This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

The "police account" section contains media commentary that is not part the police account itself and is not present in any other witness's account. It undermines the neutrality of this section, which is generally written to allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusions. For example, including third-party allegations that the police have not been transparent appears to cast judgment on the veracity of the police accounts. Same with a blogger's (unsourced and questionably relevant) opinion that other police reports generally include more information. The objectivity of this article would be improved by moving such commentary elsewhere.

I would also remove reporting that the Ferguson PD never generated an incident report, as the very next sentence notes (and cites to) the Ferguson PD's incident report. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes that last observation is the sort of thing that sometimes makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. Perhaps the date saves the first sentence? Feel free to research this and fix it, though I don't mean to imply that you ought to. The commentary can stay -- I see no benefit to separating it into a "Criticism of Police Accounts" section just because we've apparently "decided" not to append criticism to each witnesses statement. It's where it belongs, though badly expressed, as usual. Andyvphil (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the embarrassment is still in place. And our description of the incident still elides Wilson's return to block the progress of the two suspects, which is important as lack of reporter clarity on this point generated a lot of misinformation about whether Wilson connected them to the robbery. Andyvphil (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the embarrassment exactly? We report what sources say, are we not doing that? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official police report, and there is no information from Wilson. What are you arguing for? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN vouches for Josie's account of Wilson's story. If there's no police report, why do we say there is (and link to it)? Andyvphil (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "embarassment." We have multiple RSes directly commenting on the fact that the police's story changed multiple times.

But Darren Wilson, the officer who stopped Brown, wasn’t even aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday afternoon. The officer initially stopped Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, because the pair was walking in the middle of a residential street, Jackson said, an admission that provoked outrage from Brown’s family and attorneys. “At a time when the highway patrol has been called in, when we got a calm that’s going on in the community, we’re finally reaching a point where things are settled down, [Jackson] is inciting the community all over again,” Anthony Gray, an attorney for the Brown family said Friday afternoon in a press conference reacting to Jackson’s revelation. They Brown family, he said, felt the timing of the video release was suspect and a strategic “character assassination attempt.” Eric Davis, a cousin of Brown’s, called the police department’s changing story “smoke and mirrors,” and at one point knelt down tearfully in front of the podium, his hands in the air. “This is the universal sign for ‘I surrender,’” he said, before calling on the community to rise up in peaceful protest. Hours later, Jackson appeared to change his story, telling NBC News that while the officer who shot Brown initially stopped him for walking in the street and blocking traffic, “at some point” during the encounter the officer saw cigars in Brown’s hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery. MSNBC

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a RS for the assertion that the police's story "changed multiple times". When MSNBC writes, "Jackson appeared to change his story" it is first of all wrong (it is true BOTH that Wilson did not suspect the pair when he first encountered them AND that he later thought Brown might be a suspect in the robbery - there's no contradiction, no "change") and in any case MSNBC evidently can't count: Had there been a change it still wouldn't amount to "changed multiple times". The paragraph is also credulous and tendentious, a real piece of crap, typical of MSNBC. Andyvphil (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a pair. The particular embarrassment I refer to is pointed out as follows by 216.64.189.242: "I would also remove reporting that the Ferguson PD never generated an incident report, as the very next sentence notes (and cites to) the Ferguson PD's incident report." Andyvphil (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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?

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

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

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

I agree completely, but, we're also not required to insert everything that is published - if we have reason to suspect that this information may not be reliable, for example, don't we have an obligation to wait until clearer information is available before we say anything about the matter? Or perhaps make it clearer what the limitations of that information is? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The folks who are happy that the article implies that we know that Brown never had any run-ins with the police will never join any consensus to remove the misleading sentence. What's the next step? Andyvphil (talk) 02:01, 10 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]

You really need to get your confirmation bias under control. The statement wasn't made by a "court official" and says nothing at all about whether Brown had been charged with murder, only that there had been no "convictions" and no charges were pending. The "Reliable Source"(sic) (StL Post-Dispatch) is no better than you, claiming that "the hearing on Tuesday put to rest claims by blogger Charles C. Johnson and others that Brown was facing a murder charge at the time he was shot to death" which is NOT what their co-plaintiff claimed. Well, maybe somewhat better than you, but not much. Andyvphil (talk) 02:12, 10 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]

Cwobeel, could you point to examples of said consensus? I see a significant number of dissenting opinions here. IMO, there is no good reason not to be clear about the limitations of the information we're presenting here. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Survey

• include WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include for the above reasons. As irrelevant to the issue of whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown as the robbery is likely to be, we do discuss the robbery at length in multiple parts of the article. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - It is a very relevant part of the overall incident, based on the extensive coverage in sources. Currently, around 15% of the article discusses the robbery.
• Include – Both relevant and significant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include However "who knew what, and when did they know it" questions will arise.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include The strong-arm robbery is an important part of the narrative and article, especially considering the controversy concerning police release of the robbery tape. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - I reverted because I thought the wording was awkward, not because I'm opposed to a mention in some form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include very short mention of the alleged robbery in the lede. Details belong to the article's body - Cwobeel (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Include If it's relevant then it must be included. Op47 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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]
• Include Primarily because of the controversy concerning police release of the robbery tape. It works as it is currently worded. It must not be worded in a way that would prejudice the reader with regards to Michael Brown. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude till we have further information, since it has not been shown yet that the robbery was related to the shooting. Till we have a source that directly relates the robbery to the shooting in a significant way, it's not really a good idea to include this in the lede. It'll confuse people and implies that the robbery was closely tied to the shooting, when in reality police simply released this and did not explain whether or not it was related to the shooting.– FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 01:35, 14 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]

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]

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]

@RoyGoldsmith: My only criticism with your shortened suggestion above is that whether or not he was a suspect is in question. Whether Wilson actually suspected him of the robbery is different from the seperate controversy - releasing video, seemingly to discredit the innocence of an unarmed man killed by police. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Sept 7

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

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:

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]

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]

Bold Sept 8

OK, since the story behind the surveillance video(s) has been more fully developed, I replaced this

with this:

and was reverted [19] by NorthBySouthBaranof with the comment "We are not going to "categorize" an alleged crime, much less in the lede."

The prior text already calls the robbery a robbery, and the replacement merely reports how the police characterize the robbery, which no one much other than NorthBySouthBaranof can still think is merely an "alleged crime". I mean, both robbers in the North Hollywood shootout died without trial, but Wikipedia still says, "Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Mătăsăreanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch". And Brown robbed, not "allegedly robbed", the convenience store. Johnson may have thought, as he says, it was a prank, but it was indubitably a crime. Andyvphil (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The shove led them to classify this as strong arm robbery, a felony. in the lede? No way. That is detail for the body. The previous consensus version is superior as it includes information that was directly associated with the unrest that followed. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the first version of the robbery incident in the lead, it's NPOV and the sentence that follows it makes it clear why it was controversial. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also prefer the first version, per the enormous amount of time that we've spent discussing this exact issue on the talk page. Dyrnych (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version is bad writing partly for the same reason that we replaced excessive attribution in the witnesses section. Why do we have the police "stating" something, as if we have only their word for it, when in fact what the video shows is no longer disputed? Why say "confrontation" when we can just as easily be more specific? It's also problematic in that includes criticism of the timing of the video's release, but not the PDs response that it was released at the Sunshine Law deadline, which is not, contra Isaidnoway, NPOV. Andyvphil (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The police stated that, regardless of what the video shows. And the details of the confrontation needs to be sourced to an RS, not to our own assessment of what we see on a video, per WP:NOR. As for the release, you should read the sources that say that no one had asked for that video on the FOIA; it was the police's attempt to muddle the waters post shooting, and a disgrace IMHO. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you need to catch up. The HufPo article libeling the police chief by saying he hadn't received any Sunshine Law requests before releasing the video (a really stupid assertion on HufPo's part, to think that no one in the media had thought to take an interest in it) has been updated to reflect the FPD's response that, the Ferguson website being down, the FPD had accepted requests by other means and had released the video on the deadline to do so. It doesn't matter whether you believe it -- it's not NPOV to put in the accusation and not the response. And there is no shortage of RS for the simple assertion that only the police, but Johnson, store employees, everyone including media RS who's looked at the tape all agree that it shows Brown robbing the store and assaulting the owner. The "police state that it shows" version was only appropriate before there was time for this consensus to form. The lede doesn't need citations, btw. It should reflect the maintext, which is where the citations need to be. If the maintext doesn't reflect the reality of the situation (I have to run, will look at this tmw) then I suggest you stop obstructing the development of the lede and work on fixing the problem. Andyvphil (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline to respond to a Sunshine Law request is three business days [20], and the moron responsible for this embarrassing falsehood by the Huffington Post is the same moron, Ryan J. Reilly, who thought earplugs were rubber bullets [21]. They also quote, and elsewhere highly praise, Matthew Keys, a reporter fired from Reuters for his "inaccuracy"[[22]]. Shows you what "Reliable Source" means. Andyvphil (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also replaced this execrable piece of writing, the "previous consensus version" (it's claimed)

with

but Cwobeel said "The circumstancs are disputed, I see no reason to delete that from the lede". As if I had. Andyvphil (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you added "disputed circumstances of the shooting" I am OK with it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't, but I have. Andyvphil (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 10

I've been away from all this (intentionally) and the only thing I can say is that you guys have greatly extended this talk page section. When new "recent events" articles experience a slowdown in news coverage, the contributors frequently spend their time disagreeing over what should go into the lead. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter. When we get more data (for example, when the grand jury reaches a verdict), the lead will have to be substantially rewritten and we'll know better whether or not the robbery video is significant. I know that there's a temptation to keep the article as updated as possible for news readers but remember the ten-year test. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Support both, again. Good info, so long as it doesn't put the youth spotlight on one over the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

@InedibleHulk: - I found that interesting, thanks, I was unaware. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. AlanS^talk 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]

• Support inclusion of both ages as relevant and appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both ages, don't see any issues with that. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both ages, though only Brown's is crucial. We're supposed to reflect our sources, and Brown's youth is universally noted in the lede or very shortly thereafter in virtually every story or reference. Everybody thinks it's significant, for obvious reasons (you haven't seen the Trayvon-like child pictures of Brown on pro-Narrative sites?), except some inexplicable Wikipedians. Andyvphil (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to reflect the info in the sources, not their angles or layout. His youth is crucial to selling papers, attracting viewers and getting clicks. That's why it gets headlines. Leads are entirely different things, meant for summarizing entire events in a way that remains detached and informative after the newsworthiness is gone. Here, age is significant, but just as much as the other guy's.

The place to reflect facts about the sources' presentations is the Reactions section. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

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. Note that, as long as the RfC remains open, this cannot possibly be the final results, as that would require the ability to predict the future.

	For	Against	Running Tally
Include Brown's age in the lead	Gaijin42, Mandruss, Isaidnoway, RoyGoldsmith, Elmmapleoakpine, Bob K31416, Dyrnych, Kevin Murray, Lagrange613, AlanS, Collect, NorthBySouthBaranof, Cwobeel, Andyvphil	JonRichfield, MrX	15-2 for(?)
Include Wilson's age in the lead	Isaidnoway, Elmmapleoakpine, AlanS, NorthBySouthBaranof, Cwobeel, Andyvphil	Gaijin42, Mandruss, RoyGoldsmith, Bob K31416, Dyrnych, Kevin Murray, Lagrange613, JonRichfield, MrX, Collect	9-7 against(?)
Include Brown's age only if Wilson's age is also included in the lead	InedibleHulk, maybe others incorrectly included above	?	?
Include age(s) in the first two sentences	Isaidnoway (I said first sentence, second sentence doesn't even mention either participant), Andyvphil	Mandruss, RoyGoldsmith, Kevin Murray	3-2 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]

Updated table to include me. ‑‑ Andyvphil (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table to include NorthBySouthBaranof and Cwobeel. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted with a note to see these results. There are a few problems here.

I've never seen an RfC with a scorecard. They've all run for a while, then an uninvolved person judged the consensus declared the result and closed it. Calling it "results" implies they're final, and the way the score is counted is flawed. Many people are voting for both, and being counted as two votes, one of which you've decided is negated by the anti-Wilson votes. That effectively turns a Both vote into a Brown vote, though a Both or None vote doesn't count against a Brown or Wilson. The both voters have to explicitly vote against Brown?

If you insist on running a table, do it simple and right. List the four options given and who chose what.

In the meantime, I'll remove Brown's age till the RfC actually concludes. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Just because you've never seen it before doesn't mean it's not maybe more useful than the tally you suggest. I've added the choice you seem to prefer and will leave it to others to fix the placements or add other choices as may be necessary. And you can fix yours if I've got it wrong. If you find "results" misleading without a modifier... well, so is "Brown had no criminal record". Remind me, what's your position on that? Anyway, WP:SNOW says pretty explicitly that we don't have to wait for some drive-by admin to close the RFC. If adding Brown is obvious and the RFC needs to continue on adding Wilson as well, so be it. What's your count? Andyvphil (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just because I haven't seen it, it's becaue the results weren't directly connected to the answers. I'd copy and paste the four options, and remove the Against and Tally columns. Then I'd put the names of the people who picked an answer in the relevant Support field, Microsoft Excel style. But if that's unreasonable, I'll wait a bit to hear why. If not, I'll wait a bit because I want to hear this podcast.

No opinion on other things. I've barely looked at the article, I figure if an issue this small is so contentious, I don't even want to know what else needs fixing.

