Talk:Killing of Oscar Grant/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Wikilinks

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant&action=history

I don't know where or how to start a "talk" on Oscar Grant page as CPTNONO apparently suggested, but CPTNONO rudely removed a valuable link I added regarding the Justice for Oscar Grant Movement. In what sort of way does CPTNONO "own" this issue? Why would I need CPTNONO's permission to add a link? In what way is CPTNONO an "expert" on the facts of the case and the demonstrations?

The www.indybay.org/oscargrant page linked to includes more information on the case than any other single source on the murder and the following related events, definitely more so than wiki here. It is probably THE definitive archive on the subject. There is a ton of original material found no where else on the web, such as the actual court transcripts from Mehserle's preliminary hearing, unedited audio from related BART meetings, a tribute video by Oscar Grant's family, and much much more. It is rather problematic that CPTNONO would assume only corporate reports have value when I could go through a good number of the corporate "news" links here and point out factual and contextual issue after issue with their reporting. (Also, the SF Chron page linked to hasn't even been updated since March. Yikes.)

I would greatly appreciate CPTNONO undoing the deletion of the link. I actually intend to include more links to specific indybay.org posts relevant to certain passages in the wiki Oscar Grant piece as time allows. The first link is just to the Oscar Grant overview page but more specificity can be added to the wiki page over time.

===

I don't understand how the editor who speculatively wikilinked "hammered and stoned" can be complaining about "overlinking" Kentucky Fried Chicken. But it's unquestionably the case that the high schools should be wikilinked. THF (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit is simply inexplicable. Why are you reverting my edits for the sake of reverting my edits instead of discussing on the talk page? Why is it more important to wikilink "hammered" and unlink the high schools? THF (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

wikilinks discussion (as requested)

THF has requested a discussion regarding the wikilinks:

I agree that all three articles exist but see little value in adding these links. They don't seem to offer our readers anything meaningful to illuminate the subject of the article. As a counterpoint hammered and stoned are both linked to articles explaining what those terms are, in theory they could go to a wiktionary article instead but they have multiple definitions. We also could rewrite to eliminate the quote but I think it actually informs the article to keep it. -- Banjeboi 03:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote belongs. But it is original research for you to wikilink the terms inside the quote, because we don't know what the person meant by the slang terms--as you note, they have multiple definitions.
I don't object to de-linking Kentucky Fried Chicken (though your choices are again inconsistent--why KFC, but keep the New Years Eve link?) If I had to pick ten things in this article to delink, though, it probably wouldn't be one of them.
The high school links are important, however -- the articles about the high school convey interesting information (are they good high schools? did Grant grow up in an impoverished neighborhood?), and it's counterproductive to delink them. THF (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, just for kicks here, what definitions of stoned and hammered could possibly be used besides these? -- Banjeboi 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Now you're just being tendentious. You were the one who acknowledged they had multiple definitions twelve minutes ago. Are you going to defend your idiosyncratic delinking, or not? THF (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Now you're accusing me of being tendentious. Interesting. Should that be interpreted as you actually have no other definition of stoned in this context besides drug use and no other definition of hammered besides alcohol use? -- Banjeboi 04:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm here to improve the article. I still don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by delinking the high schools, and you still haven't explained why you thought it important enough to edit-war over. THF (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the links after considering they had little value to the understanding of the subject, and you re-added. The cycle repeated so the same question is volleyed back to your edit-warring? -- Banjeboi 04:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You arbitrarily removed some links, and arbitrarily added others. I, who had previously been the one to remove unnecessary links from this article, returned the links, and kept the additions. You reverted. I proposed a compromise, with an explanation on the talk page. You reverted without explanation. And now you're picking a fight, with now four edits to this section without a single one rationalizing the link removals or your conduct. THF (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Good gracious, let me restate my concerns so revisiting my previous posts won't be needed. Kentucky Fried Chicken, San Lorenzo High School and Mount Eden High School - articles that do exist - are not helpful links to illuminate the subject of hand - the shooting of Oscar Grant by BART Police. I'm more than open to reasonable debate but just that Grant worked at or attended these institutions does not make them that relevant to our readers' understanding of the subject - and that's why we're here. -- Banjeboi 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). I'll concede KFC, as I did in the compromise, because I don't particularly care enough about that link. I've explained why the high school links are relevant, and you haven't responded to that other than to play Argument Clinic. THF (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, for at least the third time, those articles don't seem to relate any information that illuminates the subject of this article. Perhaps you could explain what information is in those articles that help understand this one rather than linking to Monty Python sketches. Perhaps those salient points could be summed up in a word or two and expressed here instead - it was a violent school where children were trained to thwart police or Tasers were used for discipline, something that registers here. -- Banjeboi 15:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You still haven't given a reason to remove the redlinks, and still haven't responded to my detailed explanation why they should be linked. A reader may want to know about Oscar Grant's educational background. If it's important enough to be in the biographical section, it's important enough to wikilink. I can't think of a single article where someone's educational background is listed, but there isn't a wikilink to the underlying article about the school. Not one. Your idiosyncratic edit-warring over this is tendentious and disruptive, and is wasting everyone's time. THF (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahem, again, there seems to be nothing in those high school articles that relates to the subject of this article. If you could explain why those links should be added, which is how these discussions go, perhaps there wouldn't be a need to accuse anyone of anything. I'm certainly open to reason, as I'm sure other editors are as well. Simply explain what is in those articles that make linking them here beneficial to our readers' understanding of this subject - the BART police shooting of Grant. I'm just not seeing it presently. -- Banjeboi 17:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking high schools

