Talk:Killing of Oscar Grant/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Handcuffed / Plastic Ties While Grant was Shot?

News reports have been saying Grant was not handcuffed, but by viewing the IndyMedia video, it is clear that his hands were tied or cuffed behind his back. Watch the video. I find it hard to believe someone could get shot with two entry wounds and be able to keep their hands behind their back freely, as shown in the current picture.Wayne shoter (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though this is an YouTube amateur video, pretty compelling evidence : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r6M05NWy_I&watch_response Wayne shoter (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps but I don't think it is definitive. There was multiple witnesses within feet of Grant so we'll have a reliable source soon enough. -- Banjeboi 07:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wayne shoter, is there any reason that you are supressing your above parental-toned gem? "With all respect" really guy?Critical Chris (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

SECTION BREAK 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)

Speculation, but one theory about why Mehserle is not coming forward is because Grant was handcuffed at the time of the shootingWayne shoter (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

At least two of these news reports have described Grant being handcuffed after the shooting. --Lockley (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please add these sources (the news reports you mentioned) to the article. This evolving good article candidate could use them them.Critical Chris (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

While the inclusion of the theories themselves in an overview of "the incident" would be non-neutral, no one is proposing to do that, excluding of course the parallel discussion over edits which embrace conjecture such as "he raised his hands to his face as if in shock," and what not. The theories are out there, they are being talked about by all manner of "experts" in the media. Theories deserve inclusion in a good encyclopedic article, in the proper context of course, which is why the section is merely titled "theories." I would say that such a section ought to be balanced and representative of a variety of said theories. Also, if we are to quote "police self-defense trainers" then in the interests of fairness and a balanced article, we ought to also document the theories of Civil Rights experts and activists that participate in organizations such as Copwatch, other legal observers, and to the many others that believe this was a spontaneous execution. Given these issues, I'm restoring the "theories" section to the articleCritical Chris (talk) 20:33, 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)

Apology accepted. I hope to continue to work with you to make this a good or featured article if you're in this for the long haul. Sorry if my tone has been defensive and vitriolic also, but I take my editing a bit too seriously at times.Critical Chris (talk) 19:35, 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)

I'm actually against such a tag. There's an argument all right, but on the basis of this section and the "From the main..." one below, it's less an argument about the article than an argument, period. --Kizor 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but never the less, neutrality conflicts have been brought up several times. I think it's fair to warn Wikipedia users that come to this page that editors are arguing about it's neutrality. Since it appears to be a somewhat heated, even personal conflict that's all the more reason to let the users know.--Abusing (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove the tag.Wayne shoter (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, see comment below.Critical Chris (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what comment you're referring to. I noticed the tag has been moved to the reaction section, and that should be fine for now. Of course, it seems a rewrite is necessary, and until that happens, the article is not "fine" at all. The reaction section is one of the most important sections of the article.--Abusing (talk) 23:13, 10 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)

The opening paragraph of the Reaction article needs to be cited and cleaned up:

The shooting "stirred outrage" among those who believe it was tantamount to execution. Demonstrators decried the incident as yet another case of police brutality. Because the videos were widely broadcast and streamed online, there were a significantly large number of people who viewed the video in a short period of time. There was also the perception that BART investigators were not conducting an effective investigation, and that Mehserle was not cooperating with investigators.

Any ideas?Wayne shoter (talk) 06:20, 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)

Agree with Wayne, that is specific without original research. RomaC (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think you need to remove the prior conviction information unless the source states, and we repeat, that his prior conviction was known in some way before he was shot. Otherwise it is "fruit of the gibbet" (used 1700s through late 1800s) refering to a hanged man and derives from the Halifax Gibbet Law under which a prisoner was executed first and his guilt or innocence determined afterwards. Find the source that supports his prior was known prior and state what the source says. -- Banjeboi 06:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think if he has a bio this is relevant information. His prior criminal history does not completely define him as a person but neither does his job or kids. It can unfortunately be spun but it is noteworthy.Cptnono (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • But this isn't his bio, it's about the shooting and we need to write NPOV and tie this into why it's relevant to the subject of the shooting. The family parts are reasonable as they are suing in regards to the case. But if we can't relate his prior conviction it presents a POV that Grant, in some way, deserved to be shot or otherwise treated violently by the police. As the article progresses it could be brought back in appropriately but we need source that it is relevant. -- Banjeboi 09:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've refactored this information to match more accurately the spirit of the source and qualify that the source reports this (and not us). -- Banjeboi 10:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree with some of your reasoning but the section does look much better now.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 11 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)

Another clear video from IndyMedia to add (dunno where)

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/06/18559091.php --TIB (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the one currently added? If it isn't, first download the flv video, then convert to OGG and upload to the Wikimedia Commons. then link using the usual image tagging--Cerejota (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That will produce artifacting because the FLV needs to be converted to MOV (or another format) first, then to OGG. Would it be possible to get the original MOV from them?Wayne shoter (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the file as a MOV now. But I can't find a proper MOV to OGG converter for Mac. If someone knows, please advise.Wayne shoter (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the same video. But what is the deal with having it be a tiny thumbnail?Wayne shoter (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you have my consensus to add this video.Critical Chris (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of Technology

I agree that what differentiates this case from others is the video footage -- also, with Twitter and local blogs, people are getting the news about this local event much faster than waiting for the nightly news, or a once-a-day CNN spot. However, how do we meaningfully add a Twitter cite to a Wiki article? Is this useful as an external link? http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23bart or perhaps http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23bartshooting ? Wayne shoter (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm good question, I'm comfortable with someone deleting a company name as per the not advertising policy, but am neutral on including a cite/link you referred to, and am not the first guy to ask on the best way to embed HTML, if that's what you're asking. I do think it's important to state the news article's general point about the role of technology in the protests.Critical Chris (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had similar issues with youtube and I think using {{cite web}} is fine, and perhaps preferred to linking a single video. Whatever it is supporting needs to be neutral and supported by the search result. Sites like Twitter and Youtube each had dozens of videos posted about both the incident and the resulting media coverage and protests.[1] -- Banjeboi 06:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mid sentence references

I did some digging through the edit history and noticed this edit (detailed below) in which user E dog95 moved the source of the language from the New York Times article on the riots to the end of this sentence - "In the ensuing hours, a small clutch of rioters burned the contents of trash cans,[30]..." As per WP:REFPUNC which allows for material to be referenced mid-sentence, I'm moving to revert this move. Because of corporate media coverage of the events of night of 7 January, much of which paints the public response and protests monolithically as total rioting, overlooking peaceful protestors carry signs and candles, I see it as paramount that the "reliable," fact-checked, "mainstream" publication of record (the New York Times) source of the phrase "small clutch" be unambiguously quoted verbatim in no uncertain terms. Because of the controversy over the entire matter, I don't think it's absolutely critical that the article follow a boilerplate Chicago Manual of Style form throughout. Otherwise, I can forsee the record of the event being conveniently sliced and diced by those who would spin the record otherwise.Critical Chris (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Here is the change from the edit history.(cur) (prev) 14:17, January 9, 2009 E dog95 (Talk | contribs) m (30,197 bytes) (→Public reaction: + punctuation WP:REFPUNC) (undo)

I can't see anyone winning a content argument based on the idea that the reference isn't right there. Your style indicates a paranoia. I'm moving the references just for uniformity. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure it's bound to be controversial, (the way protests are covered, violent vs. peaceful) and corporate media is notorious for spinning coverage. It's difficult to pay attention to, and cover people quietly carrying candles when guys are tossing trashcans through the windows of a fast food joint. I feel we should get it right with the direct language from the New York times, one of the best records we have of the January 7th Riots.Critical Chris (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I almost always move refs to the end of sentences for accessibility issues. The article will be completely worked over as well so having to look at several references isn't the worst thing facing an editor. The one exception, IMHO, is a lengthy list of items that is being questioned so each item is reffed as they appear to ensure compliance. -- Banjeboi 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure go through all of the references carefully like anyone. But this may be one of those times where you might consider departing from your "almost always" policy.Critical Chris (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to keep in mind your preference on this article, however, my point is that both methods are acceptable and the article is undergoing rapid revisions presently. -- Banjeboi 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New article section? "Johannes Mehserle"

I see there's now a section on Oscar, with references to his criminal history as a young man. What is known about Mehserle? Anybody digging for public records on him? There are so many new articles, my head has been spinning, but I have heard he graduated from a police academy up in Napa, and Jerry Brown (if you believe him) mentioned in a KGO radio interview this morning that he's been relocated to the Central Valley? Hmmm, perhaps by one of his own? The article could become much, much more multi-dimensional with an investigative section on Mehserle.Critical Chris (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's not likely going to be much more than we already have. I just did a google search and I don't see much new material that would warrant a section. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple articles that may be of help:

• http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2009/01/08/news/local/doc4966bd9168315466047323.prt
• http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/09/MNQV156LHC.DTL&type=printable

--BaldPark (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This should help BART officer lived quiet life before fatal shooting. -- Banjeboi 06:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Johannes section

Do you think it would be necessary? Here's a source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/09/MNQV156LHC.DTL&tsp=1 Cyanidethistles (talk) {Tim C} 07:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It will get tinkered with just like Oscar Grant's section but is relevant.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See Also

The See Also list does not look neuteral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 07:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I must agree. See also sections are waiting rooms for wikilinks awaiting entry into the main text of the article and are a part of the article. It's ok for then to be there a while but a reasonable editor/reader should see the connection of why they are included. Sometimes a short comment is added. All of these, however, seem rather loaded POV. With the exception of Rodney King, who wasn't killed, these other links are a bit mysterious.

