This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

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

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

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

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

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

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

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

not include its purpose for inclusion is to inflame the racial tension aspect of the incident. This is a non notable group comploetely unrelated to the incident, picked up by one source, and that source explicitly says they were doing it for attention. WP:WEIGHT Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC) striking to avoid confusion in closing the RFC below where I formally !voted. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

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

Survey

• not include WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV WP:BLP many groups say many things. This group has no relationship to any of the participants, organizations, city, etc at all. Its inclusion is obviously meant to be salacious and create a guilt by association (when there is no actual association) thats a clear WP:BLP issue. Yes, it is sourced, but everything which is sourced is not necessarily included. This is not a significant part of the story, and it has not gained any traction in the many many sources which are covering this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Include Per Gaijin42. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. Having watched a few hours of news coverage, this didn't get mentioned once. It seems WP:UNDUE to include this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include per AQFK, unless it becomes some big deal, or there is more too it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include I cannot even believe this is an RFC.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean we have to include it. There is nothing notable or relevant about this content. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude as being inflammatory with no basis for any claim that the police officers support such a KKK action at all - thus it is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and the onus is on those wishing to include those allegations to demonstrate that they comport with the policy. Collect (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• of course include' - This is part of the record of this event, and reported by several reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude Zero relevance to the incident. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include It happened. It is connected to the event. People want to know about it. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't include For the reasons I've given above. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak include Exclude It's reliably sourced and related to the incident. That said, it's not terribly noteworthy in the context of the incident. I'd say include it for now, though I note that there are legitimate concerns about undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Changing my vote. As time goes on, this seems to be increasingly irrelevant to the article's subject. Dyrnych (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not include Undue weight, we have WP:IINFO. It doesn't sound like what I want to know when clicking in as well.Forbidden User (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not include A controversial inclusion to a WP:RECENT article with not enough WP:WEIGHT and raises concerns of WP:NPOV. Johnfancy (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course not Joefromrandb (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude based on current information; this being a recent event, the KKK might hit the news tomorrow. I believe I did see something about them raising money for Wilson, but it has not had significant coverage yet. If it does get more coverage, the situation is different. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014

(UTC)

• Include This information is highly relevant to the racial elements of the event. While various partisan groups have an interest in painting the event as related or unrelated to race as suits their respective agendas, the fact remains that race is a factor in this event. The presence of a nationally significant, race-centric organization is notable and important in the pursuit of impartially documenting it. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude per WP:NOTPROMO, although the fundraising can be verified the fact that an organization is fundraising based on the event should be excluded, otherwise all the organizations that have fundraised for the event would have to be given equal weight for balance sake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude as undue, and likely to create more heat than light. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude, it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of play in comparison to the rest of the story, and is not anything important outside of a weird curiosity rather than a real significant point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ths is widely reported, including international press:

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

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

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

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

Some more:

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

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

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

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

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

Close?

Anyone think this is going to close as something other than exclude/no consensus for inclusion? (Note this is not the same thing as thinking it should be included, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but what is a neutral evaluation of the consensus above?) If I don't see any strong objections to an exclude/no consensus for inclusion close, I will be closing it later today. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Example of a question which assumes that the premise is proven, when actually the premise is not so. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Of course, it's our job as encyclopedia to provide informative, educational content. That's what an encyclopedia is, after all. You don't have to imagine. I already provided a news source that does exactly that.[22] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many have run articles on "eyewitness testimony" in fact. [23] Elizabeth Loftus in The New York Times (International New York Times Opinion section) Despite their lack of knowledge about eyewitness memory, these poorly informed jurors are holding the fate of defendants in their hands. ... (In New Jersey) After Henderson, defendants who can show some evidence of suggestiveness will be entitled to a hearing in which all factors that might have tainted the eyewitness evidence will be explored. The judge also will present to the jury more specific guidance on how to evaluate eyewitness evidence. The Washington Post [24] The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at criminal trials, despite a recent proliferation of studies that show mistaken identity is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Sotomayor said She said the “vast body of scientific literature” that has established the unreliability of eyewitness testimony — including the “staggering” fact that 76 percent of the first 250 convictions overturned by DNA involved eyewitness testimony — “merits barely a parenthetical mention in the majority opinion.” So, yes, major newspapers and the courts have indeed dealt with the unreliability of "eyewitness testimony." [25] presents a scholarly view. Collect (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Gaijin42: I already provided a source which discusses reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of this incident. It was in my very first post to this thread.[26] Did you view it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These two sentences are worrisome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As is, the lead looks biased because the only info about the altercation is "an unarmed 18-year-old black male, died after being shot at least six times". Perhaps the two of you could work something out to give some brief balanced info about the altercation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "balance". One person is dead. Do you mean to add some content about why Wilson shoot Brown? The problem is that we don't know why at this point, all we have is conjecture and a few leaks. The only fact we know now, is that he was shot multiple times and killed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By balanced, I mean that there are different accounts of what happened, for and against Wilson. Use both the for and against accounts to compose a brief NPOV version. Note that we have an Accounts section in the article to summarize for the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel:So now that you have changed to a different argument, are you now acknowledging there is no OR? I've asked twice, and am asking you a third time to

address this point, since you removed the text on this basis. You appear to have a new argument, that this is somehow speculative, and it could be addressed by adding "according to the NY Times", but there is no need to this because when Wilson talked to the young men, is when he realized they might be suspects in the robbery. is being attributed to the Police Chief. Surely the NYT put's some stock in that or they wouldn't have mentioned it.

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing match about this, but I spent a lot of time crafting that text because what we had before, and have now is poorly written and doesn't explain the sequence of events in a way that a person looking for a quick explanation will say "oh, that's what this is all about". I'd like the following to be addressed in the lead.

• Identify Wilson & Brown and their relevant background
• State the robbery had occurred, and Brown was a suspect
• Explain how Wilson stopped Brown and his companion for blocking the street, and though Wilson knew of the robbery prior to the stop, had no reason to believe either of the young men were suspects

All of these points can and should be made. The latest sources agree that this is what happened. Now let's get into the details of the prior to the start of the physical confrontation:

• An argument ensued between Wilson and Brown. It would be nice to know what the argument was about (hence the lawyer's statement)
• Explain how Wilson realized Brown might be the robbery suspect. (Police Chief says he saw cigars)

Now we need details from the eyewitnesses about how the fight progressed, and the NYT and other RS all have eyewitnesses agreeing on:

• Their relative positions to each other (Wilson in the car, Brown outside)
• A gunshot occurred
• Brown ran away from the car. Wilson exited the car. Brown stopped and face Wilson

Eyewitness accounts immediately prior to the fatal shots that killed Brown.

• Some eyewitnesses say Brown charged Wilson, while others say Brown had his hands up in an act of submission

We need this last part so that the reader can understand how the differing eyewitness accounts and poor relations between the community and police led to the sustained period of civil unrest. Now I'd appreciate it if you helped me get there.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but after Cwobeel wished me good luck, I noticed the section Shooting incident which was about what I was looking for. So I composed the following from that section so that you two might consider working with it.

Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. An altercation then took place between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A shot was fired from within the vehicle and the two men began to flee. Wilson left his vehicle, pursued them, and fatally shot Brown.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good for starters (did they both flee?), but it lacks the differing eyewitness accounts that either Brown charged Wilson, or Brown behaved submissively. The outrage and unrest derives in large part from those that believe Brown was not an aggressor.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: You might want to check out the version of the lead worked on before it was removed.

(edit conflict)We could add the following.

Accounts differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was charging Wilson when he was fatally shot.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I went ahead and added it

Good effort but still we are saying all that in Wikipedia's voice and that we can't do. We have to attribute all this so someone. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a attributed it, and removed the last sentence, as there is no official conformation about the narrative of Brown charging Wilson at this point. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back but explicitly attributed it to witness reports. We may never get an "official" narrative about what happened. What happens officially doesn't give it greater weight. We don't put a court of law's ruling over those of witnesses. The sources make those calls.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I would like to point out that this version, is also attributed to witness reports via RS. Witness reports are primary. The RS are secondary. The RS did not make any statement of fact about who did what. If they could, then they would not attribute their reports to witnesses. We are stating "in voice" what the RS found relevant from the witness reports they examined.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cwobeel is being most unhelpful.

