Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Michael Brown: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bsimser (talk | contribs)
135 edits
Line 674: Line 674:
::::: Agree, and thanks for the edit. I had to refactor the entire section because it said something that was incorrect. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: Agree, and thanks for the edit. I had to refactor the entire section because it said something that was incorrect. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


== "Aftermath in Ferguson" section ==
== "Aftermath in Ferguson" section ==


Yes, the word "aftermath" is vague. However, I can't think of a better way to capture that the reaction has been at varying times lawful (peaceful protests) and unlawful (rioting, looting). As long as we note that both peaceful protests and civil disorder occurred in the synopsis below the heading, is it necessary to be more specific in the heading itself? [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the word "aftermath" is vague. However, I can't think of a better way to capture that the reaction has been at varying times lawful (peaceful protests) and unlawful (rioting, looting). As long as we note that both peaceful protests and civil disorder occurred in the synopsis below the heading, is it necessary to be more specific in the heading itself? [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Line 683: Line 683:
::::I am beginning to agree that it needs to be its own article, but that's a separate discussion from the one that we're having here. That's all I'm saying. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I am beginning to agree that it needs to be its own article, but that's a separate discussion from the one that we're having here. That's all I'm saying. [[User:Dyrnych|Dyrnych]] ([[User talk:Dyrnych|talk]]) 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: ok I just changed section title to "Aftermath in Ferguson - Protests and Unrest" per talk [[User:MPS|MPS]] ([[User talk:MPS|talk]]) 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::::: ok I just changed section title to "Aftermath in Ferguson - Protests and Unrest" per talk [[User:MPS|MPS]] ([[User talk:MPS|talk]]) 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
: Should this section be condensed and left with a link and a single paragraph to the [[Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014)]] split or is it too soon? This section just duplicates the events day by day that are in the split article. [[User:Bsimser|Bil Simser]] ([[User talk:Bsimser|talk]]) 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


== Archiving ==
== Archiving ==

Revision as of 14:20, 19 August 2014

Police officer's version of the encounter

Here is (purportedly) the officer's version of the encounter: Alleged Friend Of Officer Darren Wilson Offers His Side. I assume that this story will start to get picked up by other news sources. So, this is for our consideration, with an eye to what we might (or might not) want to add to this article over time. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI. "Alleged Friend of Officer Darren Wilson Offers His Side" is farther away from the subject than you ever go for reliable information on something like this. This has been proven time and time again. You may watch it, but please do not think about adding something like this to the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisGualtieri: Please re-read my above post. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please restate, too many comments, too much text to infer which you mean. I don't want to misunderstand or draw the wrong conclusion from your comment which I cannot identify. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a nut shell, I was not advocating to place this info into the article. I was giving editors the "heads up" that this is what is being reported as the officer's (purported) version. And we should keep an eye on further developments (i.e., as to where this goes, or if it goes nowhere). And use the subsequent pertinent info to add in the article, as appropriate. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if other news sources did pick it up and ran with "alleged", would you be comfortable wanting to use it. In my opinion, if she came forward and was vetted and did an interview, then it can be used and attributed to her, but if she doesn't come forward and all we have is alleged, regardless of who is reporting it, I don't know... Isaidnoway (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me, as an editor, am willing to look at anything, if for no other reason than to look for tipoffs to truths that might not jump out at me if I don't at least hear what is being said by someone who claims to be bringing accurate information to light. It's been working so far, if I may say. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Okay, I've listened to that video/audio several times now and the more I listen the more I can tell you it's not going to get picked up by anyone. Darren Wilson knows very well that he can give the world his version of events at any second and that there will be hundreds of reporters hanging on his every word. The last thing he needs is to make some third party grape vine player his conduit -- and then to make Dana Loesch the next link in the grapevine. Oh boy. To me this is a slick way of sneaking out the talking points to the folks who desperately want the policeman to be exonerated because of how unpalatable the alternative is in the grand scheme of things. And if I were looking for a way to sneak that out into the ether, I'd use the Dana Show too.
As I say, Darren Wilson doesn't need people like this to tell his story. His name is known now. It was known when this recording was made. He is of age and can speak for himself. Until he does, this kind of stuff has no business in this article, in my opinion.
I take a different position with videos made of people who didn't want their names known who were witnesses to the shooting or at least claim to be such. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the forum, but I think it would be extremely instructive to be able to take every YouTube video there is where someone claims to be an eyewitness, catalogue them all, including the date of upload -- very important -- as in the case of the video I found today that talks about "cigarillos" uploaded on the 10th of August. And then just compare and contrast all of the claims made in every one of them -- and then put that synthesized wall of information side by side with the tiny drips of information we get from the police every 24 or 72 hours or so. And see which one stands the test of plausibility. I've been digging through this stuff so deep and hearing enough from people who talked to the people who talked to the witnesses -- I can tell you -- the journalists have their minds made up -- because they know there is no way all of those stories could have aligned so quickly on Saturday if they were all false. I mean think about it. I have three videos already that I have found where an African American with tight ties to that neighborhood talks about the suspicion that Michael Brown stole cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos. One of them identifies the Ferguson Market (going off of memory). But the rest of the world only came to know about the cigarillos yesterday (Friday). So dear journalist. If you're reading this as you prep for another day of work on this story, why not go out and get a Pulitzer prize by fleshing these witness accounts out to where we can quote them on Wikipedia. You won't have to give me any credit at all. I don't want credit. I want the truth. So do a few people out there whose minds aren't resistant to facts, I believe. And yeah, I know, that's not everyone. Believe me, I do. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one's analyzing raw video footage in the article. Happily, my one and only venture down that path was reverted. Thankfully, as I learned later from KMOV that the vehicle in a photo that I thought was Wilson's vehicle was not his vehicle at all. But I would beg to differ as to what this article is. For the last nine days, this article has been the one persistent reference for the lead story on pages such as News.Google.com, which still show the respect they have for Wikipedia by giving us that kind of authoritative endorser as the dispenser of a reliable summary explanation of all that IS going on CURRENTLY and has gone on for the last 9 days. Fact is, there is so much happening that the small number of editors we have can't keep up. But the world expects us to be on top of things -- and not a year from now. Now. Which means we have an obligation to be as current as you would expect Wikipedia to be if you weren't an editor and were just checking in to get your daily briefing on what is going on so that you, a politician, or a journalist, or an educator, or a police officer, can speak intelligently to the question should the topic come up in your work or in idle conversation. I am a self-employed programmer who isn't programming this week. When this comes to some state of partially resolution, I won't be a Wikipedia editor anymore. Because white paper stuff isn't really what I do. But I think that the need for people to be able to know what is going on -- in this story -- is extreme. For those who need a refresher after a couple of days disconnected from current events, we're a great resource -- if we do our jobs right and well. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX you wrote: "We simply do not use questionable sources in pursuit of truth".

If that is the case, why does the wiki entry include the statement from Mr Johnson? He was with Mr Brown when he committed the strong arm robbery. He has both a strong motive to lie, and a strong bias toward his friend. The fact that he made a statement does not mean that his statement was factual. If the goal is to presents the facts, I would argue that he is an extremely questionable source of information.