• Amadou Diallo
• Los Angeles riots of 1992
• Rodney King
• Tasering death of Robert Dziekanski

I love See also sections as they are a great place to park a link you want to use but just haven't found the right spot. I'm not seeing where these may ever fit. -- Banjeboi 10:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• (*EDIT CONFLICT*) I've removed the entries for Critical Resistance (no discernable link to the incident) and International Day Against Police Brutality (good idea, but only the most tenuous of links to a single incident.) The remaining entries are:
  • Amadou Diallo
  • Los Angeles riots of 1992
  • Rodney King
  • Tasering death of Robert Dziekanski

These are all well-known similar incidents and seem like valid background reading or further reading. Don't shy away from doing such changes yourself (though use the edit summary box to explain why, a lot of problems on WP come from valid edits not readily identifiable as such). --Kizor 10:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words in lead

I've rewritten the lead into what I believe to be a more concise paragraph which outlines the facts of the case in a punchy first paragraph. That's what I like to see when I scroll my mouse over a pipe link. I thought the previous use of passive voice which states for example: "shot by BART police" with no attribution to the shooter was both poor writing, and misleading, as his name was buried further down in the lead. I believe it also flies in the face of Weasel_words#Passive_voice.Critical Chris (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree somewhat about the officer's name being in the lede sentence. The issue of the incident isn't about the officer personally, but about deadly force used by police, yet again, against a young man of color. Also the context of New Year's Eve is germane to understanding why there were so many people, perhaps why so many had camera phones and video-recorders and why the police were in full force rather than any other 2am train ride. -- Banjeboi 20:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, that sounds an awful lot like original research on your part, can you cite all your "context" there? I'm going to let other editors weigh in on this.Critical Chris (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As relevant as that might sound and even if it is "germane to understanding" things, it's still too superfluous for the lede. The lede, IMHO, should be concise, factual and punchy. There are too many possible aspects of "context" to fit in the lede. What if Grant and Mehseerle had a documented history? Would we say: "Grant made previous death threats to Mehserle" or belitled his mama, or vice versa? What if the officer hadn't slept in 5 days and was stressed to the breaking point, would we mention that also in the lead? It's too much for now, and, I believe, totally original research on your part. But maybe I haven't read the news stories you're reading. Cite it, and stick it in 'the incident.'Critical Chris (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What is OR about stating that the incident happened on New Year's Eve? Common sense is that is relevant. And please stop with the scare quotes, it seems quite disrespectful. Per WP:Lede the lede needs to summarize the article and woefuly comes short on that. It doesn't need to be punchy as much as NPOV and policy compliant. -- Banjeboi 21:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor Benjiboi keeps reverting the concise punchy factual lead to one with passive voice and weasel words. Do you have BLP issues here or what? Care to explain this: "the issue was that he's the police not him personally" ? ?Critical Chris (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

12:14, January 10, 2009 Benjiboi (Talk | contribs) (32,424 bytes) (re-adding content per WP:Lede, moving office name down one as the issue was that he's the police not him personally) (undo)

The lead should stay concise and we can explain the role of "free and extended service" in "incident" or "theories" and it's inclusion is inconsistent with WP:SUMMARY and it also smacks of original research. Are you implying the crowded train cars led to the incident?Critical Chris (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing your comments on other editors, it aggravates discussion on an already heated topic. There is also no need to post my edit-summary or needlessly act hostile towards me, or any other editor here. I think the changes I made are more in compliance with MOS but we can sort out what's best for the article. You removed the New Year's Eve content so I found a source that adds context to it's relevance and the article can, hopefully, explain why New Year's Eve 2am train ride might be a bit different from any other night. BLP concern does play a part in hanging the death on the officer. We don't know exactly what happened and a BART spokesperson related that video from different angles shed new light and they were investigating with due diligence and that the family deserved accuracy in their investigation. -- Banjeboi 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the lead of the article should be concise, with the additional context and details placed appropriately in the article itself, particularly in the "Incident" section. And as written, the Mehserle's name is buried and should be mentioned earlier. The lead certainly needs to be a lot shorter anyway. Ragan651 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

At least one expert quoted by the San Francisco Chronicle noted the crowded conditions as an element that could lead to mistaken police overreaction. That said, neither OR nor SYN should be in the article. I found a link for "extended service" [2], but not one for free service, and it would be OR/SYN to put it in there unless it was mentioned by a RS in the context of the shooting. Too, I support a more concise lede; details can be put in the main article. THF (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article though isn't about Johannes Mehserle the person, but about him as the officer. We would be stating the same thing about any officer who did this. And ledes on wikipedia need to stand alone as a summary article. This one needs to summarize the whole article, not just the zesty bits. -- Banjeboi 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead thus should include the who-what-when-where of the shooting, a sentence each on the community reaction, the dispute over the officer's intent, the status of criminal investigations, and maybe also the status of the civil suit. Anything else is extraneous muddying detail. THF (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The rest of that lede, by the way, is While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. There is now no mention that this occurred in context of New Year's Eve, there is also the misleading POV statement about the officer not making statements - this is likely per his attorney, there seems to be missing information that BART has a pending investigation. These and other salient points left out place undue weight on what hasn't been removed. I also want to point out that passive voice is not to be avoided if it is used correctly. The salient Wikipedia guideline is WP:WEASEL, which I don't think was an issue at all and the reason this thread and the deletions occurred. -- Banjeboi 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you find the current lead acceptable? As a matter of style and the English language, there rarely is an appropriate reason to use the passive voice. THF (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's much better, although the fourth paragraph sticks out, and could use a rewrite. Ragan651 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I won't oppose mob rule. New POV problems have come in. I have to take a break. Also, you may want to check out English passive voice as there does seem to be some appropriate uses. -- Banjeboi 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

English passive voice is purely descriptive. I go by the prescriptive The Elements of Style and Politics and the English Language. THF (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

further discussion of lead paragraph

I have no pride of authorship in the fourth paragraph and am open to WP:BOLD changes. THF (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Immediately after the shooting, Mehserle appears surprised, and raises his hands to his face."

I've added a cite for this sentence. As the Toronto Star notes: Yet another video surfaced yesterday, a digitally superior version of the event, that shows Mehserle clearly looking stunned seconds after the shooting, as if just realizing what's happened. THF (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe any speculations as to the officer's state of mind, whether or not they are original research, could be included in the "theories" section. I'm not sure they are appropriate for "the incident" which I believe ought to have as factual a tone as possible. Do you care to make a compelling case for inclusion there.Critical Chris (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hence the verb "appears" rather than "is." There is no speculation, just a neutral description of the appearance. I have no objection to replacing "surprised" with "stunned" to directly correspond with what the WP:RS says if you find the synonym problematic. rTHF (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see in the cite that Mehserle "holds his head in two hands", but I'm not seeing that in the video. I would think his right hand still held his firearm. But in the absence of another cite, I will desist. Pekoebrew (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I rewatched the video (a few times) and there is a delay of about 1 1/2 seconds between the shot and the "holding head in his hands", during which time the gun appears to be reholstered. He clearly and briefly runs both hands on his face. This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc&e) clearly shows this at 2:27-2:29. Ragan651 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Interpreting how something looks is WP:original research. RomaC (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RomaC and recommend moving interpretations as to the officers state of mind to the theories section.Critical Chris (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Nobody is interpreting. This is sourced description from a WP:RS, as the previous talk discussion says. Chris is POV-pushing, because he's not proposing to move any of the unsourced descriptions from the section, and didn't protest when someone removed the fact tags. THF (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, I am proposing exiling any theoretical/opinion material to a "theories" section, and this would include unsourced material also. You need to slow down with me sir as Wikipedia has no deadline. Though a well-sourced subjective impression by a Toronto Star reporter, I advocate either moving "appears suprised" to a "theories" section, or at least excise it from "incident" as per WP:UNDUWEIGHT and WP:WEASEL.I don't think we've settled this yet in either direction.Critical Chris (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am against including interpretations as to the officer's state of mind in the "incident" section, however well-sourced they may be. Another editor (THF) favors inclusion of sourced speculative theory. Do any other editors want to weigh in on this discussion?Critical Chris (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, please do not misrepresent my position. I am against including speculation, too. This is not speculation. It is a physical description from a reliable source. It is the only part of that section that isn't WP:OR. THF (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've kept the statement and source but moved the interpretation on his state of mind 'surprised' to the video evidence section, which has a bit more of a interpretation and reaction tone to it. Perhaps a "reaction to video" section could be broken off from a factual description of video. BTW, we could break off the videos and list them one by one, listing names/handles url's/links of the different videographers.Critical Chris (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. THF (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

New Johannes Mehserle section

I feel that the previous "Mehserle's actions after the shooting" section should be merged with the section on Mehserle. Ragan651 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Various endorsements

