacy? That's a real, notable form of a summit involving alcohol, and yet Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. This wasn't a "Beer Summit", no matter what the sensationalistic media wants to call it. It is perfectly fine to mention that some people in the media chose to give the meeting a humorous name, but our headings must remain neutral and our focus must remain dispassionate from the vicissitudes of the sensationalistic media who do not have our guidelines and policies to guide them. They rely on "if it bleeds, it leads", and we do not. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In a much-anticipated "beer summit" on July 30, Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr, Mr. Gates and Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department sat down over beers at a table across from the Oval Office. No apologies were offered but Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley told the president that they had made plans to lunch together soon.---GATES'S NYT SIDEBAR PROFILE'S 3RD ¶ ↜Just M E here , now 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- And that usage is in the minority. Most objective sources do not use the term. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

The common name guideline does not trump neutrality, and as the news indices show, this isn't the common name. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain again how neutrality comes into the picture. No one is advocating the name for negative of positive reasons. It is simply a name that has been adopted by the media for the event. Given the media's use of this name, regardless of their rationale or reason, it exists and is being used in MSM and in common parlance when discussed. Even on this article talk page most refer to the "Beer Summit" as the common name for the event. I agree that Wiki should be as professional as possible, but the use of the common name does not reduce the validity or value of the facts therein. This is not about playing into the media, but seems rather detailing what is currently being reported. Besides Viriditas, is there anyone else on this talk page of on wiki for that matter that also disagrees with the use of the term "Beer Summit"? (no offense Viriditas, but we all know where you stand and should hear any other opposition to the phrase)IlliniGradResearch (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article on scare quotes to understand why the term is not the most neutral description of the event. The term has not been adopted by the media; It has been used in a small percentage of articles about the topic, mostly in a sensational, humorous manner. Nobody is objecting to the use of the term in the article. Rather, I am reminding editors that the use of the term in our section heading describing a White House invitation and meeting, is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article that focuses on neutrality first and foremost above all else, unlike the media. Neutrality trumps what you describe as a "common name", every time. We do not do "infotainment" here. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

No, "Beer Summit" has not stood the test of time, and this is yet-another-case of recentism rearing its ugly head again. Please give me an example of a White House meeting that has an established, inaccurate and humorous name. None exists. This isn't The Onion, and we don't play into the sensationalistic media's attempt to turn information into infotainment. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just want to note here two things. First, I keep my voice strongly behind "Beer Summit". Two, the reason the page is currently blocked is that Veriditas was reported for edit warring White House Meeting back into the section [1] repeatedly despite consensus. To be fair, since the poll one other vote has changed to his side, leaving two opposed - still a consensus to me. What is almost funniest is that when I asked the admins to consider unblocking the page and focusing on the actions of one editor, they told us "next time do a poll so we don't have to wade through all that verbiage". I'm ready to stop talking about this. Anyone else? Manyanswer (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And, I just want to correct your errors, Manyanswer. The page was protected due to a request made by an editor at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection on August 5. That initial request did not name anyone other than to report "incessant edit-warring. many editors going back and forth". And, looking at the current edit history, we see there were in fact, multiple editors reverting each other over the inclusion of a mugshot. So, Manyanswer, the page is not currently blocked because of my edits to the White House invitation and meeting section, and I suggest you try to get your facts straight before you comment. If you had bothered to do the slightest bit of research on the subject, you would have noticed that User:SharkxFanSJ falsely reported me for 3RR violations at 04:11, 5 August 2009, but this page was protected at 03:46. I hope you now see the error of your ways. Obviously, the page could not be protected before the 3RR report was made as you claim above, and the initial request for protection described an edit war involving multiple users, primarily referring to an edit war over the mugshot, not the White House meeting. Furthermore, as it has been explained to you already, polls are not consensus and every argument that has been offered in support of using "Beer Summit" has turned out to be invalid. Neutrality trumps any common name claim (even though the term is not common according to the Google news site) and any word used in scare quotes is automatically non-neutral. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow my link [2] it says "Result: Prot" meaning that protection was in order. The fact that protection was issued for another reason 20 minutes before that is probably what saved you from being blocked from edit warring. It makes sense to me now. Manyanswer (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The edit warring that resulted in protection had nothing to do with me, and you have already been corrected on this point. The fact that stick to your erroneous views after being shown your mistake is quite telling. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Manyanswer, that that has been little movement. While a poll may not equal consensus, the points of view expressed have not changed either. Consensus does not require unanimity to occur. Edit warring is not conducive to good communal living on the Wiki. While I respect his opinion, he has used "We are Not The Onion" argument four times so far, and his arguments havent changed. I recognize his opinion, but I would ask that given the pro outweighs the con, we utilize the term as it is. Should disagreement continue, we can always ask for peer review or arbcom. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Manyanswer and yourself and I still fail to recognize a single, valid argument in favor of using "Beer Summit" over the neutral term "White House invitation and meeting" or two separate sections describing an invitation and a meeting. We always use the most neutral terms possible, and words in scare quotes are automatically non-neutral by nature. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Actually, if Viriditas still wants to push the issue, since he has gained little currency with his straw man arguments here, what he *should* be doing-rather than edit warring-is taking the point to WP:NPOVN. I would encourage him to do this. Once he has exhausted that avenue as well, he will simply have to accept that his POV is not nearly as neutral as he assumes it to be. Peer review is more appropriate for a situation where multiple editors are in deadlock. This is simply one editor raging against a solid consensus behind COMMONNAME with a weak NPOV argument. If he truly believes it is so non-neutral, WP:NPOVN is the proper venue to pursue it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, what you should be doing is presenting a valid argument for using "Beer Summit". You haven't yet been able to present a valid argument, so you are reduced to making false claims of edit warring (who has been repeatedly edit warring the term "Beer Summit" into the article?) and you are forced to make false claims about a common name (the name is not common on Google news) and you also forget that Wikipedia uses the most neutral names over the most common, each and every time, and any term that appears in scare quotes is automatically non-neutral. You have the burden of proof to show that the term is neutral, common, accurate, and encyclopedic, and you have failed in every instance. Please take responsibility for your failure and do not blame me for your mistakes. Polls are not consensus, and no amount of popular opinion can change our neutrality policy. The most neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic terms describing our content are always preferred. No exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the editor seeking to make a change to the existing article. The section heading was "Beer Summit" long before you first came to this article. I don't know why you would even bother trying to deny edit warring. We all know it's why this page is now protected. I have already collected the diffs of your six cracks at the section heading, and will gladly share them with you or anyone interested, but I won't crowd this talk page with them here. I would also like to point out to you that not every term that appears in quotes is in "scare quotes". There's an example right there. Without compromising my neutrality, I just indicated that this was your term and not mine. It doesn't mean I'm calling the term sensationalistic, just indicating that it was someone else who introduced the term into the conversation. Please see Quotation mark#Signaling unusual usage - particularly the first bullet point: "People use quotation marks in this way to indicate descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy words or phrases." I rather think of this term as more a colloquialism than a startling or humorous phrase. As startling or humorous phrases go, you must admit it is remarkably tame. As I said, you're not convincing anyone here, so please, by all means, take it to WP:NPOVN if you think it's non-neutral. If you don't think it's non-neutral, then please don't waste our time with it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, again. You erroneously claim the section heading was "Beer Summit" long before you first came to this article and yet my first edit to this article was on 26 July[3] and "Beer Summit" wasn't added until 30 July by User:WilsonjrWikipedia.[4] using a link from CNN[5] in an article about the meeting that does not refer to it as a "Beer Summit" in any way except to quote Obama's comment about the misnomer. The CNN article actually uses the word "meeting" a total of 10 times to refer to the White House meeting over beers, and the term "Beer Summit" is only used once indirectly, in reference to Obama's opinion about it. Those wishing to add "Beer Summit" to a Wikipedia heading have the burden of proof. Simply describing the invitation and meeting as "White House invitation and meeting" is best practice. Using non-neutral, humorous terms is not. And further, your quoting of Quotation mark#Signaling unusual usage is simply off the mark. The term was created by a journalist as a humorous reference to the meeting and is not part of or characteristic of informal speech. In fact, it's a neologism that is used in a humorous fashion, hence the scare quotes. And by making the meeting out to be humorous, the use of the term is non neutral. We prefer neutral terms that accurately describe an event, and since the meeting was neither about beer or a summit, we don't use it. If a certain journalist uses a new, cutesy term in a sensationalistic manner to describe a serious event, we are free to mention that term in the appropriate context, but when it comes to describing the overall event itself, we stick to neutral descriptions and avoid giving weight or importance to any particular usage that isn't accurate or representative of the event in question. There was a White House invitation to a meeting, and the two paragraphs that described this invitation were appropriately labeled as "White House invitation" in the heading. There was no justifiable reason for the removal of this heading. And, the subsequent meeting section was labeled "White House meeting"; Again, there was no valid reason for deleting this heading. The term "Beer Summit" neither describes the previous invitation to the White House nor the meeting that took place, and is a non-neutral, humorous term that represents the sensationalistic POV of some media outlets rather than a factual, accurate, and observational description of the event. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity. Your repeated reversions and your I didn't hear that argument are forms of gaming the system. Please stop. Or prove me wrong by making a request for comment or going to WP:NPOVN for outside review. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your repeated addition of the term "Beer Summit" in place of neutral descriptions of the event such as "White House invitation and meeting" is a violation of neutral point of view. It is non-negotiable and consensus cannot change it. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys let me explain. There is a higher law here, and only V can see it. What we are doing is wrong and no reason we can give is valid, because of the higher law. Consensus can be denied to exist, because no reason given for the consensus opinion fails to violate the higher law. Apparently WP needs to be updated with WP:VIRIDITAS IS RIGHT. As an alternative path, I note we have two sides of an issue here that seem to view events differently. We could choose to get together and try to take the level of the discussion to a gentlemanly one. We all could get together to discuss over beer! Let's see, what can we call it... a "Beer Summit"! That has a ring to it. Manyanswer (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about me. Which is a more neutral description of the event in question, "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting"? Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the right question. Let me frame the right question: "Given all the aspects to consider, what is the consensus opinion of editors on which option should be in the article?" You're appealing that there is some higher reason to trump our opinions, and of course W can't work that way for obvious reasons. Manyanswer (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As I just finished explaining, consensus does not, at any time, override our core policies, so your question is irrelevant. The correct question, and the question that directly addresses the problem under discussion is, which is a more neutral description of the event: "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting"? In fact, it is the only question that matters here. Viriditas (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For the first time in wikipedia, I have now seen the reason many editors choose to leave. One person puts their foot down, even in the light of consensus and other policies that show the use of a term is permissible, people get fed up with it. V asks everyone to offer an argument. If you read the arguments above, there have been dozens. In fact, -SharkxFanSJ pointed out point by point the flaws in your own arguments, and we have all given examples of of how other policies permit this use. V has used the same argument over and over, in what seems to be an attempt to wear others down, or to repeat his argument enough that it might be taken for gospel. When there was no direct consensus and V didnt like it, a vote what held. When it didnt come out the way he liked, he used the "polling is not consensus" defense. When we observe the discussion and suggestions by editors are still in line with polling and a consensus is being built, he uses the same argument. When we all post to show our consensus and argue against his interpretation of policy, he uses the "consensus doesn't trump policy" even while other editors give evidence of other policies permitting the use of the term. In fact, it seems whenever evidence is given or an argument is made that is not his, V simply claims no evidence has been given that refutes his argument. At this point, I would suggest that when the article is unlocked, the appropriate changes be made according to current consensus (Yes V, there is a consensus, just without you in it) and V can submit for an WP:NPOVN for a decision. If it is continuously changed by V, I would submit another lock be placed and it go to arbcom or peer review. They can review the notes and decide on final action if only to end the debate. If they agree with V, so be it. If not, it will at place the onus on V to comply with the decision. I have no intention letting V wear down the discussion with the same repeated lines of text to get his way on the matter. As I said before, it does not matter where the term started, it only matters now that it is used and is in the zeitgeist and is recognized for the event. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've only been here since June 10[6] and you have only made 210 edits in that time, so I doubt you could understand why editors choose to leave. Consensus does not override NPOV at any time, nor does it override BLP concerns. "Beer Summit" is neither the common name for the event, nor is it neutral; We also do not have any history of private White House meetings being referred to in this way. Wikipedia always defaults to the most neutral wording when faced with ambiguity. I am impressed that that you feel you are an expert on policy and guidelines after making only 6 edits to project space, but I think you have a lot to learn. Furthermore, your username is somewhat misleading, as "IlliniGradResearch" could "imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia" so you may want to consult Wikipedia:Username for more information. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

People usually get personal when people do not respond to their arguments they way they would prefer.

V, I didn't challenge your education level, you personally, or anything other than your opinion on this particular matter. To address your issues, I actually have been editing quite longer than that as an anonymous user. However, I have always considered Wiki a serious project, and recently decided to put forth more time and effort into editing and posting content (commons, wiki). My direct statement about editors choosing to leave comes from discussions with other grad students, professors, and students that edit for a period and choose to discontinue. As for edit count, I would submit that edit quality matters more than edit count. I would prefer to discuss and debate rather than war on that page and deprive other editors the ability to add relevant content. Your 4+ years on Wiki obviously haven't freed you from the need to edit war yourself given your suspensions. I in no way said I was an expert, but a review of wiki policy offers one a good primer on how to conduct ones self here. As for my user name, anyone looking at my user page would clearly see why I use the name: 1) I am a graduate student 2) A graduate student at the University of Illinois 3) I conduct research - In fact, the userboxes state that pretty plainly. Oddly enough, your own user boxes say you dislike "edit wars", yet you seem to end up in them often enough. You are not the only person on this talkpage, this subject, or on Wikipedia that considers this a serious project and wants to see the best information posted on it. As a parent and a grad student working on research for publication, I dont have a great deal of time available. The fact I offer it here is due to my belief that wiki is an important tool for others. In short, this matters to me probably as much as it maters to you. I would submit you have alot to learn about working with others, rather than warring with them. So be polite and stick to the subject and stay off the personal. See WP:Civility if you require reference on how to do so. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not override core policies, of which NPOV is paramount. A group of editors cannot get together on a talk page and agree to ignore it. Neutrality always trumps any consensus, especially a consensus arrived at by arguments which have shown to be false. The term isn't common, accurate, or neutral, and that's why we don't use it as an enycyclopedic heading. It doesn't matter how many editors come here and say "metoo". Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been away from this dicussion for a bit, but here a few comments:

SharkxFanSJ falsely accused me of 3RR (Viriditas)

Actually, I accused you of edit warring and gaming the system. I specifically pointed out how you were skirting 3RR. You were not absolved of wrong-doing on the noticeboard. The page just happened to become protected as I was writing up the report, which "resolved the problem." Blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, so blocking you after the page had become protected would have been inappropriate.