The statement by the alleged friend of the officer is no more questionable than that of Mr Johnson, and given what we have learned regarding the robbery, it is a much more plausible scenario of what likely happened (i.e., Mr Brown not the innocent kid the media has portrayed, but a violent thug with a propensity for violence toward authority figures). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is so outrageous to call Michael Brown a violent thug. I object to the reference being left in this document, especially given the fact that the passage in which it is found it is unsigned. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbery prior to the shooting

The robbery incident should be mentioned before the shooting incident because the officer suspected Brown of carry the cigars stolen from the convenience store when he saw the cigars on him, according to the chief. Sy9045 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in the timeline article, that should be the case. Why not have a very abbreviated time line in this article with a link below it to the full time line article, making clear that the robbery preceded the confrontation. If I were trying to put the policeman in a good light, I would seize on the comment made the St Louis Post Dispatch that the officer, as he drove off, (my perhaps incorrect paraphrase) noticed cigars and thought he might be a suspect in the case. Need I say more??? I'd do it myself but this article grows new tentacles by the minute. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A video has been posted to youtube entitled "Michael Brown, Ferguson Victim Paid For His Rellos." The video shows security camera footage and alleges that Brown had paid for the cigars and was thus not guilty of robbery. This seems potentially relevant for the robbery section of the article.

The video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.62.246 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it's covered in Daily Kos. Of course, we use "allegedly" here anyway. StAnselm (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to use this information (and I'm extremely skeptical that we should at the moment), it must be qualified to note that it is not an RS for interpreting the video (i.e., "According to the liberal Daily Kos, X."). Dyrnych (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KKK reference

Currently the article includes: "the South Carolina-based New Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said that its Missouri chapter is setting up a fund to support the police officer who killed Brown"

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:
SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be setting a very low bar to inclusion. Is it really noteworthy to include that attention-seekers in a different state agreed to accept donations on behalf of someone who does not want their support. This seems WP:UNDUE. --Darmokand (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. It doesn't seem that the mainstream media is really taking note. I won't object if someone want to remove it.- MrX 14:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is supported by a WP:RS and should remain as part of the reactions to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it should be deleted. There is no evidence that Wilson authorized such fund raising or would accept funds from the KKK. Scam artists shouldn't be mentioned especially given BLP concerns. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not include its purpose for inclusion is to inflame the racial tension aspect of the incident. This is a non notable group comploetely unrelated to the incident, picked up by one source, and that source explicitly says they were doing it for attention. WP:WEIGHT Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Should the statement that the a single chapter of the KKK from a different state (Missouri) claimed its intention to raise funds be included in the article? update : The sources were written confusingly/have been updated. This is the missouri chapter, of the KKK which is headquartered in south carolina.

Survey

Threaded discussion

  • I don't have much of an opinion on this either way and I tend to agree that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive. I did notice that there is some coverage now in the media: [1][2][3][4], FWIW.- MrX 19:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive, it's more a question does this "material" rise to the level of relavence and noteworthyness that it merits inclusion? At this point, no. As I said above, IF it becomes some huge deal, then yes, reconsider inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I disregard the attention getting part of my argument and focus on WP:DUE weight, that puts me on the fence leaning toward include. So far, we have at least four good sources, and quite a few weaker sources. If coverage of this increases in the media the next couple of days, then I would likely !vote to include the material.- MrX 20:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOV we report what reliable sources say about the subject without bias. This is a valid and interesting point regardless of how we may feel about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a highly controversial organization makes a statement like this during a national story, we should not be surprised that it would receive some attention in the media. However, WP is not a place to try and sell newspapers or get internet clicks. It serves no purpose to use WP to further inflame the situation and play towards the goals of the KKK, especially when their supposed support of the officer has no relevance to this event. Arzel (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether it is controversial or salacious or gives someone we don't like attention. If it is part of the facts of the story, it should be included. The Michael Brown story is extremely racial, so there will be extremists on either side and people in the middle reacting to the incident. It should all be reported if it is part of the story. The only question we should be asking is: Is it a significant part of the story. People who read WP want all the facts. They don't want other people to make up their minds for them. They want to read the facts and make up their own minds. There are people who see the story as Oppressors/Oppressed. There are others who see the story as Chaos vs. the Rule of Law. There are others who see it as Freedom vs. Police State. Everyone would like the slant the story toward their own particular viewpoint. But the best article will just tell the facts and let each person make up their own mind.174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ths is widely reported, including international press:

  • The Independent (UK): [5]
  • UPI [6]
  • RT (Spain) [7]
  • Prensa Latina [8]
  • International Business Times [9]
  • Salon [10]
  • Liberty voice [11]
  • Uptown Magazine [12]
  • The Real News Network [13]
  • MintPress News [14]
  • The Inquistr [15]
  • Brasil Post [16]
  • El Mundo [17]

So, regardless of our opinions, per WP:NPOV we should report all significant viewpoints per reliable sources, and not including this violates NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of now the shooting incident has about 500,000 news hits on google. The KKK angle has less than 5,000. This is not a significant viewpoint. It doesn't help that most of your sources above are fringe. Arzel (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe? The Independent? UPI? Prensa Latina? Brasil Post, El Mundo? What are you talking about? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

  • RAI News (Italy) [18]
  • Univision [19]
  • Stern (Germany) [20]
  • El Comercio (Peru) [21]

We have reported material sourced to just a few sources (The Daily Caller and Breitbart), and we are not reporting this? How come? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sources was placed after the RFC started and I have yet to see arguments that respond to this. Given these sources it is not a insignificant view anymore. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:
SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to keep in mind

I notice that there seems to be some confusion about WHY we're building this article, so I wanted to remind editors of a few pertinent (and interrelated) policies.

1. We edit with verifiability in mind, not "truth". You may believe that you know the motives behind the shooting officer's actions/Brown's actions/the police department's actions. You may believe that Brown is an innocent victim or a monster and your analysis of the situation may reflect that. You may believe whatever you'd like and speculate to your heart's content about what really happened in your own mind. But Wikipedia reflects what has been published in reliable sources, not what we personally believe. Base your arguments on what is presented in reliable sources, not what you believe to be "the truth."

2. I'm certainly not suggesting that you can't present sources that are based on your beliefs, but the sources control what is published in Wikipedia, not the beliefs. Don't advocate for your beliefs to be included in the article without a source to back those beliefs up. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia, so just saying "I believe X and it should be reflected in the article" is not enough for X to be included in the article. Similarly, "my analysis of some piece of evidence shows that Y" is not enough for Y to be included in the article, because that is original research.

3. Also, this is not the forum to discuss media bias or the like. You may believe that the media is suppressing information or has a particular bias. That doesn't matter. If you can find a source to support a particular claim, you may argue for that claim's inclusion. But what you CAN'T do is argue that because the media is presenting a biased perspective, your own beliefs are necessary to counter that bias despite being unsourced.

4. Finally, Wikipedia is not intended to be journalism. Thus, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." We can add information to the article as reliable sources report that information, but until the information is verifiable it should not be included. We don't break news here.

