Talk:Killing of Oscar Grant/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Mehserle's "conservative family background"

(blanked Chris's BLP violation)

Chris, what part of WP:BLP's policy of Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person don't you understand? Wikipedia has policies, and they apply to you, too, even if you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge them. THF (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed if you read the very article you linked to, it's unreliability is quite clear in the article it self. What kind of source doesn't consider a person's age when they randomly speculate? Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry I misread the article. But seriously ignoring the fact SFist is not a reliable source WTF does some random speculation about someone who may or may not be the father have anything to do with the guy anyway? Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the policy, if so, I'd like to convey my apologies. I do continue to believe that Mehserle's family background, to the extent to which secondary sources start to write about it, is relevant to Mehserle and the case. If Mehserle was abused (to use a hypothetical example) it might help shed light on Mehserle's mental illness. Of course, we should temper this against BLP concerns, and the privacy of names policy. Maybe it hasn't been notable enough in the media and elsewhere to write about here yet. CriticalChris 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget WP:NOR and WP:SYN, while we're at it. There's plenty of verifiable material from reliable sources in this article, there's no need for amateur editors to insert speculation based on their own personal synthesis of blog posts. Chris, really, I recommend you review Wikipedia policies, because, even aside from the grammar and spelling and style mistakes, your edits give no indication of understanding the concept of what is encyclopedic and what isn't. Given your obsession over protecting Carrethers's identity, this particular insertion seems very WP:POINTy. THF (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Plenty of material...." I sure hope you're not encouraging anyone to stop adding new sources to the article, or to stick to the existing sources in making new edits. That's anti-intellectual and flies in the face of WP:BOLD. Also, to what "personal synthesis" are you referring? My edits on Mehserle's allegedly conservative father referred to --one-- secondary source, an investigative journalism piece by Hunter Walker. You may disagree with the verifiability of the source, fact-checking, etc., but to accuse me of WP:SYN or WP:NOR is an unmitigated obfuscation of my edit. If you call other editors "amateur editors," (to whomever you are referring), I hope you are referring to professionalism and not profits. Also, belittling, or even complaining about other editors for "grammar and spelling and style mistakes" arguably flies in the face of WP:IMPERFECT. This "insertion" or editing of material on Mehserle's father into the article isn't intended to be disruptive or WP:POINTy. If you noticed carefully, I never included his name, which is not inconsistent with the arguments I made about applying the BLP, Privacy of Names Policy on Carrethers. I'm not "obsessed with protecting (anyone's) identity" let alone Carrethers.' Personally, I feel many aspects of WP:BLP policy are overkill despite privacy tort issues such as a portrayal of another in a false light, public disclosure of private facts, and intrusion upon anothers' seclusion. Most of my edits have erred more on the side of the inclusion of notable and relevant information and research, but with the redaction or exclusion of the name, but like anyone, I could always use a good re-read of WP:BLP.CriticalChris 04:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you make a bad-faith interpretation of what I actually said to create a strawman to inveigh against. You also demonstrate once again that you fail to comprehend Wikipedia policy, even when you stretch to name new policies that no one has brought into play: WP:IMPERFECT says we may occasionally criticize substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. So how am I violating it by criticizing your substandard work? Your systematic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and other reading comprehension problems have meant that the vast majority of your edits have been substandard; combined with your WP:COI and your POV-pushing, there is a reason that multiple editors have told you that your edits to this page have been disruptive and have felt forced to waste time threatening to escalate disciplinary measures. THF (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

More substandard editing

The following edit introduced the following errors:

• sentence fragment in the lede
• tense error in the lede
• redundant phrasing in the first paragraph that repeated information from a few sentences ago
• two spelling mistakes in new information added
• awkward sentence phrasing, including confusing "which" and "whom"

This is unacceptably substandard editing, and the editor in question is being disruptive because he has been repeatedly asked to refrain from sloppy editing. If you cannot edit with care, please restrict your edit proposals to the talk page, because your edits are unambiguously making the article worse, and wasting other editors' time. THF (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

THF - Your complaints and my responses, bullet by bullet.