The line Family friend and Napa County Supervisor Bill Dodd described Mehserle as "kind, caring, and gentle." was deleted by an editor. However, the far more self-serving description of Grant as a "loving father" and "hard worker" (even though he spent half his child's life in prison) remains in the article. Either both should be in, or both should be out, but it makes little sense (and violates NPOV) to include one and not the other. THF (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, and I'm not sure why the Mehserle line was removed. I would argue for both Grant and Mehserle's descriptions to be included. Ragan651 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I am in favor of skipping both. In general, I think we should include opinions and judgments only when absolutely necessary. I would say neither opinion should be included in the article per WP:DUE at this point. BaldPark (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I lean slightly to omitting both, also. Anyone with a strong reason for keeping both? THF (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lede revisited

Starting a fresh and neutral section to address current lede issues, do with this what you will as I will no longer edit here.0000:

• We should spell out that these "early morning hours" was New Year's Day. Later it can be explained that normally these trains didn't run but on this night they were packed with eye witnesses galore. Many, if not most, had been celebrating and brought their cameras. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Readers understand what January 1 means. The main text, if there is a cite for the proposition, can include the fact that the trains were crowded. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 27-year-old Bay Area Rapid Transit Police officer Johannes Mehserle. The officers age, and even name, really aren't that important for the lede sentence, even if this is well documented. Mehserle has already had death threats against them and the notability of this case isn't that he shot someone, it's that a police officer shot Grant. Mehserle name, IMHO, should been lowered in the lede. And yes, this is an WP:Undue and WP:Blp issue. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree on age, but the name is encyclopedic, and the difference between the lead paragraph and the third section on Wikipedia in deterring crazies is minimal at best. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• shot Oscar Grant III, who was being detained on the passenger platform at the Fruitvale BART Station after a violent altercation amongst multiple passengers on a train. We insinuate that Grant was a part of the "violent altercation" and therefore was detained. If we have proof we should state this, if not we should explain what happenned, the police were summoned because of an altercation and detained several passengers including Grant. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose an alternative wording. I see no problem with the current wording. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Although police attempted to confiscate video evidence of the incident this makes it sound like a suppression or confiscation issue and actually that source doesn't seem to talk about this. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This should be cut without a cite. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A conspiracy on the part of the BART cops to cover-up and suppress evidence of the shooting, or to obfuscate or slow down the investigation is potentially a notable major fact of the case and could be included if well-sourced. I'm still in favor of the inclusion of the mere fact that cameras were confiscated, if sourced properly.Critical Chris (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• disagree whether the shooting might have been accidental. Poor wording, maybe disagree whether the use of deadly force was accidental, as the issue seems to be that the officer thought he was tasering him instead. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No objection. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• as well as the January 7th riots, there were several days of riots, this should be simply riots. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite for this proposition? There don't appear to have been any other riots other than the four-hour disturbance on Jan. 7. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mehserle, who has received death threats, has since resigned from the BART Police Department. He has not answered any questions from the news media or any one of the multiple law enforcement agencies currently investigating the incident. Hmmm, well first off clarify the death threats were tied to this incident. Secondly, it paints Mehserle as uncooperative when he may be under his attourney's orders not to answer any questions. Thirdly, there are, as far as I'm aware, three entities investigating, BART, Alameda County and California Atty general's office. They should be mentioned until we amend with who declares what. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First, fine, though it's implicit; second, fine; third, incorrect: BART, Alameda County, and the US Attorney. Cal. Atty Gen. not investigating, except in his capacity as oversight of DA's office. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mention the NAACP's involvement, I believe because they got involved the Atty General did. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NAACP is not a major player in this, and no reliable source claims that they are. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• The case brought up issues of the use of deadly force by law enforcement against racial minorities.

Hope these items help. -- Banjeboi 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we can resolve this by mentioning Grant's race in the lede. THF (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 2009 (UTC)

"BART's response"

This section should probably be merged with the prosecution section; as it is, it appears that BART did nothing about it, when in fact they were investigating the same day. THF (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the efforts of the District, to include it's Board, are somewhat distinct from the efforts by the District Attorney to prosecute the case in state court.Critical Chris (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Prosecution" violates NPOV anyway; the two sections should be combined into "Investigation and government response." As it is, it is inaccurate. THF (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's try that and see how it flows.Critical Chris (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of January 7 riot section (Consolidated section)

• The section needs to be considerably shorter. This is not wikinews.
• The section relies too heavily on unreliable sources like Indybay, and violates NPOV. Compare the neutral coverage at [3] and [4] with the Wikipedia version. THF (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Indybay until tonight as I was formatting the references. I understand that they're all volunteer. The thought crossed my mind that maybe we shouldn't use these sources, but I didn't feel like the material wasn't also supported by mainstream sources. Having said that, is it prudent to keep these Indybay sources, being that there may potentially be content disputes? E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 02:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to keep anything from Indybay. Anything notable will be noted by a reliable source, which we should be using instead; anything Indybay notes that isn't noted by a reliable source is not likely to be reliable or neutral. THF (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The section violates NPOV. There's no mention that the rioting was instigated by a local communist group[5] and no mention that most of the riot victims were local minorities.[6] THF (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear here ... that source (both links are to the same source - San Francisco Chronicle) does not state that the rioting was instigated by a local communist group. It does state The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the "Revolution" newspaper - whose tagline is "voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A." - as he shouted "This whole damn system is guilty!" There is a neutral way to present this but you also need to present the source accurately. -- Banjeboi 14:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Revolution Books is a local communist group, as they'll be happy to admit (and their website explicitly says), but your point is well-taken, as one must not violate WP:SYN. THF (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If you feel it needs to be added may I suggest - According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the "core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore".[7] According to their website, Revolution Books "promotes Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and the publications of the Revolutionary Communist Party".[8] In this way the reader can decide for themselves if it's important. -- Banjeboi 14:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No, you were right the first time. The second sentence would violate WP:SYN. The whole section needs a rewrite; it doesn't merit more than a sentence or two. THF (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

POV tag on "January 7th Riots" section?

I see an editor has added a tag to that section, but there's little to no discussion here aside from someone criticizing Indybay.org Does anyone care to discuss this issue? I'm inclined to remove that tag as it weakens the section, which, in my opinion, is a reasonable, factual, balanced, well-sourced account of the January 7th riots, with 7 different sources there also. What about this neutrality of this section is in dispute? And what needs "cleanup?" Let's work together here to get this section right if you feel it's hurtin.'Critical Chris (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion in Talk:BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#January_7_riot_section. THF (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my mistake. My apologies to you sir for missing this.Critical Chris (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of January 7th Riots, Oakland, California

I have nominated January 7th Riots, Oakland, California, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 7th Riots, Oakland, California. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. THF (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I'm not writing about riots in Detroit, though some of them may very well warrant expansive articles. If you are suggesting the riots were non notable, and do not merit any inclusion in BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and do not merit their own article, I'd submit to you the riots were covered by the San Francisco Chronicle, The Associated Press, CNN, and The New York Times (see references in article) The international news media (Toronto Star and others) has covered the riots. This article does not make the riots notable, the news media coverage, 120 arrests, 300 affected businesses with broken windows and looted merchandise, burned cars, etc. does.Critical Chris (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, please don't duplicate discussions: keep discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 7th Riots, Oakland, California, the only place that's relevant for deciding whether the article will be deleted. THF (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merged section

Category:Articles to be merged

The merged as section it currently stands violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. It needs substantial paring, as much of it is irrelevant to the BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. I still see no basis for anything more than the two sentences it replaced given the relative importance of the event. Some of it may perhaps belong in downtown Oakland. THF (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already whittled it down substantially to the essential events of the night, almost every sentence of which is well sourced. Some of this may also belong in Downtown Oakland]]. The three paragraphs do not offset the relative weight of all the other sections, and if anything, not enough weight is given to the riots section, as it could be longer and more detailed. I believe the writing about the effect of the wide dissemination of the video causing the riots (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5480713.ece for example and http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10137796-93.html ) is consistent WP:NOTNEWS's notability guidelines for a separate article "The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way." You keep attempting to make the point that the riots are irrelevant, that they somehow occurred in a vacum, that they are unrelated to the shooting. If you don't see any basis for inclusion, I'd suggest taking a closer look at all of the national news stories about the relationship between the shooting and the rioting.Critical Chris (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. No one is complaining about the sourcing. I am relatively confident the anecdotes about a news helicopter broadcasting the riots and the fact that it was trash-collection day is well-sourced. It's just unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the article, as is much of the other detail. It can be cut down to two or four sentences without losing anything meaningful. There are several other sentences that say the same thing over and over, which could be safely consolidated into a single sentence with no loss of information. It's quite sloppily written, with many misspellings and style and punctuation errors, but there's no point in cleaning it up until we get a third opinion on whether all of the redundant details are needed.

