Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mandruss (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
61,517 edits
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)
Bots, Template editors
2,175,610 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 31) (bot
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|archive_age=60|archive_units=days|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Calm}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blpo=yes|collapsed=yes|banner collapsed=no|1=
{{ITN talk|date=25 November 2014|oldid=635408300}}
{{WikiProject Law enforcement|class=C}}
{{On this day|date1=2017-08-09|oldid1=794713551|date2=2019-08-09|oldid2=909950071}}
{{WikiProject Missouri|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Death|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blpo=yes|collapsed=|living=no|listas=Brown, Michael|1=
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Black Lives Matter|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Missouri|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low |gun-politics=yes}}
{{WikiProject St. Louis|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject African diaspora}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 8
|counter = 31
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(48h)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive index |mask=Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}
{{Calm}}
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 17 2014 (11th)|Nov 23 2014 (1st)|Nov 30 2014 (5th)}}
{{Autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot|age=48|units=hours}}

== Position of Police account section ==

We have had at least three positionings of the Police section over the past few days: as its own section (both with and without an intervening section), as first among the "Witness accounts" and now as the last section in Accounts. This seems to involve different contributors having different confidences in the reliability of police statements.

May I suggest that the name "Police account" may be part of our problems.

I would weave out everything in the current Police section that is not an announcement from an official government source (be it city, county, state or federal). I would change the name to "Government announcements" (or "Official government announcements") and delete all of the strikeouts in the current version. (The text below was extracted at 19:00, Aug 23 UTC.)

{{bq|<s>Police</s> '''Government announcements'''

In a news conference on August 10, St. Louis County police chief Jon Belmar stated, "The genesis of this shooting incident was a physical confrontation" during which Brown "physically assaulted the police officer". According to Belmar, Wilson attempted to exit his vehicle but was pushed back into the car by Brown, who then assaulted him inside. Dashboard cameras are not used in Ferguson police cars. Brown then allegedly attempted to seize Wilson's gun, which was fired at least once during the struggle. Belmar acknowledged that "more than a couple" of shots were fired in the course of the encounter.

At that time, the Ferguson City Police Department declined to release Wilson's identity and stated that he had been placed on administrative leave. Tom Jackson, Ferguson's chief of police, stated on August 13 that the officer who shot Brown was injured in the incident. In a news conference the morning of Friday, August 15, nearly a week after Brown was shot, Chief Jackson announced the name of the officer involved in the shooting was Darren Wilson. Jackson stated that Wilson was a 6-year police veteran with no disciplinary actions against him.

Jackson prefaced the name announcement by describing a "strong-arm" robbery that had allegedly occurred a few minutes before the shooting at a nearby convenience store. A police report released to members of the media described Brown as the suspect involved in the alleged robbery. <s>The owners of the convenience store told KTVI that no one working at the store reported a robbery, but that the 911 call came from a customer inside the store.</s>

Hours later, Jackson held another news conference in which he said Wilson was not aware of the robbery when he stopped Brown. Still later, Jackson later told NBC News that while Wilson initially stopped Brown for walking in the street and blocking traffic, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery. <s>The Atlantic Wire and MSNBC have reported on the changing nature of the department's statements. Several days later, they reported that Wilson said in his account to the Ferguson police that "Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him" and that "fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force".</s>

<s>On August 20, Fox News and ABC News reported that, according to an anonymous source, Wilson sustained a serious facial injury during the incident. ABC News said the source is "close to Wilson", while Fox News characterized the source as "close to the department's top brass". According to Fox News, the source said Wilson was beaten nearly unconscious and suffered a fractured eye socket. Fox News quoted the source as saying that Wilson is "traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and terrified [that a grand jury will] make some kind of example out of him". According to Vox.com, an anonymous source "close to the investigation" told CNN that Wilson did not suffer a fractured eye socket, and that he was treated and released for a swollen face.</s> On August 20, Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III told Fox News that he could not confirm the reports that Wilson suffered a fractured eye bone.

<s>MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported on August 21 that Wilson did not complete an incident report about the shooting, after being advised by a union lawyer not to do so. According to O'Donnell, Wilson did file a report, but not until ten days after the shooting, and the report contained no information other than his name and the date.</s> According to the St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office, the Ferguson Police Department has never generated an incident report on the shooting.

On August 20 and 21, the St. Louis County Police and the Ferguson Police released their respective incident reports, which gave the time when each police force arrived on the scene and classified the incident as a homicide. Neither report contains a narrative description of what occurred.
<s>Saki Knafo of The Huffington Post commented that the Ferguson incident report was "almost entirely blank", with the address and time of day of the shooting, and other "bare-bones details." In Knafo's opinion, police reports generally include details about the crime scene, interviews with witnesses, and the names of all the officers involved. Wanita Gupta, legal director of the ACLU, said “[it] just further demonstrate the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about the Michael Brown shooting.” A spokesman for the county police said that the information they provided contains details they are required to share by law, but that other information was "protected until the investigation is complete”. The report states that police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident, and that officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesman said that the response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time.</s>}}

All of the struck out portions would go to other sections, perhaps a subsection called Comments contained in Government announcements and/or a new subsection(s) on Anonymous accounts. I might add other government announcements, like Holder's official remarks or the DA saying that the grand jury will hear evidence, starting on Wednesday. The Government announcements section would be placed immediately after (or as part of?) the Shooting incident section.

This is a long way from perfect but it might give us some breathing room. What say you? --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

:The problem with this approach is that it combines many entities with entirely different motivations and functions in the incident into one account. The Ferguson police exist in a different posture in this incident than the prosecutor's office; in fact, the two are essentially adverse to each other in terms of the investigation into Wilson's actions. Similarly, the federal government (and its myriad entities involved in this case) has a role that exists independent of and possibly in opposition to both the police and the prosecutor's office. All that is to say that it makes little organizational sense to combine all the entities that can be classified as "government" into one section. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::But we are not supposed to judge "motivations and functions"; that, IMHO, is [[WP:OR]]. We are supposed to report published sources (and not necessarily, news sources), according to their [[WP:WEIGHT]]. --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 21:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::We're not "judging" them on their merits. We're organizing an article. And it would be absurd to think that we can't include, e.g., the fact that the prosecutor's office is considering prosecuting a police officer into our calculus when we're determining whether the two are functionally the same for organizational purposes. There's nothing that even remotely resembles OR there. Please see [[WP:BLUE]]. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 22:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::it seems to me that in the context of this article, especially in the matter of the controversy over whether the shooting was justified and the controversy over whether the shooting was necessary, -- two very different questions -- and as I see it, we have only touched on the first -- that the weight principle could be used in highly subjective ways on which there would never be universal consensus. If the local news media in St Louis, with its obvious ties to the police were to at some point opine that the shooting was justified but national sources were to split evenly along political lines (pro-social justice, vs pro-law and order, for example to which side would this article defer? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Wikipedia prefers to deal in facts and not opinions as to what ''might'' occur in the future. And I suggest your use of "obvious ties to the police" might, alas, indicate some POV on your own part. Fortunately facts tend not to be as subject to POV as opinions are. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::But we're not talking about whether cold fusion is real or whether there is man-made global warming. We're talking about a matter which could go before a jury where there are at least two sides to the controversy and where more and more reliable sources are coming down on one side or the other. Are you suggesting that reliable sources aren't at all split on their opinions about whether this shooting was justified and/or necessary? Because unless that's what you're suggesting, then my question stands. In the hypothetical parallel universe where there were more sources favorable to the police account and where only a tiny minority was favorable to the neighborhood account, would we, under the WEIGHT rules, be obligated to defer to the police-friendly sources? As I read the rules, we would be. And I'm not arguing against any individual here. I'm arguing against the absurdity of a blind and/or literal application of that rule in this kind of an article -- where new "evidence" comes in in fits and starts,and where supposedly old evidence is brought into question or corroborated. In other words, I believe that the Wikipedia Weight rule, applied here, has the potential to show itself to be "an ass." I'm also aware, of course, that an attempt to engage in civil disobedience against a rule that one views as absurd would likely end one's ability to argue the absurdity of the rule. Which is what I, as a newcomer, am finding so troubling about my work in this collective -- the insidious way in which one must allow oneself to be formed by the collective, under penalty of ejection, is very troubling to me. It truly is. The fact that so many editors who do the discarding may be oblivious to the harmful effects of their hard slams against other editors is also something which shakes my faith in Wikipedia. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
{{Collapse top|Off-topic discussion}}::::::: You can always stop editing if you have no faith in the project. We all all volunteers here. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::It's not the project. It's the behavior of the people. And the fact that people don't get paid when they post on the web has never inclined them to be decent, I would contend. I want Wikipedia to be open to a broader group of people. I want it to be welcoming to people who believe in social justice, for example. I couldn't help but notice that veggies keyed on my interest in social justice as a opening point to find cause for my removal. He will say that I was using the talk page to advocate for social justice. But he has yet to point me to a specific cite which is an example of social justice advocacy in spite of my requests for specific indications of what I have done wrong. I call that arbitrary and capricious. And most people in the social justice side of our society would have little to no tolerance for a gathering place where capricious and arbitrary is just the way it is. They would probably just take their talents elsewhere. Me, I think it might be worth trying to fix the cancer that I perceive here rather than concede it permanently to the arbitrary, the capricious and the sometimes worse. If you don't perceive it, that's okay. I still respect you. And for the record, I didn't start the topic of me leaving. Someone else did. I'm just responding to that tangent that was clearly not intended as helpful discussion but a very unsubtle suggestion that I leave permanently -- a dig. Why should I believe that I am the first person he has ever shooed away from an editing team? America. Love it or Leave it. Who said that 50 years ago? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 06:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Everyone is welcome, however we ask that everyone checks their bias at the door. Everyone has bias, it's ok. What is not ok is inserting bias into articles. Some people do it intentionally or unintentionally. Most people that do it unintentionally learn not too. Those that do it intentionally are more troublesome. Are some ridden out of town on a rail when they do this? It sure looks that way and it's unfortunate. I don't know how to fix that problem. Smarter people than me have tried. Just try and step outside your skin when editing and ask yourself, is this neutral? That's the best anyone can ask of you.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 07:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
{{EC}}
:Reliable sources for the serious insinuation that I am injecting my personal bias into edits in the actual article, please. I mean isn't that how we're supposed to roll here? If you're going to accuse a guy of breaking the rules, you cite chapter and verse, or you say nothing at all, no? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 08:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Honestly, I think that the objection is to [[WP:NOTFORUM|using the talk page as a forum for airing your views]]. We all have opinions and biases, but we also have a set of criteria that Wikipedia gives us to use in creating and editing articles. Things tend to work better when we stick to those criteria in arguing for inclusion and exclusion, rather than arguing about what "really" happened or whether a particular circumstance is appropriate. I'm not going to speak to whether Veggies was correct in specifically trying to categorize your views, but I will say that I've gotten involved in (and probably started) more than one tangential talk page discussion and it has seldom lead to anything productive in the ultimate goal of building an encyclopedia. Just try to stick to the [[WP:CCPOL|core content policies]] rather than editorializing and you should be fine. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 07:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Honestly, I can think of nothing less helpful to a newcomer than vague accusations as to how I use the talk page for airing my views. Every view stated, in my belief, has been completely germane to what should or should not be in the article, if we are to uphold the lofty ideals which it appears that no one but mr newcomer is expected to live up to. It is beyond frustrating to be perpetually bombarded with accusations that are either void due to vagueness or flagrantly false, like the accusation that I marched with protesters in Ferguson. The person who did that has been subjected to this kind of shaming. And his comments were immediately sanitized from the site, along with all who piled on. The same privilege is not afforded me. Which goes to the claim of arbitrary and capricious, and I think it would be fair to say, a mob. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 08:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}We're way off topic here. This is more appropriate for a discussion on your or another user's talk page than it is for this talk page. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 18:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:Jesus, I go away for a day and look what happened. I did not intend this to generate so many comments (tho' all are welcome).
{{Collapse bottom}}

[[WP:WEIGHT]] (part of [[WP:NPOV]], a Wikipedia ''policy'') says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, ''prominence of placement'', and juxtaposition of statements" and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views ''in proportion to their representation in reliable sources'' on the subject". Thus it seems to me that the placement of content should be arrived at by proportion of RS: in general, the more trustworthy publications a subtopic has, the higher in the article it should be placed.

I believe that what I'm calling "government announcements" has the highest percentage of consistent reliable sources. (If you think that, for example, the eyewitness account of, say, Dorian Johnson has received more reliable coverage than, say, Jon Belmar's announcement of August 10, that's a valid criticism and we should discuss it in a new talk session.) But IMO, government announcements (under whatever name) should go in front of the "eyewitness accounts" and the attributable eyewitnesses should go before the anonymous accounts and journalist comments. --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:Any more comments? --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 20:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:: yes. The issue is that we have very, very little from official police reports and quite a lot coming from unnamed sources "close to the police", so I am not sure how to be structure this. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Sorry, I see what you mean after re-reading the long thread. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::If I get the time tonight, I'll make the changes discussed (with some inline comments; i.e., <nowiki><!--anything--></nowiki>), under [[WP:BRD]]. I will probably just put all the extraneous material from the Police section (the strikeouts in my example) in a grab-bag subsection called Comments and we can work out where they go tomorrow. Please feel free to alter, revert and/or upgrade any or all of my mods. --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Do you have any thoughts on my comment regarding why lumping everything from a government entity into "government announcements" is problematic? I really think you should consider this before reorganizing the article. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The way the sections are organized right now, we seem to be accepting ''all'' accounts with equal validity. Or more validity, depending on their order. It's as if we regard the statements of Dorian Johnson or the Twitter user as equally or more reliable than the police reports. Do you believe that's the impression we're leaving? (Read the article as a first-time reader before you decide.) If so, do you believe that's the impression we ''ought'' to be leaving? (By the way, do you know ''why'' the Police subsection was moved to the bottom of the Accounts a few days ago?)
:::My reading of the sources says that, in general, coverage of "official government statements" is more prevalent than the coverage of, say, Dorian Johnson. Most of the eyewitnesses (except the police) appear in the news for a couple of days then fade away. Government/police stories get repeated continuously and analyzed far into the future. (In my personal opinion, government pronouncements are also intrinsically more reliable than witness accounts because governments have to stand by them whereas witnesses, except those under oath, may come and go.)
:::My thought was to organize the "accounts" as:
:::* Government announcements (with or without comments)
:::* First-hand eyewitnesses (including Johnson, Brady, Crenshaw, Mitchell and Knight)
:::* Anonymous witnesses (twitter, bystander and possibly Josie)

:::: Calling Josie a witness would be intellectually dishonest. We may not have a reliable source PROVING she is a fake. But we have Little Green Footballs doing a darned good job of trying.[[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::''I'' would be satisfied with moving the police subsection up to the beginning of the Accounts and leaving it as that but others may disagree. If you agree that the government and/or police account should get a more prominent position than the other "eyewitness" accounts, I'm ''more'' than willing to let you do the work. (If you ''don't'' agree, we should keep on talking.) There's no rush on my part. --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

::::I don't know what a "first-hand eyewitness" is, but it would be wrong to subordinate Twitter to the other eyewitnesses. The fact that he is ''the only confirmed eyewitness'' except for Johnson outweighs the fact that he is anonymous. In other words, I like him a lot more than I did a few days ago. It would be ok for him to immediately follow them at the same section level, and maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== "Josie," source of "bum rushed" accusation debunked also??? ==

'''SOURCE''': Crooks and Liars: [http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/media-punked-fake-josie-account-michael Media Punked By Fake 'Josie' Account Of Michael Brown Shooting]
If this is accurate, this would effectively wipe out any pretense for the use of the expression "charged at" in our reporting, especially in the lede.