• "sentence fragment in the lede"

If by introducing a sentence fragment you are referring to the --period-- I missed in this sentence after the word "back" "While several officers secured Grant, who was unarmed, Mehserle drew his gun and shot Grant once in the back.with a .40 caliber round." ...Guilty as charged. I'm sorry guy. CriticalChris 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "tense error in the lede"

My layman brain just can't find that one. Nor do I believe I "introduced" any change in verb tense to the sentence clause I restored. All I did to the lede was to restore information on Mehserle's ordnance. Someone, if you feel like it, maybe even you THF, please educate me on this one If I am mistaken. CriticalChris 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "redundant phrasing in the first paragraph that repeated information from a few sentences ago"

If by first paragraph you mean, the first paragraph within "the shooting" section, I didn't touch that paragraph, so I'm not exactly sure to what you are referring to. Uh oh, did I just end a sentence with a preposition? Another 20 demerit points and 60 push ups! CriticalChris 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "two spelling mistakes in new information added"

If you are talking about this edit [1] to the "Public reaction" section - "The shooting stirred outrage among political leaders and legal observers, several of which have labled the shooting an execution," You got me with the spelling of the word "label," I suppose I should do some hard time in the super-max "Wikian Bay" prison for that one. But where's the other spelling error, after a careful reading, I just can't seem to find it.CriticalChris 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "awkward sentence phrasing, including confusing "which" and "whom""

Again, guilty as charged of major vandalism. CriticalChris 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is unacceptably substandard editing, and the editor in question is being disruptive because he has been repeatedly asked to refrain from sloppy editing. If you cannot edit with care, please restrict your edit proposals to the talk page, because your edits are unambiguously making the article worse, and wasting other editors' time." THF (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I do believe you're taking things a bit too seriously here and are being a bit fanatical as per WP:DBF to the detriment of other editing objectives here, but that's not for me alone to say. I'm sorry to have caused you to any inconvenience. I'd like to convey my expressions of regret, and hope to continue to collaboratively edit here. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't note I'm finding your perfectionism, and most importantly the way you critically project this sense of perfectionism onto my edits with judgmental tenor, to be a bit coarse for my tastes. CriticalChris 19:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Too many overlinks? WP:MOSLINK Policy

THF, tell me what's the problem, am I inserting too many overlinks for your tastes? Something else? I thought it might be helpful to some readers to wikify "semi-auto" "handgun" etc19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the policy--or paid attention to my multiple complaints to you about this--you would know that you don't link to the same article repeatedly. Please stop your gratuitously disruptive editing. THF (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I've done a bit more reading. Do you mean to say I've inserted too many "links" repeated in different sections within the article such as the lede and a section? Or too much "link density?" Or do you mean links that we've repeatedly reverted back and forth in our editing? It would be helpful to have a bit more substantive details about your newest "complaint." CriticalChris 10:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you either have some severe reading comprehension problems or you're being tendentious. As I quoted WP:MOSLINK in this edit summary, "Link only the first occurrence of an item." So for the third time, since I also just said it above: You don't wikilink to the same article multiple times. THF (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Additonal subsections of the article may be warranted at this point

You could look at any of the articles sections and argue that they could be broken out into subsections. The "riot/violence" paragraphs of the "Public reaction" is a good example. There's plenty of material there that could qualify for its own article, complete with 40 plus nat'l and int'l media cites. As you may know, THF nominated that article for deletion, and the article was deleted after an exhaustive, marathon debate on its deletion that lasted all of about 11 hours. In the end there was 1 vote to vaporize the article (THF's), and three to four "keep" votes, but six "merge" votes. Of course the main article itself was nominated for deletion (not by THF) by another editor with "noteworthy(ness)" or notability concerns. Back to the point, the "Video evidence" section for example, might list out the different videos with a bit more factual detail about each at some point as secondary sources write about them. The sections on Grant and Mehserle might be expanded into subsections. These are just a few ideas. I believe the structure that subsections might provide will be needed at some point to create a decent systemic organization that will more easily help other, new editors to make new edits and add new material. Remember though the initial news cycle on the facts of the case is coming to a close, we still have a criminal trial to face, the civil claim, to include possible settlement conferences and trials, sentencing, etc. There could easily be a 1000 additional news articles on the shooting by next month, or even next week.CriticalChris 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, get over it. You lost the AFD, then you lost the RFC when you wanted to turn this article into one about the riots. WP:DEADHORSE comes into play, and you're being disruptive by continuing to reraise it. You still do not grasp WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT#IINFO. This is not a repository for every news article ever published about the case; it is not a place to list every single cell-phone photo and clip. It is an encyclopedia. When the trial starts a year from now, there can be separate sections and subsections dealing with it. If the civil claim ever goes forward (it is almost certain to settle, given the DA's position on the case), we can address that then, but the likely result is that there will be a single sentence added with the dollar figure. In the meantime, the Grant and Mehserle sections are already comprehensive relative to the reliable sources available; nothing new or material is going to come up other than the toxicology reports for both next month, and any details about Grant's fighting on the train.