Hope this helps as we all try to improve the article. Dyrnych (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. This should be a sticky for this page.- MrX 13:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urging a split

The clashes are still going on. A state of emergency has been declared. Now there's been someone shot. People are resisting orders and apparently want to do 'civil disobedience'. (Source) Also, the event is now longer the 1992 Los Angeles riots which has its own article. Rodney King also has his own separate article. So why not start an article titled something like 2014 Ferguson riots? The riots and the shooting itself are two distinct events. The whole 'militarization' of the situation was also widely reported on. I don't think I'll propose another split, as I already did that 3 days ago with. (Result was 'no consensus') [Soffredo] Yeoman 13:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the situation changed much since the discussion that ended two days ago here Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Split? I'm not sure we should have an article that captures every detail of the protests. In fact, the content in this article will probably be trimmed eventually.- MrX 13:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the situation has changed. 7 arrested, 1 shot, state of emergency declared. [Soffredo] Yeoman 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7 arrested out of a town of 21,203? Soffredo, the LA Riots were on a scale that was so much worse than this. The people of Ferguson, for the most part, are just going about their lives. A few are protesting, and a very small few are being bad actors. -- Avanu (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet these "very small few being bad actors" are getting a lot of media coverage. The riots pass WP:Notability. [Soffredo] Yeoman 19:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why the rush to split the article? We can do it later if it's necessary once this is no longer a breaking story. Dyrnych (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we wait until this is no longer a developing story to decide whether to split the article? There's no pressing need for the split, I think. Do you see any urgency in splitting the article? Dyrnych (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, yes this is likely to be split. But for now is best to keep it here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it best to keep it here? I don't get why we don't split it now before the page gets clustered with information. [Soffredo] Yeoman 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's time for a split. The media coverage on the protests/riots/looting has turned into 24/7. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how is the coverage unique each day? And the idea that all the people are in a "riot" is a bit of an inflated idea isn't it? Daytime, people are peaceful; nighttime, it is a few opportunists. As with all current news articles, this one is massively bloated right now. Until the collary events, like protests or riots and looting take hold as a matter of life in Ferguson (or spread throughout St. Louis) it does really seem warranted. -- Avanu (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because different and unique things happen each and every day, so far. I'm not sure where you got the idea that "all the people" are in a riot, do you have sourcing for that? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No rush to split, but when you do, call it Aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown, not "Ferguson riots". Darmokand (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well we call it the 1992 Los Angeles riots, not the Aftermath of the Rodney King trial, don't we? [Soffredo] Yeoman 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than have a split, why not rename the Timeline article to something like "Protests and Unrest after Shooting Death of Michael Brown?" It's very much heading in that direction already -- and there is little in the way of timeline info that is going to be added to that article that directly relates to the killing. The encounter, altercation, shooting and death all happened in the space of three minutes. But the aftermath is 9 days deep already (the Rodney King riots ended after 6 days) and with the kind of defiance seen both on the streets last night and heard as recently as yesterday and last night in one-on-one conversations with people such as Alderman Anotonio French, there is little reason to believe that the end is in sight.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Just wanted to throw in my support for a split or renaming of the article. The motivation behind the demonstration extends beyond Brown's shooting, although that was certainly the catalyst for it. I believe at least a few journalists have expressed a similar sentiment. Dmarquard (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More photos that are free to use

These photos are from last night. They are free to distribute. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Loavesofbread&ilshowall=1 Loavesofbread (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to those who point out that we don't really know what Michael Brown's juvenile record, if any, is.

I believe that as we continue to include the passage that states that Michael had no record of arrests or criminal convictions (which I absolutely believe should be there) that we also include a well sourced statement explaining the laws that keep confidential if it is as I understand it to be) a juvenile's criminal record.

Not sure where one would find such a thing, unless it's just a general principle in all 50 states that is easily documentable.

While many of us here may not consider Michael's criminal past to be relevant to the story, clearly his supporters in Ferguson do. They contend that he was a good but not perfect kid who didn't have a reputation for violence that might have given the police officer justification to treat him so harshly -- even if he was involved in a shoplifting incident that day (as three unimpeachable videos (two from very reliable local news media sources) and one where specific mention of the Ferguson Market is made (uploaded to YouTube on August 10). Michael's supporters in Ferguson are a part of this story, undeniably. If they believe that his lack of a reputation as a violent menace is relevant, what right do we, as editors of this article have to veto that sentiment in this article. If you need to attach such sentiments to those players by means of a reliable source, by all means, do that. But please do not remove from the article the FACT that as of today no one is aware of credible evidence to support a claim of violence by Michael Brown at any time prior to his shoplifting of the cigarillos at 12:51 the day he died. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile criminal records are not always sealed, and in most states certain juvenile criminal records CAN'T be sealed. I'm not an authority on Missouri law (although I can tell you that under Alabama law, on which I am an authority, juvenile records are not automatically sealed) and I haven't seen any authority quoted in an RS. I think that this might run afoul of the prohibitions on original research and synthesis. Also, we currently have an unambiguous statement that Brown has no criminal record from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. No qualifications as to juvenile record. Dyrnych (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify this a bit since I seem to have responded to an issue that you didn't raise, juvenile criminal/delinquency records usually are CONFIDENTIAL, if not sealed. Still, I stand by my points regarding OR and SYNTH. Dyrnych (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't add up. If "juvenile criminal/delinquency records usually are CONFIDENTIAL", it seems strange that the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office would say he had no criminal record? Furthermore, according to the source, this was said by the 13th. It seems strange that no source for this statement can be found other than in a local business journal. I also noticed that this piece wasn't even written by a journalist, but rather a Digital Producer. Finally, not only have no other major news agencies reported this statement, but many have said that his past record is unknown. Now, if it were true that by the 13th the St. Luis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office already confirmed that he has no criminal record, why are the major news sources saying that it's not known? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources reported the same statement. See, e.g., [22], [23]. I know of no sources that state that his criminal record is unknown. Dyrnych (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are indeed much better sources, and they should replace the current ones. Here are some examples of where I was/am coming from: MSNBC wrote "Brown was not believed to have a criminal record, either."[24] If the St. County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said that he had no criminal record, they would have said so rather than just "not believed. Another (stronger) example is the New York Times[25], which quoted his *family* as saying that he had no criminal record. writing "The family insisted that Mr. Brown had no history of violence or aggression." If the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said that, why would they be quoting the family? The article then says "He had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile." Which clearly indicates that it is unknown. and again why are they not quoting this statement by the prosecutor's office? And if the police can't say, how can the PA? and likewise if the PA can, why not the police? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Dyrnych, on Sunday I presented a link to a NY Times article where they in fact clarified that Brown had no adult criminal record or arrests, but that his juvenile record cannot be released. Again here is that article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/ferguson-mo-michael-brown-and-darren-wilson-2-paths-to-a-fatal-encounter.html and here is the NY Times statement: "The family insisted that Mr. Brown had no history of violence or aggression. He had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile."

As others have said, it appears that you and isaidnoway are trying to control the narrative here by cherry picking info that paints Michael Brown in a positive light, despite many things coming out that shows he was not the "gentle giant" you would like to portray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "that his juvenile record cannot be released" misrepresents the source. The source says that police officers "could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile." That does not mean that they cannot release the record. Nor does it contradict the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, which is (obviously) a different entity and which stated that he had no criminal record. If it turns out that he did have a juvenile criminal record, that will eventually come out in a reliable source and we can include that in the article. But until that happens, we have no evidence whatsoever that Brown has a juvenile record and it is not appropriate for us to insinuate that he does when we have (1) a source that denies that he has any criminal record and (2) no source that contradicts this claim.
Also, personal attacks are not appropriate either. Stick to discussions of content rather than claiming to know editors' motives. Dyrnych (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know whether the man did or did not have a juvenile record. All we know is that he had no adult record for those three months. Since when should Wikipedia make up and assume things? The supportable statement is that he "had no adult record". 2601:0:7280:28D:E87D:6B12:6407:C7AE (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no assumption being made. We have a reliable source that quotes the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office for the proposition that Brown had no criminal record. We also have reliable sources that quote the FPD for the proposition that Brown had no adult criminal record, but they could neither confirm or deny that he had a juvenile record. Those two statements are not in conflict, and the second statement raises no doubts about the first statement. Dyrnych (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today has explicitly reported that Brown has no criminal record. [26] Until and unless a reliable source is found which states that Brown did have a juvenile arrest record, there is absolutely no reason for us to speculate or reason or parse words. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parties involved

