Talk:Killing of Oscar Grant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Criticism of Indybay.org

Resolved

I've reverted good faith edits by user 71.142.230.181 to remove references from Bay Area Independent Media Center (Indybay.org). Despite this editors assertions, Indybay is NOT a blog. You can find more information on the site here - http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/12/08/16643971.php I do believe the reporting there on this incident is consistent with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizationsCritical Chris (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IP address editor 71.142.242.8 keeps reverting souced material from indybay.org, and calls it a "blog." See this edit here - User 12:02, January 8, 2009 71.142.242.8 (Talk) (15,051 bytes) (Andrew Mickel eliminated any credibility it might have once had) (undo) He's attempting to castigate the credibility of independent journalism as guilty by association with Andrew Mickel. I believe the timeline of events here http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/07/18559402.php is worthy for use as a source in this article. I believe this is especially important given the lack of coverage of OPD crowd control tactics by corporate media outlets, which, for example, state that demonstrators blocked streets, but omit the numerous police roadblocks on downtown streets throughout the evening.Critical Chris (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no criticism, either from IP address editor 71.142.242.8, or any other editors, I'm restoring these sources.Critical Chris (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indybay is not a reliable source. There is no reason to use it, especially in an article with BLP connotations. THF (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Renamed

Resolved

Based on the conversation below, the article is now BART Police Shooting of Oscar Grant (was 2009 Fruitvale BART Police Shooting)Wayne shoter (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this article ought to be named: "BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant" I believe it's appropriate in this case that the victim/detainee's (call him what you want) name be prominently in the title of the article. Compare: Rodney King and Amadou DialloCritical Chris (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the simple title of "2009 BART Police Shooting" is inherently loaded with weakness and inaccuracy, what if they shoot someone else next week? The year has just started and much could happen between now and 2010. Also, it makes it seem like this could be their only shooting incident of the year, which it very well could be, but we can't assume that.Critical Chris (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I changed it to 2009 Fruitvale BART Police Shooting, but I like BART Police Shooting of Oscar Grant67.169.94.129 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Critical Chris: on the issue of dates, please review our MoS and WP:CRYSTAL: we are required to provided the shortest unambiguously descriptive neutral title that doesn't look into the future. The Year in Front format is emerging as a way to date events that might not be unique: but if another event happens in this year, we simply rename then as there is no deadline.

My question to you is if this was the first ever notable shooting incident the BART Police?

If this is the first, then there is no need for the date, as it serves no disambiguation purposes, so I support changing it to lose the date. This should not be implied as me supporting the current title without a date, just that the date has no reason to be there. However, should there be another similar incident, it would have to include "January 2009" and if there is another in this month, then "XX January 2009".

However, while the title can be made better, I resent your implication that this is on purpose and a result of skewing of the events for one side or the other, please assume good faith, we are all in this together. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your rationale. No this isn't the first BART PD shooting. I never implied that the original title was a symptom of a "skewing of the events" "on purpose," but rather that it has inherent disadvantages as does a title without a date arguably. What are your thoughts on this: "2009 BART Police Shooting of Oscar Grant" ?Critical Chris (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The year "2009" only serves to qualify which BART shooting, which having the name of the victim already does. The name as it is seems good to me. RomaC (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both as partly satisfying request and to show how to close threads--Cerejota (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Wayne shoter has removed content posted by other users here. I have requested he restore this content. He probably wanted to archive the content, but as a reminder this should be done with consensus and using the guidelines in the WP:ARCHIVE page. Continous removal of other people's content, and content created by oneself that is part of an active discussion is frowned upon, and repeated instances can be considered vandalism. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually created this entire article, and there were many sections that were resolved since the article was created. For example, the article name, uppercase vs. lowecase. I was not aware of an archive feature and will use it in the future if necessary, but I have not removed anyone's comments or concerns, just issues that have been resolved. I also clearly labeled everything with 'edit summary'.Wayne shoter (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, restore the content ASAP, where it belongs in the threading and do not remove additional content. Please read WP:OWN: that you created this article is irrelevant, as you do not own it.

What has been resolved or hasn't been resolved is not for you to decide, but for the community, and providing easy access to the archive of the postings is the way the community decides this. However, you removed a posting *I did* which is impossible for it to have been resolved, as the events have not progressed to the point I commented. You removal of this content doesn't match your edit summary.

As I said in your talk page, read WP:ARCHIVE if you feel the page must be archived because its gettign too long. I am not doing it because the content MUST be restored before activating archive. Again, please restore the content as soon as possible. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This was my mistake, I was simply trying to clean things up and all the articles are back.. I apologize to everyone who was affected by this.Wayne shoter (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I though so, its a rather common mistake. :D --Cerejota (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, now that this has been resolved, I'm requesting that we actually remove this article. Seems like small mix-up, now I understand, and would request not to have an article dedicated to an accident that has been corrected.Wayne shoter (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't do that in article talk pages, and it is generally frowned upon in user talk pages except for extreme cases of embarrassing incivility in order to show good faith. You see, it is considered good that people see that there was a mix-up, and that it was resolved (or not). It allows the community, if they so want, to get a feel of the discussions and of you as an editor. What I will do is setup the automatic archiving, which would archive convos I am guessing at this volume once a week. I would have preferred that you do it, so you would learn, but you can try it out in your on talk page. It is way more recommended than blanking, as it makes people trust you more, a good thing (we are required to assume good faith, we are not required to trust people, but it is a good idea, and trust is a two way street). Ask around, and everyone will tell you this. That said, sometimes if a conversation ends, you can close it, like I am doing with this one now (please see that there will be templates at the top and bottom). I highly recommend you do not start doing this until you become familiar with etiquette. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of content, Part 2