My count is 9-7-0-1, in listed order. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:29, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to listen to constructive suggestions for improvement—and even implement them myself—but I object to the approach. The table stood unchallenged for about 58 hours, during which time about 16 other users looked at it. It takes a special kind of self-confidence to be that sure that you know better than 85 years of collective experience. Yes, I added it up. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let a thousand flowers bloom. If you think a different table will be helpful, add it. But do not delete this one, which I find useful pretty much the way it is, or expanded in the direction I have already begun. Andyvphil (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't delete it. Enough that I've pointed out its flaws. I don't think such a straightforward counting as mine needs representation as a box. I'll just bold the tally. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You can't "point out its flaws", declare victory, and go do what you want in the article. If you have any support for your position, they have yet to speak up. We need to work together, not act unilaterally as if we're the only smart person in the room. If you continue your aggressive steamroll strategy, you can expect an equally aggressive fight from me and, I hope, several others. Wikipedia can't work when editors behave like that, and I am reverting you. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't declare victory, someone else did by adding an "18" to the lead, despite the ongoing discussion. If prematurely going with the option less people chose makes sense, surely the one more people chose makes more sense.

Settle down with the "aggression". We're typing on the Internet here, it's pointless. We are working together here, and it's been pretty civil, all things considered. I've removed 18, till a consensus is reached. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

OK, fuck civility. You're clearly an idiot if you think nobody else can "analyze" (count) and get the same numbers I did. Your table is also flat-out retarded. I've had enough of dealing with you and your obsessive ownership. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

The 18 was added per WP:SNOW, and I and others concur. So there are at least three of us against your one. The 18 stood for more than a few hours with four or five editors around and actively watching edits. That's how it works, and I shouldn't have to tell you that with your experience. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I and eight others disagree. But since you can't seem to count, I'm done trying to find the words. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Added an explanatory comment above the table, for those who might believe that the table represents the final results of an open RfC. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs should be closed by uninvolved admins or experienced editors, and only after they have been inactive for several days (or 30 days). It is inappropriate to make any age related edits to the lead until the RfC is closed. Also, we don't count votes. Editors who have merely registered a preferences without any explanation will have their votes discounted. - MrX 11:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for working together. Sheesh, it's time for another break. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misinterpret brief silence as endorsement. I also oppose the table. This is not a vote, and the table suggests that it is. This page is attracting a lot of people to Wikipedia, and this highly irregular measure is giving the wrong impression about how things work here. I didn't say anything at the time because I was invited by a bot and I'm trying to keep my distance from the rest of the civility sinkhole that is this talk page. But now that my silence is being interpreted as support I have to weigh in. You really should take the table down. Any admin who deserves the bit will ignore it when closing this RfC, and in the meantime it really does look like a wikitable version of "neener, neener". Lagrange613 11:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take the table down and I'll repost it with my signature on it. Andyvphil (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“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.” [23], and [24]. 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 [25]. --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,[26] "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[27] and resisting arrest.[28] --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[29], and Christian Science Monitor[30], 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 [31]? 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]

What we know is that Brown had no adult criminal record[32][33] and when he was a juvenile he had no convictions or pending charges for the most serious felonies, which are Class A or B.[34]. Further information regarding whether or not he had a juvenile record is not presently publicly available, so we don't know whether or not he had a criminal record.

The USA Today article claimed that authorities said that Brown did not have a criminal record. Perhaps the first RfC to have is whether this claim from the USA Today article about what the authorities said is credible and whether the statement "Brown had no criminal record" should remain in our article. Note that according to the section "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" of the verifiability policy,

"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

There seem to be two proper courses of action (a) remove the disputed material until true consensus can be achieved, or (b) post the neutrality tag to warn readers and attract more help in resoling the dilemma. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no need for that. If we take that approach many articles in Wikipedia will have a POV tag. Removed.- Cwobeel (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An entire and well written and sourced article does not become "not neutral" to warrant a POV tag because just because there is a dispute about a single word. Let the discussion continue and consensus will emerge. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KM started the discussion here per tag rules - you do not "own" any articles, and the fact that "other articles exist" is nicely useless here. See how the discussion proceeds before you start "instant tag removal" please'. Collect (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous and unneeded, and you are just wiki-layering again. I'm outta here, have fun your your minutiae. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)\[reply]

!. Accusations of "wiki-layering" violate WP:AGF and your edit warring may lead to worse than "wiki-layering" for you. Cheers. Let KM state his case. Collect (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming god faith has its limits, and you are doing an excellent job in stretching them. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for any of this right now. Until the sources pan out a juvineille record (if any) that is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could tell us what "disputed material" needs to be removed that is causing the article not to be neutral. You haven't provided anyone with a specific reason for the tag. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most egregious single item is the unsupportable and ambiguous statement the MD had no "criminal record". As stated above, this is at best an imprecise term (committed, arrested, or convicted would be more precise). To be arguing here whether the only pertinent issue is an adult "record" is folly in that he had only been an adult for three months, and if the essence here is to say "no adult convictions", none could likely have occurred in that short of a period. Secondarily there seems to be a failure to keep prejudicial trivia and terminology out of the Lede. To me it looks like the inclusion of emotional issues not related to the key factors, is meant to inflame passions prior to the reader having a chance to assess the material in the article. The Lede is not the same as a journalistic headline. It should be a brief summary of the best supported issues within the body of the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the sources and that's about it!!!! How hard that can be? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you seem to, collectively, confuse ever-changing journalistic publications with reliable and enduring sources. The comment that I find most troubling is attributed to a questionable source, in an article which is weeks old, after which new information seems to cloud the veracity. I see periodicals as adequate demonstration of notability, but not significantly reliable. A rush to be first often trumps verification and oversight.--Kevin Murray (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because "none could likely have occurred in that short of a period" does not negate the fact he had no convictions as an adult. It is certainly a reasonable and logical assumption, but one that would need to be stated in a RS for us to include that analysis. You'll have to be more specific in your opinion of what "prejudicial trivia and terminology" is included in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your first sentence you demonstrate my point. You are hell bent on defending inclusion of a meaningless statement with hair-spitting that truth warrants inclusion, but no reasoning for the value of such inclusion. Why? --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your second sentence implies the false premise that we need to disprove the need to include something, where it seems more logical that the onus of proof should be on those pushing for inclusion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Murray - I think the reasoning for the "value of the inclusion" of the material is due to the fact that it has been widely reported on in RS, and therefore should be included based upon the amount of reporting on the subject matter. Personally, I feel that all prior bad conduct (both participants) or accolades of achievement should be removed from the article unless a RS connects those behaviors to the shooting or robbery. But having said that, there seems to be a general consensus that those behaviors should be included, I am not going to battle on leaving it all entirely out, so my position is if it's going to be included, it should be accurate information, hence - he had no "adult" criminal record. I do think a RfC on this aspect would help in getting more opinions to determine if it is worth inclusion. Don't you think. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we agree nearly completely. My thought is that it is better to err on the side of disinclusion while an RfC is considered. However, my experience is that RfCs are only as valuable as the breadth of participation we can attract, which seems to be meager here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hell bent in staying close to the sources, while you are hell bent in making a Tempest in a teapot. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowbell, follow the indents, I'm referring to another editor's comment. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ever-changing journalistic publications with reliable and enduring sources? - You may need to re-read WP:RS. There is no such distinction in Wikipedia. Now, 5 years from now, when books are written about this, we may have sources with an historical perspective. But as of now, these are good sources and we stay close to them, period. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The judge has denied the request. [35] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without explanation. Reminds me of Sotomayor's dereliction in Ricci v. DeStefano. "Explanations? I don't need to give no stinkin' explanations." Andyvphil (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post has reported background information on the Ferguson PD and its officers: Kimberly Kindy and Carol D. Leonnig, "At least 5 Ferguson officers apart from Brown shooter have been named in lawsuits", Washington Post (August 30 2014). This report was briefly summarized by Jonathan Capehart on September 5 Jonathan Capehart, "Three troubling things exposed by the Ferguson police shooting of Michael Brown", Washington Post (September 5, 2014) 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."

These reports 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. Our article currently has little background information on civil rights issues, 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? [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]

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]

Comments suggested this information belonged in other articles. However, it didn't appear in the FPD article or the Ferguson unrest article. Then it was quietly moved to an archive. That is, in effect, to say that the FPD's civil rights record isn't related to what has happened. Nevertheless, the reports about Brown and Johnson (the previous events) are included, although they "thugify" both the victim and a key witness, as an editor previously noted.Fconaway (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your comments, there are reports about Brown and Johnson that were included in the article but your comments didn't indicate any reports about Wilson to be used in the article. Do you have any reports about Wilson that you want to put in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capeheart is a columnist, and his articles are 'opinion pieces. I would check with RSN before using anything from this source.Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Kindy and Carol D. Leonnig originated the report on the Ferguson PD's record vis-a-vis civil rights and use of excessive force. Capehart made a brief summary of their report.Fconaway (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the [report] about Brown... (the previous events) [is] included, although [it] "thugif[ies]"... the victim..."

The suggested parallel is between what Brown did in robbing the store and what black FPD officer Eddie Boyd III did while working for another department in 2004-2006? Andyvphil (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

"Josie"

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]

Please do. It's absurd that we don't have the Josie/Wilson account. Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 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]

This is an account heard by one person, that told another person, who then contacted the press. Not sure it merits inclusion, unless it is made absolutely clear that this is an hearsay from hearsay account. But even with that caveat I would not support. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RS vouches that it is accurate recitation of Wilson's account. Feel free to add all the caveats you can find in RS reports of it, but the idea that Wilson's account of the event, the only one we have from him, however indirectly, does not "merit inclusion" is as I have already said ABSURD, RIDICULOUS, NUTS, CRAZY... Andyvphil (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's much worse than that. What makes it eminently notable, though, is that virtually every article about this incident refers to it in one way or another, and in many of those cases, they latch on to the police informat[s] who say, yeah, what Josie says.

Wilson's account of the event is not known yet. All we have is hearsay of hearsay, which IMO does not merit inclusion. I will look at the sources available and see if that changes my mind or not. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN: "Josie," a purported friend of the family, relays what she says Wilson's "significant other" told her about what he said happened next. There are hardly any other Reliable sources (most refer to the radio program to which "Josie" called, and the rest are mostly partisan sources) and there is no confirmation on this person's identity. So, it could be included if those caveats are clearly noted. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josie's friendship with the family may only be purported, but her recitation of Wilson's story is vouched for."Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN." [36] Andyvphil (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1000 percent concur, Andyvphil. I'm glad you're here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing your mind. It's a rare event on Wikipedia's back lot. Andyvphil (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN" - another unnamed source, strategic leak again. Basically, we don't have Wilson's account, we don't have a police report, and we will never know until the grand jury completes their work (the prosecutor has said that he will release all the evidence if Wilson is not charged). Is this hearsay useful to be included? Only if summarized, and with sufficient with caveats clearly presented in the text. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, as this Josie may have been a fake account [37] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better explanation and chronology, here [38] -- Surely some sources picked this up, but it is very dubious. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“Josie” insisted that Brown attacked Wilson, grabbed his gun, and the terrified cop shot only in self-defense. The problem? The details were almost identical to those shared on a fake Facebook page set up to look like Wilson’s own. But before the tale could be debunked, not only Fox but CNN had reported on “Josie’s” tale with some credulity. As karoli notes over at Crooks and Liars, it’s not clear whether Loesch was punked, or was in on the punking. [39] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yeah, the Klinger-Fuentes reaction (it doesn't rise to the level of "analysis") should be removed. Go ahead. Andyvphil (talk) 05:14, 12 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]

Should this article say that Michael Brown had "no adult criminal record" or should it say "no criminal record" or should it be "left out" entirely? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: The article currently states: Brown had no criminal record as an adult, and had no pending charges, or serious felony convictions as a juvenile.