1. He states the modification to lead is OR. Three times he was asked to define why it was OR, and he has still yet to do so.
2. Next he states that the text is not attributed, when it fact it was. In spite of this, we took extra measures to ensure that the modifications were attributed.
3. Now there is no objection except "consensus hasn't been reached". This is just gamesmanship of the rules and should be ignored accordingly. So far the only one

objecting to this text is Cwobeel. It is sourced and paraphrased.

1. He opens a new section to try to start the conversation anew. This is getting ridiculous!Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at #Lede below. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I just noticed there was another instance of "or not" being removed in the edit.[29] That use of "whether or not" should be restored simply because it was in a direct quote. To sum up, the edit [30] should be reverted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Good with this as well, especially as I note (and can think of) no real objections to "whether or not." Dyrnych (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Well, you're wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If any of those things are expressed in Wikipedia's voice, I agree completely that they should either be qualified to note that they're someone's opinion or not expressed at all. Dyrnych (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the items that "the article" states, I'll note that they are each explicitly characterized as quotes from Brown's family and thus not stated in Wikipedia's voice. That said, I consolidated these down to one sentence quoting Brown's family. I think that one sentence worth of well-sourced quotes is neither excessive nor implicates WP:BLP. Wilson is a public figure with respect to this incident, so it is not unreasonable to include the notable reaction of Brown's family provided that we don't give excessive space to that reaction. Dyrnych (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll note that the term robbery and strong-arm robbery was explicitly stated by Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson when he released the video of the robbery and the police report on the robbery, and has steadfastly maintained that there was indeed a robbery. He even went so far as to classify the case as being exceptionally cleared - case closed. But yet it is stated in this article that he said or somehow implied "alleged" in relation to the robbery. That was, and still is my objection, but obviously I will have to defer to consensus and let the distortion of what the chief of police explicitly stated remain in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're disagreeing here. Here's what I'm saying: when attributed to the police, it should be called a robbery. When not attributed to the police, it should be called an alleged robbery. Is that your understanding as well? Dyrnych (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only instances where alleged is still used in the article is in the diff provided above, where an editor edit-warred the term into the article despite the fact that Chief Jackson never used the term alleged. The very reason we learned of this robbery is because of the police, and if they aren't saying it's an allegation, then why should we? They've solved and closed the case, a robbery occurred, they have the proof, they know who did it, and if it wasn't for the fact that Brown was killed, he would have been arrested and charged. I don't think it's necessary to say "alleged" at all, unless there is a specific instance where someone is "quoted" as saying alleged. In this particular instance, the chief of police was not quoted as saying alleged. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points but then there's the use of "alleged" in the sources that was pointed out by NorthBySouthBaranof in the message of 18:58, 23 August 2014, and the consideration of WP:BLP for recently deceased persons. Just asking what you think of that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sources that he provided, and I provided one from the WaPo that does not use the term alleged at all in their reporting. And they described the robbery as being committed by Brown. As far is BLP is concerned, I think WP:BLPCRIME would apply here, wouldn't it. And it says we must give serious consideration to not including material that suggests that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. There is zero probability that Brown will be convicted of this crime. So, is the FPD "suggesting" or "accusing", or in other words "alleging" that Brown committed this crime, I would argue no, they have emphatically stated that a robbery occurred, described Brown as a suspect in the crime, released a video of Brown committing the crime and they also have a confession from Dorian Johnson as well. And additionally they closed and classified the case as being "exceptionally cleared". So I don't see any issues with BLP by not saying "alleged" when referring to this robbery. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that the police are not the arbiters of whether a robbery occurred, regardless of whether they consider the case cleared. There are three basic elements to any crime: criminal conduct, criminal state of mind, and the absence of a defense. We have a bunch of people who corroborate that the actions that would constitute a robbery occurred. We don't know anything about Brown's state of mind, which is relevant because he had to intend that a robbery occur. We also don't know anything about whether Brown would have had a defense under Missouri law to robbery. We can't just say that Brown will never be convicted because he is dead but that the state totally would have convicted him, so we should just assume that the evidence that we've seen amounts to a conviction. Dyrnych (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to get back on track in this discussion, here is the diff of where the term "alleged" was edit-warred into the content.

Here are the sources as they correspond and support the content in the article, and the relevant passages from the RS from which the content is based upon:

• Asked whether Dorian Johnson will be charged, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said today, "No. We determined he didn't steal anything or use force."
• Jackson prefaced the name announcement by describing a "strong-arm" robbery that had occurred a few minutes before the shooting at a nearby convenience store. A police report released to members of the media at the news conference described Brown as the suspect involved in the robbery
• When asked why the police department released the video, Jackson said "because the press asked for it," adding that he decided to do so in response to a barrage of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. When asked about Wilson, Jackson called him "a gentleman" and "a quiet officer," adding that Wilson "never meant for this to happen."

As you can see, the term "alleged" is not used by the RS in the passages that the content in the article is based upon. So he edit-warred that term into the article and I would also point out that in the edit summary of the diff, the editor used a MSNBC reference to justify his last revert, and as you can see above, that RS was not even being used. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two sentences at issue are just worded poorly. How about: "Prior to releasing the officer's name, Jackson stated that a "strong-arm" robbery had occurred a few minutes before the shooting at a nearby convenience store. The police released an incident report to members of the media that described Brown as the suspect in the robbery." That eliminates "alleged," makes it clear that it is Jackson (and not Wikipedia) stating that it was in fact a robbery, is generally better prose, and is further from being plagiarism than the almost word-for-word quote in the current article. Dyrnych (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest giving a source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source would be the same as the one to which the current passage is sourced. Dyrnych (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That passage works and avoids copyvio. The other two passages need to be re-worded as well to accurately reflect what the RS says. Since the term alleged is not used by the RS in those passages, why are we inserting our own editorial judgment and implying that the source said "alleged". Isaidnoway (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "alleged" is not used there because they are directly quoting a member of the police, who is directly asserting without qualification that a crime occurred - because that's the police's POV. We cannot take the police's POV and adopt it unchallenged. Quoting a police officer's statement is fine, so long as it is clear that it is their opinion only. When we use Wikipedia's voice, we must use "alleged." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the term "alleged" is not used there because of the quote. That's why we're trying to fix it to accurately reflect the sourcing there. The way it was originally worded was indeed plagiarism, but it accurately reflected the source, until you edit-warred the term "alleged" to be included there. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it accurately reflected the source or not, it made a statement in Wikipedia's voice that a robbery had occurred. Which is not acceptable. The reliable sources clearly state "alleged robbery" when speaking of the events in their own voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's the paragraph from the source.[31]

"Jackson prefaced the name announcement by describing a "strong-arm" robbery that had occurred a few minutes before the shooting at a nearby convenience store. A police report released to members of the media at the news conference described Brown as the suspect involved in the robbery, in which he allegedly took a box of cigars and grabbed and shoved a store clerk before leaving."

