Talk:Killing of Freddie Gray/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Deletion of "Trivia"

@Cwobeel: I want you to tell me what NOTNEWS (which you cited in your reversion) has to do with the information (from a reliable source) that I cited in two sentences in the appropriate section. -- Veggies (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Cwobeel on this one. Its sourced, but unencyclopedic. Nobody cares about a minor paperwork correction that had no impact on the case. clearly will fail the WP:10YT and WP:WEIGHT Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the info holds no worth in the issue of the article. It was a minor error that does not affect the incident, the investigation, or future trial so it's completely trivial.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Completely trivial and unencyclopedic. Marteau (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Diasagree: I'm going to disagree with everyone here, though it run counter to established consensus. I think my addition (which was a grand total of two sentences) fully justifies itself using the 10-yr-test, and does not impart any undue weight, since it is from a reputable source and does not (in any conceivable way) advocate the view(s) of a fringe minority—it is simply an event in history. Regarding the "minor error" bit, in law, and especially in criminal law (and even more especially if you represent the prosecuting state), there is no such thing as a "minor" error. That's why lawyers are expected to double- and triple-check everything. That said, if editors are so against it, I'm not going to try and force the issue. -- Veggies (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't force the issue because the content was irrelevant to the case. It was a paper work mistake. It has zero impact on the investigation or the accused. Any significance you find is from your own interpretation, which is not allowed. Sources have nothing to do with that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Veggies. The allegation described in the current response section is that the charges were carelessly thrown together and display incompetence on the part of the prosecution team. Charging the wrong people in a case of this exposure supports that notion. It's certainly not trivia in that context. It goes to the heart of the criticisms of the case. Most of what is in WP is newsworthy. That doesn't mean it violates "NOTTHENEWS." John2510 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The article you cited said nothing about "carelessness" or "incompetence" or anything about any "heart of the criticism". It is not our job to edit with the intent to allude anything not explicitly present in the sources. Editing with that intent is pushing a PoV and is against policy. Saying "It's certainly not trivia in that context." when there IS no such context in the source but only your implication is further evidence that this is simple PoV pushing and does not belong in the article. Marteau (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct. The reporter chose that rare path of letting the reader draw patently obvious conclusions from the facts. Here's a source where the attorney for the innocent woman charged says, "... the mistake in the court documents indicates the investigation into Gray's death was 'flawed and rushed.'" http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/05/woman-harassed-after-court-lists-wrong-address-for-officer-charged-in-freddie/ Couldn't ask for a plainer statement than that. John2510 (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The assertions of an attorney representing a party only remotely and obliquely involved in the matter of Gray's death lacks enough weight or notablity for inclusion in this article in my opinion. Marteau (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of you. You are just trying to conceal the facts because you are threatened by information that disagrees with your personal world views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How does removing irrelevant material threaten anyone's views? I don't think it's a crime to want to have relevant info on an important article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

LMAO. An editor who has been removing material taken from THEIR OWN SOURCES is accusing others of being threatened by information by information that doesn't fit their personal views. 107.188.0.209 (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have time for your childish remarks. I have contributed important info to this article, I don't recall any being removed so I guess you just like trying to agitate other users who enjoy improving articles. Anything I removed has either stayed that way or has been discussed properly (unlike with what you are doing). Sadly, your personal views are clouding your judgment, which is why you feel the need to accuse others of outrageous agendas.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Similar to the often quoted axiom that a liar believes everyone else lies as well, it has been my observation that those who edit with an agenda are the first to accuse others of having an agenda. Marteau (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not removing material I was trying to clean up your poor sentence structure. You should try using appropriate commas and quotation marks in the future. Also, perhaps avoid childish acronyms like LMAO and using all capital letters to shout at people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? So why didn't you simply fix the structure instead of deleting the material? You should try reading YOUR OWN SOURCES before deleting material taken directly from them. Furthermore, if you don't want people laughing or shouting at you, maybe you should avoid hyperbole like "You are just trying to conceal the facts because you are threatened by information that disagrees with your personal world views." You're hardly the ideal of assuming good faith.

