Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Adult criminal record

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]

(Anchor placed here. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:03, 6 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?
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]

Change to what is publicly known about criminal record instead of "no criminal record"

There seems to be consensus that “no criminal record” needs to be changed. Also, since this discussion started there is new information about Brown’s juvenile record. So we can include that in the following.

Brown had no adult criminal record[8][9] and he had no convictions or pending charges for serious felonies as a juvenile.[10]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says flatly, "Brown had no criminal record." Indeed, that echoes the USA Today source. But a little common sense would be helpful here. Juvenile records are normally sealed (with, in MO, the exception of class A & B felony convictions) and there is no indication that the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office was here making a release of the sealed information that there are now two suits to extract. In fact we don't know the contents of Brown's juvie file and the USA Today headline and sentence were, at a minimum, misleading. Just because you have a Reliable(sic) Source being careless about details doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow it into inaccuracy. (btw: I don't expect there's much in Brown's juvie record - one of the bios, WaPo or NYT I think, mentions he'd -recently- started seeing religious visions in cloud formations, and his suddenly reckless behavior may have a common cause with that...) Andyvphil (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus that it needs to be changed. There is no proof that there is any juvenile record. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that there is or isn't a juvenile record. Yet the article presently says that there is "no criminal record". The proposed change does not say that there is or isn't a juvenile criminal record and is supported by three reliable sources that essentially correct the misreporting in the source that is presently used in our article. (For more details, see my previous comment of 13:04, 2 September 2014 in the main part of the section.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that it is "misreporting" is entirely unsupported and unsourced, which makes it prohibited original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gawd, this assertion is attempted WikiLawyering of a very low order. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that prohibits Bob or I from concluding from evidence and logic that USA Today misreported as fact something that is not a fact, and we do not need a "reliable source" stating that USA Today was not talking about Brown's juvenile record when it said Brown did not have a criminal record to so conclude. Apparently you have learned to bluelink, but not to comprehend: The article you link to says, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". That's a limitation on what we may state as fact in an article ("USA Today editors are incompetents.") and not on what we may argue for, conclude, and say here ("USA Today editors are incompetents.") Andyvphil (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced or poorly sourced factual assertions don't belong in WP articles, quite irrespective of consensus among editors frequenting the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The item you're referring to is currently in the third paragraph of the lead,[11] "Brown had no criminal record". --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an instance of it currently at the end of the first paragraph of the section Michael Brown Jr [12] . --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early sources say he had no criminal record. It's up to editorial discretion to decide is we know that was his adult record. Of course this begs the question of the existence of a juvenile record.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, aside from USA Today, most if not all of those early articles aren't from upper tier news organizations and were based on the USA Today article, usually with links to that article. Upper tier news organizations, for example the Pulitzer prize winning news organizations NY Times and Christian Science Monitor, have subsequently reported that the authorities said no adult criminal record. Information about whether or not Brown had a juvenile criminal record has not been released, so we can't really say in our article that he had no criminal record. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we drop this already? It has been discussed extensively and the consensus is to use no criminal record. As for the juvenile records, these will never be released because of privacy laws, and we have a judge stating that he had no criminal record as a juvenile. So, let's drop this already.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange message. Re "we have a judge stating that he had no criminal record as a juvenile" — Where did you get that from? The judge has taken the matter of releasing full information regarding the existence of a juvenile criminal record under advisement, and has yet to rule. All that has been released is regarding Class A and B felonies. For your convenience, here's the result of a google search I just made using the keywords: michael brown juvenile criminal record. [13] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No judge said Brown did not have a criminal record as a juvenile. The attorney for the juvie dept said he had no convictions for Class A or B felonies, or pending charges for same, when he died, otherwise the juvie dept would have had to release info under this law [14] , and they are saying there is nothing they are required to release. ("Convictions" is the wrong word [15] - Brown had not been "adjudged delinquent" on charges which are not precisely defined by "Class A or B felonies", but never mind -- close enough.) Brown's privacy interest in the secrecy of his juvie records expired at his death [16], and the public policy issue is what's currently under consideration.
To answer some silliness above, this is indeed "original research", but I am not required by any Wikipedia policy to preserve my ignorance nor to make any editorial decisions as if I were ignorant. Sheesh.
And the suggestion that there is a consensus to continue exhibiting USA Today's incompetence in this article is nonsense. Andyvphil (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was running away.

