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.

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]

nb: His "accomplice" is not an accomplice -- Johnson returned the cigarillos handed him by Brown to the counter, there is no evidence that he knew of Brown's intention to take them, and he has been cleared by the police. Andyvphil (talk) 10:03, 2 September 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]

• This doesn't make any sense at all. Courts do not determine whether a robbery occurred; investigative and prosecutorial agencies of the government do that (e.g. police and the attorney general's office, or whatever is called for in the legal system in question). The courts determine whether the accused committed the crime or not. Otherwise, I could never file an insurance claim regarding a burglary or arson until after someone was successfully prosecuted for it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit [1] by User:Dyrnych and the previous edit by User:Editor993, the following appeared in a NY Times article about Michael Brown,[2]

"He did not have a criminal record as an adult, and his family said he never got in trouble with the law as a juvenile, either."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this a couple of times. We have a source that says unambiguously that Brown had no criminal record (quoting the St. Louis County prosecutor's office) and a few sources that say that he had no adult criminal record, usually quoting the Ferguson PD. Those are consistent with each other, so in the absence of any actual suggestion that Brown had a juvenile record it makes little sense to imply that he had one. Especially when the source for the sentence in question is the one that states that Brown had no criminal record and mentions nothing about an adult record, meaning that the "adult" addition misrepresents the source. Dyrnych (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "quoting the St. Louis County prosecutor's office" — If you have a source that gives a direct quote, I'd be interested in seeing it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"An 18-year-old shot and killed near a Ferguson apartment complex Saturday afternoon had no criminal record, according to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office St. Louis County Prosecutor's office confirmed that Brown had no prior misdemeanors or felonies against him." That's the source that we're currently citing in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a direct quote of the prosecutor's office. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was an Aug 14 USA Today article titled "Michael Brown had no criminal record, police say" by Aja Williams of KSDK-TV, whose report of the prosecutor’s statement was that the prosecutor said that Brown had no criminal record.[3] It wasn’t clear from Williams’ report of the police and prosecutors statements that those statements included Brown’s juvenile record or was just his adult record. An Aug 15 article in the NY Times by Bosman, Schwartz and Kovaleski was more specific and clarified that the police statement about Brown’s arrest record did not include his juvenile record.[4]

“He [Brown] had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile.”

Then another article on Aug 17 in the Christian Science Monitor by Scott clarified that the prosecutor’s statement was referring to Brown’s adult criminal record.[5]

“The black teenager [Brown] had no adult criminal record, according to the St. Louis County prosecutor.”

And a week later an Aug 24 article in the NY Times by Eligon was specific about Brown not having a criminal record as an adult and left the question of his juvenile record to Brown’s family’s account.[6]

“He did not have a criminal record as an adult, and his family said he never got in trouble with the law as a juvenile, either.”

So we have an Aug 14 report of a KSDK-TV journalist in USA Today that is presently used in our article vs Aug 15–24 reports of 5 journalists in the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor. We need to change to "no adult criminal record" in our article to be specific because the statement "no criminal record" is misinformation that misrepresents the police and prosecutor's statements. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bob. WP:WEIGHT & WP:V is clearly on the side of "no adult record", but I also agree with others that "no record in the 2 months since he turned 18" is mostly meaningless, and "no adult record" does infer/imply the existence of a juvenile record. I say we hold off just a bit, we are likely to know something about if he had a juvenile record shortly. If he had a juvenile record (of any kind) then we will need to correct the above statement (which is not the same thing as saying we should detail the contents of the juvenile record - such a decision would need to be based on the relevance of that record, and how its covered in RS) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think footnote [2] should be changed now from the USAToday article to the above St. Louis Post Dispatch article http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/juvenile-court-michael-brown-had-no-most-serious-felony-convictions/article_43c9bbbb-356f-5ea6-b9e2-7dde7e3e5c83.html and please remember that Judge Spiwak took the request to open the juvenile record under advisement and apparently has the power to release it later. For now, "no criminal record" is reasonable if that footnote can explain the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.163.144 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much credence should be given to stories like these?

• Lawsuit Claims Michael Brown Was Charged With Murder While He Was a Juvenile
• Lawsuit seeking release of Michael Brown's juvenile records claims slain teen was a murder suspect

Obviously, I don't think this kind of hearsay from unnamed sources rises to the level of RS for such allegations, but it does call into question how we should present this claim of "no criminal record", IMO. Is it better to say nothing about his criminal record at all, or note the existence of these unsubstantiated rumors, or clarify that the statement applies only to the his "adult" life? I mostly agree with Bob's interpretation of how we should present the statements. As it stands now, in the absence of better information, I think it could turn out to be very misleading. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPCRIME (and the short term WP:BDP extension) we cannot put in allegations of specific crimes without much better sourcing/confirmation. The rumors may or may not be correct, but as long as they are rumors they are not acceptable in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing results

