Talk:James T. Butts Jr./Archive 1

Problems with this article

Wikipedia has rules which prevent people from posting anything without references. Please include only material with reliable sources which are verifiable; unsourced material must be removed promptly, as this is a biographical article. Thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I found two references.

Revamp. This article is being watched indefinitely in the foreseeable future. Please do not add unsourced material to it, conjecture, material from primary sources such as court cases, or any other speculation. Stick to reliable secondary sources such as newspapers and media reports.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice job

Someone has done a good job cleaning up here, it's a great improvement. However, I note that all mention of the court cases involving Butts have been dropped. I'm no lawyer, but it seems that they are quite significant, and are in fact his principal claim to fame. In particular, the ruling in California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, 1999, seems to have set a precedent that is important in U.S. law. A source that appears to me fully reliable, and which discusses it more than once, is:

• Marvin Zalman and Brad W. Smith (Spring, 2007). The Attitudes of Police Executives Toward Miranda and Interrogation Policies. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-). Northwestern University. 97 (3): 873-942. (subscription required)

If there is someone here familiar with this type of material, I'd suggest adding something about this to the article; I'm not going to attempt that myself. I don't know if the Seattle Times is a reliable source, but on the face of it it appears to be one. this is an article about the case. And so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree that its an important issue, with reliable sources. Thanks for enlightening us. Added material with references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note I could not read the Criminology Journal since I do not have JStor; does it mention Butts specifically; if so, the article should probably say something to this effect?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

My addition was reverted by RedPenofDoom (good handle name by the way!). Here it is:

In 1995, there was a controversy when the ACLU sued two police chiefs including Butts, four police officers, as well as the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, for not properly adhering to the required Miranda procedures when arresting suspects. The topic of police fidelity to Miranda and respect for the rights of suspects was studied in 2007 in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

I'll let others comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) i have removed it for now. there is nothing that I can see that does anything other than pro forma name him as the head of the organization. the relevance to his being actually responsible for conduct or lack of pro active responsibility for preventing conduct would seem to be necessary in the article about him. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. This is serious business, particularly when police overstep their rights. Butts was specifically named in a lawsuit. Not by any organization, but by the ACLU. And it was covered in the Seattle Times by a Los Angeles Times reporter. I agree with Justwordsandnumbers that it belongs in the article. The text does not say that Butts was directly responsible for violations, just that he was named in a lawsuit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Butts was named because he was head of the police department and any time the police department gets sued, the head is named. If he personally had any guilt then there will be third party coverage that specifically elucidates his role specific role, or there will recognized critics that point out that he should have known and been doing something about it and hadnt been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree again. There is no precedent that whenever a police officer is sued, that the commanding officer necessarily must be sued as well. Sometimes individual officers are sued. Sometimes police chiefs are sued. Sometimes both are sued. In this case, four officers and two police chiefs were sued. Consider that the police chief is responsible for the conduct of their officers. If the officers under their command violated Miranda, and if they did nothing to discourage it or punish the offending officers, then they could be responsible as well. It was a big enough deal that it was studied in 2007 in a journal of criminology (assuming the case was specifically mentioned in the Journal -- again, I do not have JStor).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The case was studied, but this is not an article about the case. it is an article about the individual, and until there is a reliable source that shows how the individual was or was not involved in this case other than being named, we cannot be making assumptions WP:BLPCRIME-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree once more. The proposed addition does not pretend to say anything specific about how the case played out or what verdicts were rendered; rather, it stated what the reliable sources stated, that Butts was sued by the ACLU, which was, in fact, what happened, and this was covered by a reliable source. It does not say that Butts was guilty of anything. And the addition was not an article about the case; rather, it was two lines specifically relating to the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