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]
You asked, earlier: "Honest question: Would it's inclusion be our call to make if it is from a RS?" Your first obligation is to the reader, not to some policy drafting committee in the bowels of Wikipedia. If you detect that any number of RS are getting it wrong you want to find a way to communicate that in the text, hewing as close to W Policy as possible, but giving the careful reader some clue as to what's going on.
If multiple(!) law enforcement officialS told this reporter that Wilson shot at Brown's back it is exceedingly odd that no other reporter has put that in a story. It does match up with various eyewitness testimony, though... so perhaps the reporter was carelessly misattributing eyewitness stories, and whoever edited him didn't catch the significance of the attribution. Or perhaps I've simply missed the other stories that echo this. Andyvphil (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please seek consensus first. We already have enough people singlehandedly "detecting" that RS got it wrong. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus for what? Andyvphil (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't enough information for us to detect if the RS got it wrong or not. Yes, there are no other sources backing up the statement - but there is nothing explicitly wrong with the statement. To say it is incorrect is an assumption. I find RoyGoldsmith's amendment "an unconfirmed story" informs the readers of the issue accurately. Saeranv (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted "unconfirmed" phraseology as per my last post above. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this. We don't decide whether the RS "got it wrong" just because other reliable sources haven't reported it. The whole point of requiring reliable sources is that they have a reputation for fact-checking; presumably, the New York Times actually confirmed that law enforcement officials said this before reporting that they said this. Dyrnych (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had a consensus, based on the posts from Sept 3rd onward. As I said several posts ago: 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). Dyrnych, do you agree with this? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not as you've stated it. Can you show me the specific Wikipedia policy from which you're deriving the claim that in order to be included in a Wikipedia article, an account reported in an RS must either (1) be separately published in other reliable sources; or (2) be categorized as "unconfirmed" in Wikipedia's voice? Please let me know if I've misstated your argument. Dyrnych (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we are convinced that a publication is a reliable source, then ipso facto we're convinced that that publication has a reputation for fact-checking. If the source has a reputation for fact-checking, we can generally depend that the source had fact-checked claims that it makes. If the claims that the source makes have been fact-checked, there's no need for us to insert--on our own volition and without independent sourcing--an editorial comment that the claim made by the reliable source has not been confirmed. That is WP:OR. Dyrnych (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, an editorial decision that a particular statement from a usually reliable source is dubious is merely an editorial decision. No "original research" is involved here, as you will find if instead of merely linking to WP:OR you actually go there and read it. As WP:RS says, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors", and "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ..."(emphasis added) In this case the statement being made is that multiple police sources have told this NYT reporter that Wilson fired on the fleeing Brown and we have to evaluate this claim in the light of the fact that no other news outlet that we are aware of seems to have had the same experience. Just because it's the NYT doesn't relieve us of our duty to "carefully weigh" the evidence. Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you'll notice that we attribute the statement to the New York Times and within that attribution to law enforcement officials. That's sufficient hedging, even if you think that the NYT isn't reliable for this particular claim (and, again, there's no evidence that it isn't reliable in this context unless you think that the article wasn't subjected to the usual fact-checking procedures). And yes, it is absolutely original research to add a claim that is not attributable to an RS, especially when that claim is based solely on one editor's notion that "[i]t's a bit odd that I haven't seen it elsewhere." Dyrnych (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued denial that there is evidence that the NYT made an error in this case is absurd. As I've pointed out the assertion that the police have told ONLY the NYT that Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown was either a SCOOP that he was too dumb to recognize and trumpet, or an error. The EVIDENCE that it's an error is that no one else has noticed that the police have admitted facts which would make Eric Holder's intervention in this case both justified and, since there is no Missouri law making such shooting illegal, inevitable.
What "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ..." MEANS is that WE must weigh that evidence, never mind that no RS has noticed the NYT's error. And if we conclude that the NYT reporter (and the NYT's fact-checking process) blew it, we have no business inserting that error gratuitously in the article, period.
You may disagree with my conclusion. You may continue to ignore the evidence that I've advanced. But don't tell me that evaluating the reliability of a statement, "carefully" and using our best judgement is not our JOB!
And if we reach a conclusion, we don't need to find a reliable source saying the same thing in order to act on it. That's not "original research". (As I said, you need very badly to read [WP:OR] before you resume tossing it about.) It's called editorial judgement. That's why Wikipedia calls us "editors"! Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for EXCLUDING THE QUOTE ENTIRELY from the article, not for inserting an unsourced caveat that (in your considered opinion and based on your entirely-unknown-to-me skill in research) the report is "unconfirmed." That is the actual definition of original research: you're adding material to the article that (1) is unsourced and (2) is based, literally, on your own research that has concluded that the NYT is in error and that "no RS has noticed the NYT's error." If you want the quote out of the article, feel free to lobby for that. Dyrnych (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think this quote should be treated as unreliable as to its assertion and should not be used in writing this article. The characterization of the quote as "unconfirmed" is not my work, though if we were to mention the assertion and also mention that we had detected no other news outlet repeating it, I would find that largely unobjectionable, except as to notability, but not as to an "Original Research" objection. It's nonsense to say that the authors of this article do no original research, in the normal, uncapitalized sense of those words. Andyvphil (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbery in lede RFC

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]
  • Include I can't even imagine the article without a brief reference to the event in the lede. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course The video put the kibosh on turning this incident fully into Trayvon Martin redux. The attempt to do so is why we have this page, and the video is central to the evolution of the incident's public meaning. Andyvphil (talk) 08:49, 7 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]
At least as regards the police chief's presser, it wasn't his "claim" that was mangled, it was reporting that was mangled. Andyvphil (talk) 08:55, 7 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]
I'm simply trying to dispel the notion that the robbery isn't connected to the shooting. I'm perfectly fine waiting for Wilson to offer his version of what happened, so it can be included as well, rather than relying solely on Johnson's version of what happened. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

First, I'm starting a new subsection. Most of the last subsection doesn't apply (and I have to scan pages and pages until I get to the point where comments may be inserted.)

Second, my addition applies to the 3rd, "background" paragraph, not to the 2nd, "incident" graph. In my opinion, it doesn't imply anything except Brown was "suspect" in a robbery. I specifically used the passive voice so that we don't say even that Wilson was aware of the robbery (or that Brown knew that the robbery had even been reported). Isaidnoway's points about Wilson seeing the cigars are well founded but they belong in the body of the article, not the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just bolded to include the police claim that wilson noticed the cigars. I have no issue removing it, I think the lead (and relevent section) needs to better reflect the controversy surrounding the video release and not the contents of the video itself - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this subsection up to preserve date/time order. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Sept 4

I added the following paragraph immediately before "Brown had no criminal record"... I don't think this addition is overly long given the length of the article. I'm not sure how important the robbery was in the police interaction but discussion of the video is definitely needed. I'd like to hear others' thoughts. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"After the shooting Ferguson police released video of a convenience store robbery in which cigars were stolen. The robbery happened minutes before the shooting. The Ferguson police claimed that the footage "shows a confrontation between Brown and an employee at the store."[1] While Wilson initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic Wilson alleges to have noticed Brown carrying a box of cigars. "At that point, Wilson 'made the connection' that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio."[2] The timing of the release of the video was controversial and criticized by Brown's family, politicians and others.[3] [unsigned by ACanadianToker, 23:34 4 September 2014]

I need for someone to tell me our definition of "consensus". If it's "absence of clear group opposition", there are two or three changes I've given up on unnecessarily, and I can go ahead with them now. I thought consensus was presence of clear group support. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a whole, this is OK, but I have removed the part about Wilson seeing the cigars, because there are a couple conflicting statements there, the police have changed their story and we should leave that complicated story to be told in the body. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Ferguson police: Cop shot teen, unaware he was robbery suspect". The Associated Press. Retrieved 4 September 2014.
  2. ^ "Chief: Officer noticed Brown carrying suspected stolen cigars". Retrieved 4 September 2014.
  3. ^ "Jay Nixon Criticizes Ferguson Police For Releasing Michael Brown Robbery Video". Retrieved 4 September 2014.
I shortened the new paragraph added by ACanadianToker to take into consideration some of the prior discussion.- MrX 02:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone explain to me in simple words why the robbery video is considered so important that it deserves two, fairly long sentences (including a direct quote) in the lead of this article? Why not devote equal space to, for example, Johnson's eyewitness account or the reaction by officials? This much information about the robbery might go in the lead of our sister article, 2014 Ferguson unrest, where the release of this material does appear to be a primary cause of the re-escalation of violence on Aug 15. But why so much in the lead of this article? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The robbery is connected to the shooting. WP:LEAD allows for prominent controversies to be included in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why this controversy? Why not Johnson's eyewitness account or even "Josie's" 3rd-hand account? Do you mean that the controversy about the robbery video is the most important bone of contention we have? I still don't understand. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because a RfC was opened specifically to address this controversy and whether it should be included in the lead. There is an overwhelming consensus to include it. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Bold Sept 5