The fact that we both agreed that this BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant article shouldn't be deleted is irrelevant, so I don't know why you keep raising it.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the Wikinews project, since you continue to confuse Wikipedia with Wikinews? THF (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Protests and violence are relevant to "Public reaction"/Conflicts of interest

THF Why would you revert this brief, one-sentence, notable, well-sourced material on protests in the wake of the shooting? I'd note the additional demonstrations have been covered by the national news media (the Associated Press). There will be others in the coming weeks. Don't you see a place to in the article to link news stories onto say, even a brief one sentence about the additonal protests? Isn't this a part of the "public response" to the incident and prosecution? If so, why did you revert it out of the article? Here's how the sentence that you reverted read - "Protesters have organized other direct action demonstrations and marches in the weeks following the shooting." ...UPDATE and point of clarification: the reason this comment looks unsigned is because it was sliced and diced by another editor.CriticalChris 07:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia is not a bulletin board. That 200 people had a march 115 people had a march about the shooting is not notable (it's the opposite of notable--that's the only turnout you could get on a holiday?), and not everything that gets a two-paragraph squib in the newspaper merits a sentence in the article. I'm reverting this non-compliant and disruptive edit, and ask Chris once again to stop disrupting the page, especially given his conflict of interest in trying to make this event seem more notable than it was. THF (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem is actually less with the sentence than with the fact that your cited source doesn't support the sentence (another regular problem with your editing). I'll try to find a better cite. THF (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And finally, the language was already in the section![2] Chris was complaining because the section only mentioned "several protests" once instead of twice in two paragraphs. I've replaced the old language with the new language (supported by a cite that actually mentions "several protests") just to avoid this disruptive squabble, but it's another example of Chris making edits that just repeat language that occurred a few sentences before. THF (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, gentlemen (see what I did there, guys), the Jan 14th sentence seems too long (do we need to go into that much qualifying detail about smashing windows), the miniriot and arrests on the 8th have been omitted while the smaller 14th is in, and the last sentence gets into some interesting detail. I've heard several community leaders and demonstrators defend the violence and think it could merit one more reference. We don't necessarily need to describe every single one, though. Let me know your thoughts since my wrting will get ripped apart while it is definitely arguable what content should be included.Cptnono (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have cites for Jan 8 arrests and for defense of the violence? I can add, or you cna take first crack. Thx. THF (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial reports made it sound much worse. Threw a line in. Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478404,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/crime# and http://cbs5.com/local/BART.shooting.protest.2.902981.html This looks like a low priority for the article.Cptnono (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I heard defense for the violence on the news. We could find sources but it could overweight the section.Cptnono (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC).

Only defense for violence I saw in printed press was from a demonstrator who then wrote a letter complaining she was misquoted and didn't support the violence. THF (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Forget about it then. I saw some news footage of a few dudes but it doesn't seem like their particular justification is that important to the article.Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Identity of officer who hit Grant

Given the fuss over whether to identify the person who held the press conference claiming Mehserle beat him, I'm wondering if the article should avoid identifying the officer alleged to have hit Grant in the cell-phone video. The argument for the latter's privacy is stronger than the former's, it seems to me, since he did not voluntarily put himself in the news. But I'd thought I'd poll other editors working on the article. THF (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended to be a news source so I can understand hesitation. There should be no problem with it as soon as it is widely reported.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And, with both prosecution and defense in open court heavily relying on Pirone's account, and with demonstrators calling for Pirone's arrest, it's pretty clear he's going to be a major witness in any trial. I think it's kosher now to use his name. THF (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone dare to defend the notion that an appointed, sworn, and uniformed, and armed California peace officer, really has --any-- reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of his performance of his/her official duties? I mean we're not talking about this cop's golf score at the latest and greatest suburban course, or his moose hunting trip to Alaska, this officer is alleged to have used force, in Oakland, in the context of a murder case, on behalf of the state with a little metal thing pinned to his chest. With the amount of people watching the police as a check and balance in a democratic society, with cameras everywhere all around us, (like it or not), whether in a transit passenger's purse, or mounted behind the grill of a police car, that's pretty much voluntarily putting yourself in the news these days, as this case has demonstrated. Whether they teach this in the academy or not, at the point at which an officer uses force in the name of the law, he/she becomes a public figure proportionate to the profile of the case, resulting injuries, witness accounts, etc., and from then onward, some personal privacy rights are circumscribed, at least for a period of time while the case, the officer's identity, and history of prior conduct on duty, become relevant and newsworthy. To be fair though WP:BLP policies are another animal entirely.CriticalChris 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of countless scenarios where "an appointed, sworn, and uniformed, and armed California peace officer, really has --any-- reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of his performance of his/her official duties", but WP:NOT#CHAT, and there isn't anyone arguing that Pirone's name doesn't belong. THF (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

New Years Eve - hello

I'm a bit stunned this is still not in the lede, the trains were packed, and running, because it was New Year's Eve. I think fare was free as well? Likewise, because of the national holiday people were partying and traveling and had plenty of recording devices. This holiday, like other heavy-drinking/partying holidays also accounts for a higher police presence and likely also a non-routine response to incidents.

