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.

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.[1]

"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]

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

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

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

Police Government announcements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thought was to organize the "accounts" as:

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

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

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

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

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 [2] 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]

@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]

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]

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."[3]

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,[4]

”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'm not sure if gender sex is relevent but the race breakup is definitely relevent (as it is there). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:56, 27 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]

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

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]

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

Yeah, and if I were just a "reader" I might use it exclusively. Problem is, I'm often "just reading" and see some bad spelling/grammar that I can't resist fixing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling ... The Wikiwand dropdown menu has an "edit article" menu item. :) - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 27 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 [5] 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]

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. [6] 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]

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 [7] 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: [8] - 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]

Could it be that for about 14 days or so now, we have been in the business of telling people which accounts do correlate and which do not? Exhibit A: The lede as is stood for several days until about two days ago. And no, I haven't checked it lately. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling anyone what to do. Rules are rules and must be followed (by some people). But I will say this. Absent any analysis in this article of which facts do and do not align, in the near term, at least, it is going to be of little value to anyone. It's those on the cutting edge who are sifting this through logically who are making the greatest contribution to the public's understanding of this issue. And I know. Wikipedia Talk is NOTAFORUMFORDISCUSSINGWIKIPEDIA'SVALUE. There. I said it for you so that you don't have to. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 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]

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]

You may attribute the unusualness of my section heading to a desire to head off any inclination to run with the PCP theories that I'm seeing among my cop friendly social media acquaintances (which number about 95% of those posting on the issue). Police initially said that the toxicology analysis would take many weeks, then released their claim/announcement that Brown had marijuana in his system. If it really takes many weeks to do PCP analysis, for example, then we could well see another surprise and delayed announcement from the police which has the effect of shifting more suspicion from Wilson to Brown whether deserved or not. My objective having been accomplished, I like to think, this section may be archived, or at a minimum a more "apt" section title may be applied. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could evolve to be quite crucial, if confirmed: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown shot : [9], [10] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about "crucial" as all accounts suggest a pause -- either after the shot from the car (posited) followed after a pause by shots at a fleeing person (one set) or from warning shots fired at a fleeing person followed by shots aimed at an advancing person (another possibility) or almost anything in between (including shots at Brown's arms being separated in time from the final shots to the head). Collect (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Yeah, the pause was always known. 10/11 shots is new, but would have come out in any case during a trial without the audio. Since only 6 shots hit, that does give more plausibility to the possibility that there were "back" shots that just missed. It can also swing the other way though since there was not a delay for the final shot which hurts the "execution style" narrative. While 10/11 is a bit high (One would normally expect bursts of 2-4) its not ridiculously so. Slightly better than 50% hit rate, with a decent number of the hits being way to the edge - another example of cops with poor marksmanship unfortunately. In any case, I think we should certainly cover that the audio exists, its been covered by multiple reliable sources now. However, we should be careful not to say in wikipedias voice that it IS audio of the event, or that it details any particular facts - everything must follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as what the audio means is obviously subject to interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact one might suggest that either a second officer fired at least two shots (depending on the timing of the shots), or that the first shots were deliberately wide of the mark. As a rule of thumb, folks tend to cluster shots when firing in rapid succession, rather than aim each shot individually (ok -- one guy on a TV show was almost superhuman in aiming time.) Additionally, the question of echo occurs - which means some audio expert will have to try duplicating the sound patterns. In short -- it does not appear to settle much of anything now, but once audio experts work on reproducing the sounds, the material may be important. Time will tell, and there is no Wikipedia "deadline". Collect (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Time will tell, but I read this quite differently, per WP:NOTFORUM, I will keep this to myself. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another plausible scenario, if we were to believe Wilson and his assertion that Brown knocked the shit out of him, is that his vision could have been affected by the blow to the side of his face, which would account for his "poor marksmanship" and "wide of the mark" shots. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome forum discussion guys. Sad to see that it has ground to a halt. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what if we talk about the article? Google News now has the audio article on the top fold of its home page. Who wants to be the bold person who tells the world that we at Wikipedia are actually aware of this development? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interantional Business Times: Mike Brown Shooting: Audio Clip With Gunshot Sounds Could Provide Insight On Ferguson Teen's Death