that just leads to issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN- implying something that the sources do not explicitly state. and as you said, "serious business, particularly when police overstep their rights." implying something that serious about a living person without actual sources specifically making such connections is clearly not allowed. A search of google news brings up nothing relating to the outcome which further signifies that while the case may be important, reliable third parties have not considered this living person's actual role in it to be significant.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I didn't want to start a fuss here, just suggest covering the facts in encyclopaedic style. In my opinion, it is not encyclopaedic to omit the principal reason for which Butts is known and mentioned in national (as opposed to local) sources. The specific court case, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, is mentioned or cited four times in the The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article I cited above; "James T. Butts" is not mentioned. The case is apparently important because the ruling made policemen who deliberately ignored Miranda civilly liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I see it as relevant to an article on Butts because he was named as defendant in the case. If anyone would like a copy of the article for their own private use I'd be happy to send it, you'd need to email me first to give me your address (can't send attachments via wiki-mail). I think the text Tomwsulcer has proposed is good. I'd suggest changing "In 1995, there was a controversy when the ACLU sued ..." to "In 1995 the whatever ACLU stands for sued ...". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

the claim that it is the prime reason he was known is not supported by search results. Do you have any that I missed?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am learning more. I think we should not use the Criminology source if Butts was not specifically mentioned. I am moving around to seeing that the overall problem is not with specific factoids, but the context, and by adding the context, possibly, we can write this better. Context (stuff we might agree about?) => (a) Butts long police career (b) Santa Monica, Inglewood pose tough policing problems, specifically, gang violence (c) history of controversies between police depts (including Butts) and community activists, ACLU etc. (d) Butts => political figure currently. What I'm saying is the ACLU Miranda stuff is only one factoid, part of a larger pattern. I will propose an alternate article in a sandbox page in a bit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't follow you. The case is named for Butts. It is California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts. Butts is the subject of this article. That isn't a factoid, it's an apparently important precedent in U.S. law, and it was set in the prosecution of this person. That's why I bothered to mention it above. It seems to me that to suggest omitting that fact from the article about him is unencyclopaedic. But I think I'm going to apologise for not commenting on Tom's sandbox draft, suggest to TRPOD that your results depend on how you do your search, and move away from here - this is so completely not a topic I care about. I'll leave it to others to decide whether the accusations of sexual abuse should also be in the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

a plain google search doesnt prove anything, most of the hits are from non usable sources and sources whose opinions dont matter. my search from from the news limited sites, which while not perfect, does show that news related agencies dont have much to say about Butts in relation to the miranda aspect what you are saying is a significant legal matter. and while you can keep saying it, until you have third parties to validate your claim that the individual pro forma named as the head of the agency has personal involvement i dont have any reason to believe you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revamp in sandbox

Please check here, made in light of comments above. Wondering what people think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

After a day, with no objections, I swapped in the additions.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox needed

With photo, ideally; would be helpful. If anybody reading this has a photo of this subject, please write something here, and I'll try to get it included for this article, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

COI tag

Given that we seem to have a new COI editor here in the shape of IPD Historian, I've placed a COI banner on the article. That shouldn't be taken as a criticism of the article as it stands - it's intended more as a reminder to all. Hope that's OK. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's time for someone to comb the history and start an SPI (or two). Protection may be in the near future if this goes on. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree about possible need for protection. Agree about COI edits. Good idea for COI banner. Wonder if IPD stands for Inglewood Police Department. Wondering what others think about the legal case moving to Supreme Court, and notability and such, like should there be something in the lede paragraph about the California Attorneys for Justice v Butts case going to the Supreme Court, and becoming an important part of how Miranda is interpreted, that is, is Butts notable for that, or is that a side issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I had the same thought as Drmies. My success rate with SPIs I've opened is to date a resounding 0%, so I hope someone more capable might get that started. I had the same thought as Tom about IPD. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Article is now protected. That means there is a window during which you all have the opportunity to iron some things out content-wise and achieve a consensus of sorts, without disruption. Let me know if I can help. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm waiting for guidance from Red Pen and Justwords and yourself and others about the court case stuff (I'm not a lawyer), also should we remove the COI tag or leave it on, also is the article neutral.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't really have an opinion on the court stuff, except to repeat what everyone already knows--no use of primary sources, and no UNDUE amounts of material. The tag is fine as it is, I think, since there's probably still material in the article from those COI editors. If you are confident that there is none you can remove the tag. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Revamps were done, based on comments here on this talk page, so hopefully none of the earlier COI material is remaining, it is all referenced, but I'll leave the court stuff to others; I hope there is not WP:UNDUE stuff or problems with WP:BALANCE but that it is getting more WP:NEUTRAL. Thanks for blocking article; if COI stuff happens again, may be need for permanent block. COI tag removed for time being.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• While the revamp no longer contains impact of the COI on the positive side, it is not clear that the current article is free from the POV pushing from the anti-Butts activists. And it is not clear if those anti-Butts activists who want to turn this into a hatchet job have a formal "COI" or are just here to POV push, so while I dont have any objection to the removal of the COI tag, but I still have concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• If you're concerned about pro-Butts or anti-Butts activists butting in, then perhaps this will happen in future, but I see myself as in neither camp, not leaning to either cheek. But maybe more content could be added about Butts' (Butt's?) accomplishments as mayor, which may be underrepresented here in Sept 2013, but he has been in office only two years now, there will surely be more stuff in future. Everything in the article now is referenced, not WP:OR, and reflects faithfully (in my view) how he is described in the media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes a BLP is negative. I had one on the front page in the DYK section about a Georgia politician who was bad to the bone, and there was nothing good to say about him other than that he was most likely homo sapiens. This guy is not like that, no doubt, but if there is a preponderance of "negative" information (meaning, factual information that doesn't reflect well on his character) then our article should reflect that. I'm stating the obvious, of course--for the record. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