P.S. I make a change to your formatting. You should try using the indent feature ;-) 107.188.0.209 (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Officer Miller charges

The article and NPR both say that Officer Miller was charged with Involuntary Manslaughter. But the NYT [1] and Baltimore Magazine do not mention manslaughter charges against Miller.[2] Who is right?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MissPiggysBoyfriend It has already been confirmed long ago that the six officers have been charged (with different crimes). It is clearly established that Miller is charged with involuntary manslaughter. This is already well referenced and publicly known so I don't know why this is a question to be honest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here the LA Times details the charges.[3] There is no mention of Involuntary Manslaughter against Miller. So we have NPR saying he was charged with Involuntary Manslaughter, and three other sources purporting to list the charges without such a charge. It is possible that NPR is right and the other three somehow left off the charge. But when you have three sources saying one thing and one saying another, it is easier to believe that the three are right and the one made a mistake.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MissPiggysBoyfriend Your sources are also outdated compared to the NPR one. Ugh, why do I always get stuck with these type of questions? I'm closing the argument, move on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise for you to just close off a discussion you are "involved with", if you don't want to continue, just stop responding, others may still have input. Which NPR source are we talking about? The one reference in the article by the charges for Miller - http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/01/403496063/freddie-gray-update-new-speculation-on-his-death-and-peaceful-protests for me says "Officer Garrett E. Miller: Two counts of second degree assault; two counts of misconduct in office; false imprisonment" - no mention of involuntary manslaughter. What am I missing? Given the WP:BLP policy, any doubt and we'd need to remove it --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Changes made, moving on...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok - so no longer a need for TO? I removed it from the list. Also wanted to provide this in the event you haven't seen the official charges: [4] Atsme☯^Consult 01:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Officer Nero charges

Here we go again . . . now it appears that NPR is saying that Nero was charged with manslaughter, while other sources do not say this. Once again, it seems easier to believe that NPR has it wrong [5] and everyone else is right [6], [7]. Yet the article asserts that Nero was charged with manslaughter.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The transcript of Marilyn Mosby's statement provided by Time: "Officer Edward Nero is being charged with assault in the second degree intentional, assault in the second degree negligent, misconduct in office and false imprisonment." Time transcript NPR erred. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Name Correction Request

Hello, In the 3rd paragraph of the article during the first reference of Baltimore attorney Mosby her first name is incorrectly stated as Carolyn. I believe that it's Marilyn and it looks like it's correct throughout the rest of the article. I do not know how to fix this since I'm not a regular participant of this site. Would somebody who knows what they're doing correct this? Thanks, SRM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.194.232 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Marteau (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop vs Arrest

Sources (including Mosby) are getting confused on Terry stop vs arrest, as the case develops, we are likely going to have to talk about the different stages of the encounter in more detail, and how those stages are discussed/argued. I want to get a handle on how we should refer to them. (Or alternatively, to be more neutral, I can't say for sure that Mosby is confused, merely that there is a difference of opinion (between Mosby and the officers and various media on each side) as to if the "stop" of Gray constituted "arrest" or not - and we should not exclusively use Mosby's (or cops) opinion in wikipedia's voice.

The type of issue I am talking about is seen at page 7 of the recent Mosby motion (bottom two paragraphs) http://cdn.s3-media.wbal.com/Media/2015/05/19/45f83185-32ef-4074-95f9-61ac8976f560/original.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Tough call. Since it was a high-crime area the police had reasonable suspicion necessary for detainment, but did moving Freddie constitute an arrest before they found the knife? I have no idea. Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It already unraveled with the Grand Jury not indicting on false arrest/imprisonment. It seems Mosby is claiming, in this filing, the conditions for a Terry stop were not met until well after flight and handcuff - her Pyon citation is an examination of reasonable suspicion and when an encounter changes from voluntary to investigative (not between investigative and arrest) - though she never addresses unprovoked flight that is from Illinois v. Wardlow and is the exact language used by the investigating and arresting officer. Movement and handcuffing are allowed for a Terry stop as long as it's for officer safety. It comes back to training that they would cuff him while investigating the reason for flight as well as a check for warrants, identity, and any other reason they articulate for flight. Finding a knife during cursory pat down (let alone visually seeing it) is also admissible and arrestable. Really, the only question is how long he was detained and whether that time was reasonable. It sounds like the knife was found almost immediately after he was handcuffed. The Grand Jury punted the charges pertaining to arrest so it is now a presumptively legal arrest (and I suspect that means the knife's legality returns to the discretion of the police/prosecutor). Now it's a use of force question regarding the assault charges. By dropping the false arrest, the facts claimed in the Mosby motion will never be heard in the criminal case and it's only a statement to avoid civil liability and recusal. --DHeyward (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I found the Grand Jury finding odd, as a spring assisted opening knife is legal in Maryland. A switchblade is illegal in every state, due to federal law. The arrest report (I've personally read it, although I fail to recall the URL for it currently) stated on the very last page that it was a spring assisted opening knife. Amazon sells hundreds of models and no state I'm aware of prohibits possession or carrying such a knife and Maryland (a state I currently am living in) prohibits not only spring assisted opening knives, fails to prohibit any length of knife one may lawfully possess. Also noting Baltimore PD's arrest to release without charge ratio, with release without charge being the majority, I truly find the finding extraordinary. How is an arrest for a non-crime lawful? Is this nation now a Constitution Free Zone?Wzrd1 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