1 - No adult criminal record

2 - No criminal record

3 - Left out entirely

---

RFC Survey — no (adult) criminal record

• No criminal record, per preponderance of sources. Just do some basic research on the sources available. ( 126,000 for "no criminal record" vs 1,250 for "adult criminal record") - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No criminal record, which is consistent with both sources. If it emerges that Brown has a juvenile record, we can qualify the statement. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave out Entirely. (1) There seems to be only one credible source, USA Today, which mentioned "no criminal record" as a quote from the Police Department three weeks ago, but the Police and Prosecutors have now backed away from the definitive statement; however, other blogs and editorials continue to quote USA Today. Other sources quote the Brown Family statement about "no criminal record". (2) Since MB had only been an adult for 3 months and it takes longer than that to get a criminal conviction, and the criterion being used to define the term "criminal record", seems to be a conviction for a crime committed as an adult, this is a moot point. Thus there is no reason to include a meaningless piece of data which has no bearing on the Shooting of Michael Brown. If he had a record of minor criminal convictions, I don't see this as pertinent to the Lede either. Nor do I see the point in discussing Wilson's record of no disciplinary actions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Left out entirely. Not the correct solution, but the best of the three choices given here. More in discussion. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No criminal record, use the sources. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No criminal record as per the reliable sources. As per Dyrnych, if there is a juvenile record, we can discuss it when that becomes a public matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave out utterly Few people have adult criminal records in the span of three months, thus it is a "d'oh" comment at best. Collect (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it our entirely - There's no reason to state what should be the default assumption of anyone reading the article. There's no content to support the notion that the officer stopped Brown, or shot Brown, because of a prior criminal record. In the future, if sources reveal that Brown had a juvenile criminal record, then that may be worth mentioning.- MrX 23:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Left out entirely or No adult criminal record — There isn't sufficient support in the reliable sources for "no criminal record". See threaded discussion below. If the question of whether Brown has a juvenile criminal record is answered through the pending court case, we can then make appropriate modifications, either including a juvenile criminal record or stating that Brown has no criminal record. [Update: judge ruled Sep 9 against release of such information.] --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• leave out entirely or no adult criminal record or no adult criminal record and no serious juvenile convictions Its very obvious the original statement was loose and that they were not commenting on the presence or absence of a juvenile record. I agree with the concerns about implications, but WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV win out. if its a WP:BDP issue, then it can be left out all together, but making a statement that we know is not accurate to what the sources say is just plain wrong.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• no adult criminal record. I'm weak on this however. While the preponderance of sources does not use "adult", the latest source apparently do. They should be given far more weight.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave out entirely if there is no criminal record, then there is no point in added it to the page. Fraulein451 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave out entirely from the lead, possibly include "no adult" and "no serious juvenile" in the body This is not a significant point in the body and per WP:LEAD it doesn't belong in the lead regardless of what the sources say. While the preponderance of the sources use "no criminal record", the latest sources have started using "no adult". Since these newer sources are working from newer information, and have been fact-checked, they should take precedence over the older ones.Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No criminal record should be mentioned because the rumors flying around have attempted to claim that Brown was a criminal (otherwise of course we wouldn't mention a lack of any given peculiarity). Saying "no adult criminal record" implies that there is a juvenile criminal record, so we shouldn't say "adult" unless at least one source establishes that there was a juvenile record. Does any source establish that Brown had a juvenile record? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Would also accept "no known criminal record," reasons below. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Left Out Entirely as he only recently turned 18 and therefore it's not significant that someone who just recently turned 18 has no criminal record. Leave Out Entirely any mention of a juvenile record that does not exist. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave out entirely If there is no record, then it should probably be left out. Wikipedia can't be used as a control for potential rumors, that's what snopes is for. -- xcuref1endx (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Results

At the request of the originator (see comments below), I am closing this RfC. The results are that what was originally added in good faith and WP:V, has now been refuted by more current sources. No replacement comment has been agreed to which succinctly summarizes the information in reliable sources. The statement No criminal record has been removed reflecting the best interpretation of consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This RfC is NOT closed, please feel free to leave a comment. The statement no criminal record has only been removed from the lede. The content has been moved to his bio section and NOW the article states: Brown had no criminal record as an adult, and had no pending charges, or serious felony convictions as a juvenile. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion — no (adult) criminal record

"No criminal record" doesn't work because it's not true. No twist of logic can justify taking "no criminal record that has been revealed" and presenting it as "no criminal record". "No adult criminal record" is true, but it implies the unstated existence of a juvenile record, which is not NPOV. If we say anything at all about his record, adult or juvenile, we need to go all the way and say everything that is known, neutrally and dispassionately. The only argument I've seen against doing that is that it's somehow not neutral to say that it is not known whether he had a juvenile record involving non-serious offenses. Really bad argument imo. Since "tell the whole truth" is not one of the options, I'm left with only "left out entirely". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a tough one, but I am inclined to follow the sources rather than my opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds bit like "I was just following orders." A historically flawed strategy in defending wrong actions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is only Wikipedia, Kevin Murray. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't respect the WP project enough to avoid wrong actions here? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources:

Aug 14 USA Today[40]

"Michael Brown had no criminal record, police say"

”An 18-year-old [Brown] shot and killed near a Ferguson apartment complex Saturday afternoon had no criminal record, according to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office.”

Aug 15 NY Times[41]

“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.”

Aug 17 Christian Science Monitor[42]

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

Sep 3 Associated Press/ABC News[43]

”The 45-minute hearing before a St. Louis County family court judge didn't reveal whether Brown had ever been charged with lesser offenses as a juvenile, or charged with a more serious crime that resulted in a finding of delinquency — the juvenile court equivalent of a conviction.”

[another source added on Sep 11:]

Sep 9 USA Today[44] (note same author as Aug 14 USA Today)

"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good cherry pick, Bob. There is an overwhelming number of sources countering these few. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well bring it, then. Bob brought hard facts, you brought your own words. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Washington Post [45]
• St Louis Business Journal [46]
• KSDK [47]
• VOX [48]
• The Strait Times [49]
• St. Louis American [50]
• Al Jazeera [51]

and thousand more sources using “no criminal record” - Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I looked at your source list, no wonder you are so confused:

• Washington Post [38] – Clearly an editorial piece - this is not neutral nor pretending to be.

• St Louis Business Journal [39] – bad link – goes to KERA News not the Business Journal.

• KSDK [40] - August 18, 2014 quoting Prosecutors who have since changed statement

• VOX [41] “Brown had no criminal record at the time of his death, according to police.” That doesn’t seem to be consistent with current statements.

• The Strait Times [42] – direct quote from Brown’s parents in what seems to be a fairly biased piece

• St. Louis American [43] - say confirmed no criminal record, but no source mentioned

• Al Jazeera [44] – Are you kidding me? Again a direct quote from Brown's family --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that,

• KSDK article was written by the same author as the USA Today article and repeats it.

• VOX article has inline text link to its source, the USA Today article, “Brown had no criminal record at the time of his death, according to police.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the corrected link for the St Louis Business Journal [52] . --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with Al Jazeera? Please explain. Once you do I will respond to your other comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Read the article and tell us if there is any bias in the style. (B) They pander to a readership that likes to see the US embarrassed, and (C) it is a direct quote from Brown's family. I think that you have demonstrated either an extreme bias or a lack of capacity to evaluate the difference between reported facts and editorial hyperbole. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that measure we should not be citing Fox News which "panders" to certain group, or MSNBC for the same reason. FYI, Al Jazeera is a news outlet, a WP:RS, and Al Jazeera America is becoming one of the top news channels in the USA, if you have not noted. And before you say you are confused to others, look in the mirror, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't answer the question(s). I've seen your tactics here for a week or more. I can't see any benefit to continue dialog with you. I'll let your comments stand to demonstrate your abilities. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My tactics, sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Bob, the last three sources seem to be hedging away from an unequivocal "no criminal record. USA Today doesn't say that Brown has no criminal record. They quote that "police say" he has no record. And it seems that the authorities have since backed away from that definite of a statement. So considering the changing statements the more recent sources may be the most reliable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authorities backed away where and when? Source? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Bob's post above. It's pretty clear that they no longer support an unequivocal "no criminal record." --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did. There is nothing there to support your contention that authorities have backed away from their original statement. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Gaijin42's recent comment in the Survey section, "Its very obvious the original statement was loose and that they were not commenting on the presence or absence of a juvenile record. ..." --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Though more sources use "no criminal record", the latest sources appear to use "no adult criminal record". I would give greater deference to the latest sources.Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sep 9 update from the same author and same news organization for the Aug 14 source that our article uses for "no criminal record",

"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."[53]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the original objection listed in this thread, how about "Brown had no known criminal record"? Unlike "no adult" it doesn't imply "yes juvenile." "No known" is generally understood to mean "none that anyone knows of and probably none at all but not 100% certainly none at all." Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. While I think that no mention is best, too much time is being spent here on this one issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he has a juvenile criminal record is known to Family Court, who aren't releasing that information. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All Wikipedia articles should operate in a vacuum; they should stand on their own, independent of all sources except those we as editors choose to include. Other reliable sources that we don't use don't matter. Other non-reliable sources (eg rumors) also don't matter. Those who are say that by using "no adult record" we are implying a juvenile record exists are making a fallacious argument. We make no implication whatsoever. If your doctor took a a fluid sample and reported that you did not have gonorrhea, that does not imply you are not a virgin. If we stated Brown had an adult criminal record, would anyone be complaining that we are implying Brown did not have a juvenile record? I should hope not.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side topics

Alleged convenience store robbery and video

WP:alleged WP:FRINGE Andyvphil (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since my addition of Ferguson's response to criticism of its release of the surveillance video to the lede left the assertion of his lack of a criminal record looking both prominent and lonely I added a mention of the ongoing suit that explicitly mentions that he might have no juvenile record at all (incl the truancy his family attorney denied would be significant, iirc), nevermind the suit. I didn't bother Wikifying it as the local claque will probably remove it. If any mention is to be in the lede there ought to be maintext that it is a summary of. There are lots of relevant text and links in this section for a section on the suit and various claims, there, and if someone in favor of inclusion of something adds that it will help their case. Andyvphil (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not go into the lede, but feel free to develop the material into the article first. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were paying any attention you would have noticed that I had already rewritten the relevant maintext to, among other things, include the explanation the Ferguson City Atty gave for releasing the video that I then included in shortened form in the lede. It is really annoying to to have ones work reverted by someone who imagines they own the article and have the right to use simple reverts to keep it the way they like it. Your airy assertion, "That does not go into the lede...", without feeling any need to address my point, is offensive. My argument, AGAIN, is that that (a) if the POV-pushing twaddle that is the criticism of FPD's release of the video is given prominence, then (b) the fact that the FPD has demonstrated that it was legally required to do so ought to be mentioned as well. See WP:NPOV. What is your counterargument, if you have one? And, other than that you are too lazy to pay attention, why did you restore the redundant adjectives, both "controversial" AND "criticized"? Andyvphil (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I support that you are trying to achieve a balance, but I'd rather see the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the Lede modified, than to add more on top of this already troubled paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (

Ferguson has established to my satisfaction that since the robbery case was "exceptionally closed" and that the city has no more than three business days to respond a Sunshine Law request (though it has more to actually provide the material IF it must take more time to accomplish), so that it needed to release the robbery report which included the tape. This is covered to my satisfaction, pretty much, in the maintext. Why the unremarkable and unjustified wingeing about it doing so merits mention in the lede of this article I cannot imagine. So I deleted it. But that was reverted. NPOV requires the city's answer be mentioned IF the accusation is. That's the way it is right now, and I can live with it. Andyvphil (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the part about the sunshine law is lead worthy material. I'm not so sure about the 2nd part discussing the pending lawsuit for the juvineille records. Please ratchet the language back a bit (eg "lazy"). We've had too much of that here already. ThanksTwo kinds of pork (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the evidence I saw and provided the revert was clearly lazy. I'll stop calling attention to it when it stops happening. Andyvphil (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Results

It seems that there is more support for removing than keeping. While not fully conclusive, I think that, for now, the Lede should begin to reflect the emerging consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how RfCs work, Kevin. You're prematurely assuming that your viewpoint has won out when the RfC has been open for what, a day? There is no "emerging consensus" just because slightly more editors are currently in favor of leaving it out than keeping it in. That's the hallmark of a lack of consensus, in which case: "[i]n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Please revert your edit and let the RfC run its course. Dyrnych (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the statement is a magnet for editing controversy, where people keep trying to sanitize it rather than remove it. You could always put it back if the RfC changes direction. Interpreting consensus should not just be counting votes, but also measuring the discussion leading to the RfC and considering the activity in editing the article during the RfC. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we're having the RfC: because it's controversial. Let it run its course and we'll all abide by the outcome. Dyrnych (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's barely been 24 hours since the RfC was opened. We need to let this run for several days to try and get some community input, this debate has been ongoing for a couple of weeks now and the content in question should be left in the article. If we just remove it now, new editor's may not want to comment if they see it has already been removed before the RfC is completed. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so happy with the other changes in that paragraph, that I'm less concerned about the Criminal Record standing for now. I don't like the Adult Criminal Record as it implies a juvenile record, which may be unfair. I'm OK for now. Thanks Dyrnych for your cleanup of my "fix". Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal at this time, but don't want to start the struggle. I'm happier to gain the support of those seeing inclusion, on other cleanup of the Lede. The POV issues here work collectively and no individual component is as egregious as the negative synergy which had developed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Don't make me quote Rodney King. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be done. There are four votes out of twelve (33%) for maintaining the status quo:No criminal record, including a drop-in editor with a weak explanation for their "vote", not convincing me that much consideration was really given. Analysis of consensus should not just be about vote counting, but considering the comments and weighting the value of the arguments. I ask Mr X to fairly access and explain to us how we should proceed in evaluating these results.--Kevin Murray (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's are usually closed by an uninvolved admin who will evaluate the !votes and arguments. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs - Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this. Can you find one? I felt that asking a respected member from the minority to close this could be a good solution. Frankly, I'd be comfortable with you demonstrating your fair and unbiased nature by closing this for us. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the excerpt here from the link you reference: "However, if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable..." --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an administrator to close, see Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I am a regular at WP:ANRFC and there is generally a long backlog. Stuff sits there sometimes for a month or more without being handled. If we can set aside our personal opinions and !votes and come to an agreement as to what the RFC result was it will save a lot of time and headache. (And we would likely only have an uninvolved editor handle the request, not an admin in any case) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It looks like a minority wants to screw around with process and filibuster while keeping inaccurate text in place. I'm less worried about the text than the game playing. Also I noticed that the Neutrality Tag came down without any process and/or consensus. Quid pro quo. And by the onus of demonstrating inclusion per WP:V, it's time to fix the problem. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been an improvement in relations between editors with different positions. Not perfect, but an improvement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

by my count there is almost 2 to 1 (7 to 4) support for leaving out entirely vs vanilla "no record" with "no adult" a very distant third. While consensus is not a vote, generally when the !vote is so lopsided, the reasoning is something along the lines of "are the opinions on one side so exceptionally strong, or on the other side so exceptionally weak, to override the obvious answer" In my opinion the arguments on both sides are equally based on policy with it basically coming down to some people prefering one set of sources, and others preferring other sources. If those who !voted exclusively for no adult could perhaps say which they prefer of the two lead options, it may help resolve the issue. However, I have no objection to holding off and see if the RFC bot notifies some people and we get some outside opinions. We could also neutrally notify some noticeboards or wikiprojects, or even a random notification of some users to try and get more inputGaijin42 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the neutrality tag coming off, that was a good decision as it is a minor aspect in the overall context of a long and well NPOVed article, in particular when there are constructive discussions going on. As for the closure of the RFC, I don't see we are getting any closer amongst us to reach an agreement, so we should be patient until someone uninvolved comes to close it. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified BLPN, RSN, and NPOVN about this RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel, In a Sep 9 update from the same author and same news organization for the Aug 14 source that our article uses for "no criminal record",