I would also like to point out that you have been blocked five times for edit warring/3RR. The most recent block was 2 months ago. You aren't exactly an angel when it comes to edit warring.

consensus does not, at any time, override our core policies (Viriditas)

This isn't always the case. Review WP:IGNORE and WP:UIAR. If you think that our consensus doesn't reflect the wider community view, then bring it up at RfC or NPOVN

There is no consensus (Viriditas)

You have has brought up arguments, and they have been responded to. The response to those arguments is disputed only by you. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean that there's "no consensus." Rather than edit war, why not try a little dispute resolution?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no dispute. NPOV trumps any attempt at adding a non-neutral name, and you are in a position where you are forced to compromise rather than forcing a non-neutral name of an event into a heading. Furthermore, all of the arguments presented in favor of "beer summit" have been shown to be invalid. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Furthermore, all of the arguments presented in favor of "beer summit" have been shown to be invalid." That statement is simply false. The arguments in favor of "beer summit" have merely not met with approval from one editor, is far different. Pechmerle (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You (and others) have not presented a single valid argument for inclusion. The term isn't common, isn't neutral, and isn't accurate. What argument do you then present for use as a section heading? NPOV comes first, before everything else. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

The term isn't common, and the vast majority of articles on the subject do not call it a "Beer Summit". Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 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)

"Checkers speech" is the historical term for the event, which was indeed, a public speech, and the most notable aspect of the speech was Nixon's comment about a dog. The July 30th White House meeting was private, and was notable for bringing three men together to discuss (and hopefully resolve) their issues (Biden also attended but was not part of the dispute which drew them men together). Since this is a recent event, we do not have the benefit of hindsight to look back and see the use of the term in dozens, if not hundreds and thousands of publications like the Checkers speech. Wikipedia takes a long-term view and chooses to best represent the topic in the most neutral manner possible. We know that Nixon's speech is historically referred to as the Checkers speech, and for our purposes we use that name. I am not clear if the White House archives or the Nixon library uses that name or not. As for the July 30th White House meeting, the term "Beer Summit" is not the most common name for the event, does not accurately portray the event (there was no summit) and was not about Beer. Currently, I see at least 4,000 articles for this meeting that do not use the term "beer summit" and close to 1,500 that do. Perhaps in time this will be the common name for the event; At this time, we do not know if this true, nor should we participate in changing history. Per the neutrality policy, which is our core policy at the root of Wikipedia, we use the most neutral term for the event; "Beer Summit" is sensationalistic, humorous and ironic term that does not address the core issues discussed at the private meeting. This is unlike the term "Checkers speech" which accurately describes a public event (a speech) and uses the term "Checkers" to refer to the most notable content of the speech. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rumble in the Jungle is notably not titled "1974 Ali-Foreman Fight" Manyanswer (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sports articles have a long history and tradition of using colorful names. Please show me where the same is true for private White House meetings. And while you are at it, please answer my question about neutrality which you continue to ignore: Which is a more neutral description of the event: "Beer Summit" or "White house invitation and meeting"? Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the only editor that is trying to describe "beer summit" as offensive is Viriditas. Furthermore, there was consensus on using "beer summit" as a title. GoldDragon (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not override NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As many of us have pointed out, "Beer Summit" has nothing to do with pov. It is neither pro-Gates nor pro-Crowley. It is merely a stylistic issue on which one editor has repeated his argument over and over, without persuading the group of editors active here. An assertion by one editor that he is the sole judge of whether a policy applies or not is not acceptable. Pechmerle (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It has everything to do with POV, and the use of scare quotes explains the POV. The private meeting was not intended to be humorous, nor was it intended to be about a beer, nor can it be considered a summit. The humor and irony of the term is not based on the actual event but a form of sensationalism introduced by a journalist and spread through some media outlets. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and we use the most accurate and neutral section headings to describe our content. I don't have to persuade you of anything; Since you are arguing for the use of the term "Beer Summit" as a section heading, you need to present a valid argument for inclusion. You have not, and you cannot. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Facts

Search indices show that "beer summit" is not the most common term for the event. We see many different terms in use, but the vast majority refer to the event as a "White House meeting" without also referring to a "beer summit", or if they do, the vast majority of sources on the subject use the term "beer summit" in passing. Most news articles do not use the term.
WP:NPOV always comes first, and whenever possible, we use the most neutral terms for an event to maintain accuracy.
Consensus does not override NPOV, no matter how many editors support an idea.
On Wikipedia, neutrality is our primary concern. If a word or term is used deliberately in an ironic or humorous way that does not also maintain accuracy and neutrality, we use the neutral term instead. We do not use sensationalistic or tabloid terms in our section headings. The major media is not under the same requirements as Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, first and foremost.

Any questions? Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are questions. Chief among them: Why does Viriditas keep repeating arguments that have not persuaded the group of editors active on this article? Most importantly, we have repeatedly pointed out that "Beer Summit" does not have any pov issue. NPOV has nothing to do with this. "Beer Summit" is neither pro-Gates nor pro-Crowley. Viriditas's position on this has only to do with Viriditas's persistent attempt to have his preferred styling accepted, as if only his voice counts here. Pechmerle (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You have it backwards. The arguments for using the term "Beer Summit" need to be valid. In other words, I don't have to argue against the term, you need to argue for it, and all arguments for using the term are invalid. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing this here? I have already pointed out that the proper forum at this point is WP:NPOVN, but V's refusal to seek dispute resolution disproves good faith and invalidates his argument. He has long ago ceased to be a dissenting voice and become a disruptive voice. If we refuse to oblige his repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT rubbish here, he will have no choice but to either seek the proper avenue or drop it altogether.

And for the love of all things holy can we get some archiving going on here? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the proper forum, and consensus dose not override NPOV at any time. You need to present valid arguments for using the term, and you have failed to do this. The term is neither common nor neutral and should not be used as a section heading. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no questions here. I fully understand your viewpoint and have responded to all of the points you've laid out. I just don't agree with you, and neither do the vast majority of the editors here. If you think that this needs to be looked at by the wider Wikipedia audience, then you can pursue the dispute resolution avenues that have been presented to you. Consensus reached, conversation over. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments for using the term were shown to be false. The term isn't common, isn't neutral, and isn't accurate. A consensus of bad arguments does not a consensus make. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, you are the only one that has that opinion. If you think that you can convince the wider community of your viewpoint on how this applies to NPOV, etc, I'd (again) suggest dispute resolution.--76.204.76.177 (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. You need to convince me that "Beer Summit" is common, neutral, and accurate. Google News shows that the term isn't common, and according to Wikipedia, it isn't the most neutral term for the event, nor is it accurate. So, a consensus of false arguments isn't valid nor can it trump NPOV. A group of editors cannot get together on a talk page and simply agree to ignore policy. That's why consensus is not the last word nor binding. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I need to convince the community at large - and that's been done. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't convinced me of anything, and I'm part of the community. You've simply repeated yourself over and over again without offering any evidence for your claims. There is no evidence that "Beer Summit" is either the most common or most neutral name for the White House invitation and meeting. Because you have offered no evidence, we default to NPOV, which takes precedence over any disputed claim an editor might make. The continued removal of neutral terms and descriptions from this article is a violation of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas has been reported for edit warring.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop filing false 3RR reports and address the question. Which is more neutral and accurate, "White House invitation and meeting" or "Beer Summit"? And please demonstrate that "Beer Summit" is more common than the term "meeting" which outnumbers the use of the term "Beer Summit" in the Google News archive. You are engaging in confirmation bias by only focusing on articles that use the term while ignoring the ones that don't. Neutrality takes precedence over false common name claims that cannot be supported with actual numbers. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The question has been addressed. You just don't agree with the answer. If you really feel you are right, please pursue the dispute resolution avenues that have been offered to you rather than continuing to revert a title you disagree with.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

V, no one has filed a false claim of edit warring. A claim was filed based on your discussions and edit behavior and your insistence that your way was the only correct one. You have said several times that you honestly believe that the page editors have to convince YOU that we are correct, as opposed to making your argument to the room. The actual confirmation bias lies in your continued argument that in the face of every reason given by others, you are still infallible and correct and we all must accede to your interpretation of the event name. Both White House Invitation, and Beer Summit, are actually NPOV statements, conveying neither pro nor con statements about the event. The articles used as citations are sources from credible third party sources and therefore are valid. I take wikipedia as seriously as the other editors on this board, and would not make a false claim simply because I disagreed with someone. It was only after seeing the continued edits, the continued arguments, and your insistence to not relent did I choose the course of action so that the rest of us could focus on what maters most: creating relevant, reliable, and solid content for readers. I did not choose such a course of action lightly as again, I take wikipedia seriously.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The duplicate 3RR report you filed is completely bogus and does not show any 3RR. What it shows is normal, everyday editing supported by extensive discussion on talk. The continues to be no support for the claim that "Beer Summit" is the most common term when the Google News archive shows it is a minority term used by a small percentage of articles. And there continues to be no support for any argument claiming that it reflects naming convention of other White House meetings, when no such evidence exists. Furthermore, NPOV is our priority, above and beyond all other concerns, and unless you can show an actual reason why "White House invitation and meeting" is less accurate and neutral than "Beer Summit", I'm afraid you have no support for your edits. You see, it simply doesn't matter if 10 or 100 or 1000 editors come here and say "metoo". Unless you can support your arguments with evidence, they don't count. And to repeat myself, NPOV cannot be overriden by any consensus on the talk page. Neutrality and accuracy comes before everything else. Your assertion that you filed a false 3RR because of my "insistence to not relent" is quite telling. You have the burden of proof, not me, and it doesn't matter how many editors you rally around you. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've become very good at repeating yourself. You've also become very good at not listening. Both reports have been for edit warring and gaming the system.... NOT for 3RR.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Both reports were completely false, and were made to distract the discussion. The reports were simply your attempt at forcing a chilling effect into place. To date, there is absolutely no evidence that the term "Beer Summit" is either a common or neutral name for the White House invitation and meeting, and there continues to be no support for the deletion of those neutral terms from the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, The report I filed simply used prior information for the purposes of clarity, uniformity, and continuity. As SharkxFanSJ mentioned, the filing was for both edit warring and gaming the system.... NOT for 3RR because that was not an issue that could be raised at the time of the filing. So your claim that a false 3RR report was filed is itself, false. Using the word "bogus" would imply either deliberate deception or lack of good faith, neither of which is the case here. Evidence was submitted, several times, in addition to a vote, endless days of discussion and debate, and warnings not to edit war on this issue but rather to seek outside review in lieu of edit warring. However, this was not the course you selected. therefore, in line with Wikipedia policy regarding edit warring, gaming the system, and how to resolve such issues, a report was filed in a format familiar to the admins that will be dealing with the matter. Furthermore, editors have no rallied around me in any way. We have chosen independently a different side of the argument than yours, which has formed into the consensus you deny exists. Regardless,discussions about the filing should be made on the review page dealing with this as a matter of propriety. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your report was used for the purposes of a chilling effect, and to date, there remains no support for your arguments. The facts show that the continued insertion of the term "Beer Summit" into the article heading is not supported, and Wikipedia favors NPOV when the use of a term is disputed. Viriditas (talk)

Actually no, no chilling effect was intended. Rather, the issue of edit warring is the matter at hand. The talk page is for discussion and debate about edits. However, reverting edits when others have recognized a consensus is a different matter. Even if you did not agree, you could have chosen to take the issue to an admin or other committee for review as I suggested. You didn't however and that is the issue at hand. I do not want to stifle debate, just to avoid edit warring. If I wanted to stifle debate or discussion, I would not still be discussing the matter with you on the talk page. It does not make your argument any stronger by accusing me of trying to create a purposes of a chilling effect, which to me is akin to censorship of discussion. As someone who takes debate and free speech seriously, I would disagree with your assertion. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one continually adding "Beer Summit" into the article, so perhaps you should take your concerns about edit warring to your friends. After all, the edit history shows that every edit I've made to that section has been reverted by those wishing to add "Beer Summit", so perhaps you need to contact those editors who keep reverting my changes? Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again Viriditas, I would respectfully submit that the other editors are not "friends", but rather other concerned and dedicated editors of wikipedia. Edit earring has the same effect whether something is removed, or added. In all likelihood, you were aware that those supporting consensus and the use of the term would keep it there, however you removed it anyway rather than utilizing other methods for resolving such disagreements. As you pointed out, I am newer to wiki than you are. However, I do know enough to avoid edit wars and take such issues to those equipped to deal with them to avoid harming the content of wiki consumers. My preference is always for civility, consensus, and the avoidance of harming readers. May I ask, why you did not take the issue to committee if you disagreed with other editors so much?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the edit because the argument supporting the term does not pan out and consensus cannot override NPOV. Just because someone says "metoo" does not consensus make. And if someone says consensus is based on x is y, and it turns out that actually, x is not y, then the consensus falls apart and we default to NPOV. This is not terribly complicated to understand, but for you and several other editors the term "Beer Summit" is important. For me, the most important thing at all times is to best describe our content in the most neutral terms possible. That's why "White House invitation and meeting" (and various versions of that term) were used. One does not edit war NPOV into an article. It's our bread and butter. If you feel strongly about the term "Beer Summit" then take it to mediation. The fact is, it is not the common term for the event and it isn't neutral. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