Resolved

"...but I have not removed anyone's comments or concerns, just issues that have been resolved. I also clearly labeled everything with 'edit summary'.Wayne shoter (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)"

...But you did revert your own comments from your edit here:

"See, that's my point. You meant to spell 'germane', and phrases like "encyclopedic treatment" worry me. We are attempting to create a reliable and accurate account of this issue, and with all respect, the article is being littered with typos, bloat, and no NPOV with your edits."Wayne shoter (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, that was after we discussed comments, fixing typos -- dude, read the edit summary, I clearly said, I'm removing this because it was posted after we had a discussion about wiki civility, that it is improper to point out typos, that etc. I've apologized, and I've stopped, no need to discuss this further. If we keep adding content removal threads, we just get more bloat in here.

The bottom line is, I did not know that the deal with Wiki is, you keep everything, even if it is resolved, or if you wish to remove your own comments, you get labeled as "drastically deleting content". Had I known that this would be the result of trying to "clean up" the talk page, I would have never done it, and certainty will never do it again. Furthermore, I feel bad because now the article is tagged with neutrality, when everyone seems to agree that it was between myself and Chris, and we have resolved this issue. This makes me feel like two people have now altered the credibility of this article for all the users that come to find out more information and don't read this long talk page, only to see that the neutrality tag is a result of an unrelated argument on Wiki protocol, not on the facts of the case. I hope to see the neutrality tag removed.Wayne shoter (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Wayne shoter (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it all stays here for time immemorial. In regards to the POV tag, I personally have yet to raise any concerns about the neutrality of this article, I think it's quite neutral so far, and I didn't place the tag their either, and do feel it weakens the article, and as such I'm going to be bold and remove it. If anyone wants to toss it back in, please make your case here, as it seems I have the consensus of two editors here.Critical Chris (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Resolved

User:Wayne shoter continues to remove or radically alter content interpreting Officer Mehserle's physical demeanor immediately after the shooting, as seen in various videos. If his interpretation of that demeanor differs from the content, I would request that be posted in addition, rather than the entire content be censored. Pekoebrew (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Pekoebrew used a bunch of weasel words in your description ("some say", "apparently"). I don't think it is our job to interpret what Mehserle was thinking, is it? Seriously, I get the message about deletion, but this isn't the case.Wayne shoter (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I just sourced NYTimes on this specific sentence. Its neutral, I would like to avoid the word 'apparently' - do you guys agree?Wayne shoter (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I used the "weasel words" in an attempt to placate you, because you continued to delete my attempt to interpret Mehserle's demeanor. I don't think posting such interpretations are necessarily out of place, if tentatively stated. That said, I find your latest change to "looked stunned" acceptable, if you can accept my addition of "or surprised". Pekoebrew (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually just deleted "looked stunned". It seemed unnecessary with the "or surprised" and surprised seemed to describe it better but that is just my opinion. Feel free to adjust it but I think both seems silly. Didn't look at the talk page.

"Looked stunned" was directly from the NYTimes, and I cited it. No need to placate me, just don't use weasel words. Not deleting your editing, just trying to stick to facts.Wayne shoter (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not finding the word "stunned" anywhere on that NYTimes page. Pekoebrew (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the link in the ref was changed? it's this article -- search for 'stunned'.Wayne shoter (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see "stunned" there. Pekoebrew (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pekoebrew, would you agree that I'm not 'continuing' to change or radically delete things? Can we remove this article, or change it to a more meaningful title?Wayne shoter (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with the passage the way it is. Someone else who deleted your "stunned", and I agree with him that "surprised" is a better description. Pekoebrew (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Surprised is fine.Wayne shoter (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Are you guys aware we cannot interpret anything? Its called original research. The guys digging the sources have the right idea. Thanks--Cerejota (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)!

I have to agree with Cerejota, we can't offer our own POV interpretation of his state of mind, and besides, even if this was a close up shot of Mehserle's face with a 500 mm lens, and we were all licensed psychologists, we still couldn't interpret that. Any such interpretations need to be sourced and I'd suggest placing them in the "theories" section.Critical Chris (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wayne, its called "thread" or "section" not article. Its confusing because it sounds like you want to delete or close the entire page. See above as to why that is not done nor it is wise. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I think it's amusing that I requested that a section above be removed, and instead, it is now bright red :) We could say this is my first Wiki article, but I've been working hard at keeping it NPOV, etc. Thanks for your guidance.Wayne shoter (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to help bring wikipedians on... and you have the right idea in terms of organizing things etc. :D--Cerejota (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization in title?

Resolved

Shouldn't the title be "BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant"? Alansohn (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I'mma'gonna go ahead and change that. FlyingToaster 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on image

Resolved

There are a number of people in the picture associated with the article. Which one is Mehserle? That should be explicitly stated in the caption (I have not seen the video, so I don't know, or I'd fix it myself). Samer (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

States it now, good call. -- Banjeboi 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)