Because I have such strong objections to the length (and only the length) of the change, I boldly reverted Canadian Toker's two-sentence addition and replaced it with the 12-word phrase I had used up above. Is this OK? If not, here is the place to continue our WP:BRD. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there may be something wrong with the Huffington reference; I tried it several times and it always acted like a WP:DEADLINK. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your 12-word phrase doesn't accurately reflect the controversy of the robbery video. Seems like just a random comment inserted into the lead, rather than explaining it was a controversy. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have two comments. First, the job of the lead is to summarize the article. We should not delve into any controversy in the lead except when the whole article (or a major section of it) is about something in dispute; for example Controversies in autism or Controversies about the discovery of Brazil. My real concern is that by giving the robbery video such prominence in our lead would make many readers think that a major portion of the article is about the controversy.
Second, I don't believe that there is a controversy about the robbery video any more. Yes, many people (including Brown's family) initially doubted the video when it was first released, especially since it was released first as still pictures. But even more people have examined the video since Aug 15th and have come to the conclusion that the suspect was indeed Brown. (Among others, the police investigator in the incident report who compared the robbery suspect in the video against Brown's body and Dorian Johnson who, through his lawyer, said that Johnson was present with Brown in the convenience store.) It has been more than 3 weeks now and I don't know of any reliable sources since, say, Aug 20th, that claim that Brown wasn't the man who shoved the store clerk down in the video.
It seems to me that the only significant relevance now of the robbery video is that it was a major cause of the Aug 15 re-escalation and that summarization (if warranted) should be in the 2014 Ferguson unrest's lead and not here. If, by controversy, you mean Jackson's ill-timed release then that too should go in our sister article.
For the above reasons, I think that we should go back to:
Brown had no criminal record but was suspected in a robbery that had taken place minutes before. Wilson had served...
or something equally short, as opposed to:
Ferguson police released video of a convenience store robbery which occurred minutes before the shooting, stating that it 'shows a confrontation between Brown and an employee at the store." The timing of the video's release was controversial and criticized by Brown's family, politicians and others. Brown had no criminal record...
I would like to get a consensus on this addition to the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown had no criminal record" is under discussion in another section, and it looks like there may be an RFC on that. Including it here unnecessarily complicates things by mixing two separate issues, unless it's clear that the "Brown had no criminal record" part may be modified by the other discussion. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence describing the surveillance tape and one sentence describing the controversy around the tape is indeed a summary. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Sept 7

OK, here's where the lede is now, in relevant part:

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 and has received international coverage.

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. A struggle 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 and pursued them. Wilson then fired at least six shots at Brown, fatally wounding him. Witness reports differ greatly as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when he was shot.

Ferguson police released video of a convenience store robbery which occurred minutes before the shooting, stating that it "shows a confrontation between Brown and an employee at the store." The timing of the video's release was controversial and criticized by Brown's family, politicians and others.[1][2] Brown had no criminal record.[3] Wilson had served as a police officer for five years, three of those with the Ferguson Police Department.[4] He has no disciplinary history.[5]

1) "Brown, an unarmed black man..."

Googling for "Shooting of Michael Brown" [17] I get "the police shooting that killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown", "a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown... One side says the teenager was surrendering...", "Michael Brown, 18, was unarmed...", "Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen...", "... Darren Wilson chased the unarmed teen..." (This last, CNN - reffed here [18] - is two new eyewitnesses, very interesting.) ... Brown is a "black man" of unspecified age only on Wikipedia.

2) "According to witness reports and Ferguson police, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend..."

Actually there are no uninvolved "witness" reports of Wilson driving up to the two, only the participants Johnson and Wilson (via the "confirmed" "Josie" account). But every source agrees on this, there's no need for attribution in the lede.

3) "A shot was fired from within the vehicle ..."

According to Johnson, at least sometimes. According to Josie (and, again, we have a RS reporting that this IS Wilson's account), "Michael... shoves him back into his car... Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point, he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away, and the gun goes off.” Supporting this is the fact that Brady didn't hear the first shot, and it doesn't show on the audio tape (though the diggers do hear it) so it may have been muffled in a way that the first volley was not. Into the upholstery is not "from within the vehicle". Andyvphil (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've fixed these errors (#2 & #3 -- #1 is just a bad choice) in the second paragraph, and a couple others, plus some tightening:

Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, were walking down the middle of the street when Wilson drove up and ordered them to move to the sidewalk. A struggle subsequently took place between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police vehicle. Wilson's gun discharged or was fired and Brown and Johnson began to flee, pursued by Wilson on foot. Wilson hit Brown with six shots, killing him. Witness reports differ greatly as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when the fatal shot was fired.

I did this stepwise -- see my comments. Do NOT just revert to the alleged "consensus" crap, as the statement that Wilson fired "from" the vehicle is a BLP vio stating in Wikipedia's voice that Wilson committed a Federal crime (attempted deprivation of a constitutional right) at that point. (He probably did, before Brown turned around, but we no longer state that either.) The 7th shot went into a building, btw, and there were probably other misses. Andyvphil (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Um, changed it back to "six". The building shot could have gone through Brown, I suppose. Andyvphil (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with stating that the gun was fired or discharged, but note the passive voice. "A shot was fired from within the vehicle" doesn't in any sense mean that "Wilson fired from within the vehicle," and it wouldn't be a BLP violation even if it did. It's a long and entirely unwarranted logical leap from "a shot was fired from within the vehicle [under unclear circumstances]" to "Wilson committed a federal crime." Dyrnych (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how passive your voice is, the only source for the assertion that Wilson's pistol was fired FROM his vehicle is Johnson, and if Johnson's account is correct then that shooting was a civil rights violation iaw the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. Wilson's account disputes this. What part of this still escapes you? Andyvphil (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference GlobalNews.Unaware was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference HuffPost.Nixon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference USAToday.Record was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYTimes.Emotions was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference NYMag.Details was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Everything that is based on witness accounts should be removed, except in the sections that specifically cover witness accounts. Objectively, we don't know where the gun was fired from, and "from the vehicle" could mean "from behind [or in front of] the door of the vehicle". We also can't say anything about the number or timing of the shots other than "at least X shots," where X is the number of bullets recovered from the scene. Roches (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teenager, man, young man, etc.