Per court officials, at the very least, Brown was never charged with any A or B felonies as a juvenile. [7] This directly and definitively disproves the claims that he was charged with murder. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to statement from court, no "A" or "B" felony convictions or charges are a juvenile. Court taking under advisement (for release of other non felony records?) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/juvenile-court-michael-brown-had-no-felony-convictions-did-not/article_43c9bbbb-356f-5ea6-b9e2-7dde7e3e5c83.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Fixing edit conflicts with same link. JYNX! Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second source http://fox2now.com/2014/09/03/lawsuits-seek-any-michael-brown-juvenile-records/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters a great deal, but notice the careful wording which doesn't rule out the possibility that he was charged and acquitted of class A or B felonies as a juvenile. But 'innocent until proven guilty', I guess. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or diverted (although diversion would be unlikely for murder one thinks) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do by case #11AC-CR02064

11AC-CR02064 - ST V DORIAN J JOHNSON

And there's the official court documents on the .gov website. As credible, reliable and RELEVANT as it gets. It's obvious that this needs to be included since he is the key witness in this case... and has a documented criminal record of lying to the police.

71.49.219.208 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until a reliable secondary source reports this, we cannot. See our policy on the use of primary sources about living people. Court documents and records are never acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme guess. ABC isn't a reliable source either? Probably only CNN right? Right.

http://www.abc17news.com/news/key-witness-in-ferguson-wanted-in-jefferson-city/27624066

71.49.219.208 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One local ABC affiliate is not "ABC", and that article clearly shows a local reporter in its byline. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a source is local, that does not render the source unreliable. In fact, local sources are "closer" to the story and what's happening in their community. If anything, they are more reliable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post's Wesley Lowery wrote an article on Dorian and Michael that will give you everything you need when it comes to talking about who they were and what they did. Now if only we didn't cherry pick just the bad parts like I am certain that we will, because who's got time in journalism for people when they don't loot and kill? I have a picture of an empty Target parking lot that I took Saturday afternoon on my second trip to Ferguson ground zero since the killing. A week ago, it was full of big rigs and generators and monster satellite dishes with logos from Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, and all of the local stations. But then the looting stopped and they all left. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We were here before, on August 21. To quote Dyrnych, "it's SYNTH for us to say that it calls into question his credibility in this issue unless a reliable source makes that claim." But that doesn't mean we can't include the basic fact without an attached credibility claim. The false report was when he lied to the cops about his first name, after being arrested on suspicion of theft (that case is still pending). There are a few sources, including a local TV station and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which we're using in 16 other places, by my count. The TV station says he was charged, and the Post-Dispatch says he pled guilty to the charge. None of the big guys appear to have picked this up.

Specific proposition (as opposed to proposal), for discussion:

• Add the following text. In September 2012, Johnson pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report. The charge was related to a 2011 incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.
• Cite the court record for the date of the plea, and the Post-Dispatch article for the rest. The policy given above by NorthBySouthBaranof allows for use of the primary source in some cases, to "augment" the secondary.
• The text could be added to the end of the subsection for Johnson's account, for lack of a better place. Or, to avoid even the slightest suggestion of a credibility claim, we could add a Dorian Johnson subsection to Background, since he is one of the key players, and include this there. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with any of this. Dorian is such a central figure that I think he deserves his own section and not just a section about his claims. I do, however, find my view of him to be radically altered for the better after reading the Lowery article about him for the first time today. It gives great insights about both Dorian and Michael that I have never seen in print before. On that basis, I would urge that a link to that article be included in the External Links section. No news agency has had more access to Dorian than Lowery was granted, and it's possible that none will be granted any such access from here on out. If either of them were my sons, I would want people to have a more balanced picture of who they were than we can get from a surveillance video and a conviction record from years past. I do think an easy-to-find link to the article would go a long way toward fending off criticisms that we are playing along in a police-friendly campaign to wipe out his credibility, which of course, a Wilson defense attorney will have every incentive to do, given the fact that Dorian alone, of all of the civilian witnesses who have come forward, has claimed to know exactly what happened from the moment Wilson drove up until the moment that Brown made a run for it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, half of the conspiracy theorists are saying the article is unfairly biased toward Brown and Johnson. The other half are saying it is unfairly biased toward Wilson and the police. That's a good indication that the article is fairly NPOV. "Fending off criticisms", from either camp, is not a good reason to do anything in this article. Anyway, you're off-topic. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with including this in the article. I am NOT fine with including it under Dorian Johnson's account until and unless there is a reliable source that states the claim that giving a false name to the police raises questions about the credibility of Johnson's account. Doing otherwise (i.e., just sticking it at the bottom of the Johnson account) would be synthesis, as we are combining the account and the false statement/theft things to imply that Johnson is lying now because he lied to the police about his name when (and this is crucial here) no source makes that claim. It is doubly problematic that the editor above who advocates for its inclusion is specifically advocating for its inclusion to make exactly this implication. In any event, as noted by NorthBySouthBaranof above, a secondary source must be used to to include any material about this matter, per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" (emphasis in original). This means that we should not in any respect link to or cite the court record. I am broadly fine with Mandruss's language, again provided that this doesn't go under the Johnson account. Dyrnych (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that we can include the date of the plea without the court record, even though it's not mentioned in the Post-Dispatch article? (It says simply, "He later pleaded guilty.") Per WP:V? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, unless we find another source for that. We could include the date of the charge (do we have a source that states this?) and then saying "later pleaded guilty" seems fine, since there's no obvious reason that we'd care about the precise date of the plea when we know the date of the charge. Dyrnych (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposition: In mid-2011, Johnson was charged with the misdemeanor of filing a false report. He later pled guilty to the charge, which was related to an incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.[cite Post-Dispatch] And you support a Dorian Johnson subsection in Background, per the above? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine, and I will support (albeit somewhat weakly) adding the Dorian Johnson subsection in Background. The WaPo article that Michael-Ridgway referenced also has some biographical material on Johnson. Dyrnych (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WaPo article is mostly human-interest "get to know Dorian Johnson". We have a little of that for Brown, but then he's the dead guy. It would be hard to justify it for Johnson. I did manage to pick out a couple of basic bio bits, just to justify the new subsection. I'll wait about 24 hours for any dissent.