I've added a "Parties involved" section as in similar pages (e.g., Shooting of Trayvon Martin). It needs a lot of expansion. Dyrnych (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to remove this until you have it done in a sandbox. As it stands now is really not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping other editors will help to fill in some of the details. I've started some basic biographical information about Brown to go with the basic biographical information that you filled in for Darren Wilson. I think it's more important that the structure of the article be established now than it is for the biographies to be complete or exhaustive at the moment. Dyrnych (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now, thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the Parties involved section should be part of or after the Investigations section. We can move it later, if it's importance changes. Also, please remember that WP:BLP applies in it's fullest extent to the section on Wilson (you have a CN right now) and, by WP:BDP, to Brown as well. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely important to remind editors about BLP and BDP. That said, I think that the usual practice is to place the parties involved section first in the article (see Shooting of Trayvon Martin; cf. Beating of Rodney King). Dyrnych (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More participants added

FYI, seeing new names added to the participants list, I took an inch and made it two. Added StL County Police Chief Jon Belmar and Eric Holder, now that the Feds have 40 FBI agents here in St. Louis and are doing a parallel autopsy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, participants are only the deceased and the officer that killed him. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(See my next comment below.)
(edit conflict) I think the participants should be limited to the participants in the Shooting of Michael Brown, not everyone mentioned in the media reports.- MrX 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to split this into two stories, that would be true. But the story covers both the shooting and its aftermath. Therefore, it cannot be contended that those major players are not participants. Their names appear so often, that they should be referenced in a legend box. And I really don't like the abbreviations. FPD is meaningful to those of us who know this story backwards and forward, but not to a 12 year old in Japan who is trying to understand this story for the very first time. Tell people who these participatns are with sufficient clarity for it to be helpful. For instance, referring to Dorian as a witness alone is not helpful. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The norm is to include only those immediately involved in the infobox (see Shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example). Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to know where to draw the line for inclusion. I would certainly expect witnesses to be included before government officials, family, reporters, commentators, etc.- MrX 23:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So where do we list the participants in the aftermath, given that we insist on not splitting the article? A second participant box for the aftermath, maybe?Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Developments: Day 9

Authorities to decide on extending Ferguson curfew to 2nd day -- USA Today Sunday Day 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is already included in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to miss it. I had seen a major article with a headline that it was up in the air followed by another headline giving the impression that the decision had just been formalized which appeared a few minutes later and which was only 45 minutes old. So I assumed that it was new news. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Dyrnych (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy release

Suggest discussion here, if any

Autopsy results show Brown was facing the officer and he wasn't fleeing as stated in the "Shooting incident " section. Autopsy

The wiki article states that "None of the bullets appeared to have been fired at very close range." [Cite note 31] However in the citation they note that the examiner did NOT have access to Brown's clothing. He did not find powder residue on Brown's skin, but it could still be on his clothing (unlikely although still possible). Someone please edit the "Shooting Incident" section accordingly to mention that Brown's clothing forensics have yet to come back from the lab at a bare minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.241.83 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.18.11 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source that states this? Dyrnych (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Synthesis of various witness accounts we've been discussing

All of the following is from the New York Times Autopsy article that we reference in the article. - - - - - - - - The police tell of an officer who was enforcing the minor violation of jaywalking, as Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson ignored the sidewalk and strolled down the middle of the road instead. The morning after the shooting, Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County police said that Officer Wilson was leaving his police car when Mr. Brown “allegedly pushed the police officer back into the car,” where he “physically assaulted the police officer.”

“Within the police car there was a struggle over the officer’s weapon,” Chief Belmar said. “There was at least one shot fired in the car.” At that point, the police said, Officer Wilson left his vehicle and fatally shot Mr. Brown. “More than a few” shell casings were recovered from the scene.

Mr. Johnson, who declined to be interviewed, has described the events differently in television interviews. While he and Mr. Brown walked, he said, Officer Wilson stopped his vehicle and told them to get on the sidewalk. When they refused, Officer Wilson slammed on his brakes and drove in reverse to get closer.

When the officer opened his door, it hit Mr. Brown. With his left hand, Officer Wilson reached out and grabbed Mr. Brown by the neck, Mr. Johnson said.

“It’s like tug-of-war,” Mr. Johnson said. “He’s trying to pull him in. He’s pulling away, that’s when I heard, ‘I’m gonna shoot you.’ ”

A neighbor, Tiffany Mitchell, said in an interview with MSNBC that she heard tires squeal, then saw Mr. Brown and Officer Wilson “wrestling” through the open car window. A shot went off from within the car, Mr. Johnson said, and the two began to run away from the officer.

According to Ms. Mitchell, “The officer gets out of his vehicle,” she said, pursuing Mr. Brown, then continued to shoot.

Mr. Johnson said that he hid behind a parked car and that Mr. Brown was struck by a bullet in his back as he ran away, an account that Dr. Baden’s autopsy appears to contradict.

“Michael’s body jerks as if he was hit,” Ms. Mitchell said, “and then he put his hands up.” Mr. Brown turned, Mr. Johnson said, raised his hands, and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”

Officer Wilson continued to fire and Mr. Brown crumpled to the ground, Mr. Johnson said. Within seconds, confusion and horror swept through Canfield Drive. On that Saturday afternoon, dozens of neighbors were at home and rushed out of their apartments when they heard gunshots.

One person who claimed to witness the shooting began posting frantic messages on Twitter, written hastily with shorthand and grammatical errors, only two minutes after Officer Wilson approached Mr. Brown. At 12:03 p.m., the person, identified as @TheePharoah, a St. Louis-area rapper, wrote on Twitter that he had just seen someone die.

That same minute, he wrote, “Im about to hyperventilate.”

At 12:23 p.m., he wrote, “dude was running and the cops just saw him. I saw him die bruh.”

A 10-minute video posted on YouTube appeared to be taken on a cellphone by someone who identified himself as a neighbor. The video, which has collected more than 225,000 views, captures Mr. Brown’s body, the yellow police tape that marked off the crime scene and the residents standing behind it.

“They shot that boy ’cause they wanted to,” said one woman who can be heard on the video.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.yahoo.com/none-back-brown-autopsy-shows-shot-front-body-034624156.html?bcmt=comments-postbox Insane hussein (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MailOnline account

[27] what is referred to in this source needs corroboration from other sources, as it seems not fully confirmed yet. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's unconfirmed about it? It's from a reliable news source, and you can see/hear the recording. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is not a particularly reliable source. If there's a better source for this claim, I'd be interested in seeing it and probably not opposed to mentioning it. Dyrnych (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper.
We need a reliable published source (not raw video or audio). The Daily Mail is largely regarded a tabloid of questionable reliability, so I would advise against using in this case. We can't view a video and report what we think we heard.- MrX 23:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC
Tabloid is just a format. In the United Kingdom by nearly all local newspapers use that format.The Independent and The Times are also 'tabloids'. In the U.S., the format is less popular in respectable media sources, hence the association with bad quality; but even in the U.S., papers like New York Post, the Daily News, Newsday, etc. are tabloids. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times is also largely regarded as a liberal rag of questionable reliability. The DailyMail is the most visited

newspaper website on the planet. But, don't let your bias get in the way of reporting facts.99.185.56.93 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the YouTube video the Daily Mail cited:[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.134.249 (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The provenance of the video isn't in question. The interpretation of what it says is the issue. We can't do that ourselves, because that would be original research. Dyrnych (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should either cite the Daily Mail or better yet, inform appropriate news sources that haven't reported this. I feel it is highly unethical for them to continue covering it up when it evidence in a murder investigation.65.128.134.249 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better to wait until that is corroborated by additional sources. If it is reliable, it will. There is no rush.- Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