  • Wikilink Yes. I think we have consensus that a short bio of Oscar Grant is appropriate. It is appropriate to wikilink HS in the bio. Readers are not forced to follow them, but can do it if they like to. Same for KFC. Just because you and I know what KFC is, does not mean every reader does. -- BaldPark (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you explain what information in those articles has any bearing on this article? Also please see Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. -- Banjeboi 19:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Readers interested to know what victim was would have a little bit easier time exploring where he worked and studied. BaldPark (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
        • There seems to be nothing in the KFC or those high school articles that relates to the subject of this article. Again, what information in those articles has any bearing on this article? -- Banjeboi 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Oscar Grant went to those high schools. It's a biographical detail that gets wikilinked in every biography. At some future date, those articles might become more meaningful, but we wikilink them now because it's rare that someone improves article A and then de-orphanizes it. Meanwhile, a reader has no way of knowing why there isn't a wikilink, and will have to go through the trouble of looking up the high school on the search page, and then going through the disambiguation pages to find it. Can you name a single biographical article where someone's educational background is listed but not wikilinked? THF (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Other bad stuff exists is not a good reason to follow that trend. And this isn't a biography - it's a shooting incident. Please see Sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house for more on overlinking meaningless articles. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
              • 1. It is a biography. Oscar Grant redirects here. The section in question is indistinguishable with a biography article. The titling of this article is inconsistent with how we title Rodney King and Amadou Diallo, and it may well get renamed again. Your argument is disingenuous: if you really thought the high schools were unimportant to the subject of the article, you'd delete the sentence rather than just the wikilinks.
              • 2. You seem to concede that every other article in Wikipedia has these links. If your argument is that every other article in Wikipedia is wrong, then you're arguing this in the wrong place. Take it to WP:MOSLINK. Either way, you're being tendentious and disruptive. THF (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. That's interesting. I'm finding your activities here tendentious and disruptive, at least we found agreement on something. And no I don't concede that this is a biography, it isn't, but that's not the point, and no just because other article have menaingless links doesn't mean this one also needs to. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Link - I see no reason not to. Doesn't detract from the article and provides some minimal biographical information on the subject; it's completely relevant WRT this. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Link - I see no value added by having this link (or much of this section). Oscar Grant III is not a notable individual except as it regards the shooting; material relevant to the shooting should be included, but the high school Mr. Grant attended is in no way relevant. let's not distract the reader from the tragedy of this man's death with mere trivia, please. --Ludwigs2 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support link - if it's important enough to write into the article, then it should be linked. –xeno (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support links – I support keeping all of the links in question.
  • Mount Eden High School and San Lorenzo High School: What is added by linking to these articles? I would argue that information regarding the quality of Grant's education, the affluence of his community and the racial makeup of his surroundings as a child can help create a picture in a person's mind as to how Grant grew up and what his attitude toward police might be.
  • Kentucky Fried Chicken: What is added by linking to this article? Again, by letting readers see what kind of restaurant KFC is, they are able to get a better picture of what Grant's background was. Was he an accomplished chef working at a fancy restaurant after getting his culinary degree and apprenticing with Gordon Ramsay? Or was he stuck in a dead-end job that required little education?
I would argue that the value of those links is just as great as the value of linking BenjiBoi's name to a user profile, which gives readers here a good indication of how credible these arguments are.
As a side note, can anybody tell me why the black guy's high schools in the ghetto are supposedly not worth linking to, while the white cop's high school was never -- as far as I can tell -- unlinked?—Bdb484 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support links - If the high schools are mentioned, please wikilink them. See Wikipedia:Wikilink#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Incidentally, per WP:MOSQUOTE, "stoned" and "hammered" should not be wikilinked: "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Discussion style

If you disagree, please do not express your disagreement in a form of a question. Even more so, once, assuming good faith, the question has been answered, do not repeat this silliness asking the very same question again just because you still disagree. BaldPark (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is how consensus works. If there is disagreement, we try to understand what the issue is, what common ground there is and the possibilities for moving forward. I've asked a reasonable question and have yet to get a satisfactory answer. From what I can tell the RfC was started because I wouldn't cave in to this other editor. I think calling an RfC on wikilinks is quite disruptive and meant to intimidate but I feel some genuine good may still come of it. -- Banjeboi 19:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
The question's been answered. An RFC is designed to get additional opinions. This is a thinly trafficked article, so if two editors disagree, and one of those editors is refusing to address what the other editors are saying, there's not going to be consensus unless more editors enter the discussion. THF (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually the question hasn't been answered as I think there is almost nothing in any of the three links that has relevant connections to the subject that will help readers to understand this article more fully. If it's terribly important he worked at KFC that should be made clear, if it's a big deal that it's a fast food chain specializing in chicken we could also explain that. Ditto for the high schools, they just seem to be linked because we can and other articles do it so it must be the route to go. I don't see it helping this article and instead see it as overlinking. -- Banjeboi 20:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
One should not assume that because reading an article about the subject's high school does not lend to your understanding of the article means it won't lend to someone elses. –xeno (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I will throw number two here. Once a question has been answered, do not pretend it has not been just because you did not like the answer. BaldPark (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad edit

This edit is a mistake:

  • It interrupts the flow of the section about the shooting to discuss a civil action.
  • It therefore splits up the discussion of the civil claims in multiple sections.
  • It is out of chronological order when the rest of the section is in chronological order.
  • The punctuation and capitalization are wrong, also.