Dorian Johnson, 22, was with Michael Brown at the time of the shooting. They had been acquaintances for five months.(ref name=WashPost.Friend/)

Johnson received his high school diploma in 2010, through a special program. The following year, he attended Lincoln University, in Jefferson City, for two semesters.(ref name=WashPost.Friend/)

In mid-2011, Johnson was charged with the misdemeanor of filing a false report. He later pled guilty to the charge, which was related to an incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.(ref name=STLToday.Witness/) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about value, but this transcript of an August 22 CNN broadcast includes two CNN legal analysts appearing to come down on Johnson's side as to the effect of this record on his credibility. One is Sunny Hostin, a former U.S. Attorney. "So I think what we are seeing now is the narrative trying to be changed. Michael Brown is now thug-a-fied. Dorian Johnson is now not credible. He too is thug-a-fied. And we see that happen in these kinds of cases." If anyone of CNN's RS stature (e.g., Fox) is taking the opposing position, I haven't found it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of paragraphs later in the the transcript you linked, another CNN legal analyst, Danny Cevallos, took the opposing position. CNN frequently has panels of legal analysts with opposing viewpoints to discuss issues like this. Cevallos said, "There has been a lot of talk about whether Dorian Johnson's past is fair to talk about. That's an interesting philosophical question. Fortunately, for us, the Missouri rules of evidence couldn't be clearer, and the rule is this: If you have a prior conviction, that conviction can come in to impeach a witness and attack their credibility." —Megiddo1013 02:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I make this change, I propose also changing "Background" to "Participants". This would correspond with the "Participants" field of the lead infobox, which includes all three men. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make two points here concerning the inclusion of this content; 1) Once Wilson's version of the shooting is disclosed and the physical evidence is revealed, there will obviously be a considerable difference between the two narratives. Readers can evaluate for themselves who has the most credible version of what happened, without us pushing Johnson over the cliff by implying his prior bad conduct is relevant here to his narrative of what happened. 2) I'd also point out that his prior conduct under discussion here was a misdemeanor offense of lying to the police. According to what we know so far, he hasn't been charged or accused of lying to the police in this instance, in fact, his lawyer has said he told the truth to the police concerning the robbery. And if I'm not mistaken, his version of what happened being told here in this article is based on media interviews, rather than his offical statement to the police. So while it may be true that Johnson previously lied to the police, there is no evidence being reported by RS in this instance that he lied to the police. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but it's hyperbolic to say we'd be "pushing Johnson over the cliff" when we'd be going to great lengths to separate the record from the credibility. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a source (mid tier RS) (weakly) making some credibility arguments (along with some additional details about what the false statements were about). Also the first RS I've seen mentioning the guy overheard on the video describing the shooting http://fox2now.com/2014/09/02/mid-missouri-man-describes-repeated-lies-by-witness-in-michael-brown-shooting-case/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put this quote into the Sandbox that no one ever visited. Thought I'd put it here. This only came out on August 19, and the source is maybe of questionable notability. Just the New York Times. And it's only just a little thing. You know, an admission that Wilson was shooting at Brown while he was running away from Wilson. Not sure it's worth a mention in an article which is reporting on so many things of much greater importance. But as no one else seems to have caught this one in the last 13 days, I thought I'd float it out there for your consideration. If you run with it, please make a note here so I won't just be needlessly wasting time checking the article for inclusion of this detail of marginal value. (There, I've shot it all to pieces. That way none of you have to.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:04, 1 September 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