http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-audio-clip-gunshot-sounds-could-provide-insight-ferguson-teens-death-1670588 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone sees any RS articles that happen to mention the mathematical fact that 6 bullets (per the autopsy) is 2 bullets more than 4 bullets (the number of shots we hear presumably after Mike Brown turns around), suggesting that at least one and perhaps two bullets had to have hit Michael while he was facing forward and away from Officer Wilson (for instance when he was running away), if you could please paste the link and a note on my personal talk page, I'd be most obliged. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No articles say anything remotely like what you are hoping for. The probability is that the additional bullets actually missed Brown completely. Baden was clear on this. Collect (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under (one of?) Wilson's accounts, as well as Piaget Crenshaw's account the initial shots happened in (or slightly outside) the car, while Brown was assaulting (or otherwise engaged with) him. There are many ways to interpret the sequence of shots, its goign to be very difficult to prove any of them absolutely correct or incorrect. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More on the audio recording [11], [12] - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what your edit summary meant -- are you implying that the gun Wilson had contained ten or more bullets? So far I did not think even the make of gun has been published, has it? At this point, the audio seems to be the very epitome of "inconclusiveness". Cheer. Collect (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not adequately sourced. This does not come from reporting on any law enforcement investigation. I also listened to the video several times and it far from clear whether the person speaking in the background was speculating. Unless there is professional analysis performed on the tape and they reported in reliable secondary sources, it has no business in Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. I am One of Many (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether the sources are reliable for the claim made. Unless you qualify as a reliable source, I fear the fact you can not hear something is not actually usable on Wikipedia, alas. The claim is that the reporters listening to the recording hear the bystander. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that both sources have a right-wing WP:NPOV and there are no other sources, which isn't surprising because it is fairly clear listening to the tape that there is nothing substantive there. There is no analysis provided in either source and part of what they report is a link to the YouTube video, which the reader is suppose to listen I guess. This kind of biased tabloid material has no business in a Wikipedia article. BTW, the only interesting conversation on the tape is one witness reporting hearing two sets of multiples shots, which the FBI now has a recording of and is investigating per CNN. I am One of Many (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the interpretation of the video is specifically attributed to those sources rather than being stated as fact. That's what we do with biased sources. Dyrnych (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent reliability of this witness is no greater, and no lesser than that of any of the other purported witnesses. We all only have what they say - we have no proof for any of them that they actually saw what they say they saw. It has been covered by other sources (although I freely admit these are not tier 1 sources). [13][14] [15]Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source mentioning the ambiguity of the video could be found, perhaps that could be included? Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be though because it is pretty clear from listening to the tape that the guy didn't really see what happened. I suggest everyone listen it--it was part of the reporting, so it is up to us to listen to it just like we do written text. I am One of Many (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you listening to the right conversation? Its not the "loud" voice its the quieter one at 6:00 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen starting at about 6 minutes in for about a minute. The guy says something about going back into his house and then comes back out and says he sees the truck "right there" and says "I don't know what happened". Then another bystander says "What happened?" The guy says "He ran the police were still in the truck." Then he says "I don't know." Then he says the "He was in the truck fighting them. Jumps over the truck and then he ran. The police got out and ran after him. The next thing I know he jump back towards the truck and the police have their guns drawn." The bystander then asks "The police shot him?" And he says (hard to make out): "The police shot him." Next thing he says that I can make out is "I'm thinking they missed." Hard to make out anything else. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, this does belong in here without professional analysis. It simply isn't clear how much is actual observation and how much is speculation. I am One of Many (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what we're all saying, right, is that fairness is going to get no help from the Wikipedia Protocols this time either? Yes, my question is rhetorical. No need to answer it. My mother warned me there would be days like this. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRUTH first and foremost and then spend some time reading WP:RS. Ravensfire (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The video is part of both sources. The video is like a quote in an article. We have to read or listen to them. A relevant read is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, item 4. The "Twitter" section above it also is tabloid junk. I am One of Many (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter guy was thoroughly discussed in this archived section and consensus was reached. No need to restart that discussion here. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have reason to doubt the transcripts from the sources? Collect (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the video we do. Since the video is included in both sources, we have an obligation to listen to it and compare it to the transcripts. They don't exactly match up.I am One of Many (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the larger points of the video and twitter sections. These simply don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Neither are evidence that would be entered in any legal proceedings. They are vague and not even clearly consistent with each other or with established evidence such as the autopsy report. These sections are just not encyclopedic. I am One of Many (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to re-discuss the Twitter, would you please start a new section so as not to combine issues here? I'd be happy to contribute to such a rediscussion, as there's something that wasn't brought up inthe other one. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I listened to the video, and it really does not seem to match up, from what I can hear. Of course, my hearing is not perfect, but all I heard was something about running, and something about a truck. The words in between were... Iffy, at best. I would be all for excluding it, as if the video does not match up with the claims, I believe that would mean the source was unreliable, wouldn't it? Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that any listening to the video is OR. IMO, all that matters is RS, so the question is whether one source, The Daily Caller, is enough to pass the RS test. My opinion is no. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it would be OR if we took it off of YouTube and listened to it, but in this case it is provided by the sources, so I view it as something we have to assess in deciding the reliability of the information we are including. If say, we had two transcriptions that didn't match, we would at least have to say what was said on the video was unclear. That is one of the issues we have here. I am One of Many (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that kind of assessment going on with other content, although I haven't considered every piece of it. But, for example, what is the assessed reliability of an eyewitness statement from a person who can't prove they were there? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to agree that the source is not reliable. Therefore, should we not remove it, even if the path we took to arrive at that conclusion differs somewhat? Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only those currently present agree on that. Several senior editors spoke against removal, so we would need more than the three of us. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would we go about getting their opinions on the points presented here? Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that it's an important enough question that they'll post when they have the time. If they don't, I think it's an important enough question to ping all of them that spoke against removal. If they still ignore, then status quo wins for lack of consensus to change. I don't know of any way to force someone to respond to an argument. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unless I'm mistaken, the question is: Should the "Bystander heard on video" subsection be removed? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be removed. Its WP:SECONDARY sources discussing directly relevant WP:PRIMARY material at the scene of the crime, by someone claiming to be an eyewitness so is highly relevant. Regarding reliability, certainly some sources (Conservative Treehouse in particular) are not reliable. Others that have covered the video itself are very reliable (CNN has run the video, but not commented on the bystander). The Daily caller while certainly an outlet with a POV, per WP:BIASED (part of WP:RS) "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." We have plenty of content sourced to HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Slate, and Vox (Run by Daily Kos), etc. Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Add to that the other sources mentioned in this thread [16][17] [18], and we have sufficient sourcing for inclusion. That being said, we must be careful to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that the transcript particular words heard, and what they mean are coming through the filter of the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Twitter user differs from the other eyewitnesses in two ways. First, he is anonymous (there is no verified identity AFAIK, and if there is the section needs to be renamed and modified to reflect it). Second, aside from Johnson and Wilson, he is the only eyewitness who is known to be an eyewitness. This is known from the time of his tweets, which couldn't have been forged. For the other eyewitnesses, the world is taking their word for it. I think that elevates him beyond tabloid junk. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of casual bypassers, can we be more specific in this section about who "the Twitter user" is? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not. We're talking about Twitter handle @TheePharoah. In the prior discussion, now archived, it was decided that the handle was not relevant and should be omitted. There was also a name associated with the handle but it has not been verified. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so his twitter handle is @TheePharoah but we dont want to mention it, but we do want to mention that he tweeted, but we will call him anonymous. genius. Cant we just says twitter user @TheePharoah said blah blah? User:Mrkks — Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It was too strong to say that Twitter person's account was tabloid junk absolutely. It is as of now because all we have is the reporting of it. We have no analysis yet of its role in this case. Let's compare this to a breaking story today. There is an audio tape purported to be of the gunfire. The FBI is currently analyzing it. If it holds up, it will be evidence in this case, so it is encyclopedic to incorporate it. Ultimately, I think that as of now, a fundamental guiding principle should be WP:COMMONSENSE. I am One of Many (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, common sense can and does vary widely between individuals, making any claim to it somewhat dubious. For example, I think what I said above was common sense, but you disagree. If the qualifying criterion is existing analysis of the role in this case, I think we're going to have to remove about half of the current content. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I think everyone here is trying to use commonsense and commonsense isn't something that people necessarily agree on. Let me see if I can state the problem I'm seeing in a way that might lead to a compromise. This and the video section don't seem to me to have the same standing as the rest of the sections. As standalone section, they seem encyclopedic. They are not even pieces of potential evidence in this case. They are potential leads to witnesses, however. Why not combine the content of the sections under a sections heading Possible leads reported in the news media or something to that effect? I am One of Many (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel unqualified to say any more than I have. I think wiser people than I will be able to counter your argument, so let's wait for them to arrive, ok? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I am One of Many (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mandruss. We're here. What do you need? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy humorous banter, but I'm aware that it's frowned upon, apparently because it lengthens already-long discussions and distracts from the issues at hand. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Have you ever heard that a camel is a horse designed by committee? This lede is really bad and just a restatement of a section in the text below, It's overly detailed and looks like an argument with itself. My goal is to bring this to neutral encyclopedic language. If you have the skills to do it, I'll just fade away. Best regards. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to extend the camel metaphor, and make some analogy about the horse dying of thirst, but it got away from me. Instead, I'll simply say that this is an evolving current event. If you try to polish the lede now, it'll just get roughed up again before the night's even over. I'd recommend waiting until things die down a bit, before trying such boldness. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are well taken, actually sage. However, as a prominent and frequently visited article it stands as a black eye to the WP project. What is needed here is a core of dedicated wikipedians who care more about the neutrality of the project than selling a POV. How that is done anymore I don't know. Cheers and best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but "neutral encyclopedic language" doesn't include "Brown then struck at Wilson through the open window of the police car" or "Testimony differs as to whether Brown was being submissive or aggressive when the final shots were fired." We don't know exactly what happened through the open window of the police car other than some sort of altercation (Did Wilson provoke Brown or instigate physical contact? We don't know), and "submissive or aggressive" is a claim about a dead person's state of mind, which is not sourced. What is sourced is the wording currently there - that some witnesses say he was moving toward Wilson and some witnesses say he was standing with his hands up.