charges vs indictments vs convictions vs sentencing - Use a table?

It seems like tracking this stuff may get complicated as the case goes on, but I think keeping track of what was charged vs indicted vs convicted etc is valuable to present to the reader.

What would users think about a table to track this, with a row per person, and then a column for each person with what the charges/result were at each stage? I did something similar at Jesus_C._Gonzalez#Sentence which seems to work well. Alternatively we could do a table per person more similar to the one at Gonzalez, but that might be too bulky. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

A table may work, but not for now? Maybe if and after any of them are convicted? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an ideal thing to sandbox!Wzrd1 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead Poisoning

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is clear that lead poisoning should not be mentioned in this article without better sources connecting it to the death of Freddie Gray specifically. --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The lead poisoning of the Gray family seems like an odd inclusion, it was jarring when I read the article. Perhaps retitle the page Freddie Gray, and have his death be a large section? Unless the implication is that lead poisoning led to his having a switchblade, which led to his death, this seems unrelated. Loratone (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a really odd thing to include. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is associated with [8] then I would prefer that it stay. EllenCT (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gray doesn't appear to be mentioned in that article—assumptions like that without any source explicitly linking the two would be synthesis. If that were a story that somehow connected Gray's crime of carrying a switchblade and lead poisoning, that might be another story. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The article about the relationship between lead poisoning and crime is from 2013. I personally find it very convincing. If there was evidence that there was an endemic problem with lead poisoning in the subject's family, because the subject was a minority ethnicity criminal who was treated extrajudicially by police, instead of as a poisoning victim, then that shows the reader why science is more important than prejudice. EllenCT (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It turns out the knife wasn't even a switchblade, and wasn't illegal.[9] EllenCT (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional mass media sources: [10], [11], [12], [13], and possibly [14] although not directly, as far as I can tell so far. EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to propose replacing the original text with some of the sources above. EllenCT (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT could you be a bit more specific about what you propose swapping for what?Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I want to revert [15] with some of the sources above. EllenCT (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT — I, too, found the Mother Jones article on the correlation between lead in gasoline and crime rates twenty years later to be interesting and thought-provoking. But connecting the dots to the death of Freddie Gray is more problematic. You have tried to make the connection between Gray’s lead poisoning and police behavior towards him. Your conclusion seems to be, "that shows the reader why science is more important than prejudice”. Of the sources you cite, none provides a strong connection (or even any connection) between the information on Gray’s lead poison levels and the focus of the article on the events surrounding his death. Doing so would be original research or synthesis.