We could, of course, add a new section about how claims favorable to the police officer have been debunked one after another. If you can't find RS sources to support that assertion, private message me. - [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:Not an RS. Has this been reported in an RS? And as to the notion that we're going to add a section that uses Wikipedia's voice to effectively cast doubt on all accounts supporting Wilson because some have been inaccurate, no, we should not do that.
[[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 22:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
::Can you please name for me all of the apparently pro-Wilson sources who have not been seriously debunked at this point, whether in quotable reliable sources or not? I don't think Josie was real. Looks suspiciously like she was reading from a fake Facebook page. Darren Wilson didn't put anything into his police report other than his name and the date. So I ask respectfully: please enumerate for us the pro-Wilson witnesses who are still standing. I'll await your response before responding to your suggestion that we hold fast to our status quo narrative, in spite of new information coming out that challenges the same. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 23:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
::Please read the article, which was my hope when I posted the link. I believe you'll find RSes there. When you do, you can then summarize the RS info using the not-so-rs writers as your guide. It's a devastating article if all true. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I read the article, and it's true that it quotes reliable sources. But "summarizing the RS info" in the way that you describe is basically the definition of [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Sorry to confuse. I wasn't suggesting [[WP:SYNTH]]. I was actually humorously hinting at plagiarism. But your point is well taken, of course. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, I'll admit that Little Green Footballs is probably not a reliable source and so I'll retract my claim. The reference to CNN is not support, but rather an example that LGF points to as an example of an RS that got punked. I'd just ask that all keep their eyes out in case an RS for this debunking materializes or is already extant. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to note that in our article as of 7:20 PM CDT, that there are no instances of the term "charging at" or "charged at" other then the one from Dr. Baden (he is a Dr. right?) explaining that the shot to the top of the head could have occurred if Brown was charging at Wilson with his head down. I appreciate the acquiescence of the collective on this point. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:In the CNN article referred to in the Crooks and Liars article, there was the following.
::"A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN."[http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-michael-brown-dueling-narratives/]
:Looks like CNN got independent confirmation that Josie's account is that of Wilson. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::[NOTE: Striking the following as I apparently misread the statement above to which I attempted a response. <s>Yes, and</s> The point that the CrooksAndLiars people are making is that CNN got punked. I've listened to Josie several times. The correlation between that discredited Facebook post and what she tried to say from memory while on the phone is too high to be explained by just random coincidence, in my opinion. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't see it regarding CNN's independent confirming source. Unless I missed it, I didn't see where the Crooks and Liars article explained, or even discussed, CNN's independent confirming source. Isn't that worrisome to you regarding the credibility of the Crooks and Liars article? --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Also, if you look at the [http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/media-punked-fake-josie-account-michael Crooks and Liars article], you'll see that it is making a false implication that the Josie story is based on a fake Facebook page. In the Crooks and Liars article you will see that the fake Facebook page by a purported Darren Wilson appeared two days after the Josie story. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Good catch, Bob K. Looks like you're not the only one to catch it. (Perhaps after you made your comment), the author added this update:

Update (Thanks to BeachDem)
----
8/15 Jill Meadows posts a story on Josie Meadows’ facebook page at 7:29 am
8/15 Josie goes on Dana’s show to spew
8/17 the fake Darren Wilson post goes up
So Josie was just recounting a different Facebook post than I originally thought.
Still means that the media is treating Josie’s (at best) third hand
account of the shooting as equal to actual witnesses.
----
And notice Jill Meadows never says where she got her info.
Just a cryptic “I believe in my heart for it to be factually true
because I know someone very well who was there.”
[[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but the update you posted here wasn’t posted in the [http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/media-punked-fake-josie-account-michael Crooks and Liars article], at least not yet. It would completely destroy the premise for the article’s existence. The update was posted at the very end of the [http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43766_Josie_Story_of_Brown_Shooting_Lifted_From_Fake_Facebook_Page Little Green Footballs] article that Crooks and Liars used as a source. Also note that neither article has yet to mention that CNN got independent confirmation that the Josie story accurately reflects Darren Wlson’s account. From the CNN article,[http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-michael-brown-dueling-narratives/]
:”A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN.”
--[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:: I would be very cautious of these or any other anonymous hearsay comments. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:My apologies for not having gone straight to the source: Little Green Footballs. They are the ones who did the debunking. But if Fox doesn't report, how will we decide? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== Makeup of Ferguson MO Grand Jury ==

Relevant? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blacks-12-grand-jurors-ferguson-case-25088526
[[User:Morpheus ad|Morpheus ad]] ([[User talk:Morpheus ad|talk]]) 00:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
: Thanks. That is already in the article at [[Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Grand_jury]] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Should the article mention that the three blacks are comprised of two women and a man? [[User:Morpheus ad|Morpheus ad]] ([[User talk:Morpheus ad|talk]]) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The gender and race should be mentioned for all jurors. It is germane. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::I'm not sure if <s>gender</s> sex is relevent but the race breakup is definitely relevent (as it is there). - A Canadian Toker ([[User talk:ACanadianToker|talk]]) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Why Black and White? ==

I believe African-American and Caucasian should be used instead of black and white. Other articles, like the [[shooting of Trayvon Martin]], refer to my terms instead of those. Why do the edits keep getting reverted? [[User:CitiV|CitiV]] ([[User talk:CitiV|talk]]) 01:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:The sources we have refer to Brown and Wilson as black and white, respectively. There's no appreciable difference in the terms, in my view. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
: No difference in my view also. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 01:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I believe we should match the sources, if possible. The terms are similar, anyway. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 01:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:I could have sworn we went through this already. But since you bring it up again, I'll abandon my previous stance in favor of calling Wilson IndoEuropean, or Indie, for short. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Well, that's just stupid. The media nowadays just uses the words 'black' and 'white' to further the whole race card thing! And we're trying to be neutral, aren't we? African American and Caucasian sound MUCH MORE NEUTRAL. [[User:CitiV|CitiV]] ([[User talk:CitiV|talk]]) 04:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::: I am relatively new, but I believe what we are trying to achieve here is consensus and impartiality, with a framework of reliable sources. It would seem, however, that not many support your proposition, Citiv, and, while you believe it to be neutral sounding, it's not the wording used in our reliable sources. That's at least two strikes against it. For now, I believe we should keep the wording black and white, even though you seem to believe that the media is "further[ing] the whole race card thing", and it would seem that several others think we should keep the wording, as well. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 04:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: I don't see what's the value of that argument, CitiV. Black/White, or African-American/Caucasian, the race issue remains, and both usages are neutral. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:You guys aren't seriously responding to my facetious comment, are you? Your indents suggest that you are. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 10:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}It seems to me, CitiV, this is the same situation as the comma-before-Jr thing. You're letting your own personal preferences and biases (we all have them) guide your thinking, rather than looking to policy and guidelines. In this case, policy says we reflect what RS says. There are good arguments out there for both ways, but I'm not going to present the argument for black-and-white here. I simply don't allow my mind to go there. If you have a generally negative opinion of the motives of mainstream media, editing articles like this one is going to be a continual and endless struggle (there are many other kinds of articles where media is of less importance). &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' I disagree with the claim that African-American and Caucasian are more neutral. Both of those terms are value laden. Black and white are more accurate, and frome what I've seen, the most common terms of reference in relation to this article. 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Wikiwand ==

Great new tool to read WP articles with great typography and layout:
* The Ferguson unrest article http://www.wikiwand.com/en/2014_Ferguson_unrest
* This article: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown
- [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 03:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

: Impressive. How do I get that to work on an article, any article? Thanks. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 04:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:: Looks like it's an app, there's an option to download it for your browser on the top menu bar. It is much, much nicer. [[User:Saeranv|Saeranv]] ([[User talk:Saeranv|talk]]) 06:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Or it appears you can just take the title part of the WP URL and precede it with the string http://www.wikiwand.com/en/. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:Yeah, and if I were just a "reader" I might use it exclusively. Problem is, I'm often "just reading" and see some bad spelling/grammar that I can't resist fixing. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 14:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: I know the feeling ... The Wikiwand dropdown menu has an "edit article" menu item. :) - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Funeral today (8/25) ==
I added to the article mention of the fact that the Brown family is asking that protesters suspend for a day so they can focus on Michael and his funeral and burial. <s>(Side note: BBC is reporting that Sunday was the first time that Brown's mother had seen Michael's body since the day of the shooting. I lost a wife and a baby. I can't imagine what it would have been like to go 15 days without being able to have been with them. Add to that the trauma of the four hours the body lay on the street.)</s> - [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:First time being able to see? ''Cite for that''? It is ''common'' for funerals to be delayed until a body is released after autopsies -- the third autopsy doubtless delayed the funeral a couple of days in itself. I have heard of cases where a body was not released for months during an investigation. And the time on the street was due to investigation requirements, though it ought to have been covered sooner and more fully (the covering did not reach all the way to cover the feet of the very tall victim - 6'4"). [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Requested cite: "She said she had seen her son's body at the morgue for the first time on Sunday since the day of the shooting."
::BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28924099, same cite I used to source the information about the family's call for a day without protests and unrest. - [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 12:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Which does ''not'' support "been able to see", alas. She does not say she was refused the right to see,and, indeed, part of the normal identification routine is to have a ''family member'' identify the body at the morgue. The claim you wish to make is not directly supported by the source as a claim of fact. So far I have not found any source for the identification of the body or by which family member it was done, though. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Nothing in my comment supports your claim that I wished "to make a claim." Guess I better put the s-es of shame on the side note so that people won't waste any more time discussing something that was a side note, not something to be picked apart mercilessly. Seriously, Wikipedia is not for the weak of heart. And I would never suggest to a friend that they go through what I have been through for the last 16 days. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== Timid suggestion: A new section titled "Judicial Proceedings" ==

For now, we could place the grand jury subsection underneath it. I don't think that the Grand Jury proceedings should be considered part of the investigation. It's a whole other animal, in my opinion. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 10:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:For legal purposes, the Grand Jury is part and parcel of the "investigation". It is not a separate "judicial proceeding." See [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6] Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

::It certainly ''is''' separate. And to suggest that it is not a judicial proceeding would be to suggest that an arraignment before a judge is not a judicial proceeding. I can't go there.

The investigation, in my mind, refers to anything that involves the gathering of evidence.

A grand jury is a venue where those who have parsed through the evidence decide what evidence and what testimony to present a jury (a judicial, not an investigative) body after which a determination is made as to whether the matter is taken by the court or not. That a grand jury can, of its own accord, request that evidence or witnesses be brought before it does not make it, ipso facto, an investigative body. That's how I see it anyway. And I dare say that many a legal scholar, which I am not, would scoff at the notion that the operations of a grand jury do not constitute a judicial proceeding.

It just seems logical to me.
* Incident.
* Investigation.
* Judicial proceedings.

I would think most of our readers would see it that way too. -- [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:If an indictment is entered, we can do this. Not until then. We can't prejudice Wilson in the slightest per BLP. [[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 12:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:Note an "[[arraignment]]" is ''specifically'' a judicial proceeding. And arraignment is ''not'' part of the investigation process. Grand juries are part of the investigation process and are ''not'' akin in any way shape or form to an arraignment. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Your definition of "investigation" would appear to be much broader than mine. Is an arraignment not a venue for placing before a judge evidence gathered in an investigation so as to attempt to present probable cause in order for the court to take jurisdiction of the matter? If a judge is deciding whether the evidence warrants a trial, possible incarceration, and the possible specification of a bond amount, how are those processes matters of investigation? I know I'm dealing with very smart people here (not sarcasm), but on this I'm a little baffled to be the odd-man out. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Ignore whether (or not) a pending indictment is or is not part of "judicial proceedings" for the moment. The BLP policy that living people are treated ''fairly'' says we '''must''' take all precautions not to harm a living persons by publishing material that can harm a living person unless it is scrupulously sourced. We don't have any RS saying "judicial proceedings" are taking place, do we? One might reasonably believe that if "judicial proceedings" are taking place, then a someone has been indicted already. We can make this assumption of belief, because we are now having a conversation to that affect. Per the BLP and NPOV policies, we are not going to allow even the whiff of prejudice to creep into this article. The easiest thing to do is to stick to what the best of the RS say on this matter.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Read [[Arraignment]]. It is a ''judicial'' proceeding in which the charges are read, and a plea is made (or arguments on procedure are made). Arraignments have absolutely nothing to do with "investigation" in any way, shape, manner or form. Period. No evidence is placed before a judge at an arraignment. The judge does ''no'' investigation at an arraignment. None. Period. Bail may or may not be set at an arraignment ''based on the charges stated'', but the judge makes no "finding of fact" at all at that point. Is this clear? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::So what is the name for the hearing that is granted in order determine whether an arrestee may continue to be held. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::So what of the accusatory functions of a grand jury? Are those not to be distinguished from its investigative functions? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::An "indictment" ''is'' the "result of an investigation". In fact, a grand jury has very low standards of proof required for an indictment, it is a statement that they found "probable cause" only, and, traditionally, a skilled prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" if they present the evidence needed for that as the "investigation". Grand juries can, and sometimes do, head off on their own in the investigative process. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 06:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Request to archive this section as one I wish I hadn't started. Procedures it is, whatever that means. It seems awkward. But I give up. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggested to reorganize this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_5#Making_a_clearer_distinction_among_procedures_.3F). For the time being, the various points are disconnected. --[[User:Japarthur|Japarthur]] ([[User talk:Japarthur|talk]]) 06:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== Refutation of Eye-Socket Fracture Allegations ==

Hoping for helpful advice.
The source is [[Juan Williams]], formerly of NPR, now with Fox.

The statement in the article is this: "Williams said handheld videos of the aftermath of the shooting show Officer Wilson with no signs of injury. He added that no attack should have necessitated Brown being shot six times."

The question is this. Is it usable as a cite or maybe even as a direct quote? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 11:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:Juan Williams is a noted doctor? Ah ... Perhaps you should ask your local doctor whether a fractured eye socket would instantly be apparent to onlookers who are fifty feet away. Unless, of course, Juan Williams is an expert in that area. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::That "answer" was '''un'''helpful. Anyone else? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 11:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I suggest you note '''Juan Williams is not qualified for any opinions about swelling etc. from cellphone videos from fifty feet away for any medical judgments'''. Clearer? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: Clearer, yes. Sensible? I'm not so sure. This isn't limited to a medical assessment. It embraces as well the universal understanding that if someone just broke a bone in your face that you would feel pain and act in some way as to favor it. Michael Brady said that when those bullets went into the arm of Michael Brown, that he held it down by his stomach, probably because he was in pain. An obvious indication of injury. No such obvious indication is seen in the video of Darren Wilson. He just seems puzzled, or to use Tiffany Mitchells' term, "bewildered." -- (kind of like if he just got teleported from the Enterprise and suddenly got dropped on his feet next to a dead body) -- a view which I do not hold in isolation. I just think that it bears repeating that notable RS analysts expressed skepticism of the eye socket fracture claim based on their analysis of video clips finally released by the police that didn't seem to support in any way such a claim, in light of the fact that claim has been called into question by reliable sources -- admitting, of course, that the resolution of the video in all cases is insufficient to ''refute'' a claim of a bone fracture or tear. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:::: I agree 100% with "User Collect". ''Everyone'' has an opinion about this stuff; the opinion of Juan Williams (who is he?) holds no weight. He is just a TV pundit. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:What you all seem to be missing is that my question was a yes or no question. Can Juan Williams be used as a source of commentary. RS. Yes or no. I wasn't asking for advice on how to disqualify him, which, personally, I see no reason to do as his views are hardly minority views among those who are skeptical of the police's forthrightness in this matter. WP:WEIGHT Implicit in your too helpful-by-half-answers, I read a yes. So thank you after all. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Citing the opinion of a person who is ''clearly unqualified'' to hold such an opinion of ''fact'' is against Wikipedia policies, and against [[WP:BLP]] as the claim involved a living person. Juan Williams is a political commentator, and his political opinions, as a notable political commentator, can be used properly described and cited as opinion. If you wish to change the policies, go to the policy pages and edit them. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
: Hey guys, there's also this source from Julian Cummings of CNN discrediting the eye socket fracture: [http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/8/21/6054237/source-to-cnn-darren-wilson-didnt-have-a-fractured-eye-socket link]. Unfortunatly it's from an anonymous source "close to the investigation". It looks like we're not using anonymous sources here so, I'll just put this out there FYI and we'll wait for further confirmation? [[User:Saeranv|Saeranv]] ([[User talk:Saeranv|talk]]) 16:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

::: Not to mention, his (Juan Williams's) opinion is biased. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 16:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::::That actually doesn't matter if we're citing him for his opinion (not that we should in this case). [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

::::: Yes, I agree. Just wanted to throw that in. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:For the record, how many white players in this story have we accused of being biased so far, collectively? If I'm not mistaken, the number of black players who have been so tagged is at least six now, Juan Williams just being the most recent example. I would hope that we would be a little more fair and balanced in slapping people around with accusations of bias. (Oh wait. I'm white. And I got slapped with that too. Well, at least you're trying.) [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

== No evidence that gun went off in the police car ==

Delete: There has been no confirmed evidence that gun went off in the police car. Article makes it seem like the police officer pursed Michael Brown because his gun was discharged. Gidoreal

:We use ''what the sources state'' - nothing more. We do ''not'' know what evidence does ''not'' exist for sure. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 17:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:Things I've collected in my head in the last two weeks.
:Chief of Police Jon Belmar says that the gun went off in the car.
:Dorian Johnson said that Darren Wilson fired a shot from inside the car at Mike Brown when he was in the scuffle with Brown.
:Police have never said how many casings were in the proximity of the car, either inside or outside.
:Some witnesses have no recollection of hearing a gun shot while the altercation through the window (or inside the car, is how some people interpret Belmar's very vague description of that part of the incident.
:Early accounts said that Brown's mother had been told by someone (apparently the day of the shooting) that her son had been shot 8 times.
:A mysterious video uploaded to Facebook the day of the shooting has several individuals in a kitchen discussing details such as the theft of the cigarillos from the Ferguson Market, putting down rumors that the theft might have been from the Family Dollar Store, the Quik Trip, or Sam's Meat Market. When the number of bullets is discussed, the speaker says that the officer shot him four times, paused, then shot him four more times, [paraphrasing] no one in the room challenges that particular.
:I am thinking of putting up a subpage where all of these details are listed in tabular format by witness to make it easier for all of us to keep track of what each has said and how the claims do or do not appear to correlate. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::except to the degree that reliable sources have made those comparisons, creation of that tabular format is likely to fall afoul of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]]. You are deciding what the categories are, and how each statement falls into those categories, and which do or do not agree with the others. Thats all [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Sorry. Meant to say "personal" sub page. You guys don't miss anything. :-) [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Somoene might even complain about ''that''. It might be less hassle to post it on a personal blog, where you can do whatever you want and answer to no one,[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::Can I ask you this: why is it necessary or useful for us '''as Wikipedia editors''' to track which accounts do or do not appear to correlate? [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Could it be that for about 14 days or so now, we have been in the business of telling people which accounts do correlate and which do not? Exhibit A: The lede as is stood for several days until about two days ago. And no, I haven't checked it lately. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::<s>I'm not telling anyone what to do. Rules are rules and must be followed (by some people). But I will say this. Absent any analysis in this article of which facts do and do not align, in the near term, at least, it is going to be of little value to anyone. It's those on the cutting edge who are sifting this through logically who are making the greatest contribution to the public's understanding of this issue. And I know. Wikipedia Talk is NOTAFORUMFORDISCUSSINGWIKIPEDIA'SVALUE. There. I said it for you so that you don't have to. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)</s>