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]
Adding the two ages does not seem to be a problem, IMHO. --Japarthur (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will find discussion of this topic in the archives for this page. I'm sure you can understand the reluctance to repeat all of that every time someone new brings it up again without having read the prior discussions. There is just not enough time to do that, and that is one of the reasons why talk discussions are never deleted. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On checking to see how you guys are doing today on my way to Ferguson, I immediately noted the removal of Michael's age. I believe it should be restored. I don't have a problem with Wilson's age being there either. To me, the fact that he is so young is notable (and sad -- so much life left to live) and one might not assume him to be that young without the same being stated explicitly. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think that the article looks pretty good, generally speaking. Thanks for all of your work to make it so. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with having a sense of style. Stating Brown's age then using "young man" or "teenager" afterwards is perfectly fine as long as the descriptors aren't used to garner sympathy or cast dispersion. I like for people to enjoy reading articles that not only inform, but lacks the taste of cardboard.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not practical to try to cram every fact that is significant to one faction or another into the first sentence or two of the article. Sure, it's just one little number, so what am I on about? But then we have to let in the next guy's one little word or two as well, and the next, and the next, adding a comma every few words for the sake of good grammar, and before long we have an article that begins with a linguistic embarrassment—again. I'm for leaving the first two sentences alone, as I've said before. The rest of the lead is a different matter. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not every little fact needs parity, but the age should. Killing young people is typically "worse" than killing old people. Nothing wrong with listing both ages, readers can make of that what they will. But when only one has the age, only one can be relative to the reader. We're all somewhat conditioned to treat relatively younger and older people differently, even us who don't notice it, and it plays in with our good vs evil conditioning. If we're only given one age, we default to thinking the young guy's opponent was old, the opposite. And he was, relative to Brown. But also young, relative to many readers. It's not so black and white anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with listing both ages, except for what I just said, and you didn't acknowledge, let alone counter. We have age parity now: neither party's age appears in the lead, and each party's age appears in his respective bio section. (You didn't say, but I assume you're talking about the first couple of sentences, since that's what you were talking about in the other night's train wreck of a discussion. If you can sell the idea of working the ages into the lead later, I have no problem with that.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean because it's a slippery slope, I'll acknowledge I read it, but I don't remember much of a nightmare. There was "occured...by" briefly, but that was easily fixed. No commas needed for 28-year-old or 18-year-old. Not sure how much selling the idea needs, we all seem mostly fine with it here already. Did I mention making the edit keeps tigers away? Because it might. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
@Michael-Ridgway: Actually, what you noticed was that Brown's age was removed, after it was re-inserted yesterday. Both Brown's and Wilson's ages were absent from the lead for five days following a lengthy discussion about the lead, resulting in a consensus compromise.- MrX 13:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well then I have given away the number of days since I decided to quit caring too much. My confidence in the collective wisdom of those who still engage is such that consensus decisions do little to change my views when something, to me, just seems wrong or less than optimal. Not meant as an attack or to be disrespectful. It's just my opinion. And I only state it as an explanation for why I would, in spite of this new awareness, still argue for the inclusion of ages if such arguing had any chance of making a difference. I don't believe it does. Hence my current detached emotional state. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's only people's lives and reputations we hold in our hands. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should ages be mentioned in the lead?

Mentioning Michael Brown's and/or Darren Wilson's age in the lead continues to be debated. To get a clearer idea of consensus, please indicate your preference (and reasoning) from the four selections below:- MrX 17:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Include Brown's and Wilson's ages

2 - Include only Brown's age

3 - Include only Wilson's age

4 - Don't include anyone's age

Survey

  • No super strong opinions. In rough order of preference #2, almost tied 2nd and 3rd #1, #4, (distant last #3). Brown's age is relevant because there are competing ways he is being described by reliable sources and public voices. Wilson's is much less relevant. If he was very young it could raise issues of inexperience, but anything between 25 and 55 is not going to make much of a difference Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 — Brown's age is relevant. Wilson's age is necessary to avoid neverending debate about age parity, and it's only a few extra characters if written as "Wilson, 28,...". Support 2 as per Gaijin42. Oppose any ages in the first two sentences. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Brown's and Wilson's ages in the first sentence in the lead where they belong. Leave out "unarmed". Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All or nothing ages are covered elsewhere in the article. Either both individual's ages should be in the lead or neither. There ages had little to do with the incident - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian, you may like to know Death of Sammy Yatim has been adjusted accordingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, September 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Support 2 but, like Mandruss, not in the first paragraph. Brown's age might go in 3rd graph of the lead as: "Brown, 18, had no criminal record." but only if you find a RS saying that one of the causes of the unrest was Brown's age. This really should go in 2014 Ferguson unrest. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 - While many people know the details now (such as Brown's age) Years from now, many readers will not. The ages will help readers from a clearer picture of the events.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 — Brown's age has been part of the issue regarding his shooting, whereas Wilson's hasn't, as far as I know. Also, adding it to what is presently in the article seems more accurate, "unarmed 18-year-old black man". "black man" alone could be 18, 30, 40 ... year-old. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent that I care about this, (weakly) support 2. I genuinely don't think that this is as big a deal as it's being made out to be, especially in terms of needing to include Wilson's age to provide some nebulous form of balance. Dyrnych (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the nebulous stuff, it also simply lets readers know how old the cop was. This isn't exactly a biography, but it's also two. Age is near universal, almost compulsory info in those. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
...and readers can find that information in the body of the article. No one is proposing that we exclude Wilson's age from the article entirely. Dyrnych (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's always an option, as it is for Brown. Just figured leads are for introductions, and it makes sense to set up the story by introducing the main characters, not building a protagonist first and only fleshing out the enemy's backstory after they meet. That's for entertainment purposes. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

I have changed my position. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support 2 - I see value in including that Brown was young and am Ok with the age as the best way to clarify that, though I would prefer that it not be in the first paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC) I have refactored your comment into the correct place, and assumed option 2 since (1) you placed your comment directly under option 2, and (2) you did not say anything about Wilson's age. Correct me if I assumed wrong. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Brown's age, which coverage has returned to again and again. It's crucial for understanding the incident and, even more so, the reactions to it. To me Wilson's age seems less important. I'm not opposed in principle to including it, but as the lead is written currently I don't think it makes sense to add. But I'd be open to persuasion that it's more important than I apprehend. So I guess option 2, but no prejudice against option 1 given the right context. Lagrange613 04:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include both ages at the time of the incident — once, without comment and not in juxtaposition. The right place to do it is in the background paragraphs of the respective two persons. The lede as it stands needs no ages and is adequate (in fact, I would be inclined to split it into the first paragraph and a "summary section", but suit yourselves). As the dates of birth are given, it is not even logically necessary to give ages, but it will do no harm and will make some readers more comfortable. Inclusion should not be in any form suggesting any type of advocacy, but purely as information, which is the function of the 'pedia. If it were to surface in the context of justifiably reporting on advocacy by other parties, that would be a separate question, but I have not seen anything of the type (not having looked much). JonRichfield (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 - Don't include anyone's age in the lead. First, I am strongly opposed to including Wilson's age in the lead because it is simply a trivial detail. I'm opposed to including Brown's age, for two reasons: It's not a neutral detail. It perpetuates the media-created notion that Brown was an innocent child, contrary to at least some of the facts and witness reports that have arisen. Second, if we were to include Brown's age in the lead, there will be demands to include Wilson's age for parity. I think it is sufficient to list each of their ages in the appropriate mini-bio sections in the body of the article.- MrX 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 Why would it not be appropriate to include the ages of the two major participants in the event? Support addition on both. AlanStalk 22:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 as being in accord with the sources - all mention Brown's age in their lead, few give Wilspn's age in their lead. Collect (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Results

Attempt to simplify and tabulate. No attempt to (1) assign weight to strength of opinion, (2) account for second and third preferences, or (3) deal with tangential opinions such as "all or nothing" and specific presentation of ages.

