Talk:Marilyn Mosby

Highly political comments by Marilyn Mosby

Highly political comments after reading the charges were very unprofessional and may lead to change of venue actions by the court and or appointment of an independent prosecutor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.161.214 (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of venues, find another one to express your opinion on the subject's behavior. As the notice at the top of the page says, this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. 107.188.0.139 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

obvious bias on the part of the article's author

Reference to the wording indicates that the article is designed not as information but as a polemic to impugn the intentions of the article's subject. Deletions by the editor are in order. Otherwise, the article should be entitled "Opinions on Marilyn Mosby's Qualifications."Euonyman (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euonyman: Wait, what did I say that was offensive or biased? NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I see the offensive wording has been removed.Euonyman (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Youngest District Attorney in the nation

Article cited that Mosby, at the time of her election was the youngest district attorney in the nation. This is factually false. The citing article reflects that she was merely the youngest in a major US city. Amended the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.181.67 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Trivia

Please see related discussion at Talk:Death of Freddie Gray#Deletion_of_.22Trivia.22 - Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand how in this instance you can legitimately claim that this information is "trivia" when in fact it is well documented fact in the news that is totally relevant to the timeline of events and how the indictment is being handled. Eventually this information will all be included on WikiPedia despite you best efforts to conceal it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is trivial, and the source you provided is not considered to be a reliable source for biographies of living people - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "the news media" has deemed that information trivial for now and I agree that it was difficult to find an acceptable reference for citing those facts. However, in the long term all of this information will be considered relevant to this wikipedia article when it is used to file a motion to move the trials of the six officers due to Marilyn Mosby creating a political scene on a podium saying that we are getting "justice for Freddie Gray" when announcing the charges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Mosby is not the first State slash District Attorney to proclaim to be seeking justice for a homicide victim, one has to contemplate whether you also consider the others to have been "creating a political scene". Furthermore, this talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the subject. 107.188.0.209 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Taken directly from the Standards on Prosecution Section 1.5:

"(b) Except as a proper part of a court proceeding and in accordance with applicable rules, the prosecutor should not publicly make the following types of statements or publicly disclose the following information about an investigation:

(i) statements of belief about the guilt or innocence, character or reputation of subjects or targets of the investigation;

(ii) statements that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a jury or jury panel;

(iii) information about the character or reputation of a person or entity under investigation, a prospective witness, or victim;"

So much for your legal expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How is this relevant to Mosby's bio?

Also, the lead investigator for Mosby's prosecution is cited as being an ex-Baltimore police official who possibly has a conflict of interest in this matter.

References

This material is suitable to the article on Death of Freddie Gray. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is relevent because Mosby's career is to be an attorney and the lead investigator she signed to a major case has a checkered past that creates a conflict of interest. Anything in regards to her career that is reported in the news is relevant to her career information, whether or not it aligns with your personal narrative of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit Also, the lead investigator for Mosby's prosecution is cited as being an ex-Baltimore police official who possibly has a conflict of interest in this matter is not supported by the source you included [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@24.21.118.199: Please see WP:SYNTH you are writing about a possible conflict of interest, but there is nothing in the CNN article about such a claim. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah nothing in that article except for these several paragraphs:

"Another issue could arise from the team Mosby relied on to lead her case: one of her top investigators, Avon Mackel, is a former high-ranking Baltimore police officer who was stripped of his command post in 2009 for failing to follow through on a robbery investigation that two of his officers mishandled and did not report. A Baltimore Sun report said police in the district were accused of classifying serious crimes as lesser in order to log lower crime rates.

In October 2009, four months after his demotion, Baltimore County police sent a SWAT team to Mackel's home, responding a drunken incident in which he was seen holding a gun, according to a police report of the incident obtained by CNN.

Officers said an intoxicated Mackel refused to cooperate and was visibly upset, according to the report provided in response to a public records request. An officer then "observed the barrel of Mackel's handgun hanging over the edge of the molding at the top of the steps and saw Mackel pull the gun out of sight," the report said.

Police used a Taser on Mackel while he was on the phone with his father "crying and yelling," before he barricaded himself in his bedroom. The report doesn't say how the incident ended, but police said there was no arrest. A spokesman for the Baltimore County Police Department said "the [SWAT] tactical unit did assist with this incident, which ended peacefully."

Mackel didn't respond to calls and emails seeking comment. No one answered at his home.