Please self-revert. THF (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I find your editing on this a bit disingenuous, it's quite convenient that the section you wish to dismiss this information is at the very end of the article. I'll leave it to others to interpret that but it seems an odd way to go about covering the subject. Chronological order can be important but isn't always, and isn't always clear or NPOV. It can be but isn't always - this may be one of those cases. The content adds the context, the civil action, per wp:attribution. It wouldn't be NPOV to state that police had gone into a peaceful train and engaged in illegal activities. But now we have a legal action that lends context and prominence to that perspective. If there are other clean-up issues they can be addressed as needed. You have been extremely quick to edit anything you've seen as problematic. -- Banjeboi 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
AGF, please. I've been quick to improve the article on a regular basis, checking the news daily, and doing legwork to track down the legal filings.
If you have an argument that the civil action section belongs higher up, then make it. Realistically, however, the second suit is frivolous. They had probable cause to arrest the five for fighting, and a right to hold them as material witnesses to the shooting. The resisting arrest charge is corroborated by independent witnesses, and thus also supported by probable cause.
We have a lengthy opening section that is in chronological order, and you interrupt the moment between the initial arrival of police and the shooting to discuss something that happened five hours later--even though that discussion already exists in a section devoted to the civil litigation. There's no reason for that sloppiness, and it makes the article harder to read without adding any information. THF (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
If the second suit is frivolous and the claimants deserved to be detained, or whatever, then let reliable sources make that claim, not you. Until then we go be verifiability not truth. And no, that content is not about "something that happened five hours later", the train was peaceful when it was stopped happened before the shooting, the alleged charges of brutality happened around the same time and arguably both before and after. These are secondary concerns to the shooting itself so are left at the end of that paragraph to offer a different perspective which aligns with our NPOV policies. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen me add any of my personal opinions about the suit to the article? I was the one who added the fact of the suit to the article. I merely note that it is frivolous because it's not likely to be news beyond the initial filing and eventual dismissal on summary judgment a couple of years from now. Spend more time proof-reading and less time making unfounded accusations. THF (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, we go by verifiability and not truth. If your wp:crystal ball tells you that two years from now the suit is dismissed then you can mark your calendar to amend the article when that happens. Until then we can only go by reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Please identify the edit I made that violated policy, or stop with the strawman attacks. THF (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's close this thread as the subject is more serious than this deflective approach to resolving the disagreements and the issue is being addressed in another thread. -- Banjeboi 14:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This edit, one of five reverts of my edits that Benjiboi has made in the last two hours, bowdlerizes Mehserle's side of the story, and substantial evidence that he mistakenly thought he was firing his taser in a panic, is a violation of NPOV. It's also an all-too-typically sloppy edit by Benjiboi, with misspellings and grammar errors. But since Benjiboi is simply reverting all of my edits, there's little point for me to correct it, and I'll simply tag the article until a better editor can fix it. It's very frustrating when even my spelling corrections are being reverted. THF (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, please knock it off. You have some ownership issues here and now you seem upset that someone is calling you on them. Calling my edits "all-too-typically sloppy" is rather uncivil and unhelpful. And you conveniently gloss over that you reverted many of my edits both today and in the past. I have only tried to make improvements here and this article has had some serious POV problems. Yes, it cites reliable sources but there's also some cherry picking of facts. Mehserle's legal brief is inherently POV so I'm using a reliable secondary source that distills what someone else thought was relevant. The more we get away from blaming Grant or Mehserle the better off we'll be. -- Banjeboi 04:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course Mehserle's brief is POV. That's what NPOV is about -- including all points of view, not just the ones you agree with. The San Francisco Chronicle is POV, too.
At least a third of your edits have introduced factual, grammar, or spelling errors that you do not correct. That's counterproductive editing when you force others to clean up after you, especially when you're edit-warring on top of that.
Your OWN accusation is unfounded. I have edited collaboratively (see multiple sections above where I concede points to other editors who disagree with me, and I have readily yielded the one or two times consensus came out against my position), have been the first to take disputes to the talk page, have been the first to take disputes to RFC. It's not OWN just because I'm not going to compromise on spelling and grammar. THF (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No one has problems with correcting spelling and grammar issues, if you're somehow suggesting that I'm advocating keeping bad grammar and spelling in place you're wrong. The overriding concern is our policies on NPOV. In this case you've added the POV tag because the POV Mehserle statements from the shooting were trimmed back eliminating
This is awfully POV. Wait until Pirone or Mehserle takes the stand then impartial sources can report on the fear in his voice. We're not here to make the case for anyone Mehserle, Grant or Pirone. The other sentence removed was "The man sitting next to Grant also told police he heard Mehserle say "I'm going to taze him." This is unneeded, no one disputes Mehserle said this so why does it need to be repeated a few sentences later? -- Banjeboi 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