that's the issue with the Lawsuit material. there is nothing about the lawsuit in reliable sources that talks about Butts role in it other than the fact that he is the head of the police force being sued and therefore his name is on the lawsuit. If the trial had found that he was culpable of anything awful, then surely there would have been press coverage of his role in it, or at least his lack of oversight in allowing such things to happen under his watch would have been called out. but when listening for the hue and cry that would inevitably accompany such an outcome .... the crickets are deafening. Maybe for some reason the print media is not covering it, and its a hot issue on the TV and Radio and for some reason all of the print media chose to ignore it, but please bring the links that show that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Red Pen, I am having trouble understanding why you think that way. Butts was named as a defendant in a lawsuit about police misconduct -- Butts was their commanding officer, responsible for their behavior; the lawsuit went to higher courts resulting in a decision that was interpreted by police nationwide; numerous newspaper reports chronicled the lawsuit and Butts over a decade-long period. What more do you need?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

what sources are actually commenting on Butts and his behavior / actions / responsibility? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Numerous sources: Seattle Times, Leagle, Berkeley Law School, Human Rights Watch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1)Seattle Times - merely says that he is named in an upcoming case, but it doesnt indicate his supposed role
• 2)Berkeley Law School i am not sure that this is a reliably published source, but it doesnt even name Butts personally
• 3)Human Rights Watch cites the case but does not identify what Butts role is or may have been
• 4)Leagle at least specifically lays out what Butts role in the matter supposedly was, but 1) as a primary court document is not usable, and 2) doesnt specify what the results of the charges against Butts actually are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1)The then-upcoming case happened -- went to court -- was appealed and was much later decided by the Supreme Court. The 1995 article (by a Los Angeles Times reporter) named Butts specifically as a defendant who, as police chief, did not properly do his role of managing police officers, disciplining them, teaching them about Miranda. If contemplating removing this reference because the Seattle Times did not go into sufficient detail to satisfy you, then my sense is the community would think you are pushing your own point of view. It is a reliable secondary source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• 2) A respected law school publication using this case to teach their students about Miranda. Yes it does name Butts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• 3)Butts was named. The book is a reliable source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• 4)Primary sources are allowed when used in conjunction with secondary sources, which is what is going on here. The idea is to avoid using only primary sources, as when doing original research; here, the secondary source leads, and the primary one asserts that there was a case, and names Butts.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1)is clearly a matter of publishing things that are allegations and WP:SYN.
• 2)teaching materials are not reliably published content
• 3)his name may appear but there is nothing that discusses what is his role/how is he is personally responsible if at all.
• 4)primary sources may be used in addition to sources that make the specific claim, but not to tie together multiple sources that do not make the specific claim.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I said I would leave this discussion, but here I still am. I'm continuing to have difficulty following the arguments of TheRedPenOfDoom here. California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts is a notable court case (see Google). It is discussed in apparently reliable sources such as the Yale Law Journal. The Butts named as defendant is incontrovertibly the Butts this article is about. To suggest that it doesn't concern him because he did not personally illegally interrogate suspects is rather like suggesting that Bomber Harris was not responsible for the Dresden firestorm because he didn't actually fly one of the planes. An officer is responsible for the actions of the men under his command; that is Butts's responsibility here, I believe. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