[29] Breitbart. [30] Daily Caller. We have enough to say that the video exists, and that some sources have said what a bystander appears to say ... but we need not affirm what the bystander says in Wikipedia's voice. The Daily Mail, by the way, is not known to have made any fake videos, so arguments against using the Daily Mail have little applicability to the video at all. Collect (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one's arguing that the Daily Mail faked the video. The question is whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source for interpreting what the video says. Breitbart and the Daily Caller have similar issues. They're reliable sources for something like "some conservative publications suggest X," but not reliable sources for factual matters. That looks like it's exactly what you're saying. If so, then I agree. Dyrnych (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at these two sources, and if these are to be used and we have to be very cautious on how we represent this material, as in both sources there is a lot of speculation, so whatever we say if anything has to be fully attributed and not stated as fact. For example, Breibart says "However, this private conversation minutes after the incident seems untainted by any desire to protect or tarnish the reputation of either Brown or the police", to my point. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the account, appropriately qualified. OK with everyone? Dyrnych (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK. I added some material about the provenance. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to wait until this is picked up by mainstream sources. At this point this is far more WP:UNDUE than the KKK matter.- MrX 01:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's a notable view and I think that it's appropriately qualified. I'm not invested in it appearing in the article, but I think that noting that it's an argument advanced by opinion publications based on a couple of sentences in the background of a YouTube video doesn't ascribe undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daily mail is mainstream media. As I mentioned earlier, It's the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper. (In 2011 MailOnline was the second most visited English-language newspaper website worldwide.) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sales don't really matter here. Per WP:RS the criteria are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Daily Mail fails for sure with respect to accuracy. Dyrnych (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is properly attributed, I am sure we will hear from other sources as well. Either affirming or denying it. The Daily Caller has been there before... - Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He used the term "mainstream sources" which Daily mail is. (I just found that Mailonline is currently the the most visited newspaper website in the world. Which I think makes it pretty mainstream (according to the proper definition).) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the provenance of the video, is important. This incident has been politicized by both sides, and having conservative media trying to define Brown as an attacker, and not a victim is most definitively relevant to this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it, let's discuss the merits for not including this. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter that a conservative publication discovered the video when (1) other conservative publications reported on it, (2) we're citing those reports, and (3) we're noting that they're coming from conservative publications? The potential for bias is the same in any case. Dyrnych (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are certainly sufficient to note the existence of the video (and audio, of course). The content of the comments may or may not be opinion, but citing them as such would comport with WP:RS and WP:BLP. I do not suggest we use Wikipedia's voice for those comments at this point. Collect (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The question is whether or not we need to further note that "The finding of the video was first reported by The Conservative Threehouse [sic] blog, and reported by The Daily Caller, and Breitbart." First of all, this is inaccurate: the sources state that the background chatter was first reported by The Conservative Treehouse, not that the video's finding was first reported by The Conservative Treehouse. The video was uploaded on August 14 by a YouTube user who appears extremely unsympathetic to the Ferguson Police Department. Dyrnych (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This is why I think it is notable. An unidentified bystander shoots a video in the aftermath of the shooting and post it in YouTube. A Conservative blog finds the video and reports that you can hear a background account over the voice of the person shooting the video with his phone. The DC and Bretibart then publish this without any attempt to verify the video or the account, with a very calculated intent. That is notable, given the politicization across the board of this horrific incident, which left a person dead and another person never to be able to live a normal life. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're going down a rabbit hole here, I think. It's one thing to (correctly) suggest that the conservative blogs may be using motivated reasoning to interpret the video how they'd like (which is clear without the account of The Conservative Treehouse "finding" the video). It's another to suggest that the video itself is somehow questionable because The Conservative Treehouse "found" it, which is what it sounds like you're doing. Dyrnych (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is an attempt at using this article as a WP:COATRACK to politicize this incident by discrediting sources as "conservative", then indeed we have a problem. Either they're reliable sources or they're not. Their political leanings are irrelevant, unless that becomes the subject of coverage by other media. - MrX 02:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're as reliable as liberal opinion sources would be in interpreting similar information. Which is to say reliable as sources for the opinions offered, but not (in general) reliable for factual claims. Pretty clear application of WP:RSOPINION, right? Dyrnych (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS permits sources like this if they are deemed reliable and attributed accordingly. See here − [31], so I don't see anything wrong with identifying them as conservative. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Right. If we must keep this content, then it should be rewritten. Something like:

On August 17, two publications wrote that an unidentified bystander heard speaking in the background of a video filmed shortly after the shooting appears to confirm the police account. According to the Daily Caller, the unidentified bystander can be heard saying "“I think…dude start running, kept coming toward the police,” which the Daily Caller says contradicts other witnesses' accounts.

- MrX 02:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think we have to identify them as potentially biased sources to satisfy WP:RSOPINION. Not enough to just say that they're "publications." Dyrnych (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should identify them as well, it's not like we're making an inflammatory statement about the publications, I'd daresay they are proud to be conservatives. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Then we're back to my original objection that their opinions are not important enough to merit inclusion in the article. If they are not journalistic sources, then I think we do our readers a disservice by distracting them with opinions or cherry-picked analyses.- MrX 02:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a disservice or distraction to our readers to offer varying POV's about this incident. Just because the source reporting this information is not MSM, doesn't mean we can't include it. And I don't think it can be argued that this is a fringe theory either, because the officer is almost assuredly going to say it was justified because he was in fear of his life and/or bodily harm. This is a totally plausible scenario. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are journalistic sources, at least as journalistic as many of the sources already in the article. In any case, the RS noticeboard would be the place to argue whether they are RS's. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arzel: - The Daily Caller's status as an RS has been discussed many times on the RS noticeboard. I don't think we'll be breaking any new ground with a new discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is a RS. Arzel (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For opinions. Not facts. I just realized that I read that as "The Daily Caller." Dyrnych (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm: - You removed "conservative" from the account in the article. What nonconservative sources have reported on this? Dyrnych (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Examiner.com. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cite? Dyrnych (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be cited in the article. I can't post it here, since the site is on the blacklist, but it can be easily found with a search engine. StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't post a link to the article here? That seems like the bare minimum required for claiming this as fact rather than opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Like MrX, I fail to see what "conservative" has to do with this. If there is opinion involved, it's only opinion about what words are said. I'm fine with avoiding WP voice, and having "source X said they thought the witness said Y", but I fail to see any connection with political orientation. StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I'd advocate for the same labeling requirement if it were a liberal source at issue. Dyrnych (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some publications"? really? That is not WP:NPOV and completely out of the question. Most of the material in which opinion is expressed is fully attributed, (e.g. "According to the Los Angeles Times"), so what happened here? I am restoring that edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have consensus to reintroduce the information on the purported discovery of the video. I understand that you think it's important, but I'm asking that you self-revert that addition until consensus is reached. Thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion above and did not use "Conservative sources" as argued above, which is fine with me, rather, I just described facts as reported by the sources used. namely the name of the blog, and the sources that reported this video. That is not controversial, as these are facts included in the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the source says: "The man’s account was captured in the background of a video uploaded to Youtube. The blog The Conservative Treehouse first discovered the background chatter." - Cwobeel (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the sentence: "The finding of the video was first reported by The Conservative Threehouse [sic] blog, and reported by The Daily Caller, and Breitbart." Several editors have expressed skepticism that this belongs in the article and (I believe) none have supported its inclusion. Primarily, it doesn't belong because the sentence states that the "finding" of the video was reported by The Conservative Treehouse, while the source actually states that the background chatter was discovered by The Conservative Treehouse. In any event, it does not belong until consensus is reached. Dyrnych (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This source just popped up right on the main Google News page. Personally, I think this gives them nothing, now that the diagram of the six bullet holes is out. But hey, you guys defending the policeman, knock yourselves out. The New American is from the folks at the John Birch Society. (Full disclosure: My parents used to be members.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Ferguson Shooting Shock: Witness Unwittingly Captured on Audio Corroborates Police Story

