Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
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 = 11
|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}}
{{article discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}}

== Proper use of "alleged" ==

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:

::Police are investigating Brown's alleged role in the robbery.
vs
::Police are investigating Brown's role in the alleged robbery.

[[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)

: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)

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)

::1. Due to the death of Brown, any legal determination surrounding this matter is rendered moot and therefore not germane to this discussion. We are relying on the investigation, statements and the determination of ''the police'' as to who committed the crime. The police have unequivocally stated that a robbery occurred and that Brown was responsible.

::2. It depends on the context on which the RS are using the term. [[WP:RS|RS contain both factual content and opinion content]]. Are they stating it as a fact that ''the police'' <u>actually</u> said "alleged".

::3. The Sandy Hook school shooting article states for a fact that Adam Lanza was responsible for that crime, but yet Lanza was never convicted. Same for Columbine, it's stated as a fact that those 2 were responsible for that crime, but no convictions. Same for Isla Vista killings, stated as a fact that Rodger was responsible for that crime, but no conviction. Those articles rely on the investigation, statements and the determination of the police as to who committed those crimes. That same principle should apply here as well.

::4. BLP also applies to all of the police mentioned in this article: Wilson, Jackson, Belmar and the officer[s] who investigated the robbery and then wrote detailed reports about it - they are living individuals. To imply and/or suggest that their investigation and subsequent reports are inaccurate or wrong isn't fair to them as living individuals. Especially when there is irrefutable evidence that their investigation and reports are indeed accurate and correct.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 18:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

:While Dyrnych makes some good points about the legal definition of "robbery," Wikipedia should use the general-English definition. In that light, "Person allegedly performed alleged act" is not best.
:Yes, we should be using "alleged." Even usually reliable sources are flying around so fast that mistakes are likely, and they contradict each other. Lanza may not have been convicted of the shootings at Sandy Hook, but there is a consensus among the majority of reliable sources that that's what happened. Our reliable sources on Brown are still split and have yet to settle. Until they do, Wikipedia should say "alleged," in its own voice or through a source.
:Isaidnoway, police reports are RS for ''most'' things, but this incident is specifically a police vs. teenager conflict in which two sides have very different interests. We have good reason to think that the police could be lying about the robbery or at least that they have a reason to lie. The video footage seems to show Brown paying for those cigarillos. We should attribute police material by saying, "According to XX police report" or "According to the Ferguson Police Department." That casts no extra doubt on their side of the story while still acknowledging that it is their side of the story.
:Feel free to ping me when the RfC starts. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
::I guess we watched different videos of the robbery and read different police reports on the robbery.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 17:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:::There's an earlier segment of surveillance video from a different camera that shows Brown at the counter. [http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show Some] [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/19/1323057/-Crooks-and-Liars-Brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars liberal] [http://sfbayview.com/2014/08/mike-brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars/ sites] have argued that this segment shows him paying for the cigarillos, but the video's at best ambiguous rather than exculpatory. I don't think that there's much controversy outside of a few such sites over whether Brown actually stole the cigarillos. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
::::And his accomplice in the robbery confessed, there were eyewitnesses at the convenience store who identified Brown as the robber and the accomplice and the eyewitnesses never mentioned seeing Brown pay for anything. They also found the stolen merchandise on his person.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 21:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: nb: His "accomplice" is not an accomplice -- Johnson returned the cigarillos handed him by Brown to the counter, there is no evidence that he knew of Brown's intention to take them, and he has been cleared by the police. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 10:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

=== Options ===

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)

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"

Example:

::A) ''A robbery occurred''
::B) ''A robbery allegedly occurred''

# 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

:*Isn't there some RS that we can quote directly? [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 00:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
::This article [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-three-minutes--and-two-lives-forever-changed/2014/08/16/f28f5bc0-2588-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html from the WaPo doesn't use the word alleged at all]. It's a lenghty article, the robbery is described in the "Final minutes" paragraphs. [http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-nn-na-watch-video-michael-brown-robbery-20140815-story.html The LA Times, short piece] with the surveillance video.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 01:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:*This doesn't make any sense at all. Courts do not determine whether a robbery occurred; investigative and prosecutorial agencies of the government do that (e.g. police and the attorney general's office, or whatever is called for in the legal system in question). The courts determine whether the accused committed the crime or not. Otherwise, I could never file an insurance claim regarding a burglary or arson until after someone was successfully prosecuted for it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

== Possible recording of shooting ==

Is there some reason that '''Possible recording of shooting''' is under investigations and not '''Accounts''', especially given it's questionable provenance? It is not part of an investigation by any government agency. Placing it under investigations seems to inappropriately raise its credibility creating an NPOV problem.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 16:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

:I said the same thing in my Separate section for Possible recording of shooting? comment above. This was Gaijin42's reply:

::"I put it there because it seemed less like "an account" and more like "evidence" to me. more similar to the autopsy etc. Assuming the audio is not manipulated or forged, it isn't possible to have a bad memory, or intentionally change its story, or any other of the hypothetical flaws in the various testimonies. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 02:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)"

:And it is "under investigation" by the FBI. --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 16:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
::Hmmm. I think the existence and investigation of the recording should be mentioned under the FIB investigation section, but the speculative parts (which is most of it) should probably go under accounts since various people are giving their accounts of what they think they heard in the recording. - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
:::You've got to place similar things on a scroll next to each other for context or else nobody can understand you. Our readers are ''not'' computers, able to cross-reference every aspect of an article and picture it as an n-dimensional hyper-store with links going every which way. If you did what you suggested, what different headings for the two subsections would you want to use?
:::Look at the (quite large) last paragraph in Police statements, the one starting with "Saki Knafo...". That is ''not'' a police statement but a comment on a police statement. And everything before the last sentence in the paragraph beginning with "MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell..." is O'Donnell's comment. (See the [[Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Position of Police account section|Position of Police account section]] above.) I was thinking of having a separate subsection devoted to "Comments (on the police statements)" but I was convinced otherwise. At least for now :) --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 18:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Are we sure we're talking about the same thing? I'm simply suggesting that the bulk of the audio recording content consists of accounts of what people think they heard. I think we could simply add it under the heading "audio recording" under accounts. Perhaps I will boldly make the edit and hopefully the improvement will be obvious.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Maybe we're not, MrX. Forgive me if I'm the one who is disoriented, but I thought that we were talking about the 12 second Glide recording which the Glide administrators have authenticated, at least as to the fact that such a recording was made on their system at 12:02:14 in the vicinity of the incident. Perhaps they could tell us in the future if the audio which resides or resided on their cloud-based system is identical, with respect to what one hears, to the audio that has been made available by Lopa Blumenthal, the attorney for the young man who claims to have made the recording. I think that the probability that the audio has been modified is low, based on statements made by Blumenthal since the recording's release. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 16:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:I believe that there should be an "Evidence" section that is distinct from the "Accounts" section.