I second this. Thanks for bringing this up again Michael. Saeranv (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. It's not sources that are "notable" in WikiSpeak. That aside, as well as my reservations about the "reliability" of the NYT ("No results found for "he’s coming back towards the police" site:nytimes.com."), this is an extremely interesting claim about what "law enforcement officials" are saying, though it's a bit odd that I haven't seen it elsewhere. Backs up various stories that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away which, interestingly, is legal under MO law (see Volokh Conspiracy, now found in WaPo) but a constitutional violation by Supreme Court decision. So the kill shot may be perfectly good self defense, but the shots at Brown running away may be a Federal case. Andyvphil (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil, it's just gratuitous with you people, isn't it? I wrote that facetiously as badly as I could and then admitted that it was so horrible that you didn't need to tell me how horrible it is. But you just couldn't resist the temptation to step on someone's skull, I mean to insult their intelligence, even though I insulted my own intelligence, hoping that that backfire would keep yours from scorching me down to nothing. But no. Wikipedia editors have to be Wikipedia editors. It's their nature. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? Dyrnych (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see how far down the rabbit hole we are, Dyrnych. Why haven't we heard this elsewhere? Apparently because RS journalists are just like you and me. They read headlines. They don't go 30 paragraphs deep in a news story from the New York Times to find the one admission that ends the controversy dead in its tracks. Wilson shot at Brown (face it: six times) while he was running away. Game. Set. Match. Put a fork in it. Once the world knows that, what else is there to talk about?

Which leads me to my humble question. Which one of us is going to tell them? And will the rest of us let it stand when we tell? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell when you're being facetious. Why would any number of shots fired at Brown "end the controversy"? The relevant controversy is over the killing of Brown, which didn't occur when Brown was running away. Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? Dyrnych (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is indubitably a Reliable Source (note the capitalization, to indicate WikiSpeak). It is also indubitably and on occasion and particularly on subjects on which its reporters and editorial staff have ideological biases and agendas an unreliable source. IMHO the "he’s coming back towards the police" unsolicited eyewitness report is the most important exculpatory evidence for Wilson that has emerged so far. It's real. You can listen to the audio, and there's no plausible way it is a hoax. But doing that is of course Original Research, and all we have, apparently, reporting it in the trad MSM is this odd mention as a sidebar by some Fox staffer on the posting of an irrelevant moronic video of Howard Klutz. Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the original reference to this source in the paragraph that begins with "On August 19..." within the Police statements section, because it cited "law enforcement officials". This story was mostly about the different accounts, especially Johnson's, and just mentioned firing his weapon as a side-issue, not connected to anything else.

I thought it was strange as well but, being from the NY Times, I thought it was probably reliable. Now, after a week with no confirmation (or reprints or follow-ups from the NYT), I'm thinking about removing it. Even a NY Times reporter could get a source wrong or incomplete: for example, the LEO could have said "The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone at first"." Comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best example of the media getting it wrong in this story is all the reporting in RS that says the police say Wilson didn't know Brown was a suspect in the robbery when he shot him, when in fact if you watch the tape the police chief says nothing of the sort.Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question: Would it's inclusion be our call to make if it is from a RS? We could alos note in the article that the source is unattributed in the NYTimes article, and let the readers make their own decision of its reliability. Saeranv (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being from an RS doesn't just mean the publication is reliable but also that the content is reliable; in the case of newspapers, that the story is confirmed by other news media (unless they say in the story that it's exclusive). Also, doesn't the "according to law enforcement" say that it's unattributed? How about unconfirmed? Like this: On August 19, an unconfirmed story in the New York Times reported that, according to law enforcement officials, "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. This edited statement is more nuanced, I think it's good. Saeranv (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An "earwitness" who heard the shots, whose name figures in four articles findable by Google News. Sources: MSNBC, RT.com, and the Globe and Mail. You'll note that it appears that first mention of him was made more than a week ago. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we all appreciate your interest, but perhaps you would A) include a source and B) propose text that is supported by the source(s). That would help everyone try to write a better article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the best article about him is the Globe and Mail article, but any newspaper with the name Mail in it seems to be immediately assailed as unreliable.