you continue to pull things together from multiple sources to make or imply something that is not explicitly laid out in the source. Thats fine for making up your own mind, but we cannot put content in articles that does the same, particularly when WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME are involved.

And Yes, i am saying this is different from the Harris/Dresden because (even ignoring the fact that Harris is dead and so not subject to the elevated level of sourcing and care required for content about living people) there are multiple sources that specifically connect Harris with responsibility for the bombing.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, my sense is RedPen has not responded to the valid points made above but merely reiterates irrelevant claims, that is, the RedPen argument is doomed, and that it is sensible to cease arguing with RedPen's intransigence, but merely watch the Butts page and revert removals when necessary, which is what I plan to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no valid points above for me to respond to. There are valid points that I have brought up that have not been responded to, namely the request for a source that makes some sort of analysis or commentary about Butts role, not multiple source that need to be cobbled together by Wikipedia editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

since there was a claim that there were valid points that i did not respond to, I have responded to show that the responses to my positions were not valid. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Butts role was a simple one. He was in charge of the department. He carried the responsibility for his departments actions because he was the boss of the department. We already have multiple sources that say he was the boss, and has the responsibility. I don't understand why TRPOD is suggesting otherwise. --Roxy the dog (woof woof) 18:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

what we do not have is how that "responsibility" intersects with the issues and findings of the court case. Without being able to lay out for the readers what exactly is going on, we are instead creating assumptions and possibilities, which we are NOT allowed to do particularly in cases of controversial content about a living person. If his role was so mightily important, then just provide a source that specifically clarify what his important role was. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How much clearer can the important role of "Head Of Police Department" be? --Roxy the dog (woof woof) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

again, you have not shown any reliable source that connects that vis a vis the suit. He is the head ipso facto therefor we can assign or imply any guilt we want is not the way wikipedia works, particularly when dealing with controversial issues and claims and implied commentary about living people. Show me a source the does the analysis, not you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tomwsulcer (talk) above, and note that it is sensible to cease arguing with RedPen's intransigence, but merely watch the Butts page and revert removals when necessary. --Roxy the dog (woof woof) 20:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

so your position is that you cannot produce a source, either -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The mere fact that somebody was named in a lawsuit is no evidence of notability, even if the lawsuit itself is notable: look at the number of SCOTUS cases where the defendant and/or plaintiff do not have Wikipedia articles about them. Roxy, can you quack as well as bark? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Orange Mike | Talk - Are you under the impression that I think Butts is notable because of a lawsuit? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the impression I'd gotten, Rox, since the idea that the head of a local police department is notable is so absurd that I didn't understand that that was the argument you were making. I sincerely apologize for mistaking your argument, and for the suspicion of sockpuppetry which said mistake led me to. But of course, I don't think that most police chiefs are notable, nor is there anything in our archives to support a supposition that they are. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be with you on that 99.9% of the time, OrangeMike. But not this time. This person is notable. The main reason for thinking him so is that he was the named defendant in a rather important court case. I'm having the greatest difficulty in understanding what the obstacle is to putting that information in the article. I know that RedPen and Tom are here in good faith (and hope they know they same about me); I believe Roxy to be here in good faith also. So I'm perplexed and a little discouraged by the lack of progress and lack of agreement here. I can't see how stating that someone was named as a defendant in a court case implies anything about that person's guilt or innocence; nor can I see how that statement could be in violation of any policy we have here. This isn't a wild libellous accusation, it's a statement of plain fact. I can't explain to TRPoD why the details of the case weren't covered more fully in the press, perhaps the detailed workings of the law are too complex or just too plain boring to sell newspapers. But those details are certainly covered in the technical literature. If anyone can see what might the way forward here I'd be pleased to know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Because merely being named does not constitute the requisite substantial coverage of Butts the human being. The police chief could have been Hump the Tittering Wizard or Mediocrates of Pedestrium, and the articles about the case would read identically, except for where it would read California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Hump or California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Mediocrates. Butts is never the subject of those articles: the lawsuit and the rulings thereon are. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