Note the last part, "...he allegedly...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you also need to note that the "last part" was never in that passage in the article and under discussion here. Like I said above - the relevant passages from the RS from which the content is based upon. The "last part" is not under discussion or disputed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we should be careful not to take it out of context because of the "allegedly" part in the reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it could be taken out of context when the article plagiarizes the RS word for word, except the "last part". You want to take a crack at it and remove the copyvio? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the RS is characterizing the facts of the event as alleged, and if we use that source we would need to do the same thing. Otherwise, we are taking material out of context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty straightforward to me. 1) "Jackson described a strong-arm robbery" 2) "A police report described Brown as the suspect" 3) "He allegedly took cigars". We are not even discussing #3 at all. 1 and 2 is under discussion here and it looks straightforward to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me, for the reasons I mentioned. Looks like we've come to the end of our two-way discussion, at least for me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I also think a reasonable solution would be to just get rid of that paragraph and the first two sentences of the paragraph below it. The same information is repeated in the opening paragraph, in the section, "Robbery incident report and video release". Isn't the "Police" section supposed to be accounts of the shooting and the "Robbery" section for accounts of the robbery. Regardless, the info is redundant being in both places. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is so hard to stay close to the sources? It is not.- Cwobeel (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Generally speaking, I respond negatively to suggestions about where I should be working unpaid at Wikipedia. If one feels it's time to move on, one is free to do so. For my part, there is still a ton of work to do on refs, including archiving. I think I'll be here for another several weeks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Police Government announcements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

Added it to the "Reactions > Third parties" section [32] after trimming for brevity. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

and temporal ref? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original info and citations. Try to actually read the article before making one-sided deletions or additions. -- Veggies (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holder visited the city. He met with the family of Brown. This is important enough to add into the article, no? Or is it already there, and I missed it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that you can use your browser's Find to locate occurrences of "Holder"? Just trying to help. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am unaware of that. I have no idea how to do that. How do I do so, with Mozilla Firefox? Thanks. Also, is Holder in here or not yet? I can't find it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Control)(F).- MrX 16:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the article page (using Mozilla Firefox). I hit "Control F". It does absolutely nothing? What exactly am I supposed to be doing? Also: is Holder in here or not yet? I can't find it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After you press Ctrl-F, look at the bottom of the screen. You should see a search box, followed by up and down arrows, followed by "Highlight All" and "Match Case". Enter holder in the search box. This will scroll you to the first occurrence of Holder and highlight it. To see the next occurrence, click the down arrow. You can toggle "Highlight All" to highlight all occurrences on the page. You can toggle "Match Case" if you want a search to be case-sensitive (no need for that in this case, since there are no lower-case holder's in the article to get in your way). Let me know if that helps. I'm ignoring your last question since answering it yourself will give you actual real-life experience using Find in Firefox. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going on a WP:WIKIBREAK for a few days, so I won't see anything you say to me here until I return. I will, however, watch my talk page. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I figured it out. But, it had nothing to do with "Control F". It was a different process altogether. Nonetheless, I was able to figure it out. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original text was this:

1 Background

1.1 Ferguson

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

1.2 Michael Brown Jr...

1.3 Darren Wilson...

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

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

The Ferguson section was not needed, as we have an entire article on that city and it is wikilinked in the lead. There was a section called "Context" a few days ago in which what you added abut the demographics if the city was described, so maybe we need to have a section on context but not as part of the "Parties involved" section. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just that you object to the removal of the term "Parties involved"? I know that this term is used in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin but, IMO, a better example is the Rodney King Riots article (which has a Background section) because the initial incident involved police, like Michael Brown, whereas Trayvon Martin involved two civilians. In other words, would you object if we changed the heading from "Parties involved" to "Background" and made no other changes? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?hpid=z1

Lots of stuff here. Enjoy. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much that's notable here. Unlikely that Wilson's childhood is particularly relevant, nor that his tenure on the Jennings force tells us much beyond that he was on the force. I don't see any need to include the Jennings information beyond the dates of his tenure, as there's no implication in the article that Wilson was involved in any misconduct there. It would be extremely problematic to include mentions of excessive force/corruption without something linking Wilson to those allegations. Dyrnych (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting quotes from academics that could be used to help explain some of the reactions or problems facing the FPD.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful not to expand our scope, from "shooting of Michael Brown", to "problems facing the FPD". Sure, the latter probably had something to do with the former. But it's also an area that's not unique to this case by any means. If more of RS picks up on this before this story is eclipsed by more recent ones (hardly anyone is saying anything about Elliot Rodger anymore), then maybe one or two sentences somewhere. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ferguson Police Department has a Wikipedia page. Perhaps this should be included there, rather than here? Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless information surfaces that Wilson was involved in any incidents at the Jennings PD, this addition seems irrelevant. (ScubaSharky (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

May be useful at Ferguson Police Department (Missouri), but not here - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only relevant to the Jennings PD -- unless one wishes OR that Ferguson somehow deliberately hired Jennings officers or the like? Collect (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it isn't just young black men who get thuggified in news reports, it would appear. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff of this section, in which StAnselm said we can't have unused refs in the References section, despite practical reasons for doing so, because of the big red errors at the bottom of References section resulting from those unused refs.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this—I don't like errors either—but we should understand the implications. Here's how it will work if we stick to this policy.

• An editor removes a passage from the body, along with its cite. Unless the ref is used elsewhere, this will create an unused ref and the resulting error. There are currently two unused refs that were created in this way, both created within the last 18 hours or so.

• If the editor realizes that s/he has created an unused ref, knows that StAnselm doesn't like that, and cares what StAnselm thinks, and is aware of our local policy, s/he then has to edit the References section and comment out the ref. Or, someone else notices the error later and comments out the ref.

• At some later point, if someone reverts the removal, they will create an undefined ref, because the ref has been commented out. This will create a big red error at the bottom of the References section. It will also create a non-functional citation, where you get the usual citation number, but nothing happens when you hover or click on it. From the reader's standpoint, this is far more serious than the big red errors created by unused refs.

• Even if the editor realizes what has happened, they will then have to edit the References section and uncomment the ref. Rinse, repeat.

• The more likely scenario is that the non-functional citation will remain indefinitely. It will never be corrected unless it happens to be noticed by someone who edits Wikipedia, understands how to fix the problem, and cares enough to fix it.

It gets even messier when the removed passage has multiple refs, or when a ref is used in multiple places in the article.

Unless all editors understand how to keep the References section in sync with the body (even this understanding is non-trivial), and are willing to spend the time to do so, my way may be the lesser of the two evils. I don't propose to tolerate unused refs for any longer than two or three weeks, until this article has stabilized quite a bit. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT I tentatively support this proposition, as, while the big red errors are unsightly, your reasoning is assuredly sound. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, please don't make this personal. "Knows that StAnselm doesn't like that, and cares what StAnselm thinks..." is bordering on a personal attack. Please keep your discourse civil so that toegther we can ensure the article is continually improved. StAnselm (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I hope. My apologies. I didn't see it as anywhere near personal attack, but that clause isn't critical to the argument. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the last bullet upon further consideration. If we're watching the bottom of the References section for unused-ref errors, we'll also see undefined-ref errors, and will fix them. That just leaves us with the fact that the policy creates a lot of extra work commenting and uncommenting refs. That's assuming that people actually comment out refs rather than deleting them. The extra work increases considerably if people delete refs. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I was involved editing Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, we commented out unused refs in the ref list section. This approach was uncontroversial and allowed for refs to be used again if similar material was later introduced to the article. Once the editing activity on the article decreases, the remaining unused refs can be removed. I support doing the same here.- MrX 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, comment out and remove later. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about tolerating unused refs for a few weeks, the topic of this discussion? Do we accept the extra work, or the unused-ref errors? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the refs that StAnselm commented out had a comment, <!-- no byline given --> in its author parameter. Apparently the software can't handle nested comments, so it throws up and completely loses its mind, throwing dozens of errors for other refs. So I did it without the exclamation point, as <--ref name=refname.... I don't exactly know why but that avoided the problem. I guess that made the ref tag an "invalid tag", and the software can handle a comment inside an invalid tag. And it doesn't throw an error for an invalid tag, it just ignores it and moves on. Or something. Go figure. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the list of hidden categories at the bottom of this article, to see if the invalid tags added it to a tracking category. There are multiple tracking cats related to problems with refs, but none of them seem to describe this situation. I will eventually look into what the existing cats are complaining about and see if I can correct that. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX and Cwobeel - As I read your responses, you support commenting out refs instead of deleting them, and that's good news. Maybe I'm dense, but it's not clear to me whether you're for accepting the extra commenting-uncommenting work or the unused-ref errors for a few weeks. Could you be more specific? Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, comment them out and save them for a few weeks. I would recommend not leaving <-- because the correct HTML syntax is <!-- HTML comments are not really supposed to be nested.- MrX 18:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX To summarize: 1. You're in favor of the extra commenting-uncommenting work in order to avoid a few weeks of unused-ref errors. 2. You feel we should remove all "no byline given" comments (a fairly common practice in good refs) because leaving them in requires the use of a technique that is not strictly correct HTML usage. Do I have that right? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm feeling the need for some R&R in the form of a WP:WIKIBREAK. I'll let you guys sort this out and I'll return in a few days. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think I understood the full extent of the issue. I advocate commenting out and retaining unused references, and removing them later. If the ref has a "no byline given" comment wrapped in HTML comment brackets, the parameter, comment, and brackets should be removed. Example: author=<!-- No byline given -->. We should remove the entire author=<!-- No byline given --> since its absence would seem to indicate that it is not available.- MrX 19:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use Diigo and its sister Chrome extension to capture stories that I might want to get back to some day should I need a cite for a tidbit of information. Wouldn't it be cool if there was a way to collaboratively tag articles that relate to a Wikipedia article so that as edits come and edits go, when you need the cite, the app inserts the necessary tagged information into the article and when you don't need the cite, it automatically is disabled, but not deleted, so that it's there should someone else need it at a later time? That would be one massively useful tool. Hint, hint, programming ninjas among us. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me not to be right (my highlight):

Witness reports greatly differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was charging Wilson.