How events in Ferguson put race back on the agenda Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it's great you are pointing out sources. But please, it's our job to glean information relevant from the source. Summarize the point you think the article is making and write it here. Heck, write it in the article. No one is going to bite your head off for being bold. Just try to be neutral and succinct. Don't be coy, pick up your pen.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I did edits I got a final warning. I guess I'm really gun shy at this point. Would rather just put stuff for you guys to consider then post, get reverted and be out of bullets. Unlike most of the rest of you, I have no invincibility codes. And how come everyone talks in imperatives here? Why is nothing ever offered as a suggestion? "Get the f onto the article!" Where have I heard something like that before? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. Why is division of labor so heavily frowned on here? If I prefer to research than to write, is that automatically a bad thing? Anyone can create the one or two sentences that explain that Mr. Tommy Chatman-Bey, a 60-year-old former drug counselor who lives in the neighborhood heard something that suspiciously resembles the shots as we hear them fired on the partially authenticated audio clip. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the role of researcher rather than writer is fine. Its a role I have taken in several articles. I do however agree with Pork's thrust, which is it would be more beneficial if you would point out why you think a source is valuable, or roughly what additions are needed. The mail article spends most of its time talking about discrimination and the black white divide in general. Other than saying Chatman-bey heard the shots, I'm not sure what we would write about him, hes not providing anything new, or confirming/questioning any thing that is being questioned. A great many people probably heard shots. Regarding "Ten", I'm not sure I would use this source to back that, it seems much more like editorial flowery than saying "He specifically counted ten shots, no more, no less". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a lot of very fascinating assumptions, there, Gaijin42. You're assuming that I find one of the sources to be more valuable than another. I may have a personal view, but I have learned the hard way that if I see something one way, I can be certain that any who will take the time to comment on what I say will definitely will make a point of insulting my intelligence for so stating. So rather than say, hey, this source is really good, the others are bad, I said, hey, here's a witness you guys have overlooked for more than a week now. And here is how you can find ALL of the sources I have come across so far. And no, I'm not suggesting that a newspaper published outside of the US is a reliable source. Heck, I'm jingoistic just like you. I'm just sick of how no good deed goes unpunished here and no good edit goes unreverted and no good faith action goes without putting you on yet another of several final warnings -- (there's no such thing as a first warning in Wikipedia, is there?) So I'm freaking backing off and just serving up stuff. You guys do what the freak you want with it - which, usually is to ignore it -- but not always -- cyberbullying is the other response of choice, it appears. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a final warning for you, if you keep responding to people with personal attacks it will not go well for you. You made some statements and asked some questions. I and others gave you very civil and polite responses, clearly trying to work with you - and once again you reply with venom. Learn to collaborate, or go elsewhere.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giajin42, you have been one of my most notable detractors. Now you give me a final warning. Where is my personal attack? I am speaking with emphasis to say that I do not want to edit and I'm telling you why. I'm stating that the time spent here has been miserable because of those who insult my intelligence on a perpetual basis (in the name of polite and civil helpfulness). Do is the double use of the word "freak" that has me on warning?" I'd be happy to remove them. But I'm on warning for removing stuff too. So, I'm kind of in a box, know what I mean? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jingoistic. cyberbullying. flushing petals down the toilet and ranting. massive WP:ABF. You don't want to edit and want to suggest. Great! Seriously! We gave you some comments as to how you could better accomplish your goal. Nobody was attacking you. Nobody was saying your suggestions were wrong. We asked for more information about what you meant, trying to engage you. We replied to the part of your comment that had enough context to do so. Nobody was rude to you in any way. Read our responses to you, and then read how you replied to us. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that there is no such thing as a "final warning" on Wikipedia. An editor can give you a "final warning" in the sense that they'll report your conduct if you continue to engage in it, but there's not some escalation that's happening on the talk page once an editor warns you about something. Trust me, if someone's planning to report your conduct either (1) you'll know, because posting an actual warning template on your talk page is a prerequisite to most forms of dispute resolution or (2) they'll report your conduct and likely lose because they failed to post an actual warning template. So don't get worked up about being "on warning" or whatever, because that isn't a thing. That doesn't mean that your previous edits (and previous informal warnings given to you by editors) won't come up if there's dispute resolution involved, of course. Dyrnych (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Tommy Chatman-Bey... heard something that suspiciously resembles the shots as we hear them fired on the partially authenticated audio clip." What's "suspicious" about it? The only thing said is that he heard ten of them, which isn't very interesting, inasmuch as the officer's gun probably holds circa 16 or 17 bullets and no one has suggested that he only fired the 6 shots that hit. Andyvphil (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hand a Wikipedia editor a rose and he/she will do what with it? Flush the petals down the toilet and denigrate in a rant about thorns. And they say women don't like it here. Go figure. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this, and just came across it due to a discussion in an unrelated area. However, it seems that this article is likely under Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN (Along with every other article that covers BLP/BDP it seems). I am asking for confirmation that this is the way this motion is being interpreted. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this means, even after reading the linked material. Apparently it has something to do with tighter controls than normally exist? Some dumbing-down would be helpful. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions basically means that any uninvolved administrator can take unilateral actions to protect the article. (from edit warring, NPOV, etc) Topic bans, blocks, implementing 1RR on a particular editor, or the article as a whole, or pretty much anything the administrator can think of. Overturning that unilateral action requires a clear majority consensus at AN/AE.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note this notice does not imply any misdeeds by any user. Its only for informational purposes. Placing the notice here also probably does not qualify as notification because it must be placed on each users' talk page to count Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Z33

And people wonder why I'm not doing real edits anymore.