"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."[54]

With this new info in mind, could you reconsider your !vote for "no criminal record"? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The judge's decision does not change anything, as we don't know what records, if any, he had as a juvenile. What we know if that if there is such juvenile record, that was not serious not even a misdemeanor, so I stand by "no criminal record". - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the shifting of a vote this morning and per Bob's post above (a) this RfC is now concluded, and (b) Per WP:V the contested information should not have remained in place during the RfC. This is closed, moot, and the information has been removed. Returning it will be just obstinate edit warring. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is not a !vote. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTUNANIMITY , WP:GAME, WP:POINT - Are your arguments more than twice as strong as the other side?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but considering the votes is part of the process. You have criticized me over belaboring issues. Please consider that you might be doing the same. I am really impressed by some of the quality and commitment that you show here, but I don't understand some of your fervor on particular issues. Clinging to this point appears inconsistent with your finer contributions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC should not be closed until there has been no activity for a least a couple of days. It should then be closed by an admin or experienced editor, unless there is near near-unanimous agreement here as to the result.- MrX 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion of the current result (assuming no additional activity occurs). To be clear, that is a very different question that what is your opinion of the "right answer" for the RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of this three day old RfC is that comments are roughly spit between the three choices, with some commentors choosing more than one, or responding outside of the scope of the question. If I closed it now, it would be as no consensus.I believe more input is needed. - MrX 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr X, you seem to be a very fair minded person who follows policy. Please read the policy cited above regarding closing RfCs. The issue has not been contentious in itself. Only the closing of the RfC has become a contentious point, and I think unfairly so by people trying to use lawyering tactics to postpone the inevitable. I don't see any precedent at this page to drag-out the recognition of an RfC. Besides, as Bob has pointed out above, the onus falls upon those who wish to include disputed material to demonstrate the need for inclusion. Continuing this charade is counter to policy and counter to veracity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't know what policy you're referring to. Could you clarify? RfC is structured processes so that consensus can be better determined. They don't end after three days, or a few hours after the last comment. I've created many RfCs and commented in many more. This is how they work. When editors have stopped commenting, someone can post a close request at WP:ANRFC.- MrX 15:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea, maybe we should start an RfC on how to close this RfC. ;-) --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited for 30 days for RFCs to close. Why not focus on other aspects of this or other articles in the meantime? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if you want to delay the close of the RfC, but in the mean time this should not be used as an excuse to continue to post information which is no longer accurate. I believe that it was originally posted in good faith and in compliance with WP:V, but new information has refuted the original source. This process is now bringing shame on WP as a credible source of information. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions, and consensus

Let me remind people that this article is twice over under the scrutiny of ArbCom, and has discretionary sanctions applied. Disruption of all types can lead to sanctions. Edit warring requires (at least) two to tango. On the other hand stonewalling a 2 to 1 consensus because you demand someone else close the RFC is also disruptive. The "worst case" scenario for this RFC is "no consensus" and this article is still under the protection of WP:BLP a no consensus result will result in removal per policy

• "to ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"
• WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, but in this case BLP also applies to Brown even if he is deceased. And in this case the contentious issue is not to include the fact that he had no criminal record. And yes, the previous consensus was the current version with "no criminal record". Also WP:BURDEN has been plentifully established already- Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The policies specifically say that removal is the default where there is not a consensus. There may have been a consensus before. At this time there is either no consensus, or a consensus to remove. Either way its going to get removed, don't be disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. We can disagree without calling each other names. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have notified BLPN, RSN, and NPOVN about this RFC. So let's wait and see what uninvolved editors have to say. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my thinking: We know that Brown had no adult criminal record. We also know from a judge, that as a juvenile he did not have any serious violations. Per WP:BLP, that means that we can't say that he had a criminal record, and omitting information about his criminal record is the same as saying he had one and that violates WP:BLP. Maybe splitting hairs, but this is crucial as the politics of this tragedy is making some observers try and cast Brown as a criminal, and we should disallow that per WP:BLP. Brown may be dead, but BLP extends to the recently deceased. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cwobeel to the extent that BLP applies here. I don't think that implying that he had a juvenile record by stating "he had no adult record" is acceptable. But per recent sources, stating that he had "no criminal record" is just wrong per WP:V. We are breaking two core rules at WP, by including any statement. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To clarify what judge I am referring to: A juvenile court system lawyer said at a hearing last week that Brown did not face any juvenile charges at the time of his death and was never convicted of a serious felony. (Associated press Sept 9) - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Brown had no adult criminal record.
• We know from a court officer (not the judge) that he had no serious convictions, nor was he facing any charges. We have to be accurate in to what the source actually said. There could have been previous dismissed/plead down/diverted charges in the past (though the article cannot comment on those possibilities for obvious reasons)
• I agree we absolutely cannot say he had a criminal record
• Omitting this is not the same thing as saying it he has a record, otherwise EVERY BLP would need to say "X has no criminal record"
• The accurate statement (which is much too long for the lede, and possibly too long for the body is)
  • Brown had no adult record in the three months since he turned 18. He had no convictions or pending charges for serious (A or B) felonies as a juvenile. He may or may not have had lesser offenses as a juvenile but the records have not been released.
• Both our statements are essentially re-arguing the RFC which is not super productive.

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not being convicted of a serious felony is not at all the same as "no criminal record" Do you want to get into the subjectivity of saying "no serious criminal record" Are w going to do OR to demonstrate that misdemeanors are not "serious"? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a BOLD attempt to resolve this. May not satisfy all of our concerns, but may be a good compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: Please revert your bold edit. The RfC is still in progress so it is very inappropriate to add disputed content, especially to the lead.- MrX 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have BRD, so if this BOLD attempt is not welcome, it can be reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your bold addition, per WP:BRD.- MrX 17:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support Cwobeel in an excellent step toward meeting WP:V. Thank you! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that you were reverted. I would actively repost your text, but I've already put myself in jeopardy this morning, ironically for reverting you. I encourage another editor to replace Cwobeels excellent compromise. He/she speaks the TRUTH --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now at least the section on Brown has wording that is factually correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the point of having a RfC and asking editor's to comment on article content when that content has already been removed? You've boldy removed the material, why not just go all the fucking way and boldly close the RfC (after 72 hours) and call it a day. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree I'll close it per your request. You opened this with the best of intentions, but it has become an abomination of mendacity, game-playing and stall tactics. What is clear is that what was originally posted in good faith was later refuted by subsequent information. This is too fast moving of topic to expect static processes to work. I oppose the use of future RfCs in this article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I opened this with the intention of leaving it open for the process to work, and for the community to have a chance to comment. But it seems some would rather just bully their way into getting what they want, remove the material while the RfC is ongoing and then close the RfC just as fast as they can. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone my archive so that the process can continue and we can get more outside input. As the matter is disputed and a BLP issue, I thiink removal until there is consensus for inclusion is appropriate, but there is no harm in waiting for additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42, thanks for the revert, but the disputed BLP issue was only edit-warred from the lede, the disputed BLP issue is still in article space with the juvenile record added. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is growing and really serves no purpose in the Lede other than to confuse the reader: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. The Ferguson City Attorney responded that the statutory deadline in Missouri's "Sunshine Law" had been reached.--Kevin Murray (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wilson was unaware of the robbery how did it affect the shooting? Of course it is important to the body of the text, but without deeper discussion, it just confuses the message in the Lede nad breaks the flow of the summary.--Kevin Murray (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My work on the lede, including this, and a reverted replacement, is discussed above at [55]. If you don't want it to be the next subsection I suggest you place it adjacent. And while you're at it, please restore my response that you deleted, no doubt inadvertently, by using a simple revert... *FUCK* Now I've lost my other work in response to you, detailing your error in thinking Wilson didn't know of the robbery, a major nitwit reporter fuckup. Not entirely your fault, but a pain in the ass. Anyway, look at [56], esp. 2:05 and 10:30, which was widely misreported as the Ferguson police chief saying Wilson didn't know of the robbery. Instead he said only that Wilson didn't know of the robbery at "initial contact", and he couldn't speak to what happened after that since it was still under investigation and, anyway, he wasn't privy to Wilson's debriefing (which was by the County). Actually -- and our lede is totally screwed up in not mentioning this -- Wilson's interaction with Brown & Johnson came in two parts, and he backed into their path after making the connection. And of course Brown & Johnson knew, which probably affected what ensued. Andyvphil (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy surrounding the video release is succinctly described in the lead. We don't know if Wilson was unaware of the robbery (differing accounts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson probably did know about the robbery, but at least initially did not know Brown was a possible suspect. Brown however definitely knew about the robbery and when a cop pulls up minutes later could easily assume it was related and change his reactions. In any case, the lede should reflect the body, and the body discusses the robbery at some length. There was an RFC to this effect which had unanimous support for mentioning the robbery in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sunshine law bit I think is perhaps undue for the lede and can be covered in the body only with just a brief mention that the release of the video was controversial in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the prior sentences could be rewritten to include the concept that there was rational for the action of releasing the video, or remove the implied criticism. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The focus on the lede is counter productive. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:LEAD says, many people read only the lede, and it should serve as a mini-article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, Gaijin42. This point is not only driven home, thankfully, by WP policy. It is also too plain for argument. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, Gaijin42; however, I think that it should be smooth and succinct, and present a harmony rather than a disjointed balancing of POV. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is going to be an ongoing problem until we finally admit that the two accounts, Wilson surrogates vs. on the ground witnesses, are very different and there is no turning them into a unified theory. The lede should be thusly split accordingly with due reference given to what Dr. Baden and the forensics expert said and also to the analysis of the recording of the gunshots. To leave out any of those items is, in my opinion, to leave out too much. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I see evidenced by the late night to early morning activity in the Lede is a perfect example of the problem -- the Lede creep begins to look like a debate seeking neutral POV by a balance of back and forth. To me this seems appropriate in the body of the article, but the Lede should be an upper-level summary. Clearly it's not easy to achieve. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been my opinion that the Shooting of Michael Brown article should not get into which accounts are pro-Wilson and which are anti-Wilson (or pro-Brown, if you prefer). Some accounts contain both pro and anti Wilson statements. It always seemed to me that the proper place for that type of distinction in the article about the 2014 Ferguson unrest.

The Accounts section started off in the first one or two days of the story, when all we had were snippets of this telling and a smattering of that telling. Now that we're waiting on the grand jury, I'm wondering if it would be possible to write a combined narrative, treating each aspect of the shooting on its own but including alternate viewpoints when reliable sources disagree. These "alternate viewpoints" would take the place of our current Accounts subsections.

If enough of us want to begin, we could set up a subpage, say Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Narrative, so that everyone can work on it. Then, at some future date, move it into the article proper, thereby eliminating the Accounts section (which I regard as more and more out of tempo with the current state of the article). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the contention in which this article is being edited, I think this would be a tall order, RoyGoldsmith. But well worth pursuing.- Cwobeel (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interview in Michael-Ridgway's video is from Aug 10, so it's not a new witness. The radio show in Andyvphil's video took place Aug 10 too. There's been plenty of time for anything credible there to be picked up by a reliable source, so keep in mind the notice at the top of this talk page, "This is not a forum for general discussion about Shooting of Michael Brown. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's new to us. We are nowhere in Wikipedia policy required to assume that our unreliable "Reliable Sources" are efficient at finding things out. And the fact that certain comments can be removed, refactored or hidden doesn't mean that you are entitled to do so just because you've seen a tag that will do the job. Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the following interview can be seen in the video linked below in what appears to be an installment of a documentary, I'd call this a primary source eyewitness account and if I were Wikipedia's lead parliamentarian, the rules would allow it's inclusion. Personally, I'd take videos like this over any CNN or Fox paraprhasing any day. But the rules of Wikipedia probably weren't written with this witness-said vs. media-paraprhased-to-say-witness-sorta-said sourcing dilemma in mind. So please accept this in the as a good faith heads up that you may one day read about this young man as you peruse the products of the mainstream media.

INTERVIEWER: Tell me what you saw.

INTERVIEWEE: I saw the dude putting his arm out the door.

And then he shot him, but he missed.

Then he ran down the street. He just kept shooting him.

He was begging for his life, basically.

INTERVIEWER: So you saw the police officer pull his gun out the door?