FWIW, the upcoming meeting of the heads of state of the U.S., Canada and Mexico is being dubbed "The Three Amigos Summit" in the press, e.g. [7]--agr (talk)

change the title

this is more than an arrest, this has touch the life of many minorities. Plain and simple. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm not sure the second part of that sentence is relevant to what title we should have here on WP. With all respect to minorities, of course!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I think there should be some discussion BEFORE moving the page, particularly in light of the fact that there is already some edit warring going on here. I would urge everyone to take a few deep breaths and count to ten before making major edits to this article. Also, please be aware that Beer Summit redirects to a section here, but that redirect rarely works because everyone keeps moving/renaming the target section. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarkable.... Mattnad (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't have a problem with the old title. All arrests are incidents.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's rather what I've been saying for some time here. A couple of folk just make changes and fail to discuss. It won;t end well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't undo a lot of page name changes. Could some else revert it back until the editor actually deigns to discuss the proposed move? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Im here to discuss... My point is that this is more than arrest, even the President had some comment, everybody in USA had a comment about it, so this article can be about the arrest, the incident or the aftermath of what happened next, beer summit, and other things that, may happen. "incident" or "controversy" maybe is not the best and open to suggestion, to discussion, but an arrest! This is not an article about arresting me in the street and going to the judge and paying a fine, this part of the modern american history and we just going to call it "arrest"!. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I like controversy better than incident. I could go for "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy"--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you finally came here, JMundo. Could you please self-revert, and discuss the change that you seek to make instead? After all, we don't need all the page moving back an forth. You need to build a consensus for something that significant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Page is protected, so hopefully by the time the protection ends, there will be consensus as to the appropriate title. I think the current title is more encompassing. –xeno^talk 03:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In the pursuit of brevity - the previous title captured the "incident" and/or "controversy" best. Adding either qualifier is less inclusive. The change may seem better to the editor who made the, but calling it an "arrest incident" is somewhat redundant to me. Mattnad (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, No. Im not going to self-revert, the page is protected anyway. What I want is to continue the discussion, was this a simple arrest? did they follow up? where are the charges? this is not the typical arrest,and we know that. My English sometimes plays tricks on me, so I want people to suggest name, a simple "arrest" is to naive of a tittle. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the point about "arrest incident" and "arrest controversy" being redundant. How about "Henry Louis Gates controversy"? Seems brief enough. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the onus is on the name change crowd to move off of Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Some are starting this conversation without considering the fine previous title. It is elegant and accurate and it has served the article well since its inception. Arrest implies nothing about the accuracy of the charges or about conviction. It is clearly the flashpoint for the issue as had the confrontation ended without arrest, no one would have heard of it. As an aside, it's a bit comic that the name was temporarily changed (well almost) to Huey Lewis Arrest Incident. And this helped get the whole page blocked. Epic Fail. Manyanswer (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I will add that "Controversy" is overused in wikipedia titles and it shapes the article in one direction. The arrest was controversial, but the article covers a lot more than that. For instance, how is the "Beer Summit" a controversy? Mattnad (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" is probably better. The article, and the reality, has two closely related elements: (a) the arrest, what actually happened, divergent accounts of the facts, so on, and (b) the controversy that the arrest triggered, both because Gates is a prominent figure (so the news got on it right away) and because the President of the USA chose to comment on it. (And it's not redundant; one does not mean the other.) Pechmerle (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You know how sometimes you accidently stumble on article. Well, that is what just happened to me, therefore I will give my humble opinion on the subject discussed here. I would re-name the article "Henry Louis Gates incident", simple as that. Happy editing to you all. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Or even "Gates-Crowley incident". Gates was not a lone actor here. The way I see it, this article is about the incident surrounding a confrontation that took place primarily (though not solely) between Gates and Crowley, and since much of the coverage is centered on the implications this incident has had for Gates, I think it should be "Gates-Crowley incident" and not "Crowley-Gates incident". I would avoid "controversy" in the title, per WP:WORDS#Controversy and scandal. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find disturbing is that JMundo does a page move and refuses to self-revert in the interest of seeking a consensus, using the page-protect as an excuse. We have a process of BRD here. If JMundo cannot follow that process, he might find editing elsewhere of more use. He lost a lot of good faith with that lame-ass excuse. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100%. It's rude and while i'm happy for someone to be bold, page moves are not the best place. Especially when you completely muck up the title, and then state that your English isn't good and you anticipate it having to be fixed anyway. We are happy to help you come up with the right title, please use discussion to do so. I'm not adamantly opposed to any of the offerings to date, but I'm adamantly opposed to how this is all going down. Manyanswer (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I put in my 2¢ (or "!vote" -- here, about 5-pages-of-text down in this section of this discussion page, oh well) for Henry Loius Gates case. Whereas I personally think Gates-Crowley (or Crowley-Gates) somethingoranother is the most neutral, the media typically just name Gates in their "shorthand" for the affair, and using just the word case is the shortest and simplest way to neutrally mention the charge without implying Gates's guilt or innocense. ↜Just M E here , now 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the amount of discussion here should provide ample evidence that doing page names without reaching consensus to do so first is dumb. Refusing to undo the page move when asked is disruptive. Hopefully, the editor in question has learned a lesson. If not, I am sure there are more stringent object lessons that can be learnt. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that some people are more interested in talking about my "disruptive" move than having a serious discussion about the name of the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is getting a wee bit personal. Let's AGF and move on. There's several proposals on the table for consideration:

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates
Henry Louis Gates case
Henry Louis Gates incident
Henry Louis Gates controversy
Gates-Crowley incident
Gates-Crowley controversy
Henry Louis Gates arrest incident
Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy

We can eliminate half the choices by deciding whether to use incident, controversy, or neither.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would point to WP:WORDS#Controversy and scandal, to suggest that incident is more neutral than controversy. I'm not so sure case is the best choice, because it makes it sound like a court case, and this whole incident has played out entirely outside of any courtroom. So I support incident, but I'm happy to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're right about case. (And maybe my suggestion of the word was my way to express my hope that Gates would disregard his friend the president's apparent wishes and go ahead and file some kinda false arrest case against the PD.) ↜Just M E here , now 02:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the current title. It's in line with Air Force One photo op incident. –xeno^talk 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"incident" still emphasizes "Arrest" - Is there any arrest that is not an incident? It sounds more important to some by adding another word, but it actually make the title narrower relative to the whole event.Mattnad (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattnad said, "'incident' still emphasizes 'Arrest' - Is there any arrest that is not an incident?"

They are innumerable. An incident involving mistaken identity. An incident of dejavu. An incident of police brutality. (And on and on.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The title, "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" is perhaps the best of the choices presented above. It invokes the dude, the arrest of the dude, and the fallout from that dude's arrest. I am mightily opposed to any wishy-washy political correctness, such as "affair" (what, they slept together? Not the kind of race relations we are talking about here), "incident" implies an isolated occurrence ('coz everyone knows that black folk have never been mistreated poorly by cops, or "case" (bluntly, there wasn't one, which is why it was dropped).

If nothing else, we could simply rename the article, the "Henry Louis Gates Arrest Kerfuffle" or "Harry Potter & the Henry Louis Gates Arrest". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have a way with words, Arcayne! Actually, Mattnad, to clarify, I meant to drop "arrest" in favor of something like "Gates-Crowley incident" or "Gates-Crowley controversy" (there is, after all, plenty of evidence that it has been quite a controversy), but I would not be opposed to simply going back to "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates". Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict.) I vote incident. Alas, Arcayne first laments p.c., only to invokes the same against our best choice available, in my opinion. Think Goldilocks.

(affair? antiquated work no-one has suggested. Too bad it's not current! It'd perfectly "say nothing and yet everything" (if ya understand that phrase) about this otherwise inconsequential arrest involving Mr. Gates that has come to evoke such grand narratives of social order, civil liberties, social class/ranking, race, &c
arrest? Yes, essentially accurate...but, in my opinion, blp (or, um, p.c., if ya will) encourages us to find a more neutral choice, should a reasonable one present itself

arrest incident? Awkward extra word; skant, if any, extra precision
case? Concise, yet implying more than non-case case involved (excepting Gates himself files suit)
incident? Ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!-ding!; just right. (Controversy might even be better, but tends to be overused on Wikipedia, so maybe incident might be the best choice suggested so far, in my opinion.) ↜Just M E here , now 11:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that "arrest" is neutral; it has the value of being both accurate and citable. And to the argument that posits that 'all arguments are incidents', it remains a poor choice, as not all incidents are arrests. I myself would prefer that we went back to the too-hastily-disfifured title, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates", but I think that the aftermath of the arrest has made it impossible to ignore (except for that insipid beer brand talk). How about "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy"? It borders on being too long, but maybe it will satisfy those who feel need to beat the reader over the head with the fact that the charge was dropped (despite the Lede and large body of text that explains precisely that).

And I thank you for the compliment (gosh, I hope it was - I pulled an overnight shift and am a wee bit tired - the corpus collosum interchange might be working overtime, or not at all). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" was fine. Remember, per WP:NAME, the purpose of the article name is to make it easy for readers to find the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Or for the other option, I think we should call it either an arrest or a controversy/incident. I don't think we should make the name too wordy (and I think "arrest incident" is too wordy), but I humbly submit that incident or controversy may be better than arrest for the sole reason that the topic of this article covers a whole series of events cascading out of an arrest, but the arrest itself is only the beginning. Still, I'm good with going back to the old name if that's what others can agree on. I'm easy like sunday morning. BTW Arcayne, yes, that was a compliment, sort of. ;-) Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you have that darned song going through my head! I should block you.:)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(Sorry for the new section, the one up there's so long.) I'm neutral about title choice other than my slight preference of some alternative to arrest and my opinion that such compounds as "arrest incident" are pretty ungainly (unless one becomes associated with the incident through use in the news, or some coinage truly lends precision to our name for the affair). ANYwho -- with regard to the choice of Case: Is its implication of a complaint's going before a judge really that bad? How many cases, civil or criminal, really do? Most are settled out of court, a very substantial portion dropped altogether. What follows are press usages of its "pith": but 4-letters long.

↜Just M E here , now 16:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My first choice would be "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy." Although controversy is overused, it does seem to fit here. There are differing opinions on whether the arrest should have been made and whether the president should have spoken the way he did about it. As much as I'd like to keep the title as simple as possible (Arrest of Henry Louis Gates), adding a word to indicate that it is a scandal/incident/controvery is what's normally done.

"Henry Louis Gates arrest incident" makes it sound confined to a single event. Like was mentioned above, the "Air Force One photo-op incident" was a single event and the associated fallout. There was little disagreement involved, so "incident" is appropriate. The Crowley-Gates thing was an arrest, followed by controversial comments by the president, followed by people from different sides weighing in, followed by a meeting, etc.

"Henry Louis Gates case" makes it sound like a court case or a case study. It falls short in the description of the event - not detailed enough.

"Gates-Crowley incident/controversy" has the same problem. It's not just Gates and Crowley that are involved. Plus, the controversy is about the arrest, not the two people that were involved.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I continue to favor "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy." The WP policy on "controversy" stresses that there must be actual debate or dispute involved; never clearer that that is true than for this article. And the controversy that almost instantly arose is what makes this event notable in the first place. Pechmerle (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming around to controversy. As you rightly point out, Pechmerle, it was the controversy that made the event notable. But is it better to say "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" than simply "Henry Louis Gates controversy" or "Gates-Crowley controversy"? Granted, there have been others who have become involved (Obama, Barrett, and others), but it is essentially about the conflict (and resolution?) between Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley. I'm just not so sure we can call it a "controversy" and still assign full ownership of the controversy to Gates. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, I understand your point about ownership of the controversy. But calling it "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" makes the phrase "Henry Louis Gates arrest" the antecedent of "controversy." If one tried to reverse it to "Crowley arrest controvesy," it highlights that it is the arrest of Gates that generated the controversy. Pechmerle (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I made my comment confusing, on second look, it doesn't seem all that clear to me either, but my preference would rather be "Gates-Crowley controversy". It indicates that the controversy has been over the confrontation between Gates and Crowley, states that there is/was a controversy, implies that ownership of the controversy is shared between the two camps, and implies little else. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Gates-Crowley controversy" isn't bad, but it really was the arrest of Gates that was at the core of the controversy. I don't know that there was a "Gates camp" and a "Crowley camp" more than there was a "should have been arrested camp" and a "shouldn't have been arrested camp." To me, Gates-Crowley controversy overemphasises the players, and underemphasises the event. I still prefer "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy" or "Gates arrest controversy" or something similar.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My first choice would be Arcayne's Henry Louis Gates Arrest Kerfuffle. Haha, no really, Henry Louis Gates Arrest Controversy seems best to me, as that's the core of the controversy (Gates' arrest). There are some articles on the project that inappropriately use "Controversy" in the title, but this pretty much a perfect example of when it's appropriate. Lara 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion here has slowed down. Any major objections to "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy"? If not, I'll do an {{editprotected}}.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

What is an "arrest incident"?

Shouldn't this page be titled "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy", or simpy the previous title, "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates"? After all, an arrest is an incident, so the title is too long and redundant. Apparently this was a recent move, and the page got protected mid-edit war with the "wrong" title. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed further up the page. The suggestion you've made for a title is one of that is under consideration.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree "arrest controversy" is a bit clearer/more idiomatic. ↜Just M E here , now 16:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Shark. Didn't know the above discussion was still active. It also occurs to me that the word "controversy" may partially alleviate BLP concerns about the article's existence as well as placement of the booking photo. It underscores the point that the arrest was in question, not the character of the individual. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the added word "incident" is not necessary. Shorter is better, and incident is an unnecessary distinction, as is the alternative "controversy". The main topic is what lead to the arrest, and all that flowed from it. Dhaluza (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Title changed

I've changed the title to what appears to be the consensus - "Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy." It summarizes that it's both an arrest (a single event) and a controversy (debate/disagreement that flowed from that event).--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the beer brands footnote

This is a continuation of a discussion. The beginning of this discussion has been archived and can be found here. At issue is whether the brands of beer consumed at the Obama-Gates-Crowley meeting should be included in the main text of the article, placed in a footnote/references section, or left off completely.

Instead of hiding the note about the beer brands in the references section, might it be better to use separate "Notes" and "References" sections, as was done at Rosewood massacre? Just a thought. Zagalejo^^^ 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I feel that the information is "hidden" is that nearly every sentence in this article has an in-line citation. One would assume that each of these is a source for the preceding sentence/section. Making the in-line citation point to a different place doesn't solve the problem IMHO. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Zagalejo: That is a useful suggestion. I would be OK with it as a method of resolving the dispute here. There would then be a few other things that I would also suggest taking down to notes, from the main text. Pechmerle (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For starters people in England, Ireland, Puerto Rico we care less what brand of beers these people where driking, why not concentrate on the result. Remember, this is not the American Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia reaching worldwide audiences that dont care about what american beer brand you have in your hand. What next? the type of clothing.... --J.Mundo (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a incident that doesn't really demand a worldwide view. It's a news story that touches on several decidedly-American themes: white cop-black suspect, the first African-American president facing his first race-related crisis, and the American fixation on beer. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, here's an article from England that mentions the beer brands, and here's one from Ireland. I couldn't find anything relevant from Puerto Rico, but this was published in El Mundo in Spain. (It gets a few things wrong, but it does show that there was international interest in the brands of beer.)

To reply to SharkxFanSJ'S earlier comment, I agree that adding a separate Notes section doesn't fully solve the problem, but I think it would alleviate things somewhat. I'd personally prefer to include the sentence in the body of the article, but I'm starting to think that's not going to happen so I'm willing to compromise. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this... (let's see if this works)

The families then continued their tours together while the principals had a friendly conversation over beer.^[details]^[1]

References

^ citation

Notes

Obama had a Bud Light, Crowley had a Blue Moon, Gates drank Sam Adams Light and Biden, who does not drink alcohol, had a Buckler, which is a non-alcoholic beer.

Kind of klugey and nontraditional, but an acceptable second option. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the brand should be listed in the body of the article. The fact that good references from multiple countries mentioned them shows interest all by itself. I also recall some trying to make political hay out of the fact that all three beers (this was when Red Stripe was still being reported) were owned by non-American companies.

