Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy/Archive 2

Beer Summit Beer

What value does it actually hold to describe what each person was drinking in such detail? Unless there was something special about their specific choices (beyond that random guy who questioned why they didn't have American beer), it's really trivial. Just noting the fact that he invited them all for beer to discuss what happened is enough.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The choice of which beer has symbolic value, just like the beer summit itself. There's a reason why the president would choose an "everyman's" drink like Budweiser in this situation. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.. like it or not, the media reporting on this has written about the choices of beer involved. We reflect what the sources say.. so such details seem appropriate here. Friday (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's original research unless you can find a source discussing such stuff. Just saying "the President drank this" has not encyclopedic value. Unless you can say, "critics point out that X drinking Y shows..." then all you have is trivia. The fact that the media reported it doesn't make it of any more value than if they said "and on this day the temperature was 78 degrees". Yeah, it was...so what's the point? Unless there is a documented point, there isn't a reason to have it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole here. This subject has been analyzed to death, and a lot of people are going to look back on this and slap their foreheads about how much they let themselves get carried away. The subject of the article is the arrest. I don't mind noting the beer summit as a denouement of the entire affair, but embellishments are not part of our assigned task here in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It agree it is pretty trivial (despite the fact that the media has (1) speculated many times about Obama's middle-of-the-road/"everyman" choice of Bud (2) dutifully reported that Gates chose hometown-brewed Sam Adams to honor an ancestor who fought in the American Revolution (3) reported that Blue Moon was Crowley's answer to Obama when Obama asked Crowley what Crowley was drinking at the tavern, when Obama first reached Crowley at Tommy Doyle's Irish Pub. After which, of course, Crowley had light-heartedly offered to host Obama for beers, which Obama countered with an offer to host Crowley and Gates for after-work beverages under the magnolias in the White House's Rose Garden.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As for Biden:

Mr. Biden then entered the dining car and whispered something to the woman behind the counter, Joanne. He ordered a bottle of water and a “Cranberry cocktail.” § A reporter expressed surprise that Biden would partake of a “cocktail” at this afternoon hour. § “I’m the only guy you know who doesn’t drink,” Biden said, adding that he has never taken a drink in his life. § “Too many alcoholics in my family,” he explained. (link)

↜Just M E here , now 21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Seriously, do you find any encyclopedic content in that? IT's just lame-ass, slow-news-day spin? Not to put too fine a point on it, just because its cited doesn't mean its vital to the article. A question that we also need to ask is whether the info is vital and intrinsic to the understanding of the subject, ie. the arreste and aftermath. In my eyes, the explanation of beers is about as vital as noting the make of shoes they were wearing (which, as they said at Camp Peary, is a hell of a lot more effective in determining who someone is than what they say). And seriously, wtf is important about what Biden is drinking?? And just to clarify, a cranberry cocktail is a non-alcoholic drink, composed of seltzer (or 7-Up) and cranberry juice with lemon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're addressing me, Arcayne, since I've already agreed that it is pretty trivial, I'm confused what your statement would be trying to change my mind about! (My above parentheticals were merely for those who doubt that the media has covered this triviality.) ↜Just M E here , now 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respond and then "roll up" this distraction. The line about the cranberry juice cocktail was the NYT reporter/blogger's tongue-in-cheek ribbing of teetotaler Biden (that's why there's a link). ↜Just M E here , now 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Justme; I wasn't attacking you. I was addressing the editorial circle-jerking of Recentism that a lot of contributors seem to be ignoring. My comment about Biden was addressing how the media frenzy has driven this issue into an insane place. I mean, really. There is still a captured US serviceman in Afghanistan (just one of a hundred pressing examples), and we are nit-picking about meanings in beer choices? This is trivial to the nth degree. Additionally, some of the plain ugliness brought forth by some of our contributors has put a burr uner my saddle, so to speak. I am sorry if I lashed out at you unduly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What is "ec"? Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

ec, Squidfryerchef, means "edit conflict." ↜Just M E here , now 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 10s (100s?) of the highest quality sources who have deemed it important enough to say which beer each drank. I've seen at least one in-depth article on the brands, and how american beer companies were displeased that all or most were drinking foreign beer (where I learned that bud is foreign owned now). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's trivial to the topic of the article though. The topic is about the arrest of Gates and the controversy that surrounded it. What these men drank while discussing it is irrelevant. If 100 news sources said that Obama dressed down, but Crowly and Gates wore 3-piece suits does that make it actually relevant to the article? Trivial info covered with a high number of sources doesn't make it any less trivial.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Part of the practice here on WP is to rely on secondary sources to tell us what is and what isn't important to include. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure all the editors involved understand the "original research" policy. If we wrote up our own analysis of why the president chose a Budweiser, that's original research. But there isn't any such rule that says, "gee, we'd better not mention which kind of beer, lest our readers draw their own conclusions". Several reliable sources have already reported on the beer, including secondary sources which deemed it important enough to run in the national news. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We aren't discussing OR, Squidfrychef; I don;t think anyone has suggested the material doesn't exist. We are simply stating that the information is not related to the subject of the article closely enough to warrant inclusion, citing triviality, and what Wikipedia is Not. Honestly, you need to ask yourself if knowing what beer Gates drank helps you understand his arrest, and the subsequent brouhaha that ensued? Frankly, I don't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The only time I said "that would be original research" is when it was stated that there was a reason for why he chose that beer. I said without a source, it's origingal research to assume. What I also said was that without a reason, stating what beer he drank is irrelevant to the article. If you removed it, who would actually care when they read the section? A part from you clearly, probably no one would bat an eye, because it has no bearing on the topic. What beer he chose would not have change the reason for them being there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bignole asked about OR, but OR only applies to article content, it doesn't apply to our own internal discussions about how to organize the article. But the choice of beer is very much relevant to the diplomacy involved in trying to patch up the situation, and no doubt White House consultants were part of this. I can think of a few brands of beer that would have stirred up more controversy. It's more than idle curiosity here; students of impression management will find such details useful. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, but as Wikipedia is written for the average reader, I am seriously doubting whether students of "impression management" will be referring to Wikipedia, or whether we should be aiming our article content to such a limited audience. Undoubtedly, there were some protocol wonks desperate to justify their salaries, and that's all well and good. Again, it doesn't impact us here. Had Crowley dressed up as a Klansman or a Keystone Cop, now that might have warranted inclusion. As it is, we are dithering over triviality as it concerns our readership. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Define average reader. Are we writing something for fourth-graders to look up dinosaurs for their book reports, or are we aiming to be a reference work used by professionals? Remember, we're not spending a whole paragraph on which kind of beer, we're only reporting what other sources have published far and wide. Kind of like Reagan with jellybeans or Clinton eating a Big Mac.

But believe me, there's people who check these things and they know what theyre doing. There's a reason why they didn't drink Heineken ( imported; white, yuppie image ), PBR ( too much of a white Southern vibe ), Coors ( donates to conservative causes ), Guiness ( too Irish ), and so on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't diss PBR! ↜Just M E here , now 23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, then you need a source explaining why. You cannot include something in an article under the guise of "there is a reason", but never actually supply proof of that reason. If there is a reason, then include it and that's all that needs to be said. Otherwise, it's trivial and needs to removed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we can. We're allowed to give our own opinions on the talk page about what is and isn't important. That said, it certainly helps to cite a source in the article that discusses why those particular drinks were chosen. I think there's already a little of that out there, so we could tie the beer information down with something like "they drank W, X, Y, Z (cite), which several sources weighed the merits of (cite)(cite)", so our description stays brief, the beer info is justified against deletionists, and users interested in the speculation can simply folow the links. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page. But if you cannot justify the use of the statement IN the article itself, then obviously it isn't important. Right now, you're using unsupported facts to justify its inclusion. I have not seen anything that says that is the reason why news medias are reporting it. If that was the case, why aren't they going into more detail about it in their articles? All I ever read is "He drank this, and he drank that". It's trivial. The sources need to be reliable, and not simple some second hand wiseguy making assumptions. That said, leave the "deletionist", "inclusionist" stuff at the door. It's completely uncalled for. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Being reported in multiple secondary sources is normally more than enough to justify including something in an article. Debates on whether to include details usually happen when theyre only supported by primary sources such as press releases, regulatory filings, and so on. Whether to include something always works on consensus, and that's a reason for including opinions on the talk page. If I said the beer was important and everybody else said, yeah, maybe it is, then there would be no debate. If there's strong opposition to it, then I may need to come back with a source to justify inclusion. But I'm having a difficult time believing that anybody here actually thinks the beer was chosen by accident. The opposing side may be playing devil's advocate at this point. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)If we want a comprehensive article that covers the subject with the due weight given it by secondary sources, we need some info on the beer. Pretty much every article on the "Beer summit" mentions what kind of beer they drank. Not surprising since it is called the "beer summit". Three of the four top hits at google news search for "obama beer chose budweiser" are Why Did Obama Choose Bud Light?, Bud Light in Obama’s beer summit spotlight, and Rating the beers at the White House beer summit. Many, many more RSs like this are available. I'm probably hearing the arguments wrong, but it sounds like "I know the beer issue isn't important, therefore it isn't. Never mind the coverage." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's a source that's already in the article that, in an article entirely about the beer, speculating on which beers would be served before the fact. They were pretty close. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, the point is still trivial. You're missing the point. The fact that the media is mentioning it doesn't change the fact that it's still trivial. It's a trivial point in the article, that you guys are pulling out because "you think it's cool". If you have a reason for including it, then that reason needs to be supported by sources and included in the article. Otherwise, it's just trivia. What you are hearing Peregrine is editors saying, "Stop claiming there is a reason, and provide a source for said reason for the article". If you cannot provide an actual reason, for the article, then clearly it isn't important. Just because it's mentioned in a news articles doesn't necessarily make it important. In the grand scheme of both the arrest and the "beer summit" what they specifically drank is minuscule. If you have reliable sources covering the choices, then add them. Stop dilly dallying and just add them. I'm not going to argue the same, simple point any longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There were articles in the media where the entire story was not about the summit per se, but about the beer that was served. An entire article on something is a strong justification to include. If it was a one-line mention in an article about the summit there could be a debate over "trivial mentions" or cherrypicking, but that's not so. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The beer choices were down in a footnote. That seemed to me about the right weight on that info. There was widespread interest, via the media, in the beer choices. There is symbolism in the fact that each person attending the White House event had a different beer brand. Also symbolism in the apparent fact that they didn't berate each other about anyone else's choice of beer. The beer part of this is tied in with the overall story of clashing symbolic narratives, bridging divides, etc. I think the beer choice info should stay in, but go back into text in the footnote. Pechmerle (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I like what we have now, and where it is. Not sure if we're discussing come other version that had more beer info, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take them out. I moved them to the footnote. Consistent with some other beer references in this section. Pechmerle (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Per the multitude of sources, it should go in the body. No reason to hide it or do anything different. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to hide anything. The reason to do something a little different is that the summit has had two distinct elements. The first, more serious, is that Gates and Crowley were brought together in a calm atmosphere to have some discussion of the arrest incident. The second, much lighter aspect, has been the attention paid to the significance of getting together 'over a beer' rather than some more contentious format, then what beer should be served, etc. It has become a kind of counterpoint to the serious part of this. That's why I think the details about the beers selected and so forth are better placed in the footnotes. The main summit story reads better, focuses better on the substance of the event, with this treatment. Please give this some further thought. (This is also a good compromise with those who want to take the beers details out entirely. I don't agree with them, as I believe you also don't, but I have some sympathy for their perspective.) Pechmerle (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pechmerle here. If the info absolutely must be in there - and I resolutely affirm that it is complete and utter trivia, and doesn't belong in the article - I would prefer it be in the footnotes. For me, the coice is to not have it at all or to leave it in the footnotes. It is a satisfactory compromise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I find your (Pechmerle) statement well reasoned. I just don't feel that we should be making editorial decisions based on our feelings, when that isn't in line with sources. The arrest and aftermath have been going on for about 15 days. The beer stuff has been close to dominant for maybe 4 days (maybe 3). I'm not saying this article has to be 1/3 beer, but it needs to make it pretty prominent. The word "trivial" has been bandied about quit a bit in this thread, but trivia is either something that isn't covered in reliable sources, or it's something that an editor doesn't like. Let the sources decide. If it wasn't being covered so widely, I wouldn't ask that it be included prominently. I've been following the news coverage, and after seeing a ton of articles on the subject, I came here to read about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this, PG. While some trivia is classified as such by a lack of citable sources, we aren't left with the sole alternative of defining it as that 'which the editor doesn't like'. That's too limiting, functionally inaccurate and does a disservice to your fellow editors.

"An article that is dense with information only tenuously connected to its subject does little to inform readers about that subject." In an effort to keep articles focused, we maintain a summary style that maintains an overview of a subject, not an exhaustive one. While it is certainly true that we have citations for the inclusion of the beer brands, we have to ask ourselves how intrinsically important is this information to the subject of the article? If they had chosen different beers, would the entire "beer summit" have been cancelled? Would Gates have been re-arrested? Would Obama have been able to - through the magical power of hops and barley - been able to construct a time machine and travel back to prevent himself from issuing his colossal blunder? I think we can all agree that the answer to all of these is pretty much 'no'. It has little value in the article, and I accept it as a footnote (again, and admirably clever move by Pechmerle) because it is a compromise, which is partly what makes the wiki work. Anything more than that just chicken-necks the media, and our guidelines against recentism try to prevent that from happening overmuch. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've removed the reinsertion of the beer brand specificity from the article by Peregrine Fisher. The edit summary noted that the beer brands were being inserted, and consensus needed to be gained first. As per this discussion so far, I am not seeing that consensus. It's trivial, and a number of editors have said so. The beer brand info can stay in the footnotes is the appropriate, consensus alternative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How can you have a section on a "Beer summit", and not mention what the beer is? 80.229.188.40 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the focus was on the summit, and not the product placement. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If they'd chosen tequila, I think we already know what would've happened. 80.229.188.40 (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have consensus, so we should let the sources decide. They obviously favor including the info, and no matter how many times you say it's trivial, that doesn't alter that from just an opinion that isn't backed by sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I count four different editors that want it out, and then there's you. I've explained before that just because something is sourced doesn't make it vital to the article; look at the name of the article. Does adding the names of the beer add vitally to the article? Does the article fall into utter disrepair with its absence? Clearly, it does not. Therefore it is unnecessary and trivial. Citations doe not overcome triviality. Its like naming the brands of the shirts they wore, coz I am fairly sure that some Style and Fashion reporter has written about that somewhere. Now, if you wanted to start an article on the beer brand preferences of the various participants, please feel free. It doesn't belong here, and consensus doesn't suggest anything to the contrary. Please do not add it in again until you have convinced a consensus of editors. Of course, you should also feel free to raise your concerns of this Beer-Naming Crisis at the appropriate noticeboard, but I don't think there is one for UNDUE or TRIVIALITY. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact of their getting together is what's important, be it with beer, wine, or sweet ice tea. I would expect that whatever article is linked to would have that info in it, for the minutia-minded. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say include it. It is somewhat unique that the president decided to talk things over "over beer." I think that this fact adds to the allure of the topic. If it weren't for the beer, I don't think that this meeting would have garnered as much attention or interest. A single line that reports on the beers served is appropriate and may satisfy the interest of many readers of this article.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the interest in the beer summit, SharkxFanZ. The interest was actually in the mode of the President inviting two folk over for a beer to suss out problems (a problem which he had compounded by commenting on it), not the slow news day of musing over beer choices. Try to take a longer view on this, and avoid the product placement flash of the moment. As an encyclopedia, we have more than adequately noted in the footnotes the beer served. Additionally, its linked, so that those readers especially drawn to such minutiae can get their OCD on. The info is not vital to have to gain an understanding f the subject matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The google news sorting algorithm has created its grouping for the beer choices.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, you've restated my argument in your response. I agree, this meeting is unique in that the meeting was "over beer" (that's why I said it).

