This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Law Enforcement C‑class This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Missouri C‑class Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Currently the article includes: "the South Carolina-based New Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said that its Missouri chapter is setting up a fund to support the police officer who killed Brown"

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be setting a very low bar to inclusion. Is it really noteworthy to include that attention-seekers in a different state agreed to accept donations on behalf of someone who does not want their support? This seems WP:UNDUE. --Darmokand (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. It doesn't seem that the mainstream media is really taking note. I won't object if someone wants to remove it.- MrX 14:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is supported by a WP:RS and should remain as part of the reactions to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it should be deleted. There is no evidence that Wilson authorized such fund raising or would accept funds from the KKK. Scam artists shouldn't be mentioned especially given BLP concerns. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not include its purpose for inclusion is to inflame the racial tension aspect of the incident. This is a non notable group comploetely unrelated to the incident, picked up by one source, and that source explicitly says they were doing it for attention. WP:WEIGHT Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Should the statement that the a single chapter of the KKK from a different state (Missouri) claimed its intention to raise funds be included in the article? update : The sources were written confusingly/have been updated. This is the missouri chapter of the KKK, which is headquartered in south carolina.

Survey

• not include WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV WP:BLP many groups say many things. This group has no relationship to any of the participants, organizations, city, etc at all. Its inclusion is obviously meant to be salacious and create a guilt by association (when there is no actual association) thats a clear WP:BLP issue. Yes, it is sourced, but everything which is sourced is not necessarily included. This is not a significant part of the story, and it has not gained any traction in the many many sources which are covering this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Include Per Gaijin42. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. Having watched a few hours of news coverage, this didn't get mentioned once. It seems WP:UNDUE to include this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include per AQFK, unless it becomes some big deal, or there is more too it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include I cannot even believe this is an RFC.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean we have to include it. There is nothing notable or relevant about this content. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude as being inflammatory with no basis for any claim that the police officers support such a KKK action at all - thus it is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and the onus is on those wishing to include those allegations to demonstrate that they comport with the policy. Collect (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• of course include' - This is part of the record of this event, and reported by several reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude Zero relevance to the incident. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include It happened. It is connected to the event. People want to know about it. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include For the reasons I've given above. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak include It's reliably sourced and related to the incident. That said, it's not terribly noteworthy in the context of the incident. I'd say include it for now, though I note that there are legitimate concerns about undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not include Undue weight, we have WP:IINFO. It doesn't sound like what I want to know when clicking in as well.Forbidden User (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not include A controversial inclusion to a WP:RECENT article with not enough WP:WEIGHT and raises concerns of WP:NPOV. Johnfancy (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course not Joefromrandb (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude based on current information; this being a recent event, the KKK might hit the news tomorrow. I believe I did see something about them raising money for Wilson, but it has not had significant coverage yet. If it does get more coverage, the situation is different. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014

(UTC)

• Include This information is highly relevant to the racial elements of the event. While various partisan groups have an interest in painting the event as related or unrelated to race as suits their respective agendas, the fact remains that race is a factor in this event. The presence of a nationally significant, race-centric organization is notable and important in the pursuit of impartially documenting it. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude per WP:NOTPROMO, although the fundraising can be verified the fact that an organization is fundraising based on the event should be excluded, otherwise all the organizations that have fundraised for the event would have to be given equal weight for balance sake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

• I don't have much of an opinion on this either way and I tend to agree that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive. I did notice that there is some coverage now in the media: [1][2][3][4], FWIW.- MrX 19:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive, it's more a question does this "material" rise to the level of relavence and noteworthyness that it merits inclusion? At this point, no. As I said above, IF it becomes some huge deal, then yes, reconsider inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I disregard the attention getting part of my argument and focus on WP:DUE weight, that puts me on the fence leaning toward include. So far, we have at least four good sources, and quite a few weaker sources. If coverage of this increases in the media the next couple of days, then I would likely !vote to include the material.- MrX 20:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV we report what reliable sources say about the subject without bias. This is a valid and interesting point regardless of how we may feel about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• When a highly controversial organization makes a statement like this during a national story, we should not be surprised that it would receive some attention in the media. However, WP is not a place to try and sell newspapers or get internet clicks. It serves no purpose to use WP to further inflame the situation and play towards the goals of the KKK, especially when their supposed support of the officer has no relevance to this event. Arzel (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it is controversial or salacious or gives someone we don't like attention. If it is part of the facts of the story, it should be included. The Michael Brown story is extremely racial, so there will be extremists on either side and people in the middle reacting to the incident. It should all be reported if it is part of the story. The only question we should be asking is: Is it a significant part of the story. People who read WP want all the facts. They don't want other people to make up their minds for them. They want to read the facts and make up their own minds. There are people who see the story as Oppressors/Oppressed. There are others who see the story as Chaos vs. the Rule of Law. There are others who see it as Freedom vs. Police State. Everyone would like the slant the story toward their own particular viewpoint. But the best article will just tell the facts and let each person make up their own mind.174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ths is widely reported, including international press:

• The Independent (UK): [5]
• UPI [6]
• RT (Spain) [7]
• Prensa Latina [8]
• International Business Times [9]
• Salon [10]
• Liberty voice [11]
• Uptown Magazine [12]
• The Real News Network [13]
• MintPress News [14]
• The Inquistr [15]
• Brasil Post [16]
• El Mundo [17]

So, regardless of our opinions, per WP:NPOV we should report all significant viewpoints per reliable sources, and not including this violates NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of now the shooting incident has about 500,000 news hits on google. The KKK angle has less than 5,000. This is not a significant viewpoint. It doesn't help that most of your sources above are fringe. Arzel (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe? The Independent? UPI? Prensa Latina? Brasil Post, El Mundo? What are you talking about? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

• RAI News (Italy) [18]
• Univision [19]
• Stern (Germany) [20]
• El Comercio (Peru) [21]

We have reported material sourced to just a few sources (The Daily Caller and Breitbart), and we are not reporting this? How come? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sources was placed after the RFC started and I have yet to see arguments that respond to this. Given these sources it is not a insignificant view anymore. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to boldly begin converting this article to use list-defined references, since I believe its benefits greatly outweigh its costs when it comes to ease of editing.

The benefits: For an example of the end result, edit 2014 Isla Vista killings and note how much less cluttered the body of the article is. Then look at the References section and note how it's so much easier to read the refs. Anything you need to do to a large number of existing refs, such as adding archive parameters, making the format of author names consistent, etc., is vastly easier when they are together in one place and well organized.

The costs:

• Every ref needs a refname.
• Every new ref requires (1) a change to the References section, to add the ref, and (2) a change to the body where you want to invoke the ref, as <ref name=refname/>. In a busy article like this one, where edit conflicts are more common, I do this by editing sections rather than the entire article. I update the References section first, which creates a red error due to the unused ref, and then do the body edit(s), which eliminates the error. In some cases the ref you need will already exist in the References section, so you can skip that step.

LDR isn't an all-or-none deal. Putting a ref in the body won't break the article. If doing refs this new way is too much to handle, then don't. Someone else will come along and move any body refs to the References section.

If anyone strongly objects, I will immediately cease being bold and we can discuss it. Fair?   Mandruss |talk  17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Great! I strongly support that (and wish you luck). It makes editing text much easier. It will result in orphaned refs, but fortunately a bot comes around pretty frequently to clean them up. I would only ask that you do not use (deprecated) quotation marks around ref names unless they have a space (or better yet, just don't use a space) and that the ref names be descriptive (not ref1, ref 2, ref3).- MrX 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, the naming convention that I'm bringing over from 2014 IVK provides for no spaces and no quotation marks. As for your orphaned refs comment, I don't think they're inevitable and I'll do my best to avoid them! If I create any, I'll fix them in short order. Re the deprecated quotation marks, is that deprecation in writing somewhere? I had an editor who tried to mass change 2014 IVK to use quotes and spaces because he thought they were more user-friendly. I'd like to have something to point to.   Mandruss |talk  18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it now, but I'll keep trying.- MrX 18:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also not that I greatly appreciate this as well. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(dummy activity to prevent archive for 48 hours, as that would break all of my related editsums)   Mandruss |talk  15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to combine these edits so that the article history isn't so cluttered? Going back to yesterday is literally hundreds of edits due to this. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean combine the history for the edits already done? If so, I don't know of any way to do that. If you're talking about doing more than one ref in each edit, I can do that when I'm working on it while everyone else is sleeping. Otherwise there would be too many edit conflicts.   Mandruss |talk  23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the latter, combining the edits so there weren't so many in the history, moving forward. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Beginning refs cleanup.   Mandruss |talk  07:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

173.75.159.227 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait for a reliable source to publish this, if true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^ Agree. ^^^^ If it's true, RS will be all over it, probably within an hour or two.   Mandruss |talk  21:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Ferguson police is leaking strategically. I will try to find the article I read in which this asserted. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it would dramatically change the picture in their favor, wouldn't they be "leaking" like a fire hose?   Mandruss |talk  21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here Holder Criticizes 'Selective' Leaks In Ferguson Shooting Investigation [22]. Indeed they are leaking what they want to be known that would bolster their case... - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Huffington Post, referring to the author of the article referenced by the OP: Hoft is known as the Dumbest Man on the Internet, and for good reason. As Media Matters summed it up: "Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension."   Mandruss |talk  21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh. And they carry Press credentials? - Cwobeel (talk)