Defense attorneys working on the case are already digging for ways to attack weaknesses in Mosby's case, according to defenders of the officers. Mackel's past, and whether he holds it against the police department, could present opportunities for the defense.

That has lead to concerns among some city officials that if Mosby's case fails to hold up, community reaction could explode again."

So much for your reading comprehension skills — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As has been patiently explained to you, there is nothing in the article claiming conflict of interest, and the source characterizes Mackel as ONE of the top investigators. As suggested, review WP:SYNTH. How ironic that you are questioning the reading comprehension of others. 107.188.4.17 (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@24.21.118.199: you need to stop adding your own synthesis. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It does not use the words "conflict of interest" but that is what is being suggested when they say "Another issue could arise from the team Mosby relied on to lead her case". Do you only make edits that are to protect your biased opinions or do you really care at all about information being made available to the public? I am more than happy to meet the criteria for WP but you are simply using technicalities to try and silence anything that might inform people of the entire story and not just what fits into your narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb in Wikipedia: "Comment on the edit and not on the editor". See WP:AGF. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Censoring the facts

There are WP editors who are clearly trying to limit the information being provided on Marilyn Mosby's WP article. I do not believe it is right for people to use WP as their personal political tool to distort facts and shade the truth. I believe all information that is being reported in the news in regards to Mosby's career should be eligible for inclusion within Mosby's WP article--without political whitewashing to try and steer the narrative towards a preconceived notion that she is a crusader for justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:ADVOCACY. It seems that it is you engaging in that behavior. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You have any evidence to support your accusation or are you just throwing stuff out there to see what sticks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is your own words, when you say that the article is slanted to towards a preconceived notion that she is a crusader for justice. This means that you are advocating against that perception. In WP we report the significant viewpoints as presented in reliable sources, not our own opinions on the subject, including yours, or mine. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am advocating against any predefined perception and I do not agree with your assumption that just because I do not want Marilyn Mosby to be portrayed as a hero that somehow I must want her to be portrayed as a villain. This is totally false. I simply want all of the facts and information to be made available to the public, as opposed to being filtered through politically biased WP editors who are trying to revise reality to fit along with their narrative of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

None is portraying anyone as a hero. And you should not be editing this article to advance your own ideas on this case. As it stands, the section is now tagged with a WP:UNDUE tag - Cwobeel (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to advance any "ideas about this case." The only thing I am trying to do is include relevant facts and information that are of interest to the general public. Every time I have posted a piece of information it is has been met with disdain by editors who think that simply stating a fact amounts to having an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

The only thing that I would agree is perhaps "undue weight" would be the sentence regarding Avon Mackel. As far as I can see, everything else looks very good. I am proud of the work we have done so far. I would argue for more inclusion and less minimization of the facts. Do you have any specific input as to how this section is giving Undue Weight to "one-side" of a personal opinion? It all just looks like facts and information being reported to me. Is this not working as intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It us UNDUE weight in this article, but perfectly suited for the Death of Freddie Gray article. Here we can have a summary. I started a discussion there to get other editors involved in this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the UNDUE tag, until we hear from other editors. In my experience back and forth between two editors seldom gets resolved. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Motion filed asking for Mosby to be removed from Freddie Gray case

The attorneys for the six Baltimore police officers charged in the Freddie Gray case have filed a motion requesting the removal of Marilyn Mosby from the case citing what they claim are five specific conflicts of interest.LinkPutanotherway (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

drive-by tagging

That is so funny that when I post a tag on this article for it to be checked for neutrality, the tag is immediately removed by the thought police who get to decide which articles can and cannot be nominated based solely on their own personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have an issue, it helps if you discuss the issue and what you think needs to be improved and not just rant. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been discussing the issues with this article for weeks and you are just calling my words a "rant" to invalidate my concerns with neutrality as being unfounded. But this article reads like a puff piece and cherry picks which facts and which quotes are applicable and which are not. At this point there should be nothing about the Freddie gray case on this article other than a link to the main article, if you ask me. Because what is written about the Freddie gray case is an absolute disaster of slanted misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The case is certainly the most notable in Mosby's life. between WP:SUMMARY and focusing on the parts of the case that directly involve Mosby, I don't see a big issue, but there is always room for improvement. Your main problem is that you are being very vague. What specific information do you think is slanted. What specific information do you think should be added (and from what sources) 21:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Essay

The freddie gray case section reads too much like an essay that is trying to sway the reader towards one point of view. I think it should be looked at more carefully to be less of a mouth piece for Mosby's campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No by any stretch of the imagination that section is an "essay". It is stating facts as described by reliable sources. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Source for last name Jones

Is there a source that says her last name was ever Jones? (Currently the first line of this Wikipedia article calls her "Marilyn Jones Mosby".)