Any admin. Any time. Any reason. No discussion. Tell me more of this collaborative Nirvana of which you speak. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With specific wording to be determined later, should the lede mention the robbery

Survey

• include WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include for the above reasons. As irrelevant to the issue of whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown as the robbery is likely to be, we do discuss the robbery at length in multiple parts of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - It is a very relevant part of the overall incident, based on the extensive coverage in sources. Currently, around 15% of the article discusses the robbery.
• Include – Both relevant and significant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include However "who knew what, and when did they know it" questions will arise.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include The strong-arm robbery is an important part of the narrative and article, especially considering the controversy concerning police release of the robbery tape. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - I reverted because I thought the wording was awkward, not because I'm opposed to a mention in some form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include very short mention of the alleged robbery in the lede. Details belong to the article's body - Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include If it's relevant then it must be included. Op47 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

• Yes. The lede should mention the robbery with as much specificity as is necessary to convey how mangled the police claims as to whether Wilson did or didn't know about it have been. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. My (currently reverted) addition to the lede did not bring in the context of Wilson not stopping Brown due to the robbery correctly, and that is an important distinction. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would note there's no need to refer to it as a "strong-arm" robbery in the lead. We discuss the nature of the robbery and define the term "strong-arm robbery" later in the article, and I maintain that it's more confusing than edifying to call it a strong-arm robbery without that definition. All that said, is this an appropriate place to discuss the content of the mention of the robbery in the lead (if there's consensus for that addition)? I think it's probably fine, but I'll defer to Gaijin42 as this is his RfC. Dyrnych (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to working out wording here, but if it doesn't happen here, thats fine too. So far it looks like there is going to be consensus for inclusion in some form so we might as well start hashing out the wording. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is how the robbery is tied to the shooting. I'm not sure we can get a lot of this in the lead. And btw, the correct term on Wikipedia is "lead" not "lede" which is a newspaper term. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly second that last sentence. WP:LEDE is a redirect to WP:LEAD. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but some of us (yes, I'm guilty) use lede because lead can be ambiguous. For example, "According to the lead, lead leads other metals for battery production, but copper is used in the leads." Don't even get me started on buffalo.- MrX 20:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather be ambiguous than wrong. :D ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I make the mistake at least once a day, but the distinction is important.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow? Wording.

It looks like the includes are going to have it via WP:SNOW. NorthBySouthBaranof Thank you for clarifying the reason for your revert. OK, based on comments in the above sections, and elsewhere, it seems that there are several points that we may or may not want to include in the lede . I'm not saying I think all of the points below do need to be included, just listing all the ones I think might be included so we can put the legos together.

• (Police allege that?) A few minutes before the interaction, Brown (and Johnson?) were involved in a robbery
• Brown taking cigars from behind counter, shoving/assaulting clerk
• Johnson being handed cigars, placing them back on counter
• Incident was captured on surveillance video
• Johnson, lawyers, family have admitted it is Brown and Johnson on the video
• At time of initial interaction between Wilson and Brown :
  • Wilson was aware of robbery
    • 911 call from customer
    • broadcast call to officers
  • Was en route to the scene to investigate
  • But stop was purely due to Jaywalking, and initial interaction was not due to robbery, Brown/Johnson were not suspects at that time
  • At some point during stop, police posit that Wilson may have seen Robbery evidence and considered Brown a suspect in robbery.

Based on the fact that Johnson, lawyers, family, etc have admitted its Brown and Johnson, and that the Cigars were taken without paying, and that we have video I think we should drop the "Police allege that" bit. However, in the interest of innocent until proven guilty, we could describe the action directly rather than naming a crime - "took Cigars without paying, and shoved the store clerk"

So initial stab at proposed wording :

A few minutes before the shooting, Brown and Johnson were captured on a convenience store surveillance video, where Brown can be seen taking some Cigars without paying for them and shoving the store clerk. While en route to the store to respond to a 911 call, Wilson saw Brown and Johnson and stopped them for Jaywalking. Police have proposed that during the pedestrian encounter Wilson may have seen the Cigars in Brown's possession and then associated them with the store, but say the initial contact was unrelated to the incident at the store.

Some of the wording is a bit cumbersome, to avoid using the word robbery. Anyway. Comments, or alternative drafts welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That long sentence does not belong in the lede. If we mention the robbery and the alleged participation of Brown and Johnson, it should be minimal as not not to give undue weight. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part do you think is unneeded? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too long and detailed for the lead. Also creates NPOV issues because we describe in detail the police's POV without mentioning anyone else's POV.

I suggest "The possible connection between the shooting and Brown's alleged role in stealing cigars from a convenience store is a subject of dispute." The police's own statements are conflicting and we still don't have clear answers as to who knew what when.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its an objective fact that Brown is on the video taking the Cigars. His own family, and the various lawyers for that side admit it. There is no POV involved in that. To take your wording and tweak with my response "The possible connection between the shooting and Brown's role in taking cigars from a convenience store without paying is a subject of dispute."