:And I still do not like the term "accounts." The neighborhood witnesses and people who claim to speak for Darren Wilson have now given so many interviews that it would be fair to create a whole section just analyzing how consistent each of these "speakers" have been with themselves in the different interviews and news conferences that they have participated in.

:And that is the basis for my dissatisfaction. Implicit in the term "account" is an insinuation that each speaker has only one account. This, we all know, is not true. CNN has gone so far as to accuse Jackson, for example, of wildly changing his story with respect to what Wilson knew about the Ferguson Market incident at the moment he decided to speak to Brown and Johnson.

:And witnesses, Dorian Johnson for example, have given numerous interviews where subtle differences as to how they explain things inevitably slip in, since they are, in no cases, reading from a prepared "statement."

:That sense of the word "statement," obviously disqualifies "statement" as a replacement for "account(s)."

:So here is how I would title the two sections that deal with the two general groupings of allegations being made by those who were present in the neighborhood and their spokespersons, (such as, for example, Esther Hawyood of the NAACP, who was interviewed that day by KMOV, St. Louis, where she gave a very interesting summary of what she was hearing from residents) , versus those who are purported to speak on behalf of Officer Wilson, notably Jon Belmar, Thomas Jackson, and the woman known as "Josie."

:*Claims by spokespersons for Officer Darren Wilson

:and

:* Claims by eyewitnesses

:Then, at the beginning of the subsection for each of these individuals, we would explain, based on reliable sources, why these people are believed to have information of value in this matter.

:For example, in the case of Josie, we would acknowledge that her account is second-degree hearsay, by her own admission, but we would also cite to CNN as having reported that anonymous sources in the police department have stated that Josie's account comports with what Officer Wilson has told them.

:In the case of Piaget Crenshaw, for example, we could point out that smartphone video that she recorded immediately after the scene appears to give support to her claim that she was an actual eyewitness to the even.t

:In the case of the person heard on another smartphone video who defenders of Officer Wilson are focusing on as support for a claim that Brown was coming toward Wilson as the shots were fired, we could cite reliable sources who remind us that we do not know if this individual was speaking about something he saw himself or if he was reporting a rumor heard from others.

:In other words, I believe that when people come to Wikipedia between now and the ultimate adjudication of this matter, they are going to be trying to get a hold of as much evidence and as much in the way of witness and spokesperson claims as they can to try to come to their own independent conclusions about what really happened and whether the killing of Michael Brown was necessary to save Officer Wilson from death or serious injury at the hands of Brown, or whether it was not.

:I think we can still improve upon what we are giving the public in this regard.[[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 20:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
::I considered an 'evidence' section, but I think that word carries too much authority (and thus fails [[WP:NPOV]]), at least until it has been described as evidence by our sources, probably following some legal proceeding.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 20:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Calling a recording an account fails a plain-meaning-of-a-commonly-used-word test. Omitting [[WP:COMMON]] sense would steer us where in such a dilemma? To a section titled "Dog Legs" where the fifth section is titled "Tail." ;-) [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
::::An audio recording is a record of sound. That's all we can attest to at this point. What we have in that section is several opinions about what the recording represents. It's those opinions that seem to fit most closely under '''accounts''' than any other section currently in the article, in the same way that '''Bystander heard on video''' does. The recording does not yet rise to the level of '''evidence''', in my opinion.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 21:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::NEW INLINE RESPONSE TO MRX: So ignoring your comment about whether the audio clip is evidence or not, am I to understand that you would be okay with adding RS-derived analysis as to whether a given witness's claims seem to align with what we hear in the audio clip or not in the sections pertaining to said witnesses? (Not that there is ever going to be any such analysis. The NRO article which did a poor job at best seems like a one off that may never be reattempted by any other writer. How unfortnuate for our readers.) [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::To state that one is not persuaded that an audio recording that has been at least partially authenticated by the hosting company does not yet rise to the level of "evidence" says more about the PoV of the speaker than it does about the quality of the evidence, in my opinion. For police apologists, that recording, if a true representation of the number and cadence of the gunshots being fired by the officer, is decidedly bad news for Darren Wilson, so it does not surprise me that there is not anyone in this forum who thinks that it should be referred to as evidence other than myself. The insights into the creation of our sausage get more disturbing by the week. Do as you will. I'm just a poll watcher. An international observer. The cool thing is that I don't even have to use Glide or a body cam to capture it all. Wikipedia does that for me. It's awesome.[[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 04:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

* I don't think we need an "Analysis" section yet. The "Accounts" section simply tells each eyewitness account. If there are inconsistencies, we can use RS to tell us what to think about them. Perhaps the recording belongs in this section.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 06:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::Maybe they are all saving their hot analysis for their Sunday editions, but to date, I have found not a single reliable source that has bothered to compare the audio evidence with the claims of either Chief Belmar, Chief Jackson, or Josie. An NRO writer uses the tape to demolish Dorian and we dutifully parrot and in so doing we do a great disservice to the truth. The audio clip is only 12 seconds long and there are only about three seconds between its beginning and the first shot heard. To expect that the shot in the vehicle would be less than three seconds before the first shot taken at Michael as he runs away would be ludicrous. But that is exactly the premise upon which the NRO writer founds his claim that Dorian (read: the guy who never gets it right) stands contradicted if the audio is legit. I do so wish that someone would just nuke that last sentence in the audio clip while we wait for a truly fair reporter or a simple logician with a reporter friend to take up this question. Surely there has to be one out there. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 07:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