We do have appropriate, if minimal, background information on Freddie Gray. But even as background, the lead poison info comes across as unrelated facts. The Gray family’s civil suit also brought testimony from Freddie that he didn’t like dogs, and from his mother that she was unable to help him with schoolwork, according to the sources you provided. We have not included any of these miscellaneous unrelated facts because they are not central to the story of his death, and it would be inappropriate to attempt to integrate into the narrative. —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What do those other factors have to do with propensity to commit crime? EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Should the statements about endemic lead poisoning in the Gray family and their mentions in the mass news media be replaced in the article? 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• No because 1) Mentions of Gray's lead poisoning in the sources cited above do not explicitly draw any conclusions connecting lead poisoning to Gray's crime(s). 2) Statistics on lead poisoning can be correlated with statistics on criminal activity, but correlation ≠ causality. 3) None of the articles claim that Gray's past crimes are attributable to lead poisoning. We need to avoid both original research and synthesis. 4) Causes of criminal behavior are complex, and may include lead poisoning, but also include SES factors, drug abuse, personality disorders, and other factors. 5) Why focus on lead poisoning when the causes of Freddie Gray's criminal background are NOT the main focus of the article? – Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• No - Interesting information suitable for the article on Lead poisoning, but not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - I think the specific mention of lead poising in the media stemmed from a few articles that alleged that Gray had received spinal surgery as a result of a car accident the week before the murder (namely this article from The Fourth Estate http://thefourthestate.co/2015/04/breaking-freddy-gray-had-spine-surgery-just-one-week-before-arrest/). Searches for Baltimore court cases yielded that Gray had recently attempted to consolidate a structured settlement from Allstate Insurance and, coupled with supposed unnamed "sources," the assertion was made that the lawsuit and the alleged car accident were somehow related. It wasn't until further research by other sources (Snopes does a good write up of this at http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/freddiegraysuit.asp) that it was found that the structured settlement actually stemmed from a lawsuit related to an old lawsuit regarding lead paint. Though the lead paint itself might not be relevant (and tying his criminal activity to the lead paint is entirely speculation), the very fact that some would attempt to discredit his injuries as a product of his own doing is indicative of the controversial atmosphere surrounding the case. Maybe include it, but in a different area?192.153.142.154 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• no while there is some validity to the research being done in the lead/crime nexus, its impact on this situation is far to tenuous to be included as part of this specific incident. Regarding the IPs concern, we do not have any coverage of the allegations regarding the car accident, so rebutting those allegations seems unimportant. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• No for the reasons already mentioned. BTW Ellen, are you aware that lead poisoning is very common in inner city children? [16] Gandydancer (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am. How does that provide anything other than support for the conclusions of [17]? EllenCT (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral while it is a very odd to include in the article, it may have some relevance considering the circumstances by which this could impact events. I think it is worth revisiting this in a few months after when information becomes available. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• No unless either: a) the bio section about him is expanded, or b) reliable sources link the lead poisoning to the events surrounding his death. If it is mentioned at all in an expanded bio section, it should be mentioned in the way a childhood cancer is mentioned (for example, "he was found to have elevated lead blood levels as a child"). The effects of lead poisoning described in the proposed edit (reversing this edit) are SYNTH unless reliable sources make the connection for us. None of the sources given above have specifically related lead poisoning or its effects to the circumstances surrounding his death. These sources talk about life in that area in general,[18][19] these ones talk about how the lead poisoning lawsuit,[20][21] and this one doesn't talk about his life or lead poisoning at all.[22] None of them connect lead poisoning with the events that surrounded his death. Therefore, until reliable sources tell us otherwise, the information doesn't belong in the article as it currently stands. Ca2james (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Safiel (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: How should the protagonists races be described in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to follow the sources in using "white" and "black". --GRuban (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The majority of the sources describe the protagonists as "white" or "black", but there are concerns that these distinctions offer an unneeded contrast, and arguments for advancing the use of "African American and "Caucasian" as more neutral have been voiced.

Comment with:

• (A) for "white" and "black"
• (B) for "Caucasian" and "African American"

Comments

• (A) - Best is to follow the sources rather than our personal preferences. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• prefer A, but don't see a policy based objection to B Race and ethnicity are not the same, although political correctness often blurs the terms. . In this case, though the terms are interchangable due to the participants involved, but for identification purposes sources are surely talking about race and not the large ethnographic concerns. . Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Almost but at least one officer is of Arabic descent. Not sure which one and if they would take issue with either caucasian or african-american which have ethnic connotations. --DHeyward (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward interesting, I had not realized that. Well, how is that one described in the media? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• (B) Not against policy as said, and has a neutral standpoint instead of a "personal preference". In this case using "white" and "black" offers total contrasts that may sway readers to unwarranted conclusions. "B", on the other hand, brings up less of an issue, allowing readers to make observations on facts. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• (A) The majority of the mainstream sources use "black" and "white". Marteau (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• (A) Sources. Initially this was 3 White officers accused of brutality that ended in death of a Black man. Only subsequent to that was it determined that the arrest was injury free and the injuries and death occurred in transit. In short, race was what built up tension. And as side prediction, of the 6 charged, 5 will not even go to trial and the driver will face substantially reduced charges and be the only person prosecuted. Race will definitely come up again if the only officer facing trial is Black. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Though I respect your decision, your opinion on the crime is both unneeded and off base.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment For those just arriving, here's some preceding discussion:

