User talk:Bob K31416/Archive 2014

reverted the close of a discussion.
The discussion looks closed, but I didn't appreciate you saying I was mischaracterizing comments when referring to what verifiably happened. You were making it sound like you didn't [revert a closed conversation] before that comment. I'm sure you had good faith reasons for doing it, but it wasn't me imagining that it happened. __ E L A Q U E A T E  20:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping by.
 * First off, I think there's a difference between misinterpret and mischaracterize. I used misinterpret.
 * Regarding reverting a close, that's not a comment but an action. I didn't dispute that I reverted a close.
 * For reference, here's the last diff of yours that I think you're referring to . Could you give it a second look and see if there is anything in it that might be a misinterpretation of what I wrote? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was sure you preferred the earlier discussion open after the admin closed. You did say, "that should be part of the discussion without closing." It seemed like it was both comment and reverting action. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry. __ E L A Q U E A T E  22:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "If I misunderstood, I'm sorry." — I'll leave it at that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning
You reverted my edit at Talk:Chelsea Manning. My edit was simply a removal of a post that violates sense. Do you really think the edit that I removed but that you brought back by reverting is an okay edit?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to that editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Brew's and Philosophy
I don't know if you are still monitoring the ANI case. However I have just posted a [edia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Moving_forward link to a suggested way forward] on one article in the hope of breaking what is an entrained pattern that is getting stressful for all involved. I admit to loosing my cool a few times in the last few months. If you have the time/energy your comments would be appreciated. Snowded TALK 09:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are on the right track with the section Handling talk page discussions and edits. I can see that you are trying to avoid confrontation in that section and to that end I would suggest deleting the last half of the second sentence so that it becomes, "My goal is to use this article to see if progress is possible." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, actioned Snowded  TALK 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, a personal opinion (hence bringing it here). I don't think you are helping Brews by giving him the space to avoid changing his behaviour in respect of using primary sources. He failed to do that on Physics articles and we know the consequences. You may think my own behaviour does not match up to your ideals, but even a patient editor such as Pdhorest is evidently at the end of this tether with Brews at the ANI page discussion. If Brews doesn't change then sooner or later sanctions are inevitable. My point on the way he uses references although trivial of itself illustrates the wider behavioural issue. A simple change that would make life for other editors considerably easier is not one that he is even prepared to countenance. I put it there partly as a test to see if he was prepared to make even a small change that would cost him nothing and he refused  Snowded  TALK 08:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing at a time. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Enaction (philosophy)
Bob: Your reaction to MachineElf's actions is normal. However, it appears that MachineElf did not understand what was going on. He first interrupted the PROD to remove Enaction without understanding how the process had been arranged. He seems to have confused Enaction with Enaction (philosophy), and discussion of possibilities with agreements to act. And his reactions to questions are intemperate, as he doesn't recognize his lack of patience in understanding what is happening.