With all respect, I disagree. What is Ernesto Miranda famous for? Only one thing, and you don't even need to look at the article to see what it is (well, OK, you probably knew that anyway). Our biography articles are not about human beings, but about what is written about people in reliable sources. Hitler painted pictures and, I don't know, say he was kind to cats; that is not what our article about him concentrates on. If Hump the Tittering Wizard had been named in the case and was sheriff of Buttsville, we'd have an article on him because of the case. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I get the impression you may think that Butts is insufficiently notable for this wiki. If so, I won't argue! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

and again, there are MULTIPLE sources that talk about Miranda the person in relation to the case at hand. There has yet to be ONE presented about Butts the person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This article

I just got off the phone earlier today with a relative of James Butts, who had been editing under the username MorningsideCitizen. Apparently the unsourced material he/she added was copy/pasted from the city website (copyrighted material) and they were unaware of Wikipedia's rules.

I've glanced at the Talk page history and see that there was some COI editing, but was also surprised this page hasn't gotten on the BLP radar. For example, citation 19 is an op-ed, which should not be used anywhere, especially not for contentious material about a BLP. I noticed that citation 4 from CityWatch reads like an op-ed and has a disclaimer saying that the contents represent the personal views of the author. Additionally, the publication's about us page says they "hold City Hall accountable" and most of their authors have day-jobs somewhere else and not in journalism.

