Talk:Henry Louis Gates Jr./Archive 1

Books

Is it necesarry to list what would appear to be every article or book Dr Gates has published. Wouldn't several representative examples be sufficient?

Agreed. --131.238.207.207 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bondwoman’s Narrative

Should be an article on The Bondwoman’s Narrative... AnonMoos 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bondwoman's_Narrative. I'm not sure why the link is not working though. I've triple-checked it, and I'm still messing it up. Sorry =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.216.134 (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. You were using 'Bondswoman' instead of 'Bondwoman'. Terraxos (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sectionize

Just upon skimming through this article it might be in need of sections... Jarfingle 07:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Reassessment

Does anyone have any objection to reassessing this article as C-Class? Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With no objections, article reassessed to C-class. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored racial profiling allegations

The article says : "He went to Yale and gained his B.A. ...". The question is how did he manage to get there?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.4.113 (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the allegations of racial profiling which were removed by the anon IP. The reference clearly supports the material in its entirety. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is surreal- the only statement in the press from someone that was actually at the incident is the police report! Every other person interviewed is merely reporting what they heard! There is no eyewitness that has spoken to the press that can support Gates' wild allegation of profiling or racism. --98.244.24.82 (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I answered this point on your other user talk page and explained this is not how we do things (see User talk:71.230.166.230). Police reports are primary sources, and for now, we rely on the secondary sources which already present the POV of the Police for our purposes. Previously, you or another account added an entire paragraph cherry picked from the Police report, and we don't need that either. Short and sweet, representing the most important points from the secondary sources - that's what we need. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

While Viriditas is correct, the matter has become somewhat moot, as other references are starting to emerge, most notably from Gates himself. I've added to the article to reflect this rather ugly (and imho, dumbest act by a cop in Cambridge yet) incident. As the story develops, the form of the section is going to develop as well, likely as a subsection of Gates' private life, or - depending on how much fallout emerges - its own section. As an encyclopedia, we are not and should not be in a hurry. That the article is a BLP is more reason for pause. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's a matter of undue weight, not "cherry-picking"; there's nothing wrong with using primary sources in an article, whether it's the police report or whether it's the Gates-Ogletree account that's come out this morning. There is an issue that the Boston Globe seems to have taken the police report down; whether that's a policy decision or simply because it was being downloaded by everybody in the world I don't know. No word on whether a mirror site is available, but the police report has been widely quoted since it came out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement dumbest act by a cop in Cambridge yet intimates you are biased and should therefore not be editing this article. Blue Sheepdog (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion as to my parenthetical comment, stated as my own opinion. Understand that I believe I can edit neutrally in the article. To edit within Wikipedia doesn't mean we are mindless automatons without pinions; it means that we are able to leave those opinions out of our article edits. Respectfully, your suggestion that I should withdraw from the article is duly noted and rejected. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Globe simply moved the report on their server. Can now be found here.[1] Someone should relink in the article accordingly.Blue Sheepdog (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You seem to be ahead of the rest of the media. Anyway we shouldnt pull a full paragraph from this, but it should be a good source for physical details i.e. was the door jammed, that the media tend not to dwell on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picking is undue weight, and Wikipedia uses secondary sources to write articles, not primary. Primary sources can be used, but only if they are used carefully, and supported by the secondary. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If there's no particular dispute about what is in the police report (that is, that the text is accurate) we can certainly use it as the police's perspective on this. Note that the Gates/Ogletree statement in TheRoot is also primary, after all, he is a partner in the website and Ogletree is his attorney. I suggest that you may be being overly pedantic on this one, in perfect good faith of course. I think we should pull this incident into its own article, plainly this will not end soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gates disputes the police report, as do others. And you know that The Root is an online magazine co-founded by Gates and is published by The Washington Post, so it can be used as both a primary and a secondary source, and considering this is the article about Gates, it is acceptable to use. We already have good secondary sources that cover this issue in its entirety and have absolutely no need for editors to cherry pick from primary sources like the disputed police report. Can you tell me which information from the police report is necessary for this article? From what I can tell, we have already covered all the main points, and the material you added back into the article is completely unnecessary. Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gates-Ogletree statement is a primary source, wherever it's printed. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While the police report is disputed, so is the account offered by Gates. It seems somewhat unreasonable to me that we should treat the two differently. Yes, while we "have absolutely no need for editors to cherry pick from primary sources like the disputed police report" you could say the same about "the disputed account given by Gates." Marchoi (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you can't post facts without liberal acorn supporters rewriting it.

Oh well, seems like wikki has come to this these days. Very unreliable source of real info anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfGrunt (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Prof Grunt, if you have a careful look at my history, I think you'll have a hard time supporting the notion that I'm either liberal or an ACORN supporter. Post whatever you like. But if it doesn't meet WP policy, including WP:NPOV, it will be removed. Ronnotel (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

you are an acorn supporter. look at this wording " The incident drew national attention when President Barack Obama indicated that he thought that the police action was disproportionate". that's not how he put it. he was much more crude, He said STUPIDLY. also there was national attention before obama's stupid remarks. This cop was hand pick by a black commissioner to teach RACIAL profiling and gave mouth to mouth to reggie lewis in 1993, a black man. hell i even saw in the arrest a black cop. this is about an arrogant piece of shit professor who thinks he is above the law. if there was racial profiling, it would be the neighbor who saw to black men kicking down a "jammed" door. the cop was just responding to the call, and gates immediately started making accusations of racism, just because he didn't want to provide proof that he lived there. he had a chip on his shoulder, and has made race relations worse in America while also cheapening real accusations of racism.

regardless of one's opinion though, this comment "The incident drew national attention when President Barack Obama indicated that he thought that the police action was disproportionate" is not what obama said, this is massively tilted paraphrasing, deliberately taking away the crudeness of what obama said and spinning it with PC language.

