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.

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]

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

I believe that what I'm calling "government announcements" has the highest percentage of consistent reliable sources. (If you think that, for example, the eyewitness account of, say, Dorian Johnson has received more reliable coverage than, say, Jon Belmar's announcement of August 10, that's a valid criticism and we should discuss it in a new talk session.) But IMO, government announcements (under whatever name) should go in front of the "eyewitness accounts" and the attributable eyewitnesses should go before the anonymous accounts and journalist comments. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any more comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes. The issue is that we have very, very little from official police reports and quite a lot coming from unnamed sources "close to the police", so I am not sure how to be structure this. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see what you mean after re-reading the long thread. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I get the time tonight, I'll make the changes discussed (with some inline comments; i.e., <!--anything-->), under WP:BRD. I will probably just put all the extraneous material from the Police section (the strikeouts in my example) in a grab-bag subsection called Comments and we can work out where they go tomorrow. Please feel free to alter, revert and/or upgrade any or all of my mods. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any thoughts on my comment regarding why lumping everything from a government entity into "government announcements" is problematic? I really think you should consider this before reorganizing the article. Dyrnych (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way the sections are organized right now, we seem to be accepting all accounts with equal validity. Or more validity, depending on their order. It's as if we regard the statements of Dorian Johnson or the Twitter user as equally or more reliable than the police reports. Do you believe that's the impression we're leaving? (Read the article as a first-time reader before you decide.) If so, do you believe that's the impression we ought to be leaving? (By the way, do you know why the Police subsection was moved to the bottom of the Accounts a few days ago?)

My reading of the sources says that, in general, coverage of "official government statements" is more prevalent than the coverage of, say, Dorian Johnson. Most of the eyewitnesses (except the police) appear in the news for a couple of days then fade away. Government/police stories get repeated continuously and analyzed far into the future. (In my personal opinion, government pronouncements are also intrinsically more reliable than witness accounts because governments have to stand by them whereas witnesses, except those under oath, may come and go.)

My thought was to organize the "accounts" as:

• Government announcements (with or without comments)
• First-hand eyewitnesses (including Johnson, Brady, Crenshaw, Mitchell and Knight)
• Anonymous witnesses (twitter, bystander and possibly Josie)

Calling Josie a witness would be intellectually dishonest. We may not have a reliable source PROVING she is a fake. But we have Little Green Footballs doing a darned good job of trying.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be satisfied with moving the police subsection up to the beginning of the Accounts and leaving it as that but others may disagree. If you agree that the government and/or police account should get a more prominent position than the other "eyewitness" accounts, I'm more than willing to let you do the work. (If you don't agree, we should keep on talking.) There's no rush on my part. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a "first-hand eyewitness" is, but it would be wrong to subordinate Twitter to the other eyewitnesses. The fact that he is the only confirmed eyewitness except for Johnson outweighs the fact that he is anonymous. In other words, I like him a lot more than I did a few days ago. It would be ok for him to immediately follow them at the same section level, and maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Very minimally. WP:BRD?

This section is getting too long. Continued in New position of Police account section below. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include this info? Source: Man, 32, is left with brain damage after 'being attacked by gang of 20 black men' in parking lot after being told Waffle House 'wasn't safe for white people after Ferguson'. Maybe under the "Reactions" section? Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the source, I didn't need to read any further. Wait for more RS. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

How is this source? Mississippi man beaten after he's warned restaurant wasn't safe for whites, witness says. And this? Mississippi restaurant beating: FBI joins probe into whether attack on white man was hate crime. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you got the wrong guy. I believe in mainstream media. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

that's sort of the point. Mainstream media and RS's won't report this. I took that to mean that you were part of the anti-MSM crowd and were looking to use WP as a platform for "the real truth that MSM won't tell you". I was severely short on sleep and my judgment was impaired. Sorry. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

What do you mean: "we don't know"? Isn't that exactly what the source is claiming? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in fact what the source is claiming. Nowhere do the sources state or imply that the beating was a reaction to the Brown shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I agree. It should be included here. It is a clear reaction that "flowed from" the Brown incident. I didn't check the LA Riots article, but I suspect that it does indeed mention Reginald Denny. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to including this content in this article because it is tangential to the shooting, very small in scale, and lacks coverage in mainstream media. I also agree with Dyrnych's more detailed reasoning. The Reginald Denny incident was a subject covered by major news sources for several days.- MrX 12:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dyrnych and MrX. This article should be kept to the pertinent facts. Perhaps at a later date, with the objectivity of distance more could be added to gain perspective. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:AGF ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The AP is owned by its contributing newspapers, radio, and television stations in the United States, all of which contribute stories to the AP.- MrX 13:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The deaths of dozens of others in the LA Riots were not covered extensively by the news media. The most likely explanation for that is the lack of video footage, in my opinion. But if sufficient well-sourced evidence of a tie between Rodney King verdict and those murders was available, it should have been included, even if general awareness of the facts of these murders might have served to strain race relations in the aftermath of those riots. To selectively overlook relevant, notable, and demonstrable acts of criminal behavior is to drop the ball ethically as an encyclopedic resource. It is for this reason that I object to the negligible coverage that Wikipedia editors have so far afforded to the killing of Kajieme Powell in St. Louis, now more than one week ago. The video evidence of false reporting by the St. Louis City Chief of Police is incontrovertible, and the matter is widely known and discussed here among the Black population and was reported on by many reliable sources. Yet only one sentence in all of Wikipedia even touches on the gross exaggeration by the police of the actual danger posed by Powell precedent to his being mowed down in a hail of, according to police, 12 bullets fired by two white policeman from a distance which makes acceptance of the police insinuation that the killing was necessary to save life all but impossible. WP:COMMONSENSE Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kajime Powell was armed, and well within the 21 Foot Rule (although the cops did have their guns drawn which changes things a bit). Im somewhat surprised he wasn't shot further away. Theres plenty of things we may need to deal with as a society, and training cops to shoot at knees or something is perhaps a discussion we (as a country) should have - but that particular incident was well within expected norms nationwide and has very little to do with racism or the other issues involved in the Brown case. Powell may have been reacting in grief/anger/outrage, but other than temporal proximity we have no evidence to that - he equally well could have been just mentally ill. Maybe he was being a martyr/suicide. Maybe he was bluffing to make a point with the cops.. Nobody knows, but its clear that Powell intended to provoke the scenario. For more on the 21 foot rule see this article, which specifically discusses the situation of cops already having guns drawn [1] Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Powell shooting has some common elements with the Brown shooting, but we can't in any sense say that it was CONNECTED to the Brown shooting simply by virtue of those elements. Dyrnych (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... except, of course, if reliable sources pepper the planet with such analysis, right, at which point we could, (and should?), 'in any sense' acknowledge that comparisons are being drawn in the matter of police forthrightness in cases in the St. Louis metropolitan area, where police are often white and those they often shoot are black, when citizens are killed by the police in situations where African-American bystanders vociferously opine that the actions by the police was unwarranted, unnecessary, and even, in some cases, unjustified. (This kind of on-the-street reaction was captured thanks to audio/video recordings of the responses of the bystanders who either witnessed the event or who were told about it moments after coming out of their apartments to know what the commotion was about.) There is the plausible connection between the St. Louis chief of police's incontrovertible inaccuracy (trying to be dispassionate) (as reported by reliable sources) wherein he exaggerated the description of Powell's actions, so as to create a pretense of justifiability for the decision by the police to open fire on Powell no fewer than 9 times. (The police state that 12 shots were fired.) The suspicion by many in the African American community (as well as by not a few members of other ethnic groupings) that the police have not been forthcoming in this matter is perfectly inflamed by the side-by-side videos of Chief Dotson's news conference where he told the public what happened and the video of the event that police subsequently released which showed the public what happened. This is not my analysis. This is the analysis by many reliable sources. I can provide cites if pressed. I present this argument in support of an appeal to either add information to this article about the controversies raised in the Powell shooting and/or to lobby for the creation of a standalone article titled "The Shooting of Kajieme Powell." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. 
 The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, 
 according to law enforcement officials. 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=2
 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal observation, not intended for inclusion in the article, but rather to keep us grounded on WP:COMMONSENSE: The audio of the gunfire doesn't contradict the police statement that shots were fired. It does, however, if you do the math, contradict the claim that none of the bullets hit Brown. Depending on whether Brown was shot at close range during the altercation at the car window, Brown was hit either once or twice while running away. Certainly, I don't have to go further in pointing out how damaging this, if true, would be for Darren Wilson. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a leap of logic. As noted -- if the initial shots were not "aimed" at Brown, then the fact that no shots appear to have hit Brown at that point would seem a "d'oh moment." And the "admitting" is useless - I saw no one deny that more than 6 total shots could have been fired - Baden only said 6 hit Brown. But neither you nor I are "reliable sources" for articles. Collect (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, what is your RS basis for a claim that the initial shots were not aimed at Brown> If not aimed at Brown, aimed at whom? I have never seen a single statement to suggest that Wilson ever aimed his weapon at anyone other than Mike Brown at any point in the encounter. Multiple witnesses have spoke of shots being fired at Brown as he ran. I would not accuse you of a leap in logic. I would, however, ask for any RS support for a denial of the postulate "all shots fired by Wilson after Brown began to run were fired at Brown." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop (and please don't start again later) using this article talk page as forum. We do not allow original research. This is not the place to post personal theories and it's not a place to post breaking news updates. Every time something like this is posted, it makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us to collaborate on actual edits that can improve the article. - MrX 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People of good will and reliable conscience might aptly ask, as I do: Is it fair to the Michael Brown side of this controversy for Wikipedia editors to withhold from our readers an admission by the police reported by the New York Times that Wilson fired shots BEFORE Brown turned around at a [pick any two-digit number]-foot distance from Wilson? The fact that that is what I am trying to build consensus for seems lost on both you and Collect. I am sorry for my maladroitness and for my lack of clarity. Is not the biggest controversy in this matter whether the shooting was necessary and/or justified? And does not such an admission by the police go directly to that question? How can we in good conscience withhold such a crucial admission from the police when the source is as notable and reliable as the New York Times and when we have already used said article for days as a primary support for a very controversial statement made right in the lede -- that the witness accounts varied wildly? (So much for the irresponsible insinuation that this citation represents an irresponsible attempt to insinuate "breaking news" into our discussion). My question is rhetorical, stated both in defense of my good-faith actions and in hopes of finding support for the inclusion of this admission in prominent position in both the shooting incident section and the lede. I'e lost such bids before. I'll get over it if I lose again. But my view of fairness demands that I try. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I'm confused, I brought up this exact same point in an earlier section: link and the consensus opinion from others (including you!) was that it wouldn't be included in the article because the law enforcement sources cited were anonymous. Anyway, to the broader point, again, I believe that this article should mention that law enforcement officals admitted that Wilson fired shots before Brown turned around. It's significant. It's the topic of a lot of debate. And this information is from a reliable source (NYTimes) that we can trust in turn, to have verified their sources - even though yes, those sources are anonymous. Saeranv (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got me, Saeranv. This is harder than it looks at first glance. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Or