INTERVIEWEE: [Nods his head yes.]

INTERVIEWER: Where were the two kids when he did that?

INTERVIEWEE: One ran that way. The one with the [not understood -- sounds like "shoes"] ran this way.

INTERVIEWER: So they actually ran when he pulled the gun out?

INTERVIEWEE: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: The officer said that it was a struggle inside the car.

INTERVIEWEE: Nah. He tried to grab him. He pulled his arm away. He got mad and pulled out the gun. I was up here in the window.

INTERVIEWER: Ahhh. So the kid never got inside the car?

INTERVIEWEE: [Shakes his head no.]

He called him up to the car, then he grabbed him.

He snatched away.

INTERVIEWER: And then he ran — both of them ran.

INTERVIEWEE: Because he pulled out a gun.

INTERVIEWER: Because he pulled out a gun.

Source: http://revolt.tv/video/watch-ferguson-the-fire-this-time-a-revolt-town-hall-conversation/7D6AA7B1-B5D4-4202-9869-7A70CC04C81C

Title: Ferguson: The Fire This Time (Part 1)

Interview begins at 0:38. Concludes at 1:34.

Transcribed by Mike Ridgway.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shoes" is almost certainly right. Johnson was wearing shoes. Brown was in his stocking feet after his flip-flops came off. Andyvphil (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as we're mentioning original research (and I do not object - it's allowed on the talk page, and can be useful to the editors in various ways), here's a purported (I think very convincing) eyewitness, recorded the day after the shooting on a call-in program. [[57]] "Steve" reports seeing Brown halfway through the window, "under the windshield", iirc. His account begins at almost exactly the 12 minute mark. Turns the initially pro-Narrative (black) host around, a bit, or had done so through contact before the program. Andyvphil (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At about 1:03:00, the host says, "I believe the story now. I believe he tried to take the cop's gun." But this isn't WP:OR, it's WP:FORUM. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Do you feel more or less able to evaluate the reliability of the reporter's statement that the police told her that they have a dozen witnesses that support Wilson's account? Andyvphil (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was merely that chatting about a YouTube video that doesn't approach RS-ness is FORUM. I couldn't see how that chatting was pertinent to decisions about article content. I couldn't resist adding a bit to that chatting, but I wanted to show that I felt guilty about it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I've pointed out that WP:FORUM is irrelevant, and that knowledge that it is forbidden to use as a source for text can nonetheless contribute to editorial judgement. Your guilt is ill founded. Andyvphil (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now maybe I can sleep tonight. Thanks so much. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to err in favor of WP:AGF and state that I do not believe that Andyvphi's comment is WP:OR OR WP:FORUM, and further add that I very much appreciate any leads that can point us to more witnesses whose statements might rise to level of quotable. Rather then ding Andyvphil as a rule breaker, I commend him for his contributions in helping readers hear as many views of plausible witnesses as can be properly introduced in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is not an error, it's a rebuttable presumption. Andyvphil (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junior league Wikilawyers often link to articles in metaspace because they are misled by the title to think it means something it does not, or because they think they can get away with it. "WP:FORUM" redirects to the same article paragraph as "WP:PROMOTION" and "WP:SOAP", and none of the five types of garbage it addresses and which it might be appropriate to hide using the now-removed tag is remotely similar to this section. Do I really have to admonish you that hiding other editor's work is offensive and obnoxious unless you have very good reason and are very certain of your authority to do so? Evidently, yes. Andyvphil (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM nonetheless. (Tip: Read the sentence above WP:SOAP) - Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence above WP:SOAP is "'WP:PROMOTION' redirects here. For other pages about advertising and promotion, see Wikipedia:Advertising." Andyvphil (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM: Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil, It would help your case for keeping this section if you could explain your plans for improving the article with this material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this section will stay until removed by the archiving process in the normal course of time. Michael-Ridgway gave his rationale for starting it, and I have given mine for extending it with contrary material: improving the article by improving the editors. Andyvphil (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what we have in the unrest article's lede: Police established curfews and deployed riot squads to maintain order, while members of the Ferguson community demonstrated peacefully. Looting by a number of people caused violent unrest in the vicinity of the original shooting.. Compare it with what we have in this lede: Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.

I have made a small tweak here, but it need to be made better and more accurate. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this in the lead of Shooting of Michael Brown:

The shooting sparked both peaceful protests and unrest in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis, in part... Vandalism and looting by a number of people continued for more than a week with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor nit, but it bugs me that there is no lead-in to the struggle through the window of the police car: :"Brown and Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street when Wilson drove up and from his car ordered them to move to the sidewalk. Brown and Wilson struggled through the window of the police car until Wilson's gun was fired, either intentionally or as a result of the struggle."

How about "... ordered them to move to the sidewalk. Brown and Wilson argued briefly then struggled through the window"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 13:39, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a source for "argued briefly"? If so, it would be OK to add if that bugs you. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't really know if this is accurate, that's why I thought I'd put it here first. From my interpretation of what I've read they argued. I would want others to confirm.--Kevin Murray (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, on Dorian Johnson's telling, they argued with Mr. Cop Wilson. We've got it quoted in the article body. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that, in the lead and also the "Shooting incident" section, we were only going to include things that were agreed by all accounts, not things that only appeared in one or two accounts. Including something that was only claimed by Johnson and no one else violates that principal. The gap in the narrative between the sidewalk and the struggle was because we don't know what happen in the interval. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly. It just seems like we leave out a step leading to a struggle. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can augment what we say in the contractor's witness accounts, as a new video has emerged of them with more details: [58]. What is important is that these contractors are not Ferguson residents, and that they confirm other accounts on Brown's hands up gesture before he was shot and killed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also confirms other accounts that Wilson shot at Brown while his back was turned. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is undisputed, isn't it? My impression is that Wilson shot at Brown's back when he was fleeing, but didn't hit him. What seems to be unclear to me is whether all six shots that hit Brown, hit him at the end of the chase, or if he was hit by the round which was discharged in the car. The salient question, in my mind, was whether Wilson was justified in shooting at the fleeing Brown. In my state we have the "fleeing felon rule" But an officer may not use deadly force to interdict an person fleeing from a misdemeanor. What happened in that car? In California battery is a felony. So if Brown battered Wilson in the car, he may have committed a felony in advance of the pursuit. Clearly this is my opinion and OR. Just rambling here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the fleeing felon rule is limited by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): "This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Dyrnych (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that interpretation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please tell me why the robbery video is not under "Police Accounts" or the audio recording is not under "Investigations"?

Like this:
3 Accounts
3.1 Police
3.1.1 Robbery incident report and video release
3.1.1.1 Reactions
3.2 Dorian Johnson
 :  :

Or like this:
4 Investigations
 :  :
4.2 Robbery incident report and video release
4.2.1 Reactions
4.3 Anonymous audio recording
4.4 Autopsies
 :  :

They are both digital recordings under investigation. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's because the robbery incident report and video isn't directly relevant to the circumstances of the shooting or the debate over its justifiability. It's more or less a separate issue — nothing that happened at the convenience store would exculpate or incriminate Wilson for his later actions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if Wilson got word that a person carrying cigars might be implicated in a strong-arm robbery (thus making Brown a fleeing felon) that would tend to exculpate Wilson. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it really wouldn't — as per relevant Supreme Court precedent, the "fleeing felon rule" does not apply unless the suspect poses an imminent danger to others. The punishment for robbery is not summary execution. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under Missouri law it exculpates Wilson of a state crime. Of course, if Brown bashed Wilson in the face and struggled for his gun then Wilson had a much stronger reason than what he had heard on the squawker to think Brown a felon. The SCOTUS decision cannot dragoon a state prosecution. And the "execution" is quite independent of the Federal crime -- it's clear that Brown was advancing, not fleeing, when the fatal shots were fired. Andyvphil (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from your analysis about whether or not Wilson is guilty, the robbery is an important part of the police account of Wilson's actions. It's mentioned at least twice in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The robbery of a box of cigarillos, is not grounds for killing a person. The police have tried quite blatantly to make it part of the shooting, but reading all accounts, that has nothing to do with it. It is obvious by now that he was shot when he had his hands up. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not remotely "obvious" that Brown was shot when he was merely standing with his hands raised. He could, e.g., have been shot in the struggle at the car (Johnson says so), been winged when fleeing, in the first volley (various witnesses), turned around, raised his hands, changed his mind and lowered them as he advanced on the officer, and then suffered the final volley. He was presumably on his way down when the shot through the top of his head occurred, and ended up within 5' of the retreating Wilson with his hands under him, after closing what the contractors report to be a 25' gap from where he turned and raised his hands. The hole in the top of his head disproves any assertion the final volley took place at 25', unless you think he bent over at that point and advanced 20' or so before depositing his brains at Wilson's feet. And there were only ...3,iirc... seconds between volleys for Brown to turn around, say "OK,OK,OK,OK,..., then move that distance, so he wasn't dawdling. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "analyzing" anything about Wilson's guilt. The relevant question is not whether or not Brown earlier robbed a convenience store, the relevant questions are whether or not Brown posed a threat to Wilson or others at the time of his flight and whether or not Brown was in the act of surrendering when Wilson fired the fatal shots. Ergo, the robbery is inconsequential. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me that you're straying from the topic of this section. In that regard, is it your position that the robbery is not an important part of the police account of Wilson's actions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct - it's not an important part of the investigation of the Shooting of Michael Brown, as demonstrated by the fact that the reliable sources are not focusing on it or significantly discussing it. It happened, but it has basically no relevance to the key question of the controversy: whether or not the shooting was justifiable. This is demonstrable by the fact that if we imagine Brown had not robbed the store, the shooting could still be either justifiable or non-justifiable. That doesn't mean we don't mention it, but it doesn't belong under the section which investigates the recordings, eyewitness accounts and other reports on the shooting incident. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's some miscommunication from the beginning of this talk section. The section Robbery incident report and video is currently a subsection of the Investigations section of the article. And the OP suggested moving the subsection Anonymous audio recording to the investigations section too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But if you read that section, you will understand that it was all a subterfuge by Ferguson police to try and poison the well. (IMO, that was disgraceful and in no small part, one of the reasons for the unrest that followed.)- Cwobeel (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown was shot on a Saturday. "Unrest" began the next day. FPD had three days to respond to Sunshine Law requests for the video and did so the following Friday, five days after the "unrest" began, and when it was in decline. Reading the section will not usually result in the confusion you are experiencing. Are you feeling well? Andyvphil (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the Ferguson police force did or didn't do is not the topic of this Talk section, which is simply about moving the Audio subsection from the Accounts section to the Investigations section. What's your position on that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob K31416: got it almost right. All I'm asking is: do the video and the audio belong together in one main body section and, if not, why not? For this question, I don't care if we stick them in the Accounts section or the Investigation section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move the audio into the Investigations section, as you indicated for your second choice. It's a recording of gun shots, so it's out of place in the people's accounts section and it is being investigated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It's just an account. Other witnesses providing accounts also have recordings. Andyvphil (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's just gunshots in the background of a video whose subject is unrelated to the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bob. While some of the other accounts may be recorded, there is a lot of human motive and error that can be involved in those accounts. The recording just IS. It can certainly be interpreted in many ways (as can the accounts), but it has no agency of its own. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lede reads Witness reports differ greatly as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired.. If you look at the accounts section, there is no account that denies that Wilson had his hands up when he was shot and killed, and there are no major differences in the accounts. In particular the recently obtained report and video by CNN, so we ought to update that sentence accordingly. I made a small tweak removing "greatly" from the sentence, but it is not enough IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I support your change. I've been wanting to do that for some time. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also having hands up and moving forward are not mutually exclusive. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The problem is that, in the sentence, we are counterpointing these two aspects as if they are mutually exclusive with the conjunction "whether". Any suggestions on how to improve the sentence? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't without getting complicated. Relative to Wilson, Brown was either moving closer, farther away, or standing still. He either had his hands up or he didn't, but there could be some differences in the perception of what constitutes hands up. How do we represent the pertinent permutations and remain objective? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: "While there are minor differences (see Accounts) all eyewitnesses have described Brown's hand's as up when he was shot by Wilson. According to the same accounts Brown may have been walking, stumbling or falling forward during the final shots. Officer Wilson, according to his account to the Ferguson police[59] has claimed Brown's arms were lowered and moved towards him." This Vox article explicitly states all eyewitnesses agree on the raised hands [60]. I believe only Michael Brady doesn't say Brown's hands were up, but he only sees the moment immediately after he's shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeranv (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this version, with the change that we should use "stated" rather than "claimed" to describe Wilson's account. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like claimed either. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Wilson, according to his account to the Ferguson police?? There is no such account, and the source offered does not support that. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the VOX article. It is all very clearly stated there. This is what they say about the police account: The police account — and, by extension, Wilson's side of the story — remains very unclear. On August 10, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, who's leading the investigation into Brown's death, described what happened according to Wilson: Brown physically assaulted Wilson prior to the shooting. Wilson attempted to get out of the car, but Brown pushed him back into the vehicle. Brown then physically assaulted Wilson and attempted to grab the officer's weapon. At that point, the first shot was fired from the police car. Brown then ran away, and Wilson fired more gunshots and eventually killed Brown about 35 feet from the police car. Wilson was reportedly injured during the encounter and one side of his face was left swollen. Belmar said he left out details on what Brown did after he ran away so as not to prejudice the investigation into the shooting. Incident reports later released by police were heavily redacted and largely empty, providing few details about the events beyond who, where, and when. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "Wilson account" is this Josie calling into a conservative talk show to repeat what she said she heard from someone close to Wilson (Ahem). - Cwobeel (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's account, as told second hand to Josie but confirmed to CNN to be an accurate recitation by a source very familiar with the investigation (gee, you left that out - wonder why?) is shamefully still missing from this article. Andyvphil (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still hearsay from hearsay and a source familiar with the investigation is no other that FPD's attempt to muddle the waters. Ditto about the X-rays about a broken bone and the other BS. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. CNN isn't a reliable source, but you like VOX. The anonymous source who says Josie's story matches Wilson's is lying -- you know this for a fact, better than the guy at CNN who actually knows who it is -- but the anonymous sources for the NYT's assertion that Wilson fired at the fleeing Brown, anonymous sources (plural) who no one else seems able to find or get to talk, they're good enough for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that Wilson did something that's a Federal crime. Andyvphil (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this from Belmar Belmar said he left out details on what Brown did after he ran away so as not to prejudice the investigation into the shooting, gives it away, as they are trying to protect Wilson by arguing for "objectively reasonable" (Graham v. Connor ):

And what's "objectively reasonable" changes as the circumstances change. "The moment that you no longer present a threat, I need to stop shooting," said Klinger. According to the St. Louis County Police Department's account, Wilson fired one shot from inside the police car. But Brown was killed some 35 feet away, after several shots had been fired. To justify the shooting, Wilson would need to demonstrate that he feared for his life not just when Brown was by the car, but even after he started shooting. The officer would need to establish that, right up until the last shot was fired, he felt Brown continued to pose a threat to him whether he actually was or not.