I again repeat my suggestion that much of what you wish to write about the riots is more appropriately placed in the downtown Oakland article. The only things relevant to this article is (1) the riots stemmed from anarcho-communist agitators that hijacked a peaceful demonstration over Grant as an excuse to vandalize and loot local minority-owned businesses (a well-sourced fact that is absent from the current version and somehow managed to get omitted from even the longer version of your article); (2) a sentence describing the scope of the rioting; and (3) the Grant family's call for peace. That can be done in two to four sentences. THF (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) "the riots stemmed from anarcho-communist agitators" that "hijacked a peaceful demonstration over Grant as an excuse to vandalize and loot local minority-owned businesses" (a well-sourced fact that is absent from the current version and somehow managed to get omitted from even the longer version of your article); ...The riots were caused by that group? What's your source? I've seen mention of the group's presence there at the demonstration/march/protest/riot. Yet there are Communists at almost every major direct action political event in the Bay Area. If your assertion is conclusive fact, I haven't seen that in the news media coverage of the event. I would certainly think that would make an interesting addition to the section if well sourced that the group agitated the crowd.Critical Chris (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd read my earlier critique of the section, you'd see that I'd already provided a link: [9]. THF (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about this paragraph from Damien Bulwa's SF Gate/SF Chronicle piece: "The core group of the mob appeared to be about 40 people, several of whom were with Revolution Books, a Berkeley bookstore. A man distributed the "Revolution" newspaper - whose tagline is "voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A." - as he shouted "This whole damn system is guilty!" If that adds up to agitation, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch and otherwise agree with Benji Boi's comments above.Critical Chris (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge from January 2009 riots, Oakland, California

Please merge relevant content, if any, from January 2009 riots, Oakland, California per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 7th Riots, Oakland, California. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks.

Please remember to sign your comments. And also where's the merge? I don't see the content.Critical Chris (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All the relevant content from the riot article is already in this article. Some of the material from that article is better suited for a section in the downtown Oakland article. THF (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess you and I disagree then on what is "relevant." I don't see any merging of content here, I see a wholesale vaporization of cited material. Who are you to say what's relevant or not, versus the news media? You nomimated that article for deletion, and no one else disagreed with you on that, 4 people voted to "keep" the aticle, six to merge, NONE voted for mass deletion of content as per your original desire.Critical Chris (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, there is an extensive discussion above, and you were the only one who thought the article "BART Police Shooting" should be all about a minor violent protest by a bunch of punks from Revolution Books who were looking for an excuse to break windows. What's missing from this article that is relevant to "BART Police Shooting"? THF (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, that's an unfair indictment of the extensive editing work I've done to most aspects of the shooting article since early in the day on January 7. Go back and look through the edit history and see my edits if you need to be disabused of the notion that I believe the shooting article should be all about the riots. The riots themselves, and the details of said riots, I'd offer are more than tangentially related to the shooting.Critical Chris (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, every time I checked a cited claim you added about the riot in the fork, the text was an exaggeration of what the cite said to make the event seem more notable. The question remains: What's missing from this article that is relevant to "BART Police Shooting"? THF (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit more detail about the riots (in a more abbreviated form than an entire article) as a part of the public reaction to the shooting and investigation is warranted. I'm adding a trimmed down segment on the riots.Critical Chris (talk) 12:04, 12 January

Do any other editors feel the riot material is now well-merged, having been intensely edited at this point?Critical Chris (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

1. It could stand to be a paragraph shorter, given the WP:WEIGHT of the incident relative to the topic, especially now that we've learned that initial reports of the scope of the riot were wildly exaggerated, and given the extraneous details about unexceptional tertiary events relating to the riot that have nothing to do with the topic of the article. I don't have the patience to fight the edit-warring to get it down to a reasonable size, so I'll settle for where it is now.

2. There are definitely too many footnotes, however, most of which are redundant. I'll pare it later, but I've found it very frustrating that half the time I click on one of these footnotes, it takes me to an article different than the one cited. THF (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the footnotes may need to be repaired, which we can investigate, but a good article can't have too many sources in my opinion. The number of sources serves an obvious practical role, but are also a testament to the notability of the event, but without several wordy paragraphs of detail.Critical Chris (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An article can have too many sources. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Editing is required, not just data dumping. It's utterly irrelevant to the topic of the article that Dellums gave two speeches about the riot. It's irrelevant that there was a helicopter at the scene of the riot. The riot itself is marginally notable, and arguably not even notable: $200,000 in damage is piddling, as civil unrest goes. Please read WP:NOTNEWS, as you repeatedly violate it with your edits, and it's frustrating to have to keep cleaning it up. THF (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fix your footnotes

Chris, please fix your footnotes? Many are inaccurate, with wrong titles, wrong dates, and sometimes contradictory ref names. THF (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But before suppressing your remarks, this is what you originally accused me of: "Chris, before edit-warring with me over whether you can include trivia about helicopters shining lights on crowds, can you at least fix your footnotes? A majority of them are completely inaccurate, with wrong titles, wrong dates, and sometimes contradictory ref names." THF (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)" I've already pledged to clean up the references, before your demands here. Sorry, but I have to admit I'm growing a bit weary of your tone and attitude here. I'm keeping your comments here for other editors to witness. I don't appreciate your incivility and will be keeping a closer eye on your interactions with other editors, placing you on noticeboards if necessary. You're not showing good faith here given my demonstrated commitment to helping edit this article since Jan 7th.Critical Chris (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I cleaned up my remarks when I recognized they were uncivil before you responded. I recognized my error and corrected it. You're insisting on personalizing this, when I'm trying to de-escalate it. WP:COOL, please. THF (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing

There is no "execution theory." That is purely the OR invention of the editor. That a couple of leftists used this exaggerated rhetoric does not make it a "theory." If there is no RS cite for this phrase it needs to go out. THF (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that Mehserle decided to "spontaneously execute Grant" is a --theory-- based on several assumptions, as is the "taser confusion" for which there is no attachment of the word "theory" in the original citation that I can see. Did I miss it? Please forgive my oversight in advance if so.Critical Chris (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing it. I'm sure it will be reverted but the couple comments already made leads me to believe that few editor's feelings will be hurt. I think the text should go somewhere such as public reaction or even under the deadly force theory. It is a description of the event not a theory as to why it happened.Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are saying "execution is a description of the event not a theory as to why it happened?" I'm inclined to agree with you, but how is this not POV and how would we incorporate this into a "neutral" article?Critical Chris (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Theories