I might work with them in my usual COI capacity, but thought I would tip my toes in the water and try to figure out what's going on? The article has gotten plenty of attention from experienced editors, so I was surprised to see it in this condition. CorporateM (Talk) 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concerns. There has been apparent COI editing by both supporters and detractors of Butts; MorningsideCitizen tried to remove an entire well-referenced section. In the past, there have been detractors of Mayor Butts who have added unfair material without references; this too was removed. Essentially, Wikipedia contributors including myself have tried to find a neutral view while reflecting both pluses and minuses, and this article in my view does a fair job in this regard. That a view is an op-ed does not automatically rule it out as a source; after all, a major newspaper, the Santa Monica Mirror, decided to publish it; further, Wikipedia does not go into detail about the nature of their highly public dispute. Further, CityWatch is run by veteran journalists and counts as a credible source, in my view; if a publication says it will hold City Hall accountable, well, that is in fact what all newspapers try to do as being part of the fourth estate; whether CityWatch's writers have other jobs is immaterial in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned the dispute between Oscar de la and James is "highly public". Does that mean there are other non-op-ed sources that could be used? CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your question, but let me see if I might clarify things. First, Mr. Butts was and is a public figure -- then a chief of police, now (2014) a mayor, of a fairly large-sized California city. His job then was keeping public order and now it is managing a city. Second, Mr. Oscar de la Torre is also a public figure -- a board member of the Santa Monica school district. Third, the dispute between them involved a public matter -- whether an investigation by the police force (headed by Mr. Butts) was conducted properly; this is important not only for Mr. Torre but it is important for all citizens of Inglewood to know, that is, whether police are behaving properly when conducting investigations and upholding the law. Fourth, a newspaper, the Santa Monica Mirror, a valid secondary source, felt their dispute had sufficient gravity to publish Mr. Torre's side of the story. Clearly, there is enough here to merit a one-line inclusion in Wikipedia, particularly when disputes like Mr. Torre's do not appear to be an isolated incident.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I should have mentioned before that I posted on BLPN here. Generally speaking, there should be actual news stories (not op-eds) that verify the information warrants inclusion. You seem to be suggesting that op-eds grant the dispute notability, which I don't think is in-line with community consensus. So for example, if the story was covered by the New York Times or had strong local sources like the LA Times and the op-ed was used to supplement those sources, than that would be a different thing all-together. Using op-eds with no other sources creates a lot of undue and NPOV issues if the dispute hasn't been covered by disinterested parties. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But there are other sources -- the Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, all pointing to a pattern in which a law enforcement official does not adhere strictly to proper procedures, and the op-ed is one further example of a pattern of contentious relations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer I'm really surprised I am the only one that sees it, but before I give up just yet, take a look at a draft I whipped up today here, which includes the proper sources you have identified, like the LA Times and Associated Press, but not the op-eds and primary sources. Using only proper sources, the tone is radically different. For example, I think readers would want to know the outcome of legal cases/accusations, especially when they are dismissed by the court as baseless. They should also know when certain accusations are made by killers and convicted criminals Butts was the arresting officer for. I usually follow a formula of accusation-defense-outcome, however the current article is just accusation-accusation-accusation, and this is because of the use of such poor-quality sourcing. CorporateM (Talk) 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM, I read your proposed revamp here, read the comments above and on the BLP noticeboard, and I am somewhat rethinking things. This article has seen a lot of back-and-forth, from pro-Butts people to anti-Butts people, and striking the right balance is tough, and I think most of us here are trying to do that. That said, my sense is the tone of the current article is somewhat negative, and that it should be fixed with words as well as more sources which stress accomplishments, and I think the article should move more in the direction which CorporateM proposed in his revamp. At the same time, however, I do not think that simply because a news source is negative about an issue, that it immediately brings POV problems. In my view, the CityWatch and Morningside Park Chronicle should not be dismissed, but kept without going into details. They are both newspapers, with dates and bylines, and they make rather serious allegations: threats/abuse/intimidation by a police officer. This is not something to be taken lightly. As we know, police officers have the legally approved power of armed force – they can arrest people, shoot people, jail people – but they must follow proper procedures when doing so. There is little to hold police accountable other than other police officers (who are almost always reluctant to accuse other officers), the courts and public opinion and the occasional unarmed journalist bold enough to challenge authority. That is what is happening here: several journalists, a community school board member, and others allege that Butts and the Santa Monica and Inglewood police went too far, abused authority, played loose with the rules. Clearly there is a pattern: a lawsuit by the ACLU which named Butts as a defendant, which went to the Supreme Court, along with reports from Seattle Times and LA Times about police abusing their authority. So, dismissing this because there is one primary source involved (a Supreme Court case, no less), seems misguided, as well as eliminating CityWatch or the Morningside Park Chronicle as sources. I agree the article should strive for neutrality, but I disagree that the way to achieve neutrality is simply to eliminate any strong views, pro or con; for me, the views should be kept, but balanced against each other. Overall, I think the tone is somewhat too negative, and in that sense, I agree, but balance could be restored by writing and by adding more positives.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

While we're looking into this, we really need to reconsider the value of the quotes in the references. Not only do these make editing more difficult (try finding actual text among the piles of quotes), but some are ridiculously POV. "The ACLU ballyhooed its ill-advised complaint at a splashy press conference at City Hall last July when it accused the city and the police department of violating the constitutional rights of chronically homeless people by arresting and harassing them.... the complaint was riddled with errors, spurious facts and tortured reasoning....”" Really? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. Generally I try to put quotes within the references for two reasons: first, that people can check the quote without having to actually click on the link; second, it makes it easier for me to remember what point the reference was making. At the same time, these quotes can be POV-ish, please feel free to trim or cut them as you see fit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Request Edits

Based on the discussion at the BLPN board here, I want to hesitantly say that there is consensus among user:Drmies, user:Tomwsulcer, User:Cullen328 and maybe user:DGG that something more along the lines of the draft at User:CorporateM/Butts is a more appropriate page for this BLP, so I wanted to formally ask that someone move that draft into article-space, where it can continue to improve (I'm going to see if I can fetch an image for example).

Currently, many of the BLP problems have been solved, however the article still cites attack pages from CityWatch, op-eds like this one and is missing boring biographical material about his positions. It includes trivial items like saying he attended an event at The Forum, and so on. The draft meanwhile preserves or adds controversies supported by proper sources, such as the protests for layoffs, and being escorted out of a town hall meeting. I think it's a clear improvement and brings the article more in-line with Wikipedia's standards.

Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion! And my apologies for being a bit rushed. CorporateM (Talk) 22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

While CorporateM has worked hard on this draft, the article James T. Butts, Jr. is still highly contentious. My sense is the draft here is too positive, omits important information such as the CACJ v Butts court case. I prefer the current Drmies draft, and I feel that swapping in the CorporateM draft will reignite more battling.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There was support at the BLPN page to remove one of the lawsuits, but I think I accidentally deleted the wrong one (I swapped it just now). Neither have reliable sources regarding their outcome, so it's possible both should be removed though. I wasn't aware of any battling, though I don't think it should prevent article improvements, especially when significant violations in our BLP policy are at play. Lets see what others say if they chime in. CorporateM (Talk) 00:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a sensible way to move forward will be to use CorporateM's draft as a starting point, but including the previously omitted court case - which is the only specific objection raised here on the talk page. It should be understood that this is only a start and that more eyes should discuss, and that finer points should be hashed out thoughtfully and with kindness and a commitment to neutrality and quality here on the talk page. Finally, let's recognize the difference between "battling" - we want none of that and "dialogue" - if conducted with civility, a very long dialog can be very useful at sorting out the best way forward. I hope we do ignite that. For avoidance of doubt, I'm going to make the copy from the draft to the article space now but please consider this the act of an ordinary editor with a strong interest in biographies - not a decree or official action. Just trying to help advance things in a manner consistent with our highest values of truthseeking and respect for human dignity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: This diff I am posting for convenience for others who are also reviewing this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

List of major in/out differences

The draft currently in place as proposed above by CorporateM has several differences from the last revision.

I'd like us to carefully identify all of them and consider each in turn to make a broader judgment about where to go from here.

1. One major difference is that the new version eliminates most discussion or indication of Butts "hands-on" or "contentious" style. 2. Handling of marijuana dispinesary shut downs? 3. Probably least contentious: omission of Dalai Lama visit (strikes me as not very relevant and neither positive nor negative and so not a BLP issue per se).

That's a start - but I'm sure I've overlooked some things as I've just started to look into this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Schooling, birth date etc.

A lot of basic biographical information is missing. Is ZoomInfo considered reliable? Perhaps not, I see that it is from public docs and "community contributions" (rather like Wikipedia). This page from ZoomInfo has a lot of biographical details on his schooling etc. Perhaps they can be used as a starting point to search out usable sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed on closer inspection that would not be a reliable source. It does assert that Butts has "three children, was born and raised in Los Angeles' Crenshaw District. He attended 59th Street Elementary, Horace Mann Middle and Crenshaw High schools." A birth date would also be helpful as well as the names of his college and business schools as well as grad dates. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we're normally allowed to use even self-published sources to confirm a birthday, and information about where and when they earned their degrees, but I have thus far not been able to find good sources for this very basic information. His infobox also needs expansion and I'd like to see if I can get a photo. I will see what else I can contribute now that the most overt BLP issues have been resolved. CorporateM (Talk) 17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I also notice that there are quite a few grammar issues, like a comma at the end of the second sentence in the Lead where I think a period is suppose to be. Some of the wording like "rose through the ranks" (I am the guilty party there) and "culminating" sound a little promotional. Minor nick-nacks. Ok, I'm off to see about an image. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

ACLU lawsuit

Regarding the lawsuit that has attracted some attention on user:Jimmy Wales' Talk page, my suggestion would be to replace the paragraph with something like

In 1995, Butts was one of five police offers named as a defendant regarding allegations of deliberately violating Miranda rights.[1][4][5]