== Reason: Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype. ==

'''SOURCE''': Reason: PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson

Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/25/pcp-hallucinations-in-ferguson

Think of this as a variant of the "witnesses are notoriously unreliable" analysis that perhaps should be in the article because of the enlightenment it brings to those who think that five witness saying the same thing ends the matter.
Of course, me, I have no wishes or fishes in the matter. It is a really well written article though. MyPOV [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
: I don't think that website is a WP:RS, and what is said there is quite dubious speculation. Why bother? - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

:No doubt there are plenty of op-eds that suggest as much. I'd give this just slightly less weight than the militarization of local police reaction. But first you need to find these opinions. The Washington post had one in the last few days IIRC.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 04:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:I would argue that Reason is ''at least'' as reliable and acceptable a source as [[The Daily Caller]]. Reason is a long-published dead-tree and online magazine, and while it has a clearly-libertarian editorial slant, it's generally considered editorially-sound. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::This is slightly off topic, but bear with me. I was going to comment that we're not citing the Daily Caller for factual claims, but I realized when looking over the article that a user has repeatedly restored an version of the bystander account that explicitly relies on the Daily Caller for the notion that the bystander supports police claims. I've restored the consensus version, which is appropriately hedged. Agreed that the Daily Caller is not an RS, in any event. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 05:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::: I believe someone restored the Daily Caller section again. At least, at the time of this post, it had been restored. Is there any way we can prevent this? [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 06:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I restored it. It's the version that in-text cites the Daily Caller as the source of the claim, rather than just stating that the bystander account supports the police. It's not great, but I think it's the consensus version. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 06:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your statement. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Going back to the section title: If tests show a drug, we report the finding of the tests. Wikipedia should not in any way affirm anything other than facts in such matters. Anything ascribed by reliable sources to witness statements gets ascribed to those sources and witnesses, and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. PCP, to the best of my knowledge, would be part of a "contentious claim" covered by [[WP:BLP]] and would need strong sources and not an off-hand comment by someone. That noted, the "ugly stereotype" term used above is not called for. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 06:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:I believe that this section's title is the subtitle of the referenced article: "PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson: Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype." Not editorializing. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 06:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::It is not usual to use such an inapt Wikipedia section title for a section on the basis of "the source uses those words" in any event.[[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::You may attribute the unusualness of my section heading to a desire to head off any inclination to run with the PCP theories that I'm seeing among my cop friendly social media acquaintances (which number about 95% of those posting on the issue). Police initially said that the toxicology analysis would take many weeks, then released their claim/announcement that Brown had marijuana in his system. If it really takes many weeks to do PCP analysis, for example, then we could well see another surprise and delayed announcement from the police which has the effect of shifting more suspicion from Wilson to Brown whether deserved or not. My objective having been accomplished, I like to think, this section may be archived, or at a minimum a more "apt" section title may be applied. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 08:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Audio of shooting incident ==

This could evolve to be quite crucial, if confirmed: '' New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown shot'' : [http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1], [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/26/michael-brown-shooting-police-ferguson/14612081/] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:Dunno about "crucial" as all accounts suggest a pause -- either after the shot from the car (posited) followed after a pause by shots at a fleeing person (one set) or from warning shots fired at a fleeing person followed by shots aimed at an advancing person (another possibility) or almost anything in between (including shots at Brown's arms being separated in time from the final shots to the head). [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC) .

:Yeah, the pause was always known. 10/11 shots is new, but would have come out in any case during a trial without the audio. Since only 6 shots hit, that does give more plausibility to the possibility that there were "back" shots that just missed. It can also swing the other way though since there was not a delay for the final shot which hurts the "execution style" narrative. While 10/11 is a bit high (One would normally expect bursts of 2-4) its not ridiculously so. Slightly better than 50% hit rate, with a decent number of the hits being way to the edge - another example of cops with poor marksmanship unfortunately. In any case, I think we should certainly cover that the audio exists, its been covered by multiple reliable sources now. However, we should be careful not to say in wikipedias voice that it IS audio of the event, or that it details any particular facts - everything must follow [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] as what the audio means is obviously subject to interpretation. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::In fact one might suggest that either a second officer fired at least two shots (depending on the timing of the shots), or that the first shots were deliberately wide of the mark. As a rule of thumb, folks tend to cluster shots when firing in rapid succession, rather than aim each shot individually (ok -- one guy on a TV show was almost superhuman in aiming time.) Additionally, the question of echo occurs - which means some audio expert will have to try duplicating the sound patterns. In short -- it does not appear to settle much of anything now, but once audio experts work on reproducing the sounds, the material may be important. Time will tell, and there is no Wikipedia "deadline". [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 16:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Yep. Time will tell, but I read this quite differently, per [[WP:NOTFORUM]], I will keep this to myself. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::Another plausible scenario, if we were to believe Wilson and his assertion that Brown knocked the shit out of him, is that his vision could have been affected by the blow to the side of his face, which would account for his "poor marksmanship" and "wide of the mark" shots.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 17:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:Awesome forum discussion guys. Sad to see that it has ground to a halt. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:So what if we talk about the article? Google News now has the audio article on the top fold of its home page. Who wants to be the bold person who tells the world that we at Wikipedia are actually aware of this development? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Interantional Business Times: Mike Brown Shooting: Audio Clip With Gunshot Sounds Could Provide Insight On Ferguson Teen's Death
:http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-audio-clip-gunshot-sounds-could-provide-insight-ferguson-teens-death-1670588 [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:If anyone sees any RS articles that happen to mention the mathematical fact that 6 bullets (per the autopsy) is 2 bullets more than 4 bullets (the number of shots we hear presumably after Mike Brown turns around), suggesting that at least one and perhaps two bullets had to have hit Michael while he was facing forward and away from Officer Wilson (for instance when he was running away), if you could please paste the link and a note on my personal talk page, I'd be most obliged. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 10:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::No articles say anything remotely like what you are hoping for. The probability is that the additional bullets actually missed Brown completely. Baden was clear on this. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::Under (one of?) Wilson's accounts, as well as Piaget Crenshaw's account the initial shots happened in (or slightly outside) the car, while Brown was assaulting (or otherwise engaged with) him. There are many ways to interpret the sequence of shots, its goign to be very difficult to prove any of them absolutely correct or incorrect. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

More on the audio recording [http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/27/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting-audio/], [http://www.wxii12.com/national/fbi-analyzing-alleged-audio-of-brown-shooting/27752986#!bK6SEV] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:I am unsure what your edit summary meant -- are you implying that the gun Wilson had contained ten or more bullets? So far I did not think even the make of gun has been published, has it? At this point, the audio seems to be the very epitome of "inconclusiveness". Cheer. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::Its not sourced anywhere reliable that I can find, but the conservative blogs claim Wilson's gun was a Sig 226 (possibly a 229 model) .40, which is a 12+1 gun. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Bystander heard on video ==

This is not adequately sourced. This does not come from reporting on any law enforcement investigation. I also listened to the video several times and it far from clear whether the person speaking in the background was speculating. Unless there is professional analysis performed on the tape and they reported in reliable secondary sources, it has no business in Wikipedia per [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:The issue is whether the sources are reliable for the claim made. Unless you qualify as a reliable source, I fear the fact you can ''not'' hear something is not actually usable on Wikipedia, alas. The claim is that the reporters listening to the recording hear the bystander. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 19:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::The problem is that both sources have a right-wing [[WP:NPOV]] and there are no other sources, which isn't surprising because it is fairly clear listening to the tape that there is nothing substantive there. There is no analysis provided in either source and part of what they report is a link to the YouTube video, which the reader is suppose to listen I guess. This kind of biased tabloid material has no business in a Wikipedia article. BTW, the only interesting conversation on the tape is one witness reporting hearing two sets of multiples shots, which the FBI now has a recording of and is investigating per CNN. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Note that the interpretation of the video is specifically attributed to those sources rather than being stated as fact. That's what we do with biased sources. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 20:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:The inherent reliability of this witness is no greater, and no lesser than that of any of the other purported witnesses. We all only have what they say - we have no proof for any of them that they actually saw what they say they saw. It has been covered by other sources (although I freely admit these are not tier 1 sources). [http://www.christianpost.com/news/news-reporters-bombshell-ferguson-tweet-deemed-personal-revealed-to-be-on-leave-since-march-125348/][http://staugustine.com/opinions/2014-08-24/facts-come-slowly-racist-attacks#.U_zlMvnP3sA] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html][[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 20:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:If a reliable source mentioning the ambiguity of the video could be found, perhaps that could be included? [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::There won't be though because it is pretty clear from listening to the tape that the guy didn't really see what happened. I suggest everyone listen it--it was part of the reporting, so it is up to us to listen to it just like we do written text. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Are you listening to the right conversation? Its not the "loud" voice its the quieter one at 6:00 [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Listen starting at about 6 minutes in for about a minute. The guy says something about going back into his house and then comes back out and says he sees the truck "right there" and says "I don't know what happened". Then another bystander says "What happened?" The guy says "He ran the police were still in the truck." Then he says "I don't know." Then he says the "He was in the truck fighting them. Jumps over the truck and then he ran. The police got out and ran after him. The next thing I know he jump back towards the truck and the police have their guns drawn." The bystander then asks "The police shot him?" And he says (hard to make out): "The police shot him." Next thing he says that I can make out is "I'm thinking they missed." Hard to make out anything else. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, this does belong in here without professional analysis. It simply isn't clear how much is actual observation and how much is speculation. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:So what we're all saying, right, is that fairness is going to get no help from the Wikipedia Protocols this time either? Yes, my question is rhetorical. No need to answer it. My mother warned me there would be days like this. - [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 21:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::See [[WP:TRUTH]] first and foremost and then spend some time reading [[WP:RS]]. <b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::The video is part of both sources. The video is like a quote in an article. We have to read or listen to them. A relevant read is [[WP:NOTNEWSPAPER]], item 4. The "Twitter" section above it also is tabloid junk. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::The Twitter guy was thoroughly discussed in [[Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_6#Omitted_witness_.40TheePharoah_who_was_the_first_witness_to_.22come_forward.22_.28Tweeting_about_the_shooting_at_12:03_pm..29|this archived section]] and consensus was reached. No need to restart that discussion here. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 21:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Do we have reason to doubt the transcripts from the sources? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::In the case of the video we do. Since the video is included in both sources, we have an obligation to listen to it and compare it to the transcripts. They don't exactly match up.[[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Regarding the larger points of the video and twitter sections. These simply don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Neither are evidence that would be entered in any legal proceedings. They are vague and not even clearly consistent with each other or with established evidence such as the autopsy report. These sections are just not encyclopedic. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::If you want to re-discuss the Twitter, would you please start a new section so as not to combine issues here? I'd be happy to contribute to such a rediscussion, as there's something that wasn't brought up inthe other one. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I listened to the video, and it really does not seem to match up, from what I can hear. Of course, my hearing is not perfect, but all I heard was something about running, and something about a truck. The words in between were... Iffy, at best. I would be all for excluding it, as if the video does not match up with the claims, I believe that would mean the source was unreliable, wouldn't it? [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I'm no expert, but it seems to me that any listening to the video is OR. IMO, all that matters is RS, so the question is whether one source, The Daily Caller, is enough to pass the RS test. My opinion is no. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you that it would be OR if we took it off of YouTube and listened to it, but in this case it is provided by the sources, so I view it as something we have to assess in deciding the reliability of the information we are including. If say, we had two transcriptions that didn't match, we would at least have to say what was said on the video was unclear. That is one of the issues we have here. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't see that kind of assessment going on with other content, although I haven't considered every piece of it. But, for example, what is the assessed reliability of an eyewitness statement from a person who can't prove they were there? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::We seem to agree that the source is not reliable. Therefore, should we not remove it, even if the path we took to arrive at that conclusion differs somewhat? [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Only those currently present agree on that. Several senior editors spoke against removal, so we would need more than the three of us. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::How would we go about getting their opinions on the points presented here? [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 02:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I assume that it's an important enough question that they'll post when they have the time. If they don't, I think it's an important enough question to ping all of them that spoke against removal. If they still ignore, then status quo wins for lack of consensus to change. I don't know of any way to force someone to respond to an argument. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Could you perhaps be more specific about what the question is? [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:Unless I'm mistaken, the question is: Should the "Bystander heard on video" subsection be removed? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 14:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::No, it should not be removed. Its [[WP:SECONDARY]] sources discussing directly relevant [[WP:PRIMARY]] material at the scene of the crime, by someone claiming to be an eyewitness so is highly relevant. Regarding reliability, certainly some sources (Conservative Treehouse in particular) are not reliable. Others that have covered the video itself are very reliable (CNN has run the video, but not commented on the bystander). The Daily caller while certainly an outlet with a POV, per [[WP:BIASED]] (part of [[WP:RS]]) "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." We have plenty of content sourced to HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Slate, and Vox (Run by Daily Kos), etc. Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Add to that the other sources mentioned in this thread [http://www.christianpost.com/news/news-reporters-bombshell-ferguson-tweet-deemed-personal-revealed-to-be-on-leave-since-march-125348/][http://staugustine.com/opinions/2014-08-24/facts-come-slowly-racist-attacks#.U_zlMvnP3sA] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html], and we have sufficient sourcing for inclusion. That being said, we must be careful to follow [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] and say that the transcript particular words heard, and what they mean are coming through the filter of the sources. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Twitter section again ==

My concern with the Twitter section (as with the video section discussed above) is that we are putting non-encyclopedic material into the article. The claims made in both sections will never be evidence entered into any legal proceedings. At most, they are among the hundreds if not thousands of leads investigators may followup. Just because something is reported in what we view as a reliable source, does not imply that it belongs in an article. Hypothetically, down the road, if either of these leads actually lead to something that affects the outcome of this case, then, of course they should be in the article, but not now. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 22:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

:The Twitter user differs from the other eyewitnesses in two ways. First, he is anonymous (there is no verified identity AFAIK, and if there is the section needs to be renamed and modified to reflect it). Second, aside from Johnson and Wilson, he is ''the only eyewitness who is known to be an eyewitness''. This is known from the time of his tweets, which couldn't have been forged. For the other eyewitnesses, the world is taking their word for it. I think that elevates him beyond tabloid junk. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::For the benefit of casual bypassers, can we be more specific in this section about who "the Twitter user" is? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Don't see why not. We're talking about Twitter handle @TheePharoah. In [[Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_6#Omitted_witness_.40TheePharoah_who_was_the_first_witness_to_.22come_forward.22_.28Tweeting_about_the_shooting_at_12:03_pm..29|the prior discussion, now archived]], it was decided that the handle was not relevant and should be omitted. There was also a name associated with the handle but it has not been verified. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::so his twitter handle is @TheePharoah but we dont want to mention it, but we do want to mention that he tweeted, but we will call him anonymous. genius. Cant we just says twitter user @TheePharoah said blah blah? [[User:Mrkks]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned"> — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::*It was too strong to say that Twitter person's account was tabloid junk absolutely. It is as of now because all we have is the reporting of it. We have no analysis yet of its role in this case. Let's compare this to a breaking story today. There is an audio tape purported to be of the gunfire. The FBI is currently analyzing it. If it holds up, it will be evidence in this case, so it is encyclopedic to incorporate it. Ultimately, I think that as of now, a fundamental guiding principle should be [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::As I'm sure you know, common sense can and does vary widely between individuals, making any claim to it somewhat dubious. For example, I think what I said above was common sense, but you disagree. If the qualifying criterion is existing analysis of the role in this case, I think we're going to have to remove about half of the current content. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree with you, I think everyone here is trying to use commonsense and commonsense isn't something that people necessarily agree on. Let me see if I can state the problem I'm seeing in a way that might lead to a compromise. This and the video section don't seem to me to have the same standing as the rest of the sections. As standalone section, they seem encyclopedic. They are not even pieces of potential evidence in this case. They are potential leads to witnesses, however. Why not combine the content of the sections under a sections heading '''Possible leads reported in the news media''' or something to that effect? [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Honestly, I feel unqualified to say any more than I have. I think wiser people than I will be able to counter your argument, so let's wait for them to arrive, ok? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Sounds good to me. [[User:I am One of Many|I am One of Many]] ([[User talk:I am One of Many|talk]]) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Okay, Mandruss. We're here. What do you need? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I enjoy humorous banter, but I'm aware that it's frowned upon, apparently because it lengthens already-long discussions and distracts from the issues at hand. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Major changes to the lede ==