• * "regardless of one's opinion though, this comment "The incident drew national attention when President Barack Obama indicated that he thought that the police action was disproportionate" is not what obama said, this is massively tilted paraphrasing, deliberately taking away the crudeness of what obama said and spinning it with PC language." Deliberate crudeness, and 'spinning it'? HAAA! I guess thats NOT what you're doing? Hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.71.110 (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Obama's remark was crude and thoughtless. However this article is about HLG jr., I fail to see the urgency of beating up on BO in this paragraph. A neutrally phrased comment on the reaction to BO's bone-headed comment belong's in the sub article. Ronnotel (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The early draft of this article mistakenly gave the impression that Gates was somehow arrested for breaking into his home. This was very misleading. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct and, as the police report makes clear, the conduct in question was his abusive behavior toward the Cambridge police officer. The emphasis has been corrected to focus on the issue at hand. The controversy was over the extent to which Gates acted abusively; there was no controversy about whether or not Gates was in his own home, etc.Elprussian (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is no evidence that Gates was abusive to anyone, nor could an old man who walks with a cane and has bronchitis be in a position to abuse a police officer or be considered a threat to anyone. What is interesting is that Gates has worked long and hard to combat allegations of racism and racial profiling by the police on the Harvard campus, so he is no stranger to the problem.[2] Many people have come forward to say that Gates should not have been arrested, such as Robert McCrie, professor of security management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, who said that the arrest was "gratuitious", and that even if if Gates had screamed, "such conduct doesn't amount to disorderly conduct." According to McCrie, the police should train their officers better regarding the interview process of citizens who are in their home.[3] This sentiment is shared by the vast majority of Americans, most of whom believe that the police routinely overstep their bounds and infringe on individual rights in the course of their duties. The controversy, therefore, has very litlle if anything to do with the alleged "abuse" by Gates, and everything to do with how the police handle themselves in the field. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Disorderly conduct differs from state to state. I'd hesitate to cite a New York professor for his views about disorderly conduct statutes in Massahusetts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As many commentators have already observed, "disorderly conduct" is what you get arrested for when the police have nothing to charge you with. I will never forget the time a friend of mine was arrested for "punching a horse" at a political protest. Of course, there was neither a "punch" exchanged nor a police "horse" in the remote vicinity. The fact that the average American citizen is subject to arrest and imprisonment at any time is extremely troubling, especially when this arrest occurs in and around their own home, and for no good reason. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems and holes in the article

There's still some problems with the article, and there's some holes in the reporting that hopefully will be filled later:

He did not own the house, he rented and was on the phone calling the rental company (not sure of why he was calling, but one can assume that it was about the door). Where I live, SOP when a patrol car is called (right or wrong) they ask for IDs of everyone involved. If you rent, then they want to see lease. Doesn't matter what color you are it is SOP. Get over it.

Maybe so, But please indent and sign your post if adding to something that somebody else wrote. (indentation and italics mine) Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• "the door to his house non-working". Non-working? That's pretty stilted language. "Jammed" would be more appropriate.
• Some accounts quote the police report as saying "Gates told me that the door was unsecurable due to a previous break attempt at the residence". That sheds a different light on the story. Perhaps the door was both bolted from the inside, and warped/jammed so that it was difficult to open.
• Many accounts say something about two men trying to "pry" or "shoulder" a door open. That's something people expect the police to respond to, but is conspicuously missing from our article.
• The wording "two black males" seems prejudicial to me. This wasn't a situation where somebody was picked out of a crowd because of race. If this was from the police dispatch it would be cherry-picking to include race but not height, weight, clothing, etc.
• The cab driver was also of African descent, but apparently there was no fuss about him.
• What was happening with the doors is similar to ( or is somewhat the reverse of ) a common burglary tactic in the area. Often burglars will work in pairs, with one ringing the front doorbell and the other breaking down the back door if nobody answers. I would expect the police to be very suspicious when both the front and back doors are involved.
• For what was said inside the house we can only go on what the individuals involves said, but there may be something on the radio tapes and the person at the Harvard real estate office whom Gates was speaking to may have heard something.
• There's some speculation out there about why it was necessary to bring Gates out on the front porch. The police report says it's because acoustics in the room made it difficult to both use the radio and talk to Gates. This could be standard procedure, so one officer can do the talking while another checks his bona fides on the radio, but there's a vibe out there that this was some kind of trap.
• There's also a feeling out there that the arrest was made out of spite. But personally if I was the officer, and someone was calling me a racist and giving me the "do you know who I am", if I felt a threat to my professional reputation, I'd want a paper trail.
• There's been similar recent incidents where the police ( HUPD in another case ) have responded to indicents that looked like crimes in progress, i.e. someone cutting the lock off a bike, and then there was all this hoopla over "racism"[4] We should try to find news sources that mention these incidents as background. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering this is a relatively minor incident now, the level of detail in the article was excessive. If we get into areas where we're trying to advance speculation or look for "holes" to fill we are probably ahead of sources. --Dhartung | Talk 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't advance any speculation. But there are things we should search for to see if any reliable sources weigh in on, and a more informed analysis may appear in the weekly magazines. It's become an international story, so there's many, many sources to choose from. But most of the material that's out there is spin; if we want sources that are interested in what actually happened, we need to know what to look for. If there's a trouble with length in the article, we can cite a few sources that explain the incident particularly well and the interested reader can consult those. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Respectfully, if the DA's office hadn't chosen to drop the charges, it would have been more than a "minor incident". Again, this is why we shouldn't be in a hurry - we aren't the news. I wonder how long its going to take for that fact to sink in with some editors. And spinning facts tend to slow down over time. Yet another reason to stop thinking like reporters and start thinking like editors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A few hours ago the article looked like we were spin doctors. Now a multiparagraph account of that evening would be a huge undue weight problem, unless we expand the biography to book-length. It's unlikely we could have a separate article about the incident, unless it started being taught as a case study in the police academy or in civil rights studies. While WP is to some extent taking over from Wikinews in writing about current events, a proper article on the mechanics of the incident comparing and contrasting all the sources would be appropriate on Wikinews. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we're (all three) on the same page here. NPOV demands we give this the due weight of a few hours amongst a career spanning four decades. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The officer's name, James M. Crowley, should be linked to this section of this Wikipedia article.