== Adult criminal record ==

Regarding this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=623507584&oldid=623503168] by [[User:Dyrnych]] and the previous edit by [[User:Editor993]], the following appeared in a NY Times article about Michael Brown,[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/us/michael-brown-spent-last-weeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?_r=1]
::"He did not have a criminal record as an adult, and his family said he never got in trouble with the law as a juvenile, either."
--[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
:::We've discussed this a couple of times. We have a source that says unambiguously that Brown had no criminal record (quoting the St. Louis County prosecutor's office) and a few sources that say that he had no adult criminal record, usually quoting the Ferguson PD. Those are consistent with each other, so in the absence of any actual suggestion that Brown had a juvenile record it makes little sense to imply that he had one. Especially when the source for the sentence in question is the one that states that Brown had no criminal record and mentions nothing about an adult record, meaning that the "adult" addition misrepresents the source. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 01:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Re "quoting the St. Louis County prosecutor's office" — If you have a source that gives a direct quote, I'd be interested in seeing it. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 02:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-no-record/14041457/ "An 18-year-old shot and killed near a Ferguson apartment complex Saturday afternoon had no criminal record, according to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office <nowiki [...] /> St. Louis County Prosecutor's office confirmed that Brown had no prior misdemeanors or felonies against him."] That's the source that we're currently citing in the article. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::That wasn't a direct quote of the prosecutor's office. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 03:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::That was an Aug 14 USA Today article titled "Michael Brown had no criminal record, police say" by Aja Williams of KSDK-TV, whose report of the prosecutor’s statement was that the prosecutor said that Brown had no criminal record.[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-no-record/14041457/] It wasn’t clear from Williams’ report of the police and prosecutors statements that those statements included Brown’s juvenile record or was just his adult record. An Aug 15 article in the NY Times by Bosman, Schwartz and Kovaleski was more specific and clarified that the police statement about Brown’s arrest record did not include his juvenile record.[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/ferguson-mo-michael-brown-and-darren-wilson-2-paths-to-a-fatal-encounter.html?_r=0]
:::::::“He [Brown] had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile.”

::::::Then another article on Aug 17 in the Christian Science Monitor by Scott clarified that the prosecutor’s statement was referring to Brown’s adult criminal record.[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/0817/Ferguson-shooting-What-s-known-now-about-Michael-Brown-video]
:::::::“The black teenager [Brown] had no adult criminal record, according to the St. Louis County prosecutor.”

::::::And a week later an Aug 24 article in the NY Times by Eligon was specific about Brown not having a criminal record as an adult and left the question of his juvenile record to Brown’s family’s account.[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/us/michael-brown-spent-last-weeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?_r=1]
:::::::“He did not have a criminal record as an adult, and his family said he never got in trouble with the law as a juvenile, either.”
::::::So we have an Aug 14 report of a KSDK-TV journalist in USA Today that is presently used in our article vs Aug 15–24 reports of 5 journalists in the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor. We need to change to "no adult criminal record" in our article to be specific because the statement "no criminal record" is misinformation that misrepresents the police and prosecutor's statements. --[[User:Bob K31416|Bob K31416]] ([[User talk:Bob K31416|talk]]) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} I agree with Bob. [[WP:WEIGHT]] & [[WP:V]] is clearly on the side of "no adult record", but I also agree with others that "no record in the 2 months since he turned 18" is mostly meaningless, and "no adult record" does infer/imply the existence of a juvenile record. I say we hold off just a bit, we are likely to know something about if he had a juvenile record shortly. If he had a juvenile record (of any kind) then we will need to correct the above statement (which is not the same thing as saying we should detail the contents of the juvenile record - such a decision would need to be based on the relevance of that record, and how its covered in RS) [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:How much credence should be given to stories like these?
:*[http://www.christianpost.com/news/lawsuit-claims-michael-brown-was-charged-with-murder-while-he-was-a-juvenile-125611/ Lawsuit Claims Michael Brown Was Charged With Murder While He Was a Juvenile]
:*[http://www.aol.com/article/2014/08/27/lawsuit-to-release-michael-browns-juvenile-criminal-record/20953546/ Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown's juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect]
:Obviously, I don't think this kind of hearsay from unnamed sources rises to the level of RS for such allegations, but it does call into question how we should present this claim of "no criminal record", IMO. Is it better to say nothing about his criminal record at all, or note the existence of these unsubstantiated rumors, or clarify that the statement applies only to the his "adult" life? I mostly agree with Bob's interpretation of how we should present the statements. As it stands now, in the absence of better information, I think it could turn out to be very misleading. [[User:AdventurousSquirrel|AdventurousSquirrel]] ([[User talk:AdventurousSquirrel|talk]]) 15:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::Per [[WP:BLPCRIME]] (and the short term [[WP:BDP]] extension) we cannot put in allegations of specific crimes without much better sourcing/confirmation. The rumors may or may not be correct, but as long as they are rumors they are not acceptable in the article. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

===Hearing results===
Per court officials, at the very least, Brown was never charged with any A or B felonies as a juvenile. [http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_43c9bbbb-356f-5ea6-b9e2-7dde7e3e5c83.html#.VAdNd0rCnoU.twitter] This directly and definitively disproves the claims that he was charged with murder. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

According to statement from court, no "A" or "B" felony convictions or charges are a juvenile. Court taking under advisement (for release of other non felony records?) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/juvenile-court-michael-brown-had-no-felony-convictions-did-not/article_43c9bbbb-356f-5ea6-b9e2-7dde7e3e5c83.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
:Fixing edit conflicts with same link. JYNX! [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Second source http://fox2now.com/2014/09/03/lawsuits-seek-any-michael-brown-juvenile-records/ [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

:Not that it matters a great deal, but notice the careful wording which doesn't rule out the possibility that he ''was'' charged ''and acquitted'' of class A or B felonies as a juvenile. But 'innocent until proven guilty', I guess. [[User:AdventurousSquirrel|AdventurousSquirrel]] ([[User talk:AdventurousSquirrel|talk]]) 17:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

::Or diverted (although diversion would be unlikely for murder one thinks) [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 18:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

== Dorian Johnson pleads guilty to making a false report in 2011 and serves 30 days ==

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do by case #11AC-CR02064

11AC-CR02064 - ST V DORIAN J JOHNSON

And there's the official court documents on the .gov website. As credible, reliable and RELEVANT as it gets. It's obvious that this needs to be included since he is the key witness in this case... and has a documented criminal record of lying to the police.