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

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

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

This is being actively discussed at Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Good_compromises. Why to start another thread? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "editorializing" to mention, as a wide variety of reliable sources do, that race is a huge part of the controversy around the shooting. The added verbiage absolutely adds something to the lede, because otherwise the lede mentions nothing about the racial tensions in the community that unquestionably contributed to the community's response. What you are saying amounts to "we should have a story about a white cop killing a black man but not discuss the fact that racial tensions and perceptions of bias are a major part of the controversy." Why are a lot of people in the community very angry? Because they don't trust anything the police say happened. Why doesn't a large percentage of the community trust the police's claims? Because the police department is totally unrepresentative of the community's racial diversity, there's a perceived history of racial profiling and an obviously-adversarial relationship exists within the community. So when a white cop kills a black man in Ferguson and claims he was a threat... nobody in the community believes that white cop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality before conciseness. Race has played an important role, and was largely related to the unrest. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead already makes the race issue pretty clear - as does the article. The question is about one sentence in the lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We say "the shooting sparked unrest" and if we don't follow that up with a mention of the racial issues, then the reader is left without context as to why the shooting sparked unrest. Why, in particular, has the shooting of a black man by a white police officer in Ferguson inflamed such an outburst of community anger? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can trust readers not to be Homer Simpson when the first section of the lead reads The shooting of Michael Brown happened on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, when the unarmed 18-year-old black male died after being shot by a white Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are disputed and have caused significant controversy nationwide. where we use "black" and "white" right off the bat. OTOH, if one does not think that is a "d'oh" moment, Ido not know what else to say. Collect (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that we should obliquely suggest that pre-existing racial tensions in the community played a significant part in the community response to the shooting, but not explicitly state it? That makes no sense whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, see WP:DUCK - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read AGF and NPA -- your insinuation that I am running a sock puppet or the like is abhorrent (noting that is the chief use of that essay). If you wish to accuse me of sock puppetry, FILE AN SPI REPORT. If not - then redact your damn post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused by the duck reference. Who exactly do you think he is a sock of? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should also AGF of Cwobeel's reference to refer to the disputed content, not any person - the way I read it, he is suggesting that the racial issue here looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, therefore we should call it a duck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call it a duck, Collect. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is a reasonable interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he meant to cite WP:BLUE? Don't worry Collect, I'm not calling you blue :) - MrX 22:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxing an idea

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

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

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

Among my concerns in the lede have been:

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

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

SAMPLE NEUTRAL APPROACH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice work. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through the entire article, I think you'll see that the author states that the audio clip is consistent with several witness statements, not just Ms. Crenshaw's. But for some reason, only her name made it into the title (conciseness over quality, perhaps?) Any chance we could add the word "substantially" to the sentence and then add all of the witnesses that Mr. Cooke contends are in substantial agreement about the pause in the shooting or in other aspects of their public representations to date?

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

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

I'm confused. If the audio fails to support the "first shot", then how can it be said to be consistent with Crenshaw, whose subsection says, "it appeared that Wilson and Brown were arm wrestling before the former shot Brown from inside his vehicle"? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysing the analysts, are we. Sounds suspiciously like OR to me.  :-) That or you're baiting, confident that I can't resist such a provocative question. You're almost right. I have an answer for that, but let me state it in a way which is going to, I think, keep me clear of the rocks. More presently. I'm drafting. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are comparisons to other witnesses, I just missed them. No objections to adding.
• Yes, he didn't compare to the Cops. Part of that might be that there is not a authoritative version to compare against, but in any case, see the next point about WP:WEIGHT
• I Do object to removing the comparison to Johnson's statement. I see your point as to the missing comparison, but not including what is covered so that it matches what isn't covered, is pretty much the opposite of WP:WEIGHT. Personally I think the main point of the comparison was that Johnson didn't mention a pause, which was a pretty big thing to not mention. Johnson's account while also one of the most suspect (since he is involved) is also the only one (Other than Wilson's) that we can be absolutely sure was from someone who physically saw the event, and therefore analysis of evidence to his statments are the most important.
• While I agree that there are things to nitpick (or worse) in the RS analysis, it is definitely WP:OR for us to second guess them. If better analysis comes out later, we can certainly swap.

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references to other witness accounts in the NRO article. Are you talking about a different article? Was your statement about other witness just that you think Piaget's account matches those other accounts, and since the writer says it matches Piaget it also matches the others? If so, I see your point, but again thats WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to say something the source doesn't. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I was going off of:

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

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

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

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

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

   Both women said that a shot was fired and that Brown 
   started running away from the officer and the patrol vehicle.   
   They said that the officer chased the teen roughly 20 feet down 
   the street and fired shots at him in the St Louis suburb.
   The 18-year-old turned and raised his hands in the air, 
   the witnesses said, but the shots kept coming. 

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the foregoing, I propose the following

Proposed language for replacement of final sentence

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

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

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

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Concurrence, anyone?[reply]

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

A few issues :

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

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC) NRO is a conservative collective, right? I mean here's what Wikipedia says about it.[reply]

   National Review Online: A popular feature of National Review is the web version of the magazine, 
   National Review Online ("N.R.O."), which includes a digital version of the magazine, 
   with articles updated daily by National Review writers, and conservative blogs ...

So if they disparage Johnson but don't disparage Belmar in the same instance, if they analyze the black witness statements but don't analyze Josie's statements, is it just possible that this is sneaky smear parading as journalism. As to whether we should solely rely on this piece to repeat the denigration of Dorian I will leave to all of you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the source closer. He thinks this audio and alignment with Piaget etc makes Wilson more likely to be convicted (see last paragraph in particular). Not everyone out there is a KKK racist looking to blindly defend Wilson. Take a deep breath and WP:AGF Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This LA Times article has several experts opine about how the robbery was or was not a factor in the shooting. A summary of some of those opinions are:

• The FPD (despite stating they weren't related) could be using this to justify the shooting.
• The robbery has no bearing on the permitted use of justified force of the FPD.
• While Wilson initially didn't have reason to act otherwise (until he saw evidence otherwise), Brown might have suspected Wilson knew about the robbery and that might have affected his reaction to Wilson.

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

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

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

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

Agree 100% - both are relevant and should be included via citing RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Include all 3. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Perhaps the first point could indeed be stated in a more concise form that is presently done on the page. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this should be worked into at the end of Robbery incident report and video release Now that I look at the current article, I don't see #1 anywhere. Was it removed?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been. If it was, perhaps you should add it once again? Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This modifier is bandied about the entire article, and improperly. Unfortunately some reliable sources do this as well, but just because they jumped off the bridge, there is no reason for us to do that as well. The point is, there is no doubt whatsoever that a robbery occurred. We should state it as a matter of fact in Wikipedia's voice. We should use "allege" when we talk about people that have been accused of a crime, either formally or informally. Example:

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

vs

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

Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We just report what sources say, not what we think that the sources should say. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just have this conversation? There is certainly no doubt that some of the events that the police claim constitutes a robbery have occurred. The question is whether those events amount to the crime of robbery. That's why the sources hedge. Dyrnych (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources hedge, due to liability. This might be a MOS issue, but the preponderance of sources in this instance use what I submit as the proper form (allege applies to a person's action, not the event). The robbery is verifiable, and has been verified by the most recent sources. "Sgt Smith allegedly committed alleged war crimes" is proper if the war crimes have not been verified.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. I tentatively support the suggestion of Two Kings of Pork, that we use "alleged role in the robbery". Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the distinction that I'm making. Robbery is a legal term. It encompasses a set of actions that, combined with a particular mental state, are unlawful in the absence of a defense. A robbery didn't occur unless a person did the actions, had the mental state, and had no defense. The allegation made by the police is that a robbery occurred: i.e., there is probable cause to believe that a a person did the actions, had the mental state, and had no defense.