  • The bail motion is quoting from the police investigation. That is an impartial source.
  • Regardless, NPOV doesn't require only reporting from impartial sources. Quite the opposte: NPOV requires acknowledgement of all substantial points of view. We quote Burris repeatedly, and he's not impartial.
  • By deleting that sentence, there is now no acknowledgement of the POV that Mehserle was afraid and panicked when he shot Grant--a very critical legal state of mind, since the prosecution has to prove malicious intent. The omission violates POV.
  • It's much more important that one of Grant's friends -- who is suing BART, by the way -- corroborates Mehserle's claim that Mehserle intended to taze Grant than it is that Pirone, a fellow police officer who might be participating in a cover-up, said this. It's called an admission against interest, and is admissible at trial even if the friend takes the Fifth and refuses to testify.
  • You are incorrect that Mehserle's claim about tazing is not disputed. Burris disputes it, and the prosecution disputes it. Heck, the judge disputed it. Have you read the article? All of that is in there.
  • Separately, your edits are inconsistent with your claims about grammar and spelling, because you have repeatedly blindly hit the "undo" button to reinsert spelling and grammar errors without cleaning them up. THF (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
And I thought we were finally on the right track. A POV tag? Man, I am disappointed. Will a focus on watching the weight of the bail motion while still using it address the concern? Hopefully, the facts will speak for themselves over the next few months.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, please desist from red herring arguments about grammar and spelling mistakes, that is a minor issue compared to NPOV and no one is suggesting that those are anything but clean-up issues. I have read the rest of the article and to me it seems poorly written and full of POV statements and conjecture. Not needing a POV tag but still problematic. Bail motions and police investigations may or may not be NPOV, likely it's a case by case basis and should be tied to the content one wishes to source. In this case we have a reliable source so they aren't needed. If "Mehserle was afraid and panicked when he shot Grant" we should simply use a neutral reliable source rather than an emotional quote, it's more accurate, direct and NPOV. The other man quote could be simply stated as ___ corroborated Mehserle's voicing his intent to use a Taser. Simpler, clear and NPOV. I think that my statement was that no one disputes Mehserle stated he was going to use a Taser, if that is disputed where is the source? -- Banjeboi 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi demonstrates that he hasn't read the article he's complaining about, since the dispute is right there: "Prosecutors argued, and a judge agreed in deciding to set bail at $3 million, that Mehserle's claim of Taser confusion was inconsistent with his earlier statement to a fellow officer, and that Mehserle might be changing his story." The very fact that the prosecution is charging Mehserle with murder shows that they're going to tell the jury not to believe Pirone's claim that Mehserle was planning to taze Grant, since if they don't dispute it, they'd lose on a directed verdict if the judge is honest.
The bail motion is a perfectly reliable source for the arguments Mehserle is making. Benjiboi did not rewrite the section to rephrase the bail motion, he simply blindly reverted my edit. THF (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I just reread a few contentions sections. Every time I thought I was seeing POV a following line made sure to give the other side's point. I hate wikipedia articles reading as summaries and compromises of the wikipedia page but this is different. So many different news sources say different things and now legal arguments are coming into play. I personally think the article will work out just fine. I didn't read the edit history but definitely agree that removal of valid sources has to be done with caution. Grammar mistakes do happen. THF is going to catch it. This is unfortunate for him but does improve the article. (I for one stress out before hitting submit at the risk of screwing up!)Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, bad faith and OR. THF, please comment on the contributions rather than the contributor. This will help ease angst and get the article policy compliant expeditiously. That a judge, or whomever, made a bail decision does not negate what reliable sources have stated. We need a reliable source to state Mehserle did not state or in some way mistated his intention to use a Taser. We are not allowed to infer a judge's decision as to the accuracy of a statement without direct statement of dispute. Again, please produce content with reliable sources that don't involve original research, novel conclusion not stated in reliable sources, so others can see what may benefit the article. You seem to have some valid concerns here but we have to fall back on our NPOV and RS policies. If Mehserle was afraid, acted out of fear, etc, then we need a RS to state that; if his statements about intending to Taser Grant are questioned to have ever been spoken then we should also source that, again with RS. This will only make the article better in the long run. -- Banjeboi 15:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi, your contributions to the talk page repeatedly demonstrate that you haven't read the underlying article and sourced materials. To repeat: the judge said he didn't believe that Mehserle intended to tase Grant. So there is a dispute, yet you have deleted the best evidence on one side of that issue, cited in a reliable source, in violation of NPOV.
If Mehserle was afraid, acted out of fear, etc, then we need a RS to state that We had one. I added it to the article. You reverted the edit. That's why we have a NPOV tag. THF (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
THF, again, please stop personalizing this. I indeed understand what you're stating and have already suggested a NPOV of presenting this material rather than the quote which seems quite POV. Could you post the source link here so others could also see what NPOV way the material could be presented? If we have a source that the judge, despite Mehserle's statement didn't believe he meant to use his Taser then let's have a look. This is far different than the quote:
Pirone did not know if Grant was armed. Mehserle had fear in his voice. Pirone had never heard Mehserle's voice with that tone. Mehserle sounded afraid.
That you objected to removing. Not sure how one leaps from that quote to "the judge said he didn't believe that Mehserle intended to tase Grant" but, again, I'm open to reason. The measure remains verifiability not truth. This may not seem fair, something you know for sure simply may not be verifiable by Wikipedia standards, but that remains policy. Maybe you could post the source link and we can find some common ground. -- Banjeboi 18:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It's very hard not to personalize this when you write comments like this that indicate you aren't reading what I'm writing, and aren't reading the article that you're blindly reverting; it means that you're wasting my time and the time of other editors being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate. To repeat for the third time: the judge's comments about Mehserle are in the article already. The cite to the bail motion is also in the article. Yet you're asking me to provide a cite, when I already have. Have you read the article? I haven't added a single non-verifiable thing to the article, yet you repeatedly falsely accuse me of adding OR. THF (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You've again made disparaging remarks about me and it's not helping. I've read the article and agree it needs a lot of work. The OR concern I raised was your statement The very fact that the prosecution is charging Mehserle with murder shows that they're going to tell the jury not to believe Pirone's claim that Mehserle was planning to taze Grant, since if they don't dispute it, they'd lose on a directed verdict if the judge is honest. This is your opinion and may be perfectly accurate but unless it is stated ina reliable source we really can't use it. For your interest in adding anything regarding anyone not believing Mehserle intended to Tase Grant - even though he stated such - please post a link here so others can look at that external source. It's not unreasonable to ask you for what source you're using to support exceptional claims. We do this all the time. Content is questioned, we see what RS's state and work towards consensus. If you'd rather leave this until after the trial yields stronger sourcing then that's fine as well. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing about WP:NOR prohibits the use of common sense on a talk page, so please stop misusing it to describe my talk-page discussion. I understand the NOR rules, and have not added any non-verifiable material to the mainspace article. For the fourth time, the prosecution's statement and the judge's statement and Burris's statement that they don't believe Mehserle intended to tase Grant are already sourced in the article. Which you apparently still haven't read. You are being disruptive by refusing to discuss this honestly. THF (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag break 1

Someone is clearly changing the POV status for this article. There is a lack of facts, and way too many opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.150.53 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Again THF, please stop with the personal attacks, you've now characterized me as dishonest. I never suggested you couldn't OR to your heart's content on the talkpage but again am asking for NPOV content and reliable sourcing to add something about Mehserle not meaning what he said regarding Tasering Grant. I will repeat again, I have read the article but it is not my job to write and source content you wish to add. If you are unable or unwilling to provide the sources to support your assertion then it's unrealistic for others to simply accept those assertions as valid. Why not simply post the links to the relevant articles so this can all move forward. No one should have to guess what you already know or which references to dig through. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I repeat myself, but for the fifth time: we don't need to "add something about Mehserle not meaning what he said regarding Tasering Grant" because it's already in the article. We need to add the sourced material about Mehserle's side of the story, because the current version is unbalanced by failing to give his side of the story. The problem can be solved if you, or someone else, self-reverts the problematic edit you made that is identified at the top of the section that deleted verifiable sourced material, which was the only part of the article that fairly detailed Mehserle's side of the story. This was explained in my very first edit to this section, yet you continue to pretend the issue is something else. THF (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel discussing content is frustrating. I've already addressed how this could be added but you seem to feel only your way and only in your style is acceptable and other editors need to simply accept that. I don't share that view. We work together and instead of explaining what content changes, and sourcing, would be improvements you've continued to disparage me. This is a similar pattern on this talkpage and suggests, at the very least, you're extremely passionate about this subject. That can be good for an article but it also can cause problems.
Moving forward; there are two parts that were removed, the first Pirone did not know if Grant was armed. Mehserle had fear in his voice. Pirone had never heard Mehserle's voice with that tone. Mehserle sounded afraid. You stated that by deleting that sentence, there is now no acknowledgement of the POV that Mehserle was afraid and panicked when he shot Grant--a very critical legal state of mind, since the prosecution has to prove malicious intent. The omission violates POV. My response is if "Mehserle was afraid and panicked when he shot Grant" we should simply use a neutral reliable source rather than an emotional quote, it's more accurate, direct and NPOV same with the other man who heard the Taser comment. I've also asked for input regarding that legal document as a source here it may be fine but that website seems a bit dodgy. -- Banjeboi 20:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, you didn't try to rewrite it, you simply deleted it. How about
According to Pirone's statement to police investigators, as recounted in Mehserle's motion for bail, Mehserle sounded afraid; Pirone said he never heard Mehserle sound that way before.
That's an awfully awkward formulation when simply quoting the document will accomplish the same thing in fewer words. We have "emotional" recounting of Grant's alleged words on the platform that you're not objecting to.
I have no object to copying and pasting the pdf to a Wiki-site; it's a public-domain court filing and I'm not a big fan of the docstoc interface or all of its advertising. THF (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization

24 hours ago, the article had consistent organization. In the current version, facts are randomly scattered throughout: details about a minor collateral civil claim are repeated in two different sections; details about the aftermath of the shooting are in the "background" section; things that happened in September and December are in the "shooting" section; the Taser purchase is repeated in two different sections. I propose a return to consistent and sensible organization, with the incident described in chronological order, and a trimming of repetitive material. Is there any objection to that? If not, I'll do that tomorrow morning. THF (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly object as this seems like another thread to assert a particular POV instead of working toward consensus. And giving less than a days notice also seems to favor only those willing to engage here. -- Banjeboi 20:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to hear a reason other than the fact that you like reverting my edits. It's hard to reach a consensus when you refuse to honestly engage in the discussion. You gave zero notice for your undoing of a month's work of several editors. THF (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


Organization 1.2

The organization on the shooting section seems a little too fragmented now. There is contradictory information from news reports and so far there has not been a clear description of the shooting. We are starting to see the article digress into reporting these different sources and getting jumbled while trying to balance different takes on the event. I don't like the new 1.1-1.3 sections.Cptnono (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Disorganized? It seems to be trying to present prosecution and defense court cases before any trial is held. Were I king, I would simply yank out everything which is not palpable fact, and not try to try the cae on WP. [1] was a far superior revision. Though I would probably have trimmed even that a few thousand bytes. <g> Collect (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
My, what a coincidence that, out of several million Wikipedia pages, Collect ends up on this one now that he can't spend time badgering me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant (2nd nomination). Couldn't possibly be wikistalking in play. THF (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually if you looked up my contributions you would not be surprised that I follow RfCs on Politics. And since I happen to favor your edits here, I would trust you would understand that. You should also be aware that Benji and I are involved on opposite sides in another article. Thanks for redacting your charge of stalking. Collect (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I have got a similar concern. There are hard facts: Grant was laying on platform, he was shot, and so on. There is little or no doubt about that because most of it can be seen from tapes. There are police officer reports that I trust much less and the judge, apparently, was skeptical about them. To my knowledge, the officers have not been cross-examined yet. I do support inclusion of the cops' side of the story, it just should be told after "hard" facts are laid out, not in the middle of the story. I understand that the current version properly attributes the cop's POV, but I think it is still hard for a reader to notice the statements are not equally trustworthy with the current order. Luckily it is easy to fix. BaldPark (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
WP policy does not say editors are to determine in any sense what is "trustworthy" or not. All we do is provide statements which are attributed to "reliabkle sources" (WP:RS, and no more. Unless, of course, we can provide material which states that an "expert" in a field has no c.v. suitable for making statements, or that other experts cast doubt on his expertise. Neither of which, AFAICT, applies here. Collect (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
You are largely correct. However, not all statements have the same weight (WP:DUE). That is why I proposed to separate them. Thank you. BaldPark (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Just a character reference: Collect and I have interacted elsewhere on Wikipedia, and s/he is among the best. There's no significant chance of wikistalking here. Additionally, I agree with Collect that it would be best to "yank out everything which is not palpable fact, and not try to try the case on WP."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference! (I am, in fact, "he"). Collect (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you're a reliable source for that.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm just trying to say I don't like the layout. I'm not trying discuss content with my previous comment.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag summary section