It might seem very silly to some, but the brand selection has become notable, and burying it in a footnote is so unusual for this project, that it hides it from pretty much any reader (who's going to wade through all the references when in almost any other article they are only sources not additional info). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, go ahead and mention it, and even write in the lead, because that what is really what this consumerism society care about. Put a big picture just like in TMZ and nice caption. Lets forget about changing the name of the article, the beer "controversy" is more interesting than the racial profiling of white police officers in this country.--J.Mundo (talk) 06:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that the choice of beer brands should, or should not, be notable, simply that they did become notable, and thus should be mentioned. The single sentence that is currently hidden in the footnotes should be visible in the body of the article. Even there, it is only one line in an article that has a pretty good length with much more detail (as there should be) on the prior events, and the ramifications of those events and the following commentary. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree Wikipedia for the masses. --J.Mundo (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In what way did they "become notable"? Do not confuse becoming noted with becoming notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't have to cover a 24-hour news cycle. Just because news sources have inflated some details that are of very little consequence does not mean we need to give equal coverage of those details. For the record, I'm okay with mentioning the beer brands in a footnote, but I don't think it merits much coverage in the article because it meant nothing to the outcome of events. It would have been the same if they all drank Pabst. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT - "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."

It doesn't matter what *we* think the importance of the topic is/should be. The topic's weight in the article is based on the prevelence in reliable sources. Nearly every article about the beer summit mentions the types of beers. This section is *about* the Beer Summit. Leaving out the types of beers would be like leaving out a quote by the president that was widely reported. It would be different if only one or two sources had latched onto this.

You're right, Wikipedia is not a newpaper - but this is an article about a news story - and the types of beer have garnered a fair amount of discussion and analysis. Apparantly worldwide (per above).--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The beer summit had symbolic meaning and it's been covered as such. Beer brands are strongly linked with individual and national identities. See this NPR story on the sale of Budweiser. Beer marketers make a big deal about this so it's no surprise that the coverage went deeper into the choices of the summit participants. Mattnad (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I completely reject that putting the beer names in the references is an attempt to hide them. They don't belong in the article (its undue weight, considering the subject), so it was a compromise to remove them from the article and put them in the references. We here at Wikipedia tend to put sources in our references section so that our readers can explore the minutiae of a subject on their own. With respect to the suggestion of a Notes section and the example of the Rosewood Massacre, the text that should have been incorporated into the body of the article. As it is, it looks like trivia. We should avoid such here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, didn't mean to imply some sort of devious intent. I'm just saying that people see in-line citation links and assume that they usually don't lead to any content... just a bibliographical entry.

I see the arrest, presidential comments, beer summit, etc as individual chapters tha make up the whole incident. It's important to tell the story that goes along with each of these. There should be a reasonable level of detail about the arrest, same with Obama's involvement, etc. When you are describing the Beer Summit to someone, it should include the public and media fascination over the types of beers consumed. You could really go overboard with this, and tell all the backstories involved, or you can simply state "A fair amount of media attention was paid to the brands of beer each of the four men selected; Obama drank Bud Light, Gates drank Blue Moon....."--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharkx, I wasn't suggesting devious intent, just flawed content. ;) I simply don't see the value or importance of naming the beers that folk chose, and find absolutely no underlying symbolism beyond a simple preference in a brand. Indeed, all of this content feels like marketing consumerism. Of course beer manufacturers are all for this; after all, it pushes beer, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the brands of beer should not have become an issue. But that does not change the fact that the brands chosen were scene by many as important, leading to them being mentioned and discussed in much of the main-stream press. So silly or not, they are notable enough that they should be mentioned in the relevant section of the article.

As to how they became relevant in the first place; my recollection is that right-of-center media tried to make hay out of the fact that the beers were all from foreign owned companies (this was when it was erroneously reported that Gates drank Red Stripe). Again silly in my opinion, but notable due to the attention it got anyway.

The attention in the press was never about marketing the brands in question, but rather what people think it says about the men choosing the brands in question. It is not our job to decide if the notability was justified or not, but to create an article covering what became notable without judgment. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I first heard about the brands from right-leaning media (talk-radio), but this Wall Street Journal article also covers the expected brands as foreign owned. Googling "beer summit" with the brands gets over 40,000 Google hits, with many of the articles discussing what the actual brand choices is perceived as saying about the men involved. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When citing a Google test, it is usually helpful to link the results here, so we can see what search parameters were used. You say it gets 40,000 Google hits, but what were the search terms, and were those news hits, scholarly journal hits, or just web hits? Scholarly journal searches and Google books searches are generally more helpful, and web hits can be particularly problematic. Most web sites are not reliable sources, and many will provide 'false positives' (web sites that happen to include all the target words, but lend nothing to our understanding of this topic). Also, if you take a look at WP:GOOGLE, you will see why Google tests are not the ultimate proof of notability. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I came up with 1,214 results on Google news. Still pretty decent coverage, especially if you look at the diversity in coverage and analysis.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe one of the points made by Viriditas (and I, to an extent) that sometimes, Google results are not truly demonstrative. Anyone who's watched The Daily Show has seen time and again how media outlets will parrot a single source, which allows these sources to grow by leaps and bounds - all based off of one source that might or might not be fully accurate. Secondly, beware of Google-bombing, which can manipulate search results. Let's step away from that particular argument, shall we? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wherever you look it up, every major news source has covered the brands of beer. Multiple comments above have pointed this out. The way we currently have it is very odd for Wikipedia. Content should be in the body, with sources in the footnotes. Putting the brands in a footnote is hiding material—that silly or not, has become notable—from most readers. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think using footnotes to disclose such details "hides" them from the reader any more than this use of footnotes hides the information from readers of that article. It's just a way of putting information that needlessly bogs down the text, but may be useful to the reader, somewhere where it is out of the way and yet accessible. One point, however, these are FOOTNOTES distinguishable from the REFERENCE NOTES. Maybe that would help here. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If there was a separate section for footnotes adding detail vs. footnotes that are simply references, that would solve the fact that the way it is (as I write this) does "hide" the information. However such a new notes section would only have the one note, and would actually then draw more attention to the brands than just simply mentioning them in the body of the article, as all the journalistic (paper and online) articles have done. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with this compromise. A "Notes" section seperate from the "References" section. A couple thoughts, though...

(1) The Notes section should come first, since it has actual content and

(2) The in-line citation(s) that point to the Notes section should be something other than a number, in order to differentiate it from a bibliographical cite. I suggested one way to do this earlier by using ^[details], but we can look at other ways to do this.~~--76.204.76.177 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)~~--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC) _{My apologies, didn't realize I wasn't logged in.}

It need not be a single note. There are some other items that I would move to Notes as well. (For example, the sentence in reference 58. But also some other minor items in the main text.) I also agree with (nowiki's) two preceding comments. Pechmerle (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A few suggestions: 1) indeed the Notes section usually does come before the References section 2) this also allows reference tags to be used within the footnotes themselves 3) if you look again at the Swedish heraldry article, this is how it is done there 4) we could use the same {{fn}} tags that are used there. I would also suggest that any notes we have that are more than a simple bibliographical reference should also be added to the Notes section. Hope that helps! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Example

Take a look here for an example of how this might look. I only found 2 items that could be moved from References to Notes. Thoughts?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this ready for prime-time? If so, I'll do an {{editprotected}}--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Good work! I'd say go with it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Change made.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshot adds nothing to the article

No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't think the mugshot adds anything to the article. I think the picture of Gates being escorted out of his house is far more descriptive and should take the place of the mugshot. The shot's copyright status is also being disputed at the commons [8], so there is another reason take it off for now. –xeno^talk 16:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree with you on the underlying issue, I'm going to take leave of this discussion, as I've been accused of edit-warring above, and had my concerns dismissed by nothing more than a blatant red herring argument. My position is now known, and we'll see now whether or not BLP concerns hold sway here or not. Unit Anode 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(imo)The mugshot should be removed until the discussion and contentiousness is worked out. It is a matter of showing him in a bad light and deformation of character. He is a totally innocent man and the new name of the article is a bit better but it should also have the word 'wrongful' included in the title. From the general discussion over this I would say that there is a good measure of support for giving the subject of the booking shot the same protection as if it were a BLP. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
- "Deformation" of character? Yikes! Actually, to those who are already suspicious of police, the mugshot merely underscores that suspicion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Yikes!like it. Perhaps you are right but we shouldn't use this demeaning mugshot of an innocent, wrongfully arrested, living person to demonstrate the police's foolishness. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC))
    - Who says it was a "wrongful" arrest? They had a specific reason for arresting him. The prosecutor decided not to press charges. That happens all the time. It doesn't mean the arrest was legally "wrongful". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
      I just point out the exact same thing on the BLP board. Also, I think the photo of the actual arrest is more "useful" than the mug shot, but thats me. --Tom (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
      - And it isn't defamation of character to use the image, as mugshots are used in lots of other articles, most notably in the FA, Rosa Parks. I'd point out that this article is not the main article for the person, so the more strident concerns about how we are "deforming" the character of Gates by showing his mugshot are somewhat less. This subarticle is exactly about that arrest and its aftermath. I spent days just keeping the racist crud out; I would hate to see the pendulum of unintelligent edits swing towards those coming from the over-politically correct. Ask yourself if you would be throwing such a tantrum if the fellow weren't black - but before you answer, realize that we have tons of articles with mugshots in them, including thoise of GA and FA quality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
        Some of your comments are a bit near the bone Arcayne, you seem to be very involved in this. I have been looking through a lot of the mugshot articles over the last 3 or 4 days and mostly I agree with the usage. This is a usage that I find to be a bit contensious and unnecesary. The Parks case that you quote , she was a freedom fighter and her mugshot in that case was well deserved and worn with pride, this is very different.The mugshot should actually be removed straight away until this is settled. Perhaps we can start offering our final opinions on the matter' I am for Remove (Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

I agree the mugshot doesn't belong here, you have already the image of Gates in handcuffs in his home. The only consequence of this mugshot is to keep adding fuel to the racial tension. Why two image of Gates subjected to the police? It seems to have an underline tone. The mugshot didnt produce no controversy, nobody talks about it except in this talk page. In other Wikipedia terminology the mugshot is not notable as it was notable in the Rosa Park case. The mugshot is not important to the bigger discussion about race, police, and the US. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem a bit near the bone, Off2riorob; I recently had some tool essentially accuse me of being a racist for wanting to keep the mugshot image in, so he got my Irish up a bit. The subject of the article is the arrest and aftermath of Henry Louis Gates (or was, until an editor up and changed it without discussion or consensus). I am not sure about the provenance of the handcuffs image, which is to say that I don't imagine it is going to last long as an uncontested image. The mugshot image - which we use in Wikipedia with frequency, negating the nonsense arguments of "derogatory" or "demeaning" - is public fare (ie, from a police agency, and therefore free). The arrest is what sparked the rest of it. The opinion that this image is less important than others currently in use in the wiki-en is, well, just that - an opinion, unproven by policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comments, lets get this over with, lets vote, you are for keeping the mugshot I imagine. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

As another point, I did a google search [[9]] for the mugshot and only some few blogs appeared and I also notice one of the links was to flickr [here]with all rights reserved. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

The photo also appears in Time magazine and on a Newsweek blog when I looked around. But the person who posted it on flickr has no rights to the photo. He can reserve all he wants but it's a public record supplied by the Cambridge Police.Mattnad (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The only explanation I've seen to why we need to remove this is that a booking photo can imply the subject is a criminal. So it's agreed that any use for any article must be connected to the topic, as it's done with Rosa Parks (a positive event), or Larry Craig (a negative event). In each case, the context is provided. So must we do it here if the photo is to remain. I'll put it back to the people against this photo: do you think that in the context of this article, someone might assume Gates was guilty due to the photograph? There are thousands of words in the article that say he was not. What I don't agree with is the calls for censorship on the basis that it looks bad. We have many articles in Wikipedia that say a lot worse about the individual than this photo shows about Gates.Mattnad (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link to Craig, his case is again different altogether. It is a section in his BLP and he was found guilty, so this situation is fine. What I don't agree with is what has also happened to Craig, another article (which is bigger than his bio) has been written and the mugshot is used there in the lede, here it is Larry_Craig_scandal. His situation is awful, the craig scandel is more of an attack piece, I would delete it and keep the section in his bio, enough isn't it. I should mention that of the millions of articles here at Wikipedia, that is a very very rare situation. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Time Magazine have an article here, 3 in fact and I am still looking for the mugshot? [here]

Here you go [10]. Mattnad (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ta, I notice there are about 3 main articles about him, all without the mugshot, and 3 smaller articles all without the mugshot, and they have almost hidden it away there in the viewpoint section, almost bloggy with the headline of, 'The Stupidity of the Gates Arrest'. Looking at time's coverage, has strengthened my opinion that we shouldn't use the mugshot in the wikipedia article.

I would say that time have given it little prominence or exposure.(Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps, but I think it's important to note that Time's editors felt it was OK with proper context. And the photo is at the top of the article, very prominently displayed. Time is hardly a fringe publication with junior editors lacking any experience on these matters. Mattnad (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, time had the option of adding their slant on it, there it is written in favour of the subject, like see what the cops did to this poor inocent man. We however havn't got that way out to comment in a way so as to protect the subject from the demeaning nature of the picture. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Do we have to have a slant to make it clear that he wasn't convicted? I now come back to this article - would anyone who understands the English language come away from reading it assume Gates was guilty just because we have the booking photo in it. Are the words in the article not clear enough on the facts and opinions?Mattnad (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The words may be clear enough, but the picture sends a different message than the words. JN 466 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons to Time magazine are misleading. Time is a news magazine. It is not an encyclopedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
When in doubt, problematic BLP material should stay out. Unless, of course, one can get it protected with the problematic material in the article. The burden of proof here is on those wishing to include it, not those arguing for exclusion. What does the photo add to the article? How does having it there help improve the article quality in any measurable way? If the answer is, "it doesn't" or "I don't know", then the photograph should not be here. Unit Anode 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt the material is contentious. WP:BLP says we need to take care and make sure information is accurate and well sourced. But the threshold you've created that problematic (whatever that means) material must stay out is not supported by the policy:

BLP explicitly says that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." But that's not the case with the photograph.
So then it comes down to relevance: is the photograph reasonably connected to the topic. I think the article about the arrest of gates could allow for a booking photo, as did Time Magazine and Newsweek. And for those who say that this is an encylopedia, I have examples for you too. I suggest you look at the Rosa Parks article: she was also unjustly arrested and we have her booking photo there.Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So then is there any harm to Gates' reputation by publishing the photo? Is there any doubt he was arrested? Is the photo public information? Is it untrue? False? A lie? Agreed a booking photo isn't pretty, but neither are the police report descriptions of his conduct. Should we eliminate this information? Should we also eliminate commentary that perhaps Gates could have handled things better? And how about comments about Sgt. Crowley; should we excised content that suggests he overreacted?