For Against Tally
Include Brown's age in the lead Gaijin42, Mandruss, Isaidnoway, InedibleHulk, RoyGoldsmith, Elmmapleoakpine, Bob K31416, Dyrnych, Kevin Murray, Lagrange613, AlanS, Collect JonRichfield, MrX 12-2 for
Include Wilson's age in the lead Isaidnoway, InedibleHulk, Elmmapleoakpine, AlanS Gaijin42, Mandruss, RoyGoldsmith, Bob K31416, Dyrnych, Kevin Murray, Lagrange613, JonRichfield, MrX, Collect 10-4 against
Include age(s) in the first two sentences Isaidnoway (I said first sentence, second sentence doesn't even mention either participant) Mandruss, RoyGoldsmith, Kevin Murray 3-1 against

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table to include Kevin Murray. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table to include Lagrange613 and JonRichfield. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table to include MrX. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table to include AlanS. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table to include Collect. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No juvenile record for Brown

“The 18-year-old fatally shot by a suburban St. Louis police officer didn't face any juvenile charges at the time of his death and never was convicted of a serious felony such as murder, robbery or burglary, a juvenile court system lawyer said Wednesday.” [19], and [20]. This needs to be added to the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you cited and the quote you gave do not say that Brown had no juvenile record. For a proposal that includes the part about no serious felony convictions or pending charges as a juvenile, please see a previous Talk section [21]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read that. Have you read the sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There was one part in the first article you cited that said,[22] "The authorities have said Mr. Brown, 18, had no adult criminal record, and his relatives have told reporters he did not have one as a juvenile, either." Is that the basis for your statement that Brown had no juvenile record? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all rhetoric and media spin. He did not have a "serious" felony? But – what? – he had a felony that was "not serious"? Isn't the definition of felony "a serious crime", as opposed to a misdemeanor (less serious crime)? Again, this is just rhetoric, media spin, and double talk. When these statement are so carefully parsed and worded, you can bet that they are trying to be slick and are using linguistic gymnastics to make something sound like what it is not. So, for this article, proceed with caution. In particular, be cognizant of the exact wording that sources employ. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence in the Wikipedia article for felony states: The term felony, in some common law countries, means a serious crime. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the RS's are only addressing adult criminal record and partially addressing juvenile Class A and B felonies. Note that relevant lesser felonies include assault without a deadly weapon on a police officer[23] and resisting arrest.[24] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and also making a false bomb report. It is pointless to speculate as to what crimes are contained in Brown's juvenile record when we don't even know that Brown HAS a juvenile record. The fact that relevant authorities have disclosed that certain crimes are not contained in the record does not in any respect suggest that other crimes are contained in the record. The authorities are basically just reciting the law. Under V.A.M.S. 211.321 2.(2): "After a child has been adjudicated delinquent pursuant to subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 211.031, for an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult, the records of the dispositional hearing and proceedings related thereto shall be open to the public to the same extent that records of criminal proceedings are open to the public." As I and a number of other editors have noted, it would be irresponsible and a WP:BLPCRIME violation for us to adopt wording that implies that Brown has a juvenile record when there is literally no indication that he has a juvenile record. If we're going to state that Brown had no adult criminal record and no Class A or B felonies against him as a juvenile, we should also clearly indicate that we have no knowledge of whether or not Brown has a juvenile record at all. Dyrnych (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and also various drug offenses. Brown was not a juvenile when he was shot, nor was he a juvenile when he robbed the convenience store. His juvenile record, or lack thereof, or any discussion about a juvenile record should be kept out per BLP. I have no objection to saying he had no "adult" criminal record. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as we know, he has no criminal record, period. If and when we have further knowledge, if there is any knowledge, then we can change what we state. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
State the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—even if it takes two or three sentences to do so. It ain't rocket science. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to Michael Brown because he is well known. WP:BLPCRIME is "For people who are relatively unknown..." which I have underlined in the following copy of WP:BLPCRIME.

"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information."

