Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?

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 PorkMakin'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]
  • Leave out entirely from the lede and if it is relevant in the body insert no adult criminal record. I can't find any sources adequately referring to juvenile record. SPACKlick (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out Entirely. If sources at a later time have something definitive and articulate to say on this or a related point, such material can be added at that time. We are discussing a "bald fact" at this point. It may be premature to make a definitive statement about this at this time, and ultimately commentary on this may have to be nuanced as it may not be 100% clear what constitutes a "criminal record". Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out entirely. (I found this RFC through a random invitation left on a user talkpage I watch.) I find persuasive the fact that (A) there is such sketchy sourcing for mentioning it at all; and (B) he was only an adult for 3 months, making it a moot point to mention that he had "no adult criminal record." Also, saying "no criminal record" implies something we can't know for certain: that he had no juvenile record. Since records of many juvenile offenses are sealed, there's simply no way to know that, so implying it is wrong. Thus, in my view, saying nothing regarding "a criminal record" at all is the best option. LHMask me a question 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out entirely One other thing to note is that the term "criminal record" is an ambiguous term and a juvenile record can be considered a criminal record in some states, even if disclosure of that information is restricted or treated differently. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out entirely. Summoned here by bot. What is the point of this criminal-record text? He was not charged with any crime prior to his death. Coretheapple (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out entirely as unnecessary and potentially misleading. Instaurare (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave out entirely as per Xcuref1endx DocumentError (talk) 02:38, 5 October 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)19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been open 21 days, with the last !vote 7 days ago. Anyone think this is going to close as something other than "leave out" ? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed this because Isaidnoway changed his date, and I don't know that anyone else is aware that the closed RFC has been "reopened", or even if that can be done or done in the way it was "done". For my part, the current text where it is is fine. If you want to change it, I object. Andyvphil (talk) 19:20, 3 October 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[1]
"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[2]
“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[3]
“The black teenager [Brown] had no adult criminal record, according to the St. Louis County prosecutor.”
Sep 3 Associated Press/ABC News[4]
”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[5] (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 [6]
  • St Louis Business Journal [7]
  • KSDK [8]
  • VOX [9]
  • The Strait Times [10]
  • St. Louis American [11]
  • Al Jazeera [12]
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 [13] . --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 PorkMakin'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."[14]
--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 porkMakin'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]

AFAIU the law [15], there was no more obligation to release the video than there is to release the police reports. --Japarthur (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The police report on the robbery was released. But "Sections 610.100.3 and 610.100.4, RSMo, state that the agency has the authority to withhold the disclosure of records... if the criminal investigation is likely to be jeopardized." [16] Since the video was incident to a closed investigation it had to be released. Any police reports incident to the shooting need not be until that investigation, too, is closed. Andyvphil (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How convenient. Even the DOJ ask them not to release it, but they choose otherwise for reasons that we can all speculate about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Missouri law required it, speculation about other reasons the FPD might have had to release the video is puerile. The DOJ's statement that it requested that the Ferguson PD ignore Missouri law is, even if true, which I doubt, neither here nor there. Not every law enforcement agency is as lawless as Holder's DOJ. Andyvphil (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Holder is lawless, Obama is lawless. FPD follows the law by the letter. Yes, sure, whatever. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:59, 6 October 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]

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. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

— Verifiability policy, section Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

--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."[17]

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]

Shooting incident section -- shall it be complete or riddled with omissions?