Lest I be accused of failing to check my liberal bias at the door, Accuracy in Media apparently thinks he's great, as mentioned in the same HuffPost piece. But I'd put serious money on this being another example of Internet trash.   Mandruss |talk  22:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in the "shooting" section of this article, the claim that brown charged the officer is presented as fact. The source cited is breitbart.com, which should not be considered as an unbiased source. Eyewitness accounts are presented as accounts. Thus, someone reading this article and not knowing much about the incident would be lead to believe that the account of brown charging the officer is undisputed, whereas eyewitness accounts, such as Johnson's are treated as merely statements and not fact. Since there are many questions about what happened, there should be some indication that there are varying, contradictory accounts that make it unclear what happened. Azurashe (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart is shaky as someone put it, and the account is sourced by them to a blog that is not an RS. There is no rush, if that comes out in an official report, or if it is confirmed by reputable sources it can then be added. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "charged" claim. It's not sourced to an RS and the non-RS article source itself is explicitly repeating the accounts of as-yet-unidentified witnesses, which are in turn sourced to a since-disavowed tweet. Just a monumentally problematic claim to include as fact. Dyrnych (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it needs some work, now it sounds as if the police officer was firing his gun while running after the victim. There needs to be some mention that the victim stops running, at which point witness/police statements diverge. Restrictedthoughts (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fox News is reporting on this aspect of the story - Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source Isaidnoway (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added this to the police account, since the anonymous source in the Fox story is "close to the department's brass." Dyrnych (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious what they are doing. Leaking info that will somehow prepare the public on what would be the likely outcome of the grand jury. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A source close to the department's brass" is not verifiable even in principle. We need a name, at least, for this supposed "source" before we repeat anything they say. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum to the above: I request that the statement about Wilson's supposed injury be removed until it can be substantiated by someone who actually exists and will tell us their name. Currently we are publishing gossip. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have hedged the passage considerably, I think, by explicitly attributing the information to Fox. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC news is also reporting injuries to Wilson. [23] The use of anonymous sources by reliable sources is justified. Indeed, Watergate relied on a source that was anonymous for decades. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABC has been added. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times reported that a neighbor saw Wilson mowing his lawn three days after the shooting. I have added this as relevant to the injury claims - it demonstrates that Wilson was not hospitalized for an extended period or significantly disabled by whatever injuries he may have suffered. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant to this claim: the alleged "CT scan" touted by the aforementioned blog is a Photoshop job. As this post demonstrates it is a demo picture of an orbital blowout fracture with the words "UNIV OF IOWA" crudely photoshopped out. As if GatewayPundit wasn't questionable enough already, they're passing off a photoshopped picture as evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A CNN reporter has tweeted that "a source close to the investigation" denies that Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket - X-rays were negative, according to the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That link is not working. -- Veggies (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now on Vox, a reliable aggregator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is correct, it is quite explosive. Not only leaks, but false leaks? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with what Thomas Jackson said: “Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said last week that Wilson had a “swollen face” after the altercation and was taken to a hospital for treatment, but he did not provide any other information beyond saying the injuries were not life-threatening.”[24]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think some are missing the point; Foxnews, amongst other RS are reporting what their unnamed sources have said. We should have no problem in parroting the reports, as long as they are attributed to the unnamed source. We aren't saying the content of the report is true, but rather a RS has verified this is what their source said. We should trust the RS that the sources are "close to the brass", because that's what's the RS is reporting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section now reads badly,

On August 20, Fox News and ABC News reported that, according to an anonymous source, Wilson sustained a serious facial injury during the incident. ABC News said the source is "close to Wilson",[73] while Fox News characterized the source as "close to the department's top brass". According to Fox News, the source said Wilson was beaten nearly unconscious and suffered a fractured eye socket.[74] Fox News quoted the source as saying that Wilson is "traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and terrified [that a grand jury will] make some kind of example out of him".[74] According to Vox.com, an anonymous source "close to the investigation" told CNN that Wilson did not suffer a fractured eye socket, and that he was treated and released for a swollen face.[75] On August 20, Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III told Fox News that he could not confirm the reports that Wilson suffered a fractured eye bone.[76]

It reads like "somebody said something happened, but actually nothing happened.". I think better to delete all the stuff about his face that doesn't actually say what happened. At the moment the meaning is obscure and confusing, leaving the reader wondering what actually happened. [unsigned]

Your indent of the first line screwed up the formatting. I fixed it.

Yeah, as a new editor I thought that nothing should be included except what is established fact. Then I learned that I needed to adjust my definition of "established fact". Now I understand that we need to include the established facts that Wilson's injury is in dispute, that there are very contradictory claims being made, and who is making them. That way, a person who has been told that the fracture definitely occurred, or that it definitely didn't occur, can come here for the straight scoop as reported by the body of reliable sources. We'll eventually know whether it occurred or not, and then we'll update the article to reflect that. Does that help? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should all come out at some stage. My concern is that certain parties are deliberately muddying the waters through mis-information, which is making the editorial job difficult. It would seem easy enough to determine if the fracture occurred, and for such a simple fact to be in dispute is somewhat farcical. I would expect to find this kind of disputed info only in the talk pages. So my feeling is dump it from the main article, but I don't feel that strongly about it. Thepigdog (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original post removed after requesting that the same be done in my behalf. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion, but if you do it please refer to this guideline. In other words, we omit the comma unless we can establish that he preferred it. A nit, to be sure, but nits are my specialty. ;) This is talking about article titles, but there's no reason it shouldn't apply everywhere else, too. Btw, you would always end with a period after Jr. Mandruss (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original post removed after requesting that the same be done in my behalf. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y done. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the comma being repeatedly omitted? Every other article I know doesn't omit it. CitiV (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inconsistency. Due to inconsistent stylistic rules. The Wikipedia rule is to either keep or omit the comma, according to the individual's own preference. Without any clear preference, the comma is omitted. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline (WP:FULLNAME#Child named for parent or predecessor) states: "Do not place a comma before Jr., Sr., or Roman numeral designation unless it is the preference of the subject or the subject's biographers." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All because of some Facebook page omitting the comma? Proper usage of commas is underrated nowadays in the age of technology, just like spelling and punctuation. I'm not buying it. Anyone can easily omit a comma when it's necessitated. CitiV (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because of the Facebook page, but because that was determined to be the Wikipedia policy. The one that I quoted above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CitiV, the comma is traditional, but the modern trend is to omit. While other authoritative sources disagree, The Chicago Manual of Style has recommended omitting since 1993. I agree with them since I care less about tradition than what makes sense. Hardly anyone would write, Michael Brown, II, and yet tradition says we need to add a comma if we change the II to Jr.. Tradition offers no explanation or reasoning for that. In any case, how we feel about it doesn't matter much since the community consensus is as stated in the guideline, but knowing the preceding information might make you feel better about doing so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Actually, tradition does offer an explanation and reasoning for inclusion of the comma. As far as I understand it, at least. The word "Junior" was considered an appositive. Appositives (describing a noun) are always set off by commas from the noun described. An example might be: John, my neighbor, purchased a new car. The phrase "my neighbor" is an appositive to describe the noun "John". Therefore, the appositive ("my neighbor") is set off by commas. So, under the traditional way of thinking, "Junior" is an appositive to describe (modify) the person's name. Example: Martin Luther King, Jr., was born in 1929. The appositive "Junior" describes (modifies) the noun "Martin Luther King". Thus, the appositive is set off by commas. That is my understanding of the traditional rule. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well blow me down. I sit corrected! :D ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're gonna do this according to "the modern trend"? That's complete bull! CitiV (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also dislike the modern trend; I like the traditional inclusion of the comma in the case of "Junior". The article excludes the comma not really due to the modern trend, but due to the Wikipedia policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, and that's what I said. But I hope and assume that the guideline stems from the trend. If we clung to tradition despite trend, we would be using words like mayhap, somewhither, and betimes in Wikipedia articles. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to try to change the community consensus. In the meantime, we respect it and don't engage in article activism. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson fired more shots at Brown than British police officers discharged in all of 2013.

THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary. Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period. [25]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call journalism. Are you suggesting it might be considered for this article, or just passing along information? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is useful for this article, bt a summary could go in the International reaction of the 2014 Ferguson unrest article. The Economist is a British publication. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing articles all over referring to this or similar facts now and I have used this fact in personal discussions with African Americans here in St. Louis who are talking about either the Michael Brown shooting or the killing of Kajieme Powell where 12 shots were fired by two policemen. I think an article which curates research as to why these differences exist would be extremely valuable to American policy makers who are clearly beginning to question whether the legal framework that exists in places like Ferguson and St Louis might be artificially exacerbating the number of individuals who die at the hands of police officers in the US. The Kajieme Powell killing would be a perfect case study to help viewers understand why this controversy is now front and center.- Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should have a section (or at least some coverage) of how eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable: Why witnesses are often wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Eyewitness testimony does an adequate job of summarizing the relevant issues. Why would we include that in this article? Dyrnych (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's extremely relevant. Much of our article is based on eyewitness testimony and nowhere do we explain that it's close to worthless. We shouldn't be misleading our readers. Our job is to write informative, educational articles. Expecting readers to check another article is not realistic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the grand jury members are going to consider the eyewitnesses or their testimony to be "close to worthless." You exonerators crack me up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that CNN is trying to exonerate anyone? CNN is a reliable source and Luftus is an expert who's testified in over 300 court cases. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not this article's function to educate the reader about the world. I can't articulate it any better than that at the moment, but it seems intuitive to me. Imagine a newspaper article doing that.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it's our job as encyclopedia to provide informative, educational content. That's what an encyclopedia is, after all. You don't have to imagine. I already provided a news source that does exactly that.[26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many have run articles on "eyewitness testimony" in fact. [27] Elizabeth Loftus in The New York Times (International New York Times Opinion section) Despite their lack of knowledge about eyewitness memory, these poorly informed jurors are holding the fate of defendants in their hands. ... (In New Jersey) After Henderson, defendants who can show some evidence of suggestiveness will be entitled to a hearing in which all factors that might have tainted the eyewitness evidence will be explored. The judge also will present to the jury more specific guidance on how to evaluate eyewitness evidence. The Washington Post [28] The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at criminal trials, despite a recent proliferation of studies that show mistaken identity is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Sotomayor said She said the “vast body of scientific literature” that has established the unreliability of eyewitness testimony — including the “staggering” fact that 76 percent of the first 250 convictions overturned by DNA involved eyewitness testimony — “merits barely a parenthetical mention in the majority opinion.” So, yes, major newspapers and the courts have indeed dealt with the unreliability of "eyewitness testimony." [29] presents a scholarly view. Collect (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I absolutely agree with you in principle, the issue is that nobody has discussed reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of this incident, which makes any inclusion here very susceptible to WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDO issues. Any comparison or application of this well-established truth to the particular testimony would obviously be OR. Any statements standing on their own are UNDO/OR as how are we deciding that the statement is relevant to the topic at hand? In the long run this will resolve itself. At trial, or in some other analysis the issue of reliability of testimony will surely come up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: I already provided a source which discusses reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of this incident. It was in my very first post to this thread.[30] Did you view it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that this would go equally for challenging police officers' statements, for they are either eyewitnesses or directly-involved parties. We don't have a good sense of what the forensic evidence in this case is yet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I buy the fact that mistaken identity is a problem with witness reliability. I don't buy the idea that 20 people who saw him die can't be relied upon to be truthful about whether Brown was substantially closing on the 7 to 25 foot separation between himself and the shooter. So far, the only thing that I have read suggesting that forensics can help us on with distance is whether there is any gun powder residue on his body or in his clothes. None on the body. No access to the clothes. So I guess we have to go back to eyewitnesses for now. Or we could just delete this article until the courts hear all of the evidence and make a determination. Those are our only two ethical options in my opinion. Whatever floats your boat. People who claim that forensics is going to tell us what the witnesses didn't see, I don't understand that logic at all. Call me a Luddite, I guess. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the some of the comments, I get the feeling that nobody actually watched the CNN news report I cited in my original post. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. The following is a CNN report which discusses reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of the shooting of Michael Brown:

• CNN - MICHAEL BROWN DEATH INVESTIGATION - Why witnesses are often wrong

No WP:OR or WP:SYN is required. We simply report what reliable sources are already saying about the shooting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Indeed I did not view your original source, and was thinking you were just discussing the well known general issues with eyewitnesses. If CNN has specifically commented on that topic in context of the case, then the OR/SYNTH issues go away, and all we are left with is WP:WEIGHT. I think a sentence or two is supportable, but more than that may be unjustified unless this topic gets further traction. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gaijin42. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's highly inappropriate in any case for Wikipedia to describe eyewitness accounts reported in reliable sources and then qualify those descriptions with: "But hey! These are eyewitnesses, and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. (implied) Therefore, you probably shouldn't believe them." We're not here to inject doubt into or bolster any account. If someone wants to link to the eyewitness testimony article (which does contain some discussion of the reliability of eyewitness accounts), that's fine; users can go there if they want to know about what if any credibility issues the testimony might have solely by virtue of its eyewitness nature. To my knowledge, no Wikipedia article that includes eyewitness accounts includes the caveat in the article that they're unreliable; that's pretty telling in, my estimation. I don't see why this article should be any different. Dyrnych (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we're not here to inject doubt or bolster anything. Quite the opposite. We're here to report what reliable sources are saying about a topic. It's not up to us to say that reliable source's coverage is inappropriate because of our own personal feelings or opinions. As editors, we're supposed to remain neutral. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That material is better suited to Eyewitness testimony. There is an entire section on the subject. Not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Nothing here calls for mutual exclusion. It may indeed belong in the article on Eyewitness testimony. Just because it is appropriate for that article does not in any way mean that it is inappropriate for this article. It can go in both articles. Nothing is "forcing" us to pick "one or the other". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I would use this argument to lobby for a mention of the killing of Kajieme Powell here. I am not sure how his killing falls under aftermath of the Michael Brown killing. It hardly occurred as a result of Michael Brown being killed. It does have, however, certain parallels to the killing of Michael Brown, as Rachel Maddow pointed out before then highlighting the differences in how the police have handled each incident. Many reliable sources state, as do I, that the police chief in the Powell case, "thuggified" Mr. Powell, i.e., tried to create a false impression that his actions necessitated the firing of 12 bullets by two white police officers. Then we saw the video. And reliable sources were shocked (but not surprised) at the inconsistencies. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuel Thoughtmaker feels that the Police accounts subsection needs to be in the middle of the subsections for the eyewitness accounts, for "neutrality", he said. In other words, it would fail NPOV to put them either first or last. My take on it can be summed up as follows: That is patently absurd. Thoughts? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's alphabetized so it's not subjective. No importance should be assigned to any of the accounts until the courts and the press have ruled in finality. That's true neutrality. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not patently absurd, IMO. I agree with the alpha sort. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no need to edit war over this. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not an eyewitness account. Why would we place it in the eyewitness accounts?

(2) I agree that this is a weak argument, as are most arguments about placement of text being NPOV. We assign the police report no additional importance by placing it in a separate section. Dyrnych (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit war. Never have, never will. I reverted once. K? But it boggles my tired old mind that we're making a telephone directory out of the Accounts section. Tell me, which would be the favored position, first or last? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The police are eyewitness accounts. They have eyes, they are human beings, they are just as fallible and corruptible. The courts needs to decide. To say they are not equal to eyewitness accounts in fallibility is to pretend the police aren't equal human beings. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We are not a court and are not presenting evidence to a court. I'm not claiming that the police aren't fallible or that the police account represents "the truth." But it's manifestly different from an eyewitness account. Dyrnych (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for the police to have their own section would be because eventually it will be required, or it will start taking over the other accounts. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Mr. Thoghtmaker, isn't Bystander heard on video out of sequence? Aren't you violating NPOV there? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Obviously I agree that we shouldn't alphabetize the accounts. I don't care if we put the police account at the top or bottom, or in its own section, but inserting it in the middle is poor organization. Since there are objections to the bold edit by Immanuel Thoughtmaker, the status quo ante version should be restored until such time that consensus is reached for changing it.- MrX 21:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we've all said our piece and it looks like 4-to-2 against the telephone directory. Now what? Wait for more? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pull both Johnson and the police out into a separate sections called "Involved witnesses" or something. Then the ostensibly neutral, uninvolved eyewitnesses separately. If they are going to stay all together, then I would say the "involved" ones should go at the top, as the most important.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, lost that. Well maybe not. See #Having Dorian Johnson in a separate section?, above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually it will look like the yellow pages. I hate to make predictions, but, we still have a boatload of eyewitnessess/witnessess that we still don't know about yet. There was a boatload of police officers on the scene afterwards as well, every single one of them wrote an incident report - which are relevant as to what they observed upon their arrival at the scene. For instance, did they observe an injury on Wilson's face, the position/distance of the body, shell casings they observed, witness names/statements they gathered at the scene, was an ambulance called, etc. It's not necessary yet I don't think, but eventually that wall of text is gonna get hard to navigate. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're gonna try the case in this article. Think about 2014 IVK - we didn't do that sort of thing there. Are you talking about the size of the Police section in Accounts? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all those police incident reports are being introduced as evidence to the grand jury. What those police officers observed upon their arrival to the scene is relevant to this shooting. Obviously, we don't have them yet as they chose the grand jury route, but eventually those reports will be released. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're right, it would have to be moved out then anyway. But I think patently absurd is the stronger argument for moving it out now. It's what MrX more tactfully called "poor organization". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Gaijin42 made a good point above, when he referred to Johnson as "involved". Johnson's role in the incident was completely different from that of the other eyewitnesses. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like patently absurd and poor organization, sounds good to me. Do it. I support boldness. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for coming! ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that it makes little sense to put the police in the middle of the other actual on the ground eyewitness accounts. The police should be the first listed for the simple fact that the prosecution always goes first. Police are attempting to prosecute Michael Brown. Then you give the claims of those who say that they saw what happened, starting with Dorian Johnson as he was the witness the closest to Michael Brown. If you want to do the rest after that in alphabetical order fine. But can we make that alphabetical by last name, and state at the top that that is why they are arranged as they are? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• simple fact that the prosecution always goes first. Police are attempting to prosecute Michael Brown - The only flaw with that argument is that the State of Missouri is attempting to prosecute Darren Wilson. Be careful not to use arguments that can be turned around and used very effectively against you. :)
• After Police, Dorian Johnson needs to be first among the eyewitnesses. I wanted him separate from the rest of the eyewitnesses, but I lost that one. Also "Bystander heard on video" clearly needs to be last. So you're left with the question of how to arrange the remaining four eyewitnesses, and I think it makes sense to have Crenshaw and Mitchell adjacent since they're related (Mitchell was picking up co-worker Crenshaw). That pretty much kills any alphabetization, unless you want to say that the remaining four are in order by first name (which itself will fail when we add an eyewitness named Ramona, as she would separate Crenshaw and Mitchell). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the inclusion of the statement:

"The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back and that Wilson shot Brown while holding Brown's neck."

This seems to, in turn, be contradicted by other claims in the same section. At the moment we say:

• Brown couldn't have been shot from behind ("The autopsy appears to contradict aspects of Dorian Johnson's account, including that Wilson shot Brown in the back")
• Brown could have been shot from behind ("... the wounds to the right arm were consistent with Brown either having his back to the officer ...")
• We can't determine what happened anyway ("Right now there is too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting").