As to the double-allegedly, your construction about Sgt. Smith would be appropriate only if there was doubt as to whether the war crimes that Sgt. Smith allegedly committed were in fact war crimes. So "Brown allegedly committed an alleged robbery" would be incorrect, because the elements of robbery itself are not in dispute. "Brown committed an alleged robbery" would be incorrect for the same reason. "Brown allegedly committed a robbery" would be correct, because the allegation is that Brown fulfilled all of the elements of robbery and had no defense. But let's remove Brown from the situation. "A robbery was allegedly committed" would be fine, because it encompasses the fact that the elements of robbery have been alleged, but not proven. "A robbery was committed" would NOT be fine, because it assumes that the elements have been proven. As I write this, I note that we could probably solve the issues with "alleged robbery" by phrasing things better. Are you OK with "robbery was allegedly committed"-type statements? The issue is in making sure that it's clear that the elements of robbery have not been proven to have occurred. As long as we do that, I'm fine with whatever phrasing we want to use. Dyrnych (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really boils down to what the sources say happened. I think they are well equipped to make the decision that the convience store was robbed, because cigars were taken by force. No one is seriously questioning this. We shouldn't either. We use "alleged" due to long standing practice, not withstanding our BLP policy which demands its use. However X was allegedly committed by Y does work. Let's see where others fall on "a robbery was committed". Might be a question for the MOS folks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We use "alleged" to protect human reputations. Crimes are social figments and don't mind if for some reason investigators discover nothing illegal happened. The fact that they investigated a crime is good enough reason to not sound silly for the sake of the poor, possibly non-existent felony. Even if a reporter does it that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think MOS is pretty clear on this point. The weasly way it's being used in this article implies that the police are inaccurate or somehow wrong in stating that a robbery actually occurred. Using alleged is only appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. It has been determined by the police that Brown committed this crime, so why are we casting doubt on their definitive statement that Brown committed this robbery, implying that it is somehow inaccurate or wrong for them to say he did. There is no investigation still going on to determine who did it, this robbery case has been closed and classified as "exceptionally cleared" by the police because they know who did it. It should be stated as such in this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in principle, and that we may be overly wishy washy here. However, cops determining something to their satisfaction is not the end of the line. Its up to a jury to decide if the elements of a crime are all satisfied. Weighing against that however, is that nobody has proposed any serious alternative or mitigating circumstance that make this not what the obvious answer is. All the media wishy washiness is easily explainable by not wanting to be thought of as attacking Browns reputation/character when the running narrative is that he is purely the victim in this circumstance.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

2. It depends on the context on which the RS are using the term. RS contain both factual content and opinion content. Are they stating it as a fact that the police actually said "alleged".

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

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

While Dyrnych makes some good points about the legal definition of "robbery," Wikipedia should use the general-English definition. In that light, "Person allegedly performed alleged act" is not best.

Yes, we should be using "alleged." Even usually reliable sources are flying around so fast that mistakes are likely, and they contradict each other. Lanza may not have been convicted of the shootings at Sandy Hook, but there is a consensus among the majority of reliable sources that that's what happened. Our reliable sources on Brown are still split and have yet to settle. Until they do, Wikipedia should say "alleged," in its own voice or through a source.

Isaidnoway, police reports are RS for most things, but this incident is specifically a police vs. teenager conflict in which two sides have very different interests. We have good reason to think that the police could be lying about the robbery or at least that they have a reason to lie. The video footage seems to show Brown paying for those cigarillos. We should attribute police material by saying, "According to XX police report" or "According to the Ferguson Police Department." That casts no extra doubt on their side of the story while still acknowledging that it is their side of the story.

Feel free to ping me when the RfC starts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we watched different videos of the robbery and read different police reports on the robbery. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an earlier segment of surveillance video from a different camera that shows Brown at the counter. Some liberal sites have argued that this segment shows him paying for the cigarillos, but the video's at best ambiguous rather than exculpatory. I don't think that there's much controversy outside of a few such sites over whether Brown actually stole the cigarillos. Dyrnych (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And his accomplice in the robbery confessed, there were eyewitnesses at the convenience store who identified Brown as the robber and the accomplice and the eyewitnesses never mentioned seeing Brown pay for anything. They also found the stolen merchandise on his person. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Options

Prep for RfC. Please feel free to modify the following and add options where you see fit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a crime, and we are not attributing the crime to a person (in which case we would always use "allegedly") when should we use a modifier like "allegedly"

Example:

A) A robbery occurred

B) A robbery allegedly occurred

1. Always use A) until a court of law makes a finding
2. Use what the RS say
3. Use what the sources say, however put greater emphasis on the later RS

• Isn't there some RS that we can quote directly? bd2412 T 00:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the WaPo doesn't use the word alleged at all. It's a lenghty article, the robbery is described in the "Final minutes" paragraphs. The LA Times, short piece with the surveillance video. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this summary of the Michael Brown shooting in an article on Yahoo.com. I thought it was pretty good. Note that he gives the police side and then the other side rather than trying to homogenize the conflicting accounts into one unified theory. It's about five paragraphs below the side-by-side pictures of Brown and Wilson. Submitted not as a request for any changes but just for comparison and contrast purposes. Experts: More facts needed on purported audio recording of Michael Brown shooting Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns that the audio is a hoax.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any suggestions that the audio was a hoax, only that it hasn't been verified. Can you point to an RS that suggests that the audio is a hoax? Dyrnych (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Washington PostTwo kinds of pork (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hadn't seen that. Dyrnych (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Originally this was in The Daily Caller and Briebart. I try to avoid those, not because I don't think they have the hallmarks of being a RS, but people here have conniptions every time the subject comes up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly have had conniptions :) Dyrnych (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heres more on the hoax kerfuffle, but its not someone else raising the idea of a hoax, its the lawyer taking umbrage that cnn raised that possibility. Im posting it here so that other editors are aware, but I think it doesn't have much if anything to add to the article, its not really about the shooting or the evidence itself, its about how people are discussing the evidence, which is a bit too tangental to me . http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/08/27/attorney-asks-cnn-for-redress-of-hoax-comment-regarding-ferguson-tape/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I have very much faith in CNN and their reporting on audio tapes. At least they're acknowledging up front it's not verified and could be a hoax. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the hoax controversy will itself develop into a Wikipedia-reportable story. I would urge that we begin collecting sources for the same. Feel free to paste them on my talk page if you find more. I'm putting the link to the Daily Caller article there just to get the ball rolling. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Michael Brown audio hoax controversy? I hope not, and I seriously doubt it. I don't think even the JFK assassination stuck-mike audio got its own article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I could be wrong about that. But JFK this ain't. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't think much would be needed about the hoax allegation, unless it does turn out to be a verified forgery, in which case they might become a major controversy with crimes and an incident of themselves. If they are authenticated, or CNN apologizes then we can say that, but either way that bit won't need more than a sentence or two more. (Which is not to say that the audio itself might not become very important with a lot more to say about it, just not about the hoax statement) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An example idea

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

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

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

Among my concerns in the lede have been:

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

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

SAMPLE NEUTRAL APPROACH:

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

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

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

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

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

There are a lot of issues with this, but I'll point out a few.

1. "Experienced white police office?" What do we mean by "experienced?" That is a highly ambiguous word to introduce Wilson, and as far as I can tell it's a term that has never been used in any medium to describe Wilson.
2. "National attention" pretty much sums it up better than listing whose recognition it's getting. We have a subsection below where readers can see precisely what type of national attention it's getting.
3. We've discussed "man" versus "teenager" several times here and the consensus has been that "man" is most appropriate.
4. There are a lot of factual concerns with the description of the shooting itself ("through the window," "a pistol was fired in the vehicle," etc.), many of which we've also discussed. I see you've noted that there may be factual issues. Is your concern just about the prose originally used to describe the shooting or the content itself?
5. We also discussed the relevance of including Brown's high school graduation and college plans in the lead and concluded that it was not appropriate.

I'm sure other editors will note other concerns, but that's a starter. Can you elaborate on your comments that the lead contains or contained "A subtle sensationalism and anti establishment bias" and "The use of jingoistic media-typical adjectives and verbs?" I genuinely have no idea what aspects of the lead would give rise to either of these concerns. Dyrnych (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for your patience, but for me this is a waste of time, splitting hairs and all. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the above and feel it was inappropriate in any case. If you feel it's a waste of time, don't waste your time. No need to inform us of that fact. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with bullet point 6, it's not necessary to use the article title in the opening sentence. I totally agree with bullet point 7 on removing US, I just don't like it. Defer to consensus on any other changes made to the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrnych captures most of my concerns, but in general, the current lede is more informative and less speculative. If I were looking for an executive summary, the version proposed above wouldn't satisfy me. It also breaks style conventions (lede subject should match the title). I would like to see examples of the "jingoistic media-typical adjectives" that the OP refers to.- MrX 20:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Dyrnych - first five comments/question:

1. agree,
2. agree,
3. Yes, but you mention his age in the first sentence along with other descriptors, and the sentence is just too bulky.
4. I was talking about some sample facts, which I added to my example, not facts in the current lede.
5. I don’t disagree. But on that note, why include that paragraph at all? I think it should be expanded or deleted. I think that it overly emphasizes that the lack of prior records is really salient at the Lede Level. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dyrnych

This section is for my response to Dyrnych's question (only please): " Can you elaborate on your comments that the lead contains or contained ...?"

Hi, thanks for that question; it is really good. I've cited a few examples below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First example: "Wilson left his vehicle, fired his pistol at Brown and CONFRONTED him." This is not by itself a huge problem but the subtleties compound to a biased tenor for the Lede. The word “confronting “ has a connotation of aggression and the action of confrontation is attributed to Wilson. This assumes what we are unable to disprove or establish, which is that Brown did not “confront” or "threaten" Wilson. What we know is that after flight and pursuit they ended up in a proximity to each other where the final actions led to Wilson killing Brown. I suggested that Wilson overtook Brown, as more neutral but that was rejected as too specific and implying too close of a proximity.

Second example: "Widespread media coverage examined the POST 9/11 TREND of local police departments ARMING THEMSELVES with MILITARY-GRADE WEAPONS when dealing with PROTESTS".