Works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points:

1. I don't think that this part is accurate: "While en route to the store to respond to a 911 call[.]" My understanding is that Wilson had just finished responding to an unrelated matter and was not in fact going to the convenience store to respond to the robbery. According to this source: "Police reports released Friday under an open-records request showed that at 11:51 a.m. on the day of the shooting, authorities received a 911 call reporting a robbery at the Ferguson Market. An unidentified officer was dispatched to the store, arriving within three minutes. The officer interviewed an employee and customer, who gave a description of a man who stole the cigars and walked off with another man toward a QuikTrip store. Separately, Wilson had been responding to a nearby call involving a sick 2-month child from 11:48 am until noon, when he left that place. A minute later, he encountered Michael Brown walking down Canfield Drive. The documents contained no description of what happened between Brown and Wilson" (emphasis added). Is there any source that reports that Wilson was himself responding to the robbery?
2. Can we take the first sentence out of passive voice? Maybe: "A few minutes before the shooting, a convenience store surveillance video recorded Brown taking some cigars without paying for them and shoving a store clerk." Johnson's presence at the store is factually accurate but I think unnecessary for the lead.

Thoughts on either? Dyrnych (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on the call. I am fine with switching to active voice and dropping Johnson from the statement. I prefer something in the realm of the longer version, but two others have voiced concern about length. What are your thoughts in that regard? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my proposal based on Gaijin42's version (addition in bold):

A convenience store surveillance video showed Brown taking some Cigars without paying for them and shoving the store clerk, minutes before 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 he was shot multiple times.

I have deleted a few words from the next sentence. If there is consensus about what happened, we do not seem to need attribution.- MrX 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need the details, can't we say that A convenience store surveillance video showed that Brown was a suspect in a robbery minutes before..., that's what he was and so was Johnson at that time. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with omitting details. How about we say "A surveillance video showed that Brown robbed a convenience store minutes before..."?- MrX 18:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it to be appended to the end of the paragraph, in accordance with the principle that the most important facts are first. The article is about the shooting, not about the robbery. I propose to add, after the last sentence, The connection between the shooting and Brown's role in stealing cigars from a convenience store earlier that day is a subject of dispute. This provides an brief, NPOV statement of the facts while acknowledging the lack of clarity about who knew what, when. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Earlier that day" is a bit much. it was literally minutes. Your phrasing would allow for multiple hours to have passed. Most important first yes, but when we are literally talking about minutes chronologically also holds a lot of weight. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is at least a temporal connection between the robbery and the shooting.- MrX 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there's a temporal connection, introducing the shooting with the robbery implies a causal connection that is unsupported. I support a short, separate paragraph placed after the paragraph about the actual shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, Johnson and Brown both knew they were suspects in a robbery from minutes before, regardless of whether Wilson knew or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've discussed this before, but we shouldn't be making the inference (especially in the lead) that whatever knowledge Brown and Johnson had about whether or not they were suspects had any connection to the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should let the reader make up their own mind as to what may or may not be related. That involves giving the reader the factual objective information to do so. hiding that information because it might lead to a particular conclusion is not WP:NPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely not talking about hiding the information. Dyrnych (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "hiding" the information to ensure that we don't create speculative inferences. Right now, we don't know what, if any, connection there really is. The police's information has been as conflicting as anything else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition Saying that the robbery occurred minutes before the shooting is not inferring anything. it is a 100% true objective fact. We are not saying anything about who knew what when, nor are we saying the robbery justifies the shooting. If events that are lieteraly minutes apart are being shifted around, there is no cohesion to the section. We could equally move away brown stopping them, or the altercation through the window, or fleeing. Why do we put them in the order they are in? Because thats the order they happened. Making an exception for one thing is making a POV decision about which items are important and which items arent. We should not be making any such decision. The neutral presentation is chronological. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We put the events of the shooting in order; no dispute there. But events that may or may not be related to the shooting should not be placed in the narrative of the shooting because by placing them there we imply that they are PART of the narrative of the shooting. That's not a POV decision about importance. Dyrnych (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrnych We are talking about the lede, not the shooting subsection. Did that get lost in the shuffle somewhere? with that clarification, does that adjust any of the comments you made above? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the lead as well. My suggestion was to have the events of the shooting, followed by a short paragraph describing the robbery. It lacks some narrative flow but makes up for it by making it clear that we (i.e., the voice of Wikipedia) don't know if there's any relationship between the robbery and the shooting at this point. Dyrnych (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think its doing more than that. I think its using wikipedia's voice to say they specifically do not have a relationship. Breaking a very short chronological gap is using wikipedia's voice very strongly. If we want to say we don't know what the relationship is, we should just say that, not try to create a tortured narrative that makes the user guess. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can counter that by saying something to the effect of "It is currently unclear what connection if any the robbery had to the shooting." I don't see a great way to do that if we present the robbery as though it were part of the events of the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrnych Responding at bottom of section, so that editing is easier. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hiding that information because it might lead to a particular conclusion is not WP:NPOV - And yet, there's been precious little support for including Johnson's record, in a neutral way, in a neutral location, using precisely the same reasoning. The argument against was exactly, "because it might lead to a particular conclusion". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been pretty consistent with respect to both things. Dyrnych (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you're the precious little support to which I referred. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read quickly, but by no means have studied, the material above. This seems to be about what words should be added to the lead about the robbery that took place a few minutes before the shooting. May I suggest that you're taking too long for what should be a simple summary?