That's what we mean about careful wording that has been hashed out through a lot of debate and compromise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with that. But the attempt at relying on quotes is coming off badly. And the lede should be more concise. But I do see all of your points! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious misgivings about the lede, but not so much that it's bad as that it could be better. I am willing to offer my talk page as a place to sandbox a change, as I expect that those who want to change will try to work collaboratively to produce something and that those who don't will just leave those who do alone. Any takers? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, the shooting incident section needs work too. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last suggestion. What if we put a little note at the beginning of the lede explaining that the shooting incident part is a matter of great contention and not a little mystery and that a more detailed explanation is to be had in the body of the article, then directly link to the Shooting Incident section. That way we can omit important points with less guilt that people won't know all of the things that we're omitting if they never scroll down. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin (and others), can you go point by point and tell us what you object to and what you suggest changing it to? Please be specific, because discussing this in the abstract will only result in horrific walls of text.- MrX 02:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we edit conflicted, so my text below precedes reading your excellent proposal(s). --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editathon

Editathon begun evening of 8/26 Ferguson time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Sentence

CAN WE AGREE OR WORK ON THIS PARAGRAPH? On August 9, 2014, POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON FATALLY SHOT MICHAEL BROWN, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, a suburb of St. Louis. The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed AFRICAN AMERICAN, and the officer is white. Witness statements differ as to BROWN'S ACTIONS BEFORE the fatal shot was fired.

I think the current version is better. Afro-American is not a word in common stylistic use. It's African American.- MrX 02:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there witnesses who have stated that Brown was a threat to Wilson when the fatal shot was fired? Again, we have one anonymous bystander who reportedly said Brown was "coming toward the police," but we can't interpret or conjecture to mean that Brown was a threat. Whether Wilson perceived there was a threat is an issue for the legal system. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is a tone that I don't like in the original paragraph and it might be better if it is actin oriented rather than indirect e.g., "The shooting of" OR "Brown was shot", or "Wilson shot Brown" IS MY CHANGE BETTER?

• Somebody has got to change that second sentence in the opening paragraph, it's horrendous. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it a shot if you could say exactly what is making it horrendous. And I guess we're moving forward rather than back at this point? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, it's not an event, it's a shooting. Second, it starts off saying that The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed African American, the officer is white. There are a number of things that have made this shooting controversial, and to start off saying it was a black/white thing is not NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says, The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed African American, the officer is white, and the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear. I think if you had to encapsulate all of RS coverage into one concise sentence, it would read something like that. Race is a big part of what is being reported, and the rest of the controversy falls under the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear. No? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I disagree. In the initial reporting, this was reported as a police brutality/questionable circumstances shooting. Dorian Johnson then went on TV and told the world that Wilson shot Brown at least once in the back and then he said that Brown put his hands up in the air and Wilson didn't care and still shot Brown. Another witness said "I saw the police chase him down the street and shoot him down." Those were the controversial statements and they've never said that there were any words, slurs, or any indication of a racial aspect to the shooting or the initial confrontation. There's no evidence that either Brown or Wilson had any racial animosity towards anyone that has ever been reported by RS. Why would we imply that Wilson may have shot Brown because of his race or that it played any part in his decisions that day; or imply that the race of Wilson factored into Brown's actions that day. Further down it says "The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson due to longstanding racial tensions. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, we may be over my pay grade. All I can say is (1) I think the possibility of police brutality can fall under the deliberately vague the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear, and (2) the rioting that occurred would not have happened like it did if Brown had been white, so race is implicit in the whole thing. I could probably find you an op-ed about the race aspect by Charles Blow of NYT, if I weren't so badly in need of sleep right now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOPIC: Order to leave the street.

IS THIS ACCURATE? Witnesses report that, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, then from the car, ordered them to move from the street to the sidewalk.

Yes, but he said something like "get the fuck on the sidewalk." - MrX 02:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe it is. Dorian says that they were minding their own business doing nothing to anyone when the police told them to get the F___ on the sidewalk. Less publicized is a statement that Thomas Jackson made to Wolf Blitzer on the day after the shooting where he confirmed, without conveying the roughness that Dorian describes, that Wilson did begin the encounter by asking the two to move off of the street and onto the sidewalk. I don't think we've used that interview as a cite and it will be highly difficult to find it now. But without it, putting that statement in the lede or elsewhere is fact is messy, since the only confirmed source that we include in references is Dorian's statement. No other witness has claimed to have heard what was said in the initial interchange. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not highly difficult at all, unless the multiple hits from "thomas jackson wolf blitzer" are some other occurrence of Jackson talking to Blitzer. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it was difficult for me after a couple of days had gone by. Other SE experts results may vary. :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOPIC: Altercation in or in proximity to the car.

HOW ABOUT THESE CHANGES (CAPS)? Brown AND Wilson STRUGGLED through the open window of the police car.

