Talk:Killing of Oscar Grant

Theories Deletion?

I submit that it is far to early to speculate on theories. Should we delete this section?Wayne shoter (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they're newsworthy. They are also germaine to an encyclopedic treatment of this subject.Critical Chris (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's newsworthy, it seems to be non-neutral. I'm hiding it for now. BoL (Talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reaction Cleanup

The riot paragraph is has a lot of details with no references. I'm not going to keep removing it, as I spent time to clean it up and Critical Chris keeps reverting his version.Wayne shoter (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the section needs references, I'm attempting to find them, but corporate media coverage of the incident has little details of police crowd control tactics. The facts need to be there though and the paragraph should at least have a nuetral POV that details police use of force and special weapons and tactics against demonstratorsCritical Chris (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added references, but that's still not good enough for Wayne shoter. Please see discussion of Indybay.org sources.Critical Chris (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a reaction? "Video of the incident was disseminated widely in the first few days of the year. As of January 6, 2009, the eyewitness videos have been downloaded more than 450,000 times from (local Fox affiliate) KTVU-TV's Web site which is tantamount to two months' worth of downloads in a few days. An annotated version of one video uploaded to YouTube on Sunday was averaging more than 1,000 views per hour.[9]" Videos are always downloaded, and why is 1,000 an hour relevant? This has nothing to do with the case.

The wide dissemination of the video and the outrage over it, I believe, has much to do with the demonstrations on the night of January 7.Critical Chris (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the question: Why is the number of downloads on YouTube or KTVU part of the 'reaction' of the event? A 'reaction' to the event was the riot/protest - not technical data of online viewership of the videos. With respect, the article is being degraded with bloated passages and irrelevant data.Wayne shoter (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As suspected, Critical Chris is pushing his own POV with this article -- clearly this is irrelevant, and are not willing to discuss this situation on the talk page. By reverting without discussing, you are diminishing the article.Wayne shoter (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that folks 'reacted' to this incident by virally disseminating this video, which could explain (to a sociologist for example) the outrage and riots that followed. Now it would be original research on my part if I tried to say that the number of hits on YouTube led to the riots...I'm not doing that though. I'm merely mentioning the sourced material covered by the news media. Now you may have valid concerns about the "bloatedness" of this article as per Wikipedia:LENGTH however, I'd note that while this article may be getting large rather quickly, I'd also note the number of sources that have now been added to the article, which adds to the overall KB count. Yet, make no mistake, I do believe that perhaps this subject, becuase of it's clear notability (does anyone dispute that at this point?) deserves a thorough, lengthy article which explores different aspects of the case and the events surrounding it.Critical Chris (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is hard for me to take you seriously with so many typos. 'Speculatively' was a first for me. Also, I'm not concerned with KB count, I'm concern that you selectively add bloated detail to push the view in your favor. Example, you talk about all the equipment the police use (tear gas, riot hear, face masks, guns, type of gun, etc), but you don't explain that the police announced on a loudspeaker that they needed the crowd to disperse, that there would be force used if they didn't, and that they might get injured well before the batons came out. =! NPOV. Wayne shoter (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Don't be a dick http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Speculatively BillyTFried (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is hard for me to take you seriously with so many typos." ...TO USER "Wayne shoter" WATCH IT! There's no place for your incivility here on Wikipedia. We don't belittle people here for their typos. Please educate me if you feel I've made too may typos for your own patience. Of course, if "speculatively" is a "first" for you, you could always read this article. -Critical Chris (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for this comment.Wayne shoter (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The disputed neutrality tag has been added to the article; there's clearly an argument over it's neutrality. Let me make a suggestion for a first step of making it more neutral: remove any unsourced statements that are disputed as biased and check for and remove weasel words. --Abusing (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

People, the riots are certainly related and if they do not pan out, perhaps a single article is all that is necessary. However, if they pan out, they must be separated, as is the case with Rodney King and 1992 Los Angeles riots. --Cerejota (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Indybay.org

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)

Article Renamed

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)

Photo?

Anyone have any ideas for attempting to include any sort of photo in the article? Perhaps a screenshot from the video currently all over the media? I'm not an expert on copyright permissions and such.Critical Chris (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What was wrong with my screen cap of the KTVU video from the anonymous cell phone video? Wayne shoter (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, did you upload it here? Did anyone revert it?Critical Chris (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is here: File:2009-bart-shooting.jpg. Looks like the fair-use rationale for this image has been disputed. --Lockley (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any strategies for including any photo of Grant, or the scene of the incident? I do believe it would make the article more useful.Critical Chris (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added the photo to both articles and call upon other editors to help find a way (copywrite permissions and such) for this photo, or any photo related to the case, to be included in both articles.Critical Chris (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the fair use rationale disputation notice from File:2009-bart-shooting.jpg. (Check this message to see how to link to images without showing them.) It was added mechanically because the rationale did not initially link to the articles where the image is used. It is my understanding that we're a bunch of total #¤%&s when it comes to copyright, because applicable copyright laws are totally #¤%&!§*. Sorry. That image should have no (unfixable) problems and at least one of the amateur videos has been released from copyright with a request for distribution, so there's no fear of lacking a photo. --Kizor 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the law's fault, not ours. Furthermore, we are released as GFDL-compatible, so all content must be GFDL-compatible. This is not negotiable and not open to discussion or consensus. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I contacted KTVU but their email bounces... 67.169.94.129 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bio of Grant / Prior Conviction