{{U|Kevin Murray}} seems really insistent that his version of lede is better than the one that evolved through collaboration. I invite him to gain consensus here for his bold edits.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 01:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm up for that. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard that a camel is a horse designed by committee? This lede is really bad and just a restatement of a section in the text below, It's overly detailed and looks like an argument with itself. My goal is to bring this to neutral encyclopedic language. If you have the skills to do it, I'll just fade away. Best regards. Kevin --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:I was tempted to extend the camel metaphor, and make some analogy about the horse dying of thirst, but it got away from me. Instead, I'll simply say that this is an evolving current event. If you try to polish the lede now, it'll just get roughed up again before the night's even over. I'd recommend waiting until things die down a bit, before trying such boldness. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Your points are well taken, actually sage. However, as a prominent and frequently visited article it stands as a black eye to the WP project. What is needed here is a core of dedicated wikipedians who care more about the neutrality of the project than selling a POV. How that is done anymore I don't know. Cheers and best regards! Kevin --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 02:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:OK, but "neutral encyclopedic language" doesn't include "Brown then struck at Wilson through the open window of the police car" or "Testimony differs as to whether Brown was being submissive or aggressive when the final shots were fired." We don't know exactly what happened through the open window of the police car other than some sort of altercation (Did Wilson provoke Brown or instigate physical contact? We don't know), and "submissive or aggressive" is a claim about a dead person's state of mind, which is not sourced. What is sourced is the wording currently there - that some witnesses say he was moving toward Wilson and some witnesses say he was standing with his hands up.
:That's what we mean about careful wording that has been hashed out through a lot of debate and compromise. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: I'll agree with that. But the attempt at relying on quotes is coming off badly. And the lede should be more concise. But I do see all of your points! --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:I have serious misgivings about the lede, but not so much that it's bad as that it could be better. I am willing to offer my talk page as a place to sandbox a change, as I expect that those who want to change will try to work collaboratively to produce something and that those who don't will just leave those who do alone. Any takers? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:While we're at it, the shooting incident section needs work too. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
: Last suggestion. What if we put a little note at the beginning of the lede explaining that the shooting incident part is a matter of great contention and not a little mystery and that a more detailed explanation is to be had in the body of the article, then directly link to the Shooting Incident section. That way we can omit important points with less guilt that people won't know all of the things that we're omitting if they never scroll down. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Kevin (and others), can you go point by point and tell us what you object to and what you suggest changing it to? Please be specific, because discussing this in the abstract will only result in horrific walls of text.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Hi we edit conflicted, so my text below precedes reading your excellent proposal(s). --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 02:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Editathon ===
Editathon begun evening of 8/26 Ferguson time. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
====First Sentence ====
CAN WE AGREE OR WORK ON THIS PARAGRAPH?
On August 9, 2014, POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON FATALLY SHOT MICHAEL BROWN, in [[Ferguson, Missouri]], United States, a suburb of [[St. Louis]]. The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed AFRICAN AMERICAN, and the officer is white. Witness statements differ as to BROWN'S ACTIONS BEFORE the fatal shot was fired.

:I think the current version is better. Afro-American is not a word in common stylistic use. It's ''African American''.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Are there witnesses who have stated that Brown was a threat to Wilson when the fatal shot was fired? Again, we have one anonymous bystander who reportedly said Brown was "coming toward the police," but we can't interpret or conjecture to mean that Brown was a threat. Whether Wilson ''perceived'' there was a threat is an issue for the legal system. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: there is a tone that I don't like in the original paragraph and it might be better if it is actin oriented rather than indirect e.g., "The shooting of" OR "Brown was shot", or "Wilson shot Brown" IS MY CHANGE BETTER?
* Somebody has got to change that second sentence in the opening paragraph, it's horrendous.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I'd give it a shot if you could say exactly what is making it horrendous. And I guess we're moving forward rather than back at this point? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 04:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::For one thing, it's not an event, it's a shooting. Second, it starts off saying that ''The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed African American, the officer is white''. There are a number of things that have made this shooting controversial, and to start off saying it was a black/white thing is not NPOV.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 05:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::Actually it says, ''The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed African American, the officer is white, and the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear.'' I think if you had to encapsulate all of RS coverage into one concise sentence, it would read something like that. Race is a big part of what is being reported, and the rest of the controversy falls under ''the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear.'' No? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::No. I disagree. In the initial reporting, this was reported as a police brutality/questionable circumstances shooting. Dorian Johnson then went on TV and told the world that Wilson shot Brown at least once in the back and then he said that Brown put his hands up in the air and Wilson didn't care and still shot Brown. Another witness said "I saw the police chase him down the street and shoot him down." Those were the controversial statements and they've never said that there were any words, slurs, or any indication of a racial aspect to the shooting or the initial confrontation. There's no evidence that either Brown or Wilson had any racial animosity towards anyone that has ever been reported by RS. Why would we imply that Wilson may have shot Brown because of his race or that it played any part in his decisions that day; or imply that the race of Wilson factored into Brown's actions that day. Further down it says "The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson '''due to longstanding racial tensions'''.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Hmmm, we may be over my pay grade. All I can say is (1) I think the possibility of police brutality can fall under the deliberately vague ''the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear'', and (2) the rioting that occurred would not have happened like it did if Brown had been white, so race is implicit in the whole thing. I could probably find you an op-ed about the race aspect by Charles Blow of NYT, if I weren't so badly in need of sleep right now. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 06:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

==== TOPIC: Order to leave the street. ====
IS THIS ACCURATE?
Witnesses report that, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, then from the car, ordered them to move from the street to the sidewalk.
:Yes, but he said something like "get the fuck on the sidewalk." - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Yes, I believe it is. Dorian says that they were minding their own business doing nothing to anyone when the police told them to get the F___ on the sidewalk. Less publicized is a statement that Thomas Jackson made to Wolf Blitzer on the day after the shooting where he confirmed, without conveying the roughness that Dorian describes, that Wilson did begin the encounter by asking the two to move off of the street and onto the sidewalk. I don't think we've used that interview as a cite and it will be highly difficult to find it now. But without it, putting that statement in the lede or elsewhere is fact is messy, since the only confirmed source that we include in references is Dorian's statement. No other witness has claimed to have heard what was said in the initial interchange. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::Not highly difficult at all, unless the multiple hits from "thomas jackson wolf blitzer" are some other occurrence of Jackson talking to Blitzer. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Okay, it was difficult for me after a couple of days had gone by. Other SE experts results may vary. :-) [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 05:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

==== TOPIC: Altercation in or in proximity to the car. ====

HOW ABOUT THESE CHANGES (CAPS)?
Brown AND Wilson STRUGGLED through the open window of the police car.
:That seems fine to me.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:That works for me too. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Are we going to omit mention of the fact that Wilson attempted to exit the car before the altercation began? That fact is agreed to by both Dorian Johnson and Chief Belmar, the only two people who are speaking about this part of the interchange on the record? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:We are all aware, are we not, that neither Belmar, nor Jackson nor Josie has ever said anything about the struggle taking plact through the window. That comes to us only from Dorian and witnesses in the neighborhood, specifically, Mitchell, Crenshaw, and Brady, if memory serves. Belmar's contention and Josie's double-hearsay claim was that on attempting to exit the car, Brown body slammed him back into the car, assaulted him and went for his weapon. Belmar than states that the shot occurred IN the car, not from the car. And then there's the fact that no first shot is heard in the audio tape that has been given to the FBI (authentic or not). [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

==== TOPIC: First shot, fired, allegedly, in or from the car, and flight of Brown and Johnson. ====
IS THIS ACCURATE?
Wilson then shot Brown from within the vehicle, after which Brown and Johnson fled on foot.
:No. A shot was fired from within the vehicle. I don't think we know who fired the shot.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:No. I object to the phrase "a shot was fired FROM the vehicle." The audio tape is calling into question whether any shot was fired at all, (see National Review Online analysis). Dorian says that the shot was fired by Wilson while Wilson was still grasping Brown with a free hand. So his version is that it occurred "FROM" within the window. But the chief of Police gives a wildly different characterization to that shot, after prefacing it with everything he said about the supposed attempt by Brown to get the gun, thereby completely muddying the waters about who shot the first shot that he claims was shot IN the vehicle. Then there is Josie's hyperspecific contention that the gun was down around someone's (I'm guessing Wilson's) hip. Dorian said that he saw the fire come out of the muzzle, then saw blood coming from Michael in the brief instant before they both started running. In one of the accounts Dorian gave, he indicates where that occurred, a description which more or less lines up with one bullet wound in the autopsy, unless that wound was from that very meandering shot that when into Michael's head through his eye. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

==== TOPIC: Wilson gives chase. Wilson opens fire. Brown dies. ====
IS THIS ACCURATE?
Wilson pursued on foot, firing his pistol toward Brown. When Wilson XXXXXed Brown, he fired several more shots, killing him.
:No. The current version is accurate and doesn't rely on original research.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:"Overtook" implies that Wilson got within at least physical reaching distance of Brown, and it's not clear at this point that that occurred - we don't know the distance . "Confronted" literally means "to meet someone face-to-face with hostile intent," which is what happened - Wilson stood face-to-face with Brown with the "hostile" intent of subduing him, and fired the fatal shots. What provoked those fatal shots is the question at issue. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Well in the strictest sense overtook does imply that he caught up to him, but he would have had to have overtaken him in order to CONFRONT him by your definition, right? --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::We know from the autopsy that Wilson and Brown were face-to-face when the fatal shots are fired - we don't know from what distance they were fired, other than that it wasn't point-blank range. Several witnesses have stated they believe Brown was struck or grazed by a bullet, turned around to surrender and was then fatally shot. There are no witnesses who have stated that Brown and Wilson had physical contact after the altercation in the car. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Nix on "confronted" or "overtook." No witness has placed the two closer than 7 feet apart from each other. Most cluster toward the outside limit of 25 feet.
:Michael died at a distance from the car, not from the car window, of 35 feet. Throwing out the outlier, that would suggest that at the Officer Wilson traveled at most 10 to 15 feet toward Brown and that Brown made no headway back toward the vehicle at all, undermining the claim by Josie that he was running at Wilson full speed when he was shot. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::I would love to see your CSI creds for that supposition <g>. We can ''only'' use what reliable sources report. If Brown, hypothetically, ran at least 50 feet away from the car as Wilson was firing "shots which missed" (per Baden) then Brown would have had to move at least fifteen feet towards the car to end up 35 feet from the car. Which is at least as tenable as your posited claim. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::[This stated only in response to the dig from Collect, the guy I thought new better] My creds are that I attained mastery in Khan Academy's math app on the concept of two-digit subtraction. Exactly how I know at least one bullets went into Michael Brown while he was running away. Of course if you can identify one witness who has ever said that he ran away further than 35 feet, then I guess I'd refactor my analysis. I haven't seen anyone make such a statement. Not the police chiefs. Not Josie. Not the overheard "witness." Which is a problem for those who would have us believe that he was "running at full speed toward the officer when the first bullet to hit him was fired.
::Then there is this from the New York Times of August 19.
As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away.
The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone,
according to law enforcement officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=2
::I'm no expert. But it sure does seem to be more and more problematic for those who were so emphatic that this was open and shut against Brown from day one. MyPOV - [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 19:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

==== TOPIC: Brown's behavior once he stops running. ====

HOW ABOUT THESE CHANGES (CAPS)?
Testimony differs as to whether Brown was ACTING IN A submissive or aggressive MANNER when the final shots were fired.
:No. There aren't any witnesses who have publicly stated that Brown was acting in any sort of "aggressive manner" when the final shots were fired. The most we have is an anonymous witness on a video who said he was "coming toward the police." We can't offer our own interpretation or conjecture of what that might have meant. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:No. Relies on original research.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:No. I once again find myself concurring with MrX. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:No, and from the brief glimpse I saw of your version, you were implying that Brown was the aggressor in this whole thing, and that is a POV that is not reflected by the sources.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 02:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Not trying to push POV, but if the officer was in his car and Brown was on the street, how could the officer been the aggressor if the confrontation happened in the car? The prior version seems euphemistic --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::: How could? If the events occurred as Dorian claims. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Given that we don't have any idea what took place between the two people - one of those two people is dead and the other has not made a public statement - there's any number of possibilities. We can't assume anything. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 02:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I believe some eyewitnesses have stated that Wilson reached through the window and grabbed Brown around the neck. [add: that was Johnson who said that.] &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 02:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
: (ec) No. Concur as well. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:No, for basically all of the reasons stated by other editors. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Continuing Discussion ===
This portion of the discussion commenced on the evening of 8/26, Ferguson time. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
In think this good faith/bold attempt [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=622971736&oldid=622967751] is inferior to what we had before. It is not an improvement, as the main subject is a shooting in which a person was killed and that needs to go in the first sentence. There are other issues, for example it does not summarize the unrest in the aftermath of the shooting. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 03:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Thanks. Maybe we can fix those issues? --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi tried to interpret consensus and post to the article. I see that the text needs some tweaking and if we can clean it up I can put the citations back. Though I'm of the mind that the lede section does not need citations if the information is condensed from the body of the article. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 03:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

: (ec) OK with me to remove the citations from the lede ''at a certain point'', but not now, as new editors coming to edit the article may assume unsourced and start and round of unnecessary discussions. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:(ec) Kevin, if you're going to make changes based on consensus please make ONLY those changes that have consensus. There has been no discussion of most of the changes that you made in your last edit and I doubt that consensus exists at the moment for wholesale removal of parts of the lead that we've discussed at length and compromised on for the last two weeks. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Thanks. I think that there is consensus if you read through the discussion above, as each sentence was discussed. I put back much of the aftermath, but really most of that is off-topic. Can we work from there? --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 03:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It looks like the only thing that you have anything that even resembles consensus for is this: "Brown AND Wilson STRUGGLED through the open window of the police car." Other than that, numerous editors have (correctly, in my view) objected to your edits for numerous reasons. That does not mean that you reinstate entire swaths of your edit that you haven't discussed at all. It also does not mean deleting portions of the lead that you, singularly, have determined to be "off-topic" and expecting other editors to reinstate those parts (especially because, to a casual observer, that might be considered edit warring behavior on the part of those editors). Please revert your edit and gain consensus before editing the lead further. Thanks [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Why don't you try to work with a fresh idea. You can debate here endlessly and then argue for months over what is consensus and what is not. Please look at the old lede with fresh eyes. I came to this article looking for clarity after reading so much rhetoric elsewhere. Can you really say that what I found here this evening was purely objective. The only POV that I am pushing here is to get back to being objective - AKA encyclopedic. God I love this project and its potential. I wish you the very best. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the opening paragraph. The original version was much better and simply stated that a shooting occurred, the location and the participants. The way it reads now, it implies the controversy is solely based on one being African American and one being white. That's nowhere near the reality of the shooting.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 03:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::Perhaps this could be banged out in a sandbox somewhere to avoid playing ping pong with the article? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 03:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: (ec) Wise suggestion, Mandruss. {{yo|Kevin Murray}} you <s>are about to breach</s> you have breached [[WP:3RR]], and you don't want what happened to me early today (I was blocked, luckily my block was lifted after I committed not to edit the article for a week). - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If there is consensus on any changes today, I have made no edits to the article all day, so I'm willing to use one or two (maybe even three). [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 04:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::::Does such a sandbox have to be done within the Wikipedia, under the rules, or might some of us go to a superior collaboration tool, such as Google Docs and see what we can build consensus on there? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: We can use the wiki, the sandbox can be at [[Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Lede sandbox]] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I put back some of what I took out. I think that the last two paragraphs of the lede belong in the body. I don't dispute the facts, just the amount of detail in the lede and it seems a bit POV. I would boil out all the subjectivity. But I can see it is a struggle. I have enjoyed working with you all tonight. Best regards. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 03:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That was interesting. Elapsed time exactly 2:30. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 04:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I sure appreciate the spirit of improving the lede paragraph. I am concerned though that it is once again getting word-heavy, and less relevant details are creeping into the first paragraph and first sentence. For some reason I don't like an over emphasis on the number of shots fired. And if why "'''at least''' six shots" wounding Brown. '''At least''' seems like a weasel phrase used to embellish. At this point shouldn't it be clear how many times he was hit? And why is that important for the lede? Are we pushing POV in the lede or trying to effectively summarize? Best regards. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 12:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:No, it isn't clear how many times he was shot. Yet. And one man's POV-pushing is another man's attempt to summarize RS accurately and fairly, protecting the article's neutrality from other people's POV-pushing (not saying that's you necessarily). I've seen this same paradox in every controversial article I've been involved with. Both sides, in direct opposition, feel they are the righteous protectors of NPOV. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 12:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: I can see that my entry here was clumsy and I might be seen as pushing a POV, though maybe more accurately pushing an agenda of neutrality. However, I can see now that my first cut was flawed and may make me look biased (we all are). But it was erroneously trying to distill down what was there, and the mistakes were from misinterpretation of the ambiguities. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Since we really don't know how many shots hit Brown, maybe just leaving it at: "multiple times" is sufficient?--[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Well I don't know. If we know he was shot at least six times, doesn't it resemble POV-pushing to insist that we water that down to "multiple"? At least six is the more accurate way to say it, and requires very little additional space. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::"At least 6" is a term that is very well sourced and can be relied upon as demonstrably accurate, based on the work of Dr. Baden and his autopsy report. It is extremely important and should not be omitted from the lede, in my opinion. When the parents of Michael Brown came to know by means of the autopsy how many shots had hit Michael, they asked out loud why Wilson hadn't been charged -- this on the belief that six shots hitting their son was, even if one accepted the most extreme allegations of aggressive behavior on the part of their son towards their son, more shots than was necessary to save Officer Wilson from death or serious bodily harm. Analysts quoted in the International Business Times article yesterday go even further now, with the release of the audio that, if legitimate, show that he fired a rapid succession of three bullets, paused for three seconds, and then fired another four shots, two of which presumably hit the head, killing Brown outright. In another article on the same topic yesterday, another was quoted as saying that based on the evidence ''before'' the release of the audio that he believed that Wilson would eventually be exonerated. After haring the number of shots fired and the pause between the two fuillades, he is much less certain that Wilson won't be convicted. The Black residents of St. Louis that I have spoken to view the number of bullet wounds sustained as a very important detail to which they attach a great deal of importance as they press for "justice" in this matter. Obviously I have done no scientific polling. But Rasmussen and Pew have, and I think that the numbers are as strong as they are among the African American population in the United States because of the weight that said population attaches to the number of shots fired and the number of shots that actually struck Michael. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 13:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: Michael. I can see from this post that what you seek here may not be an encyclopedic article. I think that you are a very good writer and fair minded. But, the last sentence makes me think that you are too close to the issue and are fringing on original research. Maybe step back from the issue a bit. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Kevin, what difference does it make what my intent is? If I am fair-minded and my actions don't betray fairness, why the suggestion that I go away? And how are a so-called "desire for an encyclopedic article or the lack thereof" and "tendencies to original research" opposite sides of the same coin. Not impugning your good faith. Just calling into question the logic underlying your criticisms of me, which clearly call into question my good faith, but which to me make no sense. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::: No Michael, I mean metaphorically to "stand back". Not to leave. Try to look at it more dispassionately. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} {{yo|Kevin Murray}}, you have breached 3RR, and I would suggest you self revert to the previous consensus version. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