According to whom these reports greatly differ? Again. we are wading into very complicated territory, that's why we should just say that the circumstances of the fatal shots is in dispute, and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the "charging" is only mentioned in the article as a speculating comment by Baden who performed the private autopsy. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, simply saying the fatal shots is in dispute is much more accurate. I haven't heard of any witness who has claimed Brown was charging Wilson. Saeranv (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see no witness accounts suggesting "charging." The NYT says "mov[ing] toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner." Not charging. Also, the NYT suggests more possibilities than the two that are presented in the lead. Given that the sentence does not accurately reflect the source, I agree that it should be changed. Dyrnych (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT says this. This has been discussed and rehashed above several times as Cwobeel is well aware. He has been nitpicking whether this is OR or unattributed. It has been pointed out to him on several occasions it is not OR. Despite being asked several times he could not show why it is OR. Next he complained the text was unattributed, so we made it 100% clear this was from witness reports. Now he opens a new section to rehash the same thing? Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that many are saying what I've been thinking since I first saw that sentence yesterday. Sadly, that sentence is almost actionable in how closely it mimics what the New York Times reporter is saying. So I didn't challenge it. I just shake my head at how sloppy reporting by the NYT is and consign myself to the fact that if the KGB were alive and well today, Wikpedia would be reporting a whole lot of stuff that isn't true, thanks to planted stories which get picked up by one uncareful journalists and then repeated many times over by other journalists under pressure to get stuff out by deadlines. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the Old Gray Lady might need a douche, you won't have an argument with me. But it is clear they analyzed the reports and simply presented them, with no value judgement. And we have done the same.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't the WEIGHT principle say we should ignore this since this appears to be more of a quirk in her writing than the majority view among all sources out there? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. And I suggest you not pursue the "planted stories" allegation about Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? I ask because I don't want to misunderstand you. To me, what you just said sounds suspiciously like the kind of intimidation I would have never dreamed possible when I signed on as a Wikipedia contributor back in the day.

From Wikipedia: Active Measures (Russian: Активные мероприятия) was a form of political warfare conducted by the Soviet security services (Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, KGB) to influence the course of world events, "in addition to collecting intelligence and producing politically correct assessment of it".[1] Active measures ranged "from media manipulations to special actions involving various degrees of violence". They were used both abroad and domestically. They included disinformation, propaganda, counterfeiting official documents, assassinations, and political repression, such as penetration in churches, and persecution of political dissidents.[1] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Two kinds of pork: - Can you point out the specific text that's being used to justify both (1) the "charging Wilson" language and (2) the binary "either hands up or charging?" distinction? Looks to me like neither is supported by the NYT source. Dyrnych (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.

But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed." Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Okay, so as I said above we've got "moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner." That language is not even close to supporting "charging." And we have a third possibility suggested by that beyond "charging" and "hands up": "not moving," but not necessarily with his hands up. If that's the only support that we have for the sentence in the lead, I agree with Cwobeel and would suggest that his edit be reinstated. Dyrnych (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. I will remove both your edit and mine, and let's reach consensus for any further changes or additions. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid further escalation, I suggest filing an RFC - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary. I think that we have consensus for your edit, given that we have numerous editors that appear to support it and one editor opposed. Dyrnych (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{Two kinds of pork, thinks otherwise and has breached 3RR in the process. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Two kinds of pork: you may consider a self-revert. - Cwobeel (talk)

@Dyrnych, which version do you think has numerous editors supporting? The original discussion supports the differing accounts as reported by the NYT. This converation has Cwobeel, who has no policy based rationale, and the one user who said he agreed, if they read the source obviously got it wrong. You requested the text, which I submitted. What do you think?Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As I said, the text in the lead did not accurately summarize the source and was not a great summary of this page. I think that Cwobeel's version is an adequate summary that avoids misrepresenting the source, and it looks like the consensus supports that version. Dyrnych (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to summarize this article, not the NYT article, that is. Show me where in the article we have a witness account saying that "[Brown] moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner"... - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it easy for you. This is from Baden, the doctor that performed the autopsy: This one here looks like his head was bent downward, it can be because he's giving up, or because he's charging forward at the officer.". That is not a witness, is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dr. Baden is not a witness in the usually understood sense of the word. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original modification

Please consider this text, from a version that Cwobeel seemingly deployed a popular Wikipedia discussion technique I like to call "20 objections" in which when if one argument is debunked, don't concede the point, go find a new argument!

... The crucial moments before the fatal shots is when the eyewitness reports begin to sharply conflict with each other. Some witness say Brown approached Wilson, in a possibly threatening manner, and other witnesses say Brown wasn't moving and may have been holding his hands up.[11]

This was objected to for reasons of "borderline OR". After multiple queries as to how it is OR, the next objection raised was this was being said in Wikipedia's voice, when clearly this text mentions this is from witness reports. @Bob K31416: made a suggestion to use "Accounts differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was charging Wilson when he was fatally shot." so we scrapped the paragraph above and started again. I see there are legitimate objections to using the "charging" because it does not accurately match the source. @Dyrnych: does the test in the indent above accurately paraphrase the NYT article? Is it OR? Is it attributed to the witnesses?

We may never get a source which definitively state what happened. We will always have to attribute the sequence of events to some source (witness, police reports, court findings, etc) because it is unlikely that a RS like the NYT is going to say "this is what happened", because they are doing what they should be doing as a RS; only report "facts" if they are damn sure of them. Otherwise they use qualifiers.

Now why is this important in the lead? The user who wants the 30 second pitch is not going to get a decent picture of why this incident is so contentious without a summary of the witness reports. Two competing witness narratives are at the heart of the matter. Either Brown was in pacifist mode, or he was in aggression mode. Knowing these conflicting accounts exist helps explain the rationale behind protests, counter-protests, legal proceedings and other "reaction" elements of the article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either Brown was in pacifist mode, or he was in aggression mode. Well, I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of what is key in this article for the lead. The key is that an unarmed person was shot and killed by a police officer, and we don't know the details as of now. If we want a representation for readers about what this is all about, that summarizes it well: we don't know what transpired and what transpired is disputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your personal comment about me, please WP:AGF and avoid them. These comments are not useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read WP:LEAD again. The lead must summarize the important points of the article's body. There is an entire section of "accounts". Your opposition to the text was a moving target, and now there is yet another one that seems to contradict best practices. And as for AGF, what am I supposed to do when you cite to me BRD and then refuse to participate and answer a direct question about your justification? Bold, Revert, Ignore isn't a best practice. I'll AGF up until the point someone fails to demonstrate they are doing otherwise.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a breather, if you could; I am not interested in a personal back and forth. Now, for summarizing the Accounts section, how can we do justice to that in the lede? By saying exactly what the current version says. Read it again. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Under circumstances still in dispute" is not an accurate summary of the Accounts, because the "circumstances" are not explained. Dyrnych did not state that we have need not explain this, rather his objection was language related to the "charging". What can we do to succinctly tell the reader what are the circumstances under dispute? Fortunately we don't have to make hay out of this because the RS have done this already. The circumstances are why this is a story in the first place. Don't you think the reader wants to know what those circumstances are? Sure, they can read down, but that does not satisfy WP:LEAD. What is the problem with summarizing the circumstances in one or two sentences?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The differing accounts appear in the article so I don't see why a brief one-sentence summary shouldn't appear in the lead too. It would succinctly explain the main point of contention: whether Brown was still or whether he was moving towards Wilson when he was fatally shot. Also, without the part about Brown moving towards Wilson, the lead appears biased against Wilson with regard to whether or not the fatal shot was justifiable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Would you kindly offer an opinion on this matter?Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This accurately reflects the NYT, and summarizes the Accounts in one sentence. I would prefer not to mix the sources and/or use the term "bum-rush".