Also the lede implies Grant was somehow responsible or involved ina a violent altercation. It should be clarified if that is true or clear up that implication. -- Banjeboi 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, rather than truth. WP:NOR prohibits us from writing about obvious facts if they have not been reported by a reliable source, and no one has acknowledged the connection between the holiday and the crowds on the train. There is a sentence in the article about why the police were on edge that day, but the press hasn't followed up on that lead, or on the scope of the brawl. I suspect more will come to light when Grant's autopsy results are released in March, but a lot won't come out until the criminal trial. THF (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to insert OR but there is also no reason not to follow what relaible sources have stated repeatedly and consistently. With few exceptions every aricle states New Year's Eve shooting or shot dead in the early morning hours on New Year's Day. Sometimes stating the obvious is the correct thing to do. -- Banjeboi 12:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

BanjoBoi you wrote - "I think fare was free as well?"- Can you find me a single source for this one? Whether "reliable" or "fringe", news story, or editorial? There was once a time when the BART system's fare gate machinery could not quickly handle high capacities of crowds. Those days are over. The fare gates have been retooled to quickly process many passengers per minute, obviating the practical need for free service that evening, but not the economic, ecological, and behavioral needs; many drunk drivers do enjoy happy motoring that evening. When there are MTC funds budgeted, the only free fare days now are on "spare-the-air-days." No offense to your edits and contributions here, but If you're attempting to imply in part, or in whole, that free-fare public transportation leads to crime and disorder, personally, I'd suggest this is a specious argument without merit and, in any event, it constitutes original research on your part if you can't source it properly.CriticalChris 23:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Critical Chris, dial it down, OK? Accusing me of fringe theories, original research, and anything else breaches civility policies so please knock it off. I never implied free fares led to crime and disorder - but you just did. Since you ask ... Looks like MUNI (in San Francisco) was free and other services were as well, this also shows that "BART is providing additional service; stations will remain open until approximately 4:00 a.m. New Year's Day." New Year's Eve flash pass, service adjustments, for holiday travelers states "Leave your car at home and use BART's "New Year's Eve Flash Pass" for your celebration travels. This pass costs $6.00 and is good for unlimited rides on BART ... Forget the turnstiles -- simply flash it at the Station Agent and pass through the swing gate." and "BART service normally ends around midnight, but to accommodate New Year’s revelers, service will end around 3:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 1, 2009, including stand-by trains to accommodate crowds throughout the evening." This indeed seems to support that the fact that it was New Year's Eve was significant, as the trains likely wouldn't be running and crowds, and extra trains wouldn't be expected. Deadly BART brawl - officer shoots rider, 22 states "Gibson said New Year's Eve had been a chaotic night for the officers on duty" and "The BART police force has 206 sworn officers, many of whom were patrolling the system on New Year's Eve. The trains were running on extended service until 3 a.m. to accommodate late-night partygoers." These perfectly reliable sources confirm that an express system for handing crowds was in effect, that there was a unique express pass ($6 flash pass) and that because it was New Year's Eve these things were occurring. Also that there was extra trains, crowds and police on duty. POV goes in every direction. Please assume good faith that other editors are working to improve articles. -- Banjeboi 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is the WP:SYNTH policy. Editors are not allowed to synthesize conclusions from a second source that is not about the subject of the article; it's the only way to achieve consensus to avoid disputes over what are reasonable conclusions and inferences to draw. We've already discussed the NYEve issue to the full extent that existing sources do so. We'll have to wait until a reliable source discusses this in something more detailed than a 300-word newspaper article, and that's probably not going to happen until the eve of the trial. Again, the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth. THF (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can stop accusing me of synthesis, I never suggested we report there was a fight because it was crowded, if reliable sources support that, great, if not, that's great too. My point is that New Year's Eve is a context that should be in the lede. It has since been added and I hope it remains. We can also certainly state now other material regarding the holiday but I'll leave this round of bad faith accusations for now. -- Banjeboi 03:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of bad faith; I simply misunderstood what you wanted to be in the article, and I apologize since I seem to have inadvertently offended you. I happen to agree with you that the conditions put officers under a lot of stress, and may (but may not) have contributed to the incident, and am frustrated at the underreporting of that aspect of the incident. THF (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Well it's remained for a few days now so may be stable. I've tweaked a few more issue in the lede again for clarity and POV concerns, hope it helps. -- Banjeboi 10:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

The relevant language is:

In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

The cite to BART's New Year's policies has nothing to do with the Oscar Grant shooting, so it violates WP:SYNTH. Feel free to get a third opinion. THF (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And here it is; "When it comes to a minor basic fact like this which is verifiable, one that doesn't interfere with or contradict, miscast, etc., the analysis or conclusions of the event given in the sources you do have, and there's nothing contentious about except in terms of policy wonkish exactitude, this is what wp:IAR is meant is to address. So although it technically violates NOR, whether or not this is a big enough deal to wage revert/talk page battle over is a question I will leave to the editors involved."