Note that what is presently in the article, "Brown had no criminal record" is a misreporting of the information because Brown's full juvenile record has not been released, as reported by reliable sources. Maybe it would satisfy most editors if we should simply remove it until Brown's juvenile record is released. I will make the edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming that he has a juvenile record to release. That is a claim not in evidence, and your edit will be reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming nothing about his juvenile criminal record and my deletion obviously didn't put anything in the article about whether or not he had one. It's a fact supported by RS's that his juvenile criminal record hasn't been fully released. On the other hand, you have restored to the article "Michael Brown had no criminal record", which assumes he has no juvenile criminal record and which is a claim not in evidence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, it's not. There is no evidence that Brown has any juvenile record to release in the first place. As Dyrnych has aptly noted, the existence of the lawsuit does not somehow prove that there is a juvenile criminal record. It would be trivial to game the juvenile court records system otherwise. What has been released is the same thing that would be released about any person who has resided in the state of Missouri in response to such a request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the reliable sources have reported, he has no criminal record. If that changes, we can change it at that time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources that you are referring to stems from an Aug 14 USA Today article that misreports what authorities said as no criminal record whereas the authorities said no adult criminal record, which was reported by subsequent articles in reliable sources that weren't based on the USA article. You should know that statement is not reliable because you know that the authorities have not fully released Brown's juvenile record, don't you? It's not clear why you are blocking this improvement to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that the article "misreports" something is apparently your own unsourced original research, which does not belong on Wikipedia.
And no, you again seem to completely miss the point of the lawsuit and the juvenile court's position. Authorities have not "released" any part of "Brown's juvenile record" - indeed, there continues to be no evidence that he has a juvenile record. What has been confirmed is what would be confirmed for every person who has ever lived in the state of Missouri and not been involved in such offenses as a juvenile. The release of the information that has been released does not constitute evidence, much less proof, that there is anything else in the record. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be more careful about the use of the term juvenile criminal record. Thanks.
Please note that almost all the remarks made on a Talk page (including your last message) are the original research of editors and at the end of the first paragraph of WP:NOR is the statement, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages."
It is a legitimate function of editors to evaluate the reliability of information in a source by comparing it to other sources. In the present case, we have an Aug 14 USA Today article that asserts that the authorities have said that Brown had no criminal record. As mentioned for example in subsequent articles in the NY Times[25], and Christian Science Monitor[26], the authorities had actually said no adult criminal record and didn’t state whether or not Brown had a juvenile criminal record. (See a previous comment of mine for more details.) So by checking the statement in the USA Today article with the subsequent statements in the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor articles, the statement “Brown has no criminal record” is not reliable information and shouldn’t be in Wikipedia. This might be finally clarified if the judge decides that the information about whether or not Brown had a juvenile criminal record should be released. Until then, the statement "Brown had no criminal record" should not be in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is longstanding consensus that the material should be in the article and your claim that it is "misreported" is again completely unsupported original research. You may engage in original research on a talk page, but you are attempting to remove material from the article based on nothing more than your own supposition. This you may not do. I suggest you open an RFC to determine if there is a new consensus on the matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I see here is that there is no compelling evidence on either side of the coin, that he did or didn't have a criminal record. There seems to be as lot of hair splitting here to support POV. Frankly I don't see why whether he did or didn't have a record as pertinent to why he was shot (Wilson wouldn't have known either way). Since you can't say with certainty, why say anything at all. I would remove that comment until the facts are verifiable through a RS. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiable, NPOV truth, the whole verifiable, NPOV truth, and nothing but the verifiable, NPOV truth: Brown had no criminal record as an adult. In early September, it was revealed that he had no serious felony charges or convictions as a juvenile. It remains unknown whether he had any juvenile record for lesser offenses. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not insert even the supposition that he might have had a juvenile record until and unless it is proven that he had one. The record may remain sealed for all time - the judge may well decide not to release whatever may or may not be in there on the grounds that doing so undermines the integrity of the idea that juvenile records are to be sealed. That does not constitute proof or even evidence that there is anything in there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every human being on the planet, living or dead, might have had a juvenile record, so it can't be prejudicial to imply that Brown might have had one. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'll surely explain why every single Wikipedia article about a person doesn't include a sentence saying "It is unknown whether he or she had any juvenile record." Because obviously, including that fact in a biography *is* prejudicial - it serves to suggest that there might be one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that's because that fact isn't relevant to the article. Such an article might also omit the color of the person's eyes, but that isn't because to reveal it would be prejudicial. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NorthBySouthBaranof, When you wrote "We do not insert even the supposition that he might have had a juvenile record", were you referring to this edit [27]? If so, I don't understand your remark because if that edit was kept, there would be no supposition, one way or the other, regarding the existence of a juvenile criminal record. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That edit removed reliably-sourced information based upon nothing more than your unsourced and unsupported assertion that it was "misreported." Endlessly asserting that something is "misreported" does not constitute evidence of any "misreporting." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From your response, it appears that this isn't about inserting a supposition as you previously wrote. Is that true? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your claim that my comments did not use sources, I used the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor in my previous comments regarding the matter. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sources do not contradict the USA Today report.
I note that your bold removal of the reliably-sourced information has been reverted. It is incumbent upon you to discuss your proposed removal and gain consensus. I recommend that you open an RFC on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with leaving the statement that Brown had no criminal record in, pending completion of this discussion. I'm confident that it won't survive that, being false as written (Brown had no criminal record that has been revealed), so a relatively small number of readers will be misled. Again, I'm for stating the known facts—all of them—without POV spin. I support the idea of an RFC. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a RfC is a good idea as well, instead of edit-warring this material. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated above, I'm willing to tolerate the offensive (to me) statement, pending a resolution. But not indefinitely; we need to move forward toward that resolution. Although I have never started an RfC, I'm willing to give this one a shot, but I could use some help on how to frame the question in a way that might result in a detectable consensus. This question doesn't lend itself to a concise list of choices as in the ages RfC. We could give two choices, my suggestion (boldfaced above) and the existing language (Brown had no criminal record), but then many participants would state a preference that didn't match either choice. I think it would become hopelessly mired in arguments about precise language. Some would quibble about the fact that a juvenile can't be convicted, but can only be adjudged delinquent, while others would argue that that distinction is not meaningful to the average reader and the simpler language should prevail. There would be debate as to whether to say "serious felonies" or "class A or B felonies". And so on, and so on. It would be hard to pluck any consensus out of that. I understand that you can expand on the question directly below it, but I don't know how to write that, either. Any comments? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just keep it simple and ask if "should we mention in the article the circumstances surrounding the juvie record, or lack thereof" and if there should be any mention in the article that there is "no adult criminal record". Then if there is consensus to include either/or, we could hammer out the language. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re your first sentence, is that one RfC, or two? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just one I guess, we already have "no criminal record" in the lead, the debate surrounding that phrasing seems to be just focused on the addition of "adult" or not, I think we can figure that one out. So, I guess the question we would be proposing would be - "Should the information we presently know about Brown's juvenile record be included in the article", or similar language. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of hair splitting, and when the hairs get split it usually means something is being avoided -- in this case the truth. If a young man is just 18 years old he likely hasn't had much chance to develop an "adult" criminal record. When we say "no criminal record" what does that mean? He's never been convicted, he's never been arrested or he's never committed a crime? This is an imprecise term which should be avoided. And what does it really mean other than some implication of wrong doing on the part of the officer. And since it is clear from the myriad discussion here, nobody has clue as to whether this young man has committed prior acts, been arrested, or been adjudicated, frankly you are collectively selling lightly-varnished bullshit to WP's readers. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rant, but you didn't say exactly what you think the article should say. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Yes, you are right. My first choice would be to eliminate the topic from the Lede. (a) if he has a criminal record it is no reason for him to have been shot. (b) since we have no idea what we are talking about, we should say nothing on the issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we know what I boldfaced above, no more, no less. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I understand it, we don't. We only know that Brown wasn't "convicted" (adjudged delinquent) of certain charges, else those records would have had to be released. Contra the bolded text, we don't know that Brown wasn't charged with such offenses and the charge disposed of some other way than conviction (pled down, diversion, ...). Multiple sources get this distinction wrong as to GotNews' Charles C. Johnson's assertions on this point (including, iirc, the writer for his co-plaintiff(!), a RS(!)), that is to say they say that his claim that Brown was "involved" in a murder was disproved by the statements of the defendants atty, which they were not.
Wikipedia is not a court of law and the consequences for Brown if some random reader jumps to unwarranted conclusions when told that we do not know if Brown had a juvenile record are not severe. It is completely inappropriate for us to infantilize our readers in the way that courts do jurors.
We know perfectly well that any source that we have that says "Brown had no criminal record" is not a reliable source for that assertion unless it claims unauthorized access to those records, which, so far as I know, none of them do. Calling this editorial conclusion "original research" is WikiLawyering at its least tolerable.
The assertion, "if he has a criminal record it is no reason for him to have been shot" is misguided. It is observed upthread that a previous unarmed attack on a police officer, confirmed by an adjudication of delinquency, cannot be precluded by the known facts and we should not write something that implies otherwise. Andyvphil (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'm not emotionally invested in those exact words. If they can be modified for better accuracy, I'm for that. Feel free to propose something specific, something that won't lose the average reader in legalisms. My second choice would be to say nothing about Brown's record, adult or juvenile. What's unacceptable to me is a patent distortion of the truth (i.e., falsehood) based on a misapplication of NPOV, which is what we have now. NPOV may require us to tell only part of what is known, but it does not require us to lie. In this case, NPOV requires us to tell everything that is known, or nothing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson Police Department Record

Jonathan Capehart, of the Washington Post, on September 5 reported background information on the Ferguson PD which may bear on the Justice Department's investigation of the civil rights aspect of this event. Most of this information consists of allegations and internal department investigations which have not been adjudicated. The article currently has little background information, except for the racial makeup of the community, city council, grand jury, and the police department. However circumstantial the allegations, they form an impressive dossier. Shouldn't these allegations of racially motivated and abusive policing be mentioned? The following is reproduced exactly as found in the Washington Post (online):

"At least five Ferguson police officers have been named in civil rights lawsuits.