The answer of course is no. Well sourced information that is relevant to the topic is permissible under BLP.Mattnad (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice, with interest, that you've completely avoided my question regarding what having the photo actually adds to the article. Just because something is "well-sourced" doesn't mean it's either necessary or appropriate. Unit Anode 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely, it's a photographic representation of a portion of his arrest. As an official document of the Cambridge police, it captures both the banality of the police booking process, and as an archetype, it also symbolizes the injustice of black man being arrested in his own home. As such the photograph is both a record of the arrest, and a touchstone for concerns around racial prejudice in the police. For those seeking to censor this photograph, I'd ask you whether you're losing sight of the importance of this image to capture the injustice of the event. Gates certainly didn't shy from taking this head on. Why should this article?Mattnad (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering this whole incident started because of his arrest, the mugshots should remain in the article although perhaps a better description than "Gates booking photo" could be added BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "Gates posing for the police department's 2009 yearbook". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Should I laugh every time you make a funny remark, do you have anything of importance to add to the conversation?--J.Mundo (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you find it funny? Do you think that's to naive of a tittle? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's you choice make this part of a mockery. An image can talk more than a thousand words.Again this is not about an arrest but the reality of the United States. You want to put the mugshot of a distinguished professor, an continue the racial profiling, forgetting about BLP policy that's fine with me. This article is a reflection of white america, that thinks that everything is funny and simplistic. Go ahead, keep making jokes, do your contribution to Wikipedia. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please save your personal commnetary for your blog and stick to commenting on how to improve this article, thank you. --Tom (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The presence of the mugshot ridicules the police for having made the arrest in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, How do you figure that one? --Tom (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A badge of honor, as with Rosa Parks - that in the 21st century, a black man can be arrested in his own home merely for not sufficiently kissing up to the cops. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop with the racist comments. --Tom (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What racist comments? Are you talking about my putdown of the police? Where did I say anything about the cops' color? It's not about the cops' color anyway - it's about the police arresting a black man in his own house just because he wouldn't kiss up to them the way they expected him to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't, but you keep talking about the "black man".Bugs repeating the same accusation against the cops doesn't make it true. I am not saying that it couldn't be, but that is for a court of law to decide. What if the "a black man" was a white man that was arrested. Let me guess, if the prof. was white this would never of happened of course. Ok, got it. --Tom (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the point Gates was making, yes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And you seem to be making the same racist claim. --Tom (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What ""racist claim", Threeafterthree/Tom? Maybe you are going to find Bugs (and the rest of us) a lot more receptive if yiu not call folk racists without some damn good information to back it up. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading along? I never called Bugs a racist. I said the claim was racist, big difference. The racist claim is that Gates was arrested because he was a "black man" not kissing up to the "white man" rather than for disorderly conduct. And again, Iam not saying that claim is true or false, just that it is a claim of racism on the part of the police. --Tom (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I think you should be saying "racism claim". I think that people usually consider the term racist to reflect back on the claimant, because if the claim is racist, so is the claimant at least in the moment. The better word to use is "racism" claim to describe what you mean. People are only responding to your use of the word. You seem to be trying to say there is a claim of racism, and "racist claim" is going to miss your target for most people. Manyanswer (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah I think I did say racism claim above, and I do agree with you, and I did not mean to call anybody a racist, and I don't think I ever did, but at this point, whatever, my head is going to explode :) Seriously, no need for more drama and hopefully this will be the last post :) Cheers! --Tom (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)ps, I reread my comments and agree that "racism claim" would have been better and less inflamitory to all. I apologize. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a valid point Bugs, but the mugshot only adds to the racial tension between minorities and the police. How many times we have to see minorities subjected to the "authority". The mugshot is not notable, nobody talks about it, can you find news report about it (only about the mugshot) ? The mugshot is only a memorabilia for some white supremacists, and Wikipedia is not about that. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

I dismiss the reasoning presented by JMundo that the our inclusion of the mugshot "adds to the racial tension between minorities and the police", as well as the insipid and no-so-sly implication that anyone who wants the image in is a white supremacist. Wikipedia did not create the image of the arrest. It's public domain. We have examples of its use in other articles, and this image is not being used in the main article but rather is a sub-article specifically dealing with the arrest and aftermath itself. The image doesn't get much more relevant than that. The so-called "derogatory" and "demeaning" nature of the images is a label we -as individuals - are applying it it. As editors, we have to separate from our ego and personal opinions; its often the most difficult thing for any wiki editor to do, even seasoned vets of the wheel wars. The image, neutrally, should remain. I am of two minds as to whether it should be the placeholder image. As it and the beer summit image are going to be the more enduring of this incident (if "enduring" is the right word to use here), I am thinking it should be. No matter what, though, this image should be in the article.

And for the record, Baseball Bugs is pretty damn funny at times, all the better to poke fun at an overinflated ego or to add some cynical humor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The picture of him being led out of the house is a much more relevant depiction of the "Arrest" section. As I said above, the mugshot adds nothing at all to the understanding of the article. –xeno^talk 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not committed to the position that the mug shot belongs in or out. But it does add something to the article. It illustrates a comment made by several of the legal experts on this arrest, in discussing it as a 'contempt of cop' arrest: you can beat the rap (disorderly conduct charges may well be dropped, as they were here), but you don't get out of the ride downtown and getting booked. I think this has relevance to a situation in which a protesting citizen was arrested for disorderly conduct, taken down and booked - with mug shot, and then the police and D.A. drop the charges as an "unfortunate and regrettable incident." That's a perspective on the mug shot that I think should be seriously considered. Pechmerle (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an argument that can be made in good faith. But I think if it were me, if I had been arrested without having broken the law, and had been very upset about it, I would prefer not to have to see that mugshot prominently displayed in every google search for my name, for the rest of my life. I think the handcuff picture already communicates the situation well enough; the mugshot just feels gratuitous, a bit like rubbing it in. We should be above that. --JN 466 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec 2x) Pechmerle hits the nail on the head here. Add to that the fact the porch image is not a free image, and no more explanatory (and somehwat less complimentary to the man, his mouth agape and bewildered appearance) than the booking photo, and the booking photo proves ever more useful, neutral and usable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The mugshot presents a one-sided view, and the FUR for the porch image seems to be holding. –xeno^talk 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the same could be said for the porch image as well, Xeno. The fair use is holding for now, as the periodic purges that sometimes claim the existence of many a FUI are as regular as the tides. Most of us know this. keeping the fair use image creates more long-term problems than free ones. Also, it is our job to try and create Featured Articles, which means a preference of free images over non-free. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? How does the porch image present a one-sided view? It shows both the arrested and the arrestors. Not so with the booking photo. –xeno^talk 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the mugshot is worse, as it depicts a suprised and open-mouthed Gates cuffed on his porch - if anything, its less flattering than the booking photo. By contrast, the cops look quite professional and calm. I'd also point out that Crowley, the other player in this event - is nowhere to be seen here. Therefore, his arrestor is not there. Now, the booking photo is representative of the not only the arrest, but that he wasn't just cuffed until cooler heads prevailed, but rather that Gates was processed into the system, which - as the text of the article details - occurred. And, as has been pointed out one or two times before, the image is free, and could conceivably be used in Mainspace, were this article to at some point qualify for FA (non-free images cannot be used there). I am concerned that some hardliner NFC8 devotee is going to come along and purge it aat some point. Free images are pretty much bulletproof by comparison. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the porch shot is worse? Leaving aside the issue of whether it's a better image in terms of presenting both sides, it's a better image in terms of providing a visual depiction of the event. I think the FUR will hold, fwiw. The mugshot could be moved further down. –xeno^talk 19:40, 7 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)

Well, I guess it isn't a knife fight over the last piece of cake, after all. Were it an either/or, I respectfully disagree that the porch image is a btter representation of the arrest (and no, I am not going to call it an "incident", which is just lame pc lingo for 'someone fucked up huge'). I don't mind if the porch image is in the article, but not to the exclusion of the booking photo. And Xeno, I do hope the porch photo survives the periodic fair-use purge. If it doesn't, I promise not to say I told you so. ;)

Lastly, I agree with Mattnad that the kludged image of Crowley and Gates are not very good at expressing the topics of the issue, and are a magnet for an image purist seeking to delete decorative images; it's pretty much an IfD waiting to happen.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

??FYI, the Crowley-and-Gates double-image is already in a deletion discussion and is going to be saved. (Only licensing concerns matter on Commons, and there is absolutely no challenge to the images' license cos both are fully documented as appropriately free use -- ) Arcayne, a question: How does an existent deletion discussion, in fact one you'd already contributed to (where, incidentally, you inexplicably asserted the two images are solely licensable under fair use) become "a deletion discussion waiting to happen"? I hope this ain't on-purpose bluster and instead is mere sloppiness: something even the very best are prone to. ↜Just M E here , now 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Crowley's scowl

No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Crowley's scowl in the lead image makes the juxtaposition of the two images look like something from the National Enquirer. Suggest we lose the double image and just use the "Beer Summit" picture in the info box. It has the added advantage of showing the three main protagonists who contributed to making this news in one picture. Thoughts? --JN 466 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That was your image, wasn't it? I had suggested earlier that the image should have been flipped, so that Gates would be on the left. In Englsih-speaking countries, language is read from left to right, and imagery is read in the same way. As the article is primarily about Gates, the image places subtle preeminence on the white fellow. That's probably not the message that we want to communicate, especially when the image had to be specifically crafted to put Crowley on the left (in the parent image the collage is culled from, Crowley appears on the right). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's my image. At the time, we had the mugshot in the info box. I suggested using the beer summit image in the infobox, but a couple of editors suggested using the double image instead. I was keen to get the mugshot out of the infobox, a decision that has wide support. I inserted the two images with the double image template, but the template caused problems in the infobox; so I went ahead and created a single picture. JN 466 12:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I was asking why the image was formed with Crowley's on the left, not the problems with two images in the infobox. Maybe the problem could be easily resolved by simply reversing the image, so as to display in proper order the participants of the arrest article.

Additionally, I'd point out that I am not convinced by the arguments about the mugshot image not being in the infobox; an opinion shared by others here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that the dual image is starting to push the boundaries of overly creative license with photographs. While the original images were free, the close cropping and arrangement transforms both of their meaning. I'll grant you it's a subtle point, but I think these go beyond simply capturing information and creates new meaning (and thereby becomes a visual form of WP:OR).Mattnad (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. In the original photo you can clearly see he is concentrating on cheersing properly (wouldn't you be nervous cheersing with the POTUSA?) but the derivative definitely looks like a scowl. –xeno^talk 13:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And I did some more reading. See WP:OI. Mattnad (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, could we agree to use the image of the three of them sitting at the table as our lead image? --JN 466 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally, no. I am convinced that because of the subject matter - Gates' arrest - that the lead image needs to be the mugshot. Using the aftermath of the beer summit as the lead puts the carriage before the horse. Additionally, it would be placing a fair use image above that of a free image. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with Arcayne, while recognizing it's a contentious image. But....the booking photo (as I prefer to call it), is the official recorded image of his arrest and it's free of copyright. There is no other image that is so central to the topic. I feel that political sensitivities have blinded some to the topic of the article.Mattnad (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the image that capture the topic is the one of Gates being arrested. Is not about "political sensitivities", but according to our BLP policy "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist."--J.Mundo (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we please not hijack another thread to debate having the mugshot in the article or the lead? Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that topic still seems a wee bit unresolved, especially since there are problems with the imagery being suggested as replacement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And to answer JMundo's qualms about the image being "sensationalist", I'd point out that the image is free, extremely well-cited, neutral and unassuming of anything other than the man's arrest. Any additional meaning tossed into that is simply editorial opinion. we don't conceal arrests, even those that are dismissed. Wikipedia is not censored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Then debate it in the appropriate thread. Here, we're talking about Crowley's scowl. There's no need to hijack this or any other thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the writing is on the wall for the removal of the image due to WP:OI which is why a discussion of alternatives was started. Mattnad (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it has nothing to do with the mugshot. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

While I do support the suggestion of switching the two men, I strongly disagree that the dual image is an example of WP:OI. We crop images all the time. Crowley' s expression is typical of most published images of him. But if you really believe there is an OI issue the place to settle the question, per the OR policy, is WP:IFD.--agr (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Per ARG, I have nominated the Image for Deletion here on the commons. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's the right place to resolve the OI issue. I've made my comments there.--agr (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Original images has no bearing or applicability in any way with the licensure issues addressed at Commons. Any discusion of OI concerns at that venue would certainly be moot (and this isn't "IMO" but fact). ↜Just M E here , now 19:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the left and right, you guys had it like that in the article before I made up the image: [11]. I couldn't get the double image template to display correctly within the infobox, so I joined the two images together. I don't think that's creating a new composite meaning. Lots of news agencies created similar composites: [12][13]. FWIW, most of these seem to have Crowley on the left, perhaps a subconscious cause-and-effect thing. I do wish Crowley had less of a scowl in ours, but I note that some of the composites out there on google images don't exactly have him smiling either. I still think the Beer Summit would make a better lead image though, as it's got Obama in it and focuses on the peaceful outcome of the affair. JN 466 21:57, 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)

File:Jim Crowley - Skip Gates.png

Sgt. Crowley assists Prof. Gates to descend steps across from Oval Office enroute to WH Rose Garden

That would be a great suggestion. I put a comment in on the White House website addressed to its webmaster asking for a link to a higher def of that picture in order to capture the closeup you mention. (I hope they email or text me back such a link but I'm certainly not optimistic. I imagine instead my special request will generate but a quick, form-letter type reply accompanied by no especially made download link.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out before that that is putting the cart before the horse, chronologically-speaking. The reader who sees the article will be confused by the image and the text that describes an event a lot less friendly than three folk sitting down over a beer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the article. There is no reason the lead photo can't be a summation of the events as well, as opposed to being in some chronological order. There are three individuals mention in the lead, Gates, Crowley and Obama, so it is reasonable for the lead photo to show all three together. I would crop the photo differently to accomplish that. --agr (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Obama too. Of course, Arnold, the question is academic cos we don't have a high-definition pic for us to crop a close-up outta. (The one of the 3 summiters toasting, taken before the VP arrived, was taken by a different White House photographer than the one shown here on the right margin; and, instead of its being posted in a tiny illustration to the official White House blog -- as the one on the talkpage margin was, see File:Jim Crowley - Skip Gates.png -- the "cheers" photo was uploaded instead to Flickr, ultra pixeled: see File:Beer summit cheers.jpg.) ↜Just M E here , now 02:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Harm Test