Do we absolutely have to include speculations as to why the cop discharged the gun? Or can we wait until an investigation comes to a conclusion? -- BaldPark (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If one is ignorant of the possibility of taser confusion, then the failure of authorities to simply arrest Mehserle is inexplicable, because there would seem to be nothing to investigate. THF (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This article documents a current event so the information is relevant somewhere in the article (even if not labeled "theory") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Moved "execution" to public reaction and modified it a little. Deleted "ministers" since the only thing I saw even related to clergy or church was in reference to his funeral. A source citing local ministers might be out there somewhere if you really want it in.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BaldPark, I'm open to an intelligent pitch on why we should 86 the theory section. Tell me why. Certain arguments could be made ad nauseum that we should wait util after the trial, after the sentencing, where would it stop? To Cptnono, I do think an equally strong case could be made for inclsion, with a proper disclaimer built into the title..."theory" says alot in just one word.Critical Chris (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "Theory" is already contested. I think it is the execution in particular is incorrect since it is such a weighted term. I agree that it was done execution style and the sources that say so deserve to be somewhere on the page. I do not, however, think that execution is a correct term (which is relativity NPOV due to the emotions it invokes in the reader) for why it happened. Get rid of "theory" and make it one of the 1000 other phrases possible for the heading that point to our speculating on why it happened and it is fine for me at least. I think having the execution sources in another part of the article while still keeping the "Theory" section should suffice until time tells us what really happened. If anything, we should have the execution segments merged in with theories replaced with some form of a speculation section.Cptnono (talk) Edit:08:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Edit: If anything, we should have the execution segments merged in WHILE theories are replaced with some form of a speculation section.Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And it isn't just the legal community or protesters that feel that this was bad. The majority of people think this was a tragic, unjustified, and/or terrible event. You don't need POV to convince anyone. Put the article up and update it accordingly without soap boxing.Cptnono (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of a well-sourced notation of "execution theory" is not a hallmark of POV on the part of the editor, and nobody is trying to convince anybody of anything. This is an encyclopedia, and whether the term "execution" is correct or not, it's a notable theory that many people (to include prominent East Bay Civil Rights activists and organizers) are talking about, "speculating" about, call it what you want. Theory is speculative by nature, the use of the term theory just has a bit more of a legal context, and that's ultimately what will be ostensibly occurring here: a legal process in some way, shape, or form, with theories of prosecution and theories of defense.Critical Chris (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody legal is calling it an execution. That's purely political rhetoric. The consensus among multiple editors is that it doesn't belong in the article as a separate section. THF (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have little regard for civil liberties issues, or you haven't researched the organization if you refuse to acknowledge that copwatchers are legal observers and that they've gathered legal evidence used at trials and administrative hearings. Who are these multiple editors? I've just seen vandalism from IP address editors and little discussion here yet.Critical Chris (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone except you, Chris. Baldpark, Cptnono, and me. Possibly also 67.170.88.215, who might have made an over-aggressive edit in good faith. THF (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like as of this morning all of the information is throughout the article but the Theory heading has been removed. It looks good to me. Also Chris, you are obviously passionate and an idealist. There is nothing wrong with that but you need to understand that it comes across in your submissions. This doesn't need to be a debate to see who wins an argument. It should be a discussion on improving the article.Cptnono (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we all ostensibly want to improve the article, we just disagree on the best ways to do that. I hope you also concede that THF may have a bit of an idealistic view of the legal system since he has marginalized legal observers Copwatch and Oakland City Councilors as "nobody legal." Do you really believe that speculation and theory properly belongs sprinkled into other sections of the article? It's my thought that the "theory" label serves as a powerful layout disclaimer here to allow the reader to sort the facts of the case from the theories of defense, prosecution, and the theories of the civil case. Don't we want a clear iron curtain of separation between the facts covered in "the shooting" and theoretical speculation as to the officer's state of mind? After a possible trial and conviction, when more facts come to light, this may change, but for now, don't you think it's a bit early to include speculation in the main sections of the article?Critical Chris (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's an entire Wikipedia article about how my view of the legal system is anything but idealistic, and Maxine Waters once criticized me in a congressional hearing for being too cynical, so I'm heartily amused that Chris thinks I'm too idealistic. Not clear, however, why he's dragging me into this at all, which seems to prove Cptnono's point that he's trying to win arguments rather than improve the article. THF (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Copwatch is of course a legal observer. Ministers are just plain observers like everyone else though. The term isn't really necessary anyways. Since it is an ongoing event there will be more and more information which will have to be appropriately brought in. Yes, I do think it is better throughout the article since there was too much confusion before. Theory was not clearly defined. The speculation as to how the shooting could have occurred is now backed with clearly defined descriptions and sources. Execution labeled as a theory could lead a reader into believing that the officers sat down for donuts a few hours before and decided they wanted to publicly execute a black guy.209.16.166.131 (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Forgot to log inCptnono (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Or speculation of a "spontaneous execution" as per Copwatch's press release. Again, theories that Mehserle decided to be his own judge, jury, and executioner, that he decided on the spot to take Grant's life, that he might have been eating too many twinkies, that he was stressed, or trigger happy, or mentally ill, or any other speculation and should be exiled to a "theory" section. I am open to you making a strong case for those theories as belonging in the "public reaction" section, but my thought is that we keep that section factual, with details of protests, riots, political organizing for institutional reforms, etc.Critical Chris (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you find a source that states that much detail you should put it in somewhere. I have only seen it referred to as an execution and nothing more. Admittedly, I have not read all the news on it. As it is now, the article states facts. Copwatch states "x", Observers state "x". It turns into a problem when we begin to interpret their speculation and use words such as "theory" to describe it.Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Copwatch's "spontaneous execution" theory is mentioned in one of the sources. We could put it in, but be prepared for a lengthy and detailed discussion on this issue from THF, who has already objected to its inclusion, and favored a streamlined one sentence edit on "execution" theory. Look for him to start attacking the sources on this soon to further marginalize the mainstream acceptance of that theory. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he was in favor of deletion of references to East Bay religious leaders and the NAACP. I'm past the point of assuming good faith in THF and recommend guarded skepticism when collaborating with him on anything, having seen his destructive, antisocial behavior towards other editors and their contributions here on Wikipedia.Critical Chris (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is a valid source it should go in somewhere. I'm not sure myself what is and is not valid per Wikipedia's standards but keep in mind Copwatch is biased and pushes an agenda so you will see some dispute from other editors. I still do not think it is entitled to a separate section since it can be worked into another in a concise manner that is not interpreted to change the neutral tone of the article.Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you are violating WP:TALK and WP:NPA. For your information, I was the one who added the text about the NAACP. There is no basis for your personal attack: you have not identified a single bad-faith edit I have made. I have spent a great deal of time cleaning up this page (including cleaning up a number of factual and other errors you introduced to the page). You're spending your time on the talk page attacking me. Do some more proofreading and a little less arguing, please. THF (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Some of the pictures from the Commons page (like pictures of glass broken) would be good to have in the section of the riots. Is it okay if I can add those there? Because I believe they are really necessary to illustrate the aftermath of those riots. Cyanidethistles (talk) {Tim C} 04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call, those would make an encyclopedic addition to the aricle. My thanks to you in advance sir.Critical Chris (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Cyanidethistles, thank you for the photo addition. That picture tells a story.Critical Chris (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Further riots

More riots are going on, so please keep a good update on this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/12/BA5H159265.DTL Cyanidethistles (talk) {Tim C} 08:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A handful of people overturning trash cans is not a "riot." Not notable. WP:NOTNEWS. THF (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to spin the news with your own POV. The news media will serve as an historic record of rioting that occurred, not your armchair sociology here. You may be right, that all of the riots that occurred are not in fact riots. However, you have yet to find a source for this, besides the one source you inserted in the lede which uses the term "small riot" here - Also, others might beg to differ with your denotations of notability also.Critical Chris (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, stop disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me. Nobody called what happened on January 12 a riot, and even the left-wing press was making fun of the petulant wannabes at that demonstration.[10] It wasn't notable, and doesn't belong in the article. I'm trying to improve an encyclopedia here; I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by following me around on talk pages and picking fights. THF (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is Jan. 12 demonstration relevant

WP:NOTNEWS states that "Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest." Is a demonstration against the shooting of Oscar Grant of 100 people with no significant vandalism and no arrests significant enough to include in the article about the shooting? THF (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC tag, as no one seems to disagree any more that we shouldn't be including this. THF (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection against vandalism reccommended

I've seen this increasingly high traffic article fall victim to vandalism several times today, mostly from nonautoconfirmed IP address editors. The one today about "ghetto people" was a true literary gem. I'm recommending semi-protection at this time, maybe this is a bit premature, but I only see this problem getting worse over the coming days. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection for further details.Critical Chris (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Judgemental tone in edit summaries by editor THF

User THF I don't appreciate your uncivil, judgemental tone in you edit summaries, and believe it contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility if not the letter of said guideline.Critical Chris (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) -Here's the kind of incivility from you that I'm talking about: 02:24, January 13, 2009 THF (Talk | contribs) (36,637 bytes) (→Public reaction: correct yet another sloppy grammar mistake; wish there would be more proofreading and less POV-pushing; conform sentence to cites) (undo)

Chris, I'm trying to make the article better. You're trying to pick fights. I'm not going to engage. Don't make sloppy grammar mistakes, and you won't be offended when I complain about having to correct sloppy grammar mistakes. THF (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, let's be clear and stop projecting. You're the one who picked this fight in the first place with your choice of words, stop blaming me for that. You need to own your own incivility. I'm offended not at your trumpet calls for better grammar, but at you potentially biting newcomers.Critical Chris (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, I'm offended by your hysterics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.78.8 (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"sousveillance"

No reliable source calls the Youtube video "sousveillance," and, per WP:WEIGHT there is no reason to insert this idiosyncratic neologism into the article, much less into the WP:LEAD of the article. NB also Wikipedia:EL#Non-English_language_content. Please do not reinsert without talk-page consensus why these Wikipedia policies should not be followed. THF (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal experts

If someone gets a chance, the following news story, http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jan/13/ca-train-station-shooting-prosecutor-011309/?zIndex=36591, has a very good summary of the various legal options facing the prosecutor. It includes a good deal of information that isn't already in the article. It can also be used to beef up the Tom Orloff article. THF (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Congratulations, this is an excellent article. I might make a few suggestions for improvement, but, for a current story it is extraordinarily well written. Well done to all who wrote it. --John (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

John,It's been a bit of a contentious editing process, but between the variety of editors here with different interests in aspects of the case, and different dimensions and levels of Wiki experience, and life experience, I think the article is coming together a bit better. It still could use less POV and speculation as to the officer's state of mind in the primary "shooting" aspects of the article. Thanks for the collective compliment to all of the editors here, and in no way do I speak for them, but thanks again. Most importantly, please make suggestions or bold edits.Critical Chris (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Shooting

Source 23 references witnesses saying he was trying to calm others down and that Burris claims he was pleading not to be tazed. The source could have been quoting the Burris speculation or taken it of context. Has anyone seen this stated anywhere else in entirety? The witness statement seems valid. Regardless, in an effort to neutralize the POV we might be giving the officers too much credit. For example: "as he was moving his left hand to his gun, a shot was discharged into Grant's back" This could lead the reader to believe that it was more than likely an accidental discharge which is hardly mentioned (if at all) anywhere else. Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Egelko article addressed accidental discharge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: How long should section about January 7 riot be?