===Clumsy end to the sentence?===
EXISITING: ''Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with night curfews being imposed and '''escalating violence'''.''

PROPOSED: ''Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week with '''escalating violence'''. On August XX night curfews were imposed.'' --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:Um -- I read the grammar as being a parallel construction of "being" and "escalating" properly used. "Be" and "escalate" are both used here as verb forms and not as adjectives. Unless you want a different parallel construction which would be "with night curfews being imposed, and with violence escalating"? That would also be grammatically correct, but mixing the two constructions does not really seem important here. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: What does "UM" mean? sounds a bit snotty.--[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: it's not the grammar, it's the logic of where the comment comes at the end of the sentence and paragraph. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: It seems to be an implied reversal of the cause and effect. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::"Um" = "Erm" for the British. I had read the claim, and the claims in the sources, as stating that the curfews may, indeed, have been a cause of some escalation of the violence (as also being related to the "militarization" issue. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Thanks. It seems to hang out there as an afterthought. I don't care a whole bunch about it. If there is substantial documentation of a cause and effect, I'd consider clarifying. Personally, I find text that doesn't flow well interrupts the reading process. I think that the lede should entice further reading, not disrupt and distract. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 15:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: I am remind you again that you have breached 3RR and that you should self-revert. Ignoring these requests and acting here as if nothing has happened does not instill any confidence, and makes it hard to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::: The empirical evidence suggest that my actions represent consensus since many editors have embraced the changes and/or built upon that foundation. In fact vey little of my text remains, and there is no way to revert without overwriting their contributions. After carefully reviewing the Bold, Revert, Discuss flowchart, I did revert a couple of my edits last night to the previous text. However, other actions are well justified and clearly documented in the discussion above. Please don't make it personal, we are all working toward the same goal. BTW, I have not edited the article since I was accused of the 3RR violation, with the exception of self-reverting one paragraph. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 15:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::: The empirical evidence shows that other editors are waiting for you to restore the article to the previous consensus version, as they don't want to edit war. There is no consensus for this version, and that is obvious. This is not personal, it is the right thing to do. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: This is moot, since I cannot revert because I would be wiping-out much work by many others. But if you feel strongly, jump in and fix that which you feel is inappropriate. Be bold! --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: I can't because inadvertently made the same mistake you are making, got blocked, and now I am voluntarily not editing the article until next week. Do the right thing and avoid having to go through all that. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: Essentially I'm doing the same thing Cwobeel, I'm standing down from direct editing and just making suggestions to other editors. Frankly, I walked a very fine-line last night, and overreached on one edit where I removed much of a paragraph for a third time, without consensus. But I self-reverted that error. Otherwise, it would depend on the outlook of the Admin and how they interpret the 3RR. I don't like wiki-lawyering -- I look to results, and I am pleased with the results that we have. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have modified it to say "Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night [[curfew]]s being imposed." This is purely because I think the grammar sucked the previous way, and not because I am advocating a particular POV or emphasis. Im not sure the escalating violence wording is important, since that is mostly covered by vandalism and looting. I might suggest something like "Protests and social unrest; including instances of violence, vandalism, and looting; continued for more than a week, with night curfew's being imposed" - but I also like the phrasing I read elsewhere in some discussion here saying something like "both peaceful protests, and violent demonstrations" or something covers things adequately. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The current version last edited by Collect is the best compromise yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown] --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

===Topic creep in the lede===
Is the statement: ''"Widespread media coverage examined the post 9/11 trend of local police departments arming themselves with military-grade weapons when dealing with protests"'' necessary in the lede section? (1) I think that it is off point to the topic, but perhaps an interesting aside in the body of the article (2) "widespread" is an undefined weasely word (3) Military-grade is a silly term which is I think used here to inflame opinion. (4) the phrase "arming themselves" conjures up imagery of contravening democratic processes, which suggests facts not in evidence (5) This somehow implies wrong doing on the part of the Police Department. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 13:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:I find it to be unrelated to this page. (but related to the unrest article.) I've deleted it. - A Canadian Toker ([[User talk:ACanadianToker|talk]]) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:I disagree. The use of heavily-armed SWAT teams, armored vehicles, tear gas, etc. has been a very major theme in the reporting of this shooting. Entire prime time news segments have been dedicated to covering it. Although there is a spinoff article, the aftermath is still an essential part of ''this'' article. Without an aftermath, this become another non-notable shooting of an young African American male by a police officer, which is by no mean a rare event in the US.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:: X, I think you make the point very well, that this is less notable when you subtract the hyperbole, but we aren't journalists trying to "sell" a story -- this is an encyclopedia. I don't dispute inclusion of the facts in the body of the article, but why in the lede? --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::: I think the removal does not affect the notability of this incident. That being said if other editors disagree perhaps moving that sentence to the aftermath section would be a good compromise? (It needs to be expanded anyway) - A Canadian Toker ([[User talk:ACanadianToker|talk]]) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::*There's no hyperbole. The President of the United States and the US Attorney General have both publicly condemned it. The media has dedicated entire prime time blocks to covering it. It is indisputably one the most important aspects of this event, for example compared to "Wilson had served four years with the Ferguson Police Department after two years with another local police department". This was not simply a shooting and few protests. It has become a central topic in a nationwide dialog.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: I support the inclusion in the aftermath section. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 14:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of that sentence from the lead. The police response to the social unrest was just as notable as the unrest itself. It needs to stay. And there was "widespread" media coverage of that aspect, and it should be noted in the lead.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::One would have to have never once perused the unbelievable amount of negative data served up by protesters innumerable and -- even several embedded journalist -- to not, even in one's most dispassionate moments, comprehend how shocking the deployment of Afghan/Iraq surplus weaponry on the mostly unarmed protesters and those who covered them was. I watched it on TV on local news every night. Picked up the live feed from argusradio. Read the tweets. Watched the vine videos. I didn't just wait for a reliable source to tell me about it in a 24-word paragraph the next day. If you had seen a fraction of what I saw done by the police, you would, I like to believe, be fair enough to agree that 50 years from now, Ferguson will be seen as the event that either put an end to this in the bud, or which was the first of many such deployments with equally regrettable results. I say think encyclopedic and just say that's it a big freaking deal -- now -- and in the section people who just want to know about the big-freaking-deal components of the story will see it. My two-cent POV. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}[[WP:NOTNEWS]] What you are talking about is noble and good. But its not wikipedia. We require more vetting and filtering in general. Its just too easy to manipulate the information with out these restrictions. Sometimes thats good. Sometimes its bad. Write a book about the incident. Write an oped/blog. Find the [[WP:RS]] that back your points and get them included here.
See [[Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat#Wikipedia.27s_role_as_a_reference_work]] in particular
<blockquote>If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing. </blockquote>[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

===Good compromises===
I think the lede is pretty darn good. Of course there will always be style issues. My advice is to really think about what you put in the lead and think about why. Since many readers of this article will be experiencing WP for the first time, try to move controversial and potentially inflammatory wording, sub-topics, etc. into the body. Please think about what is best for the credibility of the WP project first, and your opinion second. Best regards! Kevin --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 15:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:[[WP:LEAD]] instructs us to include prominent controversies in the lead, rather than ignore the controversy and move it elsewhere. We should make the notable aspects of this shooting, including controversies covered by RS easily accessible for the reader to find in the lead.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::Strongly concur, Isaidnoway, and thanks for grabbing that policy cite. Further the information should be presented with proper deference to [[WP:WEIGHT]] -- and extraordinary deference, because of the importance of this story, should be afforded to [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]. Again, we're not talking about whether cold fusion did or didn't every produce surplus energy. We're talking about whether a young unarmed man did or didn't deserve to die in a hail of bullets. There is no compromise answer to that question. We shouldn't pretend that one is plausible, just to acquiesce to a rule which might make no sense in this current context. More than in any story in some time, the eyes of the world are upon us. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Michael-Ridgway - YES! proper deference to [[WP:WEIGHT]] is so important! --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::Isaidnoway, I didn't suggest removing the "prominent controversies" from the Lede. ''I referred to: "controversial and inflammatory wording, sub-topics..."'' --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::You did suggest moving a prominent controversy from the lead - The actions of the police and the decisions they made in response to the protesting and rioting and looting. This was widely covered and reported on and your suggestion was to remove it because it implied wrongdoing on the part of the police - which is the controversy being reported.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but can anyone tell me how the current version is superior to the previous consensus version? - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

; Previous version 8-26-14 PM
:The '''shooting of Michael Brown''' occurred on August 9, 2014, in [[Ferguson, Missouri]], United States, a suburb of [[St. Louis]]. Michael Brown Jr., an unarmed 18-year-old black male, died after being shot at least six times by [[Ferguson Police Department (Missouri)|Ferguson police]] officer Darren Wilson, who is white.

:According to witness reports and Ferguson police, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. An altercation then took place between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A shot was fired from within the vehicle and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson left his vehicle, fired his pistol at Brown and confronted him. Wilson then fired several shots at Brown, fatally wounding him. Witness reports greatly differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when Wilson shot him multiple times.

:Brown had no criminal record. Wilson had served four years with the Ferguson Police Department after two years with another local police department. He has no disciplinary history.

: The shooting sparked [[2014 Ferguson unrest|unrest in Ferguson]] due to longstanding racial tensions in one of the most segregated metropolitan areas in the United States. Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with night [[curfew]]s being imposed and escalating violence. Widespread media coverage examined the post [[September 11 attacks|9/11]] trend of local police departments arming themselves with military-grade weapons when dealing with protests.

:The [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI) opened a [[civil rights]] investigation of the shooting. President [[Barack Obama]] issued a statement expressing condolences to Brown's family and committed the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]] to conduct an investigation. The shooting is under investigation by a [[Grand juries in the United States|grand jury]].


;Current version

:The '''shooting of Michael Brown''' happened on August 9, 2014, in [[Ferguson, Missouri]], United States, a suburb of [[St. Louis]], when an unarmed 18-year-old black male died after being shot by a white [[Ferguson Police Department (Missouri)|Ferguson police]] officer, Darren Wilson. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are disputed. Witness statements differ as to Brown’s and Wilson's actions before the fatal shot was fired.

:Some witnesses report that Wilson drove up to Brown and Dorian Johnson, and, from inside the vehicle, ordered them to move from the street to the sidewalk. There was a struggle through the open window of the police car. A shot was fired from within the vehicle, and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson pursued on foot, firing shots at Brown. Witness reports differ as to the circumstances surrounding the fatal shot.

:Brown had no criminal record.Wilson had served four years with the Ferguson Police Department after two years with another local police department. He has no disciplinary history.

:The shooting sparked [[2014 Ferguson unrest|unrest in Ferguson]] due to racial tensions in the St. Louis area.Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night [[curfew]]s being imposed.

:The [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI) opened a [[civil rights]] investigation of the shooting. President [[Barack Obama]] issued a statement expressing condolences to Brown's family and committed the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Department of Justice]] to conduct an investigation.The shooting is under investigation by a [[Grand juries in the United States|grand jury]].

::Short answer: it isn't. '''Support''' reinstating the original version. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::It's not, for reasons that I've already given, I '''support''' restoring the '''original''' consensus version.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::: I feel that it is disingenuous to claim that any single point in time is a "Consensus Version." At any one point the visible version typically represents the current consensus. Was there a broad-based vote, poll, or any other demonstrable measure of consensus?
:: While I prefer some of the individual paragraphs and sentences of prior iterations this morning. I feel that what is published now is the best overall Lede. The tenor seems more neutral and precise. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::I '''support''' restoring the sentence about the police and the way they initially responded, it's notable, controversial and was widely reported on and it should have never been removed in the first place.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: '''Restore to previous consensus version'''. This version is flawed, it arrived at this stage only by force of reverts, and it is by no means an improvement. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: '''Restore to previous consensus version'''. I fully agree with Cwobeel. I have more been watching this discussion than participating in it, but... The previous version had additional information, and... Overall, it was just better. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 19:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This was just added to the Lede: "''in part due to racial tensions '''between the majority-black community and the majority-white city government and police'''."'' While I find it interesting, the Lede should be summarizing from the body of the article, and I don't see this discussed elsewhere. It still seems superior than the earlier vague statement on racial tension. I would support moving the entire comment to the body with greater discussion there, but prefer it be specific if it is to be in the Lede. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 20:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