"In four federal lawsuits, including one that is on appeal, and more than a half-dozen investigations over the past decade, colleagues of Darren Wilson’s have separately contested a variety of allegations, including killing a mentally ill man with a Taser, pistol-whipping a child, choking and hog-tying a child and beating a man who was later charged with destroying city property because his blood spilled on officers’ clothes.

"One officer has faced three internal affairs probes and two lawsuits over claims he violated civil rights and used excessive force while working at a previous police department in the mid-2000s. That department demoted him after finding credible evidence to support one of the complaints, and he subsequently was hired by the Ferguson force.

"... A former officer involved in one of those cases is now a member of the Ferguson city council."[1]

[unsigned by Fconaway, 23:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)]

This is much more related to the 2014 Ferguson unrest article at this point than it is to this one, IMO. Dyrnych (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or, FPD, with brief mentions and links in both other articles. There's no direct connection to this article or Ferguson unrest, although RS may discuss them in the same context. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the same reasoning would apply to the general civil rights investigations already in this article, as well. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jonathan Capehart, "Three troubling things exposed by the Ferguson police shooting of Michael Brown" Washington Post (September 5, 2014).
I agree that this should be in the unrest article. If there is no comparison with other PDs, though, it is political puffery and not relevant. If Ferguson is vastly higher than the national average for jurisdictions of its size, there is a departmental problem. If civil rights violations nationwide disproportionately involve people of color, there is a systemic problem. You can dig up dirt about any organization, and I don't think it's right to put Ferguson in the spotlight without some perspective. Attorneys can be subjective, but the article shouldn't. Roches (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another witness to the shooting

Another witness to Brown's shooting has come forward in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. [28] - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already in the article in the section, "Accounts"--->>"Construction worker". Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically two new witnesses. Good work guys. Saeranv (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only one's talking to the media. But doesn't anyone other than I think we are giving this witness short shrift? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the account to include more details from the article, including the fact that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown's back was turned, and the witness's interpretation of Brown's fall. There is a lot of information in this article referring to the second worker's interview with KTVI. IMO we should add a second account to add his account, from that interview. Saeranv (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to start things off, this is the main account from the second construction worker.

The co-worker in the KTVI interview said he “starting hearing pops and when I look over … I seen somebody staggering and running. And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.’” He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.”

There's also a lot about the second worker's initial conversation with Michael Brown, about Jesus, which could also be included. Saeranv (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to second worker. The more accounts the better, as far as I'm concerned. Put it in and let others have at it. They may hack it to death but I don't think they'll remove it. I'm for leaving Jesus out of it unless more RS says it's important. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the RS are missing the boat in failing to pick up on Brown's behavioral changes (religious visions, etc.) in the period immed prior to his death, but we can't do other than reflect them Andyvphil (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiresome attribution in Accounts

We've touched on this subject, but I don't think there has ever been anything like a clear consensus on it. It has been nagging at me for weeks.

In the eyewitness accounts, is it really necessary to attribute every piece of an account to the eyewitness? It seems to me that the fact of it being in a section named Accounts should be enough attribution. If necessary, we could even stress that in a blurb at the beginning of Accounts.

For your consideration, two versions of the construction worker's account, the current one first, emphasis added. In the next-to-last sentence, note that we're not entirely consistent with this treatment, and that is also true for some of the other accounts.

A construction worker at the nearby apartment complex, who spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on condition of anonymity, said that he saw Brown running away with Wilson 10 to 15 feet behind. About 90 feet away from the car, the worker reported, Wilson fired a shot at Brown. The worker said Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "“OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” According to the worker, he believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away. After the third shot, the witness reported, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing.

A construction worker at the nearby apartment complex, who spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on condition of anonymity, saw Brown running away with Wilson 10 to 15 feet behind. About 90 feet away from the car, Wilson fired a shot at Brown. Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "“OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.” The worker believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away. After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing.

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss, would you be willing to work with me offline to put together an alternate presentation of the accounts? I too think they could be improved. I agree with you that one improvement would be to make it very clear up front that we are letting the speakers speak for themselves but that in so doing, we, as Wikipedia, are not at all endorsing or disendorsing any of the claims made. This would allow us to remove all of the "the speaker said" tags after each phrase or paraphrase. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your use of @, I'm thinking you meant to ping me. If so, that requires {{ping}} or {{u}}, as @Michael-Ridgway: or Michael-Ridgway.
  • I'm personally ok with the presentation of the accounts, except for the readability issue discussed above. So I don't know what I could contribute to said private collaboration. If you want to work up alternatives in your sandbox to facilitate discussion in talk, I think that would be a worthwhile pursuit. Specifics are almost always more useful than generalities, I think, which is why I gave specifics above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I actually got duped into going and pounding sand by someone who suggested a sandbox as a way of getting the lede improved, along with the accounts, I guess. Fool me once, shame on you. You know the rest. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss: Yes, that's been bothering me also. A single attribution for the account should be enough. The second version of the content above would be perfect, but I do think that one clear attribution is needed. In stead of "...on condition of anonymity, saw Brown...", "...on condition of anonymity, said that he saw Brown...".- MrX 21:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, but shouldn't we make it clear at least once in their individual accounts, or in a brief paragraph at the outset of the accounts section, that these are accounts given to the media, rather than an official statement given to the police. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, and I can do that. "Following the Police section below are accounts from people who say they witnessed the shooting. These accounts summarize what the individuals said to the news media, and are not official statements to the police." ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. And thanks for the tip on how to ping editors directly. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since Josie's performance was a one off, and not likely to be repeated, would anyone object to her entire account being included verbatim in the accounts section? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this section on topic. Josie can have her own section if she wants one. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following your unsupported suggestion that an appeal for a non-attributed account of what Josie told the world is not germane to this topic. Accounts: Josie. Style of delivery: Don't weary the readers with attribution. Run it verbatim. Then add one of the dozens of reliable sources that remind us that the police affirm that Josie's account is truly Darren Wilson's account. And as always, know that I am WP:AGF and please, do not assume otherwise. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. It's absurd that we don't have the Josie/Wilson account. Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glide recording of gunfire

Would anyone like to tell our readers what the Washington post reported about further apparent authentication of the recording that appears to contain multiple gun shots fired at about 12:02:17 on August 9, in the vicinity of Canfield Dr. and Copper Creek in Ferguson MO?