Thomas Jackson (police officer)

The article on the chief needs expansion or it will be deleted. Darmokand (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted. Not notable outside of this story. Dyrnych (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not notable. None of the officers are notable for their own articles based off this one event. Arzel (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the city's police chief is notable just for being a prominent public official. Doubly notable for his involvement in this case, but notable even before it.Darmokand (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is outrageous that some authors continue to remove official police accounts describing the robbery incident because it shines a bad light on Michael Brown

It is outrageous that they're trying to bury this story. It explicitly shows the political biases of these editors.Sy9045 (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add the another section about the robbery? We already have a large section covering the robbery.- MrX 04:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The robbery incident relates to the shooting incident because the police officer suspected Michael Brown of being the robbery suspect when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). It serves as an important context for the shooting incident. Further, the robbery incident was not described in detail below. The section I added did. Sy9045 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting the sources. The initial stop unquestionably had nothing to do with the robbery. At some point after the initial stop, Wilson may have become aware that Brown was a suspect; Jackson has offered conflicting accounts of whether this was accurate. That does not mean that we place the robbery before the shooting as though the robbery precipitated the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote? Me stating the "police officer suspected Michael Brown of being the robbery suspect when he saw the cigars" is consistent with what Chief Jackson said happened. That relates to the shooting incident. In no way did I say it "precipitated" the robbery incident or that Wilson suspected Brown of being involved in the robbery before he made his first contact with him (you are just putting words in my mouth), but it does relate because Wilson made the connection between the cigars in Brown's hands and the robbery incident that occurred shortly prior. Sy9045 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have independently arrived at the conclusion that the robbery led to the shooting, which is not what the sources say. Also, please explain why we need two robbery sections and why your version is superior to the existing version created through collaboration.- MrX 04:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd that you would say that when I said explicitly Wilson made the connection to the robbery incident when he saw the cigars (this according to Chief Jackson). Do you disagree with what Chief Jackson said? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Don't you think that's intellectually dishonest? The robbery section I added describes the robbery incident in detail while the robbery section at the bottom gives a mention of the robbery, but does not describe the robbery in detail.Sy9045 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that MrX did NOT say that you said or believe that the robbery led to the stop (nor did I, in fact). He said that you "independently arrived at the conclusion that the robbery led to the shooting" (emphasis added). You are connecting the robbery to the shooting in a way that is not stated by reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what world did I say it "led to the shooting"? Why are you repeatedly putting words in my mouth? I've already said that Wilson did not know about Brown being involved in the prior robbery incident, but he made a connection when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). That by itself shows there's at least some connection between the two events (again do not put words in my mouth; the connection exists strictly because Wilson had a suspicion Brown might have been involved in the robbery incident when he saw the cigars; please do not imply anything further than that).Sy9045 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you've now tagged the entire article as non-neutral because you dispute an undue weight tag in one section. Think about that for a minute. Dyrnych (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If even one section is not neutral, that means the article by itself is not neutral.Sy9045 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sy9045: You have attempted this edit numerous time just to be reverted by many editors for reasons already hashed out in this page. Please stop, and seek consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not seeking consensus. You just remove statements without even using the talk page to describe why you're removing sections. You've shown your biases throughout. Sy9045 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anybody but you advocating for your position, or any rationale that is valid in your arguments. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for biases, we all have them, including you. But that does not mean that we can;t edit this article in collaboration. It seems that you are only interested in adding the robbery material, while there is still a lot to add to the article. Show that you care about Wikipedia more than your POV and that would be a good step. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was definitely a connection between the robbery and the shooting. Wilson was called out in response to the robbery. That's a connection. Brown committed the robbery. That's a connection. Wilson suspected that Brown was the robber. That's a connection. And finally, Brown not just innocently walking down the street, as dishonestly related by Johnson, he had just committed a robbery and I'm sure that affected his state of mind. It's tragic that Michael Brown is dead. But the problem with this article, and much of the media reporting, is that it tries to paint a simplistic morality play that "racist white police officer guns down innocent black teenager". That's not what happened, Michael Brown is a big guy, had just been pushing around a shop-owner after robbing him, and there was a struggle over a gun. 71.217.116.182 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The connection exists immediately when Wilson suspected Brown of being involved in the robbery incident when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Wilson). The robbery is crucial evidence as you said. It's absurd that this article is being edited is such a politically charged manner by some of these editors. Sy9045 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look. I reported the official police account of the robbery incident. How is that not neutral? That is key evidence for this case. It's absurd that you would accuse me of being bias when you are removing official reports from this case that don't agree with your opinion.Sy9045 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The robbery incident has a full section in the article already. And some of the assertions above are not what sources are reporting. If the robbery is key evidence or not, it is not for us to judge. We just report what sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, it only gives a glancing report of the incident, not details of the robbery incident that describes a felony strong arm robbery. That existing robbery section is also full of other details that do not describe the robbery. The strong arm robbery is key evidence (see http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/so-why-wasnt-officer-wilson-arrested-plus-answers-other-questions-about-law) for this case and removing it is not a neutral position.Sy9045 (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute - Shooting incident

The details of the robbery incident should be added back in because it serves as key evidence for this case (see: http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/so-why-wasnt-officer-wilson-arrested-plus-answers-other-questions-about-law). Removing the details that describes a felony strong arm robbery incident is not a neutral position. The robbery incident should be added before the shooting incident because Officer Wilson made a connection to the robbery incident when he saw Brown with the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). It also gives evidence to Brown's state of mind when he was approached by the officer and also disputes reports that Brown was a "gentile giant". Adding the robbery incident before the shooting incident also gives a chronological timing of the events (see http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/). Sy9045 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, a quick scan of the article shows that the phrase - "strong-arm" robbery - is used 3 times in the article and once in the lead. The term "robbery" occurs 11 times. There is a link to the police report in the article content. It is painfully obvious that Michael Brown was a suspect in a strong arm robbery. Adding another section would give this aspect of the incident way too much weight. Improve the existing section if you wish, but adding another section devoted solely to this robbery is out of the question. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it does not describe the robbery incident in detail, which would dispute reports that Brown was a "gentle giant" and also gives evidence to his state of mind before the shooting incident. We don't need to add another robbery section if you wish. We can add the details of the robbery to the shooting incident section, which occurred approximately 10 minutes prior to the shooting. We can re-title that section "Shooting of Michael Brown" that includes details of the robbery incident. This would give a chronological timing of the events as it happened. It's important that we add the robbery before the shooting because Officer Wilson made a connection with the robbery when he saw Brown with the cigars. What do you think? Sy9045 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sy9045: I have been reading all your posts. I have also seen your efforts to stop those editors who want to "whitewash" the article and scrub it clean for their pro-Brown anti-cop agenda. I agree 100% with all you have said. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Joseph! You made my night. Thank you.Sy9045 (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Keep up the good work. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has objected yet, I am adding back details of the robbery incident to the shooting incident section, and re-titling it to "Shooting of Michael Brown". If you disagree with my edit, please state your reasons below. Sy9045 (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sy9045, I agree with Joseph A Spadaro. Clearly Dyrnych and isaidnoway have an agenda to control the narrative here, dismissing news information even from the NY Times if it goes against their narrative of Brown the "gentle giant" wrongfully harassed by the cop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section was a total mess, and in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. We don;t have a report from he shooting, and the report from the alleged robbery is not of the shooting itself, and has yet to be tied to the shooting. I have refactored that section, including a mention of the early alleged robbery. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. That section has more content about a robbery that appears to be unrelated to the shooting than about the shooting incident itself. Tagged as POV for now, but it needs to be addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried one more time to correct this. Per NPOV we have to say that there are conflicting reports from Ferguson police about the connection between the alleged robbery and the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have more concrete information about the robbery than the shooting, considering that there is video of the entire event, and Johnson admits to the the event. I could however see trimming down some of the play by play in that section to have just the most crucial details - unarmed robbery, stealing ~$50 of cigars, assaulting clerk. the details of how he reached over the counter, and how many times etc is not needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with that. Sy9045 needs to stop re-adding this overly-detailed content against consensus.- MrX 16:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's hope this version stays as a compromise. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quality sources please