: Just restore the previous consensus version already. See above for obvious consensus. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:The ''fact'' that race is a significant part of the controversy around the shooting absolutely belongs in the lede. To pretend that the fact that Ferguson is a majority-black community where only 3 out of 53 police officers are black isn't part of the story here is simply sticking one's head in the sand. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think too much time has passed for "restore" - its too disruptive. If there are particular sentences or paragraphs you prefer from the old version. be [[WP:BOLD]] and swap them in, but don't nuke all changes that have happened since then (even if you restrict the nuking to the lede, its still disruptive imo). [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I was bold, swapped one paragraph, and restored a sentence. I believe the quality has gone up somewhat, though some of the sources might also need to be restored; I am not really sure how to do this. I would still be all for restoring the previous version. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 20:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that Icarosaurvus is one of the single-purpose-editors who joined WP since the Michael Brown tragedy, and has only focused on this article. There seems to be a common purpose to sensationalize here among a group of editors who are either new or who seem to follow controversial topics. To what purpose I wonder? --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:An ''ad hominem'' attack, now, and an assumption that I am not editing in good faith? If you will look, I have made hardly any edits to this article, and the majority of my edits on others have been grammar and wording fixes. This is because I am, at present, attempting to learn how things are done here. However, I do believe that personal attacks are ''not'' how things are meant to be done, and I would thank you to refrain from them. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::It's not a personal attack. See: [[WP:SPA]] It is a legitimate concern on controversial topics, that WP be protected from violations of its core principal that WP not become a soapbox for political and other rhetoric. I've been working on WP for 8 years with over 13,000 edits and demonstrable commitment to project as a whole. I won't stand by to see the projected subverted for the gain of a transient faction attracted to controversy. While your intent may be pure, your actions are suspicious. You just reverted half a day's work by many people, without the experience to make that choice. Don't sling ad hominem crap at me. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Several people suggested restoring sections of the lede. I was simply the one to do so. Someone suggested that someone else be bold, so I was bold. I have little opinion on this matter; It was simply an article with an active talk page, one which was in the news, in my primary spoken language (Therefore generating new reliable sources which I could then relay to the talk pages, if no one else had found or cited them first), and thus seemed ideal to work on. I, too, have great respect for Wikipedia, and have been editing for many years - As an IP, solely fixing grammar edits. If you wished to express concern over my intentions, there were better, more polite ways to suggest to a new editor that you were afraid that they might have biases. For example, linking the policy in question. Perhaps both of us should take some time, calm ourselves, and let the other editors sort the matter out for a bit. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: I'm glad that you could find an article in your "primary spoken language" here at English Wikipedia ;-) You are certainly welcome here, but be mindful that broader involvement will get you more respect and a greater understanding. I do apologize as my comment was insensitive in the delivery, and you a right that I could have been more tactful.--[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 21:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
::::: I actually meant that the majority of the coverage was in English, rather than the article itself. My initial thought was to work on the Donbass War, or the Ukrainian Unrest pages. However, a great deal of the evolving coverage is in Russian or Ukranian, languages I do not speak. This was simply a well-covered presently developing topic. I thought it would be easier to work on this, than try to find good sources for something which occurred some time ago, as new coverage from reliable sources, such as CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and others is continually being produced. Thank you very much for your apology; it is greatly appreciated. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 22:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::: No worries, after a while in life and in any project you get thick skinned and grumpy. The article is fine and I'm sure it will evolve well. I'm just ultra sensitive about criticism of the WP project not being a reliable source of information. We all come here for a purpose. I came to WP years ago to write about sailboats, and got beat up by policy wonks who thought I was trying to sell boats on WP. But they were protecting WP from crass commercialism, and my articles were the victims of knee-jerk zealots. So I went to fight hard to change policy at the policy pages, and learned to play hard to win, but WP is a better environment for writers rights. Be bold, but please think of the project and what is best for the long term. Learn what it means to be an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid -- the language is different. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:The specific policy I am referencing is the policy that one should [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|"Assume good faith"]]. When you came wishing to change a work which was the result of much discussion, despite the majority of editors seeming somewhat displeased with this, I assumed that you simply wished to improve the article, as I believe many others did. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy that has been shown to you. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::I think if there's a SPA here, there is enough experience already present to (1) recognize it, and (2) deal with it. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Well there are several if you review the contributions etc. Whether they are problematic is a question, but SPA nonetheless. Of equal concern is a potential cabal of editors that just follow and might potentially dominate controversial current-event topics. Frankly WP would be well served to ban current events. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 23:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::: I don't know what you mean by ban current events. If you mean delay the article until the media have moved on, that's something I wish we'd do anyway. There are a ton of problems that would vanish if we stopped trying to give almost-up-to-the-minute summaries of developing news stories. It's absurd to start an article about a airliner crash less than 30 minutes after the story breaks. But, if this cabal exists, delaying the article won't correct that problem. If you mean that articles should never be written about stories like this one, well, everything in history was initially a current event. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: I mean exactly what you have more clearly described. A cool down period as you suggest. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 23:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::: Right, and the event will still be controversial after the cool-down (albeit less emotionally-charged in many cases), and this hypothetical cabal will still potentially dominate it. We should impose NOTFORUM before someone else does it for us. Feel free to continue on my talk page if you like. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::::: There is exuberant passion in many historical topics. I used to work on article clean up and dispute resolution. Religion, entertainment, sports, and airplanes can all be volatile. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 23:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== Reactions ==

Should we include this info? Source: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734860/Ex-Marine-left-brain-injury-pal-told-Waffle-House-wasn-t-safe-following-Ferguson-case-attacked-mob-20-people-parking-lot.html Man, 32, is left with brain damage after 'being attacked by gang of 20 black men' in parking lot after being told Waffle House 'wasn't safe for white people after Ferguson']. Maybe under the "Reactions" section? Thoughts? [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 04:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:After seeing the source, I didn't need to read any further. Wait for more RS. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 04:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:: Thanks. But, that's sort of the point. Mainstream media and RS's won't report this. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:: How is this source? [http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/mississippi_man_beaten_after_h.html Mississippi man beaten after he's warned restaurant wasn't safe for whites, witness says]. And this? [http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/08/mississippi_restaurant_beating.html#incart_related_stories Mississippi restaurant beating: FBI joins probe into whether attack on white man was hate crime]. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::Sorry, you got the wrong guy. I believe in mainstream media. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::: I don't understand your comment. Please clarify? Thanks. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 11:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|that's sort of the point. Mainstream media and RS's won't report this.}} I took that to mean that you were part of the anti-MSM crowd and were looking to use WP as a platform for "the real truth that MSM won't tell you". I was severely short on sleep and my judgment was impaired. Sorry. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 12:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::: OK, gotcha. Yes, you had misinterpreted my comment. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:(ec) I have some serious concerns about its relevance to this article, given that this is so tenuously connected to the Brown shooting and is done so only by one victim's statement that someone warned them that it wasn't safe after Ferguson. We have no idea from this article if the people who allegedly beat the two victims were motivated by the Brown shooting or by some other disagreement. Especially as police are describing it as follows in [http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2014/08/25/witness-beaten-man-told-restaurant-safe-whites/14575453/ this RS account]: "thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt." Conversely, we know exactly the motivations of the actors contained in the "Reactions" section, because they are explicitly stating those motivations. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 04:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:: How is it "tenuous" if it explicitly states its connection to the Michael Brown shooting incident? [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::It's tenuous because we don't know if the beating was in fact a reaction to the Brown shooting, and we cannot tell that from any of the sources that report this. So it would be problematic to list it as a reaction when we don't know that it is a reaction, because that would be OR/SYNTH. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::::: What do you mean: "we don't know"? Isn't that exactly what the source is claiming? [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::It is not in fact what the source is claiming. Nowhere do the sources state or imply that the beating was a reaction to the Brown shooting. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::::::: This is the headline: ''Man, 32, is left with brain damage after "being attacked by gang of 20 black men" in parking lot after being told Waffle House "wasn't safe for white people after Ferguson"''. That does not imply the Brown shooting? What do you think the word "Ferguson" is referring to? What do you make of that reference? Please advise. Thanks. 03:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I see you've gone back to the Daily Mail article, which we've already suggested is suspect. Read the RS articles. There is zero connection made between the statement about Ferguson and the motivation of the "gang of 20 black men" in the actual content of any of the articles, even if the headline of the potentially-non-RS Daily Mail article implies a connection. I will agree that the Daily Mail article's text also suggests a connection, but even it hedges considerably: "potentially as retaliation for Michael Brown's killing." In any event, I think I've made my case for non-inclusion both above and below with specific reference to the text of the articles. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

::::If I may so state, this is a worry to at least some of of us who are white in the St. Louis area. Some of that some of us is old enough to remember Reginald Denny. Reginald Denny's experience was notable. But what if there had been no video? Would we have believed him when he told us of statements made while he was being attacked. And now to make my point, would Wikipedia have written about him without such confirmation? Honor killings of people who had no direct involvement in the thing that angers you are common in many cultures the world over. Are we Americans really an exception to this rule? If this doesn't turn out to be some kind of hoax, I believe it should be reported, if for no other reason than to note its unusualness should no other such event ever be reported. (See also...) Similar claims were made after the death of Trayvon Martin. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::::: I agree. It should be included here. It is a clear reaction that "flowed from" the Brown incident. I didn't check the LA Riots article, but I suspect that it does indeed mention Reginald Denny. Yes? [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 11:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I would object to including this content in this article because it is tangential to the shooting, very small in scale, and lacks coverage in mainstream media. I also agree with Dyrnych's more detailed reasoning. The Reginald Denny incident was a subject covered by major news sources for several days.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 12:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::: I agree with Dyrnych and MrX. This article should be kept to the pertinent facts. Perhaps at a later date, with the objectivity of distance more could be added to gain perspective. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 12:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::::: LOL. The "Associated Press" is not mainstream media? Really? Since when? And - again - how is it "tenuous" or "tangential" if it explicitly states its connection to the Michael Brown shooting incident? Why don't we honestly say what our ulterior motives are, please? Thanks. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 13:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::[[WP:AGF]] &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 13:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::: Who says that I am not assuming good faith? My questions are quite valid. I think people (some people, that is) pick and choose what they will advocate is reliable versus unreliable; what they will advocate is relevant versus tangential; etc. And some editors on this page have a clear bias as to what info should be included and what should be excluded. Some editors are only trying to present "facts" that serve in a better light for one party, or the other. And the more typical bias is to include info that is "pro" Mike Brown and puts him in the best light. And to exclude info that puts Brown (and his supporters – for example, the rioters) in any bad light. I believe that the same goes here. A group of 20 Black guys support Mike Brown and his cause. They show their support by beating a white guy until he has brain damage and is in a coma. They state that "this is payback for Mike Brown". That is not relevant to this article? LOL. How laughable. Granted, I know that it is not politically correct to report such instances. But, don't insult my intelligence with the position that the Associated Press is not reliable and/or that this event is tangential to the article. Oh, please. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::::::::*The AP is owned by its contributing newspapers, radio, and television stations in the United States, all of which contribute stories to the AP.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 13:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}The Daily Mail is a fairly suspect source, but the incident's been covered in numerous reliable sources so I don't have an issue with the sourcing. I DO have an issue with this line of reasoning: "A group of 20 Black guys support Mike Brown and his cause. They show their support by beating a white guy until he has brain damage and is in a coma. They state that 'this is payback for Mike Brown'." That is completely unsupported by the source. We have no idea what motivated the "group of 20 Black guys" other than a possible verbal altercation, the subject of which we don't know. We have no statement whatsoever from anyone in the group regarding payback or anything else. The closest thing that we DO have is one of the victims stating that "I do remember racial slurs being yelled from the crowd," but that doesn't tell us anything at all about a connection to the Brown shooting. Literally the only piece of connecting information is the statement by one victim that a person--entirely unrelated to the group, as far as we know--warned them that it "wasn't safe for whites after Ferguson." It is not reasonable to extrapolate '''from that statement alone''' that the group was motivated by the Mike Brown shooting. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:: I was paraphrasing. I assumed that was obvious. I was encapsulating the gist of the matter into a few brief words/sentences. Also, in one source or another, I thought it was explicitly tied to Brown and/or Ferguson. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 17:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

::::::::The deaths of dozens of others in the LA Riots were not covered extensively by the news media. The most likely explanation for that is the lack of video footage, in my opinion. But if sufficient well-sourced evidence of a tie between Rodney King verdict and those murders was available, it should have been included, even if general awareness of the facts of these murders might have served to strain race relations in the aftermath of those riots. To selectively overlook relevant, notable, and demonstrable acts of criminal behavior is to drop the ball ethically as an encyclopedic resource. It is for this reason that I object to the negligible coverage that Wikipedia editors have so far afforded to the killing of Kajieme Powell in St. Louis, now more than one week ago. The video evidence of false reporting by the St. Louis City Chief of Police is incontrovertible, and the matter is widely known and discussed here among the Black population and was reported on by many reliable sources. Yet only one sentence in all of Wikipedia even touches on the gross exaggeration by the police of the actual danger posed by Powell precedent to his being mowed down in a hail of, according to police, 12 bullets fired by two white policeman from a distance which makes acceptance of the police insinuation that the killing was necessary to save life all but impossible. [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 13:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Kajime Powell was armed, and well within the [[21 Foot Rule]] (although the cops did have their guns drawn which changes things a bit). Im somewhat surprised he wasn't shot further away. Theres plenty of things we may need to deal with as a society, and training cops to shoot at knees or something is perhaps a discussion we (as a country) should have - but that particular incident was well within expected norms nationwide and has very little to do with racism or the other issues involved in the Brown case. Powell may have been reacting in grief/anger/outrage, but other than temporal proximity we have no evidence to that - he equally well could have been just mentally ill. Maybe he was being a martyr/suicide. Maybe he was bluffing to make a point with the cops.. Nobody knows, but its clear that Powell intended to provoke the scenario. For more on the 21 foot rule see this article, which specifically discusses the situation of cops already having guns drawn [http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged-Weapon-Defense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/] [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed. The Powell shooting has some common elements with the Brown shooting, but we can't in any sense say that it was CONNECTED to the Brown shooting simply by virtue of those elements. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::... except, of course, if reliable sources pepper the planet with such analysis, right, at which point we could, (and should?), 'in any sense' acknowledge that comparisons '''are''' being drawn in the matter of police forthrightness in cases in the St. Louis metropolitan area, where police are often white and those they often shoot are black, when citizens are killed by the police in situations where African-American bystanders vociferously opine that the actions by the police was unwarranted, unnecessary, and even, in some cases, unjustified. (This kind of on-the-street reaction was captured thanks to audio/video recordings of the responses of the bystanders who either witnessed the event or who were told about it moments after coming out of their apartments to know what the commotion was about.) There is the plausible connection between the St. Louis chief of police's incontrovertible inaccuracy (trying to be dispassionate) (as reported by reliable sources) wherein he exaggerated the description of Powell's actions, so as to create a pretense of justifiability for the decision by the police to open fire on Powell no fewer than 9 times. (The police state that 12 shots were fired.) The suspicion by many in the African American community (as well as by not a few members of other ethnic groupings) that the police have not been forthcoming in this matter is perfectly inflamed by the side-by-side videos of Chief Dotson's news conference where he ''told'' the public what happened and the video of the event that police subsequently released which ''showed'' the public what happened. This is not my analysis. This is the analysis by many reliable sources. I can provide cites if pressed. I present this argument in support of an appeal to either add information to this article about the controversies raised in the Powell shooting and/or to lobby for the creation of a standalone article titled "The Shooting of Kajieme Powell." [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== New York Times quote of police source admitting shots were fired as Brown and Johnson ran away ==
As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away.
The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone,
according to law enforcement officials.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=2
[[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:<s>My personal observation, not intended for inclusion in the article, but rather to keep us grounded on [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]: The audio of the gunfire doesn't contradict the police statement that shots were fired. It does, however, if you do the math, contradict the claim that none of the bullets hit Brown. Depending on whether Brown was shot at close range during the altercation at the car window, Brown was hit either once or twice while running away. Certainly, I don't have to go further in pointing out how damaging this, if true, would be for Darren Wilson.</s> [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::That is quite a leap of logic. As noted -- if the initial shots were not "aimed" at Brown, then the fact that no shots appear to have hit Brown at that point would seem a "d'oh moment." And the "admitting" is useless - I saw no one deny that more than 6 total shots could have been fired - Baden only said 6 hit Brown. But neither you nor I are "reliable sources" for articles. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Collect, what is your RS basis for a claim that the initial shots were not aimed at Brown> If not aimed at Brown, aimed at whom? I have never seen a single statement to suggest that Wilson ever aimed his weapon at anyone other than Mike Brown at any point in the encounter. Multiple witnesses have spoke of shots being fired at Brown as he ran. I would not accuse you of a leap in logic. I would, however, ask for any RS support for a denial of the postulate "all shots fired by Wilson after Brown began to run were fired at Brown." [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::Please stop (and please don't start again later) using this article talk page as forum. We do not allow original research. This is not the place to post personal theories and it's not a place to post breaking news updates. Every time something like this is posted, it makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us to collaborate on actual edits that can improve the article. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::People of good will and reliable conscience might aptly ask, as I do: Is it fair to the Michael Brown side of this controversy for Wikipedia editors to withhold from our readers an admission by the police reported by the New York Times that Wilson fired shots BEFORE Brown turned around at a [pick any two-digit number]-foot distance from Wilson? The fact that that is what I am trying to build consensus for seems lost on both you and Collect. I am sorry for my maladroitness and for my lack of clarity. Is not the biggest controversy in this matter whether the shooting was necessary and/or justified? And does not such an admission by the police go directly to that question? How can we in good conscience withhold such a crucial admission from the police when the source is as notable and reliable as the New York Times and when we have already used said article ''for days'' as a primary support for a very controversial statement made right in the lede -- that the witness accounts varied wildly? (So much for the irresponsible insinuation that this citation represents an irresponsible attempt to insinuate "breaking news" into our discussion). My question is rhetorical, stated both in defense of my good-faith actions and in hopes of finding support for the inclusion of this admission in prominent position in both the shooting incident section and the lede. I'e lost such bids before. I'll get over it if I lose again. But my view of fairness demands that I try. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Well now I'm confused, I brought up this exact same point in an earlier section: [[Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#New_law_enforcement_official_confirmations.2C_to_be_added_to_Police_account|link]] and the consensus opinion from others (including you!) was that it wouldn't be included in the article because the law enforcement sources cited were anonymous. Anyway, to the broader point, again, I believe that this article should mention that law enforcement officals admitted that Wilson fired shots before Brown turned around. It's significant. It's the topic of a lot of debate. And this information is from a reliable source (NYTimes) that we can trust in turn, to have verified their sources - even though yes, those sources are anonymous. [[User:Saeranv|Saeranv]] ([[User talk:Saeranv|talk]]) 00:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::I think you got me, Saeranv. This is harder than it looks at first glance. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 04:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to hold my comments on how we should handle the audio tape until someone boldly makes mention of it in the article, lest I be accused of original research or dabbling in broken news. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]])

== Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Shooting of Michael Brown|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

August is misspelled as "Augsut 14"