{{RFCpol | section=RfC: How long should section about January 7 riot be? !! reason=[[WP:NOTNEWS]] states that "Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest." A small riot on 7 January caused $200k in damage and no deaths or serious injuries. Does it merit three lengthy paragraphs? !! time=22:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)}}

WP:NOTNEWS states that "Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest." A small riot on 7 January caused $200k in damage and no deaths or serious injuries. Does it merit three lengthy paragraphs? One editor insists on including a wealth of trivia about the riot in the article; I believe that the entire matter can be summarized in a few sentences without losing any relevant information. To repeat: this is an article about the shooting, not about the riot. The riot is only notable as a collateral matter relative to the shooting as an example of the most extreme public reaction, and is not encyclopedic otherwise. See also WP:NOT##IINFO. THF (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• "This is an article about the shooting, not about the riot. The riot is only notable as a collateral matter relative to the shooting as an example of the most extreme public reaction..." Agreed. It seems fine the way it is now. A couple more statements might not be bad if it was kept to the point. 209.16.166.131 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• I just took a better look at the sources and it was a protest rally that turned violent with certain participants breaking windows, setting small (per the source) fires, etc. numbers and why arrested could be added. A mention of other protests throughout the week could also be mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The current version does summarize 7 January events well, although I would like to see some more details. I also would like to see more details about other protests, specifically one in San Francisco. The article is likely to get longer as prosecution moves, so relative space dedicated to protests would become smaller. At any rate, I am fine with up to five lenghty paragraphs about protests. I am not saying we need that much, but as long as there is as much content, I would not see the size alone as an issue. I think, if needed, the trimming is better to be done once the article becomes stable. My 2c. BaldPark (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• It could merit it's own article, which it once was, complete with over 30 references. You nominated it for deletion, not a single other editor agreed with you, 4 voted to keep the article, and six to merge the content. Now you keep at it with your obsessive trimming. Mark my words, soon even one sentence on the riots will be too much dead weight for you. Your ultimate quest (now's a good time to disclose your own COI's) is to completely excise any reference to the riots, which the NYT, AP, and CNN covered, from the article, because they are completely without relationship to the shooting in your opinion no doubt.Critical Chris (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fox Theater

Chris added a sentence saying that the Fox Theater had been "heavily vandalized," which sounded like it had been torched and looted. However, when I checked the cite, it turns out that it did not support the claim; it said that five windows had been broken. That's not notable, that's not "heavily vandalized," and it was POV-pushing by Chris to add the sentence to make it falsely appear that the riot was more significant than it was. It's part of an ongoing problem with Chris's edits where he adds cites to make claims seem plausible, but a very large percentage of the time the cites do not support the claims made. This is getting to be disruptive editing, especially since so many of Chris's edits require additional editing to correct grammar, punctuation, and formatting. I recommend that Chris either take much more care with his edits, or find a subject that he's less passionate about, because his WP:COI (he appears to personally know some of the rioters) is interfering with the quality of his edits on this page. THF (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I recall reading about some burning or destruction of woodwork and $20,000 damage -- we're arguing semantics here, what do you think is an appropriate wording? Also, why are you accusing me of a conflict of interest situation? Why do you allege I "appear to personally know some of the rioters?"Critical Chris (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate wording is something that corresponds to what the cite says. In this case, appropriate wording is nothing, because there isn't any RS indicating that anything notable happened. As for your other question, in this edit summary, you made reference to a particular individual who had been hit in the ribs in the riot, which hasn't been reported in the press, and the most logical inference is that you know the person, though there are certainly other possibilities. THF (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

THF will you please be careful as per WP:BLP about implying that the individual in question is a "rioter." All my edits have framed the events of the night of Jan 7th in the context of larger non-violent protest and direct action. There were a variety of different stripes of protesters out in the streets that night exercising their first amendment rights to assembly, why do you insist on calling this individual a rioter without a cite for same?Critical Chris (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP:The variety of different stripes of protesters out in the streets that night happened to be on the front lines of the sit-in...is someone engaging even in unlawful assembly qualify as a rioter in your eyes? Why do you insist on implying this individual is a rioter without a cite for same?Critical Chris (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we address the WP:COI issue first? Are you involved in the demonstrations directly or indirectly? THF (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that way "we" can avoid addressing the issue of calling demonstrators rioters completely, right? CriticalChris 11:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since we're getting down in the ditch here with interrogatories, are you involved in the demonstrations (or the shooting case) directly or indirectly? It's only fair that I get to ask you this as well, right?CriticalChris 13:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an independent documentary videographer and I covered some of the riots fromt the ground.Critical Chris (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Given some of the errors and POV you've introduced into the article, it seems very likely that your self-interest in promoting the events you are filming is affecting your objectivity with respect to this article. I certainly welcome you using the talk page to draw our attention to sources we might not be aware of, and using the talk page to raise concerns about particular language or edits; none of us are perfect, and collaborative editing can make the article better, and because you're closer to the ground, you can contribute to this article in a way that other editors cannot. But I politely request that you refrain from controversial edits to the mainspace. Thank you. THF (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we are running the risk of unnecessarily quantifying again (like "small" riot). Maybe a source stating "heavily damaged" or the $ figure would work if it is determined that the theater info is needed. Noticed that it was mentioned at Fox Theatre (Oakland)Cptnono (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's perhaps relevant to the Fox Theater article, because it relates to the Fox Theater. It's not relevant to this one, because it only tangentially relates to the shooting of Oscar Grant. THF (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh. My bad form and typing again. I should probably slow down. I should read it was NOT mentioned at the other article.Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

extradition

Mehserle wasn't extradited; he waived extradition. Yet an editor, who has repeatedly inserted incorrect information into this article, did so again, and put it in the lead to boot, complete with a fictional cite. This is not acceptable editing behavior. I request the editor cease his disruptive editing. THF (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did the police attempt to confiscate all the video evidence?

I have heard from numerous sources that the police attempted to confiscate all the video cameras that bystanders used to film this incident. I am absolutely intrigued as to what could possibly give them the right to do so. I don't know much about US law (I am from UK) nor even the law in my own country in detail, but I can't think of a reason why police should have the right, legal or otherwise, to confiscate bystanders cameras.

The obvious reason the police might seek to do so is in an attempt to limit the spread of information, or to cover up what has just happened. But surely this is not a legitimate thing to do? I am obviously totally disgusted at this killing, but I am also appalled at the other police's attempts to confiscate the cameras, and can only imagine that had this happened twenty years ago when mobile camera technology did not really exist, that a cover-up might have taken place to further enhance this grave injustice.

I would be grateful if anyone has any knowledge on the legality or other reasoning that might exist behind this idea of confiscation of video evidence.

Kevoreilly 0020, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CHAT. Do you have a cite for this proposition? It seems like an Internet rumor; it's pretty clear that the video evidence wasn't confiscated, and, while police might have asked for copies of video evidence to help their investigation, I don't see any evidence that they tried to confiscate such videos. But it's not outside the realm of possibility. THF (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Google: bart shooting confiscate Looks like claims by witness(es?) and Burris http://cbs5.com/crime/oakland.BART.shooting.2.899444.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/New-Questions-Surface-Following-BART-Shooting.html Cptnono (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Second claim by a witness: http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n2/grant-officer-bart.htmlCptnono (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to add this. It is noteworthy with the allegations of police brutality on the scene. Where it goes can obviously adjust the tone of any section it is added. Any objections or ideas on the best place for it? The claim from Burris is not necessary.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In her interview, eyewitness Karina Vargas stated that the police attempted to confiscate her video evidence and that she simply refused. This fact has been removed from the article twice now, the second time by user THF, who described it in the edit summary as original research, which it is not. Kevoreilly, your statement above, (I) can only imagine that had this happened twenty years ago when mobile camera technology did not really exist, that a cover-up might have taken place to further enhance this grave injustice., that gets to the heart of this whole matter for me. This statement by Ms. Vargas is absolutely relevant and I'm restoring it. Again. --Lockley (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And again, two of your three cites don't support your claims. Please fix in the next 24 hours, or the unreferenced original research will be deleted. THF (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations have been fixed. Don't understand your accusation of original research. Hope you're operating with respect and in good faith. --Lockley (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy to see this section finally in. We can whittle it down if needed to state that "two witnesses claim" since it doesn't really matter who they are and the citations reference the sources already.Cptnono (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Karina Vargas interview citation

Article says, In her video interview with station KTVU, eyewitness Karina Vargas stated that the female officer on the scene approached her, the doors of the BART train shut just then, and the officer "banged" on the door "telling me to give her my camera." Vargas refused to surrender it.' This statement is sourced to Ms. Vargas's interview here: [11]. This is included in the citations. Her statement on attempted confiscation of her camera occurs at 10:14 into this interview as she describes what's happening during her footage. This is from a published, reliable, third-party source and conforms to wikipedia citation policy on sources. Not a matter of interpretation or original research. --Lockley (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a video interview doesn't conform: WP:ELNO #8. Given the existence of two conforming cites that essentially say the same thing, and given the lack of any RS who are alleging a coverup, I'm deleting the Vargas cite as cumulative and per WP:WEIGHT. THF (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, THF, perhaps we can get this sorted out. I see and appreciate your stringency but I think you've gone overboard. Your first position up there was that confiscation of evidence was "an Internet rumor". When the article contained statements that made it more than a rumor, you removed those as original research. When those cited statements were restored to the article, you challenged the citations, and then you actually misquote one of those citations to blunt the impact of John Burris's statement. When those challenges were satisfied, and your misquote corrected back to match the citation, you finally admit to the sourced facts, but amazingly you have yet another fallback position, that the video interview with Vargas doesn't conform to WP:ELNO #8, and that, furthermore, two statements on this topic are sufficient.