That seems fine to me.- MrX 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to omit mention of the fact that Wilson attempted to exit the car before the altercation began? That fact is agreed to by both Dorian Johnson and Chief Belmar, the only two people who are speaking about this part of the interchange on the record? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are all aware, are we not, that neither Belmar, nor Jackson nor Josie has ever said anything about the struggle taking plact through the window. That comes to us only from Dorian and witnesses in the neighborhood, specifically, Mitchell, Crenshaw, and Brady, if memory serves. Belmar's contention and Josie's double-hearsay claim was that on attempting to exit the car, Brown body slammed him back into the car, assaulted him and went for his weapon. Belmar than states that the shot occurred IN the car, not from the car. And then there's the fact that no first shot is heard in the audio tape that has been given to the FBI (authentic or not). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOPIC: First shot, fired, allegedly, in or from the car, and flight of Brown and Johnson.

IS THIS ACCURATE? Wilson then shot Brown from within the vehicle, after which Brown and Johnson fled on foot.

No. A shot was fired from within the vehicle. I don't think we know who fired the shot.- MrX 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I object to the phrase "a shot was fired FROM the vehicle." The audio tape is calling into question whether any shot was fired at all, (see National Review Online analysis). Dorian says that the shot was fired by Wilson while Wilson was still grasping Brown with a free hand. So his version is that it occurred "FROM" within the window. But the chief of Police gives a wildly different characterization to that shot, after prefacing it with everything he said about the supposed attempt by Brown to get the gun, thereby completely muddying the waters about who shot the first shot that he claims was shot IN the vehicle. Then there is Josie's hyperspecific contention that the gun was down around someone's (I'm guessing Wilson's) hip. Dorian said that he saw the fire come out of the muzzle, then saw blood coming from Michael in the brief instant before they both started running. In one of the accounts Dorian gave, he indicates where that occurred, a description which more or less lines up with one bullet wound in the autopsy, unless that wound was from that very meandering shot that when into Michael's head through his eye. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOPIC: Wilson gives chase. Wilson opens fire. Brown dies.

IS THIS ACCURATE? Wilson pursued on foot, firing his pistol toward Brown. When Wilson XXXXXed Brown, he fired several more shots, killing him.

No. The current version is accurate and doesn't rely on original research.- MrX 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Overtook" implies that Wilson got within at least physical reaching distance of Brown, and it's not clear at this point that that occurred - we don't know the distance . "Confronted" literally means "to meet someone face-to-face with hostile intent," which is what happened - Wilson stood face-to-face with Brown with the "hostile" intent of subduing him, and fired the fatal shots. What provoked those fatal shots is the question at issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the strictest sense overtook does imply that he caught up to him, but he would have had to have overtaken him in order to CONFRONT him by your definition, right? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We know from the autopsy that Wilson and Brown were face-to-face when the fatal shots are fired - we don't know from what distance they were fired, other than that it wasn't point-blank range. Several witnesses have stated they believe Brown was struck or grazed by a bullet, turned around to surrender and was then fatally shot. There are no witnesses who have stated that Brown and Wilson had physical contact after the altercation in the car. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nix on "confronted" or "overtook." No witness has placed the two closer than 7 feet apart from each other. Most cluster toward the outside limit of 25 feet.

Michael died at a distance from the car, not from the car window, of 35 feet. Throwing out the outlier, that would suggest that at the Officer Wilson traveled at most 10 to 15 feet toward Brown and that Brown made no headway back toward the vehicle at all, undermining the claim by Josie that he was running at Wilson full speed when he was shot. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see your CSI creds for that supposition <g>. We can only use what reliable sources report. If Brown, hypothetically, ran at least 50 feet away from the car as Wilson was firing "shots which missed" (per Baden) then Brown would have had to move at least fifteen feet towards the car to end up 35 feet from the car. Which is at least as tenable as your posited claim. Collect (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[This stated only in response to the dig from Collect, the guy I thought new better] My creds are that I attained mastery in Khan Academy's math app on the concept of two-digit subtraction. Exactly how I know at least one bullets went into Michael Brown while he was running away. Of course if you can identify one witness who has ever said that he ran away further than 35 feet, then I guess I'd refactor my analysis. I haven't seen anyone make such a statement. Not the police chiefs. Not Josie. Not the overheard "witness." Which is a problem for those who would have us believe that he was "running at full speed toward the officer when the first bullet to hit him was fired.

Then there is this from the New York Times of August 19.

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

I'm no expert. But it sure does seem to be more and more problematic for those who were so emphatic that this was open and shut against Brown from day one. MyPOV - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOPIC: Brown's behavior once he stops running.

HOW ABOUT THESE CHANGES (CAPS)? Testimony differs as to whether Brown was ACTING IN A submissive or aggressive MANNER when the final shots were fired.