In addition, the coroner stated that he didn't test the clothing or car for residue, and therefore couldn't be sure that Brown wasn't shot at close range. Given this, it seems like a much better to avoid including any interpretation of the coroner's findings unless they are made by the coroner in his official capacity - just make the statement of what he found, and leave it to the reader to determine the strength of the witness statements on their own. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment. I also found it troubling that the article seemed to state multiple conflicting views as fact. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Please watch the following from CNN: Why witnesses are often wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that eyewitness accounts are unreliable - of course they always are. :) But we can't insert commentary about the reliability of any given witness statement, especially when we contradict ourselves by doing so. We need to drop any interpretation, and only report the facts of the autopsy. This has nothing to do with how reliable witnesses are. - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the autopsy we report is the one performed at Brown's parents' request by Dr. Michael Baden, not the one performed by the SLC medical examiner (and not the coroner's report).

Second, we summarize from reliable sources, giving due weight based on their proportion. If suddenly, 90% of the world's publications said that the moon was actually made of green cheese, we would report it as a fact (and the other theories, like the moon is made of rock, as outdated ideas), regardless of our personal opinions.

I note that your first example (The autopsy appears...holding Brown's neck) is taken from two reliable sources (NY Times and WashPost). If they disagree, so be it. Technically we are not allowed to mention this contradiction unless we find a discussion in a third reliable source. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can choose whether or not to include this claim - that's what we do. Stating that the autopsy contradicts Johnson's account, and then stating both that the autopsy can't reconstruct the shooting and that it is compatible with Johnson's account, is foolish. If the doctor conducting the autopsy had made the claim that his findings contradict the witness statements, then fine, we add them. But as Baden didn't, we're surmising based on an opinion from an unknown source (presumably the reporters), and it makes a lot more sense to leave that claim out. - Bilby (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On tonight's episode of The Last Word on MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell is reporting that Wilson did not file an incident report about his role in the shooting, on the advice of his union's lawyer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN International reported on this a couple of nights ago, they said he had already been interviewed twice by detectives about the shooting, once on the day of the shooting, in what they described as a "soft interview", then another more detailed interview a couple of days later. So they already have his statement on his version of how it happened. His lawyer is wise to advise him to stop talking, in light of a grand jury investigation into his conduct. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the fifth amendment trumps a police officer's responsibility to file an incident report after killing a man??? This gets sicker by the minute. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually sick, no matter what you think about the Brown shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the US Constitution is actually valid. And one ought draw zero inferences from a person abiding by it. Collect (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that police statements draw a whole slew of inferences about Michael Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the LOD report. This is little more than his opinion. Arzel (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I have replaced it. He is a notable journalist and commentator making statements on an indisputable reliable source TV network, and his reported statements are at least as reliable (when attributed) as claims by The Daily Caller, which we also use. It is not "his opinion," he reported them as factual statements. Readers can decide whether they believe him or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, autopsies are mentioned in the following order: independent, county, federal.

AFAIK, they occured in the following chronological order: county (no date found in sources, probably 9th or 10th), independent (17th), federal (after 18th).--Japarthur (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there is an autopsy performed by military coroners on the 19th. It might be the one referred to as "federal", but the source (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=0) is not very clear on this. --Japarthur (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Justice Department announced that the "federal" autopsy will be carried out by military examiners (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preliminary-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-six-times/). So "military" and "federal" autopsies seem to be the same one. --Japarthur (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the order and added the source mentioned above, but cannot find the mistake I made keeping it to appear properly. --Japarthur (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous information in the county autopsy section about marijuana shouldn't be mention in this section.--Japarthur (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point 4.1 is called "Procedure", but mentions two of them: police and FBI. IMHO, it would be clearer to change the title and put each one in a different section with a specific title. --Japarthur (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change proposed 1 day ago. --Japarthur (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, wouldn't it be helpful to clarify why many people are concerned about McCulloch's bias ? So far, the article mentions general reasons, but I mainly heard a specific one: his father was a police officer killed by an Afro-American man. --Japarthur (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to resent this fact. I saw no rationale for it. Worth mentioning ? --Japarthur (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The delay in taking his body away gets mentioned as a source of irritation. For the actual residents of the neighborhood, it had to be traumatic. Imagine one of your friends lying literally in the middle of the street in front of where you live with, as one witness described it, brain matter actually on the street along with a long trail of blood that flowed downhill straight down the street while police with German shepherds, body armor and assault weapons guard the perimeter that they marked off with yellow crime-scene tape. Frustrating wouldn't begin to describe what that would feel like.

I vote for including it but would urge a good source for the duration, especially if you state that it's five hours. I've always heard four hours, personally, and never five. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky NPOV territory, obviously. So I'd let RS be our guiding light, in other words pass the buck to them. I haven't done that research, don't have the time, and feel the the person who wants to put it in should do that. If most of the heavyweights—NYT, WaPo, LAT, TV and cable networks— report it, then put it in (with at least three refs I think), otherwise not. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There you go:

1. New York Times the body had remained in the street for nearly five hours [31]

2. Kansas City Star Michael Brown's body lying for four to five hours on the city street [32]

3. CNN before Brown lay dead for five hours, uncovered in the street [33]

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is CSI stuff -- bodies are frequently left in situ for investigative purposes and it has no actual relevance as far as I can tell. I saw "partial remains" in NYC once many hours after an incident. Gory? Yep. Indicative of anythingother than a thorough and proper investigation? Nope. Collect (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a verifiable fact, and reported by numerous sources, so it does not matter what we think of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No clear consensus here yet. To save time, I'll go ahead and add some refs, starting with the three above, to the References section and report back with the refnames. Then we can pick the ones we want and easily use them, if consensus is to include this. In the meantime, being unused, they will produce the big red errors at the bottom of the References section, but not many readers go there. Anyway we can't afford to be too concerned about that type of error while the article is still in flux. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each refname is a link to the associated article.

NYTimes.Autopsy — several hours — Antonio French: nearly five hours

KCStar.Violence — Piaget Crenshaw: four to five hours

CNN.Enough — five hours

Truthout.Protests (Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!) — several hours — French: close to four hours by the time he arrived

HuffPost.Humanity — approximately five hours

Economist.Overkill (paywall with a small amount of free use allowed, I was locked out by the paywall for awhile) — four hours

Esquire.Body — four hours

Nation.Fruit — at least four hours

WashPost.Stonewall — more than four hours

NYMag.Matter — four hours

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it may save time, but deliberately introducing error messages is a very poor practice. StAnselm (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused refs have been commented out. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/08/21/diametrically-opposed-stories-hannity-examines-varying-ferguson-accounts Which I post as a reminder that we should all be careful not to be duped into reporting stuff like the orbital socket fracture baloney as though it's established fact. ('cause you wouldn't want people to think you're as gullible as Sean Hannity, would you?) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I wrote a somewhat lengthy essay in response, and then cancelled because it's not what an article talk page is for. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, eye socket injuries would not necessarily show up on a cell phone video. [34]. Hospital records, if and when presented, would be what is needed for any rejection of such a claim. IIRC, we do not have photos of the officer involved. Collect (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get some sleep but I've transcribed some of what he said and tried to make it in order of events. I'm pasting it here for now. Anyone want to help prepare this for final insertion into the main article under a heading somewhere up top?

First pass attempt at a transcript. Sorry for all the things that need fixing still.