• Post 9/11 trend – this implies a growing and new use, where looking back to the 1960s police departments have used the same weapons systems that the military uses in riots and SWAT.
• Arming themselves - this implies a wrongdoing and actions independent of oversight. To me this is unnecessarily inflammatory.
• Military grade weapons – this is a fallacious statement as here is no such thing. There are military style weapons. If they are getting at assault rifles, which I think they are, that should be said. A less biased approach would be to say that the issue is “ the police use the same weapons as the military."
• Protest - In the context of the statement, protesters are not why these weapons are deployed, they are deployed in case rioting occurs, and that should be the point here; should assault weapons be deployed in the face of rioting.
• Frankly this is unrelated issue, which in my mind is included to cast criticism at the police, and generally make them look bad. The concept cannot be handled briefly and succinctly and in my mind brings more controversy than good to the lede.

Third example: "The shooting SPARKED unrest…" I see “sparked” as being more unencyclopedic than inflammatory. It’s not a big deal, but it sounds more like a journalist spicing up a sentence than cold dispassionate writing.

Imprecise words: altercation

Unnecessary adjective: “significant” controversy -- I think it is adequate to say “controversy”

Overly wordy: “fatally wounding him” prefer “killed him”

Overemphasis by frequency or placement: “unarmed” and multiple shots (or shot count). There is a lot of subjectivity around whether a large –framed 6’4” man is really unarmed or how many shots are appropriate if the recipient remains a threat. These are not my thoughts but criticisms I see around the web. I think that the placement and frequency of mention can be controlled to temper the tenor of the lede. It doesn't seem balanced to emphasize that Brown was unarmed if the countervailing concerns aren't being addressed.

General tone Much of this is subtle, and getting to an encyclopedic tone is a constant theme at WP, it's not easy and takes experience. It’s less definable in micro, but discernible by those who have been working in the project for a while. It’s a matter of tone and dispassion. Make is sound like it happened 100 years ago.

I think that when doing research for a topic like this, where the only sources are journalists, the journalistic tenor and terminology creeps in by copying quotes or paraphrasing.

There are also combinations in the second paragraph that sound like we are evading and being purposely ambiguous. We are because many facts are unclear or in dispute, but can a more full explanation give us more immediate credibility while people read the Lede?

Re encyclopedic tone, please give a link to a similar article that has it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try the lede at: Shooting of Trayvon Martin I think this has similar potential for controversy, but has an even tone. I think that there are some good examples here. I would criticize it for being too bulkly, but then tone a level of detail are good for me. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond to two of these points now and possibly other points later.

• "There is a lot of subjectivity around whether a large –framed 6’4” man is really unarmed" - No. There is not. A person is armed if that person has a weapon. A person is unarmed if that person does not have a weapon. Brown's size may be a factor in determining whether (under the OBJECTIVE standard that is used to determine these things) a reasonable officer would have perceived Brown to be a threat, but there is absolutely no ambiguity about whether a man with no weapon is unarmed. And that is in fact part of the reason why this shooting is so controversial: Brown was unquestionably unarmed. That fact probably cannot be overemphasized, because consider the situation if Brown HAD been armed. We would likely not even be discussing this, because there would likely not be a controversy (or there would be significantly less controversy. We don't have to balance that fact with claims that a large man should be considered armed.
• As to military-grade weapons, it's probably more accurate to say "military-grade equipment." The controversy surrounding THAT doesn't come from the fact that police officers have semi-automatic rifles. It comes from the fact that police departments have access to--literally--weapons of war. Tanks, armored personnel carriers, and the like. This has received significant coverage from a wide array of perspectives, ranging from the libertarian Radley Balko to the liberal Talking Points Memo and comprising most viewpoints in between. And it's directly related to a specific government program (the 1033 program) that funnels used military equipment from the Department of Defense to local police departments. The program was created in 1990 but has been used with increasing regularity post-9/11, in part because the two wars that we've fought since then have left the military with an excess of such equipment. And, because those police departments have to SPECIFICALLY REQUEST that equipment from the Department of Defense, they are quite literally arming themselves. You are perceiving bias there because you are misunderstanding the controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that unarmed is unarmed. However as you said, unarmed is not the same as "not a threat", nor is it the same as "definitely not trying to get someone else's weapon" as Wilson has alleged. Also agree that objectively the rifles are unlikely to be "military grade" as I highly doubt they were selective fire (and nobody has alleged as much) and there are millions and millions of AR15s in civilian hands (and were in civilian hands before the Military adopted the M4/M16). Other equipment such as MRAPs etc on the other hand... This incident is interesting, because it touches on so many political/social buttons, and often triggering the same buttons for people who are diametrically opposed on other buttons. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42, yep, it looks like you see the problems.--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrnych, on the Unarmed issue, I'm not saying that we remove it. just deemphasize a bit, unless you want to balance.--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrnych, on the weapons, your fervor on the subject demonstrates a passion for the topic, and perhaps a bias toward inclusion. I don't dispute your veracity here, but it's way to complex of a topic to distill down to the Lede on this topic. I think the need for you to go to such complexity in making it clear to me, only illustrates the difficulty of fairly including it in the Lede here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Had you read the sources we've cited for this information, you'd know that all of the purely factual things that I'm stating have been extensively covered. I will admit that I'm annoyed that you have made significant changes to the lead, bull-in-china-shop fashion, without being aware of that aspect (and, who knows, maybe other aspects) of the controversy; perhaps that explains my "fervor" more than a "passion for the topic." I certainly do think that the material should be included because of that widespread coverage in virtually every RS that has covered the Brown shooting. I'm not sure why you'd phrase that as a "bias toward inclusion" as though it is somehow untoward. Dyrnych (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that there are facts. But (A) not all published sources are worthy of inclusion, (B) not all facts are pertinent to the article, (C) and there are facts while pertinent to the article are not sufficiently material to the Lede section, which should only be a summary (D) I think that you need to grow past the concept that things will always go smoothly your way and conform to how you perceive the consensus building process at WP. This a competitive environment not geared to sensitivity. Feelings get hurt and we dust-off and move on. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good lord. You genuinely didn't know what you were talking about when you made the argument that militarization of the police should not be included in the lead, and it's painfully obvious from your response to me above that this is the case. And I challenge you to find anyone who thinks you've acted appropriately per Wikipedia policies in how you've approached this article before you start lecturing me on my "perceptions" of the consensus building process. I think I've indulged your arguments about the lead enough here, because (while my "feelings [aren't] hurt") I don't feel like any progress is being made given that those arguments seem broadly based in WP:JDL. You don't have consensus for these changes, and it's enough that you realize that. Dyrnych (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See that's the problem, the statement in the Lede is so vague that only a few people here know what you are talking about, because now the comment is "militarization of the police" a completely different topic than military-grade equipment. I don't seek to influence you, I seek to help you to continue to demonstrate my points. There is bias and there is ambiguity. I say it, but you continue prove it. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murray, If you want a private conversation, the place is your talk page, not here. As for this discussion, you are not respecting the consensus that has been built over the past several weeks. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and not welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTH. Why don't you back off on the personal attacks and stop wikistalking my comments, or I will complain. This will get you blocked again. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll be there to back you up, for whatever that's worth. What's "not welcome" to me is the suggestion that we can't talk about this because the existing consensus was set in stone. Cwobeel, please point to the policy that says that. I also object to you speaking as if you're speaking for all of us, when two senior editors have already shown otherwise. In my opinion, what we're doing here is exactly what article talk is for. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I speak for myself, and I stand by my comment. And Kevin: This is a talk page, you are welcome to comment, and so do I. There are no private conversations or sections specifically out of reach to any editor. For that you have your personal talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh eyes are always welcome on a article of this nature and I think Kevin has raised some valid concerns. I don't think the term unarmed should be in the first sentence, it should be moved down to the second paragraph. I think the police militarization should stay, that was a huge controversy, but if it does stay, then the content in the article needs to be expanded to explain it, or does the See Also link to the civil unrest article there qualify as an expansion? Weasly qualifiers that are intended to "highlight" or "cast doubt" should be removed. I think at this point, the details of the shooting in the lead should be a little ambiguous because the circumstances surrounding this shooting seem to reflect it's unclear what happened. The police sure aren't talking or defending their position on the shooting that strongly. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a modification was made to a sentence that I disliked: "Widespread media coverage examined the post 9/11 trend of Police militarization, especially when dealing with protests." I think that is much better and I no longer object to the sentence being included in the Lede.--Kevin Murray (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that a two column presentation would be a bad thing? This is awesome. It brings out the plagiarist in me. http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/ Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's attorney, Freeman Bosley, confirms Johnson and Brown were there. "My client, Dorian Johnson, he [told investigators about] the situation involving Big Mike taking the cigarillos. This is not a theft, it's more of a shoplifting situation."