Washington Post: Acoustic experts detail purported Ferguson shooting\

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible text for discussion:

The recording was analyzed by ShotSpotter, a company which developed technology to identify and locate urban gunshots in real time, using microphones mounted throughout a city. ShotSpotter could not verify, with available information, that the recording is of the Michael Brown shooting. However, the company did say that it is the sound of ten gunshots within less than seven seconds, with a three-second pause after the sixth shot. It also said that all ten rounds were fired from within a three-foot radius—that the shooter was not moving. It identified seven additional sounds as echoes of gunshots.

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We might mention that they did indicate that with an exact address, they would be able to confirm whether the gun shots were fired at the location where Michael Brown was shot.
Also, I think that it might be good to clearly state that ShotSpotter did confirm that the primary sounds heard were gunshots, as distinguished from other sources that might have been used to by hoaxers in an attempt to create a recording resembling gunshots. So maybe:

Starting at the second sentence: ShotSpotter did confirm that the sounds heard in the recording are gunshots, and specifically identified ten such shots in the recording along with seven echoes. The company indicated that with detailed information as to the alleged location where the recording was made, it could, through further analysis, determine if the recording was, in fact, a recording of gunshots fired at the location where Brown was killed.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to your first point, my text says "could not verify, with available information". The details of what additional information would be required to make that determination would be available in the cited article, for anyone who is interested, and don't cross the significance threshold for inclusion, in my opinion. Re your second point, my text says that the company said "it is the sound of ten gunshots". It doesn't say it resembles the sound of gunshots. That clearly and concisely excludes any other possibilities as far as I'm concerned. I'm for stating the significant facts with as few words as possible, and I think my text does that. Let's wait for other opinions. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wait. Include it. The "all ten shots/three-foot radius" claim is remarkable (read: dubious), and contradicts the "worker" eyewitness who said Wilson was retreating, iirc, (and the witnesses who said Wilson fired while pursuing) but we're not endorsing it, just relaying it. Andyvphil (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hesitated only because they couldn't verify that it was this shooting, which greatly diminishes the value/significance of the analysis. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome synthesis there, Mandruss. Can I try my hand now? The analysis by the ShotSpotter team, when added to the confirmation from Glide that the recording was made at 12:02:14 on 8/9 greatly increases the confidence that an objective observer (read: a juror) might have that this recording accurately captures the sound of 10 gunshots fired by Darren Wilson in the 2900 block of beginning at 12:02:17 pm on August 9, 2014. Glide, you will recall, (but possibly not from our article) confirmed that the recording was made in the vicinity of Ferguson. But the Washington Post failed to connect the dots, so we are helpless to connect them in our article. And no other media source that I am aware of has reported on the research done by ShotSpotter. So our article has come to one big indeterminate ending, thanks, apparently to the short attention spans of journalists who could have tied this all up very nicely, but who, instead, are writing about other topics now. Oh and the new witness that you detail. Yeah, I just love how he describes an extended saunter by Brown back from a distance of 90 feet all the way to a distance of 35 feet. He doesn't seem to know that Brown's brain was eviscerated by two devastating shots to the head, one that went in at the apex and the other which had a trajectory that was more or less parallel to the alleged "last" shot -- the apex shot. But far be it from me to question out loud the sincerity of his claims or their accuracy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has not been able to independently authenticate the validity of the recording

Can we agree that this statement was moot from the beginning since we have no reason to believe that CNN has or ever had the technical expertise in house to "independently authenticate" the recording? Can we further acknowledge that even if CNN was unsure as to the value of the the recording when they released it, that nothing in the many days since it was released has in any way given greater credence to the hoax claims that our article gives so much WP:WEIGHT to, and that, in fact, the opposite has occurred. Glide has confirmed that such a recording was made using its software, and ShotSpotter has confirmed that the sound heard in the audio is indeed the sound of 10 gunshots along with seven echoes, all recorded in an urban scene. We're still whittling at the branches, I am afraid. It is time to fix this section from the roots up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I don't think "independently authenticate" necessarily means CNN in-house expertise. It simply means that CNN commissioned and paid for the analysis. Nobody suspects that CNN has an in-house acoustic forensics lab.
  2. I agree that Glide+ShotSpotter tends to authenticate the recording. But we can't say so unless RS says so, that's how Wikipedia works. Take it up with Jimbo Wales and WMF, and stop whining; it's getting tiresome. Any intelligent reader can put that together without our help, anyway. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong to suggest that this section gives way too much WP:WEIGHT to the non-experts who assailed the recording as an obvious hoax almost as quickly as it was released but who have, apparently, been silent with the release of supporting analyses from Glide and ShotSpotter? If that is in fact the case, then I take umbrage at the nonAGF slam that I am whining and I reassert my insistence that this section be repaired so as to bring it in line with the policies of Wikipedia. I ask for no more and no less. But a little less in the way of personal attacks would go a long way. Or an indication that personal attacks are not okay even if they are aimed at me, would be a nice touch as well. Not expecting. Just well, not expecting. Assumed Good Faith for as long as I could. But how many insults does one have to sustain before one can rightfully drop such a presumption? The obvious WP:DOUBLESTANDARD, supported by, I must presume, every one of you in this editing pool, got past tiresome a very, very long time ago. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely believe that you whine in good faith. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those of you who are giving this request you consideration and to the bold among you who are actually adding to or changing the wording of the section for the better. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to my alleged lack of value in this effort, may I remind you all that the ShotSpotter article came out many days ago and that not one of you took notice of it? I trust you will take me at my word when I tell you that I made no mention of the article during all of those days as a test of what this article might look like if I, like Jimmy Stewart, had never been born. Potterstown is what I saw until I came back and filled in that hole that I left when I took my hand out of that bucket of water. So, if one of you is of a mind to dispatch me for good, it will probably make little difference at this point. The journalists are dropping the ball on connecting the dots. And the rules of Wikipedia are such that you cannot connect them in the place of AWOL journalists. So our readers are hopelessly at a loss to have a truly clear idea of what the truth in this story is. Which is a shame. Because without journalists doing their job, and with Wikipedia editors insisting on doing their jobs by the rules, the truth simply isn't out there. The implications of this lack of truth in this matter could be quite severe if the people in Ferguson I speak to are correct when they prognosticate as to how the unrest attendant to a vote not to indict will eclipse the worst of what we saw in the first weeks after the shooting in Ferguson. I'll be sticking around to see if there isn't a branch or two I can whittle on at some future point. Or maybe I won't. Time will tell, I guess. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&oldid=624652781

Leave a Reply