"I was actually in my bedroom" at the outset of the encounter between Officer Wilson, Brown and Johnson.
According to Brady, the altercation "was already happening" when he first looked out the window to observe what was going on.
When asked by O'Donnell if he could see Brown's hands, Brady answered, "Yes."  "They were, most likely, through the window, and maybe the cops arms --"
When asked if he could see the officer's arms at that time as well, Brady replied, Yeah, I [saw] his arms moving also.
"He took off running from the vehicle.
"They both just took off after the little tussle at the window"
"The officer just immediately gets out of the vehicle and he just started shooting in a shooting position.
"When he started shooting, he's taking large steps to him. He wasn't shooting at [Johnson]."
He passed the officer's cruiser and he passed the vehicle that his friend was hiding behind.
Brady indicates that at that point he left the bedroom to go outside, taking about five seconds to make get out of the apartment.
"When I gets outside, Brown was actually balled up, like he was hit in the stomach, is what I thought."
So, as he was kind of balled up, he was going down actually.
And the cop actually shot out about four or five shots, he hit the ground, and that was it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11044383/Eyewitnesses-describe-Michael-Brown-killing-as-new-footage-released.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source is about as tabloid as it gets. Avoid at all costs. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is a tabloid? You may be confused with the Daily Telegraph? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of us is confused. The Daily Telegraph shows the "official website" as telegraph.co.uk. At the bottom of the home page for telegraph.co.uk is a copyright notice for Telegraph Media Group, which owns the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph, and no other "Telegraph", according to its article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:) - In any case, the newspaper in question is hardly a "tabloid" as we have here in the US, being one of the top daily newspapers in the UK. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I remember two or three UK sites "reporting" on 2014 Isla Vista killings in a manner that I wouldn't call journalism, and I thought the word "telegraph" was in there somewhere. I went looking for that in archived talk, and found where I complained about them being used as sources, but I was referring to edits I had just made and didn't mention their specific names in the talk. Ah well. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for creating unnecessary controversy by using a Telegraph URL that actually had the MSNBC interview embedded. I had relied on it because of the reference to Kenna Lewis, which, according to Google News, can only be found on the Telegraph article, as of about 24 hours ago at least. It's her video. Michael Brady appears in the video as well described primarily as "her fiancé." Then I later saw that the whole thing was up on MSNBC as a long-form interview with Lawrence O'Donnell, followed up by an analyst who does a very good job of pointing out why we have to take seriously what the "non-thug" [not my term] witnesses are saying about who Michael Brown was killed. You'll note that the link I included in the External Links page goes directly to the interview with O'Donnell. But the cites to his comments in the article omit any mention of the O'Donnell interview, instead pointing to CNN and Anderson Cooper. So many witness statement[S] So little time. How do you guys keep up? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As is, it seems anything relating to injuries suffered by the officer, or the twelve witnesses supporting the police version of events, is downplayed and relegated to parts of the article that are unlikely to be read by the casual visitor. I don't dispute that there's plenty of racism all over the US and the world, but it's not in the interest of Wikipedia to be part of a hate machine, as it stands the article only emphasizes the stories told by the deceased's friends and family, including a possible accessory to robbery. I sincerely hope the truth comes out about what bullet was fired exactly when while Mr. Brown was doing exactly what, and let the chips fall where they may.Oathed (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is reliably-sourced information available which is not in this article, feel free to add it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oathed: Wikipedia being part of the hate machine? As you seem to be a a relatively new user, I'd suggest you read our basic content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. A summary is available at WP:NUTSHELL. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Been here for about 4-5 years now. Had to change username due to PII in it. The bias accusation on this article still stands. See documentation on injuries to the officer was removed from high-profile position in article. As it stands, this is a one-sided and partisan article not up to Wikipedia standards.Oathed (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What "documentation of injuries to the officer?" There is no such documentation publicly available, there are two competing accounts of his injuries and no proof that one is right and the other wrong. We are reporting both competing claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ce) If you believed that, then fix it. Just remember that we work here to achieve consensus, and we don't engage in edit wars - Cwobeel (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there are twelve witnesses supporting the police version of events. If they are eyewitnesses, and they are as well sourced (WP:RS) as what we already have, then I agree that the article needs more balance. So go for it, it will be good editing experience. (Add: The only thing I might have a problem with is anonymous eyewitnesses, as I prefer people who are willing to stand behind their claims. Others may disagree with me.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. You would have been aware if partisans with a clear agenda hadn't been reverting good-faith edits. Google it and you'll find it easily. As is, it's either not on this page, or hidden way down in the paragraphs of a large and unwieldy article the average busy Wikipedia consumer is highly unlikely to read straight through.Oathed (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge no reliable source has reported this information, probably because it's sourced to a tweet that has been discredited even by its own author. "It shows up when you Google it" does not mean "reliable sources report it." Dyrnych (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Oathed is likely referring to this. You can see the discussion up there, but suffice to say that the claim is not sourced to an RS. Dyrnych (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Never mind.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and posting a picture of the body of Michael Brown laying in the street, apparently even before the yellow tape had been strung up. You can see the Twitter time stamps for yourself. My review of his Twitter feed is how I was able to find a reliable source that we could use to bring him into the story. (You're welcome.) His Twitter handle is @TheePharoah and if you look at his Twitter feed since, numerous notable individuals, including Antonio French, have been in communication with him in a very public way, including an offer to help him lawyer up and expressions of concern for his safety. He appears to not want to be known personally, even joking that he had to turn down offers of pizza because he'd have to divulge his address. But the St Louis Post-Dispatch, thankfully, curated a number of his tweets and posted them in an article, as can be seen by going to the Social Media link that I put in the External Sources section of the video. Not meaning to be offensive, but I'm rather stunned that this remains undone a full 14 days into this story. He clearly is going to be a central witness during the grand jury hearings but good luck getting a RS source that will let you tell the world that. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart reported on this [35]. But I would be cautious unless a more mainstream source reports on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something. That Post-Dispatch page refers to the tweeter as "This Twitter user". I don't see any identity that has been verified by RS. See #Two_more_witnesses (Freeman is the name associated with @TheePharoah there).‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks. I didn't know that a name had been attached to his Twitter handle yet. Appreciate you clearing that up for me. I'd urge a mention of his Twitter handle in the article, unless there are guidelines that prohibit that. I doubt that the hundreds of thousands who have learned of TheePharoah's role in all of this over the last two weeks would be able to make the connection without us giving them a stronger hint. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me, read what I said in #Two more witnesses. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more, LA Times [36], NY Daily News [37], so all we need now is someone capable to summarize that account. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll oppose the add of an anonymous eyewitness. We have plenty of eyewitnesses who have had the balls to give their real names (and I don't doubt that the names they gave were verified by RS). And I don't think this guy's tweets add anything encyclopdic anyway, just tabloid fodder. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the tweets I could find. I don't see the slightest tidbit of significant information about the events that we don't already have from at least two named eyewitnesses. So the value of this is? I'll look for more and add them here if I find any. Feel free to do the same, no sig necessary.

I JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG

Im about to hyperventilate [now isn't THAT informative!]

I saw it happen man..

@allovevie the police just shot someone dead in front of my crib yo

Fuckfuck fuck

Bruh. Im so upset

@DomoTheTruth dude was running and the cops just shot.him. i saw him die bruh

Its blood all over the street, niggas protesting nshit. There is police tape all over my building. I am stuck in here omg

Bruh they chanting we gon.be on.the news smh

The dead dude dad out.here tripping

@DomoTheTruth he looked like 18 or 19. His parents out here tripping now

@SLIKK_DARKO yeah man. 7 times i think

@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around

The first two was clear, then it was a barage of them shits

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more, LA Times [41], NY Daily News [42], so all we need now is someone capable to summarize that account. No, it needs to pass the significance test, too.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The significance is in two specific tweets: that two of the shots happen when Brown was running, and that the next five when he turned. No other witness is so specific. - Cwobeel (talk)

@_amourlace no reason! He was running!

@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around

- Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think Mitchell gives us the salient points of that. All she lacks is the exact number of rounds. ‑‑Mandruss (talk 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, if you want to add the following, I wouldn't be opposed. "An anonymous Twitter user, who witnessed the shooting, stated tweeted that the officer fired twice at Brown while he was running away, and five more times after he turned around to face the officer." No need to mention the Twitter handle, no need to refer to any online fuss in reaction to his tweets. Short, simple, to the point.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may work. You do the honors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "toward" rather than "at" as most officers would actually have hit a person they were aiming at with the first two shots. The source would accommodate that wording as well. Collect (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Isn't "fired at" the same as "fired toward"? And "fired at" the more common usage? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same. Firing at a person implies specific aim, while towards is more typical where a person is not being aimed at. At a distance of 35 feet, police officers would usually hit a target being aimed "at." Absent a source implying aiming, and absent the source using specific wording, the more conservative wording is generally preferred. This is not OR -- it is using the wording generally used. Collect (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we have at least two eyewitness accounts that say he was hit at least once while running away.

• Piaget Crenshaw - he was hit with several shots as he ran
• Tiffany Mitchell - The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid's body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that the other accounts need to be kept out of this account, then I would respond that this account says, "dude was running and the cops just shot.him". That's "shot him", not "shot toward him". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts, I forgot to source it and got reverted! I'll do it again, correctly. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having a little trouble with the source. I can source "@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around", but we need the implied preceding "omg bruh was they in the back?", or some RS synth to that effect. Any help?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Changed "the officer" to "Wilson" for consistency with other eyewitness account subsections. Retained "fired at" instead of Collect's suggested "fired toward", per my reasoning above. Two refs, Mediaite and BuzzFeed. There were three or four more of comparable quality (not exactly blue chip, but we're using both sources elsewhere). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are awesome. As to the question of why we need to add another witness who says what other witnesses have said??? How about this answer. Because we might need that last witness once the thuggifiers among us have successfully discredited the first five witness that we named in the article. [Intended as irony from a contributor who is [go-to-euphemism: discouraged] every day at what I read here. Sadly, the very large kernel of truth behind the irony in my statement is why it stings so bad.] Face it guys, the running narrative for days has been YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYTHING THAT BLACK PEOPLE SAY. BELIEVE THE POLICE. QUIT YOUR GRIPING. ON TO THE NEXT INSTALLMENT OF AMERICA'S GOT TALENT. Uh, I won't be playing along. Sorry to [discourage] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of an ongoing and patently obvious hole in our article so this is not out of bounds. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an analyst for MSNBC pointed out last night in discussion with Lawrence O'Donnell, what distinguishes the most notable alleged witnesses from many of the others is the proof that they bring to the table that they were actually there. @TheePharoah tweeted a message at 12:03 and had a picture out shorty thereafter. @Tifanny Mitchell has produced video of the event before the yellow tape was up. Michael Brady has video to support his claim that he was present. Dorian Johnson, no need, that's beyond dispute. I believe that for each of the witnesses with tangible evidence to support their claim that they witnessed the events personally, we should specify, using RS sources, what that evidence is, i.e., mention that the video, picture, or tweet is now available and point to it with a cite. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- we can only use what is clearly reported n reliable secondary sources. See WP:SYNTH for the major problem -- that is, combining sources to make a claim not found in the source directly. Collect (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we should specify, using RS sources, what that evidence is. Ok, where are those RS sources? Wouldn't it make sense to make sure they exist before opening a discussion like this?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just mimicking what the analyst on Lawrence O'Donnell said last night as she assessed the credibility of the testimonies of Tiffany Mitchell and Michael Brady, as you lay the two (very similar -- her characterization not mine) accounts side-by-side. Do I have to go get her quote about how the fact that they cannot be impeached as not having seen that because of the physical evidence of their presence that they bring to the table WITH their testimonies? Even if I go get you that quote, there is no way in Hades you are going to find a way to weave that into the article. Either you mention what I'm suggesting you mention when I opened this section it or you don't. Failure to mention it gives unfair advantage to those who are thuggifying the African American witnesses in this story. My biased opinion as an unusual kind of white person. People of good will may differ. What say you? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the insinuation that I didn't know that there were such reliable sources before I posted my comment? Posed by one trying to "learn the ropes" and keep his editing privileges.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the section for "Independent autopsy", it offers the words of Michael Baden. In discussing the bullets, this section states: with some of the bullets entering and exiting several times. Is this even possible? That a bullet can enter the body, then exit, then enter again, then exit again? And, so on, "several times"? Or is this passage simply worded incorrectly? I don't know the first thing about autopsies and ballistics, etc. But, I never imagined that a bullet can keep going in and out of the body even once, let alone "several times". Am I wrong? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bullets can enter and exit the body multiple times. See our handy article on ballistic trauma for a quick primer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. OK, I did not know that this could happen. Nonetheless, I read that article. It didn't say anything at all about this issue. Was there something in there, and I missed it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth graf: "Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds." Dyrnych (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But how does that answer what I am asking? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were questioning whether the source itself made that claim. As to whether it's possible, it is for multiple reasons. In this case, according to the autopsy "[o]ne of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone." So entry wound, exit wound, another entry wound, and possibly another exit wound. Dyrnych (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, see the articles about the JFK assassination and the multiple wounds (indeed, multiple victims) from a single bullet. Collect (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh, that's true!!! [humor intended, though rarely achieved. Tough audience.] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"died after being shot...by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white". What is the purpose of stating that he "is white"? Why is his race relevant? JDiala (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is part of the controversy, and facts are just facts. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources uniformly consider the races of the parties involved in this incident to be important, enough so that references to the parties' races are often featured in the leads of those reliable sources. That justifies its inclusion in the article and in the article's lead. Dyrnych (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am, if I'm not mistaken, the one who added it, to make it parallel with the fact that we identified Michael Brown as being African American. And I'm white. So you can take out all of your anger on me. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are the standards for identifying ethnicity? If Wilson is identified as 'white', should Brown be identified as 'black'? Or should Wilson be referred to as 'Caucasian'? It seems strange to me that we're using 'African-American' and 'White' as the descriptors here. They seem unbalanced to my mind. (ScubaSharky (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