We won't be using the Daily Mail here. Per WP:IRS we would need a publication with a reputation for fact-checking, which rules the Mail out. This is a BLP matter so WP:BLPSOURCES applies. --John (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was he shot in the front or back?

Biased witnesses "swear" that he was shot in the back. Unbiased autopsy indicates that all shots were in front. Whom should we believe? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Private autopsy reveals Brown was shot 6 times. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above source: "Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City chief medical examiner, told The New York Times that one of the bullets entered the top of Brown's skull, suggesting that his head was bent forward when he suffered a fatal injury. Brown was also shot four times in the right arm, and all the bullets were fired into his front, Baden said." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum to discuss which accounts are most credible. We report what reliable sources say. Also, we, the editors, do not synthesize sources with witness accounts to report something that reliable sources do not say. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. All reliable sources are reporting on this autopsy. The results of which are inconvenient for some people, it seems. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
They are reporting on the autopsy, and that's fine; we should include their reports on the autopsy. What we should NOT do is take those reports, compare them to other sourced information, draw conclusions, and then report on that in Wikipedia's voice because THAT IS SYNTHESIS AND IS PROHIBITED. Please REVIEW the relevant policy. Dyrnych (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You don't think that reliable sources all over the place will be pointing out these inconsistencies? Really? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Okay, let's wait for them to do that. Then we can put them in the article, because then we won't have to worry about those pesky prohibitions on doing our own original research. Dyrnych (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. See here. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/08/17/michael-brown-was-shot-times-ferguson-officer-preliminary-autopsy-shows/izi6zze4Z2QebrpaWtG2nI/story.html. Search for "contradict". Should we include that source? The USA Today source already includes "contradict" but we can add that too. Do you want additional sources too? Sy9045 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph, what do the unbiased witnesses say? I'm sure there must be a long list of them that you're consulting with. You realize that Chief Belmar and Chief Jackson, the conduits of information from the "defendant's" side of the line were not eyewitnesses, right, and that everything that they say is pure hearsay, in a very literal and unimpeachable sense? Same goes for Josie, Dana Loesch's confidential informant. That being the case, it would be awesome if you would stop acting as though your side has a stellar list of honest witnesses while Michael Brown has none. That's just silly and it makes people who look like you and me look worse than we already look right now. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? My point is that the autopsy is proven and scientific and that it contradicts biased witness statements. Statements which, by the way, caused all these problems (i.e., that a cop shot a guy in the back while he was surrendering with his hands up in the air). Accounts that now appear to be not only biased, but also fictitious. (No public outrage over that, I bet.) So, again, what are you talking about? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get to draw those conclusions on Wikipedia. Sorry. Dyrnych (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can draw any conclusions that I want. Are you aware that this is a Talk Page and not an article? Are you aware of that? Seriously? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyrnych, Dr Baden's report that all bullets entered from the front is the unbiased source...particularly given the fact that Brown's family hired him. As Joseph pointed out, the biased source all swear that he was shot in the back. You cannot dismiss that the coroners report directly contradicts the statement of the biased sources. And let me clarify this again....the autopsy report came from Dr Baden who was hired by the family, it did NOT come from the state, which like the witnesses, would have been a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The preliminary private autopsy appears to be inconclusive as to whether he may have been shot from the back. "Shawn Parcells, a forensic pathologist who assisted Dr Baden, said a wound to Mr Brown's right arm may have been sustained as he had his hands up, "but we don't know". He said the wound was consistent either with having his back to the officer or facing the officer with his hands above his head or in a defensive position. " [32]. 9kat (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cite that says we don't know if Brown was facing forward or backward while taking bullet each of the six or more bullet hits. My paraphrase. Read the article for what it actually says, since you obviously don't want me copying and pasting it into here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC) SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle: 'Don't know' if 18-year-old shot with hands up Hope this helps. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