As beer is central to this part of the story, it seems unusual that there isn't some mention of the type of beer. Obviously, the media agrees - as this bit of information has been mentioned in countless reports. You may think that the media was just having a "slow news day" (that's your opinion), but obviously this is a part of the story that people are interested in. I'm not saying that a whole paragraph needs to be written about it, but single-sentence mention of the types of beers seems appropriate.

At this point, this is an article about a current news story. The historical significance (or "long view") hasn't been established yet - and it's not our job to try and establish it. It's also not our job to assign value as to why there's so much interest in certain parts of the story (ergo, "... get their OCD on" and "product placement flash"). The fact is, that the type of beer has become part of the story and has garnered a fair amount of analysis.

I disagree that noting this information in the references section is "adequate." Generally, this area is used to list sources of information. It's not a place that people look for content.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Shark and Peregrine, beer names should be in. If Obama had said, "I'm gonna invite them over to talk things through", there would've been a bit of interest by the media, but not as much as this, and that's because it was over beer. (I'm the same guy as 80.229.188.40). 86.136.95.71 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Since people are already claiming there's a consensus to exclude the information, I just want to say that I agree with Peregrine Fisher et al. The meeting was widely called "The Beer Summit", so it makes sense to briefly describe what kinds of beer the participants had. Zagalejo^^^ 21:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing another compromise. Not what I think is best, but... Keep it in the main text, put it in parentheses. Pechmerle (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me. Rather than repeat the points that myself and several other editors have already made as to the relative triviality of the info, I am going to suggest that an RfC be opened on the topic, as I have compromised as much as I intend to on this subject, It belongs in the footnotes or not at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been reverted back to the footnotes. As one editor reverting the material back is leaning against the electric fence of 3RR already, it might be a hell of a lot smarter to actually work the discussion to inclusion, as I can pretty much guarantee that the editor in question isn't going to get their way through sheer force of revision. There is not consensus for inclusion; clearly, many more experienced editors think it should not be in here than those that do. I am going to ask that we actually find a consensus that works for most of us (and actually follows our policies) before putting in trivial info, as that won't end in anything but tears and dramah. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The type of beer is irrelevant. It's a trivial detail reported in the story. It's no more relevant than what after-shave they were wearing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if the president had said "I'm having the two men over to the White House for a talk, and I'll present them with my favorite aftershave," it would be.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The beer choice is relevant because it's a likely thing for readers to be curious about. And no one is going to notice the information in the footnote; indeed, I'll bet a bunch of IPs keep adding info about the beers to the main text, because they can't tell that it's already in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it relevant to the meeting itself? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just think it's (hide the children!) interesting. Not every fact in Wikipedia has to be critical to one's understanding of a given topic. Some things are just there to make the prose more engaging. Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well put, Zagalejo. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC - done. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

So, the guidelines and policies that favor inclusion are WP:CONSENSUS, [[WP:UNDUE] specifically and WP:NPOV in general. There is no consensus to remove the info. That means we look to our sources to decide an issue that is otherwise personal opinion. The sources include the info, so WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE tell us to include the info with roughly the same weight as our sources. Please quote some policies or guidelines that support the removal/hiding of the info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How about WP:TRIVIA? What source have you found that suggests that there's even one iota of significance to the specific brands of beer? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of trivia applies? Anyways, are you saying that if I produce sources discussing the brands, you'll change your mind and support inclusion? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is about the big lists of trivia that you often see at the ends of articles. It's more of a style guideline than anything else. As far as I know, there are no policies or guidelines that specifically define what "trivia" is and isn't. It's all subjective, and I doubt this argument can move any further without some sort of a poll. Zagalejo^^^ 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be right about a poll, but again I'd like to ask for any guideline/policy reasoning to back up the removal. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist, but I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How about notability? Can you produce any citation that the specific brands of beer have any significance whatsoever to the meeting? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not only trivia but also plain silly (in my opinion). I don't know: "Should I stay or should I go now?"--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is defined as significant coverage in independent reliable sources. So basically, yes, I can do that. [2][3][4][5] Those are chosen from the first few sources listed at "blue+moon" this google news search. We could literally add hundreds of refs on the topic if we wanted to, or create a separate article on it with hundreds of refs. Anyways, WP:Notability doesn't apply. Try again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure you can. No doubt about it but it's still trivia no matter what the media reported (and they reported a whole lot more trivia before the actual meeting). But does it really matter at all?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to make personal judgments on what we feel is important and what isn't. We're here to provide the same detail of coverage to notable subjects that secondary sources do. Here, some people don't think that the beers were important. There, some people don't think that TV show was important. Over there, some people don't think that bombing was important. Let the sources decide. It's the only sane and fair way to decide these things. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What do the sources say about the importance of the brands of beer? Not just what they happen to be, which by itself is trivia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means you should quote an entire article, since it must all be "notable". Provided you can find an article that indicates what significance the brands of beer have. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've been around for a while, because I've seen your username before. So I would think that you would know that notability does not require a source to say that something is "significant" or "notable". Sources show that stuff is notable (in the wikipedia sense of the word) by discussing it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We're discussing it right now. So what value have the brands of beer in this article? We don't have to include every detail of what the media is reporting but rather distinguish between valuable information and, well, not so valuable info. I also concur with BB below.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The mere presence of a fact in a source does not automatically assign notability to that particular fact. Someone at the top of this discussion made the original-research comment that the brands of beer had "symbolic significance". If you can find any source that discusses that, then you might have something. Otherwise, it's just trivia and has no value in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, notability is established by the significant coverage this topic has received by many, many secondary sources.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So with other words, the medias will keep on reporting on the (beer) brands in the coming days and weeks and years?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. And in any case, that's not a requirement of notability. The media probably won't be reporting on the the event at all beyond the next week or so (barring a rehash by one of the involved parties).--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Few to many comments in multiple places, but I will say this. There are tons of articles with various facts, interpretations, and opinions on the beer choices. I don't really think that the DUE weight would be to include all of these. I don't want this article to be all about the beer summit (although if we break that into it's own article that would be another matter). With the level of detail we have here, specifying the brands is about right. We probably should do another sentence about the fact that they are all foreign owned, but I don't care enough to really bring this article into line with NPOV given the current opposition. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the real reason you want this in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is my real reason? I believe the people who want the info removed don't think it's important. Not sure where that leaves me. I guess that I think it is important? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I guess I do feel it's important info to include. Not because it is intrinsically important, but because there is just to much media attention on the brands to leave it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The last time I checked "Bud light" was still in American hands. If the origin of the (three) beers is the "problem"... (facepalm)... than you would need to tell the "whole non-story". Maybe a separate article? I know I'm being sarcastic and I apologize but it really sounds like this is the "problem" all along. Hope I'm wrong. Good night.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the beer choices of the participants in the "beer summit" are mentioned or discussed in many media reports. I have not, however, found one that treated those choices as having any real significance. The reports I have seen -- and I have looked at many of them -- are usually clear in showing that these media themselves regard those choices as trivial information." Pechmerle (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I simply had to break up this thread, as it was getting ever more tedious to scroll down all the time in the edit screen. :)

I have a couple of problems here (apart from the insistence at edit-warring by another editor here). The ever-shifting arguments for inclusion last included how exclusion of the trivial little info goes against 1) consensus, 2) UNDUE, and 3) NPOV. Addressing these, I'd like to point out that - clearly - there isn't anything approaching a consensus for inclusion. If anything, the consensus is to leave it out as the trivial info.

Secondly, the argument of undue weight is fatally flawed. Yes, it has been cited by a number of media sources. That doesn't make it relevant to the subject. The argument has been repeatedly made (and ignored) that citation doesn't equal relevance. Every time an musician attends the Emmy's, what they were wearing that night doesn't end up in the article for that person, even if it is widely reported. That means there is a solid precedent for keeping this type of trivial info out. In fact, it is undue weight to include the info anywhere in article, as it presents an undue amount of info on a part of the subject that has no bearing or relation to any other part of the article. The only acceptable compromise was - and still is - to include the info in the footnotes. Frankly, one of the reasons we use cited references is so that our readers, if they have a burning desire to know what beers the parties were drinking, they can actually go to the link. These article entries are supposed to be concise, not all-inclusive.

Thirdly, the argument applying NPOV is equally unimpressive. We are stating - quite simply - that the fellows sat down and had a beer in an effort to try and resolve their differences. There was nothing special about the choices of the beer (ie, the beer choices had no special meaning outside of disparate musings by parties outside the scope of the disagreement). It is in fact neutral to avoid cluttering up the article with these supposed deep meanings. While I know that no one is seriously suggesting that we add meaning to the beer choices - that would be taking a running leap to belly flop down the slippery slope. Commenting on those beer choices inherently suggests that there is meaning in those choices. There isn't, and frankly, I am disappointed that anyone would be that gullible here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ever shifting? To reiterate, there is no consensus, and when you say "That doesn't make it relevant to the subject." that is your opinion and nothing more. We then go to the sources, and they tell us to include it. Pretty simple, really. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ever-shifting, as in, the reasons utilized appear to shift in accordance with the argument. As for consensus, "you need to work on your counting". I am not seeing this massive consensus you claim that you have. Indeed, most editors posting here seem to oppose its use at all. Compromising and keeping it in the footnotes is about as much as we should note, allowing the reader to investigate/explore related trivia on their own. That is the way the encyclopedia is supposed to work, and that isn't an "opinion"; its pretty much the standard threshold for inclusion here. When the matter is peripherally related to the subject matter, it doesn't matter how many citations there are. We don;t include it, as it offers undue weight to the trivial bit. More than pretty simple, really. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the "count" of people involved in this discussion is:

Include the beer brands in the main text:

1. Squidfryerchef
2. Friday
3. Peregrine Fisher
4. 80.229.188.40
5. SharkxFanSJ
6. Zagalejo

Pechmerle (willing to compromise) (My apologies for the miscategorization.)

Exclude the beer brands from the main text:

1. Bignole
2. Arcayne
3. Justmeherenow
4. Baseball Bugs
5. The Magnificent Clean-keeper
6. Pechmerle (willing to compromise with parenthetical)

(Feel free to correct me if I've missed or miscategorized you)
While consensus isn't about counting, the numbers are currently on the "include" side - contrary to what Arcayne is claiming. The reasons are ever-shifting, because there are several of them:

• The brands of beer have been the topic of numerous news reports and analysis
• The brands of beer is of interest to WP readers, as evidenced by several IP's adding the information
• There are symbolic back-stories related to the choice of beer (not saying those stories belong here, but they exist)
• The White House meeting is unique (and captured the attention of the public) because of the sharing of beer. Leaving out the type beer consumed leaves the story incomplete.

--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the media have treated this as a joke, to a fair extent. "Beer Summit"? That's intended to be funny. So anything that alleges significance to the brands of beer is merely an extension of that joke. If you want wikipedia reporting joke coverage as "encyclopedic", well, that's your opinion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"... the media have treated this as a joke." - That's your opinion. And yes, Wikipedia is sometimes used to document the "lighter side" of some topics. As mentioned earlier: Clinton and his Big Macs, Reagan and his Jelly Bellys, Carter and his peanuts. The important thing to keep in mind is to give it appropriate weight within the article. In the case of the beer, I think a single, cited sentence is appropriate.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it's important enough to be included. You don't think is important enough. There, the opinions cancel each other out, and shouldn't be used at the basis for decisions like this anyways. Well then how much weight should we give it? Let's see what WP:UNDUE says? It says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The sources specify the brands, and so should we. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are focusing on the wrong part of Bugs' statement, but that's okay; let's decimate those argument first. Of your provided examples, the words "burger" "big mac" do not appear in the link you provided, or in the article for Clinton (or for Big Mac). Likewise, the phrase jelly beans do not appear anywhere in the many articles for Ronald Reagan (though the Jelly Belly article makes reference to it, as their fortunes increased because of it). The word peanut doesn't appear anywhere in the Jimmy Carter articles, either. Odd, that.

As well, you are misapprehending what appropriate weight actually means here, Sharksx - the appropriate weight is none, as the choice of beers has no reflection on the subject of the article or the Beer Summit. A compromise was reached to include it in the footnotes. I am sorry, but we do not chew the food for the reader; we present the important information and facilitate the reader's exploration of more in-depth information by providing citations. Your belief that a single cited sentence is appropriate is moot; there is already one there that states that they sat down over a beer. Done an done.

Now, as for the "vote!", you will note that Pechmerle introduced the edit of leaving the info in the footnotes - which most of us felt was an acceptable alternative to inclusion in the body of the article or complete exclusion. Therefore, I think you are misevaluating his/her position. Likewise, we can exclude the 80anon - they have less than a dozen edits; while their edits are important, they cannot be expected to understand Wikipedia policies regarding undue weight, npov, etc to weigh in properly on matters of policy. Therefore, I am not counting their vote here. With that, you have at best a tie. I am fairly certain that, once folk weigh in from the RfC, the numbers for keeping it in the footnotes (or outright exclusion) are likely going to increase dramatically. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's any argument to be "decimated", it's that we should allow personal opinion to choose what to include instead of a sources based decision. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's the third time you have offered that observation without a shred of evidence to back it up. I had pointed out that doing so was remarkably bad faith and asked you to refrain from doing so, but you have either forgotten or simply don't give a shit. Either way, I think its abundantly clear where the "personal opinion" is actually coming from. Additionally, I'd point out that - despite ongoing discussion here - you have chosen to edit-war your preferred version into the article, citing policy support which you demonstrably do not have.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest wherein you find yourself in the role of hydrant, but tossing around bad faith complaints about how everyone else is expressing their personal opinions whilst edit-warring seems a bit disingenuous. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You said "Yes, it has been cited by a number of media sources. That doesn't make it relevant to the subject." That's the exact opposite of our rules. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be, were we talking about something of pertinent value to the article, As it is not germane to the article (ie, the article doesn't need the trivial bits), it is actually in keeping with our policies. It's like citing Bush's fondness for blue ties, or Hitler's favorite moustache wax. It can likely be cited, but that doesn't make it relevant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcane, we're not here to decimate arguments, we're here to write an encyclopedia.