That's a dilemma way beyond my pay grade. White takes fewer letters. That's my pitch for white. What is a Caucasian anyway? It ain't no freaking continent, like "Africa" or "Asian" or native "American" it's a hole in the armpit of Eurasia, no? Who came up with that term anyway? Probably the same (did I mention, white) social scientist who thought that creating the categories "moron" and "imbecile" for human intelligence was going to be a good idea. Paraphrasing a video my wife played for me recently. So don't take it personal. [intended as humor or as food for thought]Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach came up with the term based on now-disproven science. White is probably the standard term (if we must divide on account of "race") -- Veggies (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the provocative insinuation implicit in the current title of this section. I trust that a claim that it is not a little bit accusatory would not evoke no controversy and would urge that it be changed or that this article be archived post haste if the legitimate issues raised in the body of this section have been resolved to the satisfaction of all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obtained by the ACLU. Only that it says absolutely nothing, but there are some very notable aspects to it.

• HuffPo article [38]

• Report [39]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's at least worth mentioning.- MrX 21:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove non-cited text that calls Mike Brown a victim, when it's obvious by now that he was killed in self defense. --154.69.0.97 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an edit request, please use the edit request template. However, I doubt that you will get a positive response to that edit request given that it is certainly not "obvious by now that [Brown] was killed in self defense." Dyrnych (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. See victim.- MrX 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone with necessary status in the hierarchy of editors please archive or remove all of my comments currently visible on this talk page?

I am basically satisfied with the content of the article at this point and see no reason for people's faces to be rubbed in comments that some have found offensive.

Is that a fair request? It is made in good faith.

Feel free to either leave this section up or remove it, as you deem best.

Thank you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments don't get "removed". They become part of the "permanent record" of this page. If you want, you can "strike" through your comments. That is the typical process for an editor to "retract" a comment. You strike through it, like this: this is a comment that I want stricken. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that there is a permanent history of all edits, including deletions isn't sufficient to allow a subsequent deletion of one's own comments that everyone says were never wanted or appreciated anyway? Really? So what is the point? To shame a person after they screw up, PERMANENTLY? Please tell me more of this collaborative Nirvana of which you speak. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael-Ridgway: If you think about it, it really makes sense. Because it is a "record" of a conversation. And the striking convention (i.e., this) allows readers and editors to "follow" the conversation, as it evolved and developed. Example: Person 1 makes a comment. Person 2 replies to Person 1. Person 3 replies to Person 2. Somewhere along the line, Person 2 wants to "retract" their comment. If Person 2 uses the "strike" convention, we can all follow the conversation and also see that Person 2 retracted their comments. If Person 2 simply went in and deleted the comment altogether, the conversation would be impossible to follow. The conversation would make no sense, with that large chunk of words now missing (i.e., deleted). And this is just a very easy and very basic example. Imagine a conversation with many comments, back and forth. If various comments along the way were completely eliminated (deleted), there would be no way to follow the conversation with any coherency. The strike convention allows both: readers can still "follow" the evolution of the conversation; and the reader knows that the stricken comment was subsequently retracted. So, I believe, this is the reasoning and rationale. I don't suspect that it has anything to do with shaming people. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, I know you have the best of intentions, but you should have told me when you suggested using strikethrough that you are a nobody in the hierarchy of discipline on this site. I followed your advice and am now facing a final warning from Veggies for striking. This is hard. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned for your deletions, not your strikes, as well as for using this talk page as a social justice forum. -- Veggies (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification veggies. When you posted these words in a final warning >> if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at ... << I took the word blank to be distinct from the word remove, therefore, I thought that you, an editor who is not likely to be redundant, were then, it seemed logical, referring to the addition of strikethrough in my past actionable (to some at least) comments. Again, thanks for clearing that up. On the matter of warning about "social justice" can we agree that you gave me no explicit indication that I was facing a ban for "social justice" dialogue, and that you gave me no specific indication of an offensive post that was specifically an instance of "social justice" dialogue, i.e., can we admit that this tactic of teaching the rules by the whip is still just a bit imprecise, kind of like well, you know, in Ferguson?Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently under the 'Bystander heard on video' witness account this is written: "A YouTube video of the immediate aftermath of the shooting was discovered to contain in its background noise a description of the shooting supporting the police account..."

I think this too strong a statement. Darren Wilson's account (from vox.com) consists of the following:

1. Brown physically assaulted Wilson prior to the shooting.
2. Wilson attempted to get out of the car, but Brown pushed him back into the vehicle.
3. Brown then physically assaulted Wilson and attempted to grab the officer's weapon.
4. At that point, the first shot was fired from the police car.
5. Brown ran away, but eventually turned around and moved toward Wilson — causing the officer to fear for his life.
6. Wilson fired and killed Brown, 35 feet from the police car.
7. Wilson was reportedly injured during the encounter, and one side of his face was left swollen

This bystander's account does not support points 1,2,3,4 and 7. The sequence of events claim by the officer regarding Michael Brown assaulting him is not supported by any witness.

One could argue that the bystander's account supports the claim that Brown turned around and moved towards Wilson, but this is also supported by other witnesses. Specifically Michael Brady - "As he was falling, Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson because he was presumably hit and was stumbling forward;" and James McKnight - "I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him. The officer was about six or seven feet away from him." (Both of these quotes are from this Wikipedia article).

The only other thing I can think of is that this bystander does not say Wilson was firing shots at Brown as he's running away and does not mention Brown surrendering with his hands up. However, this witness is not explicitly saying they did not happen, all we know is that those events are not mentioned in this informal conversation he's having with a friend.

In summary the statement "a description of the shooting supporting the police account," is too broad. I think it should be removed or hedged with the above arguments.
Saeranv (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the hedged version from earlier today. The Fox source is the only RS for this account (the Daily Caller is reliable only for its own opinions, per above discussion) and it hedges considerably. Dyrnych (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to the lead. Since this is about a shooting, we should at least provide some information about the shooting as reported by the eyewitnesses.

1. Moved the non-legal history of Brown and Wilson's service information to the top to set the stage.
2. Elaborated the robbery incident and the reason Wilson stopped Brown and his friend
3. Provided a brief description of eyewitness accounts and explained where they agreed and differed the moments before the fatal shots were fired.

Hopefully this helps the lead better stand on its own.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I salute you for your boldness. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit per WP:BRD. At this point any summarizing of witnesses accounts will be difficult, and would push us into WP:SYNTH. Better to keep the lead simple and short. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short is good. But are all the main sections accurately summarized in the lead at this point? Collect (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel:, explain how any synthesis was in the version you removed. It was an accurate paraphrasing of the witness accounts as reported by the NYT. As for the lead being simple and short, I too share @Collect:'s concern that the lead should accurately summarize the body of the article. The lead should be able to convey all the salient points made in the rest of the body. As for the version you restored too, that doesn't come close to explaining the background and the shooting itself.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These two sentences are worrisome.

1: A lawyer for Brown's friend said his client and Brown got into a verbal dispute with Wilson about whether walking in the street constituted a crime. The Ferguson Police Chief, Thomas Jackson, said that after Wilson started talking to the men he realized they matched the descriptions of suspects in the robbery. Why are we mention Johnson lawyer when there is no context provided?