This would address the UNDUE issue, remove the op-ed source I used for City Hall's point of view and add the outcome with a proper source provided by TownTom. I'm just not sure I understand exactly what the Supreme Court's ruling was on it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Town => Tom? I assume you're referring to me. Basically, at issue was officers continue to question suspects after they had already been read their Miranda rights, resolved to remain silent, yet the officers kept asking questions. The ACLU sued, arguing this was harassment; a lower court ruled against the ACLU on the grounds that it lacked standing, but the ACLU appealed, a Ninth Circuit court in 1999 found for the ACLU (ie that officers could not keep questioning suspects after they accepted their Miranda rights). The Supreme Court, by refusing to hear the CACJ v Butts case, essentially let the Ninth Circuit Court order stand. Basically what happened. Generally, if you don't mind, I've been hashing and rehashing this issue for way too long, on the talk page, everywhere else, I'm weary of this subject, I'm going to not watch the Butts page any more for a long time, but good luck with the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request edit

1. I've uploaded a headshot image for the infobox here
2. I'd like to re-incorporate one of the poorly-sourced controversies, for which I now know have quality sources in the LA Times available.[2][3][4]. Let me know if the preference is for me to write it up or if someone else has an interest.
3. The third paragraph of the Law enforcement section still has undue weight using primary sources for contentious material about a BLP. I would suggest something like just "In 1995, he was one of five police officers named as a defendant in a lawsuit alleging the police department he led was engaging in forceful questioning that violated Miranda Rights". This element can be supported using quality sources.

CorporateM (Talk) 17:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Image added. I'd like to see a proposed paragraph before inserting the controversial information in #2. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks Crisco. Yes, I agree: a proposed paragraph is best. On the other matter, I'd like to see a []https://www.law.berkeley.edu/news/2004/miranda.html better source than this] but, at the same time, I think it sufficiently establishes that the case, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (CACJ) v. Butts, was decided for the plaintiffs. If I remember correctly, the argument was that Butts really wasn't so involved, but he is named in the suit. I'd like to defer to an expert--perhaps Newyorkbrad or another legal mind can weigh in here. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies, @Crisco 1492 I put together some proposed content for number 2 and 3 (as well as a misc item) at User:CorporateM/Butts. In this case the Berkeley Law School and professor Charles Weiseelber were the team of lawyers supporting the plaintiff, so I don't think this source promoting their legal accomplishments is reliable (it also says they "later settled"). However, one half-decent source shared earlier was a brief mention in Police Magazine and I found something in the Fordham Urban Law Journal (published by Berkeley, but Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of bias sources per se). And I think I was able to scrap together something that is reasonable. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I implemented a modified version of the first item, as well as the third. I do not feel comfortable with the second, partly because I do not know what is meant by "Supreme Court reversed the Martinez decision, and disapproved the Cooper and Butts rulings, as well." While hardly an expert, I have never heard this terminology and do not understand it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:Sphilbrick Considering "and the U.S. Supreme Court turned down an appeal" is already in the article and unsourced, you could leave it in and it certainly wouldn't make the section worse, even if it's not perfect. I think it would be more significant if the Supreme Court accepted the case. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thing

Thanks for everyone's help bringing this article into shape. There is one more thing I wanted to raise that is a complicated issue, which is citation 19, used for the very last sentence of the article. I am the one that incorporated it into my draft, which was eventually incorporated into the article by user:Jimbo, however now that I have investigated it further, I don't think it is an acceptable source.

While it's not clearly labeled as an op-ed, I noticed that the publication accepts crowd-sourced article submissions. Their YouTube channel where the video that is embedded in the article is hosted has the slogan "Morningside Park Chronicle is a newspaper for, from and in Inglewood". The uploader and presumably story author appears to be an Ed Fleming.

When I do research on Ed Fleming, I find that he has published a lot of attack-style content about Butts, such as "Butts has a fit at the Block Club Captains meeting", calling him a liar, accusing him of crimes and so on. Additionally, I noticed that Fleming is not listed as one of the site's editors[5].

What I noticed about many of the videos produced by Fleming, which is also the case for this citation, is that the description does not accurately represent the video. For example the article says "the crowd protested loudly" but the video only shows a single audience member heckling him. It says he "threw a large box full of DVDs on the moderator's table and jumped in front of residents awaiting their turn at the mic" but the video does not show this and appears to show everyone in a calm and orderly fashion.

We cleaned out a lot of these politically charged attack piece, op-eds, but I think this one is the last remaining one. CorporateM (Talk) 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 02:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)