Not done, because although Reggie Lewis#Death and legacy happens to mention James M. Crowley, it is not an article or even a section about him. Currently there is no James M. Crowley article; if we were to make a redirect from that, it would be up for debate as to whether it would link to Reggie Lewis#Death and legacy or to this article - and neither is ideal. The solution would be to make a stub about Mr Crowley, and wikilink from his name to that stub, in both this article, and in the Reggie Lewis article. Presumably the same reliable sources used within these two articles would be sufficient to cover notability, so this would be fairly easy to make.  Chzz  ►  23:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done

This whole section gives grossly disproportionate weight to a brief incident in Gates's life, and should be deleted from this article. There is already a whole article on the arrest; that is more than sufficient. If more is wanted here, it should come only when Gates has begun working on the documentary he has indicated will result. Pechmerle (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Disorderly conduct charges dropped

Details here.[5] Blue Sheepdog (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that; they've been incorporated into the article. - 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge MA

The article says

...the day after his undergraduate commencement, Gates set sail on the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 for the University of Cambridge, where he studied English literature at Clare College. With the assistance of a Ford Foundation Fellowship, he worked toward his MA and Ph.D. in English.

This can't be right. You can't "work towards" an MA at Cambridge, because a Cambridge MA is not an earned degree: you get a Cambridge MA by getting a Cambridge BA and waiting a few years, and in various other situations, but none of them through studying for the degree itself. Nevertheless, his CV lists a Cambridge MA, so presumably he was awarded one at some point. But writing "worked towards" as though it was an earned degree is misleading; I'll be bold and take it out. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than removing, perhaps the article would be better served if you were to offer an alternative. Clearly, he did earn it at some point, so removal of such isn't an improvement of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, he did earn it at some point: with respect, you missed the point of my comment. Not you nor I nor Dr Gates nor anyone can earn or work towards a Cambridge MA, since it's not an earned degree, any more than you can "work towards" an honorary doctorate or something like that. Dr Gates was indeed awarded an MA, but I hardly see why this is even worth mentioning in the same breath as his PhD, which is an actual achievement. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but as I suggested earlier, wouldn't it be better to find an alternative to removal? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If the gentleman actually received a Cambridge PhD, as his Harvard bio states, then shouldn't the article say that he received his PhD?--Kbk (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tumultuous behavior

The arrest report shows only that Gates was arrested for "disorderly conduct" per 272 MGL 53. There is no such charge of "tumultuous behavior" in the statute. The relevant General Laws of Massachusetts section (272 53[6]) does not include the language "tumultuous behavior." Hence, saying Gates was arrested for "tumultuous behavior" is not correct. The phrase "tumultuous behavior" originates in the Model Penal Code definition of disorderly conduct and thus frequently appears in police reports because it's a term used often by Massachusetts courts. Tumultuous behavior is evidence of disorderly conduct. Hence, I amended the language in the article accordingly.Blue Sheepdog (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

TheRoot.com is not "Gates's website"

The article previously stated:

"Gates and his attorney, Harvard colleague Charles Ogletree, issued a statement on Gates's website, theroot.com, disputing the police report."

Which makes it sound like TheRoot.com is his personal website -- which it definitely is not. So I've removed that part of the sentence.

Hoping To Help (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not his personal website, but it is his partnership with the WashPost, judging by TheRoot.com--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Gates-Ogletree account was published by the Cambridge Chronicle

If there's any issue with TheRoot, the matter is also published in the local Cambridge newspaper.[7] Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama press conference