The fact that Clinton ate at McDonalds *is* mentioned in the article I cited. The Jelly Belly article doesn't include a "list of famous people that enjoy Jelly Bellys," it includes one person. I'll grant your point about the Carter article.

As to your second paragraph, it's quite clear based on the three pages of discussion, that we disagree on whether inclusion is "important enough." Inclusion has been supported by several points with reference made to the WP policies that seem to apply. Exclusion has been supported by a subjective opinion that the information is "trivial." Including information that is widely reported by secondary sources is not "chewing the food." Indeed, not including pertinant information that people are interested in sends them on a goose chase to find the information they need. As I've said before, people don't look for content in the "references" section, especially given the large number of inline citations in this article.

You are the one that brought up the idea of counting (accusing someone else of not knowing how to count). Your claim was "most editors posting here seem to oppose its use at all" (your emphasis). Now you're saying its a tie? Pechmerle proposed a compromise that the beer names be in parentheses. And how do you claim to know the anon user's understanding of WP policy? Just because he only has a dozen edits on that IP doesn't mean that he doesn't have an account, or edit under other IPs (indeed, he's added to this conversation using two different IPs).

How do you claim to know what the result of an RfC is going to be? Do you have some clairevoyant ability that we aren't aware of?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My descriptor of decimation was a bit over the top; "disproving" would have been a better word.

Your correction of your example (McDonald's instead of the specificity of the Big Mac) rather prove my point; that level of specificty - naming the actual sandwich in question - wasn't deemed a vital enough matter for inclusion. One cited observation notes McDonald's. As for the Jelly Belly comment, I am unsure as to what your point is there at all. It is an article unrelated to Reagan - likely because it wasn't seen as important to have in them.

And we do indeed have a disagreement about inclusion, which seems to offer a good reason to not seek to edit-war it in. (Coincidentally, the reason the counting thing was in quotations was that another user had erroneously used it as an argument; I was pointing out that I'd been paying attention).

Unfortunately, I don't find a lot of proof in what you are offering as proof for your arguments, Sharkx. First of all, a goose chase is one where the the chaser is led on a roundabout tour with a less than desirable result. If you are suggesting that the link to the beer choices, or the simple glance down at the references is a goose chase, then I would suggest that you might want to seek a better reference pool than some poor ADD-afflicted drooler who cannot concentrate long enough to follow a simple link or - difficult as it is - scroll to the bottom of the article. I tend to have a wee bit more faith in our readers' ability to actually use the point-and-click function to follow a link.

Also, I think you aren't seeing Pechmerle's original solution, which was found agreeable by all an actual consensus - leaving the beer choices in the footnotes. I mean, if you want to consider him in your corner, feel free. His edit including it as a footnote was actually quite brilliant. I would hope he wouldn't want to dilute that by advocating something that simply isn't going to find a consensus for inclusion.

Additionally, I'd point out that my interpretation of the anon;s editing isn't a bad thing. It would be like trying to blame a toddler for not being able to keep up with proficient long distance runners. The toddler might have the will, but certainly not the ability as of yet. Until then, they probably shouldn't be endorsing points of view without experience. I wasn't aware they were editing under different IPs. That seems....odd.

Lastly, I don't need clairvoyance to see how the RfC is going to work itself out. It seems pretty obvious. There's no need to get all het up over something that you clearly feel isn;t going to come to pass. We'll see what we see. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In the "count" summary, my views are somewhat mis-stated (not intentionally of course). My preferences are in this order: (i) Put in footnote, along with the source cite. (ii) Leave it out. (iii) Put in main text, in parentheses. I would go with any of these that found general acceptance in this group, but I tend to think that (i) still comes closest to doing that. Pechmerle (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, and I say again that your solution of footnoting the info as a compromise to be a most excellent idea. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] This is a waste of time. The beer brands don't matter. This is "moron news" if i ever heard any. What, you ask, is "moron news"? I'll tell you. My husband and i like to listen to our local public radio stattion, KQED, in the morning, while NPR's "Morning Edition" show is on. The show is interrupted periodically by traffic reports, which we loathe. We live far north of the areas for which traffic is being reported, and since we work at home, we are almost invariably in bed, naked, while these useless traffic reports are being played. Also, since the station is a Public radio station, it does not broadcast the traffic reports with the really useful frequency that a commercial AM station like KCBS does. Plus, the morning anchor at KQED often sounds very laid back, and not like a guy who wants to hear traffic reports. Well, one day, he said, "And now, here's more on traffic from Joe McConnell." But the way he said it, it souned just like he had said, "And now, here's moron traffic from Joe McConnell." I swear, actually, that *is* what he said. Weirdly, the next NPR news item was a stupid, non-news story about some stupid non-event involving a large silo, somewhere in America's heartland -- and i said, "And now, here's moron news from Steve Inskeep" -- and that's when we realized that identifying moron traffic and moron news as such gives us the strength to turn away from it and go do useful and productive things ... like writing for Wikipedia. :-) cat yronwode, not logged in. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Can I point out that [[WP:TRIVIA] says nothing about including or excluding any piece of information. WP:TRIVIA is about trivia sections. In fact, it explicitly says, "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate.... This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." This is exactly what people above have been arguing: that the names of the drinks should be listed in the prose. Citing WP:TRIVIA is doing nobody any favours. In fact, the only appropriate guideline (if that), is WP:WEIGHT, and since hundreds maybe thousands of sources give the names of the drinks, how would it be inappropriate weight to mention them in the prose? 91.110.208.98 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I appreciate you taking the time to look up the policies - so many newer users fail to do that - so kudos to you. The way that TRIVIA functions is that we try to incorporate the information into the article if it is possible or relevant, converting what usually originates a bullet points in an article. As most articles progress, that material which is germane to the article (read: helpful and concise), it stays in the article. If it is superfluous, uncited or not directly connected, it is usually excised. The problem we face here is that while many citations exist for the trivial information, it is of trivial value - it adds little to the subject of the article. The folk in question could have had coffee, and the choice of whether they had cream or sugar would be equally unimportant. That's the trivial part. The issue of weight is - because it is indeed so trivial - that going into detail gives more attention to what is essentially superfluous. Do not equate citation with value. While it is true that Wikipedia only uses citable information, we use that information which improves the article, and excise that which does not, no matter how many citations the unnecessary info has.

I hope that explains matters better for you, anon91. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree that [WP:TRIVIA] as such does not apply. It's about lists or mere catalogs. It is a special case of a more general proposition, though, which is that WP is not inclined to include merely trivial information just because there are sources for it. Pechmerle (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, do you agree that whether the brands is trivial or not is an opinion, of which there can be more than one? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that you see it as important, Peregrine Fisher. What I don't get is why. It doesn't add to the article at all, and tends to distract from it by bogging down in unnecessary and distracting minutiae. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I too see this information as non-essential to the article, and I see very little reason to include it at all. I would accept having it in a footnote, but it must be cited to a reliable source. With so many sources out there reporting it, there is absolutely no reason to have it unsourced in the article, and it certainly does not merit its own section! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Wilhelm, the beer choices info is not unsourced. The specific beer choices made by the four participants are in the news article that is in the related footnote.) Pechmerle (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not in the diff I provided. Take a look. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Was that the diff where someone tried to create a whole section for the choices? I agree that that is not needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So you can see that wanting to include is an opinion. I'll take that to mean you also realize that not wanting to include is an opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that at all. Wanting to include it is a desire to follow policy and guidelines. the limited wiggle room is whether the information is biased towards one viewpoint or another. The information in question isn't. Here, this is a better way of looking at it: if the information were removed from the article and from the footnotes, would the article subject matter suffer? Clearly it wouldn't. Would removing the information (while retaining the link) prevent a reader from finding the information? Equally clear is the determination that it would not. The opinion to retain the information is the wholly unsibstantiated impression that the article cannot survive without it - and that is the way that articles must be approached, Peregrine Fisher. If the article cannot survive without it or understanding is increased by the addition, it is intrinsically necessary. If it only adds body to the article, it is merely mass, and of little use. That may sound like a utilitarian approach, but it has the benefit of keeping articles trim and fit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would clearly suffer. It was a very large part of the story, so leaving it out is needed to increase understanding. Anyways, I asked at the NPOV noticeboard, and I was interpreting it correctly. It looks like you may have an essay on your side, though. ;-) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It might have been helpful to involve others in that discussion, as it otherwise comes across as forum-shopping (asking a one-sided question at a noticeboard, hoping for ammunition to use in an article). In filing the RfC, Sharkx let us know that he had sought input there, and he's newer than both of us. To your credit, you reported the results here, even though they were less than what you had hoped for,

I don't see it as "a very large part of the story" whatsoever. Note the name of the article, which gives yu the subject. The choice of beers is not at all vital, intrinsic or anything approaching helpful. At best, it is a distraction and undue weight. The advice from the noticeboard pointing at the WP:DUST essay only supports my long-held idea that we shouldn't be in a hurry to add information. We aren't a newspaper. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following all the threads here very carefully, but it seems like everyone against your positions says "look at the sources" to which you reply with your opinion. Maybe I'm seeing a pattern that isn't there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy am I glad to see the old PF again; I was growing worried that someone had replaced him with a pod person! :)

In answer, I am not providing an opinion, but rather the assessment - based on the millions of articles here (as well as each of the thoughtfully provided ones) - that some information, while cited, is not of intrinsic value. In an article about beer choices, I think you have cited gold (and yes, that is an opinion), but here, it doesn't relate to the article subject matter that convincingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's not of intrinsic value, why are so many media outlets wasting airtime and column width (which are much more valuable than a couple of bytes on WP) covering this information? Obviously readers aren't saying "that's dumb" and moving on... since they keep adding the information to this article.

Regarding WP:DUST. I'm not sure that I agree that it applies. That essay covers information that is rapidly/constantly changing in a news story. The dust seems to have settled on this news story. The fact that we can devote this much discussion to a single sentence in the article is a testimant to that. WP:DUST covers the situation where "this happened... oh.... now this happened... no, wait... so and so says that this actually happened... oh... turns out the first thing didn't happen." That sort of thing.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(redent) And NPOV obviously trumps DUST. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I missed something. What does WP:NPOV have to do with whether or not we include the beer choices? It seems to me that, as Arcayne has pointed out, this detail is unimportant to the overall story of Gates' arrest. The disproportional attention given to it in the 24/7 news channels definitely falls under WP:DUST. A year from now, it will be another long-forgotten detail that made no difference whatsoever in the outcome of the event. Would the participants' choices of beer ever be included in future history books discussing the event? No. Does it belong in an encyclopedia? Absolutely not! Where's the non-neutral POV? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We're supposed to represent what the sources say with due weight per NPOV. Saying that something will not be important in the future is speculation (of course). We know right now it's considered an semi-important part of the story. I disagree that something called the '"Beer Fest"' will be written about without mentioning the beer, but we have to go with the sources we have, and not what they think they will be. If I thought the beer angle was going to increase as time passed, I wouldn't be saying ignore NPOV because I can predict the future. Anyways, DUST isn't even a guideline, so it's just adding opinion on top of opinion, all of which is contradicted by what is policy as we speak. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To summarize, that's just changing the argument from "I think it's trivial now" to "I think it will be trivial in the future". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's trivial now, and totally under the radar in the future. I won't dispute that WP:DUST is an opinion and does not carry the weight of policy, but I don't think it's irrelevant. I do see your point about due weight, but that's where I think giving the beer choices its own section is undue. Again, I don't have a problem with mentioning the beer choices in a footnote. That is due weight. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The beer choices will almost certainly be mentioned in any history book that covers the event in some detail. History books are full of cutesy little details like that. Kids still learn about Lemonade Lucy, right? Zagalejo^^^ 05:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should not get its own section. I forget if an IP did that or what, but the people here who favor inclusion just want one normal sentence to be included. I kinda wish I'd never gotten involved in this whole thing. Who knew there were so many strong opinions on what beer they chose. The mug shot placement is probably ten times as important as this, which is getting ten times the discussion (don't hold me to these numbers ;-)). Anyways, I probably read about 10 articles on the beer summit, mostly out of curiousity and not related to this article, and every one mentioned the beer choices. First there was speculation as to what they would drink, then they started discussing the choices, and how they changed, and were foreign, and whatnot. I go to the article to see what we've got, and people are fighting to hide it in the footnotes. Although it's a small issue compared to a lot of the other stuff on this page, I figure we may as well follow NPOV as much as possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There's something we agree on. The decision of whether or not to include the beer choices is relatively unimportant, but it always seems to be those little things that set off a huge argument, doesn't it? I was thinking the same thing about the use of photos being far more important, and I was thinking of weighing in on that issue as well, and leave this and the "Beer Summit" argument behind. It's just not that important to devote so much page space to the argument. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See below for the continuation of this discussion.

This other public domain picture of Obama, Gates, and Crowley should be in the article.

Top picture Grundle2600 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good photo, but there are more than enough photos in this article already. Pechmerle (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with sources

Without naming names, there are lots of problems with the sources in this article, with many of them appearing in places that they shouldn't and not supporting the correct material. If anyone has the time, please go through as many as you can, as some editors have failed to use them correctly. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun is a permissible reference, otherwise that section would go unsourced. Aside from that, we don't need the full quotes, just enough to get the point across. GoldDragon (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent blanket reversions removed proper reference formatting and quoting which I have restored. To address your comments: You are using a duplicate copy of the police report hosted by TSG to quote "Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him". We already have reliable secondary sources that discuss this issue, and we have no use for TSG. As for quoting, standard procedure is to not selectively quote, but to quote in the full context, so you are misinformed on this point. You recently restored poorly sourced information which said, "Gates has also denied that he made a reference to the officer's mother, saying "Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?" That is a selective quote that avoids the "logical" argument made by Gates. The properly attributed material in full, reads:

In an interview with columnist Maureen Dowd, Gates denied he made a reference to the mother of the arresting officer: "Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun? I'm 5-7 and 150 pounds. I don’t walk on ice, much less (expletive) with some cop in my kitchen. I don't want another hip replacement."

Whenever possible we quote the full statement in its proper context. Gates denied making the statement not just because the officer was white and holding a gun, but because he admitted he was on the short and average weight size, and had a hip condition. You deleted this, and favored selectively quoting only one part of it, which is not best practice and doesn't best represent the material. You also did the same thing with the Obama quote which again, did not properly reflect the source until I fixed it. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I also restored the parenthetical 'expletive'; an anonymous user thought we were censoring the comment out. In actuality, the comment was added precisely as it was written in the source article. It's synthesis to conjecture on what particular expletive he used. For all we know, he's a big fan of Battlestar Galactica, and said "frakkin'". ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, putting the full Gates quote would have given Undue weight to his position, violating NPOV. Furthermore, the content of the quote is quite provocative, since it implies police brutality in return for an offensive remark. GoldDragon (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it implies the fear of police brutality, which from a historical standpoint is a perfectly reasonable fear. If you're going to quote him, quote him totally - or don't quote him at all. In fact, the entire quote is less provocative than the partial quote. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For the purpose of avoiding undue weight, better not to quote it at all. GoldDragon (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make that decision. You are welcome to discuss your proposal here, of course. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight applies for the introduction as well. We do not need to have the full quotes from both Obama and the president of the Fraternal Order of Police Florida State Lodge.