[[Special:Contributions/71.49.219.208|71.49.219.208]] ([[User talk:71.49.219.208|talk]]) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:Until a reliable secondary source reports this, we cannot. See [[WP:BLPPRIMARY|our policy on the use of primary sources about living people]]. Court documents and records are never acceptable. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

::Lemme guess. ABC isn't a reliable source either? Probably only CNN right? Right.

http://www.abc17news.com/news/key-witness-in-ferguson-wanted-in-jefferson-city/27624066

[[Special:Contributions/71.49.219.208|71.49.219.208]] ([[User talk:71.49.219.208|talk]]) 23:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::One local ABC affiliate is not "ABC", and that article clearly shows a local reporter in its byline. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 23:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:::: Just because a source is local, that does not render the source unreliable. In fact, local sources are "closer" to the story and what's happening in their community. If anything, they are ''more'' reliable. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:The Washington Post's Wesley Lowery wrote an article on Dorian and Michael that will give you everything you need when it comes to talking about who they were and what they did. Now if only we didn't cherry pick just the bad parts like I am certain that we will, because who's got time in journalism for people when they don't loot and kill? I have a picture of an empty Target parking lot that I took Saturday afternoon on my second trip to Ferguson ground zero since the killing. A week ago, it was full of big rigs and generators and monster satellite dishes with logos from Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, and all of the local stations. But then the looting stopped and they all left. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 22:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:We were here before, [[Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_5#Dorian_Johnson_Arrest_Warrant|on August 21]]. To quote {{u|Dyrnych}}, "it's SYNTH for us to say that it calls into question his credibility in this issue unless a reliable source makes that claim." But that doesn't mean we can't include the basic fact without an attached credibility claim. The false report was when he lied to the cops about his first name, after being arrested on suspicion of theft (that case is still pending). There are a few sources, including [http://www.abc17news.com/news/key-witness-in-ferguson-wanted-in-jefferson-city/27624066 a local TV station] and [http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/key-witness-meets-with-authorities-to-discuss-brown-shooting/article_3a5a3a2b-96aa-50f1-b9e5-345c29dd80dc.html The St. Louis Post-Dispatch], which we're using in 16 other places, by my count. The TV station says he was charged, and the Post-Dispatch says he pled guilty to the charge. None of the big guys appear to have picked this up.

:Specific proposition (as opposed to proposal), for discussion:
:*Add the following text. '''In September 2012, Johnson pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report. The charge was related to a 2011 incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.'''
:*Cite the court record for the date of the plea, and the Post-Dispatch article for the rest. The policy given above by NorthBySouthBaranof allows for use of the primary source in some cases, to "augment" the secondary.
:*The text could be added to the end of the subsection for Johnson's account, for lack of a better place. Or, to avoid even the slightest suggestion of a credibility claim, we could add a Dorian Johnson subsection to Background, since he is one of the key players, and include this there. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::I would have no problem with any of this. Dorian is such a central figure that I think he deserves his own section and not just a section about his claims. I do, however, find my view of him to be radically altered for the better after reading the Lowery article about him for the first time today. It gives great insights about both Dorian and Michael that I have never seen in print before. On that basis, I would urge that a link to that article be included in the External Links section. No news agency has had more access to Dorian than Lowery was granted, and it's possible that none will be granted any such access from here on out. If either of them were my sons, I would want people to have a more balanced picture of who they were than we can get from a surveillance video and a conviction record from years past. I do think an easy-to-find link to the article would go a long way toward fending off criticisms that we are playing along in a police-friendly campaign to wipe out his credibility, which of course, a Wilson defense attorney will have every incentive to do, given the fact that Dorian alone, of all of the civilian witnesses who have come forward, has claimed to know exactly what happened from the moment Wilson drove up until the moment that Brown made a run for it. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:::You know, half of the conspiracy theorists are saying the article is unfairly biased toward Brown and Johnson. The other half are saying it is unfairly biased toward Wilson and the police. That's a good indication that the article is fairly NPOV. "Fending off criticisms", from either camp, is not a good reason to do anything in this article. Anyway, you're off-topic. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 02:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}I am fine with including this in the article. I am NOT fine with including it under Dorian Johnson's account until and unless there is a reliable source that states the claim that giving a false name to the police raises questions about the credibility of Johnson's account. Doing otherwise (i.e., just sticking it at the bottom of the Johnson account) would be synthesis, as we are combining the account and the false statement/theft things to imply that Johnson is lying now because he lied to the police about his name when (and this is crucial here) '''no source makes that claim'''. It is doubly problematic that the editor above who advocates for its inclusion is specifically advocating for its inclusion to make exactly this implication. In any event, as noted by NorthBySouthBaranof above, a secondary source '''must''' be used to to include '''any''' material about this matter, per [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]: "Do ''not'' use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" (emphasis in original). This means that we should not in any respect link to or cite the court record. I am broadly fine with Mandruss's language, again provided that this doesn't go under the Johnson account. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:So you're saying that we can include the date of the plea without the court record, even though it's not mentioned in the Post-Dispatch article? (It says simply, "He later pleaded guilty.") Per [[WP:V]]? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::I don't think so, unless we find another source for that. We could include the date of the charge (do we have a source that states this?) and then saying "later pleaded guilty" seems fine, since there's no obvious reason that we'd care about the precise date of the plea when we know the date of the charge. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:::Revised proposition: '''In mid-2011, Johnson was charged with the misdemeanor of filing a false report. He later pled guilty to the charge, which was related to an incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.[cite Post-Dispatch]''' And you support a Dorian Johnson subsection in Background, per the above? &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::That sounds fine, and I will support (albeit somewhat weakly) adding the Dorian Johnson subsection in Background. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-brown-and-dorian-johnson-the-friend-who-witnessed-his-shooting/2014/08/31/bb9b47ba-2ee2-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html?tid=HP_more The WaPo article] that Michael-Ridgway referenced also has some biographical material on Johnson. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 04:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::The WaPo article is mostly human-interest "get to know Dorian Johnson". We have a little of that for Brown, but then he's the dead guy. It would be hard to justify it for Johnson. I did manage to pick out a couple of basic bio bits, just to justify the new subsection. I'll wait about 24 hours for any dissent.