I've not edited this article, and this is my first edit on this talk page. I haven't read the article, and don't know anything about the subject of the article. I was invited here at 5:26 on 7 February. The arguments above about the NPOV tag are almost impossible for the uninitiated to understand. Would the parties please boil down their arguments to a sentence or two, so that newcomers such as myself have some slight chance of figuring what this NPOV tag is all about? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(Updating brief summary.) On Jan. 1, police officer Mehserle shot and killed the unarmed Grant after a brief struggle trying to restrain him for arrest. Cell-phone videos of the event have made it the most prominent case of alleged police brutality in California since Rodney King.
Mehserle is charged with murder, which requires proof of intent to unlawfully kill. This edit deleted material, sourced from the defendant's motion for bail, which was in turn sourced from police interviews of eyewitnesses, that supports Mehserle's version of events: that, in a panic over Grant's resisting arrest, he fired his gun mistakenly believing it was a taser. (That's possibly still a crime, but it's not murder: it's the difference between a two-year sentence and a life sentence.) The article has several statements from prosecutors, from Oscar Grant's family's attorney, from the judge, and from city council members claiming that Mehserle is a murderer. NPOV would seem to require fairly representing the other point of view, and not omitting facts that support it in the account of the shooting. Those facts are:
  1. Officer Pirone's statement to police said that Mehserle appeared unusually scared of Grant.
  2. One of Grant's friends said to police that he heard Mehserle say he was going to tase Grant.
A relatively clean version of the incident section is at User:THF/Grant sandbox. User:Banjeboi argues that that version is "too emotional" and "awfully POV." He may have other objections that he hasn't clearly articulated.
It's also fair to note that there is a pending discussion at WP:RS/N whether the bail motion counts as a reliable source, given that the only version of the brief currently on line is a hosting-service copy of the electronically-filed version. THF (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, that's not "a sentence or two"! I'll repeat from the last section: "I agree with Collect that it would be best to yank out everything which is not palpable fact, and not try to try the case on WP." If this is pending criminal litigation, we ought to let the court do the fact-finding. Additionally, there may even be a chance that the fairness of a trial could actually be jeopardized by doing the fact-finding here at Wikipedia.
Also, the brief summary here in this talk page section is not going to be comprehensible to newcomers. Is Mehserle a police officer? Is he actually asserting that he mistook his pistol for a taser? On the surface, that seems extremely implausible. But it's a matter for a court, not for us. I suppose it may sometimes be okay to cite to a legal document in ongoing litigation, but I think it would be much better to just provide the document as an external link, and rely only on media reports and the like, UNLESS citing the legal document is really necessary in order to clarify an ambiguous or misleading or POV media report. Anyways, I hope these comments help some....Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry: stepping further back, police officer Mehserle shot Grant. Mehserle is charged with murder in a highly racially-charged case that has already led to riots because of the delay of formal criminal charges. Nobody is proposing to "try the case" on the Wikipedia page. There's a factual recounting of what happened in a few minutes on a subway platform.
It's precisely because taser confusion is so implausible to a layperson that it would violate NPOV to omit the very strong evidence that it happened. It's a palpable fact that, in the midst of a struggle after a violent altercation, Mehserle said that he was going to tase Grant, and then shot him instead.
I'm not sure what you mean by "palpable fact." There's nothing in the article that isn't a "palpable fact," capable of being perceived. There are factual disputes, to be sure, but those are phrased as such. THF (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
According to one media report: "If Mehserle thought Grant was trying to reach for a gun, he never would have said he was going to use his Taser."[2] Wouldn't that media report provide just as good a source for you as the legal document? The legal document is akin to a primary source, and Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the prosecution argument, not the defense argument. That's already in the article. As a Wikipedia editor, I prefer secondary sources to primary sources, too, but there aren't any secondary sources fairly covering the defense argument. (Indeed, the press coverage is so bad that I may end up recusing myself from editing this so that I can write about it in the real world.) As my proposed edit above shows, I seek only to quote a handful of sentences from the defense brief without intermediation: "the bail motion says X." My proposed edits comply with WP:PRIMARY: 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. THF (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
From that news report, it sounds to me like the prosecution acknowleded Mehserle not only said he was going to use his taser, but was truthful when he said so. I don't see why you need to rely on the court documents to describe this defense, if the prosecution is capitulating on this point.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No, exactly the opposite -- they're saying that Mehserle's claim of wanting to use a taser isn't consistent with what he allegedly told Pirone earlier, and therefore he didn't really want to use a taser. (Again, the prosecution is charging Mehserle with murder: that means they're alleging that he intended to use his service weapon and kill Grant. If they allege that Mehserle intended to use his taser, they lose the murder charge.) The SF Chron article cited in the story in footnote 3 is much clearer about this than the Mercury News article you're reading:
The prosecutor in the case, John Creighton, also questioned whether the defense account made sense. "If he intended to pull his Taser and pulled his service weapon by mistake, why would he say to another officer after the fact, 'I thought he was going for a gun'?" Creighton said in an interview before the court hearing. "Why wouldn't he say, 'Oh, my God, Tony, I meant to pull my Taser' or something to that effect?"::::::: THF (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. Well, for my money, this article should just say something like: "Mehserle says that he did not realize he was firing a handgun, and instead thought he was firing a taser. In contrast, prosecutors say he knew that he was firing the handgun instead of firing a taser. Both sides cite various contemporaneous statements by Mehserle and by others, to support their versions." I really do not think it's necessary to get into all the details about what those contemporaneous statements were, especially not while the thing is being litigated. You might as well include images of what a handgun looks like, and what a taser looks like, to show whether they could likely be confused. (And, believe it or not, I have a patent pending on a stun gun equipped with recording devices.)Ferrylodge (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps reducing the article to the statement of facts which are absolutely agreed on by everyone would be step one. Who the parties were, and what happened between them, and what they said at the exact time of the event without trying to figure out what anyone was thinking at the time. Then state that the matter is in the court system, and when decisions are reached and findings of fact and law are made that the article can be updated before the WP:DEADLINE. Let the court do the deciding -- as far as I know there is no reason to decide the case here. Collect (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That would lower the quality of the article. The only facts everyone agrees on is that it was on a train platform and that Mehserle shot Grant and that Grant died. One doesn't solve an NPOV problem by omitting all the points of view. THF (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to include all kinds of minutae about who said what to whom in this article, then I can understand why you'd want to make sure this article includes a balanced presentation that doesn't omit contemporaneous statements supporting the defendant. But the defendant's own legal brief is not a very good source, and it's unnecessary. For example, one newspaper writes: "Rains said some witnesses said they heard Mehserle tell fellow officers, 'get back, I am going to taze him.'"[3] This seems like it would provide the info you're looking for.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the witness is someone who's suing the police department makes it much more credible. Leaving out that fact minimizes the impact of the evidence. But I won't beat a dead horse over it. THF (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. Perhaps this would adequately authenticate the court document.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions. Why are we trying to use any primary sources on a subject that has so many reliable secondary sources? If this is important to the subject of the article then it should be covered by the multitude of non-primary sources. This case has been headline news almost daily for over a month. If one has to use a primary source then it is likely better to leave it out as so many secondary sources have failed to see the significance of the statement. If the article covers a court case in process then it should avoid primary sources altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.214 (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

External References

The article has a link to the Oakland Tribune's coverage of the shooting, but not one to a similar complete coverage page on SFGate (SF Chronicle website), here: http://www.sfgate.com/bartshoot/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.190.88 (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources should be enough. SF Chronicle, Mercury, and the Tribune are all in I think.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The Chronicle page is helpful for having all their stories in one place. It fits within WP:EL. THF (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure

I came to this page after voting "keep" at an AFD, and I've learned a lot about this issue in the last month in the process of cleaning up the page and reading every news story written about the case. I was discussing this case and the media coverage with some colleagues of mine, and as a result, I was invited today to write an article about the case. I don't think that the possibility I might make few hundred bucks from writing a couple of thousand words about the case creates a conflict of interest, so long as I'm not the one to add a cite to myself (a point of view is not a conflict of interest), but I also don't care enough to have wikidrama over the issue: if any editor objects to me working in the main space, I will withdraw from the page. THF (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Have fun writing the article. Donate a few bucks to Wikipedia or buy a really nice bottle of something.Cptnono (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It could be great if some one could create an article/list of people of color shot dead or otherwise killed by police for no apparent reason over last 20-30 years. Haven't found one on web yet, but I'm sure there are some. It would be great if wikipedia had comprehensive list. (There is a category with individual articles, included in the category section of this article.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Image help

File:Mehserle-mugshot.jpg, which is currently used in this image, needs a fair use rationale in order to comply with basic policy. If this isn't provided, the image will be deleted. I am not familiar with this topic, or the reasons why it is included in this article, so I'm hoping there is a volunteer here familiar with the situation who wouldn't mind adding a fair use rationale to t e image page to comply with policy. Thanks a lot!!-Andrew c [talk] 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the exact policies on images but I believe THF dealt with this a week or so ago. Have you had a chance to click on the link to the file and seen the explanation/wiki jargon? Would you mind reading it and spelling out what is missing so we can get it fixed?Cptnono (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the upload summary Public domain mug shot released by Douglas County Sheriff's Office and published on http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BART-Shooting-Officer-Arrested-Taken-Back-to-Oakland.html) it is Public domain not Fair Use but someone will have to check that and add the appropriate template(/s) to it, if it's not public domain something like {{Non-free use rationale}} needs to be added. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
FUR added. — neuro(talk) 01:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The post shooting image was also deleted for not having the correct tags. It looks like we can do a fair use rationale on it per the deletion discussion if someone wants to upload it again.Cptnono (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not important important comma question

So a couple editors were messing around with Until the shooting, Mehserle lived in Lafayette, California, with his girlfriend, who gave birth to their first child on the day after the incident, January 2, 2009. What is the correct thing to do with the Lafayette, California... Is it Lafayette, California,...? I would think no according to proper grammar but wikipedia editors really like the comma and this sentence is already not standard. Not asking to start a debate. I guess to make it easy it could be split.Cptnono (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The comma goes after California, as it is a parenthetic expression. See Strunk & White, The Elements of Style (3d ed.) pp. 2-3. See also Comma#Uses. THF (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I was about to tell you how wrong you were until I remembered that you know what you are doing. Looked it up and realized the whole state punctuation thing is standard regardless of all the other comas in the sentence. Grammar bad.Cptnono (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

KRON 4 report

Dani2480 added text based on a KRON 4 report from February, sourced to a YouTube video. The video appears to be copyvio, but the text is supported by experts' opinions from the video. I didn't see whether there is enough identifying information to cite the report directly. Flatscan (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there was some recent editing of this content, I tried to find an acceptable source. The report is labeled "Experts defend Pirone" and begins at 9:19. The raw video is marked "video courtesy of KARINA VARGAS". I was not able to find the video in KRON's collection (right sidebar). Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Source is important so hopefully one can be found. Don't know the guidelines on linking to youtube but the paragraph needed correction.Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I suck WP:ELNEVER removed link. Paragraph is now more inline with the report but source is gone.Cptnono (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gang Member

Don't know if it is vandalism, internet rumor, true, or whatever but if Grant was a gang member it could go in the bio section which discusses his criminal record. Please cite sources and edit appropriately. If the fight on the train was gang related (saw a blog about it but assume it is incorrect) please find a reliable source and include in the incident's background section. It should no be inserted randomly (unless it is vandalism then other editors just have to revert).Cptnono (talk)

IP edit war

An IP edit wars to keep their prefered version of text see here.

It is important that Grant's criminal conviction is stated as such and it is in violation WP:WEIGHT to have an attorneys opinion (someone who never met Grant BTW) placed at the start of the Grant's "background". All I did was move it to a more appropriate place. Paid To Terms (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


I still disagree according to WP:WEIGHT but go for it. 207.246.150.53 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Paid To Terms: Per the be bold guidelines it is best to take something to the talk page when attempting a substantial change another editor disputes. I do not know if it was intentional but your recent edits give undue weight to Grants supposed hostile actions. You have chosen to use sources that describe him provoking the attack even though there are just as many claiming he was compliant. At first glance there are a couple other inconsistencies but I want to research it more before rocking the boat over them. Your edits will be tinkered with so I ask that you take it to the talk page if you have a concern. It took plenty of work from several editors to give this article a neutral tone and you are expected to follow that guideline if you wish to contribute.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just adding balance with facts from reliable sources. Address each point separately and do not blanket revert. Paid To Terms (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, two editors seem to have concern with your recent edits. Per the being bold guideline, if an edit is reverted it is best to take it to the talk page. I understand you are adding information that is sourced but it is also looking like you are giving undue weight in an attempt to achieve balance. Sine your edits are rather substantial there will be some contention and we need to remember to keep a decent process or the article will suffer for it.Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up: Three editors seem concerned. Please see the following guidelines and attempt to collaborate with other editors. It looks like your edits might be leading the reader to a certain conclusion which has caused concern. WP:CYCLE and WP:3RRCptnono (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Before you start counting editors please note J.delanoy's explanation of a wrong revert. Now let's get down to some of the issues that are being deleted.