Powell criticized both Gates and the officers on CNN; noting what Gates should have done (cooperate with the officers) and that the officers should have backed off once knowing it was Gates' house. GoldDragon (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Good for Powell. And he's probably right. And if you're not going to quote the participants in the matter, you surely ought not be quoting public figures who have no connection to the incident at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

GoldDragon, once again, your edits aren't supported. You are of course, welcome to continually assert your opinion, but unless you actually address the discussion, such as why you removed the full quote from Gates and replaced it with a partial quote that does not make any sense, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to revert your changes. Please use this space to explain your edits. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I was frankly surprised to see the removal of Gates' comments and the addition of those by someone not even peripherally involved in the subject matter. I am seeing a dissonance with what the article is supposed to be about, GoldDragon. Perhaps if you could explain your viewpoint of the incident, we might have a better understanding as to why your edits are meeting with such resistance. It sounds like there's a viewpoint you think the article's missing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did address the discussion why I removed the full quote, that is because it gives Undue weight to one side of the incident. A good example is the Gates quote on the alleged "mama" comment, when Gates actually made that assertion in an interview after the arrest. We don't know whether Gates had a historical fear of police brutality, or was he just being sensationalist because it was with a media source. GoldDragon (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Viriditas hasn't even bothered reading my comments, so I'll reiterate them again.GoldDragon (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight applies for the introduction as well. We do not need to have the full quotes from both Obama and the president of the Fraternal Order of Police Florida State Lodge.

Powell criticized both Gates and the officers on CNN; noting what Gates should have done (cooperate with the officers) and that the officers should have backed off once knowing it was Gates' house. GoldDragon (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And why is his assessment important again? Is it because he's black, and any prominent black man's opinion is notable in a discussion about what happens to another notable black man? Who's next Denzel, Mandela? Sammy Davis Jr.? This is importance being assigned by race, and its pretty icky, and in no way neutral. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight with one-sided quotes

Summing up the Undue weight concerns, I actually noticed that Viriditas insisted on full quotes in the introduction, the arrest, and Colin Powell's comment, but only for Gates' side of the story. This is definitely contributing to a POV slant in the article.

For instance, for Colin Powell, Viriditas actually removed a large section from Powell's interview that criticized Gates for not cooperating with the officers. The text of the interviews can be found here: [6][7]

Viriditas' version: In an interview for CNN, General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman offered opinions on both sides of the incident. With regard to Gates, Powell stated that he "might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer and that might have been the end of it" though he also noted that "he was just home from China, just home from New York. All he wanted to do was get to bed. His door was jammed and so he was in a mood where he said something." Powell added that while he and others have been in similar situations, its better not to express anger at that moment. With regard to Sgt. Crowley, Powell stated that: "Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would've thought at that point, some adult supervision would have stepped in and said 'OK look, it is his house. Let's not take this any further, take the handcuffs off, good night Dr. Gates."

My version: In an interview for CNN, General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman offered opinions on both sides of the incident. With regard to Gates, Powell said "I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal". Powell recalled that he was taught as a child "not to argue with a police officer trying to do their job" and that Gates should have instead cooperated to avoid making the situation difficult, suggested that Gates could afterward file a complaint or lawsuit if he disagreed with the officer. With regard to Sgt. Crowley, Powell stated that: "Once they felt they had to bring Dr. Gates out of the house and to handcuff him, I would've thought at that point, some adult supervision would have stepped in and said 'OK look, it is his house. Let's not take this any further, take the handcuffs off, good night Dr. Gates." GoldDragon (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And Powell is related to this subject....how, exactly? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We can infer any relationship by the prominence with which reliable sources report on Powell's reaction. Any other interpretation would be WP:OR. Ronnotel (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Powell a personal friend of Gates? If not, then his opinion is irrelevant to the article, no matter who's reporting Powell's quote. It's no more relevant than if Weird Al Yankovic were to give his opinion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn. What would Weird Al think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but he would probably express it in song. And then we'd have to be careful about copyright issues. We walk a fine line here. Some are afraid of heights. We're afraid of widths. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@BBB - why would a personal relationship between Powell and Gates have any impact on whether Powell's reaction is notable or not? Why would WP:N be any different in this case? If Powell's reaction is prominently mentioned in reliable sources then it's fair game for this article. I think we're getting away from the main point, have the quotes been presented in an NPOV manner. Ronnotel (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Powell is relevant because the media reporting have decided he is relevant. If you think certain things the media reports are irrelevant, then you better become a newspaper editor rather than a Wikipedia editor. 91.110.208.98 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You would find me in disagreement with that assessment, anon91. It is the responsibility of every wikipedia editor to ensure that they aren't adding crap and trivial information to the article, as it gives undue weight to unnecessary information. I am less inclined to consider this information useless, but I am wondering why folk think Powell's contribution to the discussion is so important. If its because he's black, then not only no, but hell no. If its because he has a significant connection to the incident or is reporting on the incident, then an argument for inclusion can be made. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Powell's reaction to this argument is relevant because a variety of news sources have reported on it. Why these sources have chosen to do so is open to speculation but ultimately unimportant to us. Gates' actions have been severely criticized by prominent individuals across the political spectrum. I don't believe the article currently reflects that criticism. Powell's criticism has been most prominently reported. The article is incomplete without a neutral description of that criticism. Why are you so resistant to including it? Ronnotel (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd said that. What connection does he have to the incident? I get the reaction from different organs representing policeman - one of the participants in the arrest was a cop. What connection does Powell have?He isn't a professor at Harvard - or anywhere else for that matter. He isnt a cop, and he isnt a politician or a reporter. All of the things that would make his commentary notable aren'r there. it would be like Ahmedinejad commenting on the likelihood of a Boston Celtics win or panning latest Harry Potter film - they aren't connected enough to warrant mention. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

sigh, I don't think you're listening. It's not up to you or me or any other editor to determine Powell's relevance to this argument. The reliable sources have done that for us. If you disagree with their editorial decisions you can take it up with CNN. Ronnotel (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors do determine relevance on the wiki end - it's part of the editorial process in determining whether a source is reliable or not and whether we use it. Sources can be somewhat reliable but also irrelevant. Just because a "reliable source" prints something doesn't mean we automatically use it; This point often eludes some editors. I'm witholding judgment on the Powell material, but the supporters of this quote appear to be engaging in an argument from authority. If Powell's opinion on the matter is important, then we need to know why. Just because he is Powell isn't good enough for our purposes. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of bringing the two sides of this conversation closer together, may I suggest an objective criteria? When I search "+gates +powell" on Google I get about 3.5 million hits. When I Google Admedinejad +"Boston Celtics" I get 574. I think that supports the point being made that objectively the world is talking about Powell's comments and suggests the validity of inclusion. Manyanswer (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Search engine test to understand why any such results are immediately dismissed. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That link suggests reading the hits to confirm notability rather than rely solely on the count. I have followed up and confirmed that the hits support the notability of Powell's comments on Gates. A bit less objective, but certainly defeats the arguments above that this is completely random association. I invite you to be constructive and submit a better objective test. Manyanswer (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The best "objective" test available is a full suite of critical thinking skills informed by good research skills. Unfortunately, most editors do not possess these skills and have yet to learn them. For many editors who have literally been raised by their television, the very idea is crazy. For example, the notion that terms like "Beer Summit" are intentionally designed by media outlets to be sensationalistic to attract viewers and are inherently non-neutral (and inappropriate as encyclopedic subtopic categories) no matter how many hits they get, is met with anger and confusion. The "test" you are looking for merely consists of understanding how the media works and why Wikipedia should and must work differently. But in order to even get to this point, you have to be able to tell the difference between opinions and facts, information and infotainment, relevance and trivia, and authoritativeness and popular usage. Whatever test you construct, must therefore weed out human bias first. So, answer this question: Why is Powell's opinion important to this article? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I again find myself in agreement with Viriditas here, and he asks a valid question at the end, which I have asked others as well. What Viriditas kindly avoided suggesting is that search results can be manipulated, the most common being Google Bombing the process. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to show you, but perhaps can't help you see. After reading the V rant above, I'm a bit dismayed. Hard to argue when someone starts by stating without irony that the best objective test is a subjective one. I'll submit this to you - Powell is relevant because he both has been a victim of racial bias, as described clearly in the linked to articles, and because he has a career as a uniformed representative of government authority. He therefore sees both sides of the issue. This is why he was sought out they many tertiary sources that editors are strongly advised to refer to to remain objective. Manyanswer (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

{ec2x} First off, ease up on the polemic, Manyanswers. I cannot speak to Viriditas' reaction, but if you or I had our honest posts to discussion called rants, we'd take the claymore down from over the door and start swinging. I have been on your side of this behavior (too often) and know that trying to metaphorically beat the living shit out of an editor who we feel richly deserves it might feel momentarily cathartic. It is also pretty damn immature, distracting and ineffective to boot. In the end, it doesn't serve the purposes of the encyclopedia, and renders you the reputation of being a prick. I say this for your benefit - kindly refrain from doing so.

I await your calling out of V for his intimation that the difference of opinion of others from his results from their lack of research and critical thinking skills; it was in response to that statement that I use the term rant. I regret that a term that strong is called for. Manyanswer (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, as to your argument as to Powell's qualifications to comment, I find that I disagree with it on its face (and trust that I do "see" what you are showing). Powell's previous military service has no weight in this discussion, and his experiences of racial bias are shared with every black person in America. Is it possible that you feel that his commentary is important because he is respectable, black and well-known? If so, that is not a reason for inclusion. If he were connected by more than his skin color, then an argument could be made. Otherwise, it cannot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You fly in the face of the massive amount of interest from everyday people in Powell's comments, and you're proposing we exclude him despite that interest because you think that people only care what he says because he's black. If his race is the reason for everyone's interest, that doesn't negate their interest... if it's not the reason for their interest, you have no argument. You can't exclude his comments simply because he's black, and I hope you see the irony in your position in this article of all articles. Manyanswer (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments appealing to "uniformed representative of government authority" are immediately rejected as invalid. Please try to show a direct relationship to this issue. So far, you can't. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I truly hope that was a bit of intended sophistry or a joke. I think you have read and understood what the argument from authority is better than that. You have now twice been immediately dismissive - the first time demonstrably and objectively incorrectly, the second time in my subjective reading in gross error - and you have relegated me to the future course of immediately rejecting your arguments as invalid. Enjoy your day. Manyanswer (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And thus my earlier point is made. You wonder why Viriditas is dismissive, and are not seeing how your behavior initiated it. It sounds like you are backing away for a bit, which I think is an excellent idea. I look forward to seeing you when you are well rested and able to be more polite. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See my point above about why I used the term you object to... notably after the first impolite (and incorrect) dismissal of my constructive suggestion. Yes I'm unconcerned with continuing a fruitless discussion about why the stuff in the article is in the article. Manyanswer (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let the sources decide. If a significant number of them feel his comments are worth writing about, then we should include it, per WP:NPOV. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Choose the best one and post it here for discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, though I disagree that using quantity of sources versus quality of sources without an understanding of how those results were arrived at isn't going to help matters. I bet there are tons of sources that call Stalin the devil, but I am pretty sure that a great many of those sources are a wee bit biased. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Colin Powell was interviewed on the Larry King show on CNN. Story here: The interview material was picked up by AP. Story here: As as I can readily tell, nearly all other reports on this either recycle one of these two sources, or they are blogs giving somebody's opinion. Powell's comments were picked up by most news outlets. It seems clear that is because he is a major black political figure (his former roles as chief of staff, secretary of state, and one-time possible presidential candidate are usually mentioned). It is therefore believed that his views are noteworthy. Pechmerle (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, how are his views noteworthy for this article? Powell was interviewed by Larry King. and recommended that Gates "suck it up". How is this noteworthy? For every Powell on Larry King, we've got dozens of constitutional and legal scholars saying Gates should not have been arrested. These are expert opinions about legal issues that have direct bearing on this topic, yet they go ignored while the latest pundit and talking head on the alphabet soup are glorified for their "authority"? Please. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the New York Daily news, Powell is a friend of Gates. As well, Powell has experienced his own history with racism in the past, so he would be an appropriate commentator on this incident.

Retired Gen. Colin Powell weighed in Tuesday on the controversial arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., chiding his friend for not cooperating with the cops.[8]

GoldDragon (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Summing up the Undue weight concerns, I am going to reduce the length of the quotes in these following areas: the introduction and the arrest. This is definitely contributing to a more NPOV article. GoldDragon (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Beer Summit

The White House event was widely referred to as the 'beer summit.' The President, who called for the meeting, laid emphasis on getting the two principals, Gates and Crowley, together over a couple of beers. No agenda for the meeting other than getting these two people together over beer was ever stated. There isn't anything un-neutral about 'beer summit' as a section heading. It neither elevates nor denigrates the actual event. So, I'm restoring that section title, which seemed to have acceptance from the many editors who have worked on the section. Pechmerle (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added quotation marks around 'beer summit' to denote that it was a crafted term, and not a traditional-type meeting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. (The term has now appeared at "Urban Dictionary.") Pechmerle (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Using Beer Summit in the section title is also consistent with WP:COMMONNAME.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Common name doesn't apply to section headers.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out Help:Sections#Naming. The same naming conventions that apply to titles apply to sections (including COMMONNAME). --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Should it be capitalized? Sources seem to be about half and half,[9] but it is the name of a unique event, and not a general thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say capitalize. It's starting to be used as a proper name for the event rather than merely a description of it.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a common name. For encyclopedic purposes, there was a White House meeting. There is no such thing as a "Beer Summit"; that is a humorous name used by the media, and Wikipedia doesn't write articles based on what terms the media uses to attract viewers so that their advertisers can make a few more dollars. We write articles based on facts and figures that exist independently from sensationalism and popular culture. Since there is no such thing as a "Beer Summit", we use the most accurate and factual term for the subject. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This does have to do with using common names. Common names are simply how things are commonly known. Beer summit is how this event is commonly known. A humorous name used by the media does not thereby become "uncommon." Moreover, it not a term based in sensationalism. The event has this label in both the NYT and the Times of London. All serious media have been using the term. It has already been pointed out here that there is a substantial consensus on Beer Summit as this section heading. Please do not ignore the many editors who are fine with Beer Summit as the section heading. Pechmerle (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it has to do with a subtopic, not a common name. The subtopic is appropriately named, "White House meeting". The term, "Beer Summit" is a humorous term used by the media. On Wikipedia, we use the most neutral, accurate terms for topics, regardless of whether they are common or not. Just because something is "common" does not mean we automatically use it. The fact that there is no such thing as a "Beer Summit" should be enough. We certainly don't use humorous, fictitious terms invented by the media to name real subtopics. I understand that many editors have difficulty separating popular culture and encyclopedic composition, but this is one of those times that the separation needs to be made, especially when the subject is controversial and subject to dispute. Because of this situation, it is even more important than ever that we stick to the most neutral, accurate terms. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It's simply not the case that bland is always better. I'm perfectly capable of writing a formal style when that is needed. I am hardly in thrall to popular culture. But I also use the vernacular when that is appropriate. There have been well over a thousand "White House meetings" in the past year. Headings should enlighten the reader to the topic at hand. "Beer Summit" does that much better here than "White House meeting." Pechmerle (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how can something that does not exist "enlighten" the reader? The fact remains, this was a meeting at the White House, and the beer had nothing to do with the topic at hand. "Beer Summit" is a humorous term that was used by the media to attract viewers. Show me a statement from the White House supporting the use of the term to describe the event. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it's a popular term that has taken over whatever was officially announced. These things happen. For example, Nixon hated the term "Checkers speech", stating that it wasn't the mention of his dog that saved his political career. Yet everyone calls it the Checkers speech rather than the "Fund speech", Nixon's term for it, and that's what we call it. If Beer Summit is what people are calling it, and this is reflected in reliable sources, then we should call it that. That is a big "if" though, and that is going to have to be proven.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm of two minds regarding the titling of "beer summit" vs "White House meeting".