The President made a comment about the incident during his July 22, 2009 press conference. This should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.15.184 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: It was Obama's healthcare reform press conference and the comment came at the very end during the press q-and-a portion. He may(???) have had the facts wrong. He said Identification was brandished by Mr. Gates upon entry to Mr. Gate's home. While I was not a witness to the events, local reporting agencies have been making little of whether ID was presented. or leading people to believe none was presented? Ideally the best thing would be to obtain a copy of police report for their side and wait to see if Mr. Gates makes a statement. CaribDigita (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should be careful to avoid recentism. Right now, the text in this part of the article is nearly as long as the rest of the article. Whatever one may think of Gates, either in the past or because of this incident, this should not outweigh the rest of his career. Perhaps we need to branch off the article, being careful not to let the new article become a coatrack. Perhaps Arrest of Henry Gates?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt the President was primarily concerned with the mechanics of when and where the IDs were produced ( for that we should look at the police report, the Gates-Ogletree account, the initial AP report, and the local papers ). The important thing is that he was concerned enough about the incident to mention it a speech. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are advocating OR. We generally don't "look" to uncover anything, but rather go with what the secondary sources report. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's advocating OR? I'm explaining why it's encyclopedic to cite Obama's reaction, and that the lack of great detail on when the ID was shown is no reason to exlude his speech. There's plenty of material in both primary and secondary sources that explain about the IDs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need the primary here, and why don't the secondary sources suffice for our purposes? Can you point out a detail the primary sources provide that the secondary don't, and show me why it needs to be in this article? Viriditas (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a section about Obama's speech, not primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to your comment, "for that we should look at the police report, the Gates-Ogletree account, the initial AP report, and the local papers". It sounds like you aren't satisfied with the sources you've read so far, so what exactly is it you are looking for concerning the ID's? We already have the information we need. Viriditas (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the police report shouldn't be used as a source - the site its from is pretty biased and not altogether reliable - but I think the reader would like to have the option to see the police report and decide for themselves. As such, it should be an external link, or another, more appropriate link should be found that displays the police report. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

the site its from is pretty biased You mean the Boston Globe? I agree the Globe can be pretty biased but we have to go on the sources available. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see quotations from the police report double-cited. When we cite a secondary source that quotes the report, we should also cite the report itself. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the actual, photocopied and uploaded report at Amnation ([8]). It was removed from the article, precipitating some of the discussion here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the Globe restore the report at a different URL? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

There seems to be some confusion on this point. WP:PRIMARY reads in part:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

Accordingly, there is nothing wrong with stating the police perspective as stated in the police report so long as it is clearly labeled as such and we don't try to analyze it. I should add that this is common even at the FA level. If there is a feeling that there is "cherrypicking" and that important material is being left out, well, add it in then. We have spare bytes.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could post a note on WP:RSN and let experienced heads decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by your strange insistence that Wikipedia must use disputed primary sources over secondary ones, especially in a BLP currently experiencing great debate in the media. This seems to be a case of poor judgment. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, we exercise great care in using material from primary sources and we prefer to rely on third-party published sources for our material. You recently added statements from the police report back into this article for some reason that I cannot figure out. Looking at those statements, they do not appear to be accurate. Furthermore, the statements in question have already been covered accurately in the secondary sources, so your reversion of this inaccurate material back into the article does not make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way are they inaccurate, and why can't you just fix them, rather than engaging in wholesale deletion? There is nothing wrong, under WP:PRIMARY with using a primary source in this matter, so long as the sources are not interpreted. Forgive me if I don't promptly respond to you, I have to go to work. Thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why we shouldn't use the police report for some facts, or should at least give an external link to it. The report may only tell one side of the story, but we should always include original sources if available so our readers can see for themselves. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with an external link (I prefer a footnote) and agree with you on that point. But, as far as I can tell, all of the accurate information we need can be found in the secondary sources, and the benefit is that we can find both the opinion of the police and the subject in those sources. I would support the use of the primary here if we needed it, but I don't see that we do. Considering the controversy and debate over this BLP, I would say that we really need to avoid it. Everything we need can be found in the secondary literature. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why we can't cite more than one source for the same fact. I'd recommend citing the police report, the Gates account, and some of the local papers for the timeline of what happened that night. This will highlight where the sources say the same thing, and where they diverge. But I feel the firestorm of controversy is one reason to stay close to primary sources and early secondary sources; most secondary sources are producing a flurry of opinion and are more appropriate to cite in a "reaction" paragraph. I also notice that you seem to have a dog in this fight; you wrote "Sickening, just sickening" in the edit summary when the arrest appeared, and have been trying to remove the police report ever since. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. Being sickened at allegations of racial profiling is a normal reaction. There's no "dog", nor any "fight", other than my fight to remove vandalism and inaccurate sourcing. I've consistently removed the police report because it isn't being used correctly and we don't favor the use of primary over secondary sources in BLP's, especially ones where there is ongoing controversy and debate. Your reasoning for avoiding the secondary sources and preferring primary is the exact opposite of how we write articles, especially BLP's. We avoid the primary and stick with the secondary. Could you give me an example of where we actually need to cite the police report here? Just one, please. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the fact that there are actually TWO police reports (one by Crowley, the arresting officer, and one by Figueroa, another officer at the scene)? A large part of credibility issue for the police report seems to be stemming from the fact that, after all, it was written by the officer who did the arresting, leading to a "who-said-what" debate. But if we have TWO police reports that have pretty similar timelines and discussion of events, then it seems to me that either BOTH officers are lying or NEITHER are lying. Marchoi (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As encyclopedia writers, we don't care who is lying. We only care about representing the best sources in the most neutral manner possible. It is not our job to compare and contrast primary sources, and our OR policy explicitly prohibits it. It's also not our job to argue for and against either position. We simply make note of the most important points in proportion to their placement in the sources we use, and briefly mention it. We don't write sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph about editorially-chosen minutiae dug out of a police report incident based on one day out of six decades in the life of a BLP filled with notable achievements. And, we don't need the police reports at all, because all of the major points in question have been covered extensively by the secondary literature. So, your point, if I understand it, is that instead of acting as neutral editors, we need to start behaving like private investigators, and determine the credibility of Gates and the reporting officers using the primary sources? That's above and beyond our job description. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is this policy you speak of that probibits comparing and contrasting primary sources? We cite sources all the time and say "Mr X said A, and Mr Y said B". Any interpretive claim, such as our own opinions about who is credible based on those comparisions, is probibited for good reason, ans we should keep it off the article as well as the talk page. What I'm advocating is a timeline format where we say "A happened (cite CPD, Gates, Globe), B happened (cite Globe), CPD says C happened, Gates says D happened," and so forth, which is what the article is maturing into. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The example that Marchoi provides above, that of comparing and contrasting two police reports to determine their accuracy, is original research. If a secondary source did this, we would cite it. As for a timeline, this article does not require such a level of detail, especially for only the incident itself. A timeline for all of the events related to this incident, however, might work, but for this article, such a timeline works best as embedded prose. If you think a separate article is needed, you might be able to include it there. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(←dent) We are not detectives, and we are not reporters. We edit citations into articles. That's it. Viriditas accurately points out that this is but a drop in the bucket of the 60+ year life of a man with notable accomplishments, so there is a strong argument for undue weight being given to this, as well as a problem with recentism - my grandpa would suggest that people have "done lost their minds", and i am tempted to agree, seeing the media frenzy over this on a slow news day?.