So my focus now is the Shooting Incident section, which for many weeks now has been quite devoid of crucial information. I have been making incremental additions to it, some of which are brought down from the lede, and was surprised when Mandruss reverted a statement that I added to the section on the ground that a similar statement figures in the Dorian Johnson account section. I would think that we would want a full accounting of what is believed to have occurred in the Shooting Incident section -- more complete than what is in the lede, which, if I understand correctly, should be a summary of more detailed information found in the body of the article. Are we really only to include information in the Shooting Incident section if said information does not figure in someone's account? Yes, I know the question sounds absurd. If the answer isn't yes, then would someone please kindly override the revert and put back my reference to Wilson's first failed attempt to exit the vehicle? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that the bouncing door is too much detail for that section (and, yes, it is only one person's story). My takes have been known to be overridden by consensus. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't the explanation you gave when you actually did the revert, Mandruss. You said that it was already in the Dorian Johnson section. Where is this mandate in Wikipedia that forces us to leave out key details of the 120-second encounter which ended the life of an unarmed man, yet obligates us all through the rest of the article to go on and on and on about things that are wholly tangential to the actual killing itself? I mean, isn't the title of the article, "The Shooting of Michael Brown?" Because as of yesterday, in the Shooting Incident section, there was one paltry paragraph. Pardon my boldness, but I believe that that needs to be addressed. If I am once again the odd man out on this kind of question, I will again be saddened by the ostracism that my apparently peculiar conscience will have backed me into yet again. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Michael-Ridgeway, have you considered the possibility that what sets you apart from other editors is not that you have a conscience and they don't, but that you're in fact colossally bad at editing WP and understanding its policies? I ask you this in part because if you said to my face that I lacked a conscience, my response would be nonverbal. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Centrify, I think that it would be awesome to actually meet you face to face, as long as I were wearing a body cam. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Items that were missing from the Shootiong Incident section roughly 48 hours ago, (not intended to be exhaustive):

  • Josie's "come on guys, can you walk on the sidewalk please" claim.
  • Dorian's "Get the f___ on the sidewalk" claim.
  • Possibility of words being exchanged.
  • Claim that Wilson started to go on down the road.
  • Claim that Wilson aggressively reversed course and came back to the two men.
  • Reports from Piaget and Tiffany that their attention was drawn to the encounter by the "squeaking" of the police car wheels when Wilson doubled back.
  • Police claim that Wilson's first attempt at exiting the vehicle was successful.
  • Johnson's claim that Wilson's first attempt at exiting the vehicle was unsuccessful.
  • Police claim that after successfully exiting the vehicle, Brown slammed Wilson back into the vehicle, assaulted him bruising his face, and went for his gun.

And yes, I'm just getting started. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the editsum. I remember thinking, it should have said, "too much detail for this section, and it's in johnson's account subsection". I wished there were a way to edit editsums. I considered doing a dummy edit to provide a better editsum. I could have started a talk section to clarify my faulty editsum. But I didn't do any of that, and I humbly apologize, noting that I just two days ago complained about an inadequate editsum.
You're good, Mandruss. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael-Ridgway: I am not in the mood to ignore your snark this time. I'll ask for an unequivocal apology for the implication that my apology was not sincere, or we're both going to learn what ANI is all about. I've had enough. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Mandruss. No snark. I'm from St. Louis, right? You're good, as in we're good, as in no problem as in apology accepted. Are we good now? (Goodness! :-) )
I don't claim any policy basis for my take. If I did, I would have cited it. This is a fuzzy gray area, and that's why I'm waiting for other opinions. I have sent you a pie and a beer, enjoy and let me know if you need more beer. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think everything does not belong in the shooting section. I think maybe three classes of stuff belong there, and the rest does belong in the witness accounts.

  1. Stuff universally agreed to (the basic facts)
  2. Johnson/Wilson (proxy) statements as those directly involved.
  3. Stuff discussed by multiple witnesses (at least 2, preferably 3 or 4) - stuff that is only mentioned by 1 person should not be here, and some stuff by 2 depending on how critical that bit of info is. (IE, if that information turned out to be false, does it significantly change the incident? If the answer is no, its trivia that can be moved into that witnesses account)
  4. #2 and #3 should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and not be stated in wiki-voice

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased I am to see two members of the not a team seeing things as I do and apparently giving me a green light to make a go of fleshing out the Shooting Incident section. And I congratulate all of you who have made the other sections as solid as they are.
A sandbox for the shooting incident might be in order. But the last time we did a sandbox, nobody visited but me. So ... Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there pard, slow down. This discussion has been open for 8 hours, for most of which everyone but you and I were sleeping. It's now Monday morning, and a lot of people are busy paying the bills. As much respect as I have for Gaijin42, he's only one person (who is the other?). That doesn't constitute a green light in my book, unless it's still all we have about 48 hours from now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd characterize my opinion as more of a yellow light. Proceed with caution. It would be easy to end up duplicating the witness sections into the overview and make it very complicated and unreadable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my proposal for today:

1) We mention the drive-forward-drive-back detail

2) We mention that a possible reason for the drive back was possible notification from dispatch or another officer to Wilson that things had been stolen from Quik Trip along with a description matching Brown.