Witness reports greatly differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was display aggression towards Wilson.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=1 NYT] Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"[M]oving toward Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner" is not accurately summarized by "display[ing] aggression towards Wilson." Dyrnych (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Possibly" is fine.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least it looks like a reliable source. SOURCE: The "WMD" of the Ferguson killing For people who are searching for the truth, and who have seen many reports of the facial injury in circulation, but not necessarily the articles calling those claims into serious question, I believe that it would be important to alert said readers that there is at least a reasonable basis for skepticism of the veracity of such reports. As this RS says it so eloquently, I cannot conceive of a reason for not seizing on this writer's analysis to simply pass on said reminder to our audience.

I would hope that a similar RS source analyzing the "charging at" claim could be found, since, as far as I know, not one verifiable RS-reported witness is on record as using that expression to describe Brown's actions as the final fatal shots were fired. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pure contentious opinion:

But I do suspect that the "fractured orbital socket" that many people inclined to defend Officer Darren Wilson are bringing up over and over, as if it were established fact, will prove to be false.

is worth a tad less than a sou for use in a BLP. Collect (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your're going to jump over the part that is usable in the article, then I guess I will have to quote it here directly, just to be fair to the author who is being impugned by selective presentation of what he has to say. Let's be fair, please. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't seen anyone in a position of responsibility in the case assert that Wilson 
    had his eye socket fractured. And I have seen video -- CNN aired it -- of Officer Wilson 
    walking around next to Michael Brown's body, talking with another officer, after the shooting. 
    He does not appear to have suffered a bad injury, like a fractured face. He appears to be, 
    as well as can be assessed through a not-close and not-sharp video, fine and healthy. 
    He does not appear to be in any physical distress. So either he is one tough dude, 
    who isn't bothered by a fractured eye socket (which undermines the argument that 
    the injury justifies him shooting an unarmed Michael Brown), or he did not 
    suffer an injury as bad as that. 

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Williams provided exactly the same analysis in a recent debate between himself and Sean Hannity on Fox News, but video is more cumbersome as a cite for our readers. I would urge inclusion of both cites if and when someone brings this point forward. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Look, we have the eye socket claim in the article. We also have multiple claims that the eye socket claim is inaccurate. Until we have a definitive account of Wilson's injury or injuries in an RS, that's what we've got. I appreciate that a reporter and a pundit believe that the eye socket claim is inaccurate based on their observations, but it's not our job to prove one way or another that the eye socket was or was not broken. And any addition would amount to "some reporters and pundits believe that Wilson's eye socket was not injured" or something like that, so ask yourself how useful that statement would be. Dyrnych (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be different from all of the other conjecture that litters the article at present? This is important conjecture as it is supported by the actual video evidence that anyone can review on their own. To omit the fact that there are very notable pundits who are severely calling into question the eye socket claims is yet another nod to both Darren Wilson and the police for whom he works who could have, at any time, provided actual statements, claims, and supporting evidence, but who appear quite content to allow the world to spin sideways on the basis of unverifiable leaks taken as plausible by the likes of Sean Hannity et all. I'm just saying that the way we are handling is not fair, especially when the statements that would make it fair which we are intentionally omitting are so imminently supported by RS sources. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, are we QUOTING Sean Hannity? Are we presenting his view? We absolutely are not, because who honestly cares about his view? So why bring him up as though this is needed to counterbalance his view (that we're not including in the article)? Dyrnych (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more respectful to fellow editors on this page, Dyrnych. It's beginning to be just a tad bit irritating. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)  :::::::If we are using the expression "charged at" in our article, then we are absolutely quoting Sean Hannity (without naming him as a source, of course). Rhetorical question, which primary witness can we point to who has ever used that word? (NYT is an RS, but not a primary source. So please don't say NYT.)[reply]

I will get for you the link to the video of Sean Hannity battering Patricia Bynes with that term over and over and over in the course of a very short and very unfair interchange with her just a few days ago. That this article gives courage to people who speak like that when there is no primary source to my knowledge who has ever used that expression makes me sad. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaite: ‘Let Me Educate You’: Hannity and Ferguson Politician Battle over Police Brutality

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/let-me-educate-you-hannity-and-ferguson-committeewoman-battle-over-police-brutality/

SOURCE: Crooks and Liars: Media Punked By Fake 'Josie' Account Of Michael Brown Shooting If this is accurate, this would effectively wipe out any pretense for the use of the expression "charged at" in our reporting, especially in the lede.

We could, of course, add a new section about how claims favorable to the police officer have been debunked one after another. If you can't find RS sources to support that assertion, private message me. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an RS. Has this been reported in an RS? And as to the notion that we're going to add a section that uses Wikipedia's voice to effectively cast doubt on all accounts supporting Wilson because some have been inaccurate, no, we should not do that.

Dyrnych (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please name for me all of the apparently pro-Wilson sources who have not been seriously debunked at this point, whether in quotable reliable sources or not? I don't think Josie was real. Looks suspiciously like she was reading from a fake Facebook page. Darren Wilson didn't put anything into his police report other than his name and the date. So I ask respectfully: please enumerate for us the pro-Wilson witnesses who are still standing. I'll await your response before responding to your suggestion that we hold fast to our status quo narrative, in spite of new information coming out that challenges the same. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article, which was my hope when I posted the link. I believe you'll find RSes there. When you do, you can then summarize the RS info using the not-so-rs writers as your guide. It's a devastating article if all true. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, and it's true that it quotes reliable sources. But "summarizing the RS info" in the way that you describe is basically the definition of WP:SYNTH. Dyrnych (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to confuse. I wasn't suggesting WP:SYNTH. I was actually humorously hinting at plagiarism. But your point is well taken, of course. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll admit that Little Green Footballs is probably not a reliable source and so I'll retract my claim. The reference to CNN is not support, but rather an example that LGF points to as an example of an RS that got punked. I'd just ask that all keep their eyes out in case an RS for this debunking materializes or is already extant. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to note that in our article as of 7:20 PM CDT, that there are no instances of the term "charging at" or "charged at" other then the one from Dr. Baden (he is a Dr. right?) explaining that the shot to the top of the head could have occurred if Brown was charging at Wilson with his head down. I appreciate the acquiescence of the collective on this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the CNN article referred to in the Crooks and Liars article, there was the following.

"A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN."[33]

Looks like CNN got independent confirmation that Josie's account is that of Wilson. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: Striking the following as I apparently misread the statement above to which I attempted a response. Yes, and The point that the CrooksAndLiars people are making is that CNN got punked. I've listened to Josie several times. The correlation between that discredited Facebook post and what she tried to say from memory while on the phone is too high to be explained by just random coincidence, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it regarding CNN's independent confirming source. Unless I missed it, I didn't see where the Crooks and Liars article explained, or even discussed, CNN's independent confirming source. Isn't that worrisome to you regarding the credibility of the Crooks and Liars article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look at the Crooks and Liars article, you'll see that it is making a false implication that the Josie story is based on a fake Facebook page. In the Crooks and Liars article you will see that the fake Facebook page by a purported Darren Wilson appeared two days after the Josie story. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Bob K. Looks like you're not the only one to catch it. (Perhaps after you made your comment), the author added this update:

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

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the update you posted here wasn’t posted in the Crooks and Liars article, at least not yet. It would completely destroy the premise for the article’s existence. The update was posted at the very end of the Little Green Footballs article that Crooks and Liars used as a source. Also note that neither article has yet to mention that CNN got independent confirmation that the Josie story accurately reflects Darren Wlson’s account. From the CNN article,[34]

”A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very cautious of these or any other anonymous hearsay comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not having gone straight to the source: Little Green Footballs. They are the ones who did the debunking. But if Fox doesn't report, how will we decide? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the NYTimes contains information from law enforcement officials confirming Officer Wilson's facial injury and that he fired at Brown and his friend while they were running away:

"However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car. 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."