On the one hand, I see Viriditas' point, how we should the significantly unprofessional sections titles. It does tend to turn the Wiki into something less neutral than what we should be. Some of the choices can be jarring to the reader who might not understand or appreciate the Box o' Clever that the topical section implies.

On the other hand, Watergate started out as a media term. No one from Nixon's Administration ever referred to it as such. The same applies to Rapprochement, and the Iran-Contra Affair. or the Korean or Vietnam War. None of these terms were called such by the main parties to them. And yet, all of these terms serve to identify not just the instance of the matter, but the body of subtext behind the matter. To my reckoning, the beer summit implies a subtext of informality not usually found in White House meetings.

I guess I am not in favor of simply calling the matter a "White House meeting"; something must distinguish the visitation from that of a head of state or other formal visit. "White House Invitation" moves us closer to the matter, but still doesn't quite accomplish the task. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Based upon both the "Checkers speech" and "Watergate", I guess that "beer summit" is the better terminology to use for the header. Of course, due to the internet and blogging, I guess that this is why beer summit became a recognized term much faster than Checkers and Watergate.GoldDragon (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Apparently someone disagrees that there is consensus behind the "Beer Summit" section title, so let's have a poll. They're always so helpful! Anyway, please be sure to support your position and don't just 'vote'.

• Support. "Beer Summit" is the name given in mainstream news sources and the more likely search term. In point of fact, Beer Summit redirects to Arrest of Henry Louis Gates#"Beer Summit". Readers are not going to search "White House meeting", which is pointlessly vague and highly ambiguous. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This appears to be viral marketing. As far as I can tell from the archives, Boston-area journalist Bob Salsberg who has been covering Boston news since at least 2008, "injected" the term "Beer Summit" into the media on July 24, claiming that "Obama also announced a "beer summit".[10] However, contrary to Salsberg's claim, Obama never announced or used the term "beer summit" to describe his invitation and meeting at the White House.[11] The term "Beer Summit" is used to refer to the annual, September Samuel Adams OctoberFest held by the Boston Beer Company. You can see their website at beersummit.com (216.168.135.202), which has been online since at least April 2001. Viriditas (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You did see the comments above in regards to how the argument of viral marketing is weak, right? Rapprochement also refers to something else, but has been used to describe Nixon's trip to and changing attitudes towards China. Not to mention other examples. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Beer Summit is it's common name. It's probably more well know than the Sam Adams convention, and anyways we can have multiple things with the same name. It happens all the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. White House meeting is too generic, as that could imply heads of state, etc. GoldDragon (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Be nice to the reader, use the most common name for things. Ronnotel (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It's what the media called it, and there is no commonly-used alternative. It should be noted that the media were being funny when they came up with this name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - it's the commonly accepted name for the event.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The name exists in the Zeitgeist already with this name. It is best to keep it in order to simplify the artcile/ IlliniGradResearch (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is the common name by which this specific event is now widely known. As GoldDragon correctly notes, White House meeting is too generic; not helpful for the reader. (That a Boston-area journalist may have first introduced the term for this event is quite irrelevant now -- his coinage has gained international acceptance as the descriptor for this event.) Pechmerle (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support per [12]. JN466 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I think that "White House invitation" would work better; in six months, no one is going to know what a beer summit is (except for my clever beer-drinking cohorts), and the section titling is going to become quite dated, while' Viridtas altered offering of the invitation will stand the test of time.. At the very least, "beer summit" should have quotation marks, to note its coinage during the incident, so that way, it acts as Saran Wrap against the inevitable spoilage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was rekindled and continued here.

Archive?

Should we set up an archiving system for this page? It's getting kinda long. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Archive everything that hasn't been replied to in at least 7 days? At least until the size of the page becomes manageable?--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created the archive box, but I am not seeing a lot of sections that have gone without comment for a week. Another criteria is to populate the archive with those discussions that are resolved/moot discussions.Towards that end, I've archived those discussions that are either older, resolved or essentially moot at this point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot

I know this was discussed once before, but I think it should be revisited. I find the use of the mug shot as the main image in the top right-hand corner inappropriate. Let's face it, most people who come to this page will not even read a quarter of the text: but everyone will take in the mug shot, and Gates in handcuffs. I propose we have the image of the beer summit as the top image, and lose either the cuffs or the mug shot. JN466 23:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly agree. The paired photo of the two participants would be far better. There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons on the appropriateness of such images. I also find the title of the info box inappropriate. The headline says Gates's disorderly conduct charge, the fine print says "charge dropped."--agr (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be moved somewhere else in the article. It's prejudicial at the top. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Changed title of infobox, removed mug shot -- not appropriate here, no crime committed -- and replaced with double picture. --JN466 01:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And why was the image of the mugshot not retained elsewhere in the article? I am unsure of the principles guiding the replacement of the image (it would appear that the linked conversation in Talk:BLP is only in the initial stages, and not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination). I can sort of see the reasoning for replacing the mugshot or arrest image - after all, the charge was dropped, which means the arrest "didn't really happen". However, remaining neutral means that while we do not use the image as placeholder (in this particular article), we do not hide it, either. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a very short RFC and did not permit full discussion before the image was removed. Not even close to an attempt at consensus.Mattnad (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What RFC? I dont see any RFC on this, just the beer summit. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the page so quickly changed without an attempt at discussion. Please note this article is about the "Arrest." The booking photo is relevant and free of copyright. If it's OK for Time, Newsweek and many other mainstream, reliable sources to show this image in conjunction with this story, then please explain why we must engage in censorship? The fact that charges were dropped does not undo the arrest and the aftermath.Mattnad (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I had two emphatic confirmations of my gut reaction and thought it was as well to go ahead. We should take the mugshot out; it is ill-suited as a summary of the event. It is obvious that to the casual visitor, it may imply that Gates committed some sort of crime, which he clearly did not. It is not needed to explain the situation and does potential harm to Gates. Please let's agree to do without it. JN466 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Pending further discussion, I have inserted the mugshot in the Arrest section and replaced it in the infobox with the combined picture of Crowley and Gates. 3 editors above (myself included) said they were strongly in favour of moving the picture out of the infobox, a fourth said they could see the reasoning. (1 editor was in favour of the previous article version.) There is no consensus right now to delete the mugshot from the article altogether, so it has been retained in the appropriate section. JN466 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted it back to Mattnad's removal. Look, more discussion is needed. There is no consensus to remove the image from the infobox. As the article specifically about the arrest (and not the person being charged), the situation presented is far more different than the examples noted in the BLP discussion.

Like I said, more discussion is warranted in a clearly contentious subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

From an editorial point of view, I personally don't mind relocating the photograph. I do however think JN is stretching it a bit to argue that Gates could be harmed by including this photo in the article. To discard the photo because someone may interpret it as proving Gates committed a crime - well that's a huge leap. At any rate, it has been published and broadcast far and wide and the article makes it very clear the charges were dropped. In fact, most of the article is about fallout from the unjustified arrest. What I am concerned about is what seems to be an attempt at censorship. While the photograph is not flattering to gates, neither are quotes suggesting the arresting officer may have acted stupidly. In other words, it's not a flattering story to any of the participants but we should still do a good job capturing all of the relevant information.Mattnad (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't really about the arrest, but the events that have taken place afterwards. After the first few days, it doesn't seem like the sources have used that photo that much, so I don't think NPOV forces us to put it at the top. BLP is just as strong as NPOV, and since they don't conflict, I would go with BLP and not emphasize the mug shot by putting it at the top. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"BLP is just as strong as NPOV..." incorrect, PF, and I think you know why. As well, I disagree that the article "isn't really" about the arrest. Er, its the name of the article. True, there's a bunch about the aftermath, but the article is about the arrest. The picture was taken - no ifs, and or buts about it. As Mattnad pointed out, there's plenty of unflattering behavior and descriptions to go around. The subject of the article is not about the two men; its about Gates' arrest and the subsequent fallout from that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why. Please explain.

The article isn't predominantly about the arrest. Maybe we should rename it, or split some of the sections off. It's more than half aftermath. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The arrest itself would not be notable. In fact as far as I can tell, the only other article on Wikipedia that is exclusively about an arrest is Arrest of Jesus. It's the controversy over whether the arrest was justified that merits the article. And leading with the mugshot takes a stand on that controversy which is clear POV in addition to being a BLP problem. So NPOV and BLP are aligned on this one. --agr (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Again I would refer to WP:DUST. Once the dust settles, I think this article will be more about the events following the arrest, and the mug shot may become less appropriate. As it is right now, it seems the focus is still shifting from the arrest to the beer, and soon to who-knows-what. I don't think the mug shot should be included indefinitely, and at this point I'm unconvinced that it should remain the lead image. I think the dual images of Crowley and Gates perhaps should be the lead image, and the mug shot included within the "Arrest" section. (And I see that someone has done that, for now). It seems the most NPOV solution. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(redent) Keep the dual images at the top, for now. It's leaning towards the meeting with Obama being the biggest part though, at which point we may want to use the image of them at the table. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure who keeps reverting the booking shot out, but I truly wosh they would stop. When we reach a consensus, we will change it. Not a single moment before. There has been a significant amount of recalcitrant edit-warring by folk willing to essentially flip off the idea of consensus. I urge folk to leave those sorts of thoughts at the door. Edit-warring is going to get us nowhere. Reach a consensus first and then make the agreed-upon change. Pretty simple instruction, governed by [[WP::BRD]]. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a pretty clear consensus in this discussion that the mugshot should not be the lead photo. Mattnad has said "I personally don't mind relocating the photograph." You seem to be the only one pushing for its use in the info box instead of the paired photos. --agr (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don;t see that, agr. Considering that it was you who removed it in the first place, you might not be the most neutral evaluator on the subject. Why not ask? Set a poll and simply find a simple consensus. If the consensus wants it out, then its out. I take exception to the idea that you think its demeaning and POV - which it absolutely is NOT - and thus are thinking that you have the right to boldy remove the image again and again. You get one crack at the image using BOLD. Thereafter, you come to disucssion and clarify a consensus. I shouldn;t have to tell you something so obvious. Please, do not add it in again. Instead, start a poll. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A straw poll is unnecessary. Six editors have contributed to this discussion. You are the only one still objecting to the change. And for the record it was not me who removed the mug shot in the first place. I believe it was JN. Please see WP:NPA. --agr (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Count me as another that the mug shot is unnecessary and in violation of WP:BLP. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft has already tried hard to get this photo removed permanently on other grounds (Copyright Violation). After considerable effort to demonstrate that the photo is free of copyright, he/she has now offered an unspecified "violation of WP:BLP" For the record, I think Gates was treated poorly by the police and I'm happy the officer was called to task for overstepping his authority. But I request that those against this photo be explicit in their objection so we can discuss this honestly and openly and with specific concerns. Mattnad (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do NOT appreciate the characterization of me as being on a campaign to get this photo removed. If you can't entreat with me with an assumption of good faith, then drop it until you can. You can fallaciously doubt my sincerity all you want, but the proof against you is at [13]. If I was on the campaign you seem to think I'm on, I would have been involved in this discussion a LOT earlier. Enough. The OP's stance on this is spot on. The image is prejudicial and casts a false impression. If you don't like my position, fine. But don't start spaghetti machining attempts to discredit my opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say you were on a campaign. I was referring to your efforts here which had a tinge of refusing to get the point. The photo documents his arrest, and the article provides sufficient context. As for "prejudicial" and "false impression," to whom, and about what? There is no dispute that Gates was arrested, and there's no dispute of the authenticity of the booking photo. Are you concerned that someone may assume he was guilty because of a single photo, and ignore the thousands of words in this article and external media coverage describing the contrary?Mattnad (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why mention it at all? It has nothing to do with the BLP issues with this mug shot. You are obviously attempting to discredit my opinion using an unrelated issue. Your attempt is transparent. In bringing up the prior debate, you are commenting on the person rather than the content in this debate making an implication as to my motives that have no relevance here. That's indefensible. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• So once again, I'll press you on your current concern just so we can understand: You claim the photo is "prejudicial" and gives a "false impression." To whom, and about what?Mattnad (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Carefully read and understand WP:BLP. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper", "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively", "It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist". The Foundation's stance on this speaks to this as well; Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information". This event garnered national attention not so much for the actions of Mr. Gates or anyone else involved in it, but for the actions of President Obama. Arrests like this happen all the time. We do not need a mugshot to know what Mr. Gates looks like, and having the mugshot is prejudicial in presenting the subject of this article. Currently, the article length is 41k. The actual "arrest" section is 9k, or about 1/5th of the entire article. The mugshot is therefore providing undue weight as well (see Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight). If you want to have media that most directly highlights the crux of this event, then have a video/audio of Obama saying the police acted stupidly. THAT is what brought this whole thing up in the national spotlight. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused by your arguments. You say that the arrest section is only 1/5th of the article (a small portion we can agree), so how does the mugshot put undue weight given that the other 4/5th of the article is about other topics? By extending your point, how many more words should we add to the arrest section to have enough weight for the photograph? If it hits 10 kilobytes, is that enough? As for the WP:BLP "privacy" concerns argument, this is a very public arrest and photograph. And given that mainstream news outlets including Time and Newsweek have published this this photograph, your complaint about tabloid journalism are not supported by the facts. And again I notice you completely avoided my query about how the photo is "prejudicial" and gives a "false impression." How and to whom? How about you start by answering that before coming up with new objections.Mattnad (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Jeez. You ask me questions, I answer them, and you get mad because I answered them? I think I'm done talking with you. Onwards to reasonable debate... --Hammersoft (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• It makes it look a bit as though Gates is a convicted criminal. Generally, if someone has been arrested in error, or the charges were afterwards dropped, it's nicer to that person if we do not propagate their booking picture. Mugshots are associated with criminals. JN466 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very true that in general there is an association between a booking photograph and a criminal act since an arrest is the first step in the process. And let me compliment you for providing a direct answer. Reading between the lines of all of this commentary is that it's an aesthetic problem - Gates was not convicted, but to some editors a booking photo makes it look like he was. So really this comes back to when are booking photos appropriate in Wikipedia. Mattnad (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no BLP violation, as it's an actual photo and not a fake, right? Also, the assumption it could harm Gates is misplaced. It will only feed preconceived notions. Those who think he committed a crime will still think so. Those who think the cops were jerks for arresting him will still think so. The photo will do nothing except reinforce those prejudgments. The issue, as usual is free content. I recall when they had a mugshot of Carmen Electra here, every bit the "BLP violation" as this one is alleged to be. Why did they have it? Because it was free. Now there are other free photos. So there is no BLP violation. The only question is whether the mugshot is still needed, now that there are other photos - which is why Carmen's page no longer carries a mugshot either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