The lead already includes this paragraph: "Brown had no criminal record. Wilson had served as a police officer for five years, three of those with the Ferguson Police Department. He has no disciplinary history." How about "Brown had no criminal record but was suspected in a robbery that had taken place minutes before. Wilson had served..."? If any readers want more, they can find it in the robbery section. Comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dyrnych So, what is your proposed wording, and where exactly would you place it? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this, placed in a separate paragraph immediately below the brief narrative of the shooting:

A few minutes before the shooting, a convenience store surveillance video recorded Brown taking cigars without paying for them and shoving a store clerk as he exited the store. It is currently unclear whether the incident at the convenience store was connected to the shooting.

Thoughts? Dyrnych (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're supposed to summarize in the lead (see WP:LEAD). My change is to add 12 words in the third paragraph of the lead section: "but was suspected in a robbery that had taken place minutes before" (with the proper citation) right after "Brown had no criminal record". --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to see us keep the detail out, and would prefer not to add another paragraph. RoyGoldsmith's proposal seems reasonably close. - MrX 22:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that we are leaving out this POV as a possibility, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery. Here's another source: Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that the officer, Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown's hand and realized he might be the robber. Here's another one from USA Today: At that point, Wilson "made the connection" that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio, Jackson said. The way it reads now we are implying that the pedestrian stop alone turned into an altercation and shooting, which is Johnson's POV, we should be offering the other POV along with Johnsons. BTW, A brief section in the incident report tied the robbery to Brown’s killing, which it said was “worth mentioning”. The police report (p.8) backs that up as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's sufficiently important to include in the lead, but if you can convince everyone else, I won't stand in the way.- MrX 00:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN interview with police chief jackson : http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/15/acd.02.html TLDR : Wilson was aware of the robbery and the cigars were stolen. Did not stop Brown in relation to the robbery, but just for jaywalking. During encounter, saw cigars.

LEMON: So, everyone made the assumption that the two were connected, right? And you said the officer who shot Brown, right; Officer Darren Wilson had no idea that Brown was a person who allegedly robbed this store.

JACKSON: You know, under initial contact, their initial contact was simply he was coming from a suitcase, saw two young men walking down the street in the road blocking, you know, traffic and he pulled up and asked them to get onto the sidewalk and then as he passed them, you know, I guess that's when you might have seen the evidence and connected it but his initial contact was strictly pedestrian.

LEMON: What do you mean seeing the evidence?

JACKSON: That there was a broadcast that went out about stealing and there were cigars stolen ...

LEMON: Right.

JACKSON: ... a box of cigars.

LEMON: OK. But when he initially confronted him or encountered him, it was just to get out of the road?

JACKSON: Right.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During encounter, saw "might have seen" cigars. Jackson speculation, not a statement that merits any weight. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mandruss. Jackson is stating the bare possibility that something may have occurred, not that something did in fact occur. Dyrnych (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I missed the "might" on my earlier reading. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's currently stated in the article: Jackson 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. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that accurately reflects the source that we're using there. Dyrnych (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the robbery section is reflected differently. We might want to make them match. Also, the police account is listed as a bunch of chronological statements/interviews, interspersed with reactions about those releases. Seems like arranging it into "here is what the overall narrative is" and "here are what reactions to that narrative/process are" would be better - in the WP:10YT I don't think that various interviews occurred at various times is really going to be encyclopedic. Where there are contradictions or some other issue in the various statements, we can point that out, but the way it is now its really difficult to follow imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not envy those of you who must try to explain to the world what the police are saying happened when their prime directive has been, all along, to say as little as possible. Thank you for trying, though. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of this is we don't care about having to explain anything except what the sources are saying. If they contradict, well chances are another source will try to address that. One of the bennies of being a high profile case.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are not just stating Brown's age in the lead instead of trying to come up with a description? State the facts, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support just stating the age. "18 year old African American" avoids all of the issues of description and pronouns. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had settled on not listing ages in the lead because if we list Brown's then someone will want to add Wilson's for parity, and so on until we end up with a bloated first paragraph.- MrX 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]