The police report should br an external link, because the reader might be interested in that, but a better source than a conservative righ-wing 'I-told-you-so' group could be found for it. A for a timeline, i really don't think its necessary. Explain what the cops, said, explain what Gates said, note that charges were dropped (with comment from the DA if necessary), Governor's comments, Presidents comments. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources are highly discouraged, particularly on BLPs with an abundance of secondary sources. The issue is not just of accuracy but of weight. If no secondary sources mention the detail, then we can presume it's unimportant. It's not up to us as an encylopaedia, to report on details which no other source considers important, no matter what editors may think. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not discouraged. I'd like to see, when we cite a secodnary source quoting the police report, the information double-cited to both the news article and the police report. And ditto for the Gates-Ogletree statement, which is also a primary source and which is also a useful chronology of events. It's important to check facts against the original sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette interview

An interview with Gates came out yesterday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -Harvard scholar says racial profiling led to arrest at his home - which fills in some of the blanks I brought up the other day:

• On finding the front door stuck, he thought somebody else had latched the door from the inside. He went in the back to check, found the front door jammed, and came back around to the front porch. This is why two men were seen on the porch.
• They were working on the door for 15 minutes.
• Both were dressed in business clothes. The driver was a uniformed driver from a black-car service. ( How should we identify the driver? We shouldn't call him a "taxi" driver, but "limo driver" implies a stretch luxury vehicle. )
• The driver was Moroccan, not African-American.
• I don't understand why the byline credits the Washington Post. Google News shows this was the only paper that ran the article. Perhaps those more familiar with the news business can explain how to cite this. Do reporters from the Washington Post often write articles for other papers? Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Print syndication? FYI... It is extremely unlikely that Gates was in a "stretch luxury vehicle". It is, however, likely, that Gates, like many executives and VIPs, was riding in a standard, executive class car, which in the States is often referred to as a "limo". This could imply anything from a town car to an SUV. In fact, if you read Lincoln Town Car, you'll see that it says, "The Town Car...serves as America's most used limousine and chauffeured car." Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was syndicated; I didn't see it in the WaPo or anyplace else. Perhaps their reporters have a relationship with other papers. My inclination is to cite it to Pittsburgh. Yes, it was almost certainly a sedan car service, not a stretch limo. I'm trying to figure out how to word it so our readers don't picture a stretch limo. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You word it as "car service", just like the article says. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot tell you how many times I've been in a limo from the airport - if you are known, its usually a town car with livery plates. If not, its usually a van. Either way, car service seems to be generic enough. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Irony

The supposed racist officer is the same officer that gave mouth to mouth ressucciation on Celtic's Basketball player Reggie Lewis in a desperate bid to save his life. His initial reply is now included. Arzel (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Eventually, we are going to have to adjust the Lede to reflect this

As the Lede is an overview/summary of the article, keep in mind that some long-term consideration should be made about this kerfuffle with the Cambridge police. Depending on how expansive the article gets with this, it is going to affect the Lede. keep that in mind, people. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there enough to the recent story ( after international attention, presidential statements, etc ) that it can be split off into a separate article? Is it likely to survive AFD? What about Wikinews? I'd like to have a detailed story put together, but disagreement on how much detail to use on this article will interfere with that process. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting ti needs to be addressed now. The reason there is so much hubbub about this now is that tis simply a slow news day and the complaint isn't all that uncommon ('police acting in a possibly racist way? Say it ain;t so'), though the target is. Eventually, cooler heads, calmer hearts, less indignant souls will prevail. We are not in a hurry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone weighs in?