<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/68.13.43.2|68.13.43.2]] ([[User talk:68.13.43.2|talk]]) 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} - {{thanks}} - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

== which version is better for the lead (noting the coverage in the body is not in dispute) ==

''The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis,''' in part due to racial tensions between the majority-black community and the majority-white city government and police'''.[4][5] Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued[6] for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.[7][8]'' (disputed wording bolded)

Or

''The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis.[4] Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued[5] for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.[6][7]''


The edit summary for the longer version reads ''The issue of racial tensions absolutely belongs in the lede - it's a widely-commented-upon part of the story and to ignore it does our readers a disservice''


The problem is that we need a concise ''summary form'' for the lead, and the added verbiage ads nothing to the lead. The issue is not about mentioning race, but whether that bit of editorializing in needed in the lead and not just in the body of the article. I would note the topic is fully covered at length in subarticles. Thanks. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:This is being actively discussed at [[Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Good_compromises]]. Why to start another thread? - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:It's not "editorializing" to mention, as a wide variety of reliable sources do, that race is a '''huge''' part of the controversy around the shooting. The added verbiage '''absolutely adds something to the lede,''' because otherwise the lede mentions nothing about the racial tensions in the community that unquestionably contributed to the community's response. What you are saying amounts to "we should have a story about a white cop killing a black man but not discuss the fact that racial tensions and perceptions of bias are a major part of the controversy." ''Why'' are a lot of people in the community very angry? '''Because they don't trust anything the police say happened.''' ''Why'' doesn't a large percentage of the community trust the police's claims? '''Because the police department is totally unrepresentative of the community's racial diversity, there's a perceived history of racial profiling and an obviously-adversarial relationship exists within the community.''' So when a white cop kills a black man in Ferguson and claims he was a threat... nobody in the community believes that white cop. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Quality before conciseness. Race has played an important role, and was largely related to the unrest. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::The lead already makes the race issue pretty clear - as does the article. The question is about one sentence in the lead. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::We say "the shooting sparked unrest" and if we don't follow that up with a mention of the racial issues, then the reader is left without context as to why the shooting sparked unrest. Why, ''in particular,'' has the shooting of a black man by a white police officer ''in Ferguson'' inflamed such an outburst of community anger? [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 21:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::We can trust readers not to be Homer Simpson when the first section of the lead reads ''The shooting of Michael Brown happened on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, when the unarmed 18-year-old '''black''' male died after being shot by a '''white''' Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are disputed and have caused significant controversy nationwide.'' where we use "black" and "white" right off the bat. OTOH, if one does not think that is a "d'oh" moment, Ido not know what else to say. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::So you're saying that we should ''obliquely suggest'' that pre-existing racial tensions in the community played a significant part in the community response to the shooting, but not ''explicitly state it''? That makes no sense whatsoever. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: <s>Collect, see [[WP:DUCK]] - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 21:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)</s>
::::::I suggest you read AGF and NPA -- your insinuation that I am running a sock puppet or the like is abhorrent (noting that is the chief use of that essay). If you wish to accuse me of sock puppetry, '''FILE AN SPI REPORT'''. If not - then redact your damn post. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'm also confused by the duck reference. Who exactly do you think he is a sock of? [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 21:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I think we should also AGF of Cwobeel's reference to refer to the disputed content, not any person - the way I read it, he is suggesting that the racial issue here looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, therefore we should call it a duck. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Call it a duck, Collect. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}Ah, that is a reasonable interpretation. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Perhaps he meant to cite [[WP:BLUE]]? <small>Don't worry Collect, I'm not calling you blue :)</small> - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 22:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

====Sandboxing an idea====
I suppose that I've really pissed-off a few folks here. Sorry to cause distress, but gots to break a few eggs to make an omlette ;-) So you can tell me that I'm an insensitive hypocrite and blunder about stepping on toes like a wild bull in china shop. Well, you'd be right, and this would be no new news. I stipulate to this all in advance.

So I took some time off, thought about what was bugging me here, and took suggestions to try a sandbox. '''This is not meant to replace your lede, just show an example''' of a more complete story and trying really hard to use neutral language. I'll bet a lot of you are too close this article and topic coverage to see the subtly of bias in the current words and wording. I am not advocating that you use this, just consider the approach.

This is a bit radical, and different from how I would normally structure a lede, but this is a special circumstance. I tried to work-in every concept that people seem to want to include, but try also to get a balance on the emphasis. I think that there are some key issues missing in the current lede, that hamper credibility and leave the reader open to misinterpretation. Frankly, I got a totally different impression form my first read, then what many of you have told me that you are trying to say.

Among my concerns in the lede have been:
* lack of precision and ambiguity
* A subtle sensationalism and anti establishment bias
* The use of jingoistic media-typical adjectives and verbs (unencyclopedic)
* Despite my preference for short leading sections, I think that efforts to be brief are leaving me with a feeling of cover-up and euphemism in the lede. And I don't think it is intentional, just the result of trying to be brief and neutral, but vague.
* There are certain words and frequency of use of words, terms, and concepts which serve to prejudice the article, by the weight they are given by placement and emphasis.
* I think that forcing the first sentence into a backward, syntax to accommodate a MOS guideline of including the title in the first sentence is silly with this title. It's not a rule, and in my mind it's rarely a preferred practice.
* I also think that saying this in the US in the first sentence is wasted space, and makes the sentence clumsy. I know we do that at WP, but try being bold and reject a flawed practice.

NOTE: There may be a few "facts" that may be wrong or need to be verified, but I included a few that could be pertinent if appropriate.

SAMPLE NEUTRAL APPROACH:

On August 9, 2014, in [[Ferguson, Missouri]], a suburb of St Louis, an experienced white police officer killed Michael Brown, a black teenager. The circumstances surrounding the death of the unarmed 18 year old, are disputed, controversial, and have received national recognition by the media, politicians, and interest groups.

According to witnesses and official reports, Officer Darren Wilson, 28, who was driving alone, drove up to two black males walking in the street, blocked them with his car, then ordered Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson to move from the street to the sidewalk. It is unclear how this started, but a struggle ensued between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A pistol was fired in the vehicle and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson pursued on foot while firing his pistol several times, after which Brown stopped running. Wilson then shot Brown several more times, killing him. Witness reports differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when he was killed.

Brown, had recently graduated from high school, was enrolled for college in the fall, and had no criminal record. Wilson has been a policeman for six years, has a family, and has no record of disciplinary action.

Concerns have been expressed over whether Brown should have been shot at least six times, whether Brown had surrendered prior to being killed, and whether Brown represented a threat to Officer Wilson when he was killed. The media has also questioned whether local police departments should use military-style weapons when dealing with unrest. The police have been accused of insensitivity in handling the crime scene and street-memorials. In the aftermath, these issues became a catalyst for unrest and increased friction between the majority-black community and the white dominated city government and police force. Protests, riots, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with escalating violence and the implementation of curfews throughout the city.

Thanks for reading. --[[User:Kevin Murray|Kevin Murray]] ([[User talk:Kevin Murray|talk]]) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

== Audio initial stab ==

Ive taken an initial stab at the audio section. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:Nice work. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:If you read through the entire article, I think you'll see that the author states that the audio clip is consistent with several witness statements, not just Ms. Crenshaw's. But for some reason, only her name made it into the title (conciseness over quality, perhaps?) Any chance we could add the word "substantially" to the sentence and then add all of the witnesses that Mr. Cooke contends are in substantial agreement about the pause in the shooting or in other aspects of their public representations to date?

:Now to the statement about the audio not matching Dorian's account. Here's the trouble: At no point does the NRO author mention that it is also true that the audio isn't consistent with Chief Belmar's statement. The idea that a first shot was fired in the car was almost universally granted on the basis of unanimity of opinion by Dorian Johnson, Chief Belmar, and even Josie, the double-hearsay witness who paraphrased a Facebook page, but who, CNN was told by sources in the police department, got everything just as Darren Wilson has told them, but which he has never bothered to write down for them in an official incident report.

:While we don't yet, to my knowledge, have a go-to RS source, failure to point out the very same lack of corroboration of similar claims by Belmar and Wilson (through police-endorsed surrogates) unfairly impugns Dorian as the only whose credibility is supposed to be challenged by the release of the audio clip. Until we can source across-the -board analysis of all of the witness whose statements are not upheld by the absence of a first shot in the audio clip, can we, on the basis of [[WP:BLP]] and [[WP:COMMONSENSE]] FAIRNESS, strike the particular mention of Dorian Johnson's name from this sentence, and just fall back to stating that the audio tape fails to confirm the firing of a first shot, rather than making personal with a not-so-subtle implication that Dorian Johnson, and Dorian Johnson alone, could well have lied in his account? And again, thanks for doing the great work you did to get that information into the article. No doubt you knew in advance that I would approve. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

::I'm confused. If the audio fails to support the "first shot", then how can it be said to be consistent with Crenshaw, whose subsection says, "it appeared that Wilson and Brown were arm wrestling before the former '''shot Brown from inside his vehicle'''"? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 01:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Analysing the analysts, are we. Sounds suspiciously like OR to me. :-) That or you're baiting, confident that I can't resist such a provocative question. You're almost right. I have an answer for that, but let me state it in a way which is going to, I think, keep me clear of the rocks. More presently. I'm drafting. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}
* If there are comparisons to other witnesses, I just missed them. No objections to adding.
* Yes, he didn't compare to the Cops. Part of that might be that there is not a authoritative version to compare against, but in any case, see the next point about [[WP:WEIGHT]]
* I Do object to removing the comparison to Johnson's statement. I see your point as to the missing comparison, but not including what is covered so that it matches what isn't covered, is pretty much the opposite of [[WP:WEIGHT]]. Personally I think the main point of the comparison was that Johnson didn't mention a pause, which was a pretty big thing to not mention. Johnson's account while also one of the most suspect (since he is involved) is also the only one (Other than Wilson's) that we can be absolutely sure was from someone who physically saw the event, and therefore analysis of evidence to his statments are the most important.
* While I agree that there are things to nitpick (or worse) in the RS analysis, it is definitely [[WP:OR]] for us to second guess them. If better analysis comes out later, we can certainly swap.
[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::I don't see any references to other witness accounts in the NRO article. Are you talking about a different article? Was your statement about other witness just that you think Piaget's account matches those other accounts, and since the writer says it matches Piaget it also matches the others? If so, I see your point, but again thats [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] to say something the source doesn't. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Here's what I was going off of:

Two sets of “multiple” shots, separated by a short break. That checks out, does it not?
Moreover, as the Daily Mail notes, Cranshaw’s account has been corroborated by another witness:

:::Then Cooke refers to Tiffany Mitchell. Note the passthrough reference to the Daily Mail -- no idea which article he's referring to, but I could Google it if reference to Mitchell's corroboration might be useful here. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

::::You are right, he does say Piaget and Mitchell both line up. No objection to adding that (or the word substantially as you suggested) Although I personally agree that since the audio doesn't have the first shot, the "match" is kinda weak, but the source is what it is. The later CNN interview raises the idea that the audio we have heard is trimmed which if it ends up being the case may explain a lot. (Its almost certainly trimmed since its in the middle of a recorded conversation, but does it trim anything important?) [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 02:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure its this daily mail article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725057/New-witnesses-claim-Michael-Brown-did-wrong-cop-shooting-Missouri.html [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 02:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42, For everyone else, here's the quote from the Daily Mail that absolutely (in my view, at least) substantiates Cooke's claim that the Mail article points to unanimity between Crenshaw and Mitchell that a flurry of shots were fired as Brown fled, then there was a pause, and then more shots were fired (exactly what we hear in the audio clip).

Both women said that a shot was fired and that Brown
started running away from the officer and the patrol vehicle.
They said that the officer chased the teen roughly 20 feet down
the street and fired shots at him in the St Louis suburb.
The 18-year-old turned and raised his hands in the air,
the witnesses said, but the shots kept coming.
[[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In light of the foregoing, I propose the following

=== Proposed language for replacement of final sentence ===
Subsection added for clarity while an attempt to build consensus is in progress. I'll collapse the subsection out when we deal with this one way or the other.

National Review's Charles Cooke noted that the shot which allegedly took place in or from within the vehicle,
(claimed by both Dorian Johnson and Chief Jon Belmar), does not appear to be audible in the audio clip.

But Cooke states that the timing of the shots audible in the recording, especially the presence of
a three-second pause between two separate barrages of gunfire, appears to comport with [or support] statements
given by neighborhood residents Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell, witnesses who have claimed that
after an initial series of shots was fired at Brown as he fled, Brown stopped running, turned around,
and raised his hands in the air, at which point more shots were again fired, fatally wounding him.
[[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Concurrence, anyone?

And again, thanks for doing the great work you did to get that information into the article. No doubt you knew in advance that I would approve. - [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}
A few issues :
* I think it may be [[WP:UNDUE]] to put this much content in on one person's opinion, especially one that isn't a noted expert in a relevant field. - We should wait to flesh out this area with more/better analysts. Hes worth a sentence or two, I don't think hes worth more.
* You are putting words into his mouth running afoul of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]]. his opinion of consistency (or not) only goes so far as to the things he specifically pointed out as being consistent (or inconsistent)
** He does not mention Belmar
** He points out that either the first shot is missing from the audio, didn't happen at all, or that when people said "a shot" they meant "six shots"
** while he says it is consistent with Crenshaw and Mitchell, he does not mention hands raised in that context (and one could not tell if that was true or not from audio in any case)
** He says johnson is inconsistent, and DOES mention hands raised there - since his only mention of hands raised is in the context of someone he finds less consistent, we should not be implying that his analysis supports hands raised.
***Johnson is particularly inconsistent in the timeline - ", Given how close the first and second shots on the recording are (less than a second),it seems unlikely that Brown would have had enough time to have escaped the clutches of a police officer and run past three cars before the second shot was fired."
** The main point of his comparison with johnson is the missing first shot in the audio, and the lack of a description of a pause, and the short duration of audio compared to the description of how many things happened during that time.
***I think that's probably too much detail to say though.
** The main point of his comparison with crenshaw/mitchell is that there were two bursts of fire and a pause
[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

== The robbery and the shooting. What the experts say about their relationship ==

This [http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-police-experts-20140815-story.html LA Times article] has several experts opine about how the robbery was or was not a factor in the shooting. A summary of some of those opinions are:
*The FPD (despite stating they weren't related) could be using this to justify the shooting.
*The robbery has no bearing on the permitted use of justified force of the FPD.
*While Wilson initially didn't have reason to act otherwise (until he saw evidence otherwise), Brown might have suspected Wilson knew about the robbery and that might have affected his reaction to Wilson.

I believe the first item is covered in claims of the FPD attempting to smear Brown, but the other two opinions appear to be absent. Any thoughts as to including all of these in one of the sections?[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 22:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:: I think your bullet point #3 is highly significant. I had discussed this up above, quite some time ago. And someone was vocal about shooting me down. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 01:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

:::Because no reliable source had made the claim, so it was OR. Now one has, so it's no longer OR. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

::: Number three and number two are both significant, and should be included, as we now have reliable sources for them. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

:::: Agree 100% - both are relevant and should be included via citing RS. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17|2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17]] ([[User talk:2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17|talk]]) 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


{{old move|date=10 May 2023|from=Shooting of Michael Brown|destination=Killing of Michael Brown|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1154250343#Requested move 10 May 2023}}
Include all 3. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 02:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:Agree. Perhaps the first point could indeed be stated in a more concise form that is presently done on the page. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 03:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


== No mention of BLM? ==
::All of this should be worked into at the end of '''Robbery incident report and video release''' Now that I look at the current article, I don't see #1 anywhere. Was it removed?[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 03:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It may have been. If it was, perhaps you should add it once again? [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of the fact that this is the incident that kick-started the Black Lives Matter movement? I see a refernce to BLM in the related articles but this was THE incident that made BLM into a prominent group. Any unbiased person who reads this, feel free to add it to the page, people should know that such a large movement was started over misinformation. [[Special:Contributions/99.18.204.223|99.18.204.223]] ([[User talk:99.18.204.223|talk]]) 23:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
== Proper use of "alleged" ==


:Yeah, that's a weird thing to omit. I'll look into this tomorrow. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 05:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This modifier is bandied about the entire article, and improperly. Unfortunately some reliable sources do this as well, but just because they jumped off the bridge, there is no reason for us to do that as well. The point is, there is no doubt whatsoever that a robbery ''occurred''. We should state it as a matter of fact in Wikipedia's voice. We should use "allege" when we talk about people that have been accused of a crime, either formally or informally. Example:


::Still undone? Here are the sources from the BLM article which can be used to add the necessary text. I suggest its level of importance would place the information after, "... unrest in Ferguson (then add) when the movement called [[Black Lives Matter]] began their first massive street demonstrations." See Day, Elizabeth (July 19, 2015). "#BlackLivesMatter: the birth of a new civil rights movement". The Guardian. And see Luibrand, Shannon (August 7, 2015). "Black Lives Matter: How the events in Ferguson sparked a movement in America". CBS News. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/93.23.199.194|93.23.199.194]] ([[User talk:93.23.199.194#top|talk]]) 20:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)</small><!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Police are investigating Brown's alleged role in the robbery.
::I concur - this event was at the root of what is now known as 'BLM'. [[Special:Contributions/172.250.237.36|172.250.237.36]] ([[User talk:172.250.237.36|talk]]) 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
vs
::Police are investigating Brown's role in the alleged robbery.