So, while technically this could currently be labeled synthesis it is hardly in the spirit of the policy as the content doesn't actually "puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research." Which is the very lede of wp:synth. -- Banjeboi 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You're right, I'm wrong. THF (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You were correct to call out the use of discounted which, in my defense I simply used instead of Flash Pass. To clarify, the only synthesis was stating the passes were discount passes using the sources cited as it was not directly stated that indeed they were a discount. Instead I think and a special "Flash Pass" could be re-added. Later, if it needs to be drilled down, other sources could be sought to bolster how crowded it was. Seemingly the videos themselves could just be referenced, as evidenced in the videos it was very crowded. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Riot

Shouldn't this be in the "Riots in the United States" category since a riot did occur in Oakland, California in response to Oscar Grant's death? Urabahn (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No such category exists. Someone ambitious ought to make all the "Riots in the" categories consistent with the "Riots and civil unrest in the" categories. THF (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

oops, found it. THF (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at that page awhile back and thought it was actually lacking in certain areas. It was relitively small and not as notable as some riots but I personally don't have a problem with it. Throw it up on that discussion page or just insert some info and see what happens.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Protests

I believe the series of protests are notable. This page was even marked for deletion until the "riot". Since there will probably be more as the case unfolds, I think we should update the Protests and violence section accordingly.Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The page never had any serious chance of being deleted. A 40-person demonstration doesn't merit two full sentences; I've added a few words to the section lead, and kept your cite.

I do note that there may be reason to include some demonstrations in the BART Police article, since some protestors are calling for the unit to be disarmed and/or disbanded. THF (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the 40 person one might be notable since it was held because of the bail hearing. Also, the second line referenced the larger 200 person gathering. I don't want the section to turn into a list of every time a bottle is thrown but think this one in particular is notable enough. Even though we do not agree on this incident being added, is it time to get rid of the neutrality disclaimer?Cptnono (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added the tag, and it was never clear to me what that IP editor was complaining about.[3] I don't object to the tag's removal, since it was never explained on the talk page. THF (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

additional NPOV problem

• The fact that police let the train leave the station without trying to interview witnesses is a refutation of the coverup theory, but it has been deleted from the article, while the self-serving coverup allegations by Burris remain. THF (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:What line are you looking at?Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) You might mean my recent edit. I removed what looked like a rebuttal to the girl who claimed the police were trying to get her camera and just put in the facts as reported. Doesn't look like a conspiracy theory as is does it? I didn't want the paragraph to read like a series of rebuttals and was looking at it as several passengers (not necessarily on the train) claimed it. I'll try to get some more sources. Feel free to edit. Just didn't want it to be long winded for a relatively small instance.Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It does, especially in the context of the blog rantings out there, plus the loaded word "confiscation." (Since that's Burris's word, it's alright in the article, but Burris's POV is not the only POV on the subject; the verifiable truth merits at least as much weight.) I don't want to be accused of edit-warring, given that Benjiboi isn't AGF and has accused me of OWN, so I'm going to hold off on editing the article for a day or two. Given the edits made in the last hour or two, it looks like I'll need to do a lot of cleanup. THF (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I'll revert my own edit and readdress it after the sources are found again. I saw them a few weeks back but now every google hit is on the one claim so it makes it a pain. And just because you have made yourself the grammar police (or other people's lack of grammar?) don't get to cocky!:)Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: After reading the source for the rebuttal, I don't think there was exactly a "conspiracy" to confiscate cameras but it has been claimed. I also don't know if the police could have stopped the train if they wanted. It left pretty quickly after the shooting.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The train was originally stopped for the police to get Grant and his buddies off the train--doesn't one of the videos run for a half an hour stopped at Fruitvale? As the Chronicle article details, the train was at the direction of BART police on the scene, and they told the operator to leave the station, apparently because they didn't think they had control of the crowd on the train. SFC is implicitly critical of the police for doing so, and for doing nothing to stop witnesses from leaving the train at the next station without being interviewed. THF (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Vargas claims the officer went as far as banging on the door before the train departed to get her camera but didn't get it so who knows why the train left or if any of the officers who alleged to try to confiscate cameras had any control. I just found a good source that does not involve Vargas. Also, it looks like your inclusion of the the train leaving as a rebuttal to cameras being confiscated is interpretation. Better control of the scene with so many people voicing concerns is as strong of a theory. With the second source I think we are good to include it and the Burris line without the rebuttal. I don't see any other word for confiscation in this case but let me know if there is anything else that will make you more comfortable NPOV wise.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

who knows why the train left This is wrong. We know why the train left. It left because BART Police ordered it to leave. We know that police didn't try to systematically confiscate cameras, because they didn't try to interview everyone in the train, so had no way of knowing who had cameras/cell phones and who didn't. Please read the Chron article.