LOL. Let's not mince words here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Two Kinds of Pork. That feels an awful lot like, well, mincing words, to steal his phrase. Icarosaurvus (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what one instance of Bosley mincing words has to do with the topic of this discussion. It doesn't seem very useful to bring it up here. Returning to the topic, I agree that the two-column presentation seems useful to the reader. But CNN's and Wikipedia's missions are not the same, and perhaps ours isn't to juxtapose the various accounts like that. For one thing, I think one would need to apply some analysis/synthesis to decide exactly what belongs in each cell. I think that was expressed before by at least one more experienced person than I. I don't think we can simply steal CNN's analysis and change the language to avoid plagiarism—CNN is only one source of many. That said, Michael, you could always work up a proposed table in your sandbox. At the very least that would allow us to point to the specific synth that you applied to get there. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list itself, it does seem rather informative. I would certainly find it interesting if you were to create a table, Mr. Ridgeway. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it wasn't helpful. Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another source using the same photo is KSDK http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/4b212544e6fe8e347b407af80617b3c9da819aeb/c=8-0-1916-1079&r=x1803&c=3200x1800/local/-/media/KSDK/KSDK/2014/08/13/1407949474018-Still0809-00005---Copy.jpg but interestingly they crop the item out in the version they put in their story. http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/14/anonymous-releases-name-it-says-is-officer-in-shooting/14054469/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's there. I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from that, though. Dyrnych (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the wrong shape for a single casing. Length:width ratio too high. And what is the dark band in the center? It could be two casings laid end-to-end, but that would require either a one-in-a-billion event or someone moving casings around. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the newest guy on the block, a question to help me understand what is and isn't okay. If I were the one making all of the statements above rather than those who are, wouldn't I have been smacked down with references to rules about forum, synthesis, and original research, and maybe even weight? Sorry to ask but my common sense just wouldn't leave me alone until I put this question out. He is completely confused. I have to admit. I am too. <<WP:DOUBLESTANDARD?>> Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they are discussing the source and trying to A) determine what the source tells us, B) Whether we can use this source to make any statements and C)Can we draw any conclusions from the source. The casing examination, however is a bit speculative.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with pork, but I'll also add that I have noticed a little of what Michael speaks of. I noticed because double standards are a pet peeve for me. I didn't, and don't, want to attack any specific individual(s), but I will make this general observation. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more because of volume than anything else, I think. This section is (in my opinion) fairly useless, because it's not likely to lead to anything that we can use in the article. But Gaijin42 hasn't exactly peppered the talk page with similar sections. If you'll notice, Michael-Ridgway's off-topic and synthesis-advocating posts garnered only gentle pushback at first. But as they continued, the pushback became much sharper. Maybe that's unfair, but I think that the context is important in assessing what might initially seem like a double standard. All that said, we're off topic here. Dyrnych (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cop to WP:FORUM but think its justifiable, since there have been several discussions above about the first shot and how that relates to various other evidence/testimony. However, I was not suggesting for inclusion in the article at this time, just informing other editors about something relevant to previous discussion. As I was not making an immediate article suggestion, the WP:OR/WP:RS/WP:SYNTH issues are not at issue. I also agree that the photo could be something other than a casing, and since we do not have WP:RS saying so for us, thats part of why I was not suggesting inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's justifiable too. I just wish that I dared do the same. But I'm on a triple last warning status that no one appears to have revoked. So all I can do is watch from the sidelines and ask little procedural questions like this one, hoping against hope that somebody doesn't decide to administer that final kill shot. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious suggestion, not snark: you could also try reading some of the policies that people are linking to. Dyrnych (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, Im sorry if you feel like you are subject to a double standard or getting short shrift. The impression I have gotten from many of your posts is more than just "This is what I think". Its "This is what I think, and we should write the article to reflect it". Some WP:FORUM is inevitable, as we discuss the best way to present information, and use our editorial discretion to decide what should be included versus what shouldn't be. Nobody is going to chastise you for an occasional comment about what you think something means. Writing multiple long sections, discussing many sources at once and putting all the pieces together, and using that in a discussion where you are saying you think the article should be changed or added to to reflect that analysis is a different animal. Maybe that was not your intention, but it is the impression I got from your posts. I apologize if I have misunderstood your intents.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of the Position of Police account section above, started originally on Aug 23:

:  :

I would be satisfied with moving the police subsection up to the beginning of the Accounts and leaving it as that but others may disagree. If you agree that the government and/or police account should get a more prominent position than the other "eyewitness" accounts, I'm more than willing to let you do the work. (If you don't agree, we should keep on talking.) There's no rush on my part. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a "first-hand eyewitness" is, but it would be wrong to subordinate Twitter to the other eyewitnesses. The fact that he is the only confirmed eyewitness except for Johnson outweighs the fact that he is anonymous. In other words, I like him a lot more than I did a few days ago. It would be ok for him to immediately follow them at the same section level, and maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Very minimally. WP:BRD?

:  :

@MrX: Why did you revert my change to the Accounts section? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a communication failure here. It looks like I was replying to you, but I was replying to a previous comment by Michael-Ridgway. I can't remember the circumstances, but for some reason it would have been ambiguous or confusing for me to put my reply directly under his comment. Maybe a missing signature at that time, or something. I thought there was enough context for people to figure it out. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RoyGoldsmith Partially because the previous version reflects a certain degree of consensus, discussed a few days ago when another editor wanted to arrange everything alphabetically. The main reason that I reverted is because promoting the police section to level two gives their account a magnitude more prominence than the other accounts. In my view, that's a significant POV issue. Perhaps you can shed some light on why you made your edit, or why it's better?- MrX 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe that, at this time, the police statements have a lot more reliable sources than the other, "witness" accounts. (See WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, ... prominence of placement..." and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". Isn't this how we're supposed to resolve POV issues?)

Not only were those police reports exhaustively covered when the statement was made but, in general, news media have consistently used them as confirmed fact (once several days go by without a challenge) rather than "Here's what so-and-so said about the shooting a week ago". I also have my doubts about the order of the other Accounts subsections but I was going to wait until later.

Unless you differ, I'd prefer not to get into which news source is more reliable (CNN vs. NY Times) or try to count the number of published police reports versus reports about Dorian Johnson account. As a compromise, I have no objection to the Police subsection being made first among equals in the Accounts section (that is, 3 Accounts, 3.1 Police statements, 3.2 Dorian Johnson, etc.) Maybe later, it'll get upped to a full section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to moving 'police statements' above 'Dorian Johnson', keeping it at level 3 within 'Accounts'.- MrX 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Whew. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current first sentence:

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, when Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, died after being shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white.

From MOS:BOLDTITLE: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it

Imo, there is nothing easy or natural about two occurrences of "Michael Brown" in the same sentence. Not to mention the fact that sentence is painfully long as written. The first sentence should read:

On August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, died after being shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white.

With or without "unarmed", that's a separate question. And we could boldface "Michael Brown", or not. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the second instance of "Michael Brown" to simply "Brown." Does that alleviate some of the concerns? I'm personally comfortable with the length of the sentence, but opinions may differ on that. Dyrnych (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without unarmed, no boldface, sentence could still say suburb of St. Louis though, I think that provides a quick geo reference, otherwise it's fine. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, please, we worked hard to get it down to this size. For a quick geo reference, look to the right. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "The shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, was committed on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, by white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson."

More natural and concise. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

"Committed" kind of implies a crime, which is a serious WP:BLP issue. People don't tend to "commit" things that aren't crimes. Dyrnych (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary appears to support Dyrnych, and better safe than sorry per BLP. Fixed. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm old school or something. I think acts are committed, legal or not. But yeah, readers may reasonably infer. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss above on WP:MOSTITLE stop trying to wedge the article title into the opening sentence and just say "On date X, adjective Y was shot by adjective Z". gets rid of the committed/happened/occurred question all together, and avoids name repetition Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current opening sentence is better than any alternative I've seen so far, but I'm open to seeing something better that is clear, concise, informative, and direct.- MrX 01:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? :D ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, after removal of "committed", we have "occurred ... by". That won't work. I'm changing to my version above as it looks to be the best we have so far, all things considered. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the opening line to be more like what editors seem to want. Thoughts on the current version? Dyrnych (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still says "occurred by". I don't think that works. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit got reverted, so it's back to the previous version. Dyrnych (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article needs to be in bold, not just the name of the victim. Since this is an active discussion, can I suggest proposing edits here before boldly introducing them to the article? - MrX

Anybody particularly attached to calling him a "man"? "18-year-old" may work better alone as a noun, since he could vote but not drink. "Boy" would likely ruffle feathers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Man is redundant since his name is Michael.- MrX 01:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just edit conflicted by you trying to add the same thing. Same as "Darren Wilson". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

For English readers from other countries, it isn't necessarily obvious that Michael is a man's name. Also, there have been and are not a few women named Michael. Remember the Waltons? I'm guessing you don't. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare. (#14 vs unranked) "Darren" is probably also a woman's name somewhere. Should we say he was a male cop? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Olivia! Night john boy. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What interest is served by not calling him a "man?" I'm not sure what the objection is there. Dyrnych (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems undue and obvious. We don't mention the cop's gender. Both descriptors should be equally weighted. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

MrX, using "18-year-old" as a noun would not be good grammar. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine noun, especially if the age is the important thing. Let Google Autosuggest "Can an 18-year-old..." for many examples. If you'd rather call him an 18-year-old civilian, that'd be the yin to the "police officer" yang. The roles are significant to the general story/controversy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't use Google as my style reference. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should you. Just offered in case you wanted to see some common usage. Is Wiktionary any closer to what you use? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I object to Gaijin42's edit, which contravenes the style guide and is passively constructed. If we need to keep "man", that's fine.- MrX 01:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's a way to phrase the opening line that (1) emphasizes the shooting over Wilson, (2) isn't in passive voice, and (3) doesn't make the shooting the subject of the sentence. Maybe that suggests that we should keep the opening line as some variant of "The shooting of Michael Brown occurred when XXXXX." Dyrnych (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42's latest edit satisfies most of my concerns except for my the need to bold the subject like the other 4.5 million articles. Perhaps we should bold the entire sentence.- MrX 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX From MOS:BOLDTITLE: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and accept that, but there is still a convention of bolding the subject (not the title), however it may be worded. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.- MrX 02:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The beatles example at that link would support that reading, but deciding what the "related text" is may be complicated. Just brown? Wilson? The verb shot? etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to cram the first sentence into one sentence?

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, was shot to death by a white Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could support this version, but don't think the article title is really necessary.