:::::'''Dorian Johnson, 22, was with Michael Brown at the time of the shooting. They had been acquaintances for five months.(ref name=WashPost.Friend/)'''

:::::'''Johnson received his high school diploma in 2010, through a special program. The following year, he attended [[Lincoln University (Missouri)|Lincoln University]], in Jefferson City, for two semesters.(ref name=WashPost.Friend/)'''

:::::'''In mid-2011, Johnson was charged with the misdemeanor of filing a false report. He later pled guilty to the charge, which was related to an incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.(ref name=STLToday.Witness/)''' &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 04:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}I don't know about value, but [http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/22/cnr.06.html this transcript] of an August 22 CNN broadcast includes two CNN legal analysts appearing to come down on Johnson's side as to the effect of this record on his credibility. One is [[Sunny Hostin]], a former U.S. Attorney. "So I think what we are seeing now is the narrative trying to be changed. Michael Brown is now thug-a-fied. Dorian Johnson is now not credible. He too is thug-a-fied. And we see that happen in these kinds of cases." If anyone of CNN's RS stature (e.g., Fox) is taking the opposing position, I haven't found it. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:Just a couple of paragraphs later in the the transcript you linked, another CNN legal analyst, Danny Cevallos, took the opposing position. CNN frequently has panels of legal analysts with opposing viewpoints to discuss issues like this. Cevallos said, "There has been a lot of talk about whether Dorian Johnson's past is fair to talk about. That's an interesting philosophical question. Fortunately, for us, the Missouri rules of evidence couldn't be clearer, and the rule is this: If you have a prior conviction, that conviction can come in to impeach a witness and attack their credibility." —[[User:Megiddo1013|Megiddo1013]] 02:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If I make this change, I propose also changing "Background" to "Participants". This would correspond with the "Participants" field of the lead infobox, which includes all three men. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd make two points here concerning the inclusion of this content; 1) Once Wilson's version of the shooting is disclosed and the physical evidence is revealed, there will obviously be a considerable difference between the two narratives. Readers can evaluate for themselves who has the most credible version of what happened, without us pushing Johnson over the cliff by implying his prior bad conduct is relevant here to his narrative of what happened. 2) I'd also point out that his prior conduct under discussion here was a misdemeanor offense of lying to the police. According to what we know so far, he hasn't been charged or accused of lying to the police in this instance, in fact, his lawyer has said he told the truth to the police concerning the robbery. And if I'm not mistaken, his version of what happened being told here in this article is based on media interviews, rather than his offical statement to the police. So while it may be true that Johnson previously lied to the police, there is no evidence being reported by RS in this instance that he lied to the police.[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 17:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but it's hyperbolic to say we'd be "pushing Johnson over the cliff" when we'd be going to great lengths to separate the record from the credibility. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Heres a source (mid tier RS) (weakly) making some credibility arguments (along with some additional details about what the false statements were about). Also the first RS I've seen mentioning the guy overheard on the video describing the shooting http://fox2now.com/2014/09/02/mid-missouri-man-describes-repeated-lies-by-witness-in-michael-brown-shooting-case/ [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

== Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was running away. ==

I put this quote into the Sandbox that no one ever visited. Thought I'd put it here. This only came out on August 19, and the source is maybe of questionable notability. Just the New York Times. And it's only just a little thing. You know, an admission that Wilson was shooting at Brown while he was running away from Wilson. Not sure it's worth a mention in an article which is reporting on so many things of much greater importance. But as no one else seems to have caught this one in the last 13 days, I thought I'd float it out there for your consideration. If you run with it, please make a note here so I won't just be needlessly wasting time checking the article for inclusion of this detail of marginal value. (There, I've shot it all to pieces. That way none of you have to.) [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"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 second this. Thanks for bringing this up again Michael. [[User:Saeranv|Saeranv]] ([[User talk:Saeranv|talk]]) 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::You're confused. It's not sources that are "notable" in WikiSpeak. That aside, as well as my reservations about the "reliability" of the NYT ("No results found for "he’s coming back towards the police" site:nytimes.com."), this is an extremely interesting claim about what "law enforcement officials" are saying, though it's a bit odd that I haven't seen it elsewhere. Backs up various stories that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away which, interestingly, is legal under MO law (see Volokh Conspiracy, now found in WaPo) but a constitutional violation by Supreme Court decision. So the kill shot may be perfectly good self defense, but the shots at Brown running away may be a Federal case. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Andyvphil, it's just gratuitous with you people, isn't it? I wrote that facetiously as badly as I could and then admitted that it was so horrible that you didn't need to tell me how horrible it is. But you just couldn't resist the temptation to step on someone's skull, I mean to insult their intelligence, even though I insulted my own intelligence, hoping that that backfire would keep yours from scorching me down to nothing. But no. Wikipedia editors have to be Wikipedia editors. It's their nature. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::You see how far down the rabbit hole we are, Dyrnych. Why haven't we heard this elsewhere? Apparently because RS journalists are just like you and me. They read headlines. They don't go 30 paragraphs deep in a news story from the New York Times to find the one admission that ends the controversy dead in its tracks. Wilson shot at Brown (face it: six times) while he was running away. Game. Set. Match. Put a fork in it. Once the world knows that, what else is there to talk about?
:::::Which leads me to my humble question. Which one of us is going to tell them? And will the rest of us let it stand when we tell? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::It's hard to tell when you're being facetious. Why would any number of shots fired at Brown "end the controversy"? The relevant controversy is over the killing of Brown, which didn't occur when Brown was running away. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::The New York Times is indubitably a Reliable Source (note the capitalization, to indicate WikiSpeak). It is also indubitably and on occasion and particularly on subjects on which its reporters and editorial staff have ideological biases and agendas an unreliable source. IMHO the "he’s coming back towards the police" unsolicited eyewitness report is the most important exculpatory evidence for Wilson that has emerged so far. It's real. You can listen to the audio, and there's no plausible way it is a hoax. But doing that is of course Original Research, and all we have, apparently, reporting it in the trad MSM is this odd mention as a sidebar by some Fox staffer on the posting of an irrelevant moronic video of Howard Klutz. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::I posted the original reference to this source in the paragraph that begins with "On August 19..." within the Police statements section, because it cited "law enforcement officials". This story was mostly about the different accounts, especially Johnson's, and just mentioned firing his weapon as a side-issue, not connected to anything else.
:::::I thought it was strange as well but, being from the NY Times, I thought it was probably reliable. Now, after a week with no confirmation (or reprints or follow-ups from the NYT), I'm thinking about removing it. Even a NY Times reporter could get a source wrong or incomplete: for example, the LEO could have said "The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone ''at first''"." Comments? --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::The best example of the media getting it wrong in this story is all the reporting in RS that says the police say Wilson didn't know Brown was a suspect in the robbery when he shot him, when in fact if you watch the tape the police chief says nothing of the sort.[[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::Honest question: Would it's inclusion be our call to make if it is from a RS? We could alos note in the article that the source is unattributed in the NYTimes article, and let the readers make their own decision of its reliability. [[User:Saeranv|Saeranv]] ([[User talk:Saeranv|talk]]) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Being from an RS doesn't just mean the publication is reliable but also that the content is reliable; in the case of newspapers, that the story is confirmed by other news media (unless they say in the story that it's exclusive). Also, doesn't the "according to law enforcement" say that it's unattributed? How about ''unconfirmed''? Like this: On August 19, ''an unconfirmed story in'' the New York Times reported that, according to law enforcement officials, "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone." --[[User:RoyGoldsmith|RoyGoldsmith]] ([[User talk:RoyGoldsmith|talk]]) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Ah ok. This edited statement is more nuanced, I think it's good. [[User:Saeranv|Saeranv]] ([[User talk:Saeranv|talk]]) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