Recently, I edited the article to cut down on the extraneous information as it relates to the Cambridge police incident, In the aftermath, both Obama and Sharpton weighed in with their comments. That's fine, when they speak on a subject, it tends to be notable, However, the article is about Gates. He was charged, and the charges were later dismissed by an embarrassed district attorney. The aftermath discussions, like people standing around, gawking at a road accident is superfluous at best, and unnecessary at worst. I am sure there are articles on racial profiling and Race in America, aren't there? That's where this info belongs. As Gates is no longer a participant in the commentary, we should direct the comments elsewhere and move along. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this section needs to be shortened by quite a bit as it is unproportional to the other, arguably more important aspects of his biography. I would also say that it should be integrated into the text and put into a larger perspective. For example, a section on Gates views on race and racial discrimination could contain a sentence or two on this incident. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"More Important?" Arguably indeed. Please remind me when the President of the United States, in a prime time news conference, commented on Gates' writings on African literature, or when a full 24 hour news cycle was consumed by any of his other scholarly achievements. Also, the section about the Cambridge incident doesn't include the officer's report that Gates claimed he didn't know who he was "messing with," and that he would "talk to your mama outside." I think these quotes reveal a facet of Gates' persona that isn't included elsewhere in the article and, as such, should be included in this section.--Tillyosu (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, I thought we were going to not whittle down the arrest section until it was either stable or ready to fork to its own article. And I wouldn't characterize dropping the charges as a result of an embarassed D.A.; dropping a misdemeanor "disorderly conduct" charge is probably routine. I would probably include Sharpton, I would definitely include Obama, and I'd also include Deval Patrick and some of the Cambridge brass. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "your mama" quote is extremely relevant. It provides another side to the Professor, and provides some factual evidence that he may not be as intelligent as people believe him to be. 76.126.239.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Tillyosu, with due respect, what you think about the facets of Gates' persona is personal interpretation. The cops claimed one thing and Gates claimed another. We need to remain objectively neutral on this matter. Quite frankly, a lot of the sound and fury coming from the media is just that, and signifies little. This is still a BLP article, and the likelihood that he uttered those comments relies upon believing that the Blue Code of Silence doesn't exist. Reliable sources reported their statements, and others reported the other side. Done and done. The commentary about race in America doesn;t really belong here, but I will concede that a forked article might be apropos at some point.

Squidfryerchef, I think that if there were enough information to sustain an independent article, it would have been forked already. As it is, commentary about the incident has transcended the subject of the article and become about something else altogether. As for the characterization of the DA as embarrassed, the apologetic nature of the press conference calling the charge "regrettable and unfortunate"^[9] is pretty unmistakable. However, no one has explicitly called it that, so it doesn't belong anywhere but here in article discussion. I think the dropping of the charge is anything but a routine thing - prosecutors live by their win/loss record.

That aside, I think if we are speaking about the principle matters of Gates, very few people outside the city of Cambridge are going to be relevant. Once you widen the circle to include discussions of race, the relevance of other voices becomes more reasonable. We need to remember that we cannot turn Gates' article into a SOAPBOX; there are points that can be made; they just should not be made here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tillyosu, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news channel. Only because the media circus reports non-stop does not mean that an article about a prolific scholar and public intellectual should be dominated by a minor incident that in all likelihood will forgotten in a few months. A storm in a teacup, indeed. Of course as an alternative we could dumb down Wikipedia, and use TV news channel coverage as a benchmark for importance. Maybe I should go right ahead and add a section on Lolcats to the Cat article. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We should create a separate article for the incident. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd marriage

Is Henry Louis Gates really remarried? This appears above the arrest issue. Is there a cite on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic11 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. incident with Cambridge police

This thing is too big to be in his article without going over WP:UNDUE, so I created a page for it. We should cut the info here down, and fill that one up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So, when is the info going to be "cut"? Right now, it reads the same as the new article. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Comments miss essence of statement.

{{editsemiprotected}} Error in the Presidents comments from his press conference. The correct quote is as follows: "the Cambridge Police acted stupidly" [10]

Politico.mfl50 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)politico.mfl50@yahoo.com

I agree that the comment was crude and shows BO in a poor light. However, I believe it's quite common to paraphrase and clarify a poorly expressed sentence when the crudeness of the original statement detracts from clarity. Since this article is about HLG jr. and not BO, I suggest we defer discussion and reaction to BO's statement to the sub-article. I'm not adamant on this - if consensus so decrees then I'm down with changing to the original text. Ronnotel (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ronnotel, and I'd even go so far as to say that the Obama quote taken that way (i.e., out of context) is a tad misleading. The full quote notes that he felt the original report was in good-faith (to borrow a phrase), but that they should have just let it go after that. As it stands, the article is not wrong, and leaves the meat of the topic for the main article. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm for changing it. Paraphrasing is pretty bad when disagreement can arise over interpretation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Any paraphrasing of Pres. Obama is going to be accused of biased by someone. Let his words speak for themselves. Don Williams (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Cubs197 (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm certainly not going to do this myself, but is the controversy about Obama's ill fated comment really that important to this article? This is about H.L. Gates and what happened to him - or didn't happen but he claimed it did. I think it should stop at roughly this point in this article. You may argue about taking it a few steps further (the prez said, the press said about the prez, and so on), but the connection gets weaker with every step and it seems more and more out of place, giving undue weight to things only thinly related to the topic of the article. After all, the controversy isn't so much about whether BO was wrong or right (and the police did/did not act stupidly) but about whether BO was correct in stating what he did like he did (which he wasn't) - which is not telling us anything about Mr. Gates. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm in general agreement with this sentiment, I don't believe we should entirely expunge the President's involvement. HLG has been drawn into it with (having a beer at the WH, national media interviews). I think we need a simple, NPOV statement alluding to the controversy sparked by this incident. Otherwise it could be seen as a whitewash. Ronnotel (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is being whitewashed? We should avoid recentism whenever possible and focus on long term, encyclopedic writing. We don't even need a separate section here. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That the incident precipitated a national controversy is beyond debate. HLG has acknowledged as much by agreeing to meet the arresting officer at the White House, someone he had previously labeled a racist. There is an entire article discussing the incident with dozens of citations. Simply describing the arrest and noting that the charges were dropped does not adequately describe the context of the event and does a disservice to the article. A neutral reader will be confused by the current text and wonder why the controversy is ignored. Ronnotel (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you are basically supporting the point made by Ulkomaalainen. Namely, that that the controversy you refer to is about Obama, not Gates. Historically, six months from now, do you think it will be important? I don't see anything remotely approaching a "national controversy". You sound like you live outside the United States. For those who live here, we have had race-related issues like this come up on a daily basis since the founding of the country. The most controversial thing I can think of, is that as a country, we finally have a president who actually speaks his mind, and isn't worried about conforming to a political script written by a political party or based on some kind of rigid ideology. Frankly, it is human to speak from the heart, and if it is controversial to be human, then I'm afraid you've lost the plot. Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm saying that the arrest is not adequately described without mentioning, in some form, the political controversy it generated. I'm not looking to bash anyone, I just want the whole story reported. As it is, the article is transparently incomplete to any casual observer and the natural assumption will be that this is due to partisanship. Ronnotel (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If it generated political controversy, then simply say so. We are using summary style, after all. Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried once before with what I thought was neutral language but consensus edits greatly expanded the discussion of Obama's role. I'm trying again, this time without any actual names. We'll see what happens. Ronnotel (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas. We need to have the briefest possible discussion in this article, since we have forked to another article, where there is a full discussion. I think a mention of the controversy, and a mention of Obama, is appropriate, so the reader has enough information to decide whether to consult the forked article. That discussion of controversy and Obama should not exceed one sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you agree with me as well, as I have just added text such as you describe here. Ronnotel (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. I don't personally like Gates or think well of his work, but as an editor and admin here, it's not about me, and this one incident should not outweigh the work he has done over the years, which is well regarded by many RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