No. There aren't any witnesses who have publicly stated that Brown was acting in any sort of "aggressive manner" when the final shots were fired. The most we have is an anonymous witness on a video who said he was "coming toward the police." We can't offer our own interpretation or conjecture of what that might have meant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Relies on original research.- MrX 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I once again find myself concurring with MrX. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, and from the brief glimpse I saw of your version, you were implying that Brown was the aggressor in this whole thing, and that is a POV that is not reflected by the sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to push POV, but if the officer was in his car and Brown was on the street, how could the officer been the aggressor if the confrontation happened in the car? The prior version seems euphemistic --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How could? If the events occurred as Dorian claims. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we don't have any idea what took place between the two people - one of those two people is dead and the other has not made a public statement - there's any number of possibilities. We can't assume anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some eyewitnesses have stated that Wilson reached through the window and grabbed Brown around the neck. [add: that was Johnson who said that.] ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No. Concur as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, for basically all of the reasons stated by other editors. Dyrnych (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Discussion

This portion of the discussion commenced on the evening of 8/26, Ferguson time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC) In think this good faith/bold attempt [19] is inferior to what we had before. It is not an improvement, as the main subject is a shooting in which a person was killed and that needs to go in the first sentence. There are other issues, for example it does not summarize the unrest in the aftermath of the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe we can fix those issues? --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

(ec) OK with me to remove the citations from the lede at a certain point, but not now, as new editors coming to edit the article may assume unsourced and start and round of unnecessary discussions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Kevin, if you're going to make changes based on consensus please make ONLY those changes that have consensus. There has been no discussion of most of the changes that you made in your last edit and I doubt that consensus exists at the moment for wholesale removal of parts of the lead that we've discussed at length and compromised on for the last two weeks. Dyrnych (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that there is consensus if you read through the discussion above, as each sentence was discussed. I put back much of the aftermath, but really most of that is off-topic. Can we work from there? --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the only thing that you have anything that even resembles consensus for is this: "Brown AND Wilson STRUGGLED through the open window of the police car." Other than that, numerous editors have (correctly, in my view) objected to your edits for numerous reasons. That does not mean that you reinstate entire swaths of your edit that you haven't discussed at all. It also does not mean deleting portions of the lead that you, singularly, have determined to be "off-topic" and expecting other editors to reinstate those parts (especially because, to a casual observer, that might be considered edit warring behavior on the part of those editors). Please revert your edit and gain consensus before editing the lead further. Thanks Dyrnych (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try to work with a fresh idea. You can debate here endlessly and then argue for months over what is consensus and what is not. Please look at the old lede with fresh eyes. I came to this article looking for clarity after reading so much rhetoric elsewhere. Can you really say that what I found here this evening was purely objective. The only POV that I am pushing here is to get back to being objective - AKA encyclopedic. God I love this project and its potential. I wish you the very best. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perhaps this could be banged out in a sandbox somewhere to avoid playing ping pong with the article? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wise suggestion, Mandruss. @Kevin Murray: you are about to breach you have breached WP:3RR, and you don't want what happened to me early today (I was blocked, luckily my block was lifted after I committed not to edit the article for a week). - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus on any changes today, I have made no edits to the article all day, so I'm willing to use one or two (maybe even three). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does such a sandbox have to be done within the Wikipedia, under the rules, or might some of us go to a superior collaboration tool, such as Google Docs and see what we can build consensus on there? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can use the wiki, the sandbox can be at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Lede sandbox - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