• #Race of police officers
• #race
• #Since this article already mentions that Gray is black, why does it not mention that his accused murderer is also black?
• #sigh

In light of what has preceded, I'm inclined to take this RfC as some sort of Cwobeel 'end run' to cut short discussion and force a 'vote'. Yet another attempt to exercise influence over the discourse. I think at this point consideration should be given as to whether Cwobeel is simply endorsing specific edits or running some sort of broader ego edit war campaign. See preceding discussions and relevant edit history. That Cwobeel again overwrote TheGracefulSlick's changes after concerns about his participation had already been raised ... Again, at this point I feel Cwobeel's interactions with this topic have become unseemly and would prefer that he recuse himself.

Personally, I'm inclined to hold off on further discussion of terminology until Cwobeel's behavior has been addressed.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin: Please learn about Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. RFCs are one of the tools we have to resolve content disputes, which this is. I'd appreciate also if you can try to assume good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the point was there was already an in-process discussion that was not in your favor, so you created a new one that rushes users' better judgements to force a more desirable outcome. I'm not wasting my time with this anymore though, the article is of more importance than this squabble.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

!!!Note: Cwobeel took it upon himself to remove my preceding comment and relegate it to a new section below his own content.[23] This is Cwobeels's second attempt at refactoring my edits on this talk page. Additional comments were placed after the arbitrary move. A copy of them will follow for continuity. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It was clear that there was no agreement, and an RFC is one of the ways to go about it. Do you have a problem with seeking input from uninvolved editors? If so, why? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how you got me not wanting to be involved in this embarrassment as an invitation to ask one of the most laughable series of questions I have the pleasure of reading. It was more clear that involved users were swayed more in my favor, which is why the RFC was opened. But I don't care much for it, I like to get things done honestly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Snark aside, if you don't care, why do you keep posting in the RFC? Your point has been made already. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Cwobeel's refactoring of this discussion to suit his own purposes (per previous Note above) leads me to feel it may be time to address his behavior in some sort of 'official' capacity. I'm open to suggestions from other editors as to how best (and whether) to go about this and what specifics to address. Perhaps in a separate section below. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This section is for comments about the options in the RFC. The section below it is for threaded discussion. Maybe stop complaining and start following process, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Kevjonesin placed a bullet-pointed 'comment'—prefixed with the boldfaced word 'Comment'—into the 'Comments' subsection of a 'Request for comments'—as is commonly done.[24] It contained links to relevant preceding talk page discussion along with his own personal 'comment'. It wasn't a 'threaded comment' until User:Cwobeel decided to make a 'threaded response' under it! User:Cwobeel then used the very thread he'd initiated to rationalize removing an entry he found disagreeable (whilst leaving other entries with 'threaded response' intact). He then copied the deleted entry into a context of his own choosing—into another section, preceded by his own commentary. <facepalm> --Kevjonesin (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's Cwobeel's block history that Marteau referred to earlier under #sigh. An entry linked to an Edit war complaint where Cwobeel attempted to rationalize that overwrites are not reverts for the purposes of WP:3RR. This led to Cwobeel getting blocked as a result of an Edit war complaint he himself had initiated. <facepalm> I've not yet done a count or detailed analysis, but judging from his overwrite/reversions of TheGracefulSlick previously, I suspect he may still be trying to apply the same rationale. Something to keep in mind should more objectionable behavior arise. --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Brown and pinkish I don't like the whole idea of assigning identify versed upon skin hue however I understand that 90% of the rest of the world's humans don't share my dislike. The skin hue of the various individuals in the murder was relevant so my suggestion for the article is to utilize the wording used in the references, in other words use a mix of terms as they are used in the references and citations offered to support the article's text.