However, your presence has led to a reasonable scenario that I hope will lead to a good pair of articles Enactivism and Enaction (philosophy). However, your help in keeping things on track is critical. Brews ohare (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, I've changed my mind. There is no point continuing where there is no sign of interest. Brews ohare (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Brown lead
Would you suggest some text, a one liner, to describe the "circumstances"? I'm afraid someone else is refusing to respond to our queries. We should push forward without them.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be the same as I originally suggested, though I haven't looked at it for awhile and I'm going by my memory. As I recall the discussion, there was an objection to using "charged" for Brown's motion forward because it wasn't used in the source. That could simply be modified accordingly. However, the "bum-rushed" description in Josie's story has been given credence as being Darren Wilson's account by CNN, as I just mentioned in the Talk section there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown article
Thanks for the advice on the refs links. Tikihouse (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Tikihouse
 * You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Shooting of Michael Brown
I note that you have repeatedly attempted to remove reliably-sourced information from this article. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, your bold removal has been repeatedly reverted and it is incumbent upon you to gain a consensus for the removal of this material - which has been in the article for several weeks, as a cursory check of the history will reveal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Brown article
Should unused references be removed from the list of the Shooting of Michael Brown article? Dozens of them are not being used and some are not even marked as being unused. I cannot see any reason for leaving them in the article's mark up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling is that if there is a possibility they might be used at a later time, then leave them commented out or comment them out. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Some of those blogs can be dealt with later. Also, the Knafo matter is the reason why Huffington Post articles are replaced by the time they go up for Featured Article status. Knafo also claims to be published in a few different publications - though this Huffington Post entry would have failed the fact-checking aspect. I do believe that Huffington Post should be removed from the article, many are opinions and the rest are replaceable. The amount of "pile on" citations are disturbing me because so much of the information does not line up. Like Cwobeel's attempt to fix the issue by changing a single word. The error is not given or mentioned yet the source is used to dominate, giving the appearance of the entire paragraph being backed up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding FA, I have the impression that articles about contentious topics don't make it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus is a FA and Muhammad and Adolf Hitler are GAs. I'd take GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading the Michael Brown article is actually rather depressing because certain facts are glossed over entirely and taken without any perspective.Shooting_of_Michael_Brown in particular has lots of issues. The jury selection doesn't give the make up for the race background or geographical considerations. McCullough did not need to bring it to a grand jury and could decide on his own, but ambiguity over the case results it must go to a grand jury. Federal prosecutors have grand juries in cases about 160,000 times a year. Indictments are returned over 99.5% of the time in general. About 1000 incidents occur a year with officers killing civilians and about 4 officers are indicted by grand juries. A provided sample: "Grand juries in Dallas looked at 81 possible cases of police criminality between 2008 and 2012, but handed down only one indictment, according to the Houston Chronicle.". Significant context is being lost and significant commentary on the grand jury process is also missing. Probably the most pressing is the NYT-based "typical grand jury" by confusing it with a standing grand jury which is for a 3 - 4 month term. As a general rule, yes it was of unusual length, but the case was unusual. The return of no indictment was not unusual, but the release of documents was. Any "legal expert" claiming of the grand jury's decision being unusual is in fact unusual and uninformed. Much of the "controversy" section and comprised of and founded on ignorance. And that is not a good thing. Not sure why even with a major Anti-authority stance there is no Pro-Brown dominance. It seems as if the anti-authority stance is being pushed instead of a "side". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ChrisGualtieri, Here’s a couple alternate links for the same articles as your two links but not behind paywalls.


 * Re "The jury selection doesn't give the make up for the race background or geographical considerations.” — I’m not sure what you meant here because the race background is in the article.


 * Re "Significant context is being lost and significant commentary on the grand jury process is also missing.” — I think we have to be careful not to digress. Some comment may be OK, but not too much.


 * Re "Probably the most pressing is the NYT-based "typical grand jury" by confusing it with a standing grand jury which is for a 3 - 4 month term.” — It was a standing grand jury that had seen previous cases. Its term was extended for the Wilson case.