That is the tragedy of this case, Wilson just needs to convince a jury (if he is charged) that "he felt threatened. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responding Cwobeel re: source for Darren Wilson's account"- the NYTimes source I linked does back up that account. Quote:

"According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force."[61]

Saeranv (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't wrong Cwobeel. This NYTimes article is not naming its sources and wants us to take these unnamed 'law enforcement officials' on faith. Personally I don't like that, the sources you're citing are backed up more concretely. But citing this particular NYTimes article has been debated before and the decision was that since the NYTimes is RS, this article must be treated as such. Saeranv (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is mis-represented. Other sources says "law enforcement officials". Basically, there was never an official report on what Wilson told the police department. We cant counter it with other RSs that confirm that these are unnamed police sources.14:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the witness accounts in the article, other than any possible account by Wilson, and found the following regarding hands up and Brown's motion after he stopped running.[62]

• Dorian Johnson — Brown turned around with his hands in the air, after reacting "as if he was hit"

• Michael Brady — Brown had turned around and was facing Wilson. Brown was "balled up" with his arms under his stomach and he was "halfway down" to the ground. As he was falling, Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson because he was presumably hit and was stumbling forward

• Piaget Crenshaw — accounts in three different interviews

1) When Brown then raised his arms, the officer shot him two more times, killing him.

2) Crenshaw saw Brown attempt to flee with his hands in the air and that he was hit with several shots as he ran.

3) Crenshaw told CNN that no shots hit Brown's back as he was running away, "Clearly none of [the shots] hit him, but one, I think, did graze him as they said on the autopsy report. At the end, he just turned around ... after I'm guessing he felt the bullet grazed his arm, he turned around and he was shot multiple times

• Tiffany Mitchell — And the kid's body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turns around and puts his hands up like this

• Construction worker — With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer

• James McKnight — Brown held his hands in the air just after he turned to face Wilson. He stumbled toward the officer

• Phillip Walker — Brown walking "at a steady pace" toward Wilson with his hands up

• Twitter user — Wilson fired twice at Brown while he was running away, and five more times after he turned around to face Wilson

• Bystander heard on video — after Brown stopped running and turned his back: "Next thing I know he's coming back towards the police." ... "I think ... dude start running, kept coming toward the police."

Of the 9 witness accounts in the article,

-6 said Brown had his hands up

-5 said Brown was moving towards Wilson

--of these 5, 2 said Brown stumbled towards Wilson and 2 said Brown was walking back towards Wilson and 1 said Brown started running back towards Wilson.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed I left out a significant part re account by "Bystander heard on video", and I made adjustments accordingly.--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vox reliability arbitrary break for ease of editing

Re: "While there are minor differences (see Accounts) all eyewitnesses have described Brown's hand's(sic) as up when he was shot by Wilson." -- The differences in eyewitness accounts are not minor, this article's selection of eyewitness accounts is incomplete, and not all of them say Brown had his hands in the air "when shot", whatever that means. The subject is anyway way too complex for the lede. Andyvphil (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and using Vox Media as a RS source for anything is highly problematic. It's fact checking seems rather understaffed. It was one of those sources for the assertion that Brown had no criminal record, which it had, patently, no way of knowing was true, and the vestigial Wikipedia article on it states, "it has... been repeatedly criticized for basic factual errors and the apparent poor familiarity of [its] journalists with [their] subject matter"[63] Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VOX is just reporting what other sources say. There is no editorializing there, and VOX is an RS. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who says VOX is reliable? You? Anyway, if VOX is just "reporting" what other sources say, then we ought to be using those sources, not VOX. And I just took a quick look -- VOX appears to fall on its face immediately. "Brown... graduated from Normandy High School in St. Louis in the spring of 2014." That's not what WE say. Who's right? Andyvphil (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"VOX is just reporting what other sources say. There is no editorializing there..."

Not true. I just watched the video at [64], and it's unmistakably editorial in nature. I think, except for a headshot, the only picture of Brown is sitting on the couch with his younger brother when about the same age as Trayvon-in-a-football-jersey. 13? 12? Then there's the assertion that the police armored vehicles "are basically the same as tanks", which will surprise anyone with a clue. Tendentious as well as unreliable. Andyvphil (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a concern with VOX, go to WP:RS/N and ask there. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to ask anyone else. I can SEE VOX is unreliable, both in its record on other events (Did you know there's a "bridge" between Gaza and the West Bank? VOX does, LOL.) and in the article on Brown. Here's another: "St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, who's leading the investigation into Brown's death, said... Brown... attempted to grab the officer's weapon. At that point, the first shot was fired from the police car."[65] Except to support this VOX links to CNN [66] where it turns out that what CNN says Belmar said is, "A shot was fired INSIDE the police car." The accuracy of the guy writing for VOX isn't much better than yours, which is pretty bad. Why don't you ask at WP:RS/N if this signifies a "Reliable Source"? Andyvphil (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vox is Daily Kos, plus JournoList's Ezra Klein, and our own article on it prominently mentions their failure to get basic facts right (in addition to the obvious errors on this exact subject noted above). if they are referencing other sources, we should just go straight to the source not use their filter. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At an absolute bare minimum we would need to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV their analysis as their analysis and not treat it as indisputable fact analysis. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Doesn't WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only apply to statements of opinion? Also, WP:RS doesn't require infallibility. The fact that Vox corrected its "failures to get basic facts right" probably has some weight, especially in light of the fact that other demonstrably reliable sources have also had to issue embarrassing corrections. That said, if we can source statements to non-aggregators as opposed to aggregators, that's obviously better. Dyrnych (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an "embarrassing correction", that's a typo. The "embarrassing correction" I'm waiting for is where the Times admits that "White Hispanic" was an attempt to salvage its preferred narrative when the obvious fact that George Zimmerman wasn't white emerged. Anyway, [WP:RS] doesn't require infallibility, but it does require a certain minimum level of reliability. VOX doesn't appear to have it, as I've demonstrated. Andyvphil (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vox is just Wikipedia without the crowdsourcing. Check this out: "Jackson also noted that Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown at the time of the shooting, wasn't believed by police to have been involved in the alleged robbery. (Johnson's attorney, however, says Johnson was involved.)" That's the current page,[67] and it came from an AP story April 15 that leads off, "The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.//That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC." [68] But of course this never happened, it's just some moron AP stringer misinterpreting something he saw on TV as an admission that Johnson's attorney never made. But, hey, it's in many "Reliable Sources", including Vox. Let's run with it. Andyvphil (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic but FYI. "Hispanic" is not a race. It's an ethnicity. It encompasses, and I'm quoting from the OMB's definition here, "a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American (except for Brazil), or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race." An Argentinian of German ancestry is a white Hispanic. A Cuban descended from African slaves is a black Hispanic. A Chilean of Japanese ancestry is an Asian Hispanic. A Mestizo Mexican might be considered a Nativer American Hispanic. Dyrnych (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I don't know that (to the extent that it's right -- "ethnicity" is problematic), or am unfamiliar with the argument, then you are severely underestimating me. The dishonesty of "white Hispanic" wasn't the "Hispanic" part. Zimmerman is brown. Andyvphil (talk) 05:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it depends on which particular statement we plan on including, there is quite a bit above (certainly more than we would include citing a single source). If its the author's analysis that there is a discrepancy, and how big/important that is - yes, I believe that's his opinion. Frankly, a discrepancy is unsurprising, a person who isn't a witness to anything is repeating hearsay from someone who for legal reasons says as little as possible. Thats ripe for miscommunication, without even getting to any ulterior motives. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vox is not "DailyKos" and making accusations of source bias that are themselves sourced to a right-wing publication run by a noted serial plagiarist who accepted money to write favorable pieces about a foreign government without disclosing the payments is rather cute. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation: What More Will It Take to Arrest Darren Wilson? Also, numerous reliable sources are asking if the video of the Caucasian contractor angrily protesting that Brown had his hands up when shot and where he hold his hands up to make his point, is a "game changer." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its in front of a grand jury, which is the process that would get him indicted. Not sure what you are hoping for. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that an editor or two will answer my question as to whether this reaction to the release of the white-guys video merits inclusion in the Reaction section. I hope that this time, my intent is clearer than it apparently was when stated the first time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We shall know in a few weeks. Till that time there is no point in reporting on speculation. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Its not "The Nation" its "Mychal Denzel Smith" a writer at the Nation, clearly writing an opinion piece in his own voice in their blog section, with the tagline "All the blackness thats fit to print and some that isn't", and repeatedly saying "I" . So to decide if it should be included we need to decide if Smith is a voice of sufficient authority, or notability, or relevance. Since the voices we already include are heads of major civil rights orgs (Sharpton, Jackson, Amnesty), and world league politicians and orgs, my opinion is no, Smith is not an appropriate addition to the reactions section. Some editorial media voices may be appropriate (I'm somewhat surprised we have none), but we should be picking major league voices written in full editorial weight/voice of the organization. (I do note we have a few media voices in the Unrest article, and they are in general of a much higher caliber than this one, which reinforces my opinion.) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ton of opinions out there, and we are not going to report them. This is all speculative and does not add anything useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I think that blacks may find it offensive that you feel that a white person may have greater credibility. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC

I had no feelings at all. I quoted reliable sources and asked for all of you to decide if it merits inclusion in the article. An apology for your insinuation of my racism would be a nice touch, Kevin Murray. I'll be hoping for one, but certainly not expecting, my best attempts at AGF notwithstanding. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This from Slate. You really must read this stunningly important article in its entirety to understand that I am onto something here, comrades. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/09/ray_rice_donald_sterling_danny_ferry_and_surveillance_technology_cameras.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell them to get over it. The contractors are asserted to have greater credibility because they are more neutral, not because they're white. Andyvphil (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have hoped that would be the case, but some sources are arguing that the fact they are white their testimony will weight heavier on the grand jury: The race of the witnesses shouldn't matter, but it could for the grand jury that's investigating the case, said Mark Geragos, a CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. There are nine whites and three African-Americans on the 12-member panel tasked with deciding whether Wilson, who is white, should be charged. "You now have some witnesses who the majority of this grand jury are going to better relate to. I hate to say it, but that's the reality of it, and that's why it's a game changer to me," Geragos said. [69] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will note for the benefit of editors less impervious to facts than Cwobeel and his ilk that, while the contractors may think they're helping convict Wilson, if you evaluate what they say in conjunction with the shots audio tape, as I do upthread, it looks good for him on the manslaughter charge. Andyvphil (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Johnson will be the "game changer" in this incident, just hide and watch. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaigan42 says it well. This is opinion, and I'm unsure of the notability of the commenter. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon}

A lot of good work was done on the Lede over the last 24 hours. To me it appears to be well polished with a good flow and with a neutral tone. The story also seems more complete, such that a reader of the Lede will get a good and comprehensive summary of the event(s). Kudos to the editors involved. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Changing nature", eh? We mean, like Dorian Johnson's tales? Yeah, that what our "reliable sources" are clearly claiming, but, actually, no, the two linked sources, The Atlantic Wire and MSNBC, fantasized this. As did others.

(1)Here's the video of Jackson's presser-in-the-park: http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/ferguson-chief-officer-didnt-know-about-robbery/14124259/ . My memory is that he indeed says Wilson didn't connect Brown and Johnson to the robbery at "initial contact", but then says he won't talk about the encounter past the initial contact because that -- unlike the robbery -- is still under investigation. He also says at one point that he doesn't know in detail what Wilson had said. (The investigation is being handled by the County, not the FPD.) He AT NO TIME says, as The Wire and multiple other incompetents misreported it "that the robbery was not related to the confrontation between Brown and Wilson". There is no excuse for these morons not to have known that Johnson was saying all over the place that Wilson had driven away after the "initial encounter", stopped, then backed into his and Brown's path, nearly hitting them. Contrary to The Wire's claim, this is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT with Jackson's later statement that "...Wilson noticed that Brown was carrying cigars and then realized he might be the robber."