I also like this version and would keep the article title. Dyrnych (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks alright, but I'd still go with "civilian" over "man". Captures the essence better. If a white woman shot a black man, we'd have a whole different set of sidebar stories. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Now it lacks flow and seems redundant.- MrX 02:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) People are assumed to be civilians unless it's otherwise indicated. "Man" is literally the most neutral descriptor of Brown possible. Dyrnych (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this one sentence, rhetorical juxtaposition is important in conveying the aspects of the case. "Civilian" works for that. "Man" is an unnecesary detail, and it seems strange to mention one's job, but the other's gender. Seems like Darren's penis was less important, and Michael's role in society was, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I think your argument from rhetorical juxtaposition is unfounded. Wilson's job is extremely important, because police officers have a society-granted license to use deadly force. If Wilson was a carpenter, we wouldn't include his job because it wouldn't be relevant. What reader is going to assume from describing Brown as a man that we're implying that he was shot because of his Y chromosome? Dyrnych (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you say police work is important, you mean in contrast to civilian work, right? So do I. So do many of the reliable sources, questioning why police initially refused to name "one of their own", but routinely call the news with civilian suspect names. If being white is only important next to a black person, and being unarmed is only important next to a shooter, it stands to reason that the third thing should follow suit.

Especially when that third dynamic is part of the story, which leads summarize. Michael was a male, there's no denying that. But it's not significant to the topic. I'm not trying to suppress it (HE'S A MAN), just improve something else which requires it to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps I was unclear. Noting Wilson's job is important for the reason I stated. I made--and make--no value judgment about the importance of police work. Referring to Brown as a "man" is the most neutral term that we can use and is nearly indistinguishable in my mind from referring to him as an "18-year-old" except to the extent that the phrase sounds more natural. I'm pretty sure that your attempt at analysis of the rhetorical merits of the lead is misguided, given that the average reader would not in any sense conclude that there exists a connection between "police officer" and "man." Unless you're trying to argue that there would be a similar parallel connection between "police office" and "18-year-old" as well, suggesting, well, who knows what. Police officers in opposition to 18-year-olds? Dyrnych (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I guess I could be clearer, too. The audience doesn't need to notice these sorts of things for them to work. I'm not trying to make them not notice something (that he was a man), only to make what they don't notice (if they don't) make sense (if they do). That itself might not be clear enough. See Rule of three (writing) and dualism, maybe. The rule of three doesn't really apply now anyway, because 18-year-old contrasts with 28-year-old (unless it's been reverted).

If enough people are hard enough against including a bit of rhetoric that encapsulates the wider article, I do compromises. But I'd still like that compromise to involve calling both or none a man. Like below, how some blacks don't feel others see them as men, many cops get the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Something bad happened on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, was shot to death by a white Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson.

Is civilian needed to show he was not a cop, or not a member of the military? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a cop. Though since the majority of "cop vs civilian" feature stories it spawned mention the shrinking distinction between policeman and soldier, either inference can work. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I think we can trust the reader to assume he was not a cop in the absence of any statement otherwise. Cops don't shoot other cops very often at all. You're not trolling are you? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. When I do troll, I do it in low-traffic places. I'm not a dick about it. I'd prefer just saying "18-year-old", but somebody thinks you think (sorry, wasn't being sarcastic, just didn't read closely enough) that's not a noun. Then I realized how many opinion stories are framed around the central aspect of police treating civilians like inferior (or at least other) beings. We should reflect that part of the significant divide. Just as important as black and white or peace and violence, in this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Redundant? The only words in common are shooting/shot and Brown! Oh, and Ferguson. And I think it flows very naturally. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when we get mired in debate about weight of gender, it's time for me to watch my nice movie DVD. Have fun. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian is not a good word to use. Man seems the most neutral and natural. As far as the rest of the wording. I'm reasonably OK with something close to the current version or the original version before this edit fest began.- MrX 02:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave three reasons for why it's good (it contrasts with police, the other two descriptors contrast, all three contrasts have been significantly covered in reliable sources) and three for why "man" is bad (it's not a significant detail, he wasn't legally old enough to do certain "manly" things, undue to identify one side alone by gender).

Why is "civilian" a bad word? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

(ec) As I and other editors have noted, because it's presumed. There is zero chance that a reader would look at an article identifying Brown as a "man" and conclude "well, he might have also been a police officer or soldier." Your overanalysis is not convincing. Dyrnych (talk)

Then man is just as presumed. How many women does anyone know (or even heard of) named Michael? So it goes without saying and adds nothing to summarizing or illustrating the equality issues. I've also added his age. Singling out the victim's makes him seem sympathetic. If that's also "over"analytical, sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

"Am I not a man?"

http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/928.htm

You'll need to click on the link to get the full import of that quote from 19th Century America. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racial sensitivity over conciseness. The community in Ferguson and especially the neighbors who gathered around the police tape have been very cogent about their doubts that America sees young black males as "men." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I would call overthinking things. But I guess I can't argue, since I'm not a black American. Maybe it is offensive to some. For what it's worth, black men are men to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I hope nobody has a problem with calling a police officer a policeman. It's not sexist if we're talking about a particular man. I assume. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

After seeing this wording, I am going to go with write what sounds best.

Wording from a Fox 2 (St. Louis) article. I think it's perfect. Maybe we could ask the writer for permission to use it in our lede.

 Brown was African-American. Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot him, is white.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need permission for such a simple factual sentence. If we can agree to that sentence we can just use it. The debate above has lots of cultural baggage that makes it complicated. Some people (not saying editors, but people at large) want to portray Brown as a "Man" to make him seem more threatening. Some want to call him "youth" or some such to make him seem more innocent. "Boy" obviously has the condescending cultural issues due to its historical (and perhaps continued) use towards even elderly black men. Other want to be technical and say "male" because its technically accurate, or to avoid the aforementioned issues. Basically the fact that this is an incident with racial relationship issues makes picking the words much more complicated. I can support the wording that Michael just suggested, and could also see saying "18 y/o A-A" for those that think the age should be mentioned. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of what has been discussed here is meaningless to the average reader, who doesn't analyze every word for its nuanced deeper meaning. In fact, I think it's fair to say that these things don't matter to many people at all except some Wikipedia editors (I'm not talking about "boy" here, and no one has advocated using that word). Several hours ago, I put into place the closest we were to consensus last night, and then MrX and InedibleHulk made a couple of changes that seem reasonable enough to me. I'm in favor of leaving well enough alone, lest we spend yet more hours to produce another Frankenstein monster. Those little tweaks often seem to accumulate in a way that does not substantially improve and destroys natural flow. For the record, well enough is: The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white policeman, Darren Wilson. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the most part with what you're saying, although I think that "policeman" sounds like we're talking to a small child. Wilson's title is "police officer," and (despite the arguments from rhetorical parallelism above) referring to him as such doesn't set up some bizarre situation in which the reference to Brown's sex exists in opposition to the reference to Wilson's job. It's the more encyclopedic term, and we should use it. Dyrnych (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped caring enough to revert or argue, but if you wouldn't mind helping my curiosity, how is "policeman" a child's word? I often see and hear it in "adult" news. "Officer" seems like the sort of thing to call them to appeal to their authority, either in a newspaper report or when pulled over. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

It does sound either "for kids" or at least out-of-date to my ears. I think this is probably a result of the increase in women in law enforcement, and the PC wave, in which any title that includes "man" is now replaced by a gender neutral version, even when the particular topic is in fact a man. See also postman, and others, but interestingly not fireman which remains almost a male dominated field. I have no objection to either version, but do see where the objection is rooted.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, as we get more politically correct, the kids should reasonably be the ones hearing the "proper" terms more often than the "old-fashioned" adults do. All good, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

I support the above. Sound reasoning, and it doesn't affect flow. It increases the word count by 1, which we can afford at this point. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove an indisputably pointless one, just in case. Then I'll be off. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

"Stated that" to "said". Much less formal, and backed by the MoS. Balance is restored, everything's normal. Have a good evening, sirs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

Following discussion with my fellow Wikipedians, in which there seemed to be consensus that new eyes were desired on this article, one of our number devised three questions for consideration by the community, which seemed to have general acceptance as important matters of discussion:

1. Is the Lede an adequate summary of the article?

2. Could the language and emphasis of the Lede be improved to a more neutral tone?

3. Does the style and wording represent an encyclopedic tone?

Any comment on this manner would be appreciated, as we've been in a bit of a stalemate over the opening bit of the article for some time.

Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very vague and open-ended questions. "Adequate", "improved" and "represent" are especially imprecise. Not exactly the best for an RfC. But I'll say Yes, Yes and Yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Inedible there. #2 is basically always true no matter what. But in general I say yes yes yes and think any improvements should be done via normal WP:BRD at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, Yes (although I think it's fairly neutral as is), and Yes. Dyrnych (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article is never finished; it can always be improved upon, and the lead needs adapting as new content gets added to the article. Too much focus and back-and-forth lengthy discussions on the lead don't get you anywhere. Keep the lead simple, neat, and have enough in it to make the reader wanting to learn more by reading the article, rather than attempting to cram all the information in 4-5 paragraphs, which is an impossibility. Spend sometime reading featured articles (Politics and government section) to get a feel on how it is done. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have provided a link to the version we are discussing because it can change during the discussion. The statement "Witness reports greatly differ" needs to be sourced otherwise it is biased point of view. My understanding is that reports do not greatly differ. TFD (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really pleased with the improvements in the Lede toward neutrality and encyclopedic tone. It's all subtle but much much better in my mind. There are a few things that I would change, but I've seen other editors committed to this topic advocating for those changes and a healthy back and forth recognizing good directions. I think that Cwobeel's comment above is great advice. I'm sorry that my brusk nature offended folks here, but I'm proud to have worked with all of you and learned a great deal in the process. Best regards and happy writing. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Brown's age needs to be put back in the lead, Wilson's too probably, this is pretty standard info. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be a "probably" about either. Both or none, unless we want to look biased. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. It's not essential to understanding the basics storyline, and readers can get that information just a few paragraphs later. - MrX 02:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's essential, necessary or required. It just makes sense since the sources seem to have focused on the fact that he was so young, just graduated and the national dialogue that followed about young black men and the challenges they face. But I can certainly understand not wanting to re-visit this issue right away after looking at the wall of text above devoted to what should be the simplest sentence to write for this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using news sources is somewhat tricky. Their stories are like delivery vehicles, with space for cargo and fuel. They need to get the meat and potatoes to the consumers somehow, so appeal to emotion with racist, classist, agist or sexist propellant. In our personal capacities, we can eat off the truck till we're sick. But as official encyclopedia editors, we're like a receiving dock at a grocery store. We're just concerned with cleaning and arranging what's meant to be consumed, not the inflammable stuff. That's for traffic. Wikipedia doesn't need to move, it's always the first Google hit. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing tricky about it. You simply read and comprehend what has been written and then decide the best way to use that sourced information per our policies and guidelines in improving the article you happen to be editing on WP. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A company whose video chat service allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting said Thursday the recording was created at about the time the Missouri teenager was killed this month. The revelation from the company, Glide, appears to bolster a man's claim that he inadvertently recorded audio of gunfire at the time a police officer shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9. The video was created at 12:02:14 p.m. that day, Glide said. That's around the time that police say Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson shot an unarmed Brown.