The confirmation from law enforcement officials is missing from the current Police account of the shooting. Can we add this? Saeranv (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't confirm a facial injury; it confirms an unspecified injury. If you look at the second graf of the police account in the Wikipedia article, it contains this: "Tom Jackson, Ferguson's chief of police, stated on August 13 that the officer who shot Brown was injured in the incident." Doesn't that adequately provide police confirmation of what the police have so far confirmed as far as the injury? Dyrnych (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion? Absolutely not. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right that doesn't confirm a facial injury and the existing article covers an unspecified injury already. The other point still stands though, I believe. There is not mention of law enforcement officials mentioning that Wilson fired his weapon at the suspects while they were running away.Saeranv (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the NYT specifying who these sources are? Are they leakers who are speaking under cover of anonymity, or are they named sources with titles and departments speaking officially on the record? If the former, that should be clearly stated if we are going to let them play this game with us (which, as you know, I very much object to). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Unfortunately they are pretty much asking us to just trust them, these are anonymous sources. The fact that this might be poor journalism has been noted by the NYTimes itself: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/a-ferguson-story-on-conflicting-accounts-seems-to-say-trust-us/ Now, with regards to this article - I don't like that they're making claims without backing them up i.e. “witnesses have given investigators sharply conflicting accounts of the killing...” because it could just be sloppy thinking. I am less upset about the use of anonymous sources though, as I think it's unlikely that they would make that up. Saeranv (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it this way. Is it really fair and proper to give equal WEIGHT to the witnesses on both sides when the witnesses who seem to support Michael Brown are on the record, named, and have subjected themselves to numerous media interviews, while the "witnesses" who seem to be on Wilson's side are unnamed, and apparently speaking only to the New York Times? If we are going to give them equal weight, we could at least attempt to find an RS source to explain to the readers why the grant of parity is journalistically fair. For example, it could be pointed out that witnesses favorable to Wilson are in fear for their physical safety if the same can be established with reliable sources. Personally, I'm quite troubled by how we are presenting the information that we present (and that we don't present). People of good will can disagree on this, of course. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to quote every strategic leak by "anonymous sources", we better pack our bags now. Let's stick with officia sources until all this gets clarified. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of distinctions/points:

1. These 'law enforcement officials' are not witnesses, they are officials who are conveying Darren Wilson's account to the NYTimes.
2. (To Michael's point) - This account is not favourable to Wilson. Cops can't shoot at fleeing suspects that pose no threat to others: "when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." - Tennessee v. Garner.
3. It backs up all the other witness accounts that Wilson shot at Brown and his friend while they were running away.

I agree it's not ideal to cite anonymous witnesses/sources (a) but this is not your run-of-the-mill anonymous source and (b) it addresses an important gap in the current article. To not include this information, is worse, as then we have no account from the authorities (anonymous or otherwise) about Wilson shooting at an unarmed fleeing suspect. Thus I think the best thing to do is include it, but make note of the fact that it is anonymous. Saeranv (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. The rules of engagement state that officer can shoot at a fleeing suspect if " the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. See Deadly force. Wilson can argue that in that instance that was his belief, and it all will hinge on this being accepted by the grand jury - Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We also must consider Missouri law: Missouri law could protect Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blacks-12-grand-jurors-ferguson-case-25088526 Morpheus ad (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is already in the article at Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Grand_jury - Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article mention that the three blacks are comprised of two women and a man? Morpheus ad (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The gender and race should be mentioned for all jurors. It is germane. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe African-American and Caucasian should be used instead of black and white. Other articles, like the shooting of Trayvon Martin, refer to my terms instead of those. Why do the edits keep getting reverted? CitiV (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources we have refer to Brown and Wilson as black and white, respectively. There's no appreciable difference in the terms, in my view. Dyrnych (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No difference in my view also. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should match the sources, if possible. The terms are similar, anyway. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn we went through this already. But since you bring it up again, I'll abandon my previous stance in favor of calling Wilson IndoEuropean, or Indie, for short. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just stupid. The media nowadays just uses the words 'black' and 'white' to further the whole race card thing! And we're trying to be neutral, aren't we? African American and Caucasian sound MUCH MORE NEUTRAL. CitiV (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new, but I believe what we are trying to achieve here is consensus and impartiality, with a framework of reliable sources. It would seem, however, that not many support your proposition, Citiv, and, while you believe it to be neutral sounding, it's not the wording used in our reliable sources. That's at least two strikes against it. For now, I believe we should keep the wording black and white, even though you seem to believe that the media is "further[ing] the whole race card thing", and it would seem that several others think we should keep the wording, as well. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's the value of that argument, CitiV. Black/White, or African-American/Caucasian, the race issue remains, and both usages are neutral. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys aren't seriously responding to my facetious comment, are you? Your indents suggest that you are. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Great new tool to read WP articles with great typography and layout:

• The Ferguson unrest article http://www.wikiwand.com/en/2014_Ferguson_unrest
• This article: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like it's an app, there's an option to download it for your browser on the top menu bar. It is much, much nicer. Saeranv (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or it appears you can just take the title part of the WP URL and precede it with the string http://www.wikiwand.com/en/. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the article mention of the fact that the Brown family is asking that protesters suspend for a day so they can focus on Michael and his funeral and burial. (Side note: BBC is reporting that Sunday was the first time that Brown's mother had seen Michael's body since the day of the shooting. I lost a wife and a baby. I can't imagine what it would have been like to go 15 days without being able to have been with them. Add to that the trauma of the four hours the body lay on the street.) - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First time being able to see? Cite for that? It is common for funerals to be delayed until a body is released after autopsies -- the third autopsy doubtless delayed the funeral a couple of days in itself. I have heard of cases where a body was not released for months during an investigation. And the time on the street was due to investigation requirements, though it ought to have been covered sooner and more fully (the covering did not reach all the way to cover the feet of the very tall victim - 6'4"). Collect (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested cite: "She said she had seen her son's body at the morgue for the first time on Sunday since the day of the shooting."

BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28924099, same cite I used to source the information about the family's call for a day without protests and unrest. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not support "been able to see", alas. She does not say she was refused the right to see,and, indeed, part of the normal identification routine is to have a family member identify the body at the morgue. The claim you wish to make is not directly supported by the source as a claim of fact. So far I have not found any source for the identification of the body or by which family member it was done, though. Collect (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in my comment supports your claim that I wished "to make a claim." Guess I better put the s-es of shame on the side note so that people won't waste any more time discussing something that was a side note, not something to be picked apart mercilessly. Seriously, Wikipedia is not for the weak of heart. And I would never suggest to a friend that they go through what I have been through for the last 16 days. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now, we could place the grand jury subsection underneath it. I don't think that the Grand Jury proceedings should be considered part of the investigation. It's a whole other animal, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For legal purposes, the Grand Jury is part and parcel of the "investigation". It is not a separate "judicial proceeding." See [35] Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It just seems logical to me.

• Incident.
• Investigation.
• Judicial proceedings.