That was interesting. Elapsed time exactly 2:30. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, I sure appreciate the spirit of improving the lede paragraph. I am concerned though that it is once again getting word-heavy, and less relevant details are creeping into the first paragraph and first sentence. For some reason I don't like an over emphasis on the number of shots fired. And if why "at least six shots" wounding Brown. At least seems like a weasel phrase used to embellish. At this point shouldn't it be clear how many times he was hit? And why is that important for the lede? Are we pushing POV in the lede or trying to effectively summarize? Best regards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't clear how many times he was shot. Yet. And one man's POV-pushing is another man's attempt to summarize RS accurately and fairly, protecting the article's neutrality from other people's POV-pushing (not saying that's you necessarily). I've seen this same paradox in every controversial article I've been involved with. Both sides, in direct opposition, feel they are the righteous protectors of NPOV. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that my entry here was clumsy and I might be seen as pushing a POV, though maybe more accurately pushing an agenda of neutrality. However, I can see now that my first cut was flawed and may make me look biased (we all are). But it was erroneously trying to distill down what was there, and the mistakes were from misinterpretation of the ambiguities. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we really don't know how many shots hit Brown, maybe just leaving it at: "multiple times" is sufficient?--Kevin Murray (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know. If we know he was shot at least six times, doesn't it resemble POV-pushing to insist that we water that down to "multiple"? At least six is the more accurate way to say it, and requires very little additional space. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"At least 6" is a term that is very well sourced and can be relied upon as demonstrably accurate, based on the work of Dr. Baden and his autopsy report. It is extremely important and should not be omitted from the lede, in my opinion. When the parents of Michael Brown came to know by means of the autopsy how many shots had hit Michael, they asked out loud why Wilson hadn't been charged -- this on the belief that six shots hitting their son was, even if one accepted the most extreme allegations of aggressive behavior on the part of their son towards their son, more shots than was necessary to save Officer Wilson from death or serious bodily harm. Analysts quoted in the International Business Times article yesterday go even further now, with the release of the audio that, if legitimate, show that he fired a rapid succession of three bullets, paused for three seconds, and then fired another four shots, two of which presumably hit the head, killing Brown outright. In another article on the same topic yesterday, another was quoted as saying that based on the evidence before the release of the audio that he believed that Wilson would eventually be exonerated. After haring the number of shots fired and the pause between the two fuillades, he is much less certain that Wilson won't be convicted. The Black residents of St. Louis that I have spoken to view the number of bullet wounds sustained as a very important detail to which they attach a great deal of importance as they press for "justice" in this matter. Obviously I have done no scientific polling. But Rasmussen and Pew have, and I think that the numbers are as strong as they are among the African American population in the United States because of the weight that said population attaches to the number of shots fired and the number of shots that actually struck Michael. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael. I can see from this post that what you seek here may not be an encyclopedic article. I think that you are a very good writer and fair minded. But, the last sentence makes me think that you are too close to the issue and are fringing on original research. Maybe step back from the issue a bit. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, what difference does it make what my intent is? If I am fair-minded and my actions don't betray fairness, why the suggestion that I go away? And how are a so-called "desire for an encyclopedic article or the lack thereof" and "tendencies to original research" opposite sides of the same coin. Not impugning your good faith. Just calling into question the logic underlying your criticisms of me, which clearly call into question my good faith, but which to me make no sense. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Michael, I mean metaphorically to "stand back". Not to leave. Try to look at it more dispassionately. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Murray:, you have breached 3RR, and I would suggest you self revert to the previous consensus version. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clumsy end to the sentence?

EXISITING: Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with night curfews being imposed and escalating violence.

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

Um -- I read the grammar as being a parallel construction of "being" and "escalating" properly used. "Be" and "escalate" are both used here as verb forms and not as adjectives. Unless you want a different parallel construction which would be "with night curfews being imposed, and with violence escalating"? That would also be grammatically correct, but mixing the two constructions does not really seem important here. Collect (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "UM" mean? sounds a bit snotty.--Kevin Murray (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's not the grammar, it's the logic of where the comment comes at the end of the sentence and paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an implied reversal of the cause and effect. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Um" = "Erm" for the British. I had read the claim, and the claims in the sources, as stating that the curfews may, indeed, have been a cause of some escalation of the violence (as also being related to the "militarization" issue. Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems to hang out there as an afterthought. I don't care a whole bunch about it. If there is substantial documentation of a cause and effect, I'd consider clarifying. Personally, I find text that doesn't flow well interrupts the reading process. I think that the lede should entice further reading, not disrupt and distract. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am remind you again that you have breached 3RR and that you should self-revert. Ignoring these requests and acting here as if nothing has happened does not instill any confidence, and makes it hard to assume good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The empirical evidence suggest that my actions represent consensus since many editors have embraced the changes and/or built upon that foundation. In fact vey little of my text remains, and there is no way to revert without overwriting their contributions. After carefully reviewing the Bold, Revert, Discuss flowchart, I did revert a couple of my edits last night to the previous text. However, other actions are well justified and clearly documented in the discussion above. Please don't make it personal, we are all working toward the same goal. BTW, I have not edited the article since I was accused of the 3RR violation, with the exception of self-reverting one paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The empirical evidence shows that other editors are waiting for you to restore the article to the previous consensus version, as they don't want to edit war. There is no consensus for this version, and that is obvious. This is not personal, it is the right thing to do. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is moot, since I cannot revert because I would be wiping-out much work by many others. But if you feel strongly, jump in and fix that which you feel is inappropriate. Be bold! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't because inadvertently made the same mistake you are making, got blocked, and now I am voluntarily not editing the article until next week. Do the right thing and avoid having to go through all that. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially I'm doing the same thing Cwobeel, I'm standing down from direct editing and just making suggestions to other editors. Frankly, I walked a very fine-line last night, and overreached on one edit where I removed much of a paragraph for a third time, without consensus. But I self-reverted that error. Otherwise, it would depend on the outlook of the Admin and how they interpret the 3RR. I don't like wiki-lawyering -- I look to results, and I am pleased with the results that we have. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The current version last edited by Collect is the best compromise yet [20] --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic creep in the lede

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

I find it to be unrelated to this page. (but related to the unrest article.) I've deleted it. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