No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For those who feel the booking photograph harms gates, I'd like your explanation of how it might fail the Wikipedia:HARM#TEST Mattnad (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How many sections you are going to create for the same issue? Anyway, "WP: Harm" is an essay, and WP:BLP is a policy. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the non-answer. J. Mundo, I can also (and do) say WP:BLP allows for this photograph. The essay is a deeper dive into when we can include factual information that some might think is harmful. I'd like your and others who bring up an abstract claim of "harm" to consider this. Mattnad (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All should remember that the mug shot cuts both ways. All opposed to it are reading it as somehow demeaning to Gates; however it can equally stand as a symbol of wrongful arrest: why is an honored professor in a mug shot? Anyway it has certainly been used in news articles on the topic [14]. Also, I agree with Mattnad that I haven't seen a valid citation from BLP that says not to use it. Keep. Manyanswer (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether a booking photo (mug shot) harms the subject depends on context. In the Gates - Crowley incident, Gates immediately asserted that the arrest was racial profiling. Subsequently, Gates has indicated that -- in terms of his longer-term involvement with the issue of racial profiling -- he intends to seek use of the incident as a 'teachable moment.' Gates is well known in that area, and this WP article makes clear that the charges on which Gates was arrested were promptly dropped by the authorities. In this particular context, I don't think it can be said that showing the booking photo is harmful to Gates. Pechmerle (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You will need some citations if you want to insert that comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

I think it's fair to show the mug shot and the picture of his arrest. That is the topic of the article. It would not be fair to include them in Gates' bio without the context of the incident. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:32, 8 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))

Tabloid comparisons are not apt here: NPR, Time, Newsweek have all published the booking photo. Now, back to our efforts to examine from an encyclopedia point of view - how do these photos fail the "harm test" cited above? Mattnad (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to your efforts, yes. You can puff and puff but it will not remove the obvious reality that there is a lot of opposition to having the mugshot in the article, and it will not go away, I repeat, there is no consensus to insert the mugshot and it should be removed until the dispute is sorted out. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Editors here are claiming consensus on the BLP board for inclusion, but I don't see that at all. Wikipedia isn't NPR, Time, or Newsweek. The style of writing, focus, and perspective that might be acceptable there wouldn't work in a neutral encyclopedia. Unlike those sources, we write for the long-term, and with a focus on longevity. Some of the editors are this page cannot seem to separate what other sources do with what Wikipedia does, and that's a problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

They can claim consensus but there clearly is not one on the BLP board or anywhere. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

If you're referring to my comment below, I think I said "there seems to be a consensus forming around [inclusion]" on this page. I still think there is a consensus forming up around inclusion. You seem to be the dissenting voice. I certainly don't mean to discount your opinion in any way. I just want to know why you think the photo fails WP:HARM#TEST. If I thought it did, I would be advocating it's removal as loudly as you, but I think it passes the test for inclusion. Would you please explain to me why you see it as failing the Harm test? Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have posted my opinions about this mugshot at numerous venues. I have twice removed the pictures, feel free to check my edit summaries for my standpoint. It is time we found out if there really is community support for inclusion and put it to the vote. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

By the way, I just want to point out that WP:BLP says potentially harmful information about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed without discussion, not that information that is unflattering should be removed without discussion. This isn't a mugshot that was dug out of the archives of Massachusetts police booking photos; it has been widely published already, and the arrest is not something Gates seems to want to hide or want not to talk about publicly. I'm sorry, but I don't care to look for your comments in "numerous venues", I just want a direct answer to a direct question: What part of the WP:HARM#TEST does the image fail? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the harm to his reputation has already been done, and the inclusion of the demeaning booking shot is a continuation of that harm. The article goes on happily without the mugshot, so I would say, it is far better to err on the side of caution. Perhaps in an interview he will comment that he is ok with the mugshot, perhaps email him and ask him if he is ok if we put it on this page? When all the hurrah has died down and no one is bothered any more in a couple of weeks this article will sit here forever demeaning this innocent person. Actually the article is a way around policy by giving the incident a page of its own you circumvent the BLP issues, there is no way this mugshot would be inserted in his BLP and the innocent person should imo be protected to the same level in this article. Lets find out if there is any community support for the inclusion of this mugshot and put it to a vote. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Have a look at the viewing figures, here is the article [[15]] and here [[16]] is the talk page and here is his biography [[17]] you'll see that all the traffic is to the biography and that there is a lot less traffic to this article and in fact, if you remove the wikipedian traffic there is little or no interest from the outside world to this article, these figures show that too much is being made of this story here and actually it would be better to cut out all the excessive material and return it to gate's bio where it would at least get read.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry if my above comment sounded like I was getting impatient. I didn't mean it that way, but on a second look... Anyway, I think I can see your point about there being a lot more Wikipedian hubbub about this article than actual readers reading it, but my position is actually to move the article a little further away from Gates, because this whole thing wasn't all about Gates. I don't think he has sole ownership of the controversy. This was an event that centers around a conflict between Gates and Crowley, and then Obama and others stepped in. Personally, I'd rather see it moved to "Gates-Crowley controversy" than merged into Gates' bio article. I do also think you have something with 'let's see if we can really determine just what Gates thinks of the photo'. I haven't seen anything where he directly commented on the circulating photo, but does anybody have a good indication in a reliable source? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry for, I was fine with you. Is it possible that we could get his email and draft a little letter to him to get his opinion? I would prefer "Gates-Crowley controversy" to what we have now, agreed he does not have sole ownership of the incident. 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, I think. (Although some of the older viewing figures are skewed cos of this article's name change. And, hey! when it was "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates," it reached a viewership stat at all of 7.4k back on the 3rd of this month, even surpassesing the 5.8 reached to on that date by Gates's regular bio. {coughs -- mumbling into my hand} Of course, it would be incumbent on me to disclose that the "Arrest" article was linked to on Wikipedia's front page that day in its, uh, um, "Did you know?" column. ↜Just M E here , now 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

~~Here's root.com's Face Book page. (Although I myself don't have a Face Book account to send Dr. Gates a message there.)~~ ↜Just M E here , now 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. It's

fax #: 617-495-9490
snailmail address: Harvard University's WEB Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, 104 Mount Auburn Street # 3R, Cambridge MA 02138
e: hgates@fas.harvard.edu
[tele: 617-496-5468 extension # 65468]

↜Just M E here , now 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict, cool, well done.

Ok, I missed the older figures, however as things stand now the traffic has settled down, anyway the figures were really just a little way to try and get the perspectives in line with reality. There is one page where three editors are in dispute after dispute over the detail and asking RFC after RFC and when I checked the figures the page was getting 3 or 4 viewings a day and the talk page like a hundred and fifty. I will write to him later today if no one else does it, could someone draft up a simple neutral letter(not leading him in either direction) and lets ask him, saying this I am not suggesting that it is up to him whether we insert it or not, but it would add weight to one side or the other. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Gates' email is all over twitter, half going to the Glenn Beck et al demographic, so I think we'd be well advised to make sure we send a back-up fax, too. ↜Just M E here , now 14:59, 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)

Yes. He's the editor of the magazine. ↜Just M E here , now 16:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest and booking photos missing in action

No discussion for 7 days+. Feel free to uncollapse if needed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I thought there was considerable agreement here that the arrest (porch) photo and the booking photo were informational to the reader of this article, and should be presented. I favor bringing them back, as we recently had them -- stacked in the Arrest section. I've reverted on the basis that the predominant view here is to keep them, and they do not violate policy as properly applied. This is not the case of a purely private individual whose arrest is about the only thing that gains wider attention. Instead, the arrest photos have a proper place in the life history of a person who has prominently addressed racial profiling issues prior to this incident. Pechmerle (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I haven't been very vocal on this discussion, but I have been following it, and from what I have seen, there seems to be consensus forming around retaining both photos in the Arrest section, possibly even putting one of them as lead image, but keeping the booking photo off the Henry Louis Gates article. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm hearing too, both here and on BLP, with an addition that the booking photo also might be best (as it has been for a while) in lower portions of the Arrest incident article (i.e. not in the lede) Manyanswer (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the image layout currently in use best serves the article. The more neutral dual photos work well as the lead image, as leading with the booking photo could be seen by some (???) as sensationalistic. I am of two minds over each of the photos, but the argument for removing the booking photo is weak (despite initial appearances), but leading with it may be a bit much. The booking photo most directly relates to the arrest, so I think it best serves the article there. Same with the arrest photo. I also agree with the distinction that placing the booking photo here is appropriate and is a valid exception to BLP, while placing it on the Gates article would be less appropriate and BLP would be a much stronger argument there. But that's just me, and I'm just one editor. ;) Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Knock yourself out, agr. I think our differences in what booking photos are as different as night and day. Your litmus for inclusion far exceeds what is currently in place. The kludged image is both misleading and inaccurate. The porch photo - essentially a perp walk - is unduly demeaning, to my reckoning, far more so than any reasonable person could consider the booking photo to be.

So no, we do not have a consensus on the use of the booking photo. The article should be using two photos, and two photos only: the booking image of Gates taken at the police station, and the Beer Summit image. The first shows the image that sparked the controversy, and the latter shows the conclusion of the matter. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the current four photo layout is better. (If we ever hear back from Mr. Gates, that will be highly relevant information. But until then ...) The arrest (porch) photo is highly relevant for why this incident generated so much controversy. It shows the black man in question being led off his own porch in an arrest for charges that were dropped within days. I do not see the porch photo as harming Gate's reputation, because he has himself frequently drawn attention to the issue of racial-profiling arrests. And the Beer Summit photo is quite related to the article text that shows that the event resulted in the two principals getting together with the President for what appears to be - and what they themselves reported to be - a friendly conversation to share views on the incident. The photos accurately track the arc of the controversy. Pechmerle (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the porch photo is far more demeaning that nay booking phot could be. The image captures the subject with his moth agape (which some of our less sophisticated readers will describe as slack-jawed) in handcuffs being escorted by policement that have no other mention in this article whatsovever. As both the porch image and the booking photo display two images that are supposed to describe same thing, and the latter is free, when it comes down to a choice between the two (and trust me, it eventually will), the non-free image is going to vanish like a proverbial fart in the wind. We have precedent for booking photos - we do not have them for perp walks, which is precisely what the porch photo represents.

Again, the kludged image of Crowly and Gates - if it is to be used at all, needs to be reversed. If Jayen is going to ignore the repeated requests to do it, I will muddle through and do it myself, overwriting the commons image. He might not like the resulting mess. He might want to step up and do the image flip himself; it seems quite pathetically easy to do, but difficult to upload.

I have no issue whatsoever with the use of the beer summit image at the end. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at the following, and these arguments should be weighed as well so that they do not have to again be made here:

Gates Mug shot and arrest pictures, in or out.

I've reverted two recent IP edits - either or both edit may be fine as a content matter but I'm uncomfortable with the reason given in one case, and the lack of reason in the other. The first was the removal of an arrest photo and mug shot on the grounds that anyone who adds them must be racist. It is not fair to accuse editors of racism here, and any edit based solely on an uncorroborated feeling that another editor is racist is, in my opinion, an invalid edit on the face of it. There is a legitimate WP:BLP question, though, as to whether we should include the mug shot and arrest photograph of a man who was never charged and likely did not commit any crime. By showing a professor in an upset, undignified setting we are demeaning him perhaps. The counterargument would be that it is a historically important event that we are reporting, and that the injury was not done by us - the loss of face arose from the incident, not our showing a photo. Another argument is that the arrest photo does not comply with WP:NONFREE. It was taken by a private photographer and reprinted in various newspapers. The owner / source is listed as "B. Carter/Demotix Images", which means it seems to be owned by a company in the business of selling news photographs. It is tricky perhaps to argue from a copyright perspective that we have a right to use for free a commercial photograph, for the very purpose the photograph was taken - to illustrate the news. One would have to argue that the photo itself is a matter of historical importance, and I don't think we hit that threshold. The incident is important for sure, but this particular photograph is not noteworthy is it? It is the fact of his arrest, not the photo of his arrest, that is important. That is a lot different than, say, the video of Neda, the Iranian protester - in that case it was the video that galvanized protests and we have sourced commentary about the video. Okay, the second part of the revert ended up removing the navbox again (which is under discussion). I don't have a strong feeling about whether it should be there or not, but on process grounds I feel uncomfortable allowing a contentious IP with no demonstrated edit history to be reverting other editors without offering a reason. Thanks all, Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said, wikidemon, strange edits from that ip especially removing the navbox and doing it from the hilton hotel.new mexico (Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its a joke and its an editor having a laugh, stirring up a bit of controversy Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps he/she isn't. Let's leave them alone, hope they will find something shiny to play with and go away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that noone has thought to ifd the B. Carter/Demotix "porch" image had given me hope for it but if the kill-all-fair-use posse is joined by such reasonable voices as Wikidemon's in such a deletion discussion, its days may be numbered. (Still, you never know!) ↜Just M E here , now 23:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Hey, I don't make the image use policy. If it were up to me we would encourage lots of fair use images but then include an easy tag so that anyone copying the articles to create a mirror or derivative article could easily remove different kinds of nonfree images to suit their use, jurisdiction, level of comfort with copyrighted images, etc. But sometimes you have to uphold a policy even if you don't agree with it. Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The default position for both of these contentious pictures is out until there is either an end to discussion or a clear consensus to keep them in. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC):

Actually, per WP:BRD if someone adds content in good faith, including images, the default position is to leave them in until and unless someone reverts with a good faith objection. You don't need prior consensus. My point is that the IP editor's accusation of censorship is on the face of it not a good faith content objection, so we haven't gotten to the "R" part of BRD. I've engaged the editor on my talk page, and it's clear that he/she is editing in good faith but not terribly familiar with our civility and content policies, so I'm trying to explain patiently. If you also think the images don't belong, then that is a bona fide objection, and I would not restore the photos (and would urge others to do likewise) until we have a clear direction for this. You're certainly free to remove the images and that would not be edit warring. But in the interest of stability you might want to leave them in until we can see if there is significant support for keeping them out. Please be aware that arrest photos and mug shots for innocent, uncharged, wrongly arrested, unconvicted, etc., people is a subject that often comes up, and I think the results are mixed. I'm pretty sure we have Mel Gibson's and Bill Gates' mug shots somewhere in the encyclopedia and (other than Mel Gibson looking rather handsome and in good spirits) they aren't exactly flattering either. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument, I'm just trying to figure out whether there is a wider consensus on this issue. Perhaps a friendly query to WP:BLP/N? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about this and there are plenty of editors that want the photo's out, it's time for a head count. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay....