3) We acknowledge the wide divergence in the police version of what happened at the car from the Dorian and witnesses version of what happened at the car. (See, I'm not treating Dorian as a disinterested witness.)

4) We point out that multiple witnesses claim, and even a police spokesperson speaking to CNN admitted, that Wilson fired shots at Brown as he fled.

Thoughts? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Are we sure about #1? I know its been talked about, but I don't remember how strongly that is attested. What is the source for actually driving away and then coming back, vs the car staying where it was for the initial stop (or vs just not knowing for sure really). (This is a 100% honest question, I don't remember the details of where this came from clearly enough)

See new subsection below where I attempt to answer this question as best I can for a, well, horribly bad editor and all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) Obviously depends on #1, in terms of "drive back", but either way certainly the encounter possibly changing from jaywalking to robbery suspect should be mentioned here 3) Definitely ok with saying there are discrepancies. unsure how much detail should go into what those discrepancies actually are. 3.1) With the exception of the main "running away" and "hands up" ones which are obviously crucial. 4) Per above I think this can be included, but needs to adhere to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there RS support for 2? If not, that's pretty clear synth/editorializing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The police chief has said the report and description went out, and that Wilson "may have" turned around as a result. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean like he said Wilson "may have" seen the cigars and made the connection with the robbery? Should we be including all this "may have" suggestion? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that Wilson drove forward then backed up

From the fake 1st person account that Breitbart.com broke.

I pulled further up and over. I was watching them and at that point I got the call in that there was a strong arm robbery. The description they gave was the same as the two and they had something in their hand that looked like it could be the cigars. I backed my car up and tried to get out of my car, but they slammed my door shut to prevent me from getting out.

From Josie in her radio call

“He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did.

Dorian Johnson through attorney as quoted in the Washington Post:

He told them, “Get on the f------ sidewalk,” Bosley said Johnson has told him. Johnson protested to Wilson that they were almost home.

The officer put his cruiser in reverse, Bosley said, and pulled up so close that when he opened the door, it bumped Johnson and Brown. “Through the window of his cruiser, he grabs Big Mike by the throat,” Bosley said. “Big Mike tries to move away. The officer grabs his shirt.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-three-minutes--and-two-lives-forever-changed/2014/08/16/f28f5bc0-2588-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Thomas Jackson being interviewed by CNN's Don Lemon:

LEMON: ... you said the officer who shot Brown, right, Officer Darren Wilson had no idea that Brown was the person who allegedly robbed this store?

JACKSON: You know, on their initial contact, their initial contact was simply he was coming from a sick case, saw two young men walking down the street in the road blocking, you know, traffic and he pulled up and asked them to get onto the sidewalk.

And then as he passed them, you know, I guess that's when he might have seen the evidence and connected it, but his initial contact was strictly pedestrian.

LEMON: What do you mean seen the evidence?

JACKSON: There was a broadcast that went out about a stealing, and there were cigars stolen, couple boxes of cigars.

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

JACKSON: Right.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/15/acd.01.html

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this is probably sufficient to include #1 above. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson proxy accounts: Josie/Jill Meadows

It turns out that the original debunking of the Josie call has itself been debunked.

The call to the Dana Show by Josie was on 8/15. The fake Facebook posting was on 8/17:

"Update (Thanks to BeachDem) 8/15 Jill Meadows posts a story on Josie((sic?)) Meadows’ facebook page at 7:29 am

8/15 Josie goes on Dana’s show to spew

8/17 the fake Darren Wilson post goes up

So Josie was just recounting a different Facebook post than I originally thought."

[18]

I'm not sure yet what to make of the allegedly adequate substitute debunking.