I'm fine with "confiscation" in the article if that's the word Burris used; it's his POV. His POV is wrong, but it's still a significant POV, and it's not for us to judge right or wrong. I just want the truthful POV included, also. I'm okay losing the Vargas claim if you still want to delete that, but it was a huge kerfuffle when I tried to delete it a few weeks ago. THF (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit misunderstands NPOV. The editor's role is not to judge whether Burris's claims or the Chronicle investigation is correct, and delete the one that they think is incorrect. It's to report both major points of view, and let the reader decide for themselves. Deleting the refutation, even if you disagree with it, violates NPOV. THF (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just putting in a comment about that I could figure out how to place it with the new source: Freshly copy and pasted: I killed the Vargas mention but put in a source. The second source regarding other witnesses made the line valid. I still use the term "claim". I couldn't figure out a good way to keep the train leaving line. Please go ahead and add it if you think it is still necessary and we can go form there.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Should read NOT figure out how to... You're so quick that when I try to respond on the discussion page I screw up still. Please don't accuse me of not being neutral on this one. Not sure if that was your intention. I originally started with this article since I thought it was slanted too much towards what people were calling yet another killer cop incident.Cptnono (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Does something like this work: "These claims have not been confirmed by BART police and are contradicted by a San Francisco Chronicle investigation that showed that police, concerned about the angry crowd inside the train, simply allowed the train to leave the station without any effort to systematically interview eyewitnesses." The first statement is explicitly mentioned in the ABC source. Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That works; add the in-line footnote to ABC on the "by BART Police". I'll be less quick to respond, sorry. Wasn't accusing you of anything; the concern is with the edits, not the editor, though I may have misread the intent of your edit summary. THF (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. Apologies in advance if I did the cite incorrectly in the latest edit.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rapoport statements

The SF Chronicle has a story with Pirone's lawyer potentially clarifying some stuff. He says that Grant returned to the platform after attempting to leave because Pirone drew his Tazer. This isn't that big of a deal but is not what is shown in this article since the original source said differently. Also, Pirone apparently did not strike Grant with a closed fist. Don't know if this is relevant. I'm not a fan of Pirone at all but trying to stay (painfully) neutral.Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been a lot of misinformation out there, like the claims that police were systematically trying to confiscate cell phones, which turned out to be false--the police didn't even bother to get the names of everyone on the train. It doesn't surprise me that there are three or more different versions of the Pirone-Grant confrontation, and all we can do is list the major ones. THF (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor added material relating to the motion for bail (and that addition needs to be cleaned up). Is that (and the indictment and the Burris claim) on line anywhere? The court papers are going to be the clearest statement of the competing claims to the truth, and they should be in the external links if nowhere else. THF (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be caution on how much merit we give his motion for bail. The judge was skeptical and it is not in line with previous statements (not under oath, obviously) from witnesses. Court documents will be an excellent source I just think we need to keep an eye on proper balance throughout the article when referencing either side's arguments.Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we give it "merit." I'm saying that NPOV requires we include the major points of view and let the reader decide. You'll note that all of my additions of controverted facts, whether made by Burris or Pirone or Rains or prosecution, identified who made the claim. THF (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm not saying your doing anything wrong, THF. Just expressing my thoughts before/in case it comes up to much. The quotes in the shooting section seems to control the readers attention and it jumped out as a potential concern. It is early in the proceedings and there is plenty of new information coming so I am not terribly concerned.Cptnono (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: By merit I guess I mean balance.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the bail motion, I see that several eyewitnesses corroborate Pirone, so I'm not yet concerned about undue weight. We quote Burris and the prosecutors and the lunatics who call it an execution all over this article. THF (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. It is a work in progress so I'm sure there will be plenty more debatable points made by both sides.Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot

I've added a public-domain mugshot photo, but there's a certain irony that the previously convicted criminal's photo is a family snapshot, while the police officer's photo is the poorly-lit mug shot. The photo choice seems to slant the article -- anyone ambitious enough to ask the lawyer if the Mehserle family has a photo they'd like to release into the public domain? THF (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you perhaps suggesting that the article should use a mugshot of the victim while using a family snapshot of the perpetrator? Exactly how would such a peculiar choice of visuals correct the "irony" you mention? It seems to me that to use a mugshot of the victim, a mugshot entirely unrelated to the present investigation, while using a family snapshot of the accused, would be perversely ironic considering the severity of the incident. Ilmateur (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that difference in presentation too. Stop arguing with a strawman, Ilmateur. Nobody is arguing for the reverse. THF probably is only asking that either both should be mugshots or both should be family photos. 130.126.168.136 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well upload a properly licensed family photo of the guy or grab a mugshot of Grant. Cptnono (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarity needed in Handcuffed section

In the section BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant#Handcuffed, "restrained" is used several times but this may be different from handcuffed. If anyone is able to clarify that may be helpful to understanding who is stating what. -- Banjeboi 12:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Precision is important here. "Restrained" is the prosecution's weasel word to imply that Grant was not actually a threat without actually admitting that he wasn't handcuffed; if Grant was actually handcuffed, they would have said handcuffed. I imagine the prosecution is referring to the fact that Pirone was holding Grant's head down. THF (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resigned so he didn't have to talk

"Mehserle resigned on Wednesday so that he wouldn't have to talk to BART officials about the incident and he also has refused to talk to the district attorney's office, according to (Alameda County District Attorney Tom) Orloff."[4]

I'm working from the top down so this may be covered already. I'm just noting it here so it doesn't get lost in other work. -- Banjeboi 11:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

NAACP

Same as above, "Alice Huffman, the president of the California branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, is asking California Attorney General Jerry Brown to intervene in the investigation, saying in a statement that "citizens have little faith that local law enforcement personnel will seek justice.

Huffman and Brown spoke briefly by phone Friday and will meet in person on Saturday at Brown's office in Oakland. They will hold a news conference after they talk in private."

There has been many comparisons to Rodney King but more accurately accusations of being racially motivated. This may be explored better further down already but seems like a major component of the protests so at least a mention of it in the lede may make sense. -- Banjeboi 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Identity of Grant's friends

Grant's friends have publicly announced they've filed claims against BART, and are mentioned in a couple of news articles now. They're likely to be witnesses at trial (but WP:CRYSTAL). Thoughts about adding their names into the story? Police make accusations of criminal behavior against them, but they were never charged, though the lack of charges is at least as likely due to community pressure/relations as anything else. I would object to listing their names as victim-plaintiffs without mentioning, say, the identity of the fellow who ran back onto the train to escape police, or the people who tried to corner the female officer. (Another factor is that it is not implausible that Grant's friends have similar criminal records as Grant, which NPOV would require including when disclosed by RS.) THF (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems like notable for only one event. It may simply also be too soon to tell. Likely there are many many eyewitnesses to come forward but we aren't in a rush here. I'm also suspect of adding their legal histories unless RS make it clear it had a bearing on the officers' actions. It likely didn't before the shooting but the officers might have gotten a criminal update during the five hours they were held in place by the police. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It goes to credibility. For example, if the five others have a history of squabbling with police, it's much more likely that the police are correct in their he-said/she-said account that Pirone punched Grant because three of them were menacing the much smaller female BART officer. ONEEVENT is really about whether to create an article; thus, I vote to delete Morton Brilliant at his AFD, but have no concerns about mentioning his name in the article about Wikipedia controversies. THF (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A "history of squabbling with police"? This seems like another thing we should lean on reliable sources for. We don't lead, we follow. -- Banjeboi 04:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent me, or is your reading comprehension really that bad? THF (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Karina Vargas/Multiple witness confiscation verification