I Support the removal of the mug shot as unencyclopedic, and degrading to Gates without having a real purpose. The article already makes clear that he was arrested. There is nothing particularly germane or enlightening to adding the mug shot.
I am neutral about the arrest photo because it gives a little more context, and it was widely circulated, meaning that it has somewhat more explanatory value. However, it too is degrading and I can see a valid objection on BLP grounds. Further, there is a WP:NONFREE question I raised above, but that might better be handled by nominating the image for deletion because we probably can't get a full discussion of nonfree images on this page. Wikidemon (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, it's too early to call but I predict a "no consensus". Which means no consensus to add or no consensus to delete? Wikidemon (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support'The mugshot and the arrest photo as they are both demeaning and unnecessary to the article, the protection of the innocent person should be paramount. We should give Gates here as an innocent person in this incident the same high level of protection as if it was his WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The mugshot is part of the story, cannot be reproduced in words, and we do not censor. While the arrest photo is nonfree, it complies with applicable policy and again cannot be reproduced in words.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Support the removal is not about censorship but our WP:BLP policy about individuals: "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity". I agree that is degrading and doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article. --Jmundo (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Support the removal of the mugshot. Gates has been released and the charges dropped, so there is now reason to put a mugshot on wikipedia. Mugshots should only be used for those convicted or possibly waiting trial in prison. Martin451 (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose the Removal the booking photo (mug shot) was used in news reports, raising its use as fair. It does not violate WP:BLP as written, just the opinions of some editors that we need to be super nice to everyone. There is a perfectly fine middle ground, with support on the BLP discussion of this, that booking photos should generally not be in BLPs unless the person is primarily known as a criminal, and should be used in other articles only when the article is about an arrest. This use meets both requirements as the article is not a BLP and is certainly about the arrest. Other editors have pointed out that to read a booking photo as demeaning is to miss half the story: as in the use of Rosa Parks's booking photo, it can be read to document an injustice. And that is the specific intent of this article, to document the events. Readers can judge appropriately for themselves with more info, let's trust them to read and understand as well as to see. The other photo should stay for similar reasons. Manyanswer (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Do we need the photos? Assuming there is consensus that the photos do not do harm to anyone and do not violate BLP guidelines, and assuming that they are deemed appropriate, are they needed? Does the article truly suffer by their removal? Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Or does it? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadening such thoghts to the entire project, Should we do it in general? (Leading to my votes, below... )

Keep Mugshots are used all over the project; make a broad policy removing front-and-profile booking shots from "arrest" type sections throughout the project or be consistent and keep these here of Gates.
Yet I'm conflicted, so, ~~neutral~~, about the "porch" photo: which may be famous enough in connection with the event to merit inclusion but, on the other hand, I've read Gates's account of how he'd been complaining loudly about the officers' having, at first, handcuffed him from behind (since Gates would certainly usually descends his steps of his house using a cane)...so it's a little painful for me to even look at the shot. <editorial>The responding officer had called in to keep the cars coming, after the ostensibly suspicious acting respondent did not comply with his request to step out on the porch; yet once the adrenaline is up and backup has already been called, I think cops at that point unfortunately have got to find a reason not to run ya in for something or another.</editorial> ↜Just M E here , now 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems unnecessary - Yes the article is about the arrest, but the charges were later dropped. Not sure what purpose is being served by retaining a mugshot of an arrest that did not lead to charges. Tarc (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the removal. These photos are accurately sourced; they are highly relevant to the article. In context (which is very important for this article), they are not degrading to Gates nor does he need protection from them. The Rosa Parks analogy, while not perfect, is germane. The existence of the photos plus the charges being dropped is a combination of facts that is of high notability. Gates has already indicated that he will use this incident for public discussion of racial profiling arrests and similar issues. In this context, it would be better to leave the photos in. Pechmerle (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

'Tho I remain innerly conflicted, Pechmerle's thoughts make me change my neutral on the porch shot to a keep, based on this reading of Gates' statements as his desire to publicize the various issues he had confronted because of his [wrongful] arrest. ↜Just M E here , now 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

Oppose the removal of the booking photo. I could go either way on the "porch" photo, as it is more inflammatory and is not a free image, but the booking photo is free and more importantly, it depicts what the article is about. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose removal on BLP grounds, for the reasons stated by Pechmerle. I do not agree that these pictures are inherently degrading. The arrest itself may have been degrading, but that is why it is notable; the photos are facts (or perhaps, artifacts of an event) whose meaning is something for the reader to determine based on the reader's interpretation of the circumstances. And in this article, which deals specifically with the arrest as a notable event, they are relevant and significant.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On what BLP grounds? BLP is about protecting the individual. We are not bots searching for free images, Wikipedia should be neutral, free of bias, and racially sensitive. Yes, of course is degrading, did the police ask him for permission to publish his image (personal rights)? Do we need the mugshots in case he breaks "the rules" again or escape the authority? Go ahead, keep propagating the stereotypical image of a black man in America. --Jmundo (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I came here because of canvassing at ANI. The mug shot is the most important photo. All other photos are not as important. I don't know if it is free use or stolen. A lawyer should look into it. Federal government photos are free use but I don't know about police. If it is free use, I choose keep. If not free use, oppose. Acme Plumbing (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Support inclusion. Editors above have mentioned that it is degrading and unencyclopedic, which makes sense if the article under question was Henry Louis Gates. However, there's no pic that's more appropriate to an article about an arrest then then the arrest mugshot. --Pink Bull (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Include - the photo documents the event (the arrest), is a free image, and there's no indication that the subject feels it is degrading. Rather, Gates has professed that he will use the arrest as a teachable moment. The same image has appeared in several magazines and newspapers without incident.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I support the removal of both photos on the basis that the photos themselves are not sufficiently noteworthy. The noteworthy thing is the arrest and surrounding incident. Including the photos doesn't add anything of encyclopedic worth to the article that the text does not already convey and will serve only to mislead the reader and cause potential harm to the reputation of their subject, who was not charged, tried, nor convicted of any crime. -- Hux (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I support the removal of the mugshot. The subconscious biasing effect of mugshots is well documented, and part of why juries are not allowed to see mugshots of a defendant. As a general principle, I believe we should not have mughots from wrongful arrests or arrests that later turned out to unwarranted and did not result in charges being brought. I think that is actually quite important. Including mugshots from such arrests is equivalent to presenting the subject in a false light. (I am in favour of retaining the picture showing Gates being arrested on his front porch.) JN 466 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that the booking photo in the article Rosa Parks is inherently degrading? Cause I certainly don't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When there is an issue in an article bout the usage of mug shots, each situation should be evaluated on its own merits. Falling back on "other stuff" arguments is not terribly convincing. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely amazed at the tenacity with which the Rosa Parks argument is brought up. First, Rosa Parks is not a living person. Second, she was arrested, charged, found guilty, and sentenced. All the charges against Gates, on the other hand, were dropped. About the only thing Parks and Gates have in common is that they are both well-known African-Americans.

The principle proposed is simply this: Do not show mugshots of arrests of living persons if the charges were dropped, or the defendant was subsequently cleared of all charges. Neither of these two criteria apply to Rosa Parks. JN 466 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a proposed principle, but I think what makes more sense is a broader test of relevance rather than guilt or innocence. I've heard complaints that mugshots are my their nature demeaning - innocence or guild doesn't change that. I've also heard some questions of whether or not a mugshot adds anything to an article - innocence or guilt doesn't change that either. The current harm test, as well as the broader BLP guidelines allow for editor to make a judgment based on the context. An article focused on an arrest can allow for a booking photo, whereas a typical BLP should not allow it unless the arrest is the significant portion of a person's notability.Mattnad (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the Parks example. Yes, she was convicted of disorderly conduct at trial. But she appealed that. Though her appeal was dismissed, a parallel federal civil case from the Montgomery NAACP went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that segregated public bus systems were unconstitutional. Thus, Parks's position was vindicated in the courts. Gates was vindicated quicker, with the Cambridge official statement that the charge against him was dropped as an "unfortunate and regrettable incident." But Parks was ultimately also vindicated at law. Thus, the use of arrest photos is relevant, in both cases, to show the treatment that was subsequently found to be unjustified at law. Pechmerle (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are arguing from a position of moral equivalence, but it just doesn't fit. Rosa Parks' arrest was not a mistake. She broke a law, albeit an unjust law, and broke it knowingly, intentionally, to make a point about its unjustness. She was found guilty and retained a criminal record to the day she died. It was only after her death that the Rosa Parks Act was passed, enabling people like her who had taken part in protests to have their criminal records expunged. Gates did not break any law, just or unjust. His arrest was declared an "unfortunate and regrettable" mistake. The other difference of course is that he is a living person ... I continue to believe that we should not show mugshots of people arrested by mistake. It presents them in a false light. You see, with Rosa Parks, we know that segregation laws in the 50s were unjust. Someone violating those laws, being arrested under them, makes them a hero from today's perspective. Gates was arrested in the present day, where these oppressive laws no longer exist. Someone being arrested today creates a different impression. At the very least, if we keep this picture, we should say, in the caption, that the police department issued a statement saying the incident "was regrettable and unfortunate" and should not "be viewed as one that demeans the character and reputation of Professor Gates or the character of the Cambridge Police Department." JN 466 16:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, JN. But here is the element of analogy: The point that Gates asserted, immediately when he was confronted by the officer, is that he was being suspected of being a burglar -- and then arrested for disorderly conduct even after he had shown he was the home's resident -- only because he is black. In other words, he has asserted 'unjust law enforcement.' The point about racial profiling cases isn't that the law is unjust on its face anymore, but that it is still being enforced in a discriminatory way. Pechmerle (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you do understand. Rosa Parks' mugshot being shown elevates her in the reader's estimation because the reader knows that the 1950s laws she violated were unconstitutional and offensive. There is no comparable widely held view that contemporary legislation or police behavior is unconstitutional and offensive; most people would agree that it is nowhere near comparable to the situation that obtained in the 1950s. Therefore a contemporary mugshot, resulting from an arrest that the Police Department described as unfortunate and regrettable, and given without immediate balancing context, may be perceived to "demean the character and reputation of Professor Gates" in a way that is simply not possible with Rosa Parks, or with anyone else arrested by a regime generally known as oppressive. So if we have to have the picture, let's at least put in the caption that Gates and the police department described the incident as regrettable and unfortunate and that the police department dropped all charges. Any objection? JN 466 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, note that the statement on the events being "regrettable and unfortunate" was a JOINT statement by Gates and police. Meaning that both sides were careful not to admit guilt. The article is properly NPOV on this. I think the idea of putting the other quote in the caption of the photo is a great idea. I also suggest that to balance the article a bit, someone get in there the repeated statements by police in support of Crowley, as these seem to have disappeared. As a side note, no one should take the dropping of charges as exoneration of Gates - disorderly is often just a tool for the moment for cops, to shut down a problem situation, and is often not prosecuted. Just like actions against protestors - they drag them all in on charges to shut down the incident, but few end up getting prosecuted. I doubt that Crowley was at any point thinking that the charges would stick, or that he wanted Gates to do time. What we need for these situations is a civil fine that cops can give out... if you get hit with a $250 fine and don't slow down within about 10 minutes, then you probably need to go to jail. Cops don't have the right tools right now. Wow way off topic - sorry for a second I thought I was editing the Cambridge Municipal Code. 71.137.10.255 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion for the caption in the info box: Bold the line that says the charges were dropped. It should be completely clear that the arrest was not pursued, without getting too wordy, is my thought. Pechmerle (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose removal. How many threads is this going to be discussed in? It is ridiculous at this point. Multiple threads on multiple talk pages including WT:BLP. An abundance of arguments for why the images should be included from me and others are there. Lara 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Over at BLP/N I see you state "Consensus seems to be not to use mug shots in BLPs unless the subject is currently incarcerated", though. Since the charges were dropped in the Gates case, isn't this a contradiction, or am I misinterpreting something? Tarc (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't his biography, it's the article on the arrest. Lara 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Include the pictures and note that local consensus (e.g., on this talk page) cannot override global consensus, such as on WP:BLP/N. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Originally I thought it (the mugshot) should be best left out. I still don't see that it adds much to the article, but it's a free image so keep per Lara. I think the fair-use image should be kept in as well. It does add to the understanding of the article. –xeno^talk 17:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
include the photos as relevant to this subject matter. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
include the arrest and mug shot photos, after all this article is about the incident and debate, and not Professor Gates himself. GoldDragon (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
include both arrest related photos. Topical and relevant. BLP allows for factual, if not flattering information. Booking is an official record of the arrest and Free. Porch image is also topical, but subject to removal since it's not free.Mattnad (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
include both photos of the arrest and mug shot, but only in the arrest section. Obiviously this should not in the the introduction.MaxForce (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh. This article is about his arrest. It is not a biography of Professor Gates. When the subject of the article is about his arrest, then surely, an image of his mugshot is appropriate? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is the question of the hour. My post above is pretty much a "weak remove" as I'm not really rabidly for or against it, though I believe there should be more consideration for the fact that the charges were dropped. But it appears that consensus is to keep it. If so though, then the "porch" image, File:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates.jpg should be tossed, as a non-free image should not be used when a free one is available. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing a page name from Off2riorob's false arrest and using the fact that it is now not in my bio and reducing the protection due to me just because you have changed the name of the page is wrong, and then from this page where I have no care at all even if I am completely innocent, this page is then linked to the page where I am offered a degree of protection, it is wiki lawyering at its worst.