Andyvphil (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked. No, Josie's account has not been debunked, but an alternate proxy has turned up. (Or "Josie" may be "Jill Meadows") The claim that this alternative Facebook posting debunk's Josie's account is false. The "Darren Wilson" posting (8/17) was a confirmed fake, so if Josie's had been based on it then her account was fake as well. But the "Jill Meadows" account is nowhere alleged to be fake, so just because it appeared earlier in the day (7:29 am 8/15) than the "Josie" call (somewhere 12-3pm 8/15) it in no way debunks "Josie", on present evidence. Andyvphil (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. In any case, this is third-hand account without a clear provenance, so we will have to wait until we have a direct testimony from Wilson. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. The accuracy of Josie's retelling of Wilson's account is attested to by police sources "extremely familiar with the investigation" as reported by CNN, and it is also relied upon by CNN in its comparison of the competing narratives. Which is accordingly a much better account of what happened than appears in Wikipedia's article, which has for over a month failed to elucidate the two-part sequence of events in the encounter. That the "editors" of Wikipedia are just now evaluating "Claims that Wilson drove forward then backed up" makes them justifiably a laughingstock, as that has been obvious from the beginning. Andyvphil (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel, you're trying to exclude this account from the WP article solely because you're interested in maintaining an encyclopedic tone -- RIGHT, BRO? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that Wilson fired on fleeing Brown

As to (4), you misquote the CNN reporter. He (she?) did not say one police source admitted that Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown, he (she?) claimed that multiple police sources said so. He (she?) showed no awareness that this was a scoop, and no one else seems to have noticed that no other reporter got this admission or that Wilson's having done so would constitute a violation of Brown's civil rights per the relevant SCOTUS ruling, and that the admission was therefor important. We've discussed this before, and my conclusion was that this sentence was probably a brainfart no better than a CNN reporter's statement that multiple witnesses say Brown assaulted Wilson, assuming (and it is not impossible) that there are in fact no such witnesses. Andyvphil (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody point me to this CNN source. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the "round 3" section below, I think I have the article in question linked, but there are many articles, so who knows. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding that in #When is a witness not a witness (Episode 3). Two article links, both CNN, but neither appears to contain the reporting we're talking about here. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I cannot find a CNN article with anything like this, but there is a brief mention in the NYT [19] "Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer." and "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials." It may be that the other editors just mixed up the source from NYT to CNN. I think I remember seeing a video of this statement, either from Belmar or Jackson, but that could be a false memory, since google is not bringing up any hits and I would think it would have gotten more widely discussed and disseminated. (Vs this article I just linked, which is discussed in Kos, LGF and other lefty blogs quite a bit). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so if we only use the above statement, that LE said he fired but didn't hit, then Andy shouldn't have any objection unless that's a clear civil rights violation. Am I correct, Andy? That could describe firing straight up. Also, if the above is all the reporting there is on this, I'm curious where Mr. Ridgway got the language for his #4, specifically the words "at Brown". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

beginning of section subject to attempted censorship

Somebody inserted "collapsetop|WP:OR and WP:FORUM here, a type of attempted censorship of which I am getting extremely tired. For the umpteenth time, OR is NOT FORBIDDEN ON A TALK PAGE and WP:FORUM has NOTHING to do staying on what someone imagines to be the proper topic. The next step is to investigate who is doing this, put a warning on their talk page, and request that they be BANNED for egregious and repeated disruptive behavior in violation of [WP:TPG]. STOP! Andyvphil (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Ok, the "vandal", in this case at least, is Gaijin42[20]. And it's his own stuff. My advice: Strike it if you wish, don't collapse it. Or at least supply better reasons. And, Mandruss, try to accomplish what you want without using the revert button. Andyvphil (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the purpose of the collapse was to (1) provide some additional information which might be of interest to only a few, (2) make that information easily viewable and readable (which striking does not do), and (3) save space. A contributor here should be allowed to collapse his own comments without interference. As for my revert, what I wished to accomplish was saving you egg on face, but you were determined to put it there. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ever delete anything I've written to "save me" from anything. Got that?
Whether Gaijin42 should collapse his own comments goes unaddressed at WP:TPG. It is clear that are not free to do with your past comments what you will. Your speculation as to why he did so is unfounded. He stated his reasons: "WP:OR and WP:FORUM", neither of which make any sense, but they have nothing to do with what you suggested. This is not the first time I have uncollapsed comments on this page. Whether they were self-collapsed not I do not know, but that was not my impression. Anyway, I have followed up on his comments below and I do not want my comments or the comments to which they are a reply, collapsed. Andyvphil (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I had already given up on trying to fix the collapse. Your explanations are extremely thin, but I'm not going to EW with you over someone else's collapse. If you ever uncollapse my self-collapsed comments without far better reasons than you've given above, that's a different matter. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that gets us deep into WP:OR and WP:FORUM but either shooting to hit and having bad aim, or shooting upward are probably not significantly better for Wilson than if he had hit.