I would think most of our readers would see it that way too. -- Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an indictment is entered, we can do this. Not until then. We can't prejudice Wilson in the slightest per BLP. Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note an "arraignment" is specifically a judicial proceeding. And arraignment is not part of the investigation process. Grand juries are part of the investigation process and are not akin in any way shape or form to an arraignment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "investigation" would appear to be much broader than mine. Is an arraignment not a venue for placing before a judge evidence gathered in an investigation so as to attempt to present probable cause in order for the court to take jurisdiction of the matter? If a judge is deciding whether the evidence warrants a trial, possible incarceration, and the possible specification of a bond amount, how are those processes matters of investigation? I know I'm dealing with very smart people here (not sarcasm), but on this I'm a little baffled to be the odd-man out. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore whether (or not) a pending indictment is or is not part of "judicial proceedings" for the moment. The BLP policy that living people are treated fairly says we must take all precautions not to harm a living persons by publishing material that can harm a living person unless it is scrupulously sourced. We don't have any RS saying "judicial proceedings" are taking place, do we? One might reasonably believe that if "judicial proceedings" are taking place, then a someone has been indicted already. We can make this assumption of belief, because we are now having a conversation to that affect. Per the BLP and NPOV policies, we are not going to allow even the whiff of prejudice to creep into this article. The easiest thing to do is to stick to what the best of the RS say on this matter.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read Arraignment. It is a judicial proceeding in which the charges are read, and a plea is made (or arguments on procedure are made). Arraignments have absolutely nothing to do with "investigation" in any way, shape, manner or form. Period. No evidence is placed before a judge at an arraignment. The judge does no investigation at an arraignment. None. Period. Bail may or may not be set at an arraignment based on the charges stated, but the judge makes no "finding of fact" at all at that point. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the name for the hearing that is granted in order determine whether an arrestee may continue to be held. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what of the accusatory functions of a grand jury? Are those not to be distinguished from its investigative functions? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An "indictment" is the "result of an investigation". In fact, a grand jury has very low standards of proof required for an indictment, it is a statement that they found "probable cause" only, and, traditionally, a skilled prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" if they present the evidence needed for that as the "investigation". Grand juries can, and sometimes do, head off on their own in the investigative process. Collect (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request to archive this section as one I wish I hadn't started. Procedures it is, whatever that means. It seems awkward. But I give up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC) I suggested to reorganize this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_5#Making_a_clearer_distinction_among_procedures_.3F). For the time being, the various points are disconnected. --Japarthur (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Juan Williams is a noted doctor? Ah ... Perhaps you should ask your local doctor whether a fractured eye socket would instantly be apparent to onlookers who are fifty feet away. Unless, of course, Juan Williams is an expert in that area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "answer" was unhelpful. Anyone else? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you note Juan Williams is not qualified for any opinions about swelling etc. from cellphone videos from fifty feet away for any medical judgments. Clearer? Collect (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree 100% with "User Collect". Everyone has an opinion about this stuff; the opinion of Juan Williams (who is he?) holds no weight. He is just a TV pundit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you all seem to be missing is that my question was a yes or no question. Can Juan Williams be used as a source of commentary. RS. Yes or no. I wasn't asking for advice on how to disqualify him, which, personally, I see no reason to do as his views are hardly minority views among those who are skeptical of the police's forthrightness in this matter. WP:WEIGHT Implicit in your too helpful-by-half-answers, I read a yes. So thank you after all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the opinion of a person who is clearly unqualified to hold such an opinion of fact is against Wikipedia policies, and against WP:BLP as the claim involved a living person. Juan Williams is a political commentator, and his political opinions, as a notable political commentator, can be used properly described and cited as opinion. If you wish to change the policies, go to the policy pages and edit them. Collect (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, there's also this source from Julian Cummings of CNN discrediting the eye socket fracture: link. Unfortunatly it's from an anonymous source "close to the investigation". It looks like we're not using anonymous sources here so, I'll just put this out there FYI and we'll wait for further confirmation? Saeranv (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, his (Juan Williams's) opinion is biased. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That actually doesn't matter if we're citing him for his opinion (not that we should in this case). Dyrnych (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Just wanted to throw that in. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some images in the article currently specify a fixed thumbnail size in pixels, overriding what users have specified in the Appearance tab of their Preferences. This is misguided and inappropriate. I am going to fix this after I post this.

If an editor feels that the thumbnails in this article are too small or too large, they should update their Preferences accordingly. They should not impose their personal needs and preference on every reader on the planet.

For one thing, different users have different eyes and different vision. For another, they have different aesthetic preferences. (For example, I feel that the enormous images on many news websites today are intrusive and classless, but that's just my personal opinion. I'm sure a majority of readers like it, or the sites wouldn't be doing it.) Lastly, users have displays with a wide range of resolutions, and 250px looks very different at the two ends of that range.

When it comes to images, what you see is not what every reader sees.

What happens when a Wikipedia reader upgrades to a monitor with a significantly higher resolution? The thumbnails are now too small for them. If the article fixes the thumbnail sizes, there is nothing they can do about it, and they are stuck with the too-small images forever. (Or, if they are a Wikipedia editor who misguidedly believes in fixed thumbnail sizes, they can edit the article and increase the fixed sizes to suit them, thereby making the thumbnails too large for many readers, who can't do anything about it.)

However, if the article respects the user's preference, then all they have to do is update their preference. Done and done.

The user preference setting was put there for good reason. Please allow it to work as it was intended. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2012/11/about_us.html Editor in Chief, Dr. Louis Henry Gates. Site claims to be the number 1 Black news source in America. If I create cites to articles there, will they stand or be reverted as non-RS? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See The Root (magazine). It accepts submissions from readers, and is heavily "commentary." Where you use such reader-provided material, I suggest you tread carefully. Where you use a commentary article, I suggest you make sure the commentator is notable, and that his or her opinions are clearly cited as opinions. It is used in a few Wikipedia articles - but please follow the caveats. It is not a "widely recognized news source" and having 70,000 followers (presumably Facebook) online is not that high a number. Alexa gives it a US site rank of 2,590 currently. 28% of visits are from Facebook links. Readership is 80% female roughly. Reading is heavily based "at school." Not a particularly notable news source, and one heavily weighted to Facebook links. For anything controversial, better sources are likely to cover the material in more depth and with more accuracy. Collect (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly your comments are valid in general application. But as this incident is so much about the perceptions and perspectives of African Americans, where are we to turn to get reliable source commentary that reflects the opinions of Blacks generally, if not from The Root? They did a compilation of the witness statements that, frankly, puts us to shame. They were also kind enough to transcribe the comments of CNN's Don Lemon when he broke the story refuting the claim that Wilson suffered an eye socket injury, to which we refer in the article. So to be more specific than I was, will there be any problem adding a cite to the Root transcription of the relevant passage from the CNN video as a second source citation? When you say tread lightly, I take from that that a cite from the Root, won't automatically be struck just because its the Root. So I think you've answered my question. So thank you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies do not allow such considerations as you seem to wish to apply here. Let's stick to the policies here -- there are certainly enough reliable sources reporting on the matter. Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No wishes. Just asking. If it's a no, it's a no. That I might find the law an ass doesn't mean I have wishes. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the ME generally conducts an autopsy on a body in a formal manner, making measurements of the body, etc. Baden did not have access to the clothing, which is something an ME would normally have access to, as part of the actual physical evidence regarding the body, and noted that. It is not normal for any ME to have "witness statements" and I suggest that part be struck from the commentary in this article about Baden. He did not have recovered bullets, if any. [36] makes no claim about not having x-rays or the like - only the x-rays from before the recovery of the bullets, and so that paragraph about Baden is inaptly worded. Collect (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Two Cities? Blacks, Whites Sharply Disagree About Ferguson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be useful at the unrest article, there is a section on polls there. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related to this article - and I suspect we could end up with a few thousand words about polls -- my choice would be to keep this article focused on its topic, not on how others view the topic, and how still others view those others' views of the topic ad infinitum. Collect (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can go here 2014 Ferguson unrest#Polls - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I knew that. Posted to this board by mistake. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what issues might have to be dealt with as far as copyright, etc. But thought I would point out that the photo that the family seems to prefer, as it has been given most prominent position next to the podium is the one that I'm sure most of you have seen of him where he is wearing a headset. By the way, should any be interested in livestreaming the funeral, it can be accessed here: http://fox2now.com/. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A link to a picture taken just moments ago at the funeral in support of my claim that this is the picture that the family appears to prefer as the picture by which the world will remember their son. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) http://media.kmov.com/images/265*175/454138368_8.jpg[reply]