If memory serves, Jackson, on being further pressed on this issue admitted that this was speculation on his part and not a statement borne out of conversations with Wilson. (MyPOV: If memory servers: How irresponsible is that!?)

(2) MSNBC correctly WRITES "Darren Wilson, the officer who stopped Brown, wasn’t even aware that Brown was a suspect in the robbery", but then wanders of into stupidity in exactly the same way: "Hours later, Jackson appeared to change his story, telling NBC News that while the officer who shot Brown initially stopped him for walking in the street and blocking traffic, “at some point” during the encounter the officer saw cigars in Brown’s hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery." "Appeared"? Appeared to who? Reporters with a room-temperature IQ? Well, that applies to many of our unreliable "Reliable Sources", not just MSNBC and The Wire.

(3) But on the video labelled "Ferguson Police Chief: Shooter didn't know Michael Brown was a suspect" the "reporter""reports", (1:35) "...Jackson said there was no connection between the robbery and the confrontation that led to Brown's death." Which is false.

(4)The Wire attempts to disprove Jackson's statement that he chose to release the robbery tape because "the media asked for it" by quoting a tweet from Christopher Hayes saying "ACLU put in open records request for incident pertaining to the *shooting*. Nothing about a robbery."

(5) Later the Huffington Post was even more irresponsible, posting an article that is STILL libellously titled "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape" on the basis that "the police department did not receive any specific requests for the videotape". But the City Arttorney for Ferguson has replied, "On August 12, 2014, the [St. Louis Post Dispatch] requested 'all documentation concerning the events LEADING UP TO and including the shooting of Michael Brown" which shall include “incident, arrest and investigative reports, 911 audio, photos and VIDEO retained by the police department.'” and "on August 14, 2014... Judicial Watch requested ALL RECORDS relating to Michael Brown and dated between August 1, 2013, and August 9, 2014."(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/ferguson-chief-lied-about-michael-brown-tape_n_5773420.html )The video is included in the investigative report for the robbery, which certainly "related to" Michael Brown, inasmuch as he committed it. And the FPD was required by Missouri's Sunshine Law to release the informatioin within three days of the request. (http://ago.mo.gov/sunshinelaw/faqs.htm#Q3 ) I covered this in maintext a few days ago.

I have written about this Huffington Post article elsewhere and consider it to be extremely irresponsible reporting. But the person who I believe is open to the greatest criticism is the St. Louis Post Dispatch writer who can't even seem to keep his stories straight when uttering just two juxtaposed sentences. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(6) As long as we're on the subject of reliability, The Wire "reports" "The police report identifies Brown as the primary suspect in that robbery, according to reporter Ryan Reilly. Officer Wilson was apparently responding to that call when he encountered Michael Brown on Saturday." It still says that. Even after the "updates". Even now. But KSDK, which I link to above for the complete video of the 3pm presser notes, "Chief Jackson said Wilson was unaware the pair were wanted in connection with the robbery; another officer was investigating the robbery at the time." The Wire misses this and STILL hasn't caught it. But KSDK doesn't catch the "initial contact" distinction either.

Anyway, I last night made this edit [72] with this comment, "Tighten. A lot of RS misreported at the time what Jackson said about Wilson connecting robbery and suspects, but that's no longer unclear." and was immediately reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof with the comment, "Not sure what you mean by "misreported" - who says it was 'misreported?' The RSes specifically discuss that the department's story has changed on this matter." I've addressed this before with less specific reference to the text, but he seems to have missed it. Presumably he will now know what I meant by "misreported". I meant, "misreported". Andyvphil (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the time you took to present your arguments, but it is obviously clear by now the FPD botched the entire thing from the beginning with conflicting reports, the release of the videos, strategic leaks to the media, their outrageous response with sniper rifles and SWAT teams, and other shenanigans. We shall see what the DOJ uncovers. Until then, we report what source say. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember the inane comment that Jackson made on Aug 16 at that press conference (watch the video to learn how incompetently it was done), in which Jackson responded when asked about the timing of the tape release? Because you asked for it - That is what he said, and he said it with great discomfort because he knew he was just playing a game to discredit Brown. I don't know how that guy is still police chief. The Sunshine law excuse was made much later on. [73] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your mind-reading skills would be more impressive if you weren't so aggressively ignoring the the obvious: "Because you asked for it" is just another way of saying, "Because you collectively submitted many Sunshine Law requests", which Jackson says several times, though not using exactly those words. He mentions consulting the City Attorney about this, even if the correct terminolgy didn't stick. Andyvphil (talk) 06:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andyvphil, all your claims are very interesting but they're also unsourced original research and synthesis from a number of different sources that you claim add up to "this was misreported." Unless you have a reliable source which directly contradicts MSNBC and The Atlantic Wire's statements, they remain in. Are there any sources saying MSNBC and The Atlantic Wire were wrong to report that the police's story changed? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the press conference": [74] Jackson: “We got a lot of FOI requests” Watch at minute 1:30 (!!!!) how he gives it away that this was all a PR exercise gone bad. At 3:53' Jackson: “Take a look at the tape”. Appalling. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"how he gives it away that this was all a PR exercise gone bad." I watched the video at the suggested mark, and the things you said above did not actually happen. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just created a stub for Thomas Jackson (police officer). Feel free to help there and expand the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were you asleep when it was pointed out to you that WP:NOR doesn't apply to talk pages? How about when the statement in WP:RS about necessity of evaluating even the most usually reliable of sources for their accuracy on a particular statement was quoted to you? How is my observation that various newsmedia misreported what Jackson said "unsourced" when I provided you a video of the event that shows exactly that? Apart from the fact that he calls Sunshine Law requests "FOIA requests", what is supposed to be wrong with his explanation of why he released the video? When asked by some idiot reporter, iirc, if he's sure it's Brown on the tape, what's "Appalling" about answering “Take a look at the tape”? Have you contributed anything to this article beside obstruction and an appalling imperviousness to evidence and logic? (Same question for you, NorthBySouthBaranof.) Andyvphil (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a cup of tea. I am not engaging with you in this manner. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't engaging anything I said anyway, just doubling down the same nonsense you were spouting before about plots by the police and the like. Andyvphil (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you continue with your personal attacks? I appreciate your passion for defending the police, but please cool it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

Wrong again. I don't have a "passion for defending the police". I believe Wilson is probably guilty of a Federal crime. I have a passion for the truth. I don't know what floats your boat but it's really hard to square your performance with good-faith argument rather than a simple determination to own this article, say what may. E.g., the FPD was required to respond within three days to the Sunshine Law request for its file on the robbery, once the investigation closed. I've linked the FAQ on the Missouri govt website that says precisely that. On the Friday after the Saturday shooting Chief Jackson released the video because the investigation of the robbery was closed, but refused to say anything about the encounter between Wilson and Brown after the initial contact because that was still under investigation. He says that he's doing it because he is legally required to do so, which is true. What part of this do you disagree with? Andyvphil (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Ferguson says that requests were made that required it to release the video. That's fine and may even be true, but it's also legitimate to be skeptical that (1) the requests that were made encompassed the video at all and (2) even if the city was required to release the video, that the city's choice to release the video at a press conference slated to provide Wilson's name to the media was inappropriate and was calculated to "thuggify" Brown. With respect to the first item, one could point to the city's reluctance to release ANY information (initially Wilson's name and basic details about the shooting incident itself, but also things like the names of other officers involved in other incidents during the unrest), which has been observed by basically every media outlet that's reported on the case. Also, government entities are not generally known for being overinclusive with releases to the public under open records laws and, to my knowledge, no entity specifically requested the videotape. With respect to the second, one could point to the fact that releases under FOIA (and presumably under Missouri's Sunshine Law) are usually made to the entities that request them, not to the broader public. In any event, there's still plenty of room for controversy over the video's release even with the city's purported justification. Dyrnych (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...it's also legitimate to be skeptical that (1) the requests that were made encompassed the video at all..."

No, it's not. There's no question that SL requests were made that encompassed the video.

I will agree that it would not be unusual for a police department to be as insouciant about its duty to obey the law as Holder's DOJ is and as it asked the FPD to be, but it's hardly a telling criticism of the FPD that in this instance it obeyed a law, however willingly. And I'm not remotely clear on why you would think their performance would have been improved had they released the material only to St. Louis Post Dispatch and Judicial Watch instead of handing it out in printed form, with stills, to the entire press. In fact, that suggestion is bizarre, though of a piece with the deplorable attitude rampant on this page that inconvenient facts should be made as difficult as possible for the lesser orders... I mean, "the broader public"... to find out. The "controversy" is just POV-pushers disappointed that the video took the wind out of their "unarmed teen" narrative. Andyvphil (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've located a third media request for the robbery video: "Reports today claim there were no media requests for the robbery video at ferguson market prior to the day it was released. I absolutely did make a formal written request for the video two days before it was released. A source told me about the video. Betsy Bruce and I asked the mayor about it. During a taped interview. ... " -- Mandy Murphey, FOX 2-KTVI, Sept. 6. [75]

Go ahead and believe in the wonderful, law-abiding motives of the FPD if you want. Totally your right to do that, and it's good that it's a view that's represented in the article. But you're arguing that well-sourced material be excluded from the article because, in your view, the arguments that support it are wrong. That says a lot more about your willingness to push a POV than that of other editors. Dyrnych (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to closely read a text is again on display. I nowhere suggested that the motives of the FPD were pure. I said that their motives were irrelevant to whether they should be criticized for doing the right thing. Andyvphil (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to make an argument without couching it in the form of a personal attack is telling, but here's the thing: who cares whether they SHOULD be criticized or not? They HAVE BEEN criticized, and for reasons that some people find persuasive. And you're STILL suggesting that the dispositive issue for inclusion in the article is whether or not the arguments that support that criticism are right on the merits. Dyrnych (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping things out of the article is your schtick, not mine. The evidence being what it is, anyone who finds this particular "criticism" persuasive is an imbecile, but I'm satisfied that the discerning reader will detect that truth if I give him the evidence in a neutral fashion. Which I did. Andyvphil (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing to remove verified, reliably-sourced content based upon your original research and analysis of what other people have written. I disagree with your original research and I don't think it shows anything like what you think it shows. You have provided no reliable sources which support your claim. Calling reporters "incompetents" and "morons" doesn't constitute evidence of anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not evidence, it's a conclusion based on evidence, which I've provided and which you haven't even attempted to refute. Andyvphil (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial reporting by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch compiling a number of statements made by Thomas Jackson

In the event that this is helpful, I thought I'd post it here verbatim:

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

 The officer who shot Ferguson teen Michael Brown stopped Brown and another teen because they were walking in the street,
 not because of a robbery a few minutes earlier, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday afternoon.

 Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he 
 encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects.

 He stopped them because they were walking in the street, Jackson said.

 But Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that the officer, Darren Wilson,
 saw cigars in Brown's hand and realized he might be the robber.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-officer-stopped-michael-brown-for-walking-in-street-but/article_52c40b84-ad90-5f9a-973c-70d628d0be04.html

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's made unclear whether when the Post-Dispatch writes "...Jackson told the Post-Dispatch..." it's self-puffery (that is, they are reporting what Jackson told the entire press... but are trying to make it sound like they had an exclusive interview), or whether they actually have an exclusive interview in which Jackson actually said "Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown's hand and realized he might be the robber" as opposed to Jackson saying he guessed Wilson might have seen them.

My bet is on the former, but The P-D also writes, "Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects.", which I don't remember seeing in the park presser,: (MSNBC:[76].) That is, I thought Josie said the call came in after Wilson left and before he returned. But I could be wrong. I've never listened to that and am not sure I've even read a transcript.

That last link (MSNBC), in addition to the video, has text saying "Hours later, Jackson appeared to change his story, telling NBC News that while the officer who shot Brown initially stopped him for walking in the street and blocking traffic, “at some point” during the encounter the officer saw cigars in Brown’s hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery." Which is where we get our our current text, "Still later, Jackson told NBC News that while Wilson initially stopped Brown for walking in the street and blocking traffic, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery.[48]". Again, my bet is that "telling NBC News" is code for "NBC had someone in the crowd of reporters", rather than an exclusive, so that if what is written doesn't agree with the video, you should believe the video.

On the MSNBC video the main exchange re "initial contact" is circa 6:00-7:00. At 10:45 a reporter accuses Jackson of changing his story, but that appears to be a reporter who is conflating Wilson with the officer who responded to the robbery, not having listened to what Wilson already said earlier about that, iirc. What's the timestamp on "I guess he might have seen the cigars?" Andyvphil (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you're referring to the quote mentioned in the section below, I've added timing indicators to it in answer to your question above. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought there might have been something in the MSNBC video about cigars that I missed. THanks. Andyvphil (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've listened to a bit of Josie's call and, indeed, when the P-D writes, "Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects.", it is contradicting her/Wilson's account. I don't believe Jackson said that -- it's just one of our Reliable Sources screwing up some details, as usual. Andyvphil (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN's Don Lemon presses Chief Jackson on the matter of what Wilson knew when he approached Brown and Johnson

Chief: Officer maybe saw stolen cigars Updated August 15, 2014

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson says the officer who killed Michael Brown might have seen him carrying stolen cigars.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/15/ac-bts-ferguson-police-chief-thomas-jackson.cnn.html

Note the following verbatim citation from Jackson:

 "And then as [Wilson] passed [Brown and Johnson], you know,  I guess 
 that's when he might have seen the evidence and connected it."  