  • Bad aim
    • Ruled under Missouri law 563.046 and SCOTUS Fleeing felon rule standards
      • If Justified, no further logic needed
      • If not justified under those two laws/standards = attempted murder
        • vs the shots that actually hit/killed, which could be murder, or could be justified depending on what was going on during those moments) (The missed shots could be attempted murder while simultaneously the kill shots are justified if Brown's actions changed significantly, or the reverse scenario too)
          • For a similar issue see the original Shooting of Jordan Davis convictions where the attempted murders came back guilty, but the murder came back deadlocked (guilty on the second try)
  • Shooting upwards

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"collapsebottom" - end of censorship vandalism. Andyvphil (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

end of section subject to attempted censorship

OK, sorry to be so slow to respond here.

Michael-Ridgway wrote, "4) We point out that multiple witnesses claim, and even a police spokesperson speaking to CNN admitted, that Wilson fired shots at Brown as he fled." I thought he was correct, except for the use of the singular and oddly-pc "spokesperson" for multiple police sources who we have no reason to think were designated spokesmen. The statement was in the article, and cited, for a long time. If it's not there now, good riddance. But yes, it might have been the NYT's "The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials." My repeated used of "he/she" indicated and meant to indicate that I was unsure of some details.

I certainly assume that when Wilson fired his weapon it was at Brown. The discussion above, that someone attempted to obscure, of 563.046 and SCOTUS(Garner) is on point. Also see [21] and the question (by "Gandydancer", not to be confused with Wikipedia editor "Gandydancer") that I've just added to that blog post. Andyvphil (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the drama. I should have indicated that I collapsed the section myself. I think it is WP:OR as its my own analysis, although I think there is similar WP:RS analysis around somewhere. My point of adding it was as background to other editors but I collapsed it to indicate I was not suggesting that we should be including it in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were not the cause of said drama, so no need to apologize as far as I'm concerned. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When is a witness not a witness (Episode 3)

Okay, let me try this one more time. I obviously didn't do a very good job of changing minds in my first two attempts. I think this may be more persuasive to those who are reachable. Some of you aren't, in my opinion, and so consider me not to be speaking to you at present.

My issue with the "researchers" at CNN who gave us this article is their abuse of the term "witness." Some of you have provided some of the most creative explanations for how this could be a proper use of the term. For instance, you suggest that witnesses could be understood to include A) Darren Wilson, B) people that we have come across in YouTube videos of whom the press has made no mention, and C) people that CNN has in their back pocket who told all but who won't allow themselves to be outed as witnesses.

May I suggest less semantically convoluted explanation. The researchers simply misspoke when they claimed that "some witnesses" had seen Brown assault Wilson while the two struggled at the car.

Here is my basis for the claim.

In the very same article where this unfortunate phrase occurs, when these researchers who wrote the article finally got to the task of fleshing out their listing of claims made as to what happened in the shooting, they split the information into two columns.

For the second column they didn't use the word witnesses at all. Instead, they titled that column What law officials and a Wilson family friend say. Clearly, they don't consider law officials or a Wilson family friend to be witnesses. And clearly they don't have any other witnesses to rely on when it comes to disparaging Michael and making him the bad guy in this story.

Please note, in the lede, they speak of two "perspectives" and then immediately split the formatting into two columns, one for each "perspective." Let me repeat. For the Wilson perspective, they have no "witnesses" reports. Just people who tell us what the homicidal witness to this event apparently has told them.

I don't want to spoil the ending of this story, so I won't make you take my word for how they titled the first column for those persons who speak from the "Michael-Brown-didn't-deserve-to-die perspective, based on what they saw and/or heard. Instead, I provide to you a direct link and implore you to read it for yourself (and weep). 

 CNN: What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson

So what I contend we have in the CNN article is something very different than Gaijlin and Centrify (formerly known as Fact Checker) would have you believe. What we have is exactly what we may, on occasion, have in Wikipedia when editors are uncareful -- a lede that isn't supported by the information in the body of the article -- a lede that is, rather, contradicted by the actual information in the body of the article. In other words, we have a screw up that no one has corrected all of these days hence.