Why is it contentious that Mehserle is the oldest of 3 children, liked basketball and graduated from Sonoma State?
Why are the finding of his toxicology report being scrubbed?
Why is it disputed that Grant was released in 2008?
Why is it disputed that Mehserle put his "hands to his head"?
Why does text from the Grant family lawsuit constitute [WP:RS]] yet text from Mehserles Bail motion violate WP:WEIGHT

Like I said before, do not just blanket revert due to your own WP:OWN issue. Take the time to address these points on the talkpage. Paid To Terms (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So that just came across rude. It has nothing to do with ownership. Please keep in mind I haven't even touched your edits yet. I actually watched two other editors battle it out for some time and made edits as needed. We will have to now break down your edits in a drawn out process since you refused to go about it in an appropriate manner. The burden is not to prove any points. We should be finding consensus on how to let the facts speak for themselves. In regards to reverting, any further reverts by you will be in violation of several protocols including the 3 revert guideline.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if you were offended. My WP:OWN remark however was directed to the anonymous ip and not to you specifically. I edited the artcle in good faith using WP:V and WP:RS sources under the guiding principles of WP:BOLD. Editors need to explain why they blanket revert all my changes under the broad charge of WP:WEIGHT. I have documented the issues above in singular form so hey can be addressed on this talkpage. From my point of view this article is grossly weighted towards the positions taken by the supporters of Oscar Grant and the defence position of Mehserle and in fact details of Mehserle needed to fleshed out. Paid To Terms (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

er... I look like a real jerk now. Some edits made below but in direct response to your question:
  • Why is it contentious that Mehserle is the oldest of 3 children, liked basketball and graduated from Sonoma State?
    • I don't care
  • Why are the finding of his toxicology report being scrubbed?
    • Low enough to not matter to some and a little out of place. My thoughts on it are that it should be included somewhere but don't know where
  • Why is it disputed that Grant was released in 2008?
    • Too much information potentially? Just like the other bio stuff I don't care personally one way or the other
  • Why is it disputed that Mehserle put his "hands to his head"?
    • Don't follow, I'll need to recheck the edit history
Follow-up: Ah. The judge said that the officer's mindset might have been force on force which is funny becuase everyone's interpretation of the officer's shock was different at first. I don't care how the information is presented to the reader in regards to his dumbfoundness, shock, or whatever as long as the majority of RS supports it.Cptnono (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why does text from the Grant family lawsuit constitute [WP:RS]] yet text from Mehserles Bail motion violate WP:WEIGHT
    • My primary concern: the bail motion has been disputed. Other sources were disregarded when entering this info in. The formatting is a little long winded. The lawsuit is equally biased and needs to be used with caution and prose that qualify it as such.Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Grant starting a riot

Originally the line said something along the lines of it being a chaotic scene. Paid To Terms edit leads the reader to believe that Grant was part of the scene which was equated to almost a riot. Sources do back the police being fearful but they claim it was after the cops pulled Grant from the train and it was bystanders causing the concern. Also, one guy testified that 10-12 people involved in the fight on the train was an exaggeration. I believe it was the second day of the preliminary but need to find that source before disputing that part.Cptnono (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source of Grant's friend "Jamil Dewar" stating to the court that Grant was involved in a fight with another passenger and "It was that scuffle that prompted more than a half-dozen BART officers to storm the Fruitvale station and force Grant and his friends from the train and onto the platform." Paid To Terms (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there was a fight and it involved more than 2 people but the cause for concern was officers getting a hard time (name calling and a couple individuals advancing) was onlookers not the fight. I have not seen a reference that explicity states it was Grant creating the riot like environment (even though he might have called them names) but people reacting to the officers ebing a little rough. Not saying they were justified or not, just saying this is what was reported in the majority (if not all) sources). I still think some sort of description is needed regarding peeople causing this concern in the incident section.Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First use of motion for bail (Grant resisting)

  • This looks like good info but is contradictory to other sources. This other info needs to be moved here to not lead the reader.
  • Format: Is a block quote from the source the best way to convey this information aesthetically?
  • Is it too long. Cptnono (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[Here is the Bail Motion text] Cptnon refers to above. It is a valuable here as it contains direct quotes from the official police investigation. It is important for WP:NPOV to balance large slabs of text taken from assertions made in the Grant family civil lawsuit against BART. Paid To Terms (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is preferred in many cases. Take a look at Wikipedia:Quotations#whentousequotations (and the following when not) and let me know what you think. I am on the fence but length and bulldozing of less biased and more numerous sources is my biggest concern.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Trial

There are civil and criminal.Cptnono (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen any commentary from WP:V sources mentioning anything about a "civil" trial. Wikipedia does not speculate on future events as per WP:CRYSTAL. Paid To Terms (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I mistakenly thought the wrongful death suit was going to civil trial already. Regardless, if you want it adjusted it seems fair to qualify what sort of trial it is. Also, are bail and preliminary separate from the trial making then proceedings as opposed to trial?Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Kneeing in the groin

Perone said on the stand he couldn't remember the knee to the groin incident. He also testified that Grant posed no threat in the moments before he was shot. He was also labeled as the aggressor by witnesses. I have no idea where to even begin. Any ideas on what section this info belongs.Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The line added seems too long with "BARTs Official Position" Also, per the When not to use quotations guideline, I think this might apply: "a summary of a quote would be better. This may be due to lack of importance..." and "the quotation is being used to substitute rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. This can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." Not sure though.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I also propose your line and the one preceding be moved. It boggs down the video evidence section when it should be in the background section.Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Follow up: consolidated 2 mentions on kneeing incident. removed debating lines in the video evidence section and added to the background section. Would support replacing Burris line with that from witnesses since it is less biased and potentially more accurate.Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not put "Dave Allen's" comments up so high in the article but into the "BART reaction" section. Paid To Terms (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The full quote would make sense there.Cptnono (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind see here also that the BART comments from spokesman Dave Allen were a response to "the federal civil lawsuit", and not the meserhle trail. I assume this lawsuit is waiting for the completion of the trial? Paid To Terms (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I just don't want to see too much duplication of info and it was an unneeded rebuttal to another (admittedly) unneeded rebuttal in the Video evidence section a few hours ago. If it is an official position of BART in response to the pending civil stuff than it makes sense in BART's reaction or in the Civil action section.Cptnono (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Train leaving/mobiles being confiscated

An editor who did some good work on this article made an edit awhile back which I now believe was not appropriate. "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." This line being related to the phones being taken/almost taken is SYNTH and is only in as a rebuttal. A few people claim their phones were confiscated or almost confiscated. It was not a conspiracy theory by all the police on the ground but something that an officer or two might have tried. I'm removing it. If a source directly links the train leaving to witness claims inclusion is appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resource Adjustment/Fix-up

Resolved

Down in the resources, one of the links seems to have been replaced by this: Cite Error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named cuffs. An adjustment as well as the addition of a link is requested. [>{>Drakonis<}<] (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP removed the source from a line that was later used in several places (be careful when removing sources!). Restored.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Oscar_Grant/Archive_4&oldid=1136264793"