Already in article. Please check for this kind of thing first. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome and sorry. Checked but skimmed and missed it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the sentence to my wife. She stopped me in the middle and said, "Who's Glide." So I think I'll leave the section in place if it's all the same to everyone. I predict lots of discussion will ensue. If not, we can archive it as done, once we tell people who Glide is. :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in two days, almost no discussion of the audio clip and only one person has made serious edits to the same. Which makes me curious. What is the consensus about this recording among us at this point? With respect to the article and how we should view the audio clip when writing about it, is anyone ready to accept it as legitimate now? Are some of you holding out for FBI confirmation that it is legit? Personally, I'm more than 90% certain it is a legitimate recording. If few to none of us have nagging concerns about the authenticity of the tape, can we then remove the part about Tom Fuentes attacking as a likely hoax the recording, especially since he seems to have nothing of tangible value with which to support his hunch? His statement was made before the Glide folks corroborated the timing of the recording. I dare say he's changed his tune since then. And even if he hasn't, unless we see a host of other "experts" come out in the aftermath of the Glide confirmation and assail the recording from this point forward, I would suggest that WP:WEIGHT would mandate that in our reporting we lean in favor of viewing the tape as legitimate since I am finding no new articles reinforce the hoas theory at the present time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the audio is at some point 100% verified, I'm not sure removing that bit would be appropriate. Its not just some random venue raising that possibility, its CNN, the very same venue that released the audio in the first place. If the audio is authenticated, we should be very clear about that in the article, but pretending that there were never questions about it looks like a coverup. Controversial topics such as this one have lots of people claiming conspiracies and bias (in all directions) If we don't give things a balanced view and at lest mention the bumps in the road, it lends fuel to those fires. Sunlight is a disinfectant, we have nothing to hide. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps, to be really, really fair, whatever that means in the context of WP rules, we should also note the media coverage of the attorney demanding a retraction from the individuals who, in the attorney's mind, might be actionably liable for the reckless defamation against her client implicit in their claims. Should we really be reporting something that is hardly different from the strategic smear carried out by the attorney who is seeking the juvenile records of Michael Brown? Judging from your omission of such information from this section, WP:AGF leaves me no choice but to assume that you hadn't heard about the same up to this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to the other editors here, at some point, I would really appreciate some of you weighing in on what is being presented with respect to the audio clip. A lot has happened in that space in the last 24 hours and beyond. But the wording in our article, produced by primarily one editor, remains unchanged hour after hour after hour. I'd change it myself but expect that that would set in motion an immediate WP:EW where I would certainly be the loser and left with no more revert bullets for 24 hours. In other words, ♪ Hey, is there anybody [else] out there? ♪ Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RS Sources analysis

I'm going to put up some of what I am finding in the way of analysis of the cadence of shots. I am putting them up in good faith just as data points for your consideration. I am not necessarily suggesting that any of them or the ideas embodied in them be used in the article. I am also not able to tell you if or if not a given source is a reliable or a non-reliable source. Feel free to comment on either aspect. I ask, however, that you take care not to insult me for simply trying to curate information that might or might not have value in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2014/aug/28/now-what-country-waits-developments-michael-brown-/

 Much will depend on how the pause in the audio is interpreted. 
 It would seem to support indictment, because the pause, whatever the length, should have given 
 the officer ample time to evaluate the situation after the first round of shots.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYAN is probably a reliable source, but certainly one with a strong POV (nothing wrong with that, WP:RS specifically allows for biased sources). No objection to including that snippet.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - This from a recent New York Times article titled, "Recording May Capture Shots Fired at Michael Brown." If I may be so bold, I believe that you will agree with me that the writers are using this quote in the way that they do because it seems to substantially comport with evidence from the audio clip that points to a a final burst of gun fire which consisted of four shots.

   One of those witnesses, Michael T. Brady, a janitor who lives near the scene of the shooting, 
   said in an interview that Mr. Brown was bent over when one of the shots hit him in the head. 
   “The officer lets out three more shots at him,” Mr. Brady said. 
   “The second one goes into his head as he was bending down.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/recording-may-capture-shots-fired-at-michael-brown.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what we are saying about Michael Brady's testimony as of 8/29 4PM CDT.

   As he was falling, Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson because he was presumably hit 
   and was stumbling forward; Wilson then shot him three or four times. Brady said that the pictures 
   he took of Brown with his arms tucked in under his body is the position he was in as he was shot 
   three or four more times by Wilson before hitting the ground. (Emphasis added.)

Based on what we are already saying, the addition of at least the NYT analysis to the Audio section, should be noncontroversial, no? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Possible recording of shooting section just another account of what happened (to be inserted inside the "Accounts" section) or does it deserve a full section of it's own? Is there something intrinsically different about this section versus, say, the Twitter user? Would a video of the same parts of the shooting alter our decision (about where to include it)? Why? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interesting dilemma of sorts.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts. Use 4 tilde characters at the end of your post.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reminding a user to sign his/her posts implicates AGF. You can edit in good faith and still forget to sign. Dyrnych (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. I used AGF, A) to not say what I was really thinking, and B) because I am too new to know which article deals with insulting people's intelligence. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about with any of that. I have neither edited the recording section nor advocated that it be excluded from the article. Please either point out what you're talking about or retract your comment. Dyrnych (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry Dyrnych. Very bad assuming on my part there. I request the forbearance of the admins as I remove stuff that should have never been posted in the paragraph in question.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to explain this.

We mention significant controversy and protests and unrest. Protest is an active form of controversy. I think maybe some are confusing it with the debate in the media, which is less significant (but still leadworthy in this article). As is, we have the significant controversy (the "unrest") apparently initiating what we call the "significant controversy". I didn't figure this itself would be controversial, but here we are. I should have just ignored this article at the noticeboard. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:22, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I would point out that there is a shift occurring in Missouri right now from active on-the-street protest to debate and forums where citizens get to speak truth to power. To get an idea of what I am talking about, do a current search for #ferguson in Twitter. There is a lot going on. And these forums may have more of an impact in Ferguson than any talking head debate on CNN, Fox, or PBS. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's only so long people can stay outraged. Maybe add "(social and mass)" after "media"? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've specified the sort of significant controversy (media and political) I think was meant. Hope that's self-explanatory, but feel free to ask. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Protests and rioting are by default, controversial. That's the redundancy NBSB was referring too. I think.Two kinds of pork (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can see that. There's controversy within them, but then there's also controversy about them (Does looting send the right message? Does wearing riot gear? How is news coverage affecting people?). Two sorts of the same thing, but the latter's more detached. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

Rioting is controversial. Protesting is a right enshrined in the US Constitution (Bill of Rights). The only controversy is when the 1st amendment rights, are pushed back with a militarized police effort. That's controversial. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protests are at a minimum a sign that there is a controversy to protest about. But even peaceful protesting can itself be controversial. Pussy riot, naked protesters, disruptive sit-ins, Code-pink, PETA and many more constitutionally protected protests can still be controversial in themselves. I don't think you and the other editors above actually disagree, you are just reading each other wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some subtleties here that I think would be unclear to a reader of the lead. Also, "disputed" already means "controversy" so there's redundancy there. How about the following simplification instead.

The disputed circumstances of the shooting resulted in protests and civil unrest in Ferguson.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Sorry for the non alignment of indents but I'm going with a text box here.

   A perception on the part of residents in the neighborhood where Brown was shot, 
   (a perception that later took hold among many outside of the St. Louis area and
   even outside of the United states), that Brown's killing at Officer Wilson's hand 
   was both legally unjustified and unnecessary, coupled with the decision of Ferguson 
   and St. Louis County authorities not to immediately charge Wilson with homicide, sparked 
   massive peaceful protest in Ferguson as well as in many US cities and even around the world.  
   In the early stages of the protesting in Ferguson, numerous acts of looting and vandalism 
   were also committed, and late evening battles between more militant demonstrators and the police were frequent.

I ask for concurrence on this language. If consensus is reached, I would be happy to provide all of the necessary cites to support each of the assertions made. I don't believe that that will be difficult at all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let others address the POV question, and the following copyedit comments may end up moot.

• That first sentence contains 84 words. Give the reader a break from time to time.
• More common usage would be "death at Officer Wilson's hand", I think. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to find sources for each assertion. Can you find a source that asserts them all? WP:SYNTH. I think the wording is a little sensationalistic, and written like someone writing an oped or giving a speech, not like an encyclopedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discussion was about the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. For comparison, here's the first paragraph of the lead as it is now with the subject sentence underlined.

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. The disputed circumstances of the shooting, and resulting protests and civil unrest, have caused significant controversy in the United States.

Here's the first paragraph with my suggestion for the last sentence.

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. The disputed circumstances of the shooting resulted in protests and civil unrest in Ferguson.

And here's Michael-Ridgway's version.