The business about Karina Vargas claiming police demanded her camera is unsourced. The source provided for this claim doesn't even mention her at all. At this stage it only seems to be a blog rumor. UncleFester (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I said, but I got shouted down. THF (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw a couple newspaper sources that mentioned names. I don't recall if I put them in and I wasn't the editor who mentioned her specifically.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) FOllow-up: A google news search has hits but they are far from neutral. If I recall correctly, it was a guy who had his name mentioned in the SF Chronicle. We really don't need names in and I think we will have an easy time finding sources from the Chronicle, Mercury, and other local news sources.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-upx2: http://cbs5.com/crime/oakland.BART.shooting.2.899444.html along with KCBS (local CBS TV and radio) specifically states her name.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now there's only one person in the sources who states police attempted to seize the camera. So I changed the plural to singular. (Technically, it's a seizure, not a confiscation, as police are allowed to seize evidence in certain circumstances.) UncleFester (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Witnesses at the scene claim police attempted to confiscate cameras. Burris says BART confiscated numerous cell phone images that he believes contains additional evidence of the killing.[46]" In her video interview with station KTVU, eyewitness Karina Vargas stated that the female officer on the scene approached her, the doors of the BART train shut just then, and the officer "banged" on the door "telling me to give her my camera." Vargas refused to surrender it.[47][not in citation given] However, these claims are contradicted by a San Francisco Chronicle investigation that showed that police, concerned about the angry crowd inside the train, simply allowed the train to leave the station without any effort to systematically interview eyewitnesses.[2] Does this work if we get another source?Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by the strikeout there. I'm ok with striking out Vargas, but the SFChron investigation refutes Burris as well as Vargas. No one is disputing that one of the first videos was Vargas's, the issue is the banging-on-the-doors story. THF (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please return the SF Chron investigation. Deleting it now leaves only the false claims of a coverup. THF (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the last edit by unclefester.I think it was a simple mistake on his part. Source 50 references two other witnesses that claim their cameras were confiscated. I don't hate the use of the term "seize" but every source (mainstream media, blogs, whatever) use confiscate. Witnesses claim it was confiscation and seizure for evidence is not mentioned by them or through interpretation of the articles. Also, there are more people who claim this happened. let me know if two sources is not sufficient.Cptnono (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in Source 50 that mentions anything about other witnesses having their cell phones seized. The only sentence mentioning confiscation is this: "Burris said BART had confiscated numerous cell phone images from others he believes contain additional footage." That's one non-witness's claim, which is already discussed within the Wikipedia article. To date, there is only one sourced claim here from a witness saying his/her camera was confiscated; that's Karina Vargas. UncleFester (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Two men were detained for questioning and were later released. They claim cell phone videos were confiscated by BART Police, but BART will only confirm that there was no video recovered from the surveillance cameras trained on the Fruitvale platform." -ABC news (52 now)Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please indent your comments when responding to another comment. The cited information does not state that they were witnesses, only that they were questioned. Accordingly, I have edited the text to reflect exactly what is stated in the cited article. UncleFester (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edit came across as an attempt to lead the reader. We don't need to go into that much detail just to make a point that Burris is a crazy person and wasn't an eye witness. The reader should already be aware of that. I know most of the sources for confiscated cameras have been blogs but there are two good ones in this article and there used to be another that got shuffled out. I will find even more valid sources if it will appease you so the general claim can go in instead of overly in-depth numbers. If I find more do you want to change it to "4 or 10 or 20 witnesses claim"? Apologies if telling you to knock it off if it hurt your feelings and that you were wrong on this one. You can stop being defensive and make appropriate edits now. To be fair, I am overreacting a little to your message.Cptnono (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, indent your comments please. You're simply edit warring here, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and reverting to your own preferred version without attempting to resolve the matter or seek a compromise. Right now, one linked source in this article refers only to one witness (Karina Vargas) who claims police attempted to confiscate cameras. Two unnamed men questioned by police also claim the police attempted to confiscate cameras. There is nothing in the source article that states those two men were witnesses. Per Wikipedia policy on verifiability, blogs are not acceptable sources for articles. You have, several times, said you will find more sources about the multiple witness claim; where are the sources? Simply saying you know of them does not suffice. Wikipedia is not the place to publish urban rumors, particularly on a highly controversial topic like this shooting. UncleFester (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There still is no sourcing that any other witnesses beside Ms. Vargas have claimed police attempted to confiscate cameras. Accordingly, I added a tag regarding the lack of sourcing for multiple witness with an interlineal explanation. I'm not going to re-revert my own version because to do so would be in violation of the edit warring policy; however, I do think that my earlier version is more concise because it clarifies that only one witness so far has been sourced on this claim in addition to the two men questioned by police (who may or may not have been witnesses). Perhaps a third editor could step in at this juncture.UncleFester (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are overreacting again and you are reading the source incorrectly and out of context to suit your argument. Get over it. You could have gone about this in an appropriate way and diffused any concerns by reading the sources closer and maybe even finding more. Instead you got all bent out of shape because I said "knock it off". I don't think it s a personal attack so I'll say it again: knock it off.Cptnono (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up with the new DA info: With the Burris claim, the District Attorney's statement, and mainstream news sources the paragraph looks good and fits within Wiki standards. We have made sure to specify that Burris and witnesses have only made "claim(s)" instead of treating it as fact. We have kept in the SF criticism of the allegation after reaching consensus. We have made sure to not use indy/biased news sites (even though a few might be valid) or blogs.Over weighted lines specific to just Vargas have been removed. I can not see any justification to play with the wording any more.Cptnono (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up again: another source found. 3 valid sources now to support the pluralization when used together. Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that contradictory. The officer may have tried to take Ms. Varga's camera, but ultimately the train just left. BART trains are jam packed, and the doors are automated. There was little chance the officer could have stopped the train or tracked her down in the next stop even if determined to get the camera.--69.107.67.17 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)