When an article is very specific to an event, relevant content, including booking photos make sense. For instance the Larry Craig scandal includes his photograph AND it's on his main page. So if it's not POV for Larry Craig to document the arrest, so why is it here? And per Baseball Bugs, people will come to this article with their own preconceptions, including those who may want to minimize the "Arrest" part of the story. Mattnad (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Wikilawyering ;) Mattnad (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm simply noting that an argument based on other stuff existing isn't a valid argument. If that counts as wikilawyering, so be it. I don't give two hoots. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article says "Arrest of..." so I don't see how a mugshot's presence or absence would have much extra influence (or lack thereof) on the reader. Now, if the title changes to "National Brotherhood Week Redux", that could be different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here, (1) whether the mugshot should be the lead photo in the info box and (2) whether it should appear in the article at all. On the first question I believe there was a clear consensus to move it from the info box and place it elsewhere in the article. On the second question, I think there are reasonable arguments on both sides as the article is something of a special case. I'd quibble about it's placement--I thing the actual arrest photo should come first logically--but I'd be content to leave the mug shot in for now pending any resolution of a discussion of the matter on the BLP talk page.--agr (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason the arrest photo is currently in the "Response" section is that the first sentence in that section refers to the release of that specific photo (or one very much like it). It seemed to make sense to put the photo where the text referred to it. But I submit that only as an explanation; I can see that putting the images in time sequence also has something going for it. JN466 17:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys joking? Up until maybe 24 hours ago there was clear consensus that the booking photo was appropriate in an article about the arrest, and this was after days of going back and forth with what to include from the police reports, Gates' statements and so forth. While I could go for moving that photo down a paragraph, you can't seriously suggest that a photo from the arrest doesn't belong in an article about the arrest. Looks like we've had another influx of folks who want to make the article as pro-Gates as possible. Remember, we may be writing biographies and not tabloids here, but that doesn't mean we're writing resumes either. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Two fellows show up and remove the image, citing a BLP discussion that has little in the way of connection to this, which is itself completely unresolved. In the dead of night, they claim a consensus and start removing the mugshot image. Over and over again. I've asked for the user in question - any user, for that matter - to prove that all mugshots are inherently demeaning and NPOV. Yet no one has sought to do so. I've asked for a polling, so as to estimate this ephemeral consensus being cited. The user claims its "unnecessary".

I personally do not think that mugshots are inherently NPOV and demeaning, nor do I think that Wikipedia supports such a view at this time. All I want is for people to use the discussion page to seek an actual consensus before trying to ram their personal ethics (in the form of sanitizing edits) down our throats. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it just dawned on me that the created image of Crowley and Gates is rather backwards. In English, text is read from left to right. Such is the same with images. Is there a reason why Crowley's image is on the left, thus being seen before Crowley's? I mean, the article is about Gates' arrest, so his image should be first. Unless, of course, there are folk who feel a white man should be listed first in image ordering. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What was the unrelated BLP discussion they cited? I can't find it sifting through all that talk up above. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't in the above; a couple of editors just brought their opinions here from a discusison in a BLP discussion. which you initiated with the unrelated example of David Berkowitz (well-played, btw). Another user offered another unrelated example of Gordon Campbell. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any use of the mugshot. All charges were dropped, and the use of the mugshot in the article only serves to defame Gates by portraying him as a criminal, which he is not. (As a disclaimer, I came here from the BLP noticeboard, which I frequent. This makes me perhaps a bit hyper-sensitive about potentially problematic BLP issues, but I think I'm right on this one.) UnitAnode 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So,according to your reasoning, Rosa Parks (a featured article) should be opposed as well? 0 Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry I am late to the party. Good sense moved the photo from the lead, looks good. Why would the photo related to the arrest not go in that section? The idea that it defames him or portrays him as a criminal seems silly. Folks can read the article and figure things out fine. This seems like a good compromise for inclusion vs exclusion. I usually tend to fall on the side of leaving things out, but don't see this as that bad. Anyways, fight on :) --Tom (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the mug shot is necessary anymore. It made sense for the first few days; it was the only event-related photo we had. But the charges have since been dropped, so the mug shot has lost its legal significance. The much more relevant photo is the one of Gates being arrested. That should be kept; it has lasting value for this episode. Pechmerle (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. Lose the mug shot and move the arrest photo out of the response section into the...arrest section, duh. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Not one person has challenged the validity of the mugshot. Not one person has reliability of the source of the image. As well, no one has demonstrated how this image demeans the person and is NPOV. It does not. The man was arrested for something. A failure to use NPOV would be to stick our fingers ears and pretend that the image doesn't exist. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it just dawned on me that the created image of Crowley and Gates is rather backwards. In English, text is read from left to right. Such is the same with images. Is there a reason why Crowley's image is on the left, thus being seen before Crowley's? I mean, the article is about Gates' arrest, so his image should be first. Unless, of course, there are folk who feel a white man should be listed first in image ordering. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the image of Gates should be on the left, Crowley on the right. Mainly because it then matches up with the box heading. Please go ahead and make that change. Pechmerle (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't my image; I was hoping the image creator (Jayen) would take the image he created, flip it, and upload it anew. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good source

I liked this article in The Root; one of the best commentaries I've read. Propose we look at using it for analysis. JN466 00:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but it is factually incorrect, when compared to every other citation we have used in the article thus far. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it had some sensitive psychological analysis; it is for that really that I commended it. But I am intrigued by your saying some of the facts are incorrect -- which they may well be. Could you give me some pointers so I could compare the relevant passages against other sources? JN466 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be pretty surprised to find huge errors in this report; Jesse Washington is pretty lauded and is the AP's head writer for race/ethnicity issues. Not only do I respect his writing, but the AP's editing overall. Plus, of course, Gates's team picked it for inclusion in the Root, so I'm hard pressed to find fault with it. Nothing strikes me upon reading it, it seems to present two sides in a fairly balanced way. Manyanswer (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, it looks as if I had misread parts of the source. I withdraw my comments about the accuracy. I saw the bit about the chain of events, wherein Crowley asks Gates to step outside before arresting him. Upon re-reading, I see a narrative instead of a chronology. Again, my bad. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that this article in the Root adds anything. It seems to be essentially a rehash of the events. Its commentary on each man's psychology is repetitious of many media accounts that went before it. If somebody can find something in it that adds to the WP article, please point that out. Pechmerle (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that a different link to the same AP article is our current reference #16. Right now, it seems to be poorly used in a spot where directly linking the police report would be better. Can I hear opinions on a proposal to replace it in its first use (a) with a link to ref 1, the police report? Also, suggest that there would be a better reference for its (b) use as well - perhaps one of the Gates interviews. Manyanswer (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• And here's Robert McHenry's opinion piece, "CSI: Cambridge (The Henry Louis Gates Affair and the Media)." ↜Just M E here , now 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Could folk kindly calm the hell down and discuss, please?

I've just been looking at the article history, and it appears that no one is willing to use the discussion page to seek a consensus before bitch-slapping each other over their preferred, non-consensus versions. Might I suggest that people take a deep breath, calm the hell down and start to talking toc each other instead of at each other? The next step is to start handing out blocks like Halloween candy; this petty reverting crap is disruptive. if you are reverted,you need to get your shiny ass to the discussion page and seek a consensus. If you don;t think you can get one here, what on earth makes you feel that you are going to get one through edit-warring? I can guarantee you that sheer force of will is not a method of editing here, and there is a list of banned and indef blocked users that prove that.
Use the talk page, people. Next step is AN/I for those who don;t feel they need a consensus beforehand. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled wiki . - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, to summarize

In order to archive some of the resolved stuff, where are we on the following talk page issues?

• "beer summit" vs White House visit?

• The beers consumed: named within the article, kept within the footnotes or purged altogether?

(Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Polling is not a substitute for discussion and I do not agree with the use of the term "Beer Summit" per the concerns about search engine test. There are many, neutral, reliable sources that use the term "White house meeting", and Wikipedia needs to focus on avoiding sensationalism whenever possible and using neutral headings that describe the content. For our purposes, "White House invitation and meeting" best describes the section in question. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Viriditas. I wasnt seeking a poll. I was seeking a summary of discussions so we could see where we are at, and to see if some resolutions/consensus' have been found. This wasn't meant as an avenue for reintroducing the same discussions. Speaking of the Beer summit stuff, has a consensus emerged? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I have to agree with Viriditas. The term "Beer Summit" is so notable that we should mention it, but is not a good and informative section header. JN466 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, not seeking a continuation of the discussions from above. I am tempted to scrap this section, as folk do not appear to be paying attention. I'll try one more time:

'Where are we on the "beer summit" and beers consumed issues? Are we at a consensus/resolution as of yet? Yes or no. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As is often elegantly the case, the consensus formed in the article. People pay attention when something is wrong with the article, which is not the case. It's fine as it is. Manyanswer (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of these issues are resolved. Polls do not represent consensus and it isn't "fine as it is". People are paying attention to problems with the article, and there is currently a lot of back and forth on multiple issues. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Starting with the article as is, I'm happy to listen to reasons to change it. If the same reasons are given as before, I think the consensus was not to accept them. There was plenty of discussion on this already. Perseverating the point isn't a way to build consensus. Manyanswer (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you are happy to listen. Now, all you have to do is participate in the relevant discussions. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm participating here and now; bring forth the reasons. Actually have to step out for a couple hours but I'll be happy to see your references and logic when I get back. Manyanswer (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering your past interaction and response to me on the talk page a few threads up, I doubt that I can expect "fair treatment" from you, so I'll pass on your offer. But, thanks anyway. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Beer Summit" has substantial - even though not complete - consensus. I think it should remain the section head. Pechmerle (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The section heading should best represent the content, which in this case, is "White House invitation and meeting". "Beer Summit" doesn't best describe the invitation and meeting, and it's a term that was invented by a journalist for the purpose of sensationalizing the topic. We also have many reliable sources that avoid the term altogether, and even some that call it a "peace gathering" or use some other sensationalized name. Wikipedia doesn't do sensationalism, and we avoid it whenever possible. Of course, if there was ever an instance of an invitation and meeting at the White House being referred to as a "Beer Summit" we would have some basis for using it, but as it stands, "Beer Summit" refers to an annual beer event held in Boston, not to an invitation and meeting at the White House. Because of this sensationalism and ambiguity, Wikipedia needs to use the most neutral terms to describe a subject. We know that an invitation to the White House was made, and we know a brief meeting was held. There was no "summit" of any kind, and the humorous use of that term may be fine for the mass media, but we're writing an encyclopedia here and we choose our words wisely. The fact also remains that the term is inaccurate. The meeting was not centered around beer nor could it be considered a summit. A summit specifically refers to a meeting between heads of state, not between friends and acquaintances. "Beer Summit" certainly helps the media attract viewers, but we are not using the same strategies on Wikipedia. Here, our focus is on historical accuracy and longevity. We are not the slightest bit interested in what new, pet terms the media chooses to invent to keep their audience watching and reading and buying the products during the break and in the ad. It is perfectly acceptable to mention that the media called the meeting a "Beer Summit", but the material should be described in as neutral manner as possible, just like everything else we do here. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

V, we know you disagree. Nevertheless, there is substantial consensus here for keeping "Beer Summit." Additionally, I do not agree (and I think that others here do not agree) that "Beer Summit" is sensationalistic. It has quickly come to be a way to describe a particular event, at which no formal negotiating would be done and tension would (hopefully, and it seems it was) eased by characterizing it as 'just getting together over beer.' Pechmerle (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't recognize a "substantial consensus" on this topic. I see a brief poll which doesn't count as consensus for anything, and various arguments from different editors, all of which have glaring, gaping holes. The event on Wikipedia is not described the same as in the major media. We have an entire set of policies and guidelines that the major media does not follow nor has any intention of following and these things that we find paramount are not even given consideration by the sources that some editors choose to use. The term "Beer Summit" is of course, the very definition of "sensationalism", and if you can't at least recognize that fact, then we have a lot of pre-discussion to do to bring you up to speed. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell us what would qualify as a consensus for you. We've had a ton of discussion, and you were the only one in the poll to vote against. Consensus is not unanimity. Manyanswer (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Beer brands -- there is substantial continuing disagreement about where (if anywhere) to put that info. Given the depth of the disagreement, what is needed is a reasonable compromise. I suggest that is 'keep the beer brands, but in the footnote rather than main text.' Notes on what this is not: This is not a pov issue. Naming or not naming the brands is not pro-Gates or pro-Crowley. Nothing to do with pov. It is also not a wp:trivia policy as such, because it's not a free-standing list or catalog or miscellany. It is also not a personal opinions issue; that would be more related to pro-Gates or pro-Crowley, which this is not. What it is, is a 'how noteworthy is this info' item. I continue to suggest that it is very minor information, of no lasting encyclopedic value. We should either take it out, or leave it in the footnote. The latter I view as a reasonable compromise between the main positions people have taken. Pechmerle (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If we want to follow our guidlines and policies, it should be called "Beer Summit" per COMMON and the brands should be included per NPOV. Or just IAR, I guess, and do whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing about policies and guidelines is that you have to be able to understand when and how to use them. This has nothing to do with a common name and everything to do with describing encyclopedic material in an objective, accurate manner. We do not use sensationalistic headings that the major media might choose to use to attract viewers, nor do we obsess on trivial details that the media might spend months debating on. What we do, however, is pick the best sources for our articles, and use our skills as editors to make decisions on how to best represent that content. There is, to date, no such thing as a "Beer Summit" at the White House. That is a humorous term used by the media to sensationalize the topic. We don't do that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that argument falls flat. While Wikipedia doesn't need to follow the media, once the world has taken a term into its vocabulary at large, it really doesn't matter that the source was a clever journalist. Manyanswer (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The "argument" neatly encapsulates how we write articles here. The section is accurately described as "White House invitation and meeting", not "Beer Summit". There is no such thing as a "Beer Summit", and while the media might love that term as much as they love "Wacko Jacko", "Brangelina", and all the other cutsey-names they invent on a daily basis to attract readership, we don't do that here. This is an encyclopedia, and we have a higher standard of evidence and of fact-checking. The White House never referred to the invitation and meeting as a "Beer Summit". It was a Boston-area AP journalist who gave it that name, and some stories ran with it, while others maintained their objectivity in the morass of the media distraction and frenzy. Nevertheless, the term is not being prohibited from the article, rather it is being used to describe the event in the terms of its coverage, not as a neutral section heading that covers the invitation and the meeting. I hope that clears this up for you. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Beer Summit - consensus reached. There's only one (very vocal) dissenter in the discussion.
Brands of beer - no consensus - waiting for RfC results. As it stands, there's nearly equal support for both arguments, and the debate isn't really moving.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharkx's summary of the status is accurate. Pechmerle (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't accurate, and polls do not represent consensus. The fact is, every argument defending the use of the term as a section heading is invalid. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection of page with the mugshot on it is problematic