This source says her last name before 2005 was James. This article also refers to her as "Marilyn James".12.180.133.18 (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Mosby

71.244.253.153 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)I heard her say and see it here that she comes from 5 generations of policing. I've never seen a specific list of those 5 generations. I heard her say my mother, father, grandfather, aunt and uncle were all police. Technically (I believe) that is only 2 generations- parent and grandparent! Yes I agree that she might have 5 extended family members in law enforcement but its still only 2 generations.71.244.253.153 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

NYT profile

This should probably be used somewhere in the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Move tax lien stuff into my new subsection?

It seems like, as the federal investigation develops, the tax lien might have a nexus to everything else the Mosbys are facing right now. Should we move it into the new controversy subsection I set up?--Aresef (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, as the reporting framed it as controversial, though I think it might be awhile (if ever) until it becomes clear what connection it had to the investigation, so we should not imply any. Sauzer (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Singular or plural?

One lie or more? One application or more? It appears four different ways throughout the article:

• false statements on a loan applications
• a false statement on a loan application
• false statements in mortgage applications
• lying on her mortgage applications

-- Pemilligan (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Why the inclusion of this criminal's signature? [concluded]

Surprised to see the signature on Wikipedia of this person. There is no significance, and detracts (slightly) from the information on this page. MM is not a person of significant importance, and is a living person. Propose to remove the signature from the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:AB5:8CA0:310D:F7EE:397C:8A2A (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Could you tell us how the signature detracts (slightly) from the information on this page?

If you really think Mosby is not a person of significant importance, I suppose you could seek to have the article removed on that basis, though I can't see how would succeed given her past service (and election) as state's attorney.

As to her being a living person, how does that affect whether or not her signature should be shown here?

-- Pemilligan (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly either way, and happy for this to just sit on the talk page without removing the signature

Replying in order,

- In my opinion, this person's notoriety in public is not at a level of significance to warrant entry in encyclopaedia of their personal signature. The detraction is that inclusion of the signature has been deemed important enough, but in light of her fall from grace, is this still a person of importance for it's inclusion.

- Well made point, and I agree it's an important article to keep.

- Signature styles can change over time, it is useful to understand whether this is current. Chunky Gulliver (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Context-free mention of George Soros in the lead.

Regarding this edit, which I have now reverted twice pending a change in consensus, Nothing about a passing mention in a gossipy and marginally reliable WP:WASHINGTONTIMES source indicates that this belongs in the lead. It is also unclear what a "social justice prosecutors" means, but even so, it's dubious that Mosby is one of "the first" such prosecutors. If she is merely "the first backed by George Soros" than why does this matter and how many other such prosecutors were in that batch? Presenting this without any context is leading and uninformative. Considering how politically loaded both George Soros's name and "social justice" have become, this would need significantly more context in the body before being added to the lead, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:RS, etc. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

As it is written now, I don't think the Soros mention belongs in this article at all. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yup, removing it completely also works. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. Grayfell (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Bishop's letter to the editor

Is the bishop's letter to the editor really notable enough to be included in the Federal indictment and conviction section?

Bishop Donte Hickman, pastor of Southern Baptist Church in Baltimore, in a February 2024 letter published in The Baltimore Banner, questioned whether "justice would truly be served," by sentencing Mosby, whom he described as "a young, brilliant and compassionate African American woman, mother and state's attorney," to prison. Hickman suggested in his letter that the prosecution may be racially motivated, stating, "We have seen this before with our African American political leaders in Baltimore."

References

-- Pemilligan (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it. Neither Donte Hickman nor Southern Baptist Church in Baltimore is notable, and letter was not summarized neutrally, anyway. In simple terms this source is just saying "Local pastor calls for mercy" which isn't, by itself, noteworthy at all. If this were to belong, it would need to be handled much better, but the source isn't strong enough to suggest this opinion is itself significant nor significant as an example of public sentiment. Grayfell (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)