In regard to the head count, there is looking like a leaning towards keeping the mugshot in and perhaps removing the arrest shot, however would anyone mind leaving it another day and asking an admin to count up and close tomorrow? There has been soooo much discussion that another day to allow late-comers to perhaps turn up will not matter much. Then whatever the count is, the outcome will have a fair bit of added weight.Off2riorob (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. WP:CONSENSUS does not support removing the image. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I still support keeping the photos, if not all that strongly, because they are germane to this article and I don't see a compelling reason supported by WP policy to remove them. If there were consensus to remove them, I would abide the consensus on the face of it. Short of that, I think we need a policy reason to remove. The protections offered in BLP do not support the blanket removal of material that is unflattering, only the removal of material that is unreliable. BLP doesn't say we can't report something that isn't nice, just that we can't report something that isn't verifiably true. We won't spread rumors, but not all news is good news. Nor are we a newspaper, so we need to check our tone. For that reason, I am glad to see that this question has had this healthy response, and my sincere thanks go out to all of the editors who have voiced their opinions here. I don't see the inclusion of the photos here as "wikilawyering" because they could be considered inappropriate but not impermissible on the Gates bio article. Again, they are unflattering, but not fake or dubious. The booking photo in particular has a strong case for inclusion, as it is free use and is already a relatively widely published photo. Again I go back to the point that Gates himself has not expressed any desire to suppress the photo or downplay the incident. I don't see the case for inclusion of either photo as bulletproof, because as I pointed out earlier, just because we can doesn't mean we need to. But I see a net benefit to the article and no compelling policy-driven need to remove either photo. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep arrest picture only The arrest picture conveys an enormous amount of information about the arrest and lets our readers form their own opinions. The mug shot conveys no new information--we already know what Gates looks like through a better photo--while making one participant in a controversial event look like a criminal. The mug shot in the Rosa Parks article is one image among many that form a photo essay of the whole incident and place the mug shot in an historic context. That is not done in this article. The visual impact is totally different. --agr (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rosa Parks article is relevant to this discussion in the respect that an innocent person (an appeals court reversed her conviction) has a booking photo in an article, but with Parks it's in her main biography article and not a separate article. If we were to combine the main Gates article with this one, we'd have a similar balance between content and photos, but I suspect that would cause even more concern among those against the pictures in first place.Mattnad (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the Rosa Parks argument, see my post above at 16:05, 13 August 2009 and hundreds of articles like [18]. Parks died with a criminal record, without a pardon. JN 466 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have had a bit of a look at the comments and it looks like (a couple of opinions were a bit unclear) there was about a 2 to 1 in favour of keeping both pictures, approx fifteen to keep the mugshot and 7 to remove, more or less the same for the arrest shot, so there you go. Thanks to all for your comments.Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep pics - seems like a no-brainer to me. What could better illustrate the topic? Dlabtot (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Comment There was a clear consensus to keep the mugshot, before canvassing at ANI and WT:BLP ( a hangout for those who try to make every biography a resume ). Keep in mind that most of the editors who showed up in the past week or so are not a random sample. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there was never a clear consensus at any time to keep the mugshot, and Archive 2 supports that fact. And asking the broader community to comment on an article talk page that involves community-wide policies like BLP is standard practice, not canvassing. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Actually, there was. Search down the page for the phrase "24 hours" and you'll see the conversation between me and Arcayne discussing that fact. It wasn't until Aug 3 that anybody questioned the mugshot, and it was a small group of people who came from outside the article. That booking photo had been up for a long time before that, and while the regular editors of the page debated many things, there wasn't a controversy over including the photo. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    - There has never been "clear consensus" on the inclusion of the mugshot in this article, so please stop saying that; It simply isn't true. Viriditas (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      - Would it be more appropriate to say the photo was unchallenged until that point? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        No. The photo was challenged the first day it was added to the parent article and it has been challenged on a daily basis ever since. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        Most of the early debate centered around the copyright status of the photo, not pie-in-the-sky BLP concerns. Then the photo was left unchallenged for about a week while editors worked on the "beer summit". There was a debate during that time about using that photo in the article about Gates himself, but since the arrest was split to its own article, most of the regular editors of this article didn't support that position. However, that debate was brought to WT:BLP, which brought a new debate here as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        Okay, silence = consent and respect for stability, not to mention the article being edit protected right now, so the photos are staying in while we discuss. A week or two probably buys a little deference to the status quo but it's not nearly long enough to suggest that a photo becomes immovable. Mug shots are indeed an issue throughout Wikipedia and I'm not sure we have a consistent answer. I hear the concern about the canvassing and I agree that it was posted a little too widely but I see no bad intent here or attempt to stack the decks, just an effort to solicit wider opinion. Anyone reading this to gauge consensus is free to discount opinions that seem hasty or that do not indicate familiarity with the article or issues. Wikidemon (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        There has been no canvassing, I felt that as many people as possible should comment so I left a neutral comment at 3 or 4 high profile locations. This conversation is a distraction to the in or out comments, would some one please close it up. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning it on WT:BLP isn't canvassing, but the continued creation of new threads on the same thing is getting out of hand. Diluting discussion and frustrating others into walking away. Lara 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I also believe Off2riorob exercised good faith and did not engage in a type of WP:CANVASSING beyond what seems to be envisioned by this directive. (Which WP page sez you can, if liked, post

a few notices (not "over-posting": basically meaning, "not posted more broadly than to send out some notices in such a way as to attract a reasonable number pairs of fresh eyes who'd likely have familiarity, knowledge and/or interest in whatever issues are involved"?)
neutral in their wording (to which I'd add, neutral in the venues posted?).) ↜Just M E here , now 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, despite the early rollup I'd like to add a few things. The comments about "canvassing" were not directed at Off2riorob, who was not the first to bring up Gates' booking photo on WT:BLP. They were a warning to anyone counting !votes in the above straw poll that there was an influx of people new to the article that were coming in with their minds already made up. I'd also like to point out while on noticeboards such as RSN and NORN you will see a range of opinions, editors are basically applying the same principles in judgement.

The BLP talk page however is not a noticeboard, but a page for discussing changes to policy. There are some who wish to restrict the use of booking photos far beyond what I'd say is reasonable for a non-tabloid U.S. media outlet, and I do not see this article as a test case for those views. At present booking photos are allowed, and we should only discuss whether they are used properly in this article according to the present standard. PS. You can roll this back up if there's no comments. I didn't want to edit the rolled-up version per common practice. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Err...

No discussion for 7+ days. Feel free to uncollapse if needed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry to rain on the party - but why is this article so long and should it really exist separate from Obama and Gates articles (i.e. WP:NOT#NEWS)? We have no idea of the significance of this event, but I'd take a good stab and say there won't be volumes written about it in fifty years time.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's significant in that it was the first major race-related crisis that Obama was faced with, which had a unique outcome (Beer Summit). I agree that this article might need some trimming once its historical significance becomes more clear. That's one of the tough things about current-event articles.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a race relations crisis? Since when are crises solved by two people having a beer together? If this is a crisis, the LA riots in 1992 would have felled several nearby galaxies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I said race related crisis. If you like, replace crisis with "challenge" or "issue" or "incident." --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean incident, then don't say crisis - which was clearly the point of my previous post. A presidential term is full of incidents - it comes with the job. An encyclopedia doesn't need an article for every media driven event. This one appears to have no implications for policy, no implications for Henry Gates career, no implications for police policy. It's a storm in a teacup and is possibly worth a mention in the pages for Barack Obama and Henry Gates, but not a wikipedia article by itself. Instead it should be in wikinews.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said Vsevolodkrolikov, this incident has been blown up out of all proportion. It will be soon forgotten about as the different groups look for the next event to sensationalize. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Almost not even reported here in the uk, the LA riots that was an incident, this incident has been a bandwagon for all sorts of groups to attach themselves. I would say it is a pin prick on the presidency of obhama. Off2riorob (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vsevolodkrolivkov... cut me a little slack - are we really here to talk about my word choices?

I disagree with your points about implications. Gates will probably be remembered most for this incident (unless he does something else). Obama has proclaimed this as a teachable moment, and it very well may have some policy implications (on how police confront race issues, contempt of cop, etc.). It's a very public event that brought to light some latent issues related to police relations with the community. As I said in my original response to you, this article will probably end up getting trimmed down once the dust settles.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should exist. I don't think it can be improved much until things calm down, at which time I intend to take a close look at it and see what can be done with it, together with such editors as may remain. I don't expect that to be soon. Maybe New Years.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SharkxFanSJ and Wehwalt, that is like saying it is in the news now so we have to have all this in the article including the pictures and then hey, when it is no longer a newspaper story we can trim it down. I don't think this is reflective of policy, is it? You seem to be agreeing with the comment that actually this belongs in the news section. Are we a newspaper here? following the tabloid trends?Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SharkxfanSJ, the difference between a crisis and an incident is exactly what is at issue here (you also picked on my "word choices", so no pleading innocence, please). Do you honestly think Henry Louis Gates will be best remembered for this, and think this arrest incident will have a greater impact - more than any of Henry Gates' work and campaigning - on issues and anayses of racial discrimination? He's not just any old black guy, he's one of the most important African-American academics ever in American history. Your comments that the incident (which ended, let's not forget, with them having a beer and getting on well) may well have policy implications, suggest that you also need to read WP:CRYSTAL. There are no apparent implications so far, and guessing that there will be is not part of wikipedia's job.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would compare this article with Hutton Inquiry, an article of comparable length which deals with a 2003 event during Tony Blair's prime ministership that no one on the west side of the Atlantic remembers, if they ever heard of it at all. There is even a picture of a ticket to get into see the hearings--wow. Per WP:Recentism: "Editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and should not pretend to. It is perfectly fine to write about ongoing events with an eye towards benefiting future readers, but without attempting to prejudge what will be regarded as historically important ten (or 100) years from now." WP:Recentism specifically suggests side articles like this to deal with the details of current stories where we cannot judge their long term importance. Feel free to bring this to AFD if you disagree. --agr (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hutton Inquiry is similar to this? How? Because on wikipedia it has a similar article length? If it's similar, we would have had incidents on the level of a suicide from a dissident government employee, high level resignation from major parastatal organisations, allegations from serious news organisations that deaths had been ordered by government, and disputes over the justification for going into a war that has led to over half a million excess deaths. Instead we have a couple of people having a beer for the media's benefit and getting along nicely, after they had a bit of an altercation. This is nothing to do with where one is in the world. As for there being an AfD, I'm actually waiting for reasons why it shouldn't be taken to an AfD with a move to wikinews.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Recentism essay's main point seems to be balance?

This page in a nutshell: Articles on Wikipedia have a tendency to focus on recent events. Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current events. However, it may be appropriate to have some awareness of balance and historical perspective.
— WP:RECENTISM

↜Just M E here , now 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is an essay, not a guideline, let alone a policy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well said, the Hutton Inquiry quite comparable, it was perhaps quite important to some people at one point, it was big in the news and was sensationalised as a way to get rid of tony blair, that was actually the whole objective of the whole over sensationalized story, and that is what is going on here, I don't know the coatrack as I am english but I feel it is anti obhama and with racism issues. On the Hutton report now all the editors have gone away, have a look at the viewing figures [[19]] the same will happen to this page soon, way before Xmas. If the photos are kept in now, when the news has gone away and the editors with it and the viewers have gone then the mugshot and the arrest picture will be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means, AFD both articles. I don't think anything we say here will convince you otherwise. --agr (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to put words into my mouth, why you suggest it I fail to understand, I have no desire at all to delete this article or the hutton article, they are both clearly very useful and both beneficial to the readers of the encyclopeadia. Encouraging me to do things that you know have zero chance of success is not very helpful (imo). This discussion is about the pictures. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My apoliges. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. If you look at the thread above under the heading Err... you'll see that it is about whether this article should exist at all. In fact you'll see VsevolodKrolikov, who started this heading, has written "I'm actually waiting for reasons why it shouldn't be taken to an AfD with a move to wikinews." I thought you were supporting his position. My remark should have been addressed to him. Sorry for any confusion.--agr (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am wrong, no need to apologise, I was just posting about the general situation, the section title ERR is a bit blind. I have actually commented my opinions about deletion by accident, I am for keep and now I am leaving this section for ever. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think Henry Louis Gates will be best remembered for this

By most people, yes.

the difference between a crisis and an incident is exactly what is at issue here

My point is and was, regardless of what you call it, it is notable enough for its own article.

you also picked on my "word choices", so no pleading innocence, please

Apology accepted.

Your comments that the incident (which ended, let's not forget, with them having a beer and getting on well) may well have policy implications, suggest that you also need to read WP:CRYSTAL.

My comments regarding policy implications was in response to an assertion that you made that there wouldn't be any policy implications. Who needs to read WP:CRYSTAL here?

I'm really starting to get the sense that you're trying to pick a fight here. If you really feel strongly that the article need not exist, then AfD is the place to go.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just rather surprised and disappointed by the answers I'm getting. Comparison to the Hutton report is simply ridiculous, for reasons I detailed above. Notability is not the same as being on people's TV news right now, but that's all that's effectively been cited. Temporary fame for one thing is not the same as notability. WP:CRYSTAL has been taken to mean "No one knows what will happen, so anything might be notable", which is not what the policy is. At the moment, nothing about this case seems notable enough for it to have its own article on wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If our answers are disappointing you, perhaps you'll get better ones at WP:AfD. Best of luck. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As there's clearly a hell of a lot of distance between myself and most other editors here, I've asked for comments here at the BLP noticeboard.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

2 edit requests

Deletable image-caption

Add

to the File:Arrest of Henry Louis Gates.jpg image caption, pls. I believe consensus is coming out solidly on the side of keeping the PD mugshot image, which will make the non-free image unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a disputed tag to that (the photo adds a lot over and above the mugshot which adds nothing really); should the image caption still be tagged? –xeno^talk 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would object to this edit request. The arrest photo uniquely shows the actual arrest. The mug shot is not a substitute. --agr (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're splitting hairs on this one - both photos are part of the arrest. It's debatable which one is better, but one is definitely free and the other is not. But I'd like to hold off on this edit request until the IFD process is completed.Mattnad (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Debatable? How so? The mugshot explains nothing, the porch shot adds a lot of context. –xeno^talk 20:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The booking photo an official record of the arrest (usually considered a good thing from an illustrative point of view). We have many booking photos in Wikipedia for this reason and mainstream publishers, including NPR, Time, and Newsweek thought so too about this photo in particular. What I find it paradoxical that people will argue on the one hand that it adds nothing, while on the other hand it adds too much (and so it must be removed because of harm etc. etc.)Mattnad (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Booking photos contain little information beyond what any good photo of the subject contains, but they contain a great deal of insinuation, "laden for characterizing the defendant as a careerist in crime." (Comm. Mass. v. Martin) The fact of the arrest is not in dispute and does not need to be "documented." The arrest photo, however, is the only known photograph of the arrest itself. In addition to showing Prof. Gates in handcuffs being led from his home, it shows several arresting officers, including one, Sgt. Leon Lashley, who is quoted in the article (as far as I know there is no free image of Lashley available). These details are highly germane to the article--agr (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but you might take a cue from the professional editors at NPR, Time, New York Magazine, The LA Times, Newsweek and The Black Christian News (among many others) who felt the booking photo was appropriate for articles about the arrest. In other words, there's a mountain of easily sourced evidence that these photographs are relevant. Mattnad (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's beside the point of this thread which seeks to have the arrest photo removed on NFCC grounds. Do you think the mugshot helps the reader understand the article better than the arrest photo? (I've nullified the edit-protected request, this clearly doesn't enjoy consensus) –xeno^talk 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think both are important for different reasons. But I note that those saying the mughot adds nothing have argued against it for other reasons too. They are desperately trying to protect the porch photo so they can eliminate the PD booking photo "as adding nothing". It's gaming the system in my opinion which is why I've taken pains to point out that many mainstream professional editors see both photos as adding something as a counterpoint. Mattnad (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought you were also arguing for removal of the arrest image. I think they can both stay, though still don't think the mugshot adds much, if anything, to the readers' understanding of the article. However, it's a free image so there's less of a need for it to satisfy such a criteria. –xeno^talk 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image caption

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)

Done –xeno^talk 12:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Another archive?

Since I ruffled feathers last time I did this myself... what do you all think of archiving the following sections:

3 Shift part of Obama involvement from Lead to Article

8 What's the point of this?

10 Two cents on two topics

11 Link primary source of The Root's Gates interview?

12 Heads up - phenomenal CSMonitor news piece wrt civil liberties

13 (1) Arrest photo caption (2) Sgt. Lashley

15 Archiving

17 Navbox

19 Canvassing

--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

^YGoing once? twice? sold.

[1] tation

[1]