You had it correct in your first post; There are copyright issues with that picture.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Brown is dead and it will not be possible to take photographs of him in the future which do not have copyright issues, WP:NFCCP does have an exception for a single photograph of a deceased person for use in articles about that person. (See WP:NFCI #10). However, selection of that photograph (or decision to use a photograph at all) is still subject to normal editorial processes. The fact that a particular photo is preferred by the family may be one consideration, but it is not the only consideration. I personally do not have an objection to that particular photo if one is to be used, but remember that this is WP:NOTMEMORIAL - what does the photograph illustrate that specifically requires a photograph to do so? Since there are two participants in the event and we do not have a photograph of Wilson, there also may be some WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT issues in having only a photograph of brown.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Wilson's section currently states that he first worked as a police officer in Jennings, Mo and then goes on to say that the police dept. was disbanded by the city council after controversies arose from a notoriously fraught relationships between white officers and the African-Americans in that city. Is Officer Wilson specifically linked to any of those "controversies"? Is Officer Wilson specifically linked to a "notoriously fraught relationship" with anyone in that city or police force? If not, then why is it mentioned in the first sentence of his section? Seems to me it should just state that he first worked as a police officer in Jennings and had no disciplinary issues while working there. Otherwise, it seems like an attempt to imply that Wilson was associated with the bad behavior of the other officers who worked at that dept. and that his employment and/or conduct while working at that police dept. somehow contributed to the police force being disbanded. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The details about the department issues should be separated out and put as a later paragraph of his section (or perhaps elsewhere) not the opening salvo of his micro-bio. Its got real WP:WEIGHT issues the way it is, and possibly WP:BLP too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Also agree. It mischaracterizes the source to say that the police force "was disbanded by the city council after controversies arose from a notoriously fraught relationships between white officers and the African-American majority," as the source describes corruption and excessive force complaints in addition to the racial issues. The source describes the force as "so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it"; racial tensions were apparently just part of the problem in Jennings, albeit a real issue. Even if it did appropriately characterize the source, it does associate Wilson with those issues in a way that the source explicitly does not do, even with the current caveat of "no disciplinary issues recorded." Dyrnych (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try and fix it? You are pretty good at that, so please go ahead. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The way I read it, and the way WaPo reports it, is that as a rookie, Wilson was exposed to quite a controversial way of policing, regardless if he did not do anything wrong while at Jennings. I think it is valuable context for his bio, after all that was his first job as a cop. We cannot not mention this per WP:NPOV. As there is no other section on the article on Wilson, that is for now, the best place to have it. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the sentence again, I can agree that it sounds quite damning, but OTHO these are facts. I tried finding other ways of reporting that RS but that is the best I could come up. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any RS stating that this "exposure" had anything whatsoever to do with the shooting? In fact the post article stresses we shouldn't make such connections.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only lines that I see that could support this connection is "What he found in Jennings, however, was a mainly white department mired in controversy and notorious for its fraught relationship with residents, especially the African American majority. It was not an ideal place to learn how to police." Dyrnych (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ans also The NYT [37] Yet Officer Wilson’s formative experiences in policing came in a department that wrestled historically with issues of racial tension, mismanagement and turmoil. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article undermines the notion that the Jennings PD was disbanded due to racial concerns. Here's the relevant quote: "In 2011, in the wake of federal and state investigations into the misuse of grant money, the department closed, and the city entered into a contract to be policed by the county. The department was found to have used grant money to pay overtime for D.W.I. checkpoints that never took place."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs)

The details about this may best belong in the Jennings, Missouri article, with a mention here that Wilson was employed there before the department was dissolved (and wikilink that to the specific section in the Jennings article, once created). Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that, providing we have here a short description of the reasons why it was disbanded. It is part of Wilson's bio and career after all. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If and only if per WP:BLP the source states that Wilson, as a specific living person, was the reason why that force was disbanded. Collect (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is more biographical info about Wilson in this St. Louis Post Dispatch article: [38] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is WP:WEIGHT. 58 of the 199 words we say about Wilson are about bad actions done by other people where nobody has made even a suggestion that Wilson contributed to those issues. Thats WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the relevant section. Still includes the racial tensions, but clarifies that there's no suggestion that Wilson had anything to do with them. I also added the statement from his co-worker describing him as an average officer who didn't get into trouble. :Probably the biggest change that I made was changing the reason that the department was disbanded from the racial tensions to the misuse of grant money. I think that's an accurate reading of the sources, although the WaPo article does suggest that it was an accumulation of problems and not just the investigations. I'm open to suggestions on that. Dyrnych (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masterful, thank you. There is a small issue there the first sentence is missing something and the end. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Everyone good with the current version? Dyrnych (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks better and thanks for fixing the references as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good with me, thanks again. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Things I've collected in my head in the last two weeks.

Chief of Police Jon Belmar says that the gun went off in the car.

Dorian Johnson said that Darren Wilson fired a shot from inside the car at Mike Brown when he was in the scuffle with Brown.

Police have never said how many casings were in the proximity of the car, either inside or outside.

Some witnesses have no recollection of hearing a gun shot while the altercation through the window (or inside the car, is how some people interpret Belmar's very vague description of that part of the incident.

Early accounts said that Brown's mother had been told by someone (apparently the day of the shooting) that her son had been shot 8 times.

A mysterious video uploaded to Facebook the day of the shooting has several individuals in a kitchen discussing details such as the theft of the cigarillos from the Ferguson Market, putting down rumors that the theft might have been from the Family Dollar Store, the Quik Trip, or Sam's Meat Market. When the number of bullets is discussed, the speaker says that the officer shot him four times, paused, then shot him four more times, [paraphrasing] no one in the room challenges that particular.

I am thinking of putting up a subpage where all of these details are listed in tabular format by witness to make it easier for all of us to keep track of what each has said and how the claims do or do not appear to correlate. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

except to the degree that reliable sources have made those comparisons, creation of that tabular format is likely to fall afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are deciding what the categories are, and how each statement falls into those categories, and which do or do not agree with the others. Thats all WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Meant to say "personal" sub page. You guys don't miss anything.  :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somoene might even complain about that. It might be less hassle to post it on a personal blog, where you can do whatever you want and answer to no one,Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you this: why is it necessary or useful for us as Wikipedia editors to track which accounts do or do not appear to correlate? Dyrnych (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just cutting this one off at the pass, the viral story about George Zimmerman is from a satire website. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In February 2014, Wilson received a commendation for "extraordinary effort in the line of duty" from the Ferguson city.

The last part of the sentence grammar needs to be fixed, "...from the Ferguson city." is grammatically incorrect. Jaybkun (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE: Reason: PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson

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

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

Think of this as a variant of the "witnesses are notoriously unreliable" analysis that perhaps should be in the article because of the enlightenment it brings to those who think that five witness saying the same thing ends the matter. Of course, me, I have no wishes or fishes in the matter. It is a really well written article though. MyPOV Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that website is a WP:RS, and what is said there is quite dubious speculation. Why bother? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt there are plenty of op-eds that suggest as much. I'd give this just slightly less weight than the militarization of local police reaction. But first you need to find these opinions. The Washington post had one in the last few days IIRC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Reason is at least as reliable and acceptable a source as The Daily Caller. Reason is a long-published dead-tree and online magazine, and while it has a clearly-libertarian editorial slant, it's generally considered editorially-sound. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is slightly off topic, but bear with me. I was going to comment that we're not citing the Daily Caller for factual claims, but I realized when looking over the article that a user has repeatedly restored an version of the bystander account that explicitly relies on the Daily Caller for the notion that the bystander supports police claims. I've restored the consensus version, which is appropriately hedged. Agreed that the Daily Caller is not an RS, in any event. Dyrnych (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe someone restored the Daily Caller section again. At least, at the time of this post, it had been restored. Is there any way we can prevent this? Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. It's the version that in-text cites the Daily Caller as the source of the claim, rather than just stating that the bystander account supports the police. It's not great, but I think it's the consensus version. Dyrnych (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your statement. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the section title: If tests show a drug, we report the finding of the tests. Wikipedia should not in any way affirm anything other than facts in such matters. Anything ascribed by reliable sources to witness statements gets ascribed to those sources and witnesses, and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. PCP, to the best of my knowledge, would be part of a "contentious claim" covered by WP:BLP and would need strong sources and not an off-hand comment by someone. That noted, the "ugly stereotype" term used above is not called for. Collect (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this section's title is the subtitle of the referenced article: "PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson: Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype." Not editorializing. Dyrnych (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not usual to use such an inapt Wikipedia section title for a section on the basis of "the source uses those words" in any event.Collect (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could evolve to be quite crucial, if confirmed: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown shot : [39], [40] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]