Since the world's media and its citizens are not consistant in their use of the terminology, I don't see that there is a need in the extant article. Everyone researching the murder will understand the classification of human phenotype regardless. Damotclese (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• (B), because I feel it suits wikipedia more. Although I personally say "black" and "white", I think it would just look unprofessional in an article on Wikipedia. Rayukk (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The style guide from the National Association of Black Journalists prefers "black". The NY Times uses "black" often. The Washington Post and the LA Times prefer it when used as an adjective (but not a noun). The Associated Press style book goes either way. So your feelings of unprofessionalism is not shared by leading media organizations. Marteau (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• A: more of the reliable sources use "white" and "black" than "Caucasian" and "African American". Esquivalience ^t 23:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• B - Because the media tends to use words and phrasing that polarize an issue and call readers to action rather than simply explain. It's what distinguishes an Encyclopedia from a media outlet. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• A. We should go with the terms used by the majority of sources. Additionally, it's worth pointing out that "African American" is not strictly synonymous with "black", and "Caucasian" is not strictly synonymous with "white"; racical characterizations are an extremely touchy subject, so I would be hesitant to swap the terms used in our sources with subtly different ones as if they're interchangeable. (I suspect that this, and not the sensationalism that some users have speculated about above, is the reason the media has largely switched over to using them; 'Caucasian' in particular makes a statement about someone's ancestry that, in some cases, could be unwarranted or hard to back up without a detailed analysis of their line of descent.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• (A) – As others have noted, the terms black and white are not synonymous with the terms African American and Caucasian, and the majority of sources use black and white. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
• Poorly formed RfC - whatever descriptions are used must be supported by the RS that are cited. Atsme^📞📧 00:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
• A as others have stated about ethnicity and race being different. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• (A) I agree with the majority opinion to use "Black", and "White" since most of the reliable sources use these words. JamesRoberts (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• (A) As several users have mentioned above, this is the common usage among reliable sources, and so it is appropriate. As far as I am aware, academic sources have also been switching from B to A over the last few years, but I have yet to do real research into this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• (A) Per MOS:IDENTITY, the article should use what the majority of reliable sources use. In this case, the media reports, media style guides (also a reliable source for determining language used in the media), and the National Association of Black Journalists (which can be presumed to define the group's preference) prefer "black", so this article should go with "black" and "white". Ca2james (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• (B) I do feel as if using "African American" and "Caucasian" is a usage of vocabulary, and although media outlet doesn't use "Caucasian" a lot, they use "African American" a lot. I feel like when we just say "white" and "black", It reminds me of Kindergarten where we learn how to use basic language. I feel as if option B is more professional when writtened, and shows more authenticity to the article, itself. Nick2crosby (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Use in other articles of controversial police and minorities encounters:

• Shooting of Michael Brown - uses white/black
• Shooting of Walter Scott - uses white/black
• Shooting of Tamir Rice - uses African American for victim. No mention of race of officers
• Death of Eric Garner - uses African American for victim. No mention of race of officers
• Shooting of Akai Gurley - uses African American for victim. No mention of race of officers

The point of these examples is that in none of these articles the term "Caucasian" has been used. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

And in the example where race of officer was used only a single officer was involved...makes sense to this multi-officer case. Why is it that the officers, in your opinion, should be called "black", but the victims are allowed to be called "African-American"? Just curious.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not what I am arguing about. I am arguing for using the more common "white" and "black" for all protagonists, as presented in most sources about this incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I bring up my point that the white/black idea holds an avoidable contrasting view. The other way prevents this, allowing facts to formulate a reader's viewpoint.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that using "Caucasian" is formulating a viewpoint as well, as it assumes provenance from Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia, which is quite confusing if you look at it that way. "White" is more generic and simpler to understand for our readers. Compare with White American - Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't form any viewpoint, but if you want to make one up that's ok. This isn't really worth it to me, I'm more worried about preserving the article's integrity. If you want to lower its standards, than I withdraw my valid argument for yours. You may make the changes while I keep researching for more positive inclusions to the article. Peace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We shall let the RFC run its course. BTW, a good backgrounder article is Definitions of whiteness in the United States - Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah kinda guessed you would do that. Have fun with it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Cwobeel. We should be following the sources, which are also a guide to common usage in the US. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjonesin: Please learn about Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. RFCs are one of the tools we have to resolve content disputes, which this is. I'd appreciate also if you can try to assume good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the point was there was already an in-process discussion that was not in your favor, so you created a new one that rushes users' better judgements to force a more desirable outcome. I'm not wasting my time with this anymore though, the article is of more importance than this squabble.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It was clear that there was no agreement, and an RFC is one of the ways to go about it. Do you have a problem with seeking input from uninvolved editors? If so, why? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how you got me not wanting to be involved in this embarrassment as an invitation to ask one of the most laughable series of questions I have the pleasure of reading. It was more clear that involved users were swayed more in my favor, which is why the RFC was opened. But I don't care much for it, I like to get things done honestly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Snark aside, if you don't care, why do you keep posting in the RFC? Your point has been made already. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Safiel (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Five times Gray requested care, and "jailitis" RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Split decision; there is consensus for including Mosby's statement about Gray's medical assistance requests, but there is a rejection of the "jailitis" sentence. --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Undisputed RS material being removed because it's "unhelpful." I take issue with such rationale. The text being repeatedly blanked:

Marilyn Mosby, the state's attorney for Baltimore City, says Gray had five requests for medical assistance ignored by the police. One officer reportedly diagnosed Gray with "jailitis" — an apparent faked illness.