2: Eyewitness accounts of the moments leading up to the shooting for the most part are consistent with each other. There was a struggle between Wilson, who was inside his patrol vehicle, and Brown, who was leaning inside the car through an open window. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the vehicle and Brown started to run away. The officer exited his vehicle and fired his weapon at Brown. Brown turned and faced Wilson, who then shot and killed Brown. The crucial moments before the fatal shots is when the eyewitness reports begin to sharply conflict with each other. Some witness say Brown approached Wilson in a possibly threatening manner, and other witnesses say Brown was not moving and may have been holding his hands up. This is borderline OR.

Good try, but given the controversial aspects of this incident, and how it is begin covered, less is more. There is plenty of time to craft a great summary for the lede, and we should do this once this stops being a current event. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address point 1 later, but point 2 comes from the NYT. Please reread it and tell me what is OR. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: For point 1 above, there is no problem with the lawyer's statement. The context has been provided, because we note that Wilson stopped Brown and his friend. We could remove it sure, but the point of even mentioning this is because when Wilson talked to the young men, is when he realized they might be suspects in the robbery. What were they talking about? The high cost of milk? But we do know from the lawyer an argument ensued. We aren't drawing any conclusions for the reader. As for point 2, I ask (a second time) that you please read the NYT source. The text above comes from that source, paraphrased to avoid copyright issues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when Wilson talked to the young men, is when he realized they might be suspects in the robbery. That is just speculation, and speculation does not go in the lede. As for the summary from the NYT's article, that is the opinion of the NYT but you wrote it here in Wikipedia's voice as it these were facts. As I said, the current lead is as good as we can expect for now. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could add "according to the New York Times" to precede that sentence, but there are other media outlets with their own summaries, which they always present withing the context of "this is what we know now" or other similar statement, which makes it unusable as a summary of this article. That is what a lead is, see WP:LEAD. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Article is Protected or Semi Protected from edits, which I believe it is, shouldn't it also have a tag explaining the status as such at the top of the article itself?Qwekfm (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed. The "lock" icon indicates it is locked and to what level.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this earlier when I was looking at the article initially. I'm used to the text box announcements of wikia style sites I guess. Also signing my comment from earlier which was sent before I registered my account.Qwekfm (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit surprised looting hasn't been discussed here (or has it?). In any case, I added that to the lead. We should be careful not to report "rampant" looting unless the sources state this. I heard an NPR segment that researchers noted that reports of looting are often exaggerated during/right after an event like this one occurs, but later research indicates the number of looted businesses is often far lower than what was initially reported.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KMOV back in the day had a map with pins for all of the locations that had been looted. Media sources have been pretty good about not over or underestimating the extent of the looting. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding more summary detail to the Shooting Incident section. Something along the lines of.

• Johnson pulled up told the kids to get off the street.
• Kids said they were almost home. Did Johnson hear this clearly?
• Johnson drove forward and stopped. Looked in rear vision. Angry because kids are still on the road?
• Kids still in middle of street.
• Johnson drives back.
• Tries to open door but can't because too close to the kids.
• Tussle
  • Door being held closed.
  • Michael pulling away.
  • Johnson holding on.
  • Officer hit in the side of the face (bruising only?).
  • Officer says "I'll shoot you" (Dorians account).
  • Shot fired (maybe)
• Kids run
• Johnson gets out chases Michael.
• Johnson fires a number of times (mainly missing Michael).
• One shot grazes Michael. Michael jerks and turns around, with hands up, and stumbles towards Johnson. (this may be why Dorian thought he was hit in the back).
• Johnson shoots Michael (some more times 2?).
• Michael slumps forward.
• Johnson shoots Michael (some more times 2?).
• Michael is hit in the top of the head and killed.

Exact wording would need work. Maybe a table giving the various accounts in columns.

The summary than give a picture of what happened consistent with all the stories. Not so much to add information as to make it easier to read and get an overall picture of what happened. Just a suggestion, rough draft. Thepigdog (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, as we will be dangerously wading into WP:SYNTH territory. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not intended as a synthesis of a conclusion from multiple sources. It is synthesis to allow people to understand the sources better, and how they fit together. But if your not comfortable with it, I'm not comfortable it. Thepigdog (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The present structure: 4 Investigations 4.1 Procedures / 4.1.1 Police investigation / 4.1.2 FBI investigation 4.2 Robbery incident report / 4.2.1 Reactions 4.3 Autopsies / 4.3.1 County autopsy / 4.3.2 Independent autopsy / 4.3.3 Federal autopsy 4.4 Grand jury

The proposed structure: 4 Procedures 4.1 Local procedure / 4.1.1 Police investigation / 4.1.2 County autopsy / 4.1.3 Grand jury 4.2 National procedure / 4.2.1 FBI investigation / 4.2.2 Federal autopsy 4.3 Independent autopsy 4.4 Robbery incident report / 4.4.1 Reactions --Japarthur (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this edit, there's some question about the use of "whether or not" versus just "whether" in the sentence, "The shooting is currently under investigation by a grand jury, which will decide whether or not to indict anyone for the shooting."

It looks like "whether or not" is correct because it is modifying the verb "decide".

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there was another instance of "or not" being removed in the edit.[42] That use of "whether or not" should be restored simply because it was in a direct quote. To sum up, the edit [43] should be reverted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my two cents. Both phrases mean the same thing. If you say "whether or not", you are explicitly outlining the "or not" alternative. If you simply say "whether", then the "or not" alternative is merely implied. It's still there, but it is there implicitly rather than explicitly. That being said, I think the explicit "whether or not" is more appropriate to this article. This is a highly contentious subject matter. And both sides need to be given equal weight. Thus, I think it's important to say that the grand jury may decide to indict or may not decide to indict (both options, explicitly). This is not a major problem, and it's a bit of linguistic hair-splitting. But, I'd rather "err" on the conservative side in an article like this. Why is this even contentious? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using NYTMOS seems reasonable. Collect (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did a robbery occur or not? Or is it an alleged robbery that occurred? Because according to the lead of this article, it is stated as a fact: - According to Ferguson police, Brown was a suspect in a robbery - does not say alleged. And then we have a section devoted to this robbery in which the FPD clearly states it was indeed a robbery. This is what that section states as facts in regards to this robbery: - The report stated that the convenience store's surveillance footage showed Brown grabbing a box of Swisher Sweet cigars - and Chief Jackson confirmed - "the initial contact with Brown was not related to the robbery" - and Dorian Johnson's attorney: - Freeman Bosley, the attorney for Dorian Johnson, confirmed that they had in fact entered the store and cigarillos were taken, and that Johnson had informed the FBI, DOJ, and St. Louis County Police of this fact. - And again the attorney: - Freeman Bosley, confirmed that Brown had taken cigars from the store - and this from the attorney: - my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told the FBI that Brown did take cigarillos. Chief Jackson of the FPD says a robbery did actually occur. Dorian Johnson says a robbery did actually occur. So who is saying that a robbery didn't take place? Because everyone with knowledge of the incident - clearly states that a robbery did happen. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"They had entered the store and cigarillos were taken" is, at best, a statement that they shoplifted. We have no charges or convictions for any criminal offenses. There exist significant disputes about the nature of all of the related events. We can afford to wait for the legal process to complete the investigation before we assert any facts about the criminality of any person's behavior in this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there is not going to be a conviction now that the perpetrator is dead. I don't think we need "alleged" here at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit that added "allegedly" and gave the following explanation in the edit summary, "reverted OR that adds material not in source". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're wrong.

• Post-Dispatch: "alleged robbery".
• MSNBC: "report alleging that Brown and a friend stole cigars".
• Washington Post: "alleged robbery".
• WJLA/Associated Press: "alleging the young man had been suspected of stealing a $48.99 box of cigars from a convenience store in a "strong-arm" robbery shortly before he was killed".
• Wall Street Journal: "alleging that Mr. Brown was tied to a robbery at a convenience store."