== Claimed "earwitness," Tommy Chatman-Bey ==

An "earwitness" who heard the shots, whose name figures in four articles findable by Google News. Sources: MSNBC, RT.com, and the Globe and Mail. You'll note that it appears that first mention of him was made more than a week ago. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:Look, we all appreciate your interest, but perhaps you would A) include a source and B) propose text that is supported by the source(s). That would help everyone try to write a better article.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::Well the best article about him is the Globe and Mail article, but any newspaper with the name Mail in it seems to be immediately assailed as unreliable.
::[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/how-events-in-ferguson-put-race-back-on-the-agenda/article20179932/?page=all How events in Ferguson put race back on the agenda] [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Once again, it's great you are pointing out sources. But please, it's our job to glean information relevant from the source. Summarize the point you think the article is making and write it here. Heck, write it in the article. No one is going to bite your head off for being bold. Just try to be neutral and succinct. Don't be coy, pick up your pen.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Last time I did edits I got a final warning. I guess I'm really gun shy at this point. Would rather just put stuff for you guys to consider then post, get reverted and be out of bullets. Unlike most of the rest of you, I have no invincibility codes. And how come everyone talks in imperatives here? Why is nothing ever offered as a suggestion? "Get the f onto the article!" Where have I heard something like that before? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Another question. Why is division of labor so heavily frowned on here? If I prefer to research than to write, is that automatically a bad thing? Anyone can create the one or two sentences that explain that Mr. Tommy Chatman-Bey, a 60-year-old former drug counselor who lives in the neighborhood heard something that suspiciously resembles the shots as we hear them fired on the partially authenticated audio clip. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Taking the role of researcher rather than writer is fine. Its a role I have taken in several articles. I do however agree with Pork's thrust, which is it would be more beneficial if you would point out why you think a source is valuable, or roughly what additions are needed. The mail article spends most of its time talking about discrimination and the black white divide in general. Other than saying Chatman-bey heard the shots, I'm not sure what we would write about him, hes not providing anything new, or confirming/questioning any thing that is being questioned. A great many people probably heard shots. Regarding "Ten", I'm not sure I would use this source to back that, it seems much more like editorial flowery than saying "He specifically counted ten shots, no more, no less". [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::You're making a lot of very fascinating assumptions, there, Gaijin42. You're assuming that I find one of the sources to be more valuable than another. I may have a personal view, but I have learned the hard way that if I see something one way, I can be certain that any who will take the time to comment on what I say will definitely will make a point of insulting my intelligence for so stating. So rather than say, hey, this source is really good, the others are bad, I said, hey, here's a witness you guys have overlooked for more than a week now. And here is how you can find ALL of the sources I have come across so far. And no, I'm not suggesting that a newspaper published outside of the US is a reliable source. Heck, I'm jingoistic just like you. I'm just sick of how no good deed goes unpunished here and no good edit goes unreverted and no good faith action goes without putting you on yet another of several final warnings -- (there's no such thing as a first warning in Wikipedia, is there?) So I'm freaking backing off and just serving up stuff. You guys do what the freak you want with it - which, usually is to ignore it -- but not always -- cyberbullying is the other response of choice, it appears. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} Here is a final warning for you, if you keep responding to people with personal attacks it will not go well for you. You made some statements and asked some questions. I and others gave you very civil and polite responses, clearly trying to work with you - and once again you reply with venom. Learn to collaborate, or go elsewhere.[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Giajin42, you have been one of my most notable detractors. Now you give me a final warning. Where is my personal attack? I am speaking with emphasis to say that I do not want to edit and I'm telling you why. I'm stating that the time spent here has been miserable because of those who insult my intelligence on a perpetual basis (in the name of polite and civil helpfulness). Do is the double use of the word "freak" that has me on warning?" I'd be happy to remove them. But I'm on warning for removing stuff too. So, I'm kind of in a box, know what I mean? [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::Jingoistic. cyberbullying. flushing petals down the toilet and ranting. massive [[WP:ABF]]. You don't want to edit and want to suggest. Great! Seriously! We gave you some comments as to how you could better accomplish your goal. Nobody was attacking you. Nobody was saying your suggestions were wrong. We asked for more information about what you meant, trying to engage you. We replied to the part of your comment that had enough context to do so. Nobody was rude to you in any way. Read our responses to you, and then read how you replied to us. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 18:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::Also, please note that there is no such thing as a "final warning" on Wikipedia. An editor can give you a "final warning" in the sense that they'll report your conduct if you continue to engage in it, but there's not some escalation that's happening on the talk page once an editor warns you about something. Trust me, if someone's planning to report your conduct either (1) you'll know, because posting an actual warning template on your talk page is a prerequisite to most forms of dispute resolution or (2) they'll report your conduct and likely lose because they failed to post an actual warning template. So don't get worked up about being "on warning" or whatever, because that isn't a thing. That doesn't mean that your previous edits (and previous informal warnings given to you by editors) won't come up if there's dispute resolution involved, of course. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 19:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
"Tommy Chatman-Bey... heard something that suspiciously resembles the shots as we hear them fired on the partially authenticated audio clip." What's "suspicious" about it? The only thing said is that he heard ten of them, which isn't very interesting, inasmuch as the officer's gun probably holds circa 16 or 17 bullets and no one has suggested that he only fired the 6 shots that hit. [[User:Andyvphil|Andyvphil]] ([[User talk:Andyvphil|talk]]) 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:Hand a Wikipedia editor a rose and he/she will do what with it? Flush the petals down the toilet and denigrate in a rant about thorns. And they say women don't like it here. Go figure. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