I am the contributor who originally added the content, full disclosure. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the material. Those are some serious allegations and are part of the public debate on this issue. They are, most importantly, properly attributed to Mosby and go a long way towards describing her rationale for pressing charges and evident outrage. The "jailitis" term should also remain... allegations that the police though Grey was 'faking it' are also part of the public debate on this issue and with proper attribution, this adds valid information to the article. Marteau (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Against - No need to describe a fake illness when there is a quote by the commissioner already stating he believes that Gray walked by his own power into the van. Also the Mosby statement has the same info as the charges section in which it says what officers allegedly did not get Gray any medical care after he asked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why this concern of my addition has anything to do with Freddie Gray walking to the van or not. That's 2 editors saying the same thing when one has nothing to do with the other. It's quite disturbing. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Against as unduly prejudicial. There is no context as to when the requests where made or to whom or about what injury. Gray was complaining moments after arrest and the ME determined all the injuries occurred after being placed in the van. Contrary to initial "eyewitness" accounts, Gray was not dragged with a broken leg, broken back and crushed trachea to the van. If he asked for medical attention 5 times before getting in the van, he had no injuries requiring it. Gray also has a history of arrest and a history of seeking care in lieu of jail. None of it is relevant though. --DHeyward (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems a great deal of confusion here. The fact Freddie Gray requested help 5 times doesn't have anything to do with "eyewitness" accounts or when they believe the victim was injured. The driver of the van was charged with 2nd-degree murder, so I'd assume there isn't much controversy there. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If four of those times were before he got in the van, it's not relevant. It's prejudicial. Mosby doesn't say when he requested it or whether he was injured when he requested it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Against including "jailitis" - WP:UNDUE applies here. Who cares what "one officer" said about it? But the first part about the allegations made by Mosby are to be kept as these are part of the charges against the officers- Cwobeel (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Who cares what "one officer" said about it?" Well, I counter who cares what anybody said about anything then? Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because we have the comment made by Mosby, which is part of the official charges made against the officers. What an unnamed officer "thinks" is irrelevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that's incorrect. She mentioned it, but I am not sure it has any bearing on the charges. She also didn't mention when the requests happened. If it was all before being put into the van, it's not relevant to anything as he was uninjured prior to being put in the van. At worst, it's department policy violation if the requests for medical attention are unrelated to any injury just like not buckling the other prisoner wasn't a crime even though it is policy. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support inclusion of the material. See my question below in the threaded discussion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Strongly support' inclusion, it speaks to the mind set of the officers and their ignoring requests for medical assistance. It also speaks to Baltimore police behavior towards prisoners in general. But then, *I* have been taken on a 'nickle ride'.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Toe of the Almighty Camel your not making a point by criticizing what more experienced users think of the information. Some of your arguments do not even make sense, so I suggest letting more users weigh-in before criticizing everyone.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of the second sentence mentioning "jailitis" at this time as it places undue weight on the reported conclusions of one officer. If jailitis (or the mindset of the police towards their prisoners) is discussed during a trial or as events move forward, this information could be included at that time. Ca2james (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please respect the RFC format, leave the above for comments of support or oppose, and engage in discussion here. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say it is disrespectful to the RFC format to add a comment immediately following a person's !vote? It's rather common. Marteau (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It is much better to keep threaded discussions separate from the !votes. Easy to read, and easier to discuss. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. In mine, it is easier if objections and comments to an editors !vote appear immediately following the !vote. IT is a perfectly valid format (and the most popular) as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting As the editor opening the RfC did not break it out into separate sections, commenting directly after the !vote is perfectly fine. Marteau (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you actually read that page about the example formatting? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Under "Most Popular". "The most popular option is a single section containing all information and responses of any kind." Seems fairly clear to me. Your option of separating votes from discussion is under a different heading and is a different style; a style not specified by the originator of the RfC, nor chosen by the X number of people who already responded before you barged in and insisted everyone do it your way. Marteau (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is common practice for Cwobeel to barge in and attempt to take charge. I ignore it because he really has no right to assume he is of greater importance to be able to take control and there are more important matters to attend to. I wouldn't have said anything since I am still fairly new, but it shouldn't hurt to say it can get a little annoying.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread for 30 days. Safiel (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yo actual discussion: I'm completely confused by this RfC - I'm not sure why people are saying WP:UNDUE. Obviously Freddie Gray was in medical distress and for the police to ignore his plea for help, on five separate occasions, and even joke about it, is a serious element of the case and you can guarantee it will be brought up at trial. In any other case I cannot see this detail being left out, for example, those cases where kids have died at those extreme boot camps.[25] If a reliable sources states that the kids who died had asked for medical help five times before their deaths and were ignored and mocked, would you argue that detail was UNDUE and should not be in the article? I apologize if I misunderstood as I'm just now joining the party, but can someone explain the logic here?
  • (Sorry that was me above —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