X, I think you make the point very well, that this is less notable when you subtract the hyperbole, but we aren't journalists trying to "sell" a story -- this is an encyclopedia. I don't dispute inclusion of the facts in the body of the article, but why in the lede? --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the removal does not affect the notability of this incident. That being said if other editors disagree perhaps moving that sentence to the aftermath section would be a good compromise? (It needs to be expanded anyway) - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no hyperbole. The President of the United States and the US Attorney General have both publicly condemned it. The media has dedicated entire prime time blocks to covering it. It is indisputably one the most important aspects of this event, for example compared to "Wilson had served four years with the Ferguson Police Department after two years with another local police department". This was not simply a shooting and few protests. It has become a central topic in a nationwide dialog.- MrX 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the inclusion in the aftermath section. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of that sentence from the lead. The police response to the social unrest was just as notable as the unrest itself. It needs to stay. And there was "widespread" media coverage of that aspect, and it should be noted in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to have never once perused the unbelievable amount of negative data served up by protesters innumerable and -- even several embedded journalist -- to not, even in one's most dispassionate moments, comprehend how shocking the deployment of Afghan/Iraq surplus weaponry on the mostly unarmed protesters and those who covered them was. I watched it on TV on local news every night. Picked up the live feed from argusradio. Read the tweets. Watched the vine videos. I didn't just wait for a reliable source to tell me about it in a 24-word paragraph the next day. If you had seen a fraction of what I saw done by the police, you would, I like to believe, be fair enough to agree that 50 years from now, Ferguson will be seen as the event that either put an end to this in the bud, or which was the first of many such deployments with equally regrettable results. I say think encyclopedic and just say that's it a big freaking deal -- now -- and in the section people who just want to know about the big-freaking-deal components of the story will see it. My two-cent POV. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS What you are talking about is noble and good. But its not wikipedia. We require more vetting and filtering in general. Its just too easy to manipulate the information with out these restrictions. Sometimes thats good. Sometimes its bad. Write a book about the incident. Write an oped/blog. Find the WP:RS that back your points and get them included here.

See Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat#Wikipedia.27s_role_as_a_reference_work in particular

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good compromises

I think the lede is pretty darn good. Of course there will always be style issues. My advice is to really think about what you put in the lead and think about why. Since many readers of this article will be experiencing WP for the first time, try to move controversial and potentially inflammatory wording, sub-topics, etc. into the body. Please think about what is best for the credibility of the WP project first, and your opinion second. Best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD instructs us to include prominent controversies in the lead, rather than ignore the controversy and move it elsewhere. We should make the notable aspects of this shooting, including controversies covered by RS easily accessible for the reader to find in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur, Isaidnoway, and thanks for grabbing that policy cite. Further the information should be presented with proper deference to WP:WEIGHT -- and extraordinary deference, because of the importance of this story, should be afforded to WP:COMMONSENSE. Again, we're not talking about whether cold fusion did or didn't every produce surplus energy. We're talking about whether a young unarmed man did or didn't deserve to die in a hail of bullets. There is no compromise answer to that question. We shouldn't pretend that one is plausible, just to acquiesce to a rule which might make no sense in this current context. More than in any story in some time, the eyes of the world are upon us. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael-Ridgway - YES! proper deference to WP:WEIGHT is so important! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway, I didn't suggest removing the "prominent controversies" from the Lede. I referred to: "controversial and inflammatory wording, sub-topics..." --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did suggest moving a prominent controversy from the lead - The actions of the police and the decisions they made in response to the protesting and rioting and looting. This was widely covered and reported on and your suggestion was to remove it because it implied wrongdoing on the part of the police - which is the controversy being reported. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but can anyone tell me how the current version is superior to the previous consensus version? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous version 8-26-14 PM

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, a suburb of St. Louis. Michael Brown Jr., an unarmed 18-year-old black male, died after being shot at least six times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white.

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

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

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

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

Current version

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

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

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

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

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

Short answer: it isn't. Support reinstating the original version. Dyrnych (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, for reasons that I've already given, I support restoring the original consensus version.- MrX 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is disingenuous to claim that any single point in time is a "Consensus Version." At any one point the visible version typically represents the current consensus. Was there a broad-based vote, poll, or any other demonstrable measure of consensus?

While I prefer some of the individual paragraphs and sentences of prior iterations this morning. I feel that what is published now is the best overall Lede. The tenor seems more neutral and precise. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support restoring the sentence about the police and the way they initially responded, it's notable, controversial and was widely reported on and it should have never been removed in the first place. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to previous consensus version. This version is flawed, it arrived at this stage only by force of reverts, and it is by no means an improvement. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to previous consensus version. I fully agree with Cwobeel. I have more been watching this discussion than participating in it, but... The previous version had additional information, and... Overall, it was just better. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just restore the previous consensus version already. See above for obvious consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that race is a significant part of the controversy around the shooting absolutely belongs in the lede. To pretend that the fact that Ferguson is a majority-black community where only 3 out of 53 police officers are black isn't part of the story here is simply sticking one's head in the sand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August is misspelled as "Augsut 14"

68.13.43.2 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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