 * Re "Any "legal expert" claiming of the grand jury's decision being unusual is in fact unusual and uninformed.” — I think your point is that it isn’t unusual for a police officer defendant. It may be more general, as discussed in this 2004 article, which offhand seems to counter some other info from commentators too.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good argument at the DOB issue section. I made a rebuttal. Sorry to be rough in the comparison, but if that republished WP:PRIMARY source is acceptable so would be the entire grand jury transcripts. As you know Knafo made the same mistake in the report, confusing county police with detectives. Even for something as clearly labeled as this, which is not in dispute, the fact we do not refer to police reports and other such documents should be upheld. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used in Wikipedia articles if they are used in a way that doesn’t violate policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True, which is why I said WP:BLPPRIMARY because Michael Brown is under the WP:BDP part of WP:BLP. Though I think we are discussing a moot fact, it was replaced and all is right with its replacement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri, Actually it isn't moot for now because the source doesn't support the DOB. Here's the relevant excerpt from the source.
 * "Red hearts floated down from the balcony onto audience members below. "Requiem for Michael Brown, May 20, 1996 - August 8, 2014," said one side. Information on how to get involved was listed on the back."
 * CNN was reporting that there was this sign among the protesters. It wasn't reporting that it was Brown's date of birth or date of death. Note that the date of death is wrong. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I should not be a cheeky bastard about this sort of thing, but I am not good at sarcasm apparently. Also, obscure and ironic references to Pippa Passes are lost on you? I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I've just taken to actually laying out my arguments about Cwobeel's "reception" at Talk:Robert_P._McCulloch_(prosecutor). I count dozens and dozens of problems and sourcing issues with the Michael Brown article - and I was irritated to a moment's fury over it. I cannot simply remove text because of Cwobeel, even the blatantly incorrect or false, without lengthy details on why. Given that Huff Post 1, I thought you were fully aware of the situation and the problems.... I need to better explain myself and my thoughts. Though my last comment certainly didn't help, but kudos for catching it. But can you remove it or replace it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for mentioning sweet Pippa. I suspect she may have been assaulted by Wikipedians in discussions of the merits of AGF.
 * I think the DOB is OK because it is sourced to a reliable secondary source that contains a copy of the incident report. My take is that WP:BLPPRIMARY applies to cases where editors go directly to primary sources to reveal obscure personal info that is harmful to the person and hasn't already been revealed in secondary sources, albeit by simply presenting a copy of the primary source. That's not the case for Brown's DOB. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, did you notice that my earlier comment, "Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used in Wikipedia articles if they are used in a way that doesn’t violate policy" also applies to the grand jury transcripts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice that earlier comment, but these should not be used directly. WP:SECONDARY needs to be used since we have no issues with secondary sources and rampant mistakes arise from WP:PRIMARY usage. It also assumes WP:PRIMARY is "the gospel" of sorts and is infallible "truth". Given my breakdown at Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor), secondary sources with blatant POVs should also be avoided. And yes, I made the reference to the Adolf Hitler page which is more neutral than McCullough's or the main page. While not surprising, it shows how far we need to go. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't been looking much at those other Brown-related articles, so thanks for the info.
 * Regarding using the primary source transcripts, I think that we agree that much care would be needed not to violate policy. I think a good way to use them  is for collateral material when a secondary source makes a comment about them. For example, pointing to the specific place in the transcript  that is quoted by the secondary source would be useful and is quite benign. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally won't touch them, but I'll try to replace the cited instances with secondary sources. I suppose it would be unreasonable to do a blanket rejection up front, given the current state of the article.... let's just make sure we do not use it to reference claims of perjury by witnesses. I fear that opening it up will allow for some crude insertions against the "sides" or "views" which have an axe to grind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I and policy said, one must be careful with primary sources. Regarding the DOB, have I swayed you at all re using the secondary source that contains a copy of the incident report? If not, I'll just leave our discussion at that, i.e. we just have difference of opinion re sourcing the DOB. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This a primary source, not a secondary source. "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." and "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Because it is a police report, it is still a primary source - if the Washington Post had an author go through the information and interpret it with their own thinking and ideas based upon it - then it is secondary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that. Please carefully reread my message of 17:11 Dec 14. If we can't communicate on this, then that's the way it goes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Re ANI, I think an uninvolved person reading it will see that you aren't the problem but rather the solution. Keep up the good work. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ChrisGualtieri's behavior at Shooting of Michael Brown. Thank you. --RAN1 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

More SMB issues
Sorry to place a few issues like this on your page, but Cwobeel seems keen on reverting and keeping BLP issues and other problems in the article. Nevermind - I decided to post it to the talk page. There are dozens more issues with the page. I think fixing the quotes and trying to make the article readable is important first, don't you? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your post mentioning me at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown
I believe I expressed my opinion to be "This is not the venue for this." I still don't think that is the venue for that, and I do not support this discussion in any way. Leave me out of it. --RAN1 (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)