Uncertain about the previous editor's identity, but adding my two cents. Why it's noteworthy is police disregard for prisoner safety. His request for medical attention is always to be respected, save when police are angry at a prisoner, to judge by commentary by one LEO and subsequent behavior. Granted, requests for medical attention are frequently abused (some personal knowledge from LEO friends), but in civilized places (yes, a bit of POV by intent and not to be placed that way in an article), such requests are granted. Too many prisoners have suffered loss of sight, limb or life to not accept that risk. The disregard was further revealed in the Baltimore PD officers not seat belting him in and the 'wild ride' (something I personally experienced once, over a few sharp words and an open can of beer. What kept me intact was my learning how to ride in the back of a military cargo truck and not be thrown about when going off road). I've personally witnessed the entire spectrum of LEO behavior in my life, only once being the object of that attention. We need to document all sides properly, with full citations, lest we move toward nationalism POV.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)'

I'm sorry, are you saying it shouldn't be included or should? Because I think it should be included and do not understand why it would not be. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance of recent additions

Two paragraphs recently added do not seem to be strongly relevant to the public response to Freddie Gray's death:

• The number of homicides fell to 29 in June, 2015. But in July, there were 45 homicides in Baltimore, bringing the 2015 total to 189 as of the end of July, compared with 119 by the end of July, 2014. On August 3, in an attempt to solve the cases, Baltimore announced the Baltimore Federal Homicide Task Force. It is a partnership of the Baltimore police and five federal crime-fighting agencies. The agencies will each embed two agents with the Baltimore police to help investigate.[114][115][116]
• On July 1, 2015, Sheila Dixon announced her bid to reenter the mayoral race against the incumbent Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. Dixon, who in 2007 became the first female African-American mayor of Baltimore, was forced to resign in 2010 after illegally using gift cards intended for needy families. However, in recent times she has drawn an incredible amount of support from many residents, especially those who have voiced their dissatisfaction with her successor.[117]

The first paragraph needs to be specifically related to some aspect of the aftermath of Gray's death by a reliable source. The second paragraph is questionable NPOV, promoting a political candidate with no connection to Gray's death. I would recommend deleting both. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph is of interest to sociologist, largely. Riots are frequently followed by a drop in crime, something noticed far too many times in the past. If there is interest by the editors here, it might remain, but it's a phenomenon related to riots in general releasing stress of the population of the afflicted area and not related directly to Freddie Gray's death beyond the trigger of already overstressed emotions of the populace.

The second paragraph has less than nothing to do with Freddie Gray's death, unless Ms Dixon stated it was a reason, which would still be dubious. It's regular city politics, considering both points, I suggest as well it be removed.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph of Sheila Dixon. Seemed pretty obvious case of WP:NPOV issue from what I can tell. I also agree that the first paragraph isn't that great. Increase in murders – we have many RSs where it is speculated that this can be partly explained by pharmacy lootings – is relevant because it is needed to explain why police commissioner was fired. Everything else with this paragraph is probably not that relevant. Politrukki (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to look at these additions every which way... Right now I am tending to think it is running into speculation that should not be included but I could be convinced that I am wrong... I'd like to see more comments on this... (Sorry to be so wishy-washy, but I'm just unsure as of yet.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)