Does anyone know his birth date (not just year)? Is the fact that he has a prior conviction (involving a gun and police chase) notable? Wayne shoter (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Known for entry says "Killed by police brutality", is that correct? Do we know right now if it was police brutality? I would say he is known for being shot by a BART Police Officer. Wayne shoter (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

From the main BART article/POV concerns

I've reverted efforts by editor MLRoach to supress press conference quotations by Burris. Whether or not they are factual, they are absolutely newsworthy relevant to encyclopedic coverage of this case:

1. 11:12, January 7, 2009 Critical Chris (Talk | contribs) (64,108 bytes) (why stop with Burris, why not delete quotations from "police self defense trainer" c'mon!Undid revision 262577333 by MLRoach (talk)) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 10:45, January 7, 2009 MLRoach (Talk | contribs) (62,671 bytes) (→2009 BART police shooting: remove a bunch of things said by the lawyer. Wikipedia's about facts, not just reprinting what someone says.) (undo)

What MLRoach reverted: "On Tuesday January 6, 2009, Burris commented "Without so much as flinching, the officer Mehserle stood over Mr. Grant and mercilessly fired his weapon, mortally wounding Mr. Grant with a single gunshot wound to the back." "The ultimate, important question in this case is what did the officer do and what did he intend to do?"

I can understand not wanting too many quotations, and wanting a succinct article, but why is a quotation from a "police self defense trainer" a sacred cow for this editor?Critical Chris (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MLRoach - So despite your hypocritical, careless, and convenient oversight of only those quotations with which you disagree, you come on my own talk page and add this "stuff"? Your note and my responses to follow.

"You seem to be pushing your point on Bay Area Rapid Transit. Please state facts and don't just post what other people said. Please listen to the point of Wikipedia's point of view policy." Thanks --Matt (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Pushing what point? I'm not adding anything that's not ALL OVER the news media right now. I maintain all of my edits are encyclopedic, and well sourced. I'm well versed in WP:NPOV, do you care to educate me as to how my edits are POV? I'll be waiting for your response here. You're the one who conveniently and selectively chose to revert quotations from Burris, while ignoring quotes from the "police self-defense expert," then you chastize me for for adding them in the first place. WTF is with your hypocrisy? And why are you going on the defensive here on my talk page, did you not see the talk page for the article?"Critical Chris (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

These quotes from Burris and others simply do not add anything to the shooting of Oscar Grant at BART. It bloats the article.Wayne shoter (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I get the feeling Burris will be repeating and adding new quotes daily, which is fine -- but are we to add every one and reference it? This article should be about the shooting and the details of what happened -- for example, if Burris 'calls for the child to be removed' -- it's irrelevant.Wayne shoter (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You may have a point with no bloating up the article with too many quotes and the article could be pages long with all the folks that have commented on the case at this point, though granted, Burris is handling the civil case against the District, and what he has to say is far more relevant than many others. I do believe we should mention the fact that Burris is acting to legally have Mehserle's child removed from his custody. That is completely relevant and notable as a fact of the case occurring in the aftermath. If authorities remove his child from his custody, for psychiatric reasons for example, this could certainly affect Mehserle's credibility at his criminal trial.Critical Chris (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are speculating -- what 'could' happen with his kid? What 'should' happen because the attorney mentioned it? We here to document what has happened, not what might happen. I really don't feel like having this simple back and forth, as it seems like you are going to push your views regardless. I've decided to retire from updating this article. Good luck.Wayne shoter (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While we all have our own opinions, I'm not speculatively including them in the article. Thanks for assuming good faith in me guy, and for labeling me a pusher, and please mind your own edits.Critical Chris (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Section with Greece added by IP 70.249.163.151

I deleted this section, calling it not neutral, because it goes well beyond the facts of the case to draw theoretical comparisons to other (unrelated) stories. One could say this incident is like many others, for instance Rodney King, but doing so elicits reactions that those other incidents may conjure up, detracting from the actual facts of the case at hand. Furthermore, this comparison is not sourced and is really opinion. If a legitimate source gives good information linking the two crimes, *perhaps* it could be a section later down in the article, but not now and not at the top. I see that this IP address has added the section back - I hope that you will either delete it, or allow us to discuss it here. Thanks. FlyingToaster 09:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The entire article is so new that the information is a bit disorganized (which is to be expected), and it only confuses the incident more when comparisons are drawn that are seemingly unrelated.Wayne shoter (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...linking the two crimes. What crimes? In both the Greece shooting incident December 6, 2008 and the Oakland shooting incident January 1, 2009, criminal intent has not been proven. The comparison is completely sourced and is not opinion. The Oakland Riots of January 7, 2009 and the Greece Riots after December 6, 2008 are not a matter of opinion, they are both a matter of fact, and the cause is identical, and not a matter of opinion either, but a matter of fact. But you can go ahead and wait until hundreds of commentators around the world also begin stating the obvious (what is stated in the paragraph you deleted) and then you will feel more comfortable including mention of the Greek riots in the article, and kindly keeping your opinions to yourself. btw, it is spelled elicit not illicit. Good night.70.249.163.151 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I made a friend! FlyingToaster 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

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)

Edit dispute

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)

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)

Capitalization in title?

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)