== Discretionary Sanctions ==

I was not aware of this, and just came across it due to a discussion in an unrelated area. However, it seems that this article is likely under [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions]] per [[WP:NEWBLPBAN]] (Along with every other article that covers BLP/BDP it seems). I am asking for confirmation that this is the way this motion is being interpreted. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:I don't know what this means, even after reading the linked material. Apparently it has something to do with tighter controls than normally exist? Some dumbing-down would be helpful. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

::Discretionary sanctions basically means that any uninvolved administrator can take unilateral actions to protect the article. (from edit warring, NPOV, etc) Topic bans, blocks, implementing 1RR on a particular editor, or the article as a whole, or pretty much anything the administrator can think of. Overturning that unilateral action requires a clear majority consensus at AN/AE.[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

'''note this notice does not imply any misdeeds by any user. Its only for informational purposes. Placing the notice here also probably does not qualify as ''notification'' because it must be placed on each users' talk page to count''' [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:'''

The Arbitration Committee has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes|here]].


{{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}}
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.


== No mention of BLM? ==
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->
:And people wonder why I'm not doing real edits anymore.
:Any admin. Any time. Any reason. No discussion. Tell me more of this collaborative Nirvana of which you speak. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:36, 2 September 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)
== Robbery in lede RFC ==


: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)
{{rfc|pol|sci|blp|rfcid=583E919}}
'''With specific wording to be determined later, should the lede mention the robbery'''


::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-->
===Survey===
::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)
*'''include''' [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:LEAD]] "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Include''' for the above reasons. As irrelevant to the issue of whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown as the robbery is likely to be, we do discuss the robbery at length in multiple parts of the article. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Include''' - It is a very relevant part of the overall incident, based on the extensive coverage in sources. Currently, around 15% of the article discusses the robbery.
* '''Include''' – Both relevant and significant. [[User:Joseph A. Spadaro|Joseph A. Spadaro]] ([[User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro|talk]]) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Include''' However "who knew what, and when did they know it" questions will arise.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Include''' The strong-arm robbery is an important part of the narrative and article, especially considering the controversy concerning police release of the robbery tape. - A Canadian Toker ([[User talk:ACanadianToker|talk]]) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Include''' - I reverted because I thought the wording was awkward, not because I'm opposed to a mention in some form. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
* ''' Include''' very short mention of the alleged robbery in the lede. Details belong to the article's body - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


== Requested move 10 May 2023 ==
===Threaded discussion===
* Yes. The lede should mention the robbery with as much specificity as is necessary to convey how mangled the police claims as to whether Wilson did or didn't know about it have been. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 17:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::A good point. My (currently reverted) addition to the lede did not bring in the context of Wilson not stopping Brown due to the robbery correctly, and that is an important distinction. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
*I would note there's no need to refer to it as a "strong-arm" robbery in the lead. We discuss the nature of the robbery and define the term "strong-arm robbery" later in the article, and I maintain that it's more confusing than edifying to call it a strong-arm robbery without that definition. All that said, is this an appropriate place to discuss the content of the mention of the robbery in the lead (if there's consensus for that addition)? I think it's probably fine, but I'll defer to Gaijin42 as this is his RfC. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 19:12, 2 September 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 -->
::I have no objection to working out wording here, but if it doesn't happen here, thats fine too. So far it looks like there is going to be consensus for inclusion in some form so we might as well start hashing out the wording. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 19:14, 2 September 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.''
:::My concern is how the robbery is tied to the shooting. I'm not sure we can get a lot of this in the lead. And btw, the correct term on Wikipedia is "lead" not "lede" which is a newspaper term. [[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::I'll certainly second that last sentence. [[WP:LEDE]] is a redirect to [[WP:LEAD]]. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Not that it matters, but some of us (yes, I'm guilty) use lede because lead can be ambiguous. For example, "According to the lead, lead leads other metals for battery production, but copper is used in the leads." Don't even get me started on [[Buffalo buffalo|buffalo]].- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 20:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'd rather be ambiguous than wrong. :D &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 20:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I make the mistake at least once a day, but the distinction is important.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 21:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
===Snow? Wording.===
It looks like the includes are going to have it via [[WP:SNOW]]. {{u|NorthBySouthBaranof}} Thank you for clarifying the reason for your revert. OK, based on comments in the above sections, and elsewhere, it seems that there are several points that we may or may not want to include in the lede . I'm not saying I think all of the points below do need to be included, just listing all the ones I think ''might'' be included so we can put the legos together.
* (Police allege that?) A few minutes before the interaction, Brown (and Johnson?) were involved in a robbery
* Brown taking cigars from behind counter, shoving/assaulting clerk
* Johnson being handed cigars, placing them back on counter
* Incident was captured on surveillance video
* Johnson, lawyers, family have admitted it is Brown and Johnson on the video
* At time of initial interaction between Wilson and Brown :
** Wilson was aware of robbery
*** 911 call from customer
*** broadcast call to officers
** Was en route to the scene to investigate
** But stop was purely due to Jaywalking, and initial interaction was not due to robbery, Brown/Johnson were not suspects at that time
** At some point during stop, police posit that Wilson may have seen Robbery evidence and considered Brown a suspect in robbery.