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. A perception on the part of residents in the neighborhood where Brown was shot, (a perception that later took hold among many outside of the St. Louis area and even outside of the United states), that Brown's killing at Officer Wilson's hand was both legally unjustified and unnecessary, coupled with the decision of Ferguson and St. Louis County authorities not to immediately charge Wilson with homicide, sparked massive peaceful protest in Ferguson as well as in many US cities and even around the world. In the early stages of the protesting in Ferguson, numerous acts of looting and vandalism were also committed, and late evening battles between more militant demonstrators and the police were frequent.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416 thank you for that context, sometimes it is difficult to understand what the practical import of a particular suggestion is. I strongly prefer either of the two shorter versions to MB's version. While BMs version, after significant editing may be useful in the body somewhere, it is wildly wrong for the lede imo. Between the two other versions, I think I prefer the current version slightly to yours, as there certtainly has been controversy regarding both sets of issues. However, I could certainly accept your version as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Bob's. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the current version, as it correctly indicates that the protests themselves (in addition to the circumstances of the shooting) have led to controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the blogs are percolating the juvenile record thing again, thought I'd get everyone on the same page preemptively. Here's my take :

Sadly, even AOL News has run this story and they include a direct link to the court documents submitted, which I reviewed and consider to be defamation accomplished by a fishing-expedition court filing, personally. For that reason, I never mentioned it here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Due to WP:BLPCRIME (and the "1 year BDP" rule) In so far as specific allegations of crimes, or affiliations we should not mention anything until such records are confirmed/released, and covered by mainstream A+ WP:RS
2. The lawsuit to try and obtain those records is currently not notable enough for inclusion as it has not received coverage in WP:RS
   1. If the lawsuit itself does receive coverage, it may be appropriate to say something along the lines of "X filed a lawsuit to see if Brown had a juvenile record", even prior to knowing the answer to that question, but only if there is sufficient coverage, and we must keep in mind WP:WEIGHT

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a grey area in the policy to me, but we certainly shouldn't introduce any speculation into the article. Sources are starting to pick the story though: [2][3] - MrX 17:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate what you think is the grey area? Your statement is somewhat ambiguous to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/27/lawsuit-filed-for-alleged-michael-brown-juvenile-records/ as well. If the list continues to grow, I think a one sntence inclusion about the lawsuit may be merited somewhere. perhaps in Brown's bio, where I note we are not currently stating that he had no record. (I think we should since having something in the lede which is not in the body does not conform with WP:MOS. Ill add that part now. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The grey area is that the amount of time that BLP should apply after a persons death is not strictly defined in policy. "The policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." It comes down to editorial discretion and good judgement. Separate from that is WP:BLPCRIME which pertains to living and recently deceased people accused of a crime. If Brown's juvenile record includes convictions, and can be backed by reliable sources, then that material would seem to be fair game for inclusion in the article. At this point, I would agree that a very brief mention of the lawsuit is warranted.- MrX 18:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be on record here, I oppose any mention of the lawsuit being included in this article. There's no indication that this lawsuit has anything to do with what happened on August 9. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"There's no indication that this lawsuit has anything to do with what happened on August 9." Seriously? You can say that with a straight face? They are looking for the records of a one Michael Brown. Brown is only noted (and very much so) for this shooting case. I don't see how you can make that claim with a straight face. If a criminal record is not in any way related to this case, why does the article mention that he has no adult criminal record? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can say that with a straight face and any other kind of face as well. When a RS makes a direct connection between those records (if they exist) and what happened on August 9th, then I won't have a problem including it. As far as why this article mentions his non-existent adult criminal record, I don't know, you'll have to ask the editor[s] who included it. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that saying Brown had no criminal record is a bit misleading because it only means that he didn't have any known criminality for the 2 1/2 months between his 18th birthday on May 20, 2014 and his death Aug 9, 2014. That's not saying much but the way it's stated it seems like more than it should. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson ('s proxies) has alleged Brown assaulted him. Others have disputed that, and defended Brown's character as a "gentle giant". If there is, or is not, a juvenile record (and depending on what that record says) is information which is useful in determining whose account one gives more credibility to. And for the recrd, it has just as much connection to the case as our statements about other people's misdeeds causing the complete firing of the Jennings police department, including Wilson also completely unrelated to this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look Gaijin42, you know damn good and well how I feel about introducing prior bad conduct (at this stage) into articles like this. Michael Brown is not on trial here. We don't even have a decent or reliable version of events from Wilson yet. If and when this officer is ever indicted, then I will probably change my position as it would then be relevant. I'd also point out to you that if there was even any hint of prior bad conduct, then The ConsvTreeHse and Breitbart and The Daily Caller would have been all over it by now. But, I will defer to consensus on this issue as I'm not going to battle over it. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We explicitly note that Wilson was not involved in the firing of the Jennings police department. That said, there are actual, confirmed misdeeds there. Here, we're speculating that there could be misdeeds. That's a huge difference. Dyrnych (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also oppose including the lawsuit. It's essentially a fishing expedition, and the plaintiff in the case is the deeply suspect Charles C. Johnson (which by itself raises all sorts of other questions). Disregarding the merits of the lawsuit (and I don't think that it has much merit), noting the lawsuit implies that there is a juvenile record to produce. Dyrnych (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the St Louis Post Dispatch has reportedly joined the lawsuit as a plantiff. In other lawsuit news (although this may be more appropriate for the unrest article) The Ferguson PD has been sued for $41.5M in a civil rights suit. [4][5] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the protesters' lawsuit should go in the unrest article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post dispatch also filing suit/petitioning confirmed  : http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/post-dispatch-seeks-juvenile-court-records/article_ca156c3c-37b2-5b1d-b4ad-a79b196c433a.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any mention of this issue until and unless it is proven that there are any juvenile records to speak of. At this point, it's a fishing expedition. Anonymous unsourced claims by fringe "journalists" who have a history of making up scummy nonsense about their political opponents do not belong here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, going one further -- it is defamation by means of a fishing expedition, where the attorney has every confidence that his smear will be dutifully disseminated to the wind. In other words, he has already won. If he gets damning documents in the end, that's just icing on the cake. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick, possibly WP:FORUM note on defamation: all states have some form of ligation privilege under which statements made during litigation are usually not actionable as defamation. I don't know whether Missouri's litigation privilege is qualified or unqualified, but in either case the statements made in the complaint are not likely to be defamatory. That said, I have some serious doubts about Johnson's motives in filing the suit and the concern trolling in the complaint is over the top. Dyrnych (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would stipulate that my use of the term defamation is not intended to be understood in its "legal" sense, but rather in its moral sense, as generally understood by "most" people of "good will." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we genuinely need this information at this time? We could just wait and see how it pans out, as, well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we should value accuracy over timeliness. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with waiting, as my point #2 in the OP of this section should clearly indicate. We will likely know an answer to at least part of the question of if records are likely to be released or not early next week, as the hearing is on the 3rd. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote that we wait, then, and speak about including it later depending upon what turns up. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, guys. The lawsuit is clearly related to this case. No question about it. It seems like a lot of people have an agenda (ulterior motive) about why they want to exclude it from the article. It's related to the case. It's a significant point. It's reported by RS's. End of story. The results of the lawsuit are irrelevant. Whether or not a juvenile record exists is irrelevant. Once again: It's related to the case. It's a significant point. It's reported by RS's. End of story. Keeping it out (not to mention, fighting to keep it out) clearly indicates a bias, an agenda, and an ulterior motive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That is not an appropriate response and I would suggest that you retract it. Editors can differ as to whether a particular piece of information should be included in an article and should be able to do so without other editors accusing them of ulterior motives. Dyrnych (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me as a person interested in the case, the lawsuit is significant because I think I recall a police spokesperson saying that Brown didn't have a criminal record. I thought that included his juvenile record. Apparently not the case. So I'd put it in for NPOV, but not the comments about what might be in the juvenile record, which don't seem like they're coming from a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The filing of the lawsuit provides no evidence whatsoever that there IS a juvenile record to reveal. It would be like if I filed a lawsuit to demand that the appropriate authorities reveal whatever records exist that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Dyrnych (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the same thing. I think a request was made for Brown's juvenile record and it was denied. Hence the lawsuit. If he didn't have a juvenile record, then the authorities wouldn't deny the request, they would just say there isn't one, and that would be the end of it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misapprehension of the law. A request for Brown's juvenile record would be denied whether or not any juvenile record existed. This makes sense, when you think about it: it would be an odd privacy-focused law that would allow someone to ascertain the existence or nonexistence of a juvenile criminal record merely by requesting it. Dyrnych (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to add something like that to my last message when I encountered an edit conflict: "But if the authorities have the policy of denying all requests for juvenile records, whether or not there is a juvenile record, so as not to make any implication for other cases, then perhaps the lawsuit shouldn't be included." So I agree with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support the following addition: The SLPD is petitioning the St. Louis Family Court for "the release of any juvenile court records it may have relating to Michael Brown." Adam Goodman, Deputy Managing Editor of local and business news described the rationale for the petition as "just one avenue of many" in covering the Brown shooting. He also added "We have taken this action as a professional news organization, independently and not in conjunction with any other organization, as we seek to report facts and not rely on innuendo or speculation."

Note, we are not mentioning a 2nd degree murder allegation as has been mentioned in other questionable sources.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it seems another paper is seeking the juvenile records (if any) of Wilson. Likewise I'd support a similarly worded statement, based on a close paraphrasing from the RS.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, the language used by the SLPD and RFT is identical in explaining their rationale.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should any of you come across any RS or even non-RS analysis which considers the plausibility of various claims made by witnesses or autopsy doctors, etc., in light of the evidence now available to the public generally, thanks to the audio clip, could you please paste a link to the same either here or on my personal talk page? Thank you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]