ELNO #8 says, avoid "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required." So I'll make a note that this is a video, and this source will clear the hurdle of WP:ELNO #8. Actually I agree with you that two statements are enough but I'm restoring the Vargas quote because it's a first-hand description of what happened. This should satisfy your objections. I certainly hope so. If not, I'd like to have a third party look at our conversation here to insure some balance. I am not alleging a police coverup of any kind. The fact that BART police attempted to confiscate this evidence is significant and, as others said above, belongs in this article. --Lockley (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't satisfy me. We shouldn't be linking to 20-minute videos for two sentences found at minute 10, when, as you yourself admit, the link doesn't add anything to the links already existing. You've given no reason why we should disregard WP:ELNO and WP:WEIGHT here. It would be different if the video was the only way to convey the information that some people complained about video confiscation. Separately, I have yet to hear any reason why that police asking to look at evidence is at all relevant to this article. THF (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lockley here and disagree with THF. A reliable third-party source (San Francisco Chronicle) has covered this. It will make the article more encyclopedic and is valuable for investigators researching an attempted cover-up, or lack thereof, by BART Police. The video link is acceptable to me, as is including details of police asking to look at evidence in the context of an "investigations" section, as is restoring the Vargas quotation.Critical Chris (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

THF, my edits conform with WP:ELNO and WP:WEIGHT as explained above. The Vargas interview includes information unique among published resources that I know of. And these edits have to do with police confiscation of private recordings during a controversial event, not "police asking to look at evidence". There's an obvious difference. --Lockley (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.foxreno.com/news/18394595/detail.html has everything the Vargas interview has vis-a-vis relevance, since it's a quote from someone who actually claims to have had materials confiscated. Separately, the "banging on doors" is unencyclopedic. If we're going to have a cite to the video interview in contradiction to WP:ELNO, it's enough to say that Vargas claims that police tried to take her camera and she refused to give it to them (which, incidentally, supports my view of events more than the unsupported coverup conspiracy theory). THF (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Kenneth Carrethers

{{RFCpol | section=RfC: Kenneth Carrethers !! reason=edit dispute over phrasing of section of criminal's recent allegation against police officer accused of murder !! 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)}}

The dispute here is over the proper phrasing of a subsection on a criminal's allegation that Mehserle beat him on November 15:

Version 1

After Mehserle was charged, Kenneth Carrethers, who has served time for theft and burglary, alleged to the press that Mehserle had beaten him on November 15, 2008; the contemporaneous police report states that four officers grabbed Carrethers after he yelled threats and assumed a fighting stance. Carrethers was charged with resisting arrest, and never filed a formal complaint against BART.

Version 2

After the shooting, a transit passenger alleged to the media that Mehserle had beaten him when he was arrested by BART Police in November, 2008. Mehserle's police report arising from the arrest states that four officers grabbed the man after he yelled threats and assumed a fighting stance.. The passenger alleges he tried to walk away from Mehserle and the three other officers, but was grabbed from behind by Mehserle, who wrestled him to the ground and beat him. The man was treated at a Pleasanton hospital for face and chest bruises before being booked into county jail for resisting arrest. The incident was not investigated by BART Police as the man never filed a formal complaint of misconduct against Mehserle or BART Police at the time of the incident. The man admitted to reporters that he has served time in prison for burglary and theft.

Version 3 (Omit entirely)

The reference is the same, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNBQ15AD8U.DTL

I prefer Version 1 for several reasons:

• The writing is much better: it says the same thing in fewer words.
• Version 2 resorts to the passive voice repeatedly. Version 1 uses the active voice.
• Version 2 violates WP:WEIGHT by going into unnecessary detail on a collateral issue, especially given that the source lacks credibility.
• Version 2 twists itself into contortions to avoid mentioning Carrethers's name, making it hard for a reader to understand who is what. Carrethers is the one who went to the press instead of complaining to BART; there's no reason to hide his name.

Unfortunately, the editor behind Version 2 likes to edit-war with me for the sake of edit-warring, so we need third opinions. What say the Wikipedia community? THF (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User:BaldPark deletes entirely, which is also reasonable, unless the Carrethers issue comes into play in the case. THF (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is just one man's word to support the story. How can it be clearer that per WP:UNDUE this does not belong to the article as a view of a tiny minority? This is the tiniest minotity theoretically possbile! I am just laughing at the situation, literally. As if this alone was not enough to stay away from the inclusions, WP:BLP requires to use the best possible sources when it comes to BLP. I am sorry, in my book an almost random man's word does not belong to the best possible sources. BaldPark (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the viewpoint is a weight problem, but the fact of the allegation may be notable, since the section currently says Mehserle has a clean record. Of course, it's quite plausible that Carrethers is making it up because he sees the possibility of getting an Oakland jury to decide his damages in a civil lawsuit against the city making allegations against one of the most hated men in the Bay Area, but that's for the readers, rather than editors, to decide. It will definitely merit a mention if there's a formal allegation made to BART. It's clear Version 2 is too long, but omitting it entirely is arguably a problem in the other direction. THF (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we need to be careful about using the guy's name for BLP reasons, but, to the point...version two is just a bit longer, because it's not one-sided! Your version one quotes "the contemporaneous police report" of the incident, without mentioning that it's Mehserle's report. Version two, my version, gives equal time to the arrestee's version of events. There are already two corporate media reports on this guy (Chron&NBC11) which makes it notable, but I disagree that we need to use his name as per this BLP policy on names. I've listed this matter on the BLP noticebard here. Critical Chris (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's very clearly a misreading of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names. Carrethers held a news conference to put himself on tv, he's not a John Doe in a court case. THF (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And what's one-sided about Version 1? There's a sentence for each side's claims, and a sentence of the status of his case. What's missing that's relevant? THF (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For starters - "the passenger alleges he tried to walk away from Mehserle and the three other officers, but was grabbed from behind by Mehserle, who wrestled him to the ground and beat him. The man was treated at a Pleasanton hospital for face and chest bruises before being booked into county jail for resisting arrest." Critical Chris (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The relevant parts of that are already in Version 1. As your edits and comments here show, you have yet to grasp the idea that WP:NOTNEWS, and seem to have trouble segregating trivia from what's encyclopedic. THF (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Critical Chris, media coverage made some things verifiable (I will not go into what those things are now for simplicity.) But it should not be assumed this same coverage made something notable or gave it more weight. It was someone's word, it is someone's word, still. No less, no more. BaldPark (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: THF's comment 02:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC). Still, I do not see how currently it can pass WP:UNDUE. I am not arguing with your ideas how it may unfold in the future, I am talking about now. BaldPark (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, with Version 1, it's just a couple of sentences with a link to the longer article, and we can trust readers to come to intelligent conclusions. The problem is that the article currently says that Mehserle has a spotless record other than Grant, and now it's technically not spotless; the article's arguably misleading without at least some reference. THF (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Will one of you (THF and Chris) at least admit why you want or do not want this in the article? You're both tap dancing. A blurb belongs in the officer's section since it would not have made news without the shooting and yes, it does show that another citizen claims he might have previously engaged in police brutality. Version 1 is better weight and writing wise. The line regarding his previous record is just to show him as a career criminal which is not entirely necessary. Version 2 gives Carrethers' side of the story better. If you tinker with version 1 just a little it will not lead the reader to believe Carrethers is the exact opposite of a victim which would make it perfect for this article.Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: You don't even need to go into any detail. After the shooting a criminal/Carrethers/guy that was arrested said Mehserle beat him during an arrest. Mehserle disputes it. Simple any easy. If the reader wants, they can check the source for details and we can stop bickering while waiting for substantial news.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint against me. I'm trying to make the article better, and that's my only motive. I've created three articles related to this topic to fill in redlinks; I've provided about half the sources in this article; I've had no hesitation to remove footnotes I created when they become outdated. My edits have been NPOV, and you'd be hard-pressed to find my point of view on the subject where I don't disclose it on the talk page. And you've just described my version of the paragraph, which would be in the article now but for Chris's insistence in using the passive voice and 100 words where 10 will do. THF (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am totally against inclusion of very negative information about a living person solely based on Joe Nobody's word. This is BLP and it should follow WP:BLP policy. BaldPark (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The current article version reads "Prior to the shooting, Mehserle had never been the subject of a sustained complaint from the agency's internal affairs department." Which is still true, even more so since the complaint popped up well after the shooting. Regardless, here is how I understand the whole statement that BART made. They do not say there was never a complain about the cop, but rather say that there was no complain where he was found wrong. It is my understanding that there are complains about cops all the time, nearly all of them (save for tiny quiet towns), but investigating those complaints, departments rarely find cops did something substantially wrong. I am sure his BART PD record is still clear. With one exception, of course, the one the article is about. BaldPark (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it seems you're trying to sugar coat things here THF. You're basically also saying prior allegations of police brutality against Mehserle, even if presented in the proper context, are irrelevant to the case. Is that accurate?Critical Chris (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, your passions on the subject are now running so high that you are now having trouble with your reading comprehension on the talk page. I said nothing of the sort, and no reasonable person could think that I did. Your conflict of interest is becoming increasingly disruptive. THF (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