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)
Based on the fact that Johnson, lawyers, family, etc have admitted its Brown and Johnson, and that the Cigars were taken without paying, and that we have video I think we should drop the "Police allege that" bit. However, in the interest of innocent until proven guilty, we could describe the action directly rather than naming a crime - "took Cigars without paying, and shoved the store clerk"
----


[[: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)
So initial stab at proposed wording :
: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)
<blockquote>
*'''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)
A few minutes before the shooting, Brown and Johnson were captured on a convenience store surveillance video, where Brown can be seen taking some Cigars without paying for them and shoving the store clerk. While en route to the store to respond to a 911 call, Wilson saw Brown and Johnson and stopped them for Jaywalking. Police have proposed that during the pedestrian encounter Wilson may have seen the Cigars in Brown's possession and then associated them with the store, but say the initial contact was unrelated to the incident at the store.
*'''Support''' - Makes sense to me. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 20:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
</blockquote>
*'''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 ==
Some of the wording is a bit cumbersome, to avoid using the word robbery. Anyway. Comments, or alternative drafts welcome. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:: That long sentence does not belong in the lede. If we mention the robbery and the alleged participation of Brown and Johnson, it should be minimal as not not to give undue weight. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:::What part do you think is unneeded? [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:Too long and detailed for the lead. Also creates NPOV issues because we describe in detail the police's POV without mentioning anyone else's POV.
:I suggest "The possible connection between the shooting and Brown's alleged role in stealing cigars from a convenience store is a subject of dispute." The police's own statements are conflicting and we still don't have clear answers as to who knew what when.[[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::Its an objective fact that Brown is on the video taking the Cigars. His own family, and the various lawyers for that side admit it. There is no POV involved in that. To take your wording and tweak with my response "The possible connection between the shooting and Brown's role in taking cigars from a convenience store without paying is a subject of dispute."
:::Works for me. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 16:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
A couple of points:
#I don't think that this part is accurate: "While en route to the store to respond to a 911 call[.]" My understanding is that Wilson had just finished responding to an unrelated matter and was not in fact going to the convenience store to respond to the robbery. According to [http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/police_officer_who_shot_michae.html this source]: "Police reports released Friday under an open-records request showed that at 11:51 a.m. on the day of the shooting, authorities received a 911 call reporting a robbery at the Ferguson Market. '''An unidentified officer was dispatched to the store,''' arriving within three minutes. The officer interviewed an employee and customer, who gave a description of a man who stole the cigars and walked off with another man toward a QuikTrip store. '''Separately, Wilson had been responding to a nearby call''' involving a sick 2-month child from 11:48 am until noon, when he left that place. A minute later, he encountered Michael Brown walking down Canfield Drive. The documents contained no description of what happened between Brown and Wilson" (emphasis added). Is there any source that reports that Wilson was himself responding to the robbery?
#Can we take the first sentence out of passive voice? Maybe: "A few minutes before the shooting, a convenience store surveillance video recorded Brown taking some cigars without paying for them and shoving a store clerk." Johnson's presence at the store is factually accurate but I think unnecessary for the lead.
Thoughts on either? [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 16:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the clarification on the call. I am fine with switching to active voice and dropping Johnson from the statement. I prefer something in the realm of the longer version, but two others have voiced concern about length. What are your thoughts in that regard? [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 17:08, 3 September 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.
::::Here is my proposal based on Gaijin42's version (addition in bold):
:::::'''A convenience store surveillance video showed Brown taking some Cigars without paying for them and shoving the store clerk, minutes before''' <s>According to witness reports and Ferguson police,</s> 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 he was shot multiple times.
::::I have deleted a few words from the next sentence. If there is consensus about what happened, we do not seem to need attribution.- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


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.
== On the robbery, and wilsons interaction with Brown ==


http://ferguson.lib.mo.us/
CNN interview with police chief jackson : http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/15/acd.02.html
TLDR : Wilson was aware of the robbery and the cigars were stolen. Did not stop Brown in relation to the robbery, but just for jaywalking. During encounter, saw cigars.


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?
<blockquote>LEMON: So, everyone made the assumption that the two were connected, right? And you said the officer who shot Brown, right; Officer Darren Wilson had no idea that Brown was a person who allegedly robbed this store.


Do we need references to the news reports regarding the library?
JACKSON: You know, under initial contact, their initial contact was simply he was coming from a suitcase, saw two young men walking down the street in the road blocking, you know, traffic and he pulled up and asked them to get onto the sidewalk and then as he passed them, you know, I guess that's when you might have seen the evidence and connected it but his initial contact was strictly pedestrian.
[[Special:Contributions/172.250.237.36|172.250.237.36]] ([[User talk:172.250.237.36|talk]]) 16:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


== The court case ==
LEMON: What do you mean seeing the evidence?


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)
JACKSON: That there was a broadcast that went out about stealing and there were cigars stolen ...


== Jennings Disbandment ==
LEMON: Right.


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:
JACKSON: ... a box of cigars.


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.
LEMON: OK. But when he initially confronted him or encountered him, it was just to get out of the road?


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
JACKSON: Right.</blockquote>
[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


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)
:During encounter, <s>saw</s> "might have seen" cigars. Jackson speculation, not a statement that merits any weight. &#8209;&#8209;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Mandruss|talk]])</span> 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::Agree with Mandruss. Jackson is stating the bare possibility that something may have occurred, not that something did in fact occur. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::I will admit I missed the "might" on my earlier reading. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
::::The way it's currently stated in the article: ''Jackson 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.''[[User:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue"> '''''Isaidnoway''''' </font>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<font face="Times New Roman" color="blue">'''''(talk)'''''</font>]] 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:::::Looks like that accurately reflects the source that we're using there. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
{{od}} the robbery section is reflected differently. We might want to make them match. Also, the police account is listed as a bunch of chronological statements/interviews, interspersed with reactions about those releases. Seems like arranging it into "here is what the overall narrative is" and "here are what reactions to that narrative/process are" would be better - in the [[WP:10YT]] I don't think that various interviews occurred at various times is really going to be encyclopedic. Where there are contradictions or some other issue in the various statements, we can point that out, but the way it is now its really difficult to follow imo. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:I do not envy those of you who must try to explain to the world what the police are saying happened when their prime directive has been, all along, to say as little as possible. Thank you for trying, though. [[User:Michael-Ridgway|Michael-Ridgway]] ([[User talk:Michael-Ridgway|talk]]) 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::The beauty of this is we don't care about having to explain anything except what the sources are saying. If they contradict, well chances are another source will try to address that. One of the bennies of being a high profile case.[[User:Two kinds of pork|Two kinds of pork]] ([[User talk:Two kinds of pork|talk]]) 03:18, 3 September 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=624043569

Leave a Reply