Given that this article has serious BLP implications, protection of it with the mugshot on it is highly problematic. We err on the side of caution in such cases, and the user who was edit-warring to include it is being rewarded for that edit-warring. Do not link to the meatball wiki Wrong Version thing. This is a BLP issue, and it needs fixed straightaway. This is not an issue of WrongVersioning. UnitAnode 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above and related BLP notice board. The booking photo is not universally seen as a BLP concern and the photo was not retained as part of an edit war. Mattnad (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was. Threeafterthree just happened to get in the last reinsertion of the image before protection. We err on the side of caution with regards to BLP issues, and if there's disagreement about the photograph, it goes until the disagreement is resolved by consensus, it's as simple as that. This needs to be fixed right away. UnitAnode 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize you thought you were edit warring. We'll have to keep an eye on you now. If you review the discussion above and on the BLP noticeboard, you'll find that there are many other editors who don't think a booking photo is problematic. And as mentioned before, see Rosa Parks.Mattnad (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. I made the first removal, and then it went <reinsertion/removal/reinsertion>. Red herring much? UnitAnode 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also the "we'll have to keep an eye on you now" snarkiness is wildly inappropriate and completely uncivil. Please strike it, as well as the red herring argument about my supposedly thinking I was edit warring. UnitAnode 15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who mentioned an edit war, and you were one of the participants. And you even suggested that you would have continued to remove the photograph if the block hadn't been placed. Am I wrong? Would you have stopped editing that item if the article were not blocked and taken it back to the talk page?Mattnad (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I made no further edits removing the photograph. Please address your own problematic behaviors in this thread. Making ludicrous assertions that I was in some way edit-warring by making the first removal is simply a red herring to avoid addressing the main issue, which is that we should err on the side of caution with regards to BLPs. Your continuing focus on it is simply a way to distract from from your blatant incivility here. UnitAnode 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So.... you didn't plan to edit out the photo before the block was implemented? Mattnad (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

<---outdent

I'm finished dealing with you. Until and unless you address the issue I raised in this thread, and especially retract your incivility here, I ask that you not address me further. UnitAnode 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded above - there is a very long thread already with many editors who were working towards a consensus on the booking photo. You may not like my response, but it's there. As for "incivility", well we can agree to disagree on that point. Mattnad (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, both of you - cut it out. I am the one who asked for the page protection (1, 2). Respectfully, any ass-clown unpleasant person who thinks that the best way to seek consensus is to edit-war a version in without using discussion deserves to be trout-slapped. With a frozen trout. Half of the contentiousness of this article comes not from the racist pricks trying to wriggle in their crap into the article, but various self-righteous jackasses who seem to feel that consensus is whatever the hell they want it to be. If people spent a wee bit more time discussing insted of reverting, the article would be stable and we'd actually get shit done.

Towards that end, why don't you both drop the animosity and try to find some middle ground. Please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin Barrett section

The link to "See also: Boston Police Department#Justin Barrett controversy" in the Justin Barrett e-mail section should be removed because that section no longer exists on the BPD page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauly0 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done –xeno^talk 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Biden not shown

The caption for the Beer summit picture incorrectly says "(not shown: Vice President Joe Biden)". Please see File:Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates Jr and Sergeant James Crowley toast.jpg, which is the original, uncropped photo. Joe Biden had not yet arrived when this photo was taken - his chair is empty and there is not a fourth mug of beer. He isn't "not shown" - he's not there. --UserB (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hence it's a little difficult to show him, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should just add "before Biden arrived" rather than not shown so its accurate. Not shown does make people think hes just outside of the picture shot.BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the direction I was going with this. There are billions of people not shown in that photo. Naming all of them would be a difficult endeavor. --B (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We'd probably want to split that list into its own article.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of people? --B (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

List of everyone except Barack Obama, Henry Gates, and James Crowley--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Picture. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Settle down now; I'm sure we all know what was meant.    M   11:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hows this, then? –xeno^talk 11:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's missing the 's, which makes it sound like The Biden Arrival, an arrival of monumental proportions. Otherwise, great.    M   11:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I get to be in a wiki article. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Fixed. –xeno^talk 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think many will miss Biden. One went to sea, the other became vice president. Neither one...--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Had the bard reported on events, I imagine it would have played out thusly. Wicked funny. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Arcayne you're a person after my own heart and it's a pleasure to work with you. Here's something to complement your fine submission! Manyanswer (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

hehehe... nice. I'd like to point out, however, that even that source makes reference to the brands of beer consumed. ;P --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Which should underscore the point that the discussion of beer brands is superfluous to the subject. Oh, never mind (at least for this section). Drinks are on me! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take you up on the drink offer. I'll have what Gates was drinking... as soon as I find out what that was (was that footnote 53... 56...?). LOL, good times.  ;)--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How about I just open a can o' whup-ass on ya? LOL! (fake-grr) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Shift part of Obama involvement from Lead to Article

The lead is quite long, with a lot of details around Obama's comments - seems somewhat unbalanced. I'm thinking we may want to further summarize his comments, and shift some of the material down to the body of the article that isn't there already. Thoughts? Mattnad (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• If we are going to talk about Obama, why not called it the Gates Controversy or something similar, after all no charges were file, the arrest got a wave a media attention because of the President's comment. The heart of the matter is not the arrest but the response and the comments after all. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make that recommendation in another section - this is to solicit comments about trimming the lead. Mattnad (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So want my recommendation, plain english, cut the Obama remarks, nothing to do with the arrest, unless Obama was part of the incident. You americans, you think everyting is so simple, white/black, there no racial harmony, as a Latino a look at this discussion page at it amaze me how much people have to discuss, the beer, who the hell care? This is not the American Wikipedia, but the World Wide Wikipedia in the English language. You want my opinion here it goes trim the Obama part its not part of the arrrest narratative, unlees there is undertone. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an American, not that it matters to editing an article. But while I have your attention, you may want to read up on WP:Civil. You may be more persuasive it you avoid personal attacks. Mattnad (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. "I don't like your tone" either, JMundo. had Obama kept his mouth shut and not commented on the matter, there would be no reason to include him at all in this article. But he did, and much of the aftermath is an outgrowth of that commentary. That's why its part of the arrest article. I'd also like to suggest that (as you pointed out) since this is the Wikipedia for the English language, why not port over some of the topics from the Spanish language wiki? "We Americans" could use all the culture we could get. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this?

I just wanted to ask why the sentence, "Gates is African American and Crowley is white." is included. Why does it have any importance in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.226.116 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And shouldn't it be "black" and "white" or "African American" and "European American"? Why the inconsistency? –xeno^talk 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Xeno - that bit of over-the-top political correctness was a bit jarring to me as well. To answer the anon's question, the race of the two was the preemininet issue surrounding the initial event of the article subject - the arrest of a black man in his own house by a white cop. Not an unknown or uncommon issue in America, and it is because of that that there was a flap over the arrest. I think everyone here understands that had Gates not been black, this article would not exist, as little would have been made by it in the local and national media. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When I was doing my cleanup edits before the block, I also wondered whether this should come out. I left it in because part of the media coverage included concerns about racial profiling, and some quote attributed to Gates that suggested racial conflict. But it's a bit jarring and probably could be removed without harming the article.Mattnad (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you delete it, then Obama's comments in the second para lack context. --JN466 15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How so? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because if you delete it, a reader ten years from now in China might wonder why US President Obama is mentioning race in connection with the arrest of some Harvard professor named Gates. ↜Just M E here , now 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This goes to lasting value for the article. Right now, most readers know perfectly well which racial group each man belongs to (not counting that G, C, and O are all Irish-American ;-) ). But that will later be less true. As noted by others, whole article gets its notability from a well-known black man getting arrested on his own front porch by a white officer under disputed circumstances. The simple sentence identifying the race of these two participants is relevant, and neutral as to who was right or wrong about the validity of the arrest. I'd say leave that sentence as is. Pechmerle (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with keeping black and white, with the exception of the usage of African American that is used initially. for the most part, white Americans identify primarily as White Americans, not European Americans (I'd never heard that term in Europe or Asia, though at times, they've had some choice nicknames for all Americans!). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I more used it to highlight the absurdity of referring to black Americans as "African Americans". –xeno^talk 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I also found this jarring in the lead. I would say take it out. We have entire paragraphs that talk about any racial controversy. Keeping it in the lead prompts readers to infer that race was a motivating factor in the arrest, which is pretty questionable given all that's come out since then. It also creates a false racial dichotomy, making it sound like everyone in Cambridge is either black or blue-eyed Anglo white, which is most definitely not the case. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to come out exactly let’s just edit it! It does start to offer the context of why the arrest became noteworthy, but doesn't go far enough. Here's what I'd put in for further editing when the page is unblocked, perhaps we can edit on the tp and then insert when done and “live” again. The incident generated national media coverage and a debate about racial issues and whether or not the incident represented an example of racial profiling by police. Professor Gates’s African-American ethnicity and involvement with studying the history of African-Americans, along with a comment on the incident by President Barack Obama, put a national media spotlight on the events. Manyanswer (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a start when I look at it. We need to clean up my run on ands in the first sentence and someone needs to track that Obama's ref in the next paragraph, which this leads nicely to, must change from the full name to Pres. Obama since he's mentioned already here.Manyanswer (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The redundant usage of 'African American' doesn't work for me. Nor does all the political correctness. the Lede is mostly fine the way it is, at least where it refers to the racial difference being white and black. We aren't deeming everyone in Cambridge as either white or black, and African American is simply not as useful a term, since there is no opposite correlation with white folk (as per my earlier post about how white Americans self-identify). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We can be neutral on PC issues since there are two opportunities and that addresses the redundancy! The incident generated national media coverage and a debate about racial issues regarding whether or not it represented an example of racial profiling by police. Professor Gates’s African-American ethnicity and involvement with studying the history of black Americans, along with a comment on the incident by President Barack Obama, put a national media spotlight on the events. Manyanswer (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit made just now. Manyanswer (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two cents on two topics

So I guess that's 4 cents. I think the article should tell the brands of beer served at the beer summit. This is something people will continue to be interested in. Also "African American" and "white" is not really a problem. If two matching expressions were used (either way) it would actually make a greater impression of racial conflict. (Off-topic, President Obama should have just served everyone the same beer -- Sam Adams since they are all Yankees) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's try and keep the conversations together under one heading. It's much easier to follow that way.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

While that's usually a god thing, and the right thing in this instance, take a look at the sections above - they are pretty frakkin' long. Taking a breath and starting a new section, summarizing the points of the earlier one sounds like a pretty sane thing to do. It also allows for less scrolling to reply in a section, and allows older sections to be archived. While SteveD went about it in the wrong way, he has the grain of the right idea. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Link primary source of The Root's Gates interview?

Per WP:EL, since the police arrest report and dispatch radio transcript, etc., make for an imbalance, I suggest we add the primary source of a Gates' interview about the events (as Gates posted on the black issues/genealogy website he publishes) to the article's external links. ↜Just M E here , now 12:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about it, but when Jmhn asked on my talk page after I deleted it, I saw the logic in it. Though it is really more a defense, well after the event and with plenty of time for consideration and legal advice (and probably after looking at the report and transcript), so they don't totally balance. But I guess it is OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I say do it. I think it contained stuff not found in other interviews with him, not all of it flattering in hindsight. It's fair. Manyanswer (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand Wehwalt's concerns, but balance would keep the article about the subject, and keep it fromt he muck and more that heralded the underbelly of this event. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this was done, and note that it was already ref #12 anyway. Manyanswer (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads up - phenomenal CSMonitor news piece wrt civil liberties

"Beyond Gates arrest, a growth of police power" (Dek: "Arrests of those who challenge police authority are not uncommon, say civil libertarians")

[...] § "To put cuffs on somebody is a grave matter, and it has to be for more than an officer just having a bad day," says George Kirkham, a former cop who's now a criminology professor at Florida State University in Tallahassee. As employers and others increasingly use background checks, even a trivial arrest can be potentially damaging. § And subjective arrests of people who challenge an officer's authority also undermine community trust needed to catch and investigate real criminals, says Radley Balko, a senior editor at Reason Magazine. § Police defenders counter that the citizenry needs to respect officers who, day in and day out, perform a dangerous job, with few accolades. "The rule is, if a police officer stops you in a car or on the street, he's the captain of the ship, and whatever he says goes," says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police's legislative division. "If you've got something to address, do it later. Do what he says, or else only bad things can happen." § [...]

Anyone scope any quotes or references in this piece that they think we should consider for inclusion? ↜Just M E here , now 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We would need a citation that directly connects this situation to that discussion; otherwise, it could be considered synthesis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the CSMonitor piece be added to the WP Contempt of Cop article, which is what it most strongly relates to. In addition, consider adding a "See also" reference to that article here. Pechmerle (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

^YDone. Thanks, Pechmerle. ↜Just M E here , now 02:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't anticipate a "See also" as prominent as this. It tends to have a POV problem in this format. I had expected only a footnote type see also reference. More in keeping with a balanced approach. Pechmerle (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pechmerle, yes, true. I've now added wikilinks to law enforcement agency powers, styles of policing and "law and order" to perhaps, it's hoped, address the POV issue you mention of there only having been "contempt of cop" listed before(?) ↜Just M E here , now 11:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, in an update, Veriditas saw these 3 "law enforcement" wikilink additions as too far afield and deleted them. ↜Just M E here , now 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See also links are useful when there is a good probability they will be eventually incorporated into the article. If you feel the links meet that criterion, add them back in. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the See Also section with cross-referencing footnote in the article text, where the concept of contempt-of-cop was already mentioned in this article's main text. To eliminate the undue weight contempt-of-cop would have as a stand-alone See also section. Pechmerle (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(There was already a cross-link to the other article, I've now realized, so not even an additional footnote was necessary.) Pechmerle (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

A POV edit to the arrest photo caption: JMHN has added a quote from Gates to the photo caption. Take a look. This change gives a strong highlight to Gates's version of the event, and therefore breaks NPOV. I think we should take the quote back out. Pechmerle (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. That's too much. .

