This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

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

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

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

Police Government announcements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thought was to organize the "accounts" as:

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

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

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

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

 Done Very minimally. WP:BRD?

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

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]

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 : [1], [2] - 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 [3], [4] - 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). [5][6] [7]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 [8][9] [10], 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]

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 [11] 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 [12] --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]

It is interesting that Icarosaurvus is one of the single-purpose-editors who joined WP since the Michael Brown tragedy, and has only focused on this article. There seems to be a common purpose to sensationalize here among a group of editors who are either new or who seem to follow controversial topics. To what purpose I wonder? --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An ad hominem attack, now, and an assumption that I am not editing in good faith? If you will look, I have made hardly any edits to this article, and the majority of my edits on others have been grammar and wording fixes. This is because I am, at present, attempting to learn how things are done here. However, I do believe that personal attacks are not how things are meant to be done, and I would thank you to refrain from them. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack. See: WP:SPA It is a legitimate concern on controversial topics, that WP be protected from violations of its core principal that WP not become a soapbox for political and other rhetoric. I've been working on WP for 8 years with over 13,000 edits and demonstrable commitment to project as a whole. I won't stand by to see the projected subverted for the gain of a transient faction attracted to controversy. While your intent may be pure, your actions are suspicious. You just reverted half a day's work by many people, without the experience to make that choice. Don't sling ad hominem crap at me. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several people suggested restoring sections of the lede. I was simply the one to do so. Someone suggested that someone else be bold, so I was bold. I have little opinion on this matter; It was simply an article with an active talk page, one which was in the news, in my primary spoken language (Therefore generating new reliable sources which I could then relay to the talk pages, if no one else had found or cited them first), and thus seemed ideal to work on. I, too, have great respect for Wikipedia, and have been editing for many years - As an IP, solely fixing grammar edits. If you wished to express concern over my intentions, there were better, more polite ways to suggest to a new editor that you were afraid that they might have biases. For example, linking the policy in question. Perhaps both of us should take some time, calm ourselves, and let the other editors sort the matter out for a bit. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you could find an article in your "primary spoken language" here at English Wikipedia ;-) You are certainly welcome here, but be mindful that broader involvement will get you more respect and a greater understanding. I do apologize as my comment was insensitive in the delivery, and you a right that I could have been more tactful.--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |[reply]

I actually meant that the majority of the coverage was in English, rather than the article itself. My initial thought was to work on the Donbass War, or the Ukrainian Unrest pages. However, a great deal of the evolving coverage is in Russian or Ukranian, languages I do not speak. This was simply a well-covered presently developing topic. I thought it would be easier to work on this, than try to find good sources for something which occurred some time ago, as new coverage from reliable sources, such as CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and others is continually being produced. Thank you very much for your apology; it is greatly appreciated. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, after a while in life and in any project you get thick skinned and grumpy. The article is fine and I'm sure it will evolve well. I'm just ultra sensitive about criticism of the WP project not being a reliable source of information. We all come here for a purpose. I came to WP years ago to write about sailboats, and got beat up by policy wonks who thought I was trying to sell boats on WP. But they were protecting WP from crass commercialism, and my articles were the victims of knee-jerk zealots. So I went to fight hard to change policy at the policy pages, and learned to play hard to win, but WP is a better environment for writers rights. Be bold, but please think of the project and what is best for the long term. Learn what it means to be an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid -- the language is different. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The specific policy I am referencing is the policy that one should "Assume good faith". When you came wishing to change a work which was the result of much discussion, despite the majority of editors seeming somewhat displeased with this, I assumed that you simply wished to improve the article, as I believe many others did. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy that has been shown to you. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there's a SPA here, there is enough experience already present to (1) recognize it, and (2) deal with it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are several if you review the contributions etc. Whether they are problematic is a question, but SPA nonetheless. Of equal concern is a potential cabal of editors that just follow and might potentially dominate controversial current-event topics. Frankly WP would be well served to ban current events. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by ban current events. If you mean delay the article until the media have moved on, that's something I wish we'd do anyway. There are a ton of problems that would vanish if we stopped trying to give almost-up-to-the-minute summaries of developing news stories. It's absurd to start an article about a airliner crash less than 30 minutes after the story breaks. But, if this cabal exists, delaying the article won't correct that problem. If you mean that articles should never be written about stories like this one, well, everything in history was initially a current event. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean exactly what you have more clearly described. A cool down period as you suggest. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the event will still be controversial after the cool-down (albeit less emotionally-charged in many cases), and this hypothetical cabal will still potentially dominate it. We should impose NOTFORUM before someone else does it for us. Feel free to continue on my talk page if you like. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is exuberant passion in many historical topics. I used to work on article clean up and dispute resolution. Religion, entertainment, sports, and airplanes can all be volatile. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:39, 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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kajime Powell was armed, and well within the 21 Foot Rule (although the cops did have their guns drawn which changes things a bit). Im somewhat surprised he wasn't shot further away. Theres plenty of things we may need to deal with as a society, and training cops to shoot at knees or something is perhaps a discussion we (as a country) should have - but that particular incident was well within expected norms nationwide and has very little to do with racism or the other issues involved in the Brown case. Powell may have been reacting in grief/anger/outrage, but other than temporal proximity we have no evidence to that - he equally well could have been just mentally ill. Maybe he was being a martyr/suicide. Maybe he was bluffing to make a point with the cops.. Nobody knows, but its clear that Powell intended to provoke the scenario. For more on the 21 foot rule see this article, which specifically discusses the situation of cops already having guns drawn [13] Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandboxing an idea

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

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

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

Among my concerns in the lede have been:

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

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

SAMPLE NEUTRAL APPROACH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what I was going off of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In light of the foregoing, I propose the following

Proposed language for replacement of final sentence

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

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

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

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

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

A few issues :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

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

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

Example:

A) A robbery occurred

B) A robbery allegedly occurred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An example idea

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

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

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

Among my concerns in the lede have been:

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

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

SAMPLE NEUTRAL APPROACH:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Dyrnych - first five comments/question:

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

Response to Dyrnych

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imprecise words: altercation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:  :

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

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

 Done Very minimally. WP:BRD?

:  :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current first sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Am I not a man?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RS Sources analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was asked to explain this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here's Michael-Ridgway's version.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems to be a grey area in the policy to me, but we certainly shouldn't introduce any speculation into the article. Sources are starting to pick the story though: [14][15] - MrX 17:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FWIW the St Louis Post Dispatch has reportedly joined the lawsuit as a plantiff. In other lawsuit news (although this may be more appropriate for the unrest article) The Ferguson PD has been sued for $41.5M in a civil rights suit. [16][17] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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