== Requested move 10 May 2023 ==
[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
: We just report what sources say, not what we think that the sources should say. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 03:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:Didn't we just have [[Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_7#Robbery_or_alleged_robbery|this conversation]]? There is certainly no doubt that some of the events that the police claim constitutes a robbery have occurred. The question is whether those events amount to the crime of robbery. That's why the sources hedge. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::The sources hedge, due to liability. This might be a MOS issue, but the preponderance of sources in this instance use what I submit as the proper form (allege applies to a person's action, not the event). The robbery is verifiable, and has been verified by the most recent sources. "Sgt Smith allegedly committed alleged war crimes" is proper if the war crimes have not been verified.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 04:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::This makes sense. I tentatively support the suggestion of Two Kings of Pork, that we use "alleged role in the robbery". [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 04:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::::You're missing the distinction that I'm making. Robbery is a legal term. It encompasses a set of actions that, combined with a particular mental state, are unlawful in the absence of a defense. A robbery didn't occur unless a person did the actions, had the mental state, and had no defense. The allegation made by the police is that a robbery occurred: i.e., there is probable cause to believe that a a person did the actions, had the mental state, and had no defense.
::::As to the double-allegedly, your construction about Sgt. Smith would be appropriate only if there was doubt as to whether the war crimes that Sgt. Smith allegedly committed were in fact war crimes. So "Brown allegedly committed an alleged robbery" would be incorrect, because the elements of robbery itself are not in dispute. "Brown committed an alleged robbery" would be incorrect for the same reason. "Brown allegedly committed a robbery" would be correct, because the allegation is that Brown fulfilled all of the elements of robbery and had no defense. But let's remove Brown from the situation. "A robbery was allegedly committed" would be fine, because it encompasses the fact that the elements of robbery have been alleged, but not proven. "A robbery was committed" would NOT be fine, because it assumes that the elements have been proven. As I write this, I note that we could probably solve the issues with "alleged robbery" by phrasing things better. Are you OK with "robbery was allegedly committed"-type statements? The issue is in making sure that it's clear that the elements of robbery have not been proven to have occurred. As long as we do that, I'm fine with whatever phrasing we want to use. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 04:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::It really boils down to what the sources say happened. I think they are well equipped to make the decision that the convience store was ''robbed'', because cigars were taken by force. No one is seriously questioning this. We shouldn't either. We use "alleged" due to long standing practice, not withstanding our BLP policy which ''demands'' its use. However X was allegedly committed by Y does work. Let's see where others fall on "a robbery was committed". Might be a question for the MOS folks.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 05:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:We use "alleged" to protect ''human'' reputations. Crimes are social figments and don't mind if for some reason investigators discover nothing illegal happened. The fact that they investigated a crime is good enough reason to not sound silly for the sake of the poor, possibly non-existent felony. Even if a reporter does it that way. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 08:26, [[August 28]], [[2014]] (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> – [[User talk:MaterialWorks|<span style="color:#00008b">Material</span>]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|<span style="color:indigo">Works</span>]] 18:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think MOS is pretty clear on this point. The [[WP:WEASEL|weasly]] way it's being used in this article [[WP:ALLEGED|implies that the police are inaccurate or somehow wrong]] in stating that a robbery actually occurred. Using alleged is only appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. It ''has'' been determined by the police that Brown committed this crime, so why are we casting doubt on their definitive statement that Brown committed this robbery, implying that it is somehow inaccurate or wrong for them to say he did. There is no investigation still going on to determine who did it, this robbery case has been closed and classified as "exceptionally cleared" by the police because they know who did it. It should be stated as such in this article.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 10:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
----
:I agree with you in principle, and that we may be overly wishy washy here. However, cops determining something to their satisfaction is not the end of the line. Its up to a jury to decide if the elements of a crime are all satisfied. Weighing against that however, is that nobody has proposed any serious alternative or mitigating circumstance that make this not what the obvious answer is. All the media wishy washiness is easily explainable by not wanting to be thought of as attacking Browns reputation/character when the running narrative is that he is purely the victim in this circumstance.[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


[[:Shooting of Michael Brown]] → {{no redirect|Killing of Michael Brown}} – A previous RM closed as no consensus in February 2021. Per the previous nominator, [[WP:CONSISTENT]] titles should be used. Many articles that lead with "shooting of" are of non-fatal shootings, such as [[Shooting of Jacob Blake]]. Sources do alternate between "shooting" and "killing", but specificity is better when noting in the article title that Brown died. Here are some RS that refer to this as a "killing" without implying murder: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53603923][https://www.ajc.com/news/ferguson-brown-faq/][https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/us/ferguson-missouri-michael-brown-darren-wilson-no-charges/index.html] &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
=== Options ===
:Additional note per above from Evergreen Fir points out that the flowchart in [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)]] shows that we should move this to "Killing of Michael Brown". &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per [[WP:DEATHS]] [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Makes sense to me. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 20:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Absent a strong [[WP:COMMONNAME]] argument, homicides should be titled "Killing", per [[WP:DEATHS]]. This has been upheld in many RM discussions. See also [[Talk:Killing of Andy Lopez]]. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 20:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - See my reason above. [[Special:Contributions/71.205.160.164|71.205.160.164]] ([[User talk:71.205.160.164|talk]]) 21:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Ferguson Public Library - Was in Danger of Closing ==
Prep for RfC. Please feel free to modify the following and add options where you see fit.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Shortly after the riots in Ferguson, reports were made of how the Ferguson Municipal Public library was in danger of having to close due to lack of funding, and suggestions were made that if the library could have survived, events leading to the riots might've been prevented.
In the case of a crime, and we are not attributing the crime to a person (in which case we would always use "allegedly") when should we use a modifier like "allegedly"


Donations to the Ferguson Municipal Public Library not only revived the library, but now it is able to open every day of the week (excluding the Sabbath). A link to make a monthly (or one-time) donation with PayPal is even at the bottom of the home page of their website. Full disclosure, I've been sending them a tiny amount every month for around eight years, as of '23.
Example:


http://ferguson.lib.mo.us/
A) ''A robbery occurred''
B) ''A robbery allegedly occurred''


Can we add a note to the article, to promote the idea that with a working public library, crime is less likely and the events leading to the killing of Michael Brown would also in turn be less likely?
# Always use A) until a court of law makes a finding
# Use what the RS say
# Use what the sources say, however put greater emphasis on the later RS


Do we need references to the news reports regarding the library?
== A lead to compare to our lede ==
[[Special:Contributions/172.250.237.36|172.250.237.36]] ([[User talk:172.250.237.36|talk]]) 16:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I came across this summary of the Michael Brown shooting in an article on Yahoo.com.
I thought it was pretty good. Note that he gives the police side and then the other side rather than trying to homogenize the conflicting accounts into one unified theory. It's about five paragraphs below the side-by-side pictures of Brown and Wilson. Submitted not as a request for any changes but just for comparison and contrast purposes.
[http://news.yahoo.com/alleged-audio-recording-may-have-captured-fatal-shooting-of-michael-brown-193717404.html Experts: More facts needed on purported audio recording of Michael Brown shooting] [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 04:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:There are concerns that the audio is a hoax.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 04:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::I haven't seen any suggestions that the audio was a hoax, only that it hasn't been verified. Can you point to an RS that suggests that the audio is a hoax? [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 04:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/08/27/cnn-commentators-doubt-cnn-ferguson-audio-scoop/ Washington Post][[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 05:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Hadn't seen that. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Originally this was in The Daily Caller and Briebart. I try to avoid those, not because I don't think they have the hallmarks of being a RS, but people here have conniptions every time the subject comes up.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 06:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I would certainly have had conniptions :) [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


== The court case ==
Heres more on the hoax kerfuffle, but its not someone else raising the idea of a hoax, its the lawyer taking umbrage that cnn raised that possibility. Im posting it here so that other editors are aware, but I think it doesn't have much if anything to add to the article, its not really about the shooting or the evidence itself, its about how people are discussing the evidence, which is a bit too tangental to me . http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/08/27/attorney-asks-cnn-for-redress-of-hoax-comment-regarding-ferguson-tape/ [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:Can't say I have very much faith in CNN and their reporting on audio tapes. At least they're acknowledging up front it's not verified and could be a hoax.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 16:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::I think that the hoax controversy will itself develop into a Wikipedia-reportable story. I would urge that we begin collecting sources for the same. Feel free to paste them on my talk page if you find more. I'm putting the link to the Daily Caller article there just to get the ball rolling. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 16:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::[[Shooting of Michael Brown audio hoax controversy]]? I hope not, and I seriously doubt it. I don't think even the JFK assassination stuck-mike audio got its own article. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


The article reads quite oddly to me. There's a long section on "Investigations". Then there's a very long set of sections on the Grand Jury hearing. Between these, I would expect to find a statement "Wilson was charged with murder" (or maybe manslaughter/unlawful killing). But I see no such statement. I infer from all the Grand Jury stuff that he must have been so charged, but it's strange that the article doesn't explicitly say so. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 21:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
== A timeline from CNN ==
Who said that a two column presentation would be a bad thing? This is awesome. It brings out the plagiarist in me.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/ [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 05:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


== Jennings Disbandment ==
{{tq|Johnson's attorney, Freeman Bosley, confirms Johnson and Brown were there. "My client, Dorian Johnson, he [told investigators about] the situation involving Big Mike taking the cigarillos. '''This is not a theft, it's more of a shoplifting situation'''."}}
::LOL. Let's not mince words here.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 06:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::I have to agree with Two Kinds of Pork. That feels an awful lot like, well, mincing words, to steal his phrase. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 10:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


The portion of Darren Wilson's background that mentions his previous employment with the disbanded Jennings, MO PD should also mention the reason for the disbanding:
:::I don't know what one instance of Bosley mincing words has to do with the topic of this discussion. It doesn't seem very useful to bring it up here. Returning to the topic, I agree that the two-column presentation seems useful to the reader. But CNN's and Wikipedia's missions are not the same, and perhaps ours isn't to juxtapose the various accounts like that. For one thing, I think one would need to apply some analysis/[[WP:SYNTH|synthesis]] to decide exactly what belongs in each cell. I think that was expressed before by at least one more experienced person than I. I don't think we can simply steal CNN's analysis and change the language to avoid plagiarism—CNN is only one source of many. That said, Michael, you could always work up a proposed table in your sandbox. At the very least that would allow us to point to the specific synth that you applied to get there. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Looking at the list itself, it does seem rather informative. I would certainly find it interesting if you were to create a table, Mr. Ridgeway. [[User:Icarosaurvus|Icarosaurvus]] ([[User talk:Icarosaurvus|talk]]) 12:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, it wasn't helpful. [[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.
== First shot ==


From https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html
Not getting mainstream notice yet, but there may be a single bullet casing visible near the police car in released photos/videos. This is CNN's interview with "Josie", the interview itself is irrelevant. As a video to play during the interview, they are showing various photos and video shots of the scene. At about 1:32, the cut to a photo where you can see some traffic cones and Brown's hat on the ground. There is a bullet casing near the car tire. http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/19/ac-radio-show-account-michael-brown-death.cnn.html


As the sections stands now, this portion of his history seems non sequitur. [[Special:Contributions/2601:14A:600:1780:88B0:782B:F7CE:63FA|2601:14A:600:1780:88B0:782B:F7CE:63FA]] ([[User talk:2601:14A:600:1780:88B0:782B:F7CE:63FA|talk]]) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Another source using the same photo is KSDK http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/4b212544e6fe8e347b407af80617b3c9da819aeb/c=8-0-1916-1079&r=x1803&c=3200x1800/local/-/media/KSDK/KSDK/2014/08/13/1407949474018-Still0809-00005---Copy.jpg but interestingly they crop the item out in the version they put in their story. http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/14/anonymous-releases-name-it-says-is-officer-in-shooting/14054469/
[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:Yup, it's there. I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from that, though. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 16:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:Looks like the wrong shape for a single casing. Length:width ratio too high. And what is the dark band in the center? It could be two casings laid end-to-end, but that would require either a one-in-a-billion event or someone moving casings around. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:As the newest guy on the block, a question to help me understand what is and isn't okay. If I were the one making all of the statements above rather than those who are, wouldn't I have been smacked down with references to rules about forum, synthesis, and original research, and maybe even weight? Sorry to ask but my common sense just wouldn't leave me alone until I put this question out. He is completely confused. I have to admit. I am too. <<WP:DOUBLESTANDARD?>> [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::I'd say they are discussing the source and trying to A) determine what the source tells us, B) Whether we can use this source to make any statements and C)Can we draw any conclusions from the source. The casing examination, however is a bit speculative.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 17:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::Agree with pork, but I'll also add that I have noticed a little of what Michael speaks of. I noticed because double standards are a pet peeve for me. I didn't, and don't, want to attack any specific individual(s), but I will make this general observation. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It's more because of volume than anything else, I think. This section is (in my opinion) fairly useless, because it's not likely to lead to anything that we can use in the article. But Gaijin42 hasn't exactly peppered the talk page with similar sections. If you'll notice, Michael-Ridgway's off-topic and synthesis-advocating posts garnered only gentle pushback at first. But as they continued, the pushback became much sharper. Maybe that's unfair, but I think that the context is important in assessing what might initially seem like a double standard. All that said, we're off topic here. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I'll cop to [[WP:FORUM]] but think its justifiable, since there have been several discussions above about the first shot and how that relates to various other evidence/testimony. However, I was not suggesting for inclusion in the article at this time, just informing other editors about something relevant to previous discussion. As I was not making an immediate article suggestion, the [[WP:OR]]/[[WP:RS]]/[[WP:SYNTH]] issues are not at issue. I also agree that the photo could be something other than a casing, and since we do not have [[WP:RS]] saying so for us, thats part of why I was not suggesting inclusion. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:18, 13 May 2024

No mention of BLM?

Why is there no mention of the fact that this is the incident that kick-started the Black Lives Matter movement? I see a refernce to BLM in the related articles but this was THE incident that made BLM into a prominent group. Any unbiased person who reads this, feel free to add it to the page, people should know that such a large movement was started over misinformation. 99.18.204.223 (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a weird thing to omit. I'll look into this tomorrow. Schierbecker (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still undone? Here are the sources from the BLM article which can be used to add the necessary text. I suggest its level of importance would place the information after, "... unrest in Ferguson (then add) when the movement called Black Lives Matter began their first massive street demonstrations." See Day, Elizabeth (July 19, 2015). "#BlackLivesMatter: the birth of a new civil rights movement". The Guardian. And see Luibrand, Shannon (August 7, 2015). "Black Lives Matter: How the events in Ferguson sparked a movement in America". CBS News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.23.199.194 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur - this event was at the root of what is now known as 'BLM'. 172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 18:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Michael Brown → Killing of Michael Brown – A previous RM closed as no consensus in February 2021. Per the previous nominator, WP:CONSISTENT titles should be used. Many articles that lead with "shooting of" are of non-fatal shootings, such as Shooting of Jacob Blake. Sources do alternate between "shooting" and "killing", but specificity is better when noting in the article title that Brown died. Here are some RS that refer to this as a "killing" without implying murder: [1][2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note per above from Evergreen Fir points out that the flowchart in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) shows that we should move this to "Killing of Michael Brown". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Ferguson Public Library - Was in Danger of Closing

Shortly after the riots in Ferguson, reports were made of how the Ferguson Municipal Public library was in danger of having to close due to lack of funding, and suggestions were made that if the library could have survived, events leading to the riots might've been prevented.

Donations to the Ferguson Municipal Public Library not only revived the library, but now it is able to open every day of the week (excluding the Sabbath). A link to make a monthly (or one-time) donation with PayPal is even at the bottom of the home page of their website. Full disclosure, I've been sending them a tiny amount every month for around eight years, as of '23.

http://ferguson.lib.mo.us/

Can we add a note to the article, to promote the idea that with a working public library, crime is less likely and the events leading to the killing of Michael Brown would also in turn be less likely?

Do we need references to the news reports regarding the library? 172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The court case

The article reads quite oddly to me. There's a long section on "Investigations". Then there's a very long set of sections on the Grand Jury hearing. Between these, I would expect to find a statement "Wilson was charged with murder" (or maybe manslaughter/unlawful killing). But I see no such statement. I infer from all the Grand Jury stuff that he must have been so charged, but it's strange that the article doesn't explicitly say so. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennings Disbandment

The portion of Darren Wilson's background that mentions his previous employment with the disbanded Jennings, MO PD should also mention the reason for the disbanding:

The small city of Jennings, Mo., had a police department so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it. Everyone in the Jennings police department was fired. New officers were brought in to create a credible department from scratch.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

As the sections stands now, this portion of his history seems non sequitur. 2601:14A:600:1780:88B0:782B:F7CE:63FA (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&diff=1223694007&oldid=623205808

Leave a Reply