This being the case, (anyone object to me claiming that that case is virtually self-evident) can we all agree that it would be inappropriate for us to contend in our article that multiple witnesses claim to have seen Brown both physically attack Wilson and go for his gun based on one article alone where a screw up in the lede is made obvious by a simple reference to the titles of the two columns in the article, one for each "perspective" -- where CNN limits the number of known persepectives to two? I'm not saying that we are making such a claim at present. But Wikipedia articles are perpetually subject to modification, so I think it's important to try to build support for keeping such language out of our article even though we can find it in a source that most if not all would consider reliable.

So final question: Anyone think I have a valid point here after all? (Bracing for those of you who don't WP:DONTBITE.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Johnson version #1 : door bounced off of them because they were so close
  • Johnson version #2: Wilson Grabbed brown
  • Bosley (Johnson attorney) : verbal dispute, physical struggle near car (started by Wilson in his version)
  • Brady : It was something strange, Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right
  • Crenshaw : It looked like the two of them were arm wrestling
  • Mitchell  : Struggle through window "Michael and the officer wrestling through the [car] window.”"
  • Mitchell CNN : It looked as if Michael was pushing off and the cop was trying to pull him in
  • Construction workers : Did not see initial moments
  • Freeman (twitter guy) : did not see initial moments
  • Overheard audio : did not see initial moments
  • Belmar : Brown pushed wilson back in, brown "physically assaulted" "reached for gun"
  • Police : "Dozen witnesses confirm police version"
  • Josie : pushed back in, punched, reached for gun
  • Spralding via friend (could be Josie, Guardian does not name) : pushed back in, punched, reached for gun
  • unnamed police sources facial swelling, etc

So every witness who says something about what happened at the car says there was some sort of physical altercation. Brady mentions possibility of punching, cops and proxies directly allege. So I think a neutral summary of this would be (and more importantly, one that has been made by RS for us that we can summarize) "All witnesses and participants say there was some sort of physical struggle or altercation at the car. Some witnesses say that Wilson grabbed Brown. Some sources (and police statements) say that Brown may have punched Wilson or reached for his gun. Most sources say there was at least one gunshot near the car, and then Brown ran down the street." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your final summary is completely defensible. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, that means you approve of something along those lines? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something along those lines would be something I could support. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this all SYNTH, given that the whole point of all this research is to come up with a claim that has not been made by any source?
Also, if you don't nail the relevant citations directly to the sentence itself, or at least exhaustively pepper the prose with comments indicating the sources and their relation to the claim, you'll end up creating the worst kind of WP verifiability nightmare for future editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the summary version I wrote would be easy to source, in fact I think its pretty much whats already in the article. A problem I have with the OPs post is that it didn't identify and specific text he thought was a problem, nor did it make a suggested replacement. I solved the second part, but in the absence of an identified first part, I'm not sure we would actually do anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not sure sourcing the individual points of evidence supporting an unsourced conclusion manages to avoid SYNTH, but in any event please don't fail to put footnotes in the final product even if it seems duplicative, because without the footnotes in the exact right place, the sentence will be mystifying and impenetrable to future editors trying to figure out where it came from. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. First off,I doubt we would have trouble finding a single source that did say all of that for us. The original CNN article I believe the OP is complaining about pretty much does that for us. I believe my summary/proposed text is a reasonable summary of this source (as well as several others of a similar nature I am aware of) http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-michael-brown-dueling-narratives/
  2. But anyway just for giggles, You agree that each individual statement is sourcable and would not violate WP:OR if put somewhere in the article right? Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition If every element is sourcable, saying all of them is not WP:OR, but we cannot produce the conclusion or analysis ourselves. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that approach is unproblematic when dealing with unambiguous, easily identifiable physical objects like apples. Real stuff in the world, I'm not so sure.
The proposed WP article prose we're discussing reads as follows: "All witnesses and participants say there was some sort of physical struggle or altercation at the car. Some witnesses say that Wilson grabbed Brown. Some sources (and police statements) say that Brown may have punched Wilson or reached for his gun. Most sources say there was at least one gunshot near the car, and then Brown ran down the street."
It stretches the concept of verifiability to say that this awkward and strategically vague statement is "verifiable from the sources". EVEN IF you list every single source in that sentence, untangling it will be a nightmare for any future editor — and that's assuming it remains relevant and uncontradicted. And even if it's not prohibited by policy outright, a sentence like this reflects exceedingly bad editorial style. I appreciate the fact that you are writing this to satisfy the concerns of an inexperienced editor who is genuinely interested in improving WP, but I think the result here would tend to do the opposite. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, my gut is telling me that this "accounts summary" technique isn't very encyclopedic. I can't do any better than that, so those who disagree are free to ignore per just don't like it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "accounts summary" is provided for us by both the CNN article linked in this section, and other sources, for example http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html The NYT language is almost identical to what I wrote above. BUT I am not pushing for its inclusion anywhere, unless Michael is still saying that there is text already in the article somewhere that we are saying something wrong - I have not seen such an identification yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't verifiable, I said it doesn't feel encyclopedic. We're not a newspaper, and NYT is not an encyclopedia. Michael might want to meditate on that sentence. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin/Brown Fed Civil Rights Charges