request for established user to add information

{{editsemiprotected}} Would an established user please add the following information to this protected page?

VIEWS

According to an editorial published in the Harvard Crimson newspaper in 2000, Gates expressed support for providing monetary reparations to the descendants of American slaves.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=99826

See also, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/12/arts/seeking-just-way-make-amends-for-slavery-idea-reparations-for-blacks-gaining.html

Fairedit (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Fairedit

That fact that Gates has supported reparations should be mentioned in the article, but both the Crimson article (an editorial, not exactly the best RS for our purposes) and the NYT article (not much content) you provide don't explore the topic. Do a little bit more research and find out more about his position on the matter, and I will happily add it myself. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cancelled the request, per the above; if you use an editsemiprotected, you need to supply us with the exact edit you suggest, and refs, etc.  Chzz  ►  03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Race of wife and family relevant

Gates' wife is Caucasian and is kids are bi-racial. Considering Gates' entire career is based on the topic of race, this is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.210.125 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If Gates has talked about it in any significant way, or if other writers have discussed it, then we mention it. If not, then we don't. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Home Town

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was not born in Piedmont, West Virginia. He was born in Kaiser, West Virginia. Somebody should change that on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.185.45 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. I'll make the change to Keyser, West Virginia. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to be missing some of these basic pieces of information, liek whether the fellow is remarried and to who, etc. Too much time has been spent on the arrest, how his shouting defined his "intelligence and character" - yeah, I thought that nugget was rather telling, too - and so on. What a particularly ugly week it has been. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

Isn't he the scholar who did the genetic tests of African-American celebrities and discovered that he himself is genetically half Irish? I thought I read it in this article; should it be included? 69.248.117.138 (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

DO you have a citation for this information? Additionally, can you explain why it is important to note that information? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to include as part of his background. I believe his wife is white? I haven't looked to see if that's included. These are all touchy subjects with people. But it is interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if by "interesting" you mean fugly by interpretation. Who the flying hell cares if his wife is white? Or if he is half-Irish? These are all arguments intended to attack - and not counterpoint - the fellow's academic and personal accomplishments. Ain't it funny how when the feller is doing fine, no one says boo, but the minute a man of color has a confrontation with the cops, these same folks start whispering not boo, but instead 'spook' and 'see how it speaks to his character and intelligence (1)'. Pardon the lack of food faith, but it quite simply makes my skin crawl, the ugly ignorance of some people. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It should absolutely not be used to attack him, but noting his white ancestry is certainly encyclopaedic and significant. At least, Gates himself thinks so considering the proportion of time in African-American Lives he spent on this.

For the record, he did not discover he is "half-Irish". He had an Irish great-grandfather (making him at least 1/8 Irish) along the male line, and he independently discovered from an admixture test that 50% of his ancestry was northern European. That does not mean that all his white ancestors were Irish. --Saforrest (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gates'Arrest?

Should there not be a mention in this article about Gates getting arrested recently? Invmog (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Henry_Louis_Gates#Cambridge_police_incident and the main article Arrest_of_Henry_Louis_Gates for starters? Ronnotel (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Things That Make You Go Hmmm...

At about 6:15pm EDT tonight, the Associated Press published an article on the Gates' arrest that included the following paragraph:

Gates' July 16 arrest on a disorderly conduct charge sparked a national debate about whether the professor was a victim of racial profiling. Gates, returning from a trip to China, and his driver had forced their way through the front door because it was jammed, and the charge was later dropped.