And on a side note, is someone going to reverse that image in the infobox? It should be Gates, then Crowley. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move it to the article text for now, before others come along and start a 'caption war.' That's without prejudice (oops) to JMNH's views, which I am glad to consider if he wants to comment further. Pechmerle (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair, Pechmerle. ↜Just M E here , now 02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I liked the now-deleted addition to the caption and would be in favour of restoring it. To make the caption as a whole more neutral, we could add Crowley's side too. E.g. something along these lines:

"Gates on the front porch of his home, being arrested; Sgt. Leon Lashley in the foreground, Sgt. Crowley on the right.[10] Gates later wrote: "A crowd had gathered, and as they were handcuffing me and walking me out to the car, I said, 'Is this how you treat a black man in America?'" Sgt. Crowley wrote in his report, "Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him."

JN466 01:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the caption should mention the fact that he is being led out of his own home. That is an undisputed fact and central to the controversy. Perhaps "Gates is led out of his home in handcuffs after being arrested. Sgt. Leon Lashley is in the foreground." This version also better describes what is happening to readers with visual impairment.--agr (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see Jayen466's suggestion before I plugged in Arnold's, immediately above, {sighs} but I like it. I think it helps to fill in and humanize the narrative by captioning each side's decription of the scene being depicted in the pic. ↜Just M E here , now 02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is Leon Lashley mentioned? Does he have some heretofore unknown part in this kerfuffle? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, I don't know how well this answers your question, but there's this from archive #1: "Huge subject missing". ↜Just M E here , now 03:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lashley's name could be left out of the caption. But he is identifiable, and he is also quoted in the Response section, where his remark that he 100% supported Crowley's decision to make the arrest is noted. Pechmerle (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the photo caption should be simple, and without argumentative content. Readers can judge for themselves what the photo shows. The main text is the place for the positions the two sides have taken on the validity/invalidity of the arrest. Pechmerle (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And the current caption -- "led out of home" -- is POV. Part of the legal foundation for the arrest was that Gates was making a public disturbance outside his home. Better, legally neutral language is "led from home" which I will insert now.Mattnad (talk) 07:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Captions of prominent images are among the most-read parts of articles. It would be useful to the reader here to describe the different points of view from which the two protagonists viewed the situation, providing context to the image. JN466 16:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Our article right now mentions Lashley in the caption, then in the "Reactions" there's mention of Lashley as a black officer who witnessed the arrest and fully supports the actions of his colleagues.

I suggest we consider some further bits from Lashley's account. As characterized by Lashley, Gates was saying things along the lines of "This is how a black man in America is treated!": apparently perfectly legal to say inside Gates's house. The officers requested Gates to please step outside. Lashley: "[...O]nce he came out of his own home, it became something different. It was -- he was in -- he was in the public view, and he was causing much of a -- it was just getting out of control after he came outside."

      Lashley: "I arrived on the scene. There was -- Officer Crowley -- Sergeant Crowley and Officer Figueroa were inside the building -- or inside the house. I stepped on the sidewalk where the call -- the caller was on scene. And she was giving an interview with Officer Rosa {phonetic}, who was speaking to her. And I sent another couple officers inside to see what was going on. I stayed out with Officer Rosa."

CNN's Anderson Cooper: "And, so, you -- you could hear conversation inside the house, though. What did you hear?"

      "I heard some conversation inside the house. And as -- then, all of a sudden, it got a little bit louder, with the -- I heard the comments of: 'This is how a black man in America is treated. And I'm being placed under arrest in my own home because a white woman called the police.'"

"You know, the -- one of the questions a lot of people would have on this is, why -- why arrest Professor Gates? I mean, if -- if he's just talking back to police, and -- and President Obama says overreacting, perhaps, why not just let him do that in his own home and -- and leave the scene?"

      "Well, once he -- once he came out of his own home, it became something different. It was -- he was in -- he was in the public view, and he was causing much of a -- it was just getting out of control after he came outside."

— CNN TRANSCRIPT  

Is there anything here worthy of brief mention in the article? ↜Just M E here , now 18:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What's needed from Lashley's interview is his comment that if he had been the first officer on the scene, he thinks that there would have been no arrest. He puts it that 'black man to black man,' he believes it would have gone differently. That goes to the overall subject of the controversy, which is, was the arrest racial profiling (or not), was it just sound law enforcement (or not). It's a quote that I would favor including -- readily sourceable and highly relevant. Pechmerle (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I agree. Here's the rest of the interview.

But he was on his front porch, right?

      He's outside.

So, you have absolutely no qualms at all that he should have been arrested, that he should have been taken in?

      I have no qualms with that. And one of the things that we want to -- would it have been different had I shown up first? And I think it probably would have been different. And [...] But had he acted that -- because of the black man to black man, it probably would have been different. And had he continued to do the -- ended up -- if it didn't go the way that I would assumed it would had gone had I been there first, I, too, would have probably had placed him under arrest, if it had gotten too much further out of control. But I believe Sergeant Crowley was within his rights to make that arrest at that location and at that time.

Sergeant Lashley, I know you are a busy man. I appreciate your time. And I appreciate all you do. Thank you.

      Thank you.

— CNN TRANSCRIPT  

↜Just M E here , now 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose putting at the end of the paragraph in the article text: "Sgt. Lashley added that he thought it would have gone differently, with no arrest, if he had been the first officer to arrive on the scene and the initial encounter with Gates was "black man to black man." [cite CNN interview with Lashley]

Any comments on this? Pechmerle (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

^Y Going once! Going twice! Sold! (Added text per Pechmerle.) ↜Just M E here , now 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think it would be good if we could somehow mention Lashley's analysis that it was the officer's [strategic?] invitation for Gates to step outside that rendered his complaints against how he was being treated into an [ostensible] crime against the public at large, tho. ↜Just M E here , now 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

How do we want to handle it? Purely chronologically or by topic? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, it needs to be done both ways concurrently. I.e., keep the main points of a topic's discussion (perhaps summarized), and then the most recent comments on that topic. I don't know if this method can be employed without too much effort, though. 67.170.223.12 (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This has already been brought up here and one archive has already been completed. I went ahead and archived based on the criteria Arcane used last time. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you!!! Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is extremely bad form for editors deeply involved in a disputed, ongoing discussion to archive that same, ongoing discussion when it suits them. Please do not do this again. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This was done at the request of other users on the page. If you have an issue with the archiving method I used, then make the argument - don't just blanketly reprimand me for doing something that you've determined is "bad."--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who requested it. Users who have a conflict of interest in an active discussion should not attempt to archive the same active discussion. It makes it look like they are trying to close the discussion and hide it. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you only had an issue with this after you were reported for edit warring. Nonetheless... if you feel something needs to be unarchived, then make the argument and the "uninvolved" can make the decision. I think I have been fair in the way that I archived, but if you disagree, show me the way...--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of "if you are involved in a disputed, active discussion, don't archive that discussion" are you having problems understanding? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you've argued is that I shouldn't have done the archiving. You haven't supported this view with any policies, guidelines, essays, etc. You haven't claimed that I was unfair in the way I did this. You just don't like that I did it. I suspect you're just upset about the ongoing discussion on the edit warring board and are using this as a defacto ad hominem attack against me.

I continue to invite you to propose sections to be "unarchived." As I've said in another discussion, the ongoing discussions that were archived had jumped to another section heading. I was very careful to make it easy for the archived discussion to be accessed. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about refusing to get the point. Look, we avoid conflicts of interests whenever possible. That means, if you are involved in an active discussion that involves a dispute, you do not archive the active discussion. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is on probation now. Let's both agree to stop talking about each other, and focus on the article. For my part, I agree to not archive the page again. If there's something that I've archived that you'd like to see put back, let's talk about it.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hey people, something just archived can simply be un-archived, no problem, folks. Is there a thread archived today that now needs to be restored to this page? ↜Just M E here , now 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, V just wants to continue jamming up our talk page. If he had a real objection about a specific section, he would have made it already. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to come across impertinently to your discussion of V's behavior, Wilhelm -- but this is just a reminder that we are to bring up such things on user talk pages (or even on the probation page) but not here. Note the stipulation "assume good faith." ↜Just M E here , now 12:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're right, JMHN. We shouldn't WP:Assume bad faith, even when it is apparently demonstrated. My apologies to anyone offended by my previous comment. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Features of "Obama article probation" that pertain to this page

The Henry Louis Gates arrest incident became of note due to its linkage with the administration of Barack H. Obama, therefore the community has deemed this article to be a part of "Obama article probation." (See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation for what added features thereby exist to counter contentious behaviors.) Please do not discuss meta issues related to behavior on this article's talkpage -- as, rather, they are to be brought up and on the appropriate sub-page over at Obama article probation page.

Its most basic "stips":

• Editors may be sanctioned for disruptive edits, including

1. edit warring
2. personal attacks
3. incivility
4. assumptions of bad faith
5. making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article
6. making repeated comments about the subject of the article
7. repeatedly discussing other editors.

Basically, on the talk page discuss the article.

"Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian. We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people. Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban -- take a break and come back refreshed."

↜Just M E here , now 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC) & ↜Just M E here , now 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Another point of information is that under probation there is to be zero edit warring at all, not edit warring up to 3 reverts. For example, should editors disagree with how the White House invitation to Gates and Crowley should be phrased in the article, speaking only hypothetically of course (bad joke), they must not revert more than once per editor per day but must take such disagreements to an appropriate forum such as mediation. ↜Just M E here , now 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, can you give me a link to the discussion where the community decided this article was subject to the Obama probation? And what about 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, here's the official determination of the probation in general. I'll be back with links discussing this page in particular.

1. ANI: "Article probation" (1) (2)
2. Here a user is banned from Obama-related articles: ReqForArb/Obama articles
3. Here are a list of such articles: Navigational template directing to articles about Obama-relalted news/political events)
4. Here an admin informs that user that this Gatesgate/"beer summit" etc. article (Crowley-Gates) is Obama related:

   "You have violated your ArbCom remedy at the Obama list thing (which I didn't even see), at Talk:Gerald Walpin [14], and at Henry Louis Gates arrest incident [15]"

↜Just M E here , now 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this. Tarc added it, with an edit summary which didn't actually say what he did, and so now this article is part of article probation? What if I removed it? I think there should be an individualized determination of whether article probation is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Tarc. I'm User:Justmeherenow. ↜Just M E here , now 14:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware. Didn't mean to imply that it was one person doing both things, but rather Tarc adding it to the template is the only basis on which you do the article probation. Obviously this is an extensively discussed topic, but it has been relatively civil and I am not sure there is a need for same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm I can't seem to find where Tarc did anything wrt to this article? –xeno^talk 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add that about half of the articles in that template don't seem to be under article probation. It may be a good idea to have this under article probation, but I'm concerned about process here. As I'm gathering, the article is, you say, under article probation because 1) it's in that template and 2) you say it is. I'm not clear that this is good enough, and admin action could easily be challenged.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tarc has just been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3revert rune on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Nice timing! :) But unless I see something convincing, or a discussion either here or at AN/I with a consensus this article needs to be on article probation, I'm minded to remove the template.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, it's there. Anyways, Tarc didn't place it, he just amended the wording from Gatesgate [16]. –xeno^talk 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article probation template should be placed by an administrator willing to oversee it... (Removed for now). –xeno^talk 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no discussion or consensus for attaching it anyway. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. My point exactly. And I've removed this article from that template.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cause this discussion to make you remove articles from navigation templates. Why would you do that?

• Note, I've opened up a discussion here: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is Crowley-Gates an Obama related page? I hope this is the right place for this request for clarification. Please advise! ↜Just M E here , now 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The community decided to place Obama-related pages under probation. No separate consensus is required on a page-by-page basis before placing notices. In general, being on article probation does not prohibit any behavior that is not already prohibited - personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, using talk pages to make accusations, soapboxing, edit warring shy of 3RR, etc., are already prohibited. Article probation simply means trying extra hard, and heightened enforcement. Edit warring over removing Obama article probation notices could also be considered a violation of Obama article probation. Having said all that, the tendency for the most part has been to construe "Obama-related" fairly narrowly for purposes of article probation - books by or about him, articles about him and his political achievements, his family members, and so on, not his associates, friends, cabinet members, and so on. That could change I suppose. If I had to guess, Gates' long-term notability is 80% for being a professor and 20% over Obama's comments relating to his arrest. Thus, although the recent difficulty with the article is Obama-related, the article is not primarily Obama-related. Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC) - italicized because discussion has now moved to WP:AN/I.

Just noting it's not Gates's biography, it's a page regarding the arrest and corresponding events. Manyanswer (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Come to think, What percentage of Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, which has a probationary tag attached, genuinely concerns Obama? Not much, truth be told. (But then, that was a trick question! ^{;^)} ) (No one's tagged Jeremiah Wright controversy.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ayers controversy could not have existed without Obama. Gatesgate could.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, and Wehwalt said it better but...) I tend to agree with both of the above statements... Controversies about non-events are still controversies. One could draw a distinction that whereas the Ayers controversy was almost entirely about the 2008 election the Gates arrest controversy is only partly about Obama. It was a big controversy with or without Obama - the arrest and Gates' alleged conduct, Obama's statements and the reaction to them, and then the beer summit. So three parts to it. But if you look at why probation exists it's to encourage productive editing in a group of articles that has had some problems. I think the proof is in the pudding. Does the Gates arrest article have the same kind of editing problem that other Obama-related pages have had? And if so, is it a temporary or a long-term issue. I'm wondering if some pages can graduate from probation and have probation lifted, once they aren't current events. The Obama/Ayers controversy page, for instance, has not had any major trouble for a long while. Wikidemon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A minor point of order regarding "Tarc added it to the template"; it was actually added by Whyzeee as "Gatesgate". I was unsure of the notability, but the name was awful and only appeared to be used by a handful of non-RS, so it was changed to Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Another user, Clearcrash1, had been trying to get his fringe rabble-rousing books into the template, and in the process of doing so removed the link to the gates incident, which I reverted, which is why it appears as me "adding" it to the template. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:B has proposed a pretty reasonable sounding rule of thumb on his talkpage

If there are multiple edit warriors on a page (or sock puppets acting the part of the same) then probationary oversight could be sought, but not before. Comments? ↜Just M E here , now 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet my own thinking is that the self-policing by the community and the quick remedies-as-are-sought-from-overseeing-admins, as both are a part of so-called article probation, really ought as much as possible be enforced project wide. ↜Just M E here , now 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(To continue this conversation with myself ^{;^)} ): Also, the terms "flame war" or "edit war" implies one or more opponents refusing to discuss things nicely or else resorting to reverting each other multiple times instead of discussing their edits and trying to reach a consensus. Thus putting a break on a single, initial instigator of either type of "warring" behavior would seem to me to be wise. ↜Just M E here , now 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Navbox

A few quick reverts on adding and removing a navbox template for Gates-related articles, all two of them. It's nicely done and I'm normally a fan of navboxes but I do think it's a little unnecessary to have a navigation system for just two articles. I don't see the harm if everyone agrees, but we have two editors with good faith objections so I wouldn't push it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, its deletion discussion is here: WP:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_10#Template:Henry_Louis_Gates_nav_box. May I "cc" your statment to there? ↜Just M E here , now 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. I think it translates to "either way is fine". Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Could care less per Wikidemon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)