Story is about Zimmerman probably not getting civil rights charges, but story directly brings up brown case too and possibility (or lack thereof) of civil rights charges

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/george-zimmerman-not-expected-to-face-civil-rights-charges-in-trayvon-martin-death/2014/10/01/4cd2ebd2-498e-11e4-a046-120a8a855cca_story.html Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous that the Fed case against Zimmerman is still open, still more that DOJ Civil Rights Div just got a warrant to search GZ's computer even though they admit they don't expect to find anything. Isn't a search warrant supposed to require probable cause? Of course, you're also not supposed to bring someone to trial if you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Law in this country is going to hell.
That said... they need actual malice to Fed indict Wilson? What more do they need than that he shot at a fleeing Brown, who wasn't armed? Andyvphil (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, if stuff like murder happens in one state or not as a serial situattion, the feds do not touch it. So its state charges or nothing for the simple stuff. The fed charge that would be most likely is a civil rights violation, which has a lot more to it than just "unarmed and dead". To prove a hate crime or civil rights violation is going to be pretty tough. Certainly there is a lot to point at that Wilson may have done wrong, but where is the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this was done as an intentional hate crime or with the specific intent of depriving him of his civil rights. If they had gotten together a posse and hunted him down, or Wilson had a bunch of facebook posts saying it was his goal to kill some black folks, that would be a different matter, but this is going to be almost impossible to prove at the fed level. (On the other hand, if there is a pattern at the city level for the fines, and patterns of arrests/shootings thats a different matter, but probably wouldn't be directly targeted at Wilson either. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "simple vs. not simple". Virtually all murders are subject to exclusive state jurisdiction. A multi-state serial killer is guilty of multiple state crimes. The FBI is legally allowed to help investigate a serial killer iff state law enforcement agencies request it. You are right that the chances of a civil rights charge being applicable are scant. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WaPo article says, in effect, that a Fed hate crime prosecution would require a racial motivation. But if Brown had been white shooting at him when fleeing would still have been an intentional attempt to deprive him of his civil rights, per Garner. Are you saying there is no Federal statute that allows the DOJ to prosecute him for this, despite the Constitutional violation? Andyvphil (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there are definitely federal murder statutes (US 18-1111 [22]) but under the "Petite policy" they tend to defer to the local authority (in this case the grand jury hypothetically refusing to indict). There are exceptions to the policy, some which people may argue apply here (incompetence, corruption, nullification) but its still unlikely to go federal. Timothy McVeigh and Jared Lee Loughner were convicted under the federal murder charges, but both of those involved attacks against the federal government. As a good counter example Lee Boyd Malvo had his federal charges dropped in favor of state charges. For a more similar cases (cops as hypothetical criminal) maybe Oscar Grant Amadou Diallo which were local prosecutions only. Rodney King being the easy to point to counter example where they went for the civil rights charges after the locals acquitted. As I said above I think for Wilson whatever happens at the local level is going to be the end of it. But It would not surprise me to see something done (and gain traction) at department/city/state level based on the allegations of a sustained pattern (possibly civil suit only though). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Police Account: Irrelevant ACLU Opinion Was Deleted

The ACLU lady's opinion is irrelevant. She is a witness of nothing. Thus I deleted it. (EnochBethany (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&oldid=628675320

Leave a Reply