Compare this to the paragraph in this article as it existed since about 3pm this afternoon:

On July 16, 2009, Gates returned home from a trip to China to find the door to his house jammed. His driver attempted to help him gain entrance. Cambridge police, responding to a reported break-in attempt, arrested Gates and charged him with disorderly conduct. Prosecutors later dropped the charges. The incident spurred a politically charged exchange of views about race relations and law enforcement throughout the United States

I'm not really sure what my point is here, except to say, "hmmm". Ronnotel (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do try to trim down the forum-style posts, so perhaps - and I mean this in all politeness - if you don't know what your point is, you might want to withhold posting until then. If we don't allow racist ass-clowns to do it, we can't let our normal editors post stuff that doesn't clearly and immediately address something in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Substitution

Why is a suspect bunch of new users intent on adding the mugshot image of Gates to the article? It is enturely non-neutral and smells like something rather ugly. I've reverted it out three times, and cannot any more. I am however, seeking a block for the initial party edit-warring it in and filing an SPI over the suspect accounts. I am frankly a little surprised that in this enlightened age that that particular sort of ugliness and ignrance can find a home for itself here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want the mugshot, why don't you find a superior free image we can use instead of simply removing a free, public domain, accurate representation of this person?-Hands234 (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

@hands234 While the photo is of Dr. Gates, the dispute is over the neutrality, not the licensing or accuracy, of the photo. Please refer to: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. An extreme example of non-neutrality would be a photo of the baseball player Rafael Palmeiro using performance enhancing drugs being used as his infobox image. While Mr. Palmeiro has tested positive for steroids, and it may be a photo of Mr. Palmeiro, it shows agenda to use the a photo of Mr. Palmeiro performing the act, when the act is not necessarily representative of Mr. Palmeiro's entire life. ... Another example could be using Frank Sinatra's or Johnny Cash's mugshot instead of another photo that depicts the singers in less significant and polarizing events. ... Since this event has racial, ethnic and class subtext, I propose that photos of the Gates arrest remain on the Arrest of Henry Louis Gates page. BFeen (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are looking at this the wrong way, Hands234. This is the biographyof a living person, and we need to be neutral here. The fellow's one arrest image is not representative of the fellow. It is in fact prejudicial and undue weight to include it here, especially when the image is used in a sub article. We do not need a free image, if the only alternative is a disparaging one.

On a side note, you wouldn't happen to also be editing under the account Enemymakes2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now, would you? Think carefully before you answer - it can be easily checked. -- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I'm sorry please read the above comment authored by me. The solution to our disagreement is vastly, vastly simple. --Hands234 (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. We don;t use undue weight images in the article, free or not. I am going to ask you, politely, to self revert. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected and the image has been removed again. As Arcayne says, it was inappropriate for an article about this subject because of the undue weight it places on the recent "scandal" that happened concerning the arrest of this person. Regards SoWhy 13:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom has specifically authorized special measures to protect BLP pages from POV attacks. Using a mugshot to represent someone on their BLP is undue and pov (except, of course if they are primarily notable due to an alleged crime). Any accounts persisting in this vandalism will be blocked. Ronnotel (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The pre-scandal image should be in place. As well, a socking report has been filed against our newcomers Enemymakes2 and Hands234. I smell a rat. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If this person were notable only for this one event and controversy surrounding his arrest, the mugshot might be appropriate for the article. As it stands, since he is and was notable long before his arrest, using the mug shot as the infobox image would be blatantly non-neutral. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor coming from the NPOV noticeboard here. I agree with the above. The implication that would be made by using a mugshot to illustrate an article about a person is that their "claim to fame", as it were, had something to do with criminality or being arrested. (It might also be appropriate for instance on an article about a person famous for civil disobedience or protest -- say, Philip Berrigan. Hey, anyone have his mugshot? We don't have a picture on that article.)

Professor Gates, who is described as "the nation's most famous black scholar", is not such a person. Even if there were no better free image available, it would still be inappropriate as a WP:BLP as well as NPOV matter to portray Gates in this way. --FOo (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Back To The Subject

This article, aside from the over-emphasis of a current event, is something of a hodge podge of irrelevant information, missing information and unsourced information. Look at the third paragraph under Early years.

The first black American to be awarded an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Fellowship, the day after his undergraduate commencement, Gates set sail on the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 for England and the University of Cambridge. There he studied English literature at Clare College. With the assistance of a Ford Foundation Fellowship, he worked toward his Ph.D. in English. While his work in history at Yale had trained him in archival work, Gates's studies at Clare introduced him to English literature and literary theory.

All that wonderful information and not a source for any of it!

There must be a source for his being the black American to receive a fellowship from the Mellon Foundation. Is there relevance to how soon after commencement he left? It there relevance for his mode of travel, other than it was not a notable mode of travel such as a solo sailboat or private plane? There must also be a source for his Ford Foundation grant and his work towards his Doctorate. There must be a reliable source for his receiving such a degree. Lots of people have worked towards Doctorates but have not finished for one reason or another.

Could all the references to the recent incident be removed to the article that has been created for that purpose so that the partisans can contiue their squabble on that talk page and the serious editors get busy on improving this article?

JimCubb (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Skip" nickname

Where would be an appropriate place to mention that his nickname is "Skip"? Perhaps in "childhood"? This article cites it as a childhood nickname: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/jul/20/society Leoniceno (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede bias critique and praise: Use the talk page

That content was there before editor x arrived here. The minute you want to praise someone as a No.1 Black scholar you are introducing a bias, to balance it it needs to be challenged if he is well known for not being so. How can a white person decide who is the no. 1 Black scholar? See other bios, Malcolm X, Farrakhan, and everyone else. If no critique is allowed then no priase. Either or but not praise without critique.

Criticism and praise Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)