THF??? What I am saying is that a single non-notable and I would say almost unknown person's POV do not belong to Wikipedia as a rule of thumb. This is per WP:UNDUE. Especially in BLP cases. BaldPark (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So can "After Mehserle was charged, Carrethers alleged that Mehserle beat him during an arrest. Mehserle's BART report denies this." (edit grammar, tense, voice, flow) go in for now? It states what happened in the simplest way without any bias or speculation.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The man's statement is unverifiable at this point, he is not a reliable source, not well-known, and is the only one who backs up his story. On these grounds I strongly oppose inclusion of his opinion in Wikipedia, especially so that we have BLP here. There is also another side of this. The wording you proposed essentially says that the cop used force making arrest. Happens all the time, usually is considered lawful. What is the point? I mean, hypothetically speaking, if we told about it, we would have to tell the whole story, right? At a risk of repeating myself, I am totally against bringing this to Wikipedia at this time per WP:UNDUE - tiny minority view that does not belong here. BaldPark (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bald Park, I used THF's name in regards to an earlier comment s/he made. In relation to this topic...another accusation of police brutality against Mehserle that was never even filed in the first place, nah, we wouldn't have any interest in getting the facts straight on that one, given the media reports and rumors out there. Seriously, Mehserle is now being accused of using excessive force in the line of duty, and whether or not that "happens all the time" doesn't make it any more lawful. The point of telling about it is to introduce some context about Mehserle, and the man making the accusation. Aren't you confident the facts will tell a story that needs to be told, albeit in proper context. And what's ever wrong with "telling the whole story" anyways? If in doubt - Wikipedia:Steamroll_minority_opinionsCritical Chris (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There are policies what POV do get included in articles and what do not. Above, I explained why I think this particular POV does not belong to the article, I said what policies apply, per my understanding. I do not have anything to add at this point.

You could, perhaps, challenge my analysis and tell what is wrong with it and why the material you want to include, should be included, based on Wikipedia policies. But I did not see anything like that in your last comment. Instead, you question motive of editors who disagree with you. I do not see how your assumptions about other editors' motive help you make your cause. That is not how you win an argument in Wikipedia content dispute.

You also misinterpreted my several statements. Perhaps, I could have made some of them clearer. I will not go into that now, because I see it as a much smaller issue. BaldPark (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, BaldPark, my wording says more than force. It says "beat". I have concerns with referring to sources that say he has a clean history with the department while ignoring a claim that was seen as fit enough to print by recognized news sources. Dude might be trying to hop on the news cycle for his own gain. I don't know and don't care because either way it can be added to the article in a proportionally weighted neutral way.Cptnono (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What a random arestee says about a cop is orthogonal to the cop's official record. Until the agency decides otherwise. So, until his agency makes a change to the record, or the arestee testifies in the cop's case, there is nothing to write about because that gives undue weight to the accuser. BaldPark (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I am fine with dropping BART statement about his clear record, BTW. BaldPark (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

His clean history (as shown by his record with his agency) is being disputed by an individual. It is part of this developing story while maybe being more than just news. It is remiss for us to mention his track record without citing this allegation. You are obviously not going to be persuaded so is there a way to have this mediated without going back and forth. I actually agree with Chris on this one while you and THF do not. I would love to get 1 to three more editors to comment on this in the hope of breaking the deadlock. Also, his lawyer is involved. Will this addition be disputed if legal documentation is filed? Cptnono (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I support adding Version 1. I think we have reasonable consensus on this, though certainly happy to hear more voices. I oppose dropping BART's statement about Mehserle's clean record. THF (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I also oppose dropping BART's statement about Mehserle's clean record. Version 1 can even be shorter I think but am agreed enough.Cptnono (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No we don't have consensus on this at all. I disagree sir. I have no problem with mentioning Mehserle's clean BART Police record of service. However I also want ALL of the information to include media reports on prior incidents linked up, even if they are not highly actionable claims of mistreatment. We need several more editors to weigh in on this. For now "the man's" name should be left out of the the article, but the references will still there for researchers to evaluate for credibility and other reasons. I've also listed this incident at the BLP Noticeboard here.Critical Chris (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, we already know that you don't understand WP:BLP. You don't have to repeat yourself. THF (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I got sucked into the changed of discussion on this one. There are at least two sources we can cite and I do not see any problem leaving his name out if required or recommended by Wiki standards. He let it go public and his name is used in the sources so it really doesn't alter the article either way.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If Wiki standards required omission, I would agree. They don't. Chris is confusing the policy prohibiting creating an article about Carrethers (WP:BLP1E) with the concept of mentioning his name when he has held a press conference to publicize his allegations. His refusal to listen to other editors on this is becoming disruptive. Does someone wish to open an RFC with me? He is wasting a lot of people's time. THF (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about - Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names - Privacy of names - "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page." Critical Chris (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, read what you just quoted: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed The name has been widely disseminated; it has not been intentionally concealed. That's what happens when you hold a press conference. The policy you quote does not apply by its own terms. Carrethers could have insisted that he be photographed in silhouette, or that his voice be disguised, or that he be called John Doe. The press is happy to accommodate requests like that. He didn't. This isn't a rape victim whose name isn't in the newspapers. This isn't Mehserle's girlfriend. It's someone who has affirmatively come forward. There's no reason to redact here, especially when doing so makes the paragraph unreadable. if it's notable enough to include in the article, it's notable enough to identify who made the allegation. THF (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The content is more important than the guy's name. Wiki standards do look inline with including his name, though. We are giving this too much attention.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothwithstanding the authority of the BLP Noticeboard process, do BaldPark, and any other editors, wanna weigh in on the inclusion of Carrethers' name? Right now the consensus is in favor of including the content with the guy's name.Critical Chris (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's incumbent upon all of us to immediately remove names not agreed upon fully by a consensus process as per BLP policy. I place the privacy rights of the individual in question above grammar errors I might introduce, since THf was complaining about that. I continue to stand by my position that the inclusion of Carrethers' name is not notable, and against the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names. THF is wikilawyering at this point, arguing the spirit of one side of the notability coin in terms of the riots (which you said were not notable, despite the dozens of news stories on them) and now you're playing the other side of the notability coin arguing Carruthers' name is notable, that his name "has been widely disseminated." If you call a press conference and two local news stories (find me more!) "wide dissemination," I'm not sure what to tell you then. Your double standards of notability just don't add up. You can't have notability both ways, declaring only those aspects of a case notable that you deem fit.Critical Chris (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We appear to have a false dichotomy here. There is no reason why we can't simply remove the names from version 1 or add them to version 2. In other words, which version we use is independent from whether or not we choose to name the passenger. As it stands, I see no reason to name him and plenty of reason not (e.g. BLP) to so I suggest we don't name him Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Flee" vs. "went" (to Nevada)

What's wrong with the verb 'flee?' That's what he did due to death threats. Are you worried about the implication of unlawful flight or an appearance of guilt? There is no unlawful flight, first of all, because he was not under arrest or under indictment for any crime at the time he left the state. As far as appearing guilty, he had death threats, which is a perfect reason to flee right? Besides, wasn't he in contact with Orloff as to his location? This is less controversial than the inclusion of "appears surprised" in "the shooting" section, I would argue.Critical Chris (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP. Tom Orloff explicitly stated that Mehserle did not flee. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/15/MNJE15A6O2.DTL THF (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of Orloff's remarks, he doesn't believe Mehserle was taking flight to avoid prosecution. Maybe the word "flee" is too ambiguous. I meant it in the sense of, by leaving California, they were attempting to flee the threat of assassination(the death threats).Critical Chris (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:NPOV is to use neutral language. Why use something charged like "flee" that then needs additional explantion to explain what is and isn't meant, when "went" is uncontroversial? Unless one is trying to create an ambiguity... THF (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Are you worried about the implication of unlawful flight or an appearance of guilt?" Yes. That is a concern. Any thing that is us interpreting his actions or that could possibly lead the reader to jump to conclusions is bad.Cptnono (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Mehserle's actions the two weeks after the shooting used to be one of the most important things about this article, but events have overtaken this. The prosecution and murder charge are far more important, and trivia about Mehserle's peregrinations no longer belongs in the lead. THF (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, good looking outCptnono (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• The adverb "fatally" in the first sentence tells an intelligent reader that Grant died. We don't need to have an additional sentence in the lead that says that Grant died. THF (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's too ambiguous for an encyclopedia article on a murder case though. Did Grant die on the spot?...Or several hours later at a hospital due to malpractice? This is an important fact of the case that merits inclusion in the lede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical Chris (talk • contribs) CriticalChris 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I made this reversion for two reasons: (1) The first sentence already says that Mehserle was in the BART police. We don't need to repeat it four sentences later. (2) Chris's violent violations of MOS:LINK. Chris's editing is disruptive. I need other editors to hold an intervention with him if this page is going to be of any quality, because I cannot spend hours a day fixing the errors he introduces into the article. THF (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir, Please stop projecting your mental illness onto others, telling us we're the ones who need an "intervention." We are tired of spending our time reverting your biased writing. The page is already of decent quality, thanks in part to a detailed editing process riddled with trial and error for many editors thus far. Collaborative editing can be frustrating at times, it is for all of us. Please cease and desist in your efforts to create a blunder file on me and stop accusing me of beating you over the head with a manual of style.Critical Chris (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bomb threat/suspicious packages

Is the recent "bomb threat" notable enough for the article or just news? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/15/MNGH15ATOU.DTL Cptnono (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without more details, I'm inclined to the latter interpretation. You can pull it if you like. THF (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5