(CNN's Don Lemon turns to this specific topic beginning at 01:22. The quote above begins at 01:50.) There's another video out there, if memory serves, (and I do hope I'll be able to find it) where, when pressed by an interviewer, Jackson admits that this analysis is his own speculation and not a statement based on his conversations with Wilson. In the meantime, hope this is sufficient to show that a belief that Jackson's statements were speculative and not authoritative is certainly not unjustified given his "guess" about what "might have" been going on in the mind of Darren Wilson. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But is Jackson's statement a reasonable and plausible explanation, considering the facts we know. Brown stole cigars from a convenience store, 10 minutes later he is walking down the middle of a public street in broad daylight carrying the stolen cigars. Wilson stops them, says get out of the street, they don't comply with his order, and at some point while they are foolishly still standing around, he saw the stolen cigars and made the connection with the robbery. Sounds reasonable and logical. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems an unimportant question since Jackson already said that he didn't know what Wilson had said, and his hypothesis was not based on the facts we now know. But it turns out that that is exactly what Wilson's story is, as you might know if this article didn't omit it. I just listened to part of Josie's account [77] for the first time and she says that Wilson was cursed, pulled away and parked (and, she thinks, called for backup, which explains the parking and the quick arrival of the second officer) and -then- the robbery call came in and Wilson understood the significance of the cigars, backed up, and what ensued ensued. Yes, all this does indeed sound reasonable and logical.

Now, whether what you describe Brown doing - robbing a store in his own neighborhood, boldly ignoring two security cameras, attracting attention by walking down the middle of a busy street carrying his loot and cursing out and disobeying an officer who merely tells him to move to the sidewalk - none of that sounds reasonable and logical. But that's what happened.

It cries out non compos mentis, and then if you notice Brown's recently changed behavior, his "vision" of the devil chasing an angel, his recent baptism, the religious content of his conversation with the contractor who was cursing out a tree root, even his expression in his graduation picture (compare with the other students... I decided on imperiousness)... well, things begin to cohere: mental problems interpreted in religious terms with resultant delusions of grandeur and invulnerability. How dare the clerk ask for his id or the officer tell him to move to the sidewalk, he's on a mission from Jesus to sort out the bad vibrations caused by that cursing contractor! He'd 'said he would come back to do it! And what Wilson interpreted as "taunting" was just Brown letting him know how impotent the poiliceman was.

To be clear, I'm not saying any of this should go in the article. But if you want to know what's reasonable and logical, that's my best hypothesis. Otherwise, as you said, how do you explain what happened?

That said, the subject here is what to do about the text saying Jackson said Wilson saw the cigars. For me, it's like the text saying police sources said Wilson fired on the fleeing Brown: accurate by accident. We should find a source accurately saying it was a guess and go with that. Andyvphil (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Browns lack of a criminal record was determined not to be a lead worthy point, I propose neither is Wilson's service record. I propose we remove this as well.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was in the lead to balance the statement about Brown's criminal record, and without that statement it's undue. Dyrnych (talk)

It was not in the lede to balance anything. You may be conflating this with the discussion of ages in the lede. Andyvphil (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Were you editing this article when it was placed in the lead? Do you have any basis for that statement? If there's an independent reason why it should be in the lead, feel free to state it. Dyrnych (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you were the one who added it to the lead? Or else, you participated in a discussion in which there was a clear consensus that this should be done? Feel free to clarify whether that is the case. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that addressed to me? Largely, I do not recall. It is in any case not up to me to do the research to demonstrate the falsity of the assertion that Wilson's service record was added only once to the lead and that it was done because there was a consensus for the absurd proposition that a mention of Brown's criminal record was an anamadversion that needed to be balanced. If that took place it it up to the individuals who advance that proposition to demonstrate it, and then we can again discuss the value of that prior conclusion. This material has been in the lede, most of the time at least, since I've been here. It seems to me appropriate that it should remain. I will expand on that should this discussion continue. In the meantime there is no consensus to remove it and I will, if it has been removed, restore it, pointing here, pending conclusion of the process we have established on other issues. Andyvphil (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was addressed to Dyrnych, who was seemingly claiming to have some unstated basis for saying the officer record was only in the lead to balance the bit about Brown's age. Was just trying to clarify what that basis was. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TKP. No need for this in the Lede. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Wilson has six years of no history of abuse of unarmed black men, or others, I think it's worth mentioning immediately. If we were in position to say that Brown had no criminal record I would be in favor of mentioning that as well. Andyvphil (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with removing this from the lead. It is argumentative in much the same way as Brown not having a criminal record is.- MrX 01:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing informative with argumentative. Wikipedia readers are not jurors and it is not our job to to do our best within Wikipedia rules to keep them uninformed. Andyvphil (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy. I don't feel strongly that this should be removed other than I don't see the point any more and I'd like to see the Lede kept as short as possible. It seems that there have been other salient issues omitted from the Lede for the sake of blessed brevity. Maybe pick a better battle? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "any more"? Are you accepting the proposition that this information was only, and was, justified by "balance"? NPOV is not an artificial balance. There are essays on that.

Brevity is good. Not excluding significant information is better. And the note is very brief already. Do you think it insignificant that Wilson has a good record as a cop? As I said, if Brown had a known good record I would want to mention that immediately too. Unfortunately, a court has decided we can't handle that information, and all we know is that he just robbed a store. Which is really unfortunate in my estimation as I believe Brown probably really did have a pretty good record, perhaps just truancy since the family's lawyer suggested that, or not even that. But we don't know. Andyvphil (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that Wilson's service record isn't mentioned in the body of the article enough to make it to the lead. This has little to do with Wilson's record (other than that wasn't mentioned much in the body either).Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 01:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate metric. Why would a simple fact be mentioned "much"? How many times must "unarmed" be mentioned in the maintext to merit inclusion in the lede? Andyvphil (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From wp:lead It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.. Wilson's service record (what this section is about) IMO is not an important point. The sources mention this, but just barely. The body of our article does the same. That's the metric,Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if Brown's lack of a criminal record is not in the lead, it is wp:undue (and, as TKOP notes, violates wp:lead) to mention Wilson's lack of disciplinary history. (I see both things have been removed from the lead.) -sche (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion piece in the Washington Post suggests that no indictment will be handed down. There will definitely be a reaction of some sort. Would it be best to put this in its own section at the bottom and then summarize that in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can defer any action on this until there's an indictment or a lack of one, unless we want to mention in the grand jury section that Milbank has criticized McCulloch's handling of the grand jury. As far as speculation about future reactions, I wouldn't go there. Dyrnych (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals with much more than a prognostication that no indictment will be forthcoming. In my opinion, it is a treasure trove of information that goes to the central controversy in this matter and it comes from an unassailably reliable source, the Washington Post. I would urge all to at least skim it top to bottom. For those who won't, the central theme is that the fix may be in and that in the event that is true, the person who will have been the chief orchestrator of the fix is the prosecutor, Bob McCulloch. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo can speculate, but there is not need to report speculation in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to speculate, but it wouldn't hurt to think about how to handle this one something happens.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cwobeel and TKP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that we can help ourselves by speculating on what will happen if there is no indictment. That said, Dana Milbank's complaint, that the DA didn't recommend a charge but left it to the Grand Jury to determine if there should be one, is meritless. I think it means simply that the reason the case was put before the Grand Jury was not that the DA thinks he has a case but to clear the air. Isn't that the stated purpose? (I don't know the answer, but am supposing it to be true.) For the DA to recommend a charge if he's not convinced he has a case would be a travesty of justice paralleling l'affair Trayvon. Andyvphil (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals with much more than a prognostication that no indictment will be forthcoming. In my opinion, it is a treasure trove of information that goes to the central controversy in this matter and it comes from an unassailably reliable source, the Washington Post. I would urge all to at least skim it top to bottom. For those who won't, the central theme is that the fix may be in and that in the event that is true, the person who will have been the chief orchestrator of the fix is the prosecutor, Bob McCulloch. As we now have a Wikipedia article about McCulloch, perhaps some of the information in this article could serve there. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I just found this which is the most authoritative statement to the effect that he did that I have found so far. This site was served to me by Google News so please, no criticisms for the fact that it's not the New York Times. It is what it is.

Did Brown Rob the Ferguson Market Before Wilson Stopped Him?

The surveillance video that has been released by Ferguson PD showed Brown in the store. However, the store owners said they did not report a robbery and that a customer in the store made the call via their attorney. Further, a longer version of the video shows that Brown did indeed pay for a package of cigarillos but took more. Once again, the police in the investigation have the full video and have only released a portion thus far. There is also a portion of the clip showing Brown shoving the owner of the store. Without audio, there is no way to determine what was said.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Source: http://newsone.com/3047840/mike-brown-shooting-facts/

My question. Do any of you believe that it is plausible that Brown did pay for some of the cigarillos? Will this source suffice to introduce such a theory into the article? If not, have any of you seen other sources analyze the video in the same way, whether reliable or otherwise. Personally, I have not. But rather than spend a day trying to find a second source all on my own, thought I'd put the question out to all of you. My appreciation in advance for any insights you can give (that aren't too jugular-centric).Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a false rumor that’s been circulating for several weeks in unreliable sources. Those sources say that the store video shows that he paid for the cigars but it doesn’t. In fact it shows that he didn’t pay for them. Here’s the video. [78] Notice that he enters the store with empty hands, then goes to the counter and puts his empty hands behind his back, pulls his empty hands from behind his back and grabs cigars, possibly talks with the clerk over the counter, then leaves the counter. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"NewsOne - For Black America" Entitled to all the misinformation the gullible can be persuaded to believe, apparently. Have you seen the police-released version of the video, two unbroken cuts, one from each camera? [79] (The link Bob provides is to an edited version.) It goes from before Brown and Johnson come in to after they leave, twice. There ain't no more, Andyvphil (talk)

This from page 6 of the strong-arm-robbery information pack handed out by Chief Jackson on the 15th of August:

So I returned to the Ferguson Market to contact employee there. I contacted ____ on the parking lot, who continued to point of W. Florissant toward Quik Trip and say, "He went that way." he was indicating with his hands toward his chest and then north on W. Florissant. I still could not see the suspect on W. Florissant, and ___________________________. I went inside to contact a _______ clerk, who was not identified at that time, and ____ and _________ patron, who was not identified at that time, who advised the suspect took cigars and pushed ________ on his way out. He was wearing a white T-shirt, khaki longer shorts, yellow socks, and a red Cardinals ball cap. They also stated that another Black male was with him, but gave no further description on that suspect. I gave out that information over the radio and drove northbound on W. Florissant. so I went into Quik Trip to search for the suspects, and did not locate them. Anything further will be submitted in a supplementary report.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/ferguson-police-department-incident-report-on-aug-9-robbery/1256/

I submit it in support of a claim that it is highly likely that Darren Wilson, (who never left his vehicle until the moment that the first shot was fired) had heard the other officer give out Brown's description (along with, no doubt, a mention of the items purportedly stolen). I further contend that there is nothing unusual in the fact that Wilson chose to raise the issue of their walking in the street rather than immediately broach the subject of shoplifting, theft, or robbery. Police who suspect that a driver of a vehicle matches the description of a wanted suspect will often look for (or if they feel like it, invent) a pretext for pulling over a driver, which then gives them the ability to do further investigation without the driver necessarily knowing that he is suspected of a crime. Of course, Brown and Johnson weren't driving. How convenient for Wilson that they were walking in the middle of the street when it came time to move in for closer inspection.

I am searching Google News in hopes of finding a reliable source who makes mention of this radioing out of Brown's description, but so far have been unsuccessful. So the chance of finding an RS that has gone second level all the way to an analysis of the plausibility of the claim that Wilson wasn't aware of the theft or of the description of the thief on first approach, I'm guessing is going to be pretty tiny. So many primary source dots. So few journalists connecting any of them. So many holes in our article. Just sayin'. Not ragin'. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the account is that Wilson stopped Brown for jaywalking, went to drive off, immediately heard about the robbery on the radio then came back. I don't understand what you are trying to say. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we had Wilson's account in the article...((insert repeated rant here))...you would know that Wilson reacted to the refusal to to go to the sidewalk - and to being cursed out - by pulling up, parking and calling for backup. Then he heard about the robbery on the radio. Andyvphil (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of information about the FPD's attempts to intentionally obfuscate the public record of the crime, in Salon[80] citing legal and political experts.

The article states that not releasing a incidence report is a crime and a violation of the FPD's own policies. The article explains that (i) such records are indeed public records, (b) Wilson's obligations of an officer require him to file an incident report even if it implicates him in a crime (they cite FPD's policies on police report procedures, which Wilson's report is clearly in violation of). There also should have been a use-of-force report, which should have been handled by Wilson's chain of command, so far this report has not been furnished.

There seems to be only one legal expert (Grapski) in the article who is making the claim that the released incident report is breaking the law and this isn't supported by the other cited experts. That Wilson is violating his department's internal policy appears clear-cut.

The article also goes into detail about the Missouri ACLU's public records request for the incident report, and the lies/cover-up by the FPD refusing to give it by conflating incidence report (which are public records) and investigations reports which as part of ongoing investigations are not.

Saeranv (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]