These are directly from the sources list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should have done an edit find when I first looked at the sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources all agree that there was a robbery. They also agree that Brown was a suspect. We do not need to "allege" that Brown is a suspect.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to allege that Brown is a suspect because that word means that the crime is still alleged, but no, they don't state the robbery as a fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged is the correct way to describe this, per sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources say Brown allegedly robbed the store. Not that was allegedly a suspect.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is allegedly a suspect. They are or aren't a suspect. They allegedly committed a crime. As we have direct unambiguous evidence of him doing the action, the only question is was it in fact a crime. Nobody describes it as an alleged robbery. It was a robbery. He is the only suspect. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody" except for the reliable sources cited in the article, you mean? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we having this conversation exactly? Please re-read WP:V and move on, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged suspect" is bad writing. We don't have to mimic the bad writing in our sources. I think we can agree that Brown was a "suspect in an alleged robbery". That does not carry the same meaning as "alleged suspect", which is plainly redundant.- MrX 19:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Just because reliable sources fail to write decent prose, doesn't mean we should have to mimic their lack of style.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree that Brown was a suspect. The lone criterion for one's being a suspect is that the police say that one is a suspect. That means nothing in terms of whether Brown was guilty or not guilty of robbery, but it does mean that there's no necessity for hedging when referring to Brown as a suspect. As far as whether the conduct alleged constituted a robbery, that's a separate question and one that Wikipedia has no business deciding. I'll note that the sources generally do refer to the incident as an alleged robbery. However, when it's clear that we're giving the police account, there's no need to qualify the robbery as "alleged." "According to Ferguson police, Brown was a suspect in a robbery" makes it clear that the police are saying this, not that Wikipedia is endorsing this view; no need for "alleged" in that sentence. Dyrnych (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note here that Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown during the robbery, said through his attorney, the incident was a "robbery" and a "strong-arm robbery", no hedging there either. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a cite for Johnson's attorney's statement classifying it as a "robbery?" I'm curious, because I would never under any circumstances admit publicly (or advise a client to admit publicly) that my client's actions could amount to a felony (as Johnson could theoretically be considered an accomplice). If the attorney only stated that Brown took cigarillos, that's not quite the same as stating that Brown committed the crime of robbery. I'm not saying that the attorney didn't say that, but if he did he's a pretty bad lawyer. Dyrnych (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WaPo, the (robbery) case is “exceptionally cleared.” You know as well as I do, that the police can "clear" a case without ever obtaining a conviction. And why is that in this case - because the police have a video of Brown and Johnson inside the store, they have an eyewitness who was with Brown during the robbery and admitting that fact. The police said they weren't going to charge Johnson in the robbery, because he didn't steal anything or use force. These are all facts that have already been told to the FBI, the DOJ and the STLCPD by an eyewitness to this robbery. Also according to the same WaPo article, Johnson's attorney said that Johnson told the FBI he thought the robbery was a prank. This article already makes it abundantly clear that a robbery did indeed occur and that Brown and Johnson were involved in that robbery. And according to this article, Johnson's attorney referred to the incident as a strong-arm robbery. Once your client has already admitted to the police that he was there during the robbery, and then told them that Brown stole the cigars, and then receives immunity from prosecution because he didn't actually steal anything or harm anyone, what difference does it make if he calls it a robbery. The case has been cleared and his client is not going to be charged. And since the case has been "cleared", it is no longer alleged to have happened, it did happen according to the police and the person who was there in the store with Brown during the robbery. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration is WP:BLP for a recently deceased person in this case where some reliable sources use "alleged". --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cleared" doesn't mean "immune from prosecution," and I would highly doubt that the police have granted Johnson immunity in this case. In any event, this is something of a tangent. My point is that the facts are not particularly in dispute. Whether those facts amount to a robbery is a legal question that hasn't been settled. Dyrnych (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this article, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said that Dorian Johnson would not be charged in the robbery as he didn't steal anything or use force, but hey who knows, they could go back on their word and charge him as an accomplice. I'd agree with Bob that BLP is a legitimate concern and one that should be afforded to Officer Wilson as well, because BLP applies to him too. This article currently states that it was an;

• execution-style murder by this police officer
• execution-style murder
• brutal assassination of his person in broad daylight
• execution style murder of their child by this police officer.

I certainly don't see the word "alleged" prefacing any of those inflammatory statements. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Isaidnoway. You made very valid points. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re officer Wilson, I agree that he should be accorded the consideration of WP:BLP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the news stream subsides, we ought not to start splitting hairs, and leave the article alone unless there is new information. If there is new information, we shall add it, but this back and forth on minutiae is not constructive. There are 1,000s of articles out there we can improve. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the news really is subsiding, this would be a good time to start trimming excessive detail and copy editing to improve cohesiveness and clarity. Of course, there's no urgency to doing so.- MrX 19:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And like it or not, many people will come here to read about this incident. We still should provide an accurate and neutral summary as to what the sources have reported.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Police Government announcements

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 20 and 21, the St. Louis County Police and the Ferguson Police released their respective incident reports, which gave the time when each police force arrived on the scene and classified the incident as a homicide. Neither report contains a narrative description of what occurred.

Saki Knafo of The Huffington Post commented that the Ferguson incident report was "almost entirely blank", with the address and time of day of the shooting, and other "bare-bones details." In Knafo's opinion, police reports generally include details about the crime scene, interviews with witnesses, and the names of all the officers involved. Wanita Gupta, legal director of the ACLU, said “[it] just further demonstrate the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about the Michael Brown shooting.” A spokesman for the county police said that the information they provided contains details they are required to share by law, but that other information was "protected until the investigation is complete”. The report states that police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident, and that officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesman said that the response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time.

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

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

The problem with this approach is that it combines many entities with entirely different motivations and functions in the incident into one account. The Ferguson police exist in a different posture in this incident than the prosecutor's office; in fact, the two are essentially adverse to each other in terms of the investigation into Wilson's actions. Similarly, the federal government (and its myriad entities involved in this case) has a role that exists independent of and possibly in opposition to both the police and the prosecutor's office. All that is to say that it makes little organizational sense to combine all the entities that can be classified as "government" into one section. Dyrnych (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not supposed to judge "motivations and functions"; that, IMHO, is WP:OR. We are supposed to report published sources (and not necessarily, news sources), according to their WP:WEIGHT. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not "judging" them on their merits. We're organizing an article. And it would be absurd to think that we can't include, e.g., the fact that the prosecutor's office is considering prosecuting a police officer into our calculus when we're determining whether the two are functionally the same for organizational purposes. There's nothing that even remotely resembles OR there. Please see WP:BLUE. Dyrnych (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to me that in the context of this article, especially in the matter of the controversy over whether the shooting was justified and the controversy over whether the shooting was necessary, -- two very different questions -- and as I see it, we have only touched on the first -- that the weight principle could be used in highly subjective ways on which there would never be universal consensus. If the local news media in St Louis, with its obvious ties to the police were to at some point opine that the shooting was justified but national sources were to split evenly along political lines (pro-social justice, vs pro-law and order, for example to which side would this article defer? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prefers to deal in facts and not opinions as to what might occur in the future. And I suggest your use of "obvious ties to the police" might, alas, indicate some POV on your own part. Fortunately facts tend not to be as subject to POV as opinions are. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not talking about whether cold fusion is real or whether there is man-made global warming. We're talking about a matter which could go before a jury where there are at least two sides to the controversy and where more and more reliable sources are coming down on one side or the other. Are you suggesting that reliable sources aren't at all split on their opinions about whether this shooting was justified and/or necessary? Because unless that's what you're suggesting, then my question stands. In the hypothetical parallel universe where there were more sources favorable to the police account and where only a tiny minority was favorable to the neighborhood account, would we, under the WEIGHT rules, be obligated to defer to the police-friendly sources? As I read the rules, we would be. And I'm not arguing against any individual here. I'm arguing against the absurdity of a blind and/or literal application of that rule in this kind of an article -- where new "evidence" comes in in fits and starts,and where supposedly old evidence is brought into question or corroborated. In other words, I believe that the Wikipedia Weight rule, applied here, has the potential to show itself to be "an ass." I'm also aware, of course, that an attempt to engage in civil disobedience against a rule that one views as absurd would likely end one's ability to argue the absurdity of the rule. Which is what I, as a newcomer, am finding so troubling about my work in this collective -- the insidious way in which one must allow oneself to be formed by the collective, under penalty of ejection, is very troubling to me. It truly is. The fact that so many editors who do the discarding may be oblivious to the harmful effects of their hard slams against other editors is also something which shakes my faith in Wikipedia. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can always stop editing if you have no faith in the project. We all all volunteers here. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence about fundraising. Both parties are fundraising, and it is not relevant to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you realized that there is also a sentence about fundraising for the Brown family in a section about them. Fundraising is relevant to the shooting because it is support for the Brown family and Wilson which is a result of the shooting, as is all the other support for them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fundraising is tangential and of little importance to the article.- MrX 23:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, If we include them, it should not be in the sections bout the two protagonists, it should be somewhere in the article narrative. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to the "Reactions > Third parties" section [44] after trimming for brevity. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "If we include them, it should not be in the sections bout the two protagonists" — Did you want to do anything about the remaining one in the Brown family section and its temporal ref? BTW, what was the problem with them being in the respective sections of the two protagonists? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are actions by third parties, so that is were I place them.- Cwobeel (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, go ahead and remove the Brown temporal ref when you move the Brown fundraiser to third parties section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is there, is it not? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Fixed now. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the city of Ferguson is a "party" involved in the shooting, in the way that readers would typically expect the word "party" to be used. It seems jarring and out of place to list the city as a "party". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. It does not list the city of Sanford as a party; but it does list the City of Sanford Police Department. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Ferguson as a one of the parties. It does not make sense. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May be a good idea to have a section on Ferguson County police, as they have played a substantial, if controversial, role post incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some new legal information: Missouri law could protect Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel:: You deleted the Background section (as of 00:56, 24 August 2014), with the edsum "Be Bold, revert and discuss". Several edits before this, you changed the heading from Background to Parties involved. This made the inclusion of Ferguson problematical, since Ferguson is not a party.

The original text was this:

1 Background

1.1 Ferguson

Ferguson is a city of 21,000 in the north-east quadrant of Saint Louis Country, Missouri. (The City of St. Louis is not part of St. Louis County but is an independent city, encompassed by St. Louis County.) As of the last census, Ferguson was 67.4% African American and 29.3% White, while the police force in Ferguson is now 87% white and only 5.5% black.[20]

1.2 Michael Brown Jr...

1.3 Darren Wilson...

OK. It's perfectly alright for you to be bold. But now you get to explain your deletion. I believed that some background on Ferguson was necessary to order for new readers to understand the Shooting incident section. Since the bios of Brown and Wilson could also be considered background, I combined them all into one section. I have no objections if you wish to renumber the subsections, including a Parties involved heading, like this: 1 Background > 1.1 Ferguson > 1.2 Parties involved > 1.2.1 Michael Brown Jr > 1.2.2 Darren Wilson (instead of 1 Background > 1.1 Ferguson > 1.2 Michael Brown Jr > 1.3 Darren Wilson.)

So, why did you delete the Background / Ferguson section? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]