It is original research to separate the witness accounts into those that are supposedly consistent with the autopsy and those that supposedly are not consistent without a reliable source making this claim. It violates Wikipedia policy to do this; please stop. Dyrnych (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, at a bare minimum this is a wildly controversial change to make to the article. Please follow WP:BRD and STOP REINSTATING THE EDITS WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Dyrnych (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% - we absolutely can not say in WP's voice that the witness accounts contradict anything. That is not our place and is grossly out of line. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? The autopsy is not "reliable" but witness account statements that include one from someone who was involved in a felony robbery (and a friend of Brown's) is? Care to explain your logic? The USA article cited even stated that the autopsy contradicted those witness accounts. Sy9045 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bickering and OR
@Sy9045: The autopsy results are a bit too "inconvenient" for some editors, who will fight tooth and nail and cite a million Wikipedia policies to keep them out. And to keep out the fact that all of those witnesses are scientifically proven to be contradicted. But, don't worry. Reliable sources all over the place will soon be reporting on the autopsy results and how they contradict all those witnesses. Those reliable sources will not be hard to find (as much as some editors want to keep this information out of the article). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with you Joseph. I can't imagine what how many other articles on Wikipedia are edited in the same manner. I cannot believe this is allowed to happen. Sy9045 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mr. Spadaro, but it's more than a little absurd to claim that someone who cites policy, and disagrees with you, is simply using policy as a weapon to get their bias into an article. A reasonable person might consider the possibility that they are citing policy because they believe in policy and believe, right or wrong, that policy supports their argument. Please review WP:AGF and stop this destructive talk.   Mandruss |talk  07:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you so strongly support policies, here is another one for you to support: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Or is that one a bit "inconvenient" for you to support? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to invoke that particular one, and I suspect I never will, for multiple reasons. First, I haven't needed it; second, I think it's a cop-out for lazy thinkers; third, it means we might as well throw out all policy, surrender to the lawless Wild West of Wikipedia, and watch Wikipedia crash and burn as a result. This applies when you look only at the three words and take them literally, but the fact is that the policy is far more nuanced than that. So I don't object to the policy per se, but rather to the literal interpretation of its name.   Mandruss |talk  08:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, in other words, you "pick and choose" which policies you like (i.e., serve your purposes), and follow them? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you never cited a policy here? Sheesh. I quit.   Mandruss |talk  08:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that answers my question. In fact, it avoids my question. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source that explicitly says that EACH account is contradicted? No? Then you CANNOT INCLUDE that claim in Wikipedia's voice. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. I would advise you to look carefully at Wikipedia's core content policies, ALL OF WHICH YOU ARE CURRENTLY VIOLATING. Dyrnych (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We just simply title it "witness accounts" and list those accounts. The reader can determine for themselves if they think it contradicts something or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/), cited that witness accounts that described Brown being shot in the back was contradicted by the autopsy. It's sad that you (and editors like you) are politicizing this article. Sy9045 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly sick of you accusing me of politicizing the article as you BLATANTLY push your own POV in completely disregard of basically every Wikipedia policy. You have at no point cited any policy that allows you to synthesize sources in the way that you are doing, which is revealing because you CANNOT cite any such source. Now you are misrepresenting the source that you cite, because it UNAMBIGUOUSLY states that the autopsy finding "could contradict a witness statement." It COULD contradict A witness statement. Does it contradict a statement? It sure could--but that doesn't mean that it DOES! Which one? Who the hell knows! Dyrnych (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyrnych: Fine, for now, use the word "could" in this article. Just wait a few more hours, and we can change it does "does", as soon as the reliable sources state so. Which will obviously happen. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{:::::: Good thing you've got a crystal ball, buddy. I'm likewise done discussing this for the night. I'm quite sure that another editor will clean this up, since it's not even close to compliance with WP's core policies. Dyrnych (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with a crystal ball. It's called common sense. You want to "hang your hat" on semantics and linguistic gymnastics. Clearly, it is only a matter of time before a reliable source outright states the contradiction. Ya know, the contradiction that is apparent to everyone ... except you. My mistake, I should have said "contradictions", plural. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "could" is not controversial since it was in the USA Today article. The Boston Globe one above also writes "appears to contradict". We can use any of those terms. We can even use "unsubstantiated". Sy9045 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not willing to edit war with you over this as I know it will eventually be removed. Good night. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So we all agree on what we can't do.
What we could do, though is make an awesome table that takes each of the points of dispute and lists all of the statements that we have in reliable sources from each of the eyewitnesses that have come forward and from each of the official spokespersons for the police who have made their own claims as to what happened. Then the readers could see those claims side by side and could do their own analysis as to which seem to align with the results of the autopsy and which do not. I have found Dorian Johnson and Tiffany Mitchell to be very credible from the beginning. But I'd be the first to admit that Dorian's belief that Michael was shot in the back is not borne out by the diagram we have from those who performed the autopsy. Do I think he was attempting to deceive us? No. I think he really believed that that is what happened given the fact that Michael had run 35 feet away from the vehicle and then turned around abruptly. He admits to being at a disadvantage as far as viewing what was going on as he was hiding behind a car fearful for his life. Do I think that Michael turned around rather than just keep running? I do. But here's a question for the 6-bullet shooter fans among us. If Michael was such an imminent threat to Wilson, why are there four bullets in Michael's arm and none in the center area of his chest where you would think that all bullets would be aimed if there was any danger to Wilson at all? I ask with great sincerity. I want to know the mind of a 6-bullet apologist. What scenario could have possibly led to the planting of four bullets in one arm? Extra bonus points if the scenario you manufacture actually supports a claim that Wilson was in danger of death or serious harm is also supported as he fired each of those six bullets. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go out and do this experiement. Run fast down the street or your yard and see where your arms go. Unless you don't move them, they are going to move in front of your chest. Hitting a moving target is not as easy as the video games would have you believe. Arzel (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have stopped writing after the first two sentences. The rest is WP:OR and not what we're here for. You said, "the readers ... could do their own analysis," and then proceeded to do analysis. At best, it's a waste of disk space and our time.   Mandruss |talk  08:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following article has been used to justify the division of witness accounts into "Accounts Supported by Physical Evidence" and "Accounts Contradicted By Physical Evidence".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/

After reading the article, I found that it states that the autopsy report "could" contradict the witness statement, not that the autopsy report does contradict the witness statement. For us to make the jump that it definitively does contradict the witness statement by placing it into a subsection titled as such is plainly wp:synth, which is forbidden. —Megiddo1013 08:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I saw some excellent player of tactics, who, using a policy that grossly contradicts facts in certain cases, and thus by enforcing this little Verifiability, not truth rule, deliberately hides and suppress even the simpliest truth. I remember that in the final of 2013 Copa del Rey Final, the 35' goal of Atlético Madrid was scored by Dirgo Costa, yet in the official report, it states the scorer was Arda, which was a big mistake because video footage shows that there is no doubt/no ambiguity that Costa was the scorer. Some users adhered to the official report while other users adhered to the simple facts. And it was even brought to Wiki:football for a discussion. The English wiki eventually disregards the mistake in the official report, and documents the correct scorer. The Spanish wiki adheres to the report and put a clearification below. I see that the exactly the same things here happen, and some editors are trying to hide certain simple facts by adhering to "old" mistaken reports. So lying is their goal, and the policy? --merely a tool. And yes, this remark is somehow sarcastic, yet I don't try to conceal it by saying "I ask with great sincerity", as some childish hypocrite did above.
So my advice? If you truly care about wikipedia, don't fear to update the contents, when some old reports, be it reliable or not, are proven to be wrong. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once reliable sources say that old reports are proven to be wrong, we can do as you say. One new report saying that it "could" is not enough. For goodness' sake, you might as well rename the headings to "False Witnesses" and "True Witnesses". Also, here is the text of the USA Today article:

All of the shots, the Times reported, were fired from Brown's front — a finding that could contradict a witness statement indicating that Brown was hit as he ran away from police.

—Megiddo1013 08:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When a sufficiently significant "fact" is proven to be wrong, that is usually reported by reliable sources. In the rare case when it is not, then truth loses to verifiability, and that's just something we have to live with. Wikipedia has never claimed to be anything more than a reporter of (mostly) secondary sources, and it's unfortunate that more people don't understand that.   Mandruss |talk  08:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic and OR discussions

{{::::: Then can you please tell me why wikipedia ignores the mistaken report of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RSFF), and goes in favour of the simple fact? Sure there are other reliable and correct sources by BBC, Eurosport, MSN etc. But the report from the RSFF is definitely the most authoritative and is the one cited in the article. That is, the article directly contradicts the source it cites, regarding this tiny error. Here is the original discussion in wiki:footy. Do you suggest that we are bound to copy the mistake from the godlike reliable report, just because this is how wikipedia works? Please do answer this question in your comment. Thanks. If your answer is yes, then I will go change the scorer and see what uproar it sparks again in the footy community.

In our case, it is not even the matter of fact or verifiability. Media will soon pick up the autopsy report (and some already have). The problem I see here is, some users are quite reluctant to accept the fact, and try everything to delay this information, and to keep the mis-information from earlier reports. And I don't appreciate this attitude. (I'm not accusing the media reports or witness accounts as purposely lying. Everyone makes mistakes.) But when mistakes are found, then don't (try to) keep them here. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why four to the arm? Because a usually heavy police trigger (i.e., Glock NY trigger), for liability purposes, will cause a shooter to pull shots to one side unless he is very experienced with his firearm and not someone who shoots only at infrequent re-qualifications with his service arm, which rules out around 90% of police, in my anecdotal experience as a shooter at more than a half-dozen different ranges where small departments came to shoot. He eventually adjusted his aim to compensate and got the two head shots last, unless you think someone moving toward you would take those two shots first only to follow with four to the arm - I guess this kind of logic is considered "original research." Another factor may be cross-dominance between shooting hand and dominant eye, which I find gives me a natural bias toward the left side of the target (Brown's right, as the deceased) as a right-handed, left-eyed shooter. Thirty-five feet is substantially more distance than most defensive-type shootings occur, but not an unreasonable distance to fire or to fear for one's life if an opponent is closing on you (see Tueller Drill). Even if they are unarmed, as a cop (or any armed person) you cannot let them get the better of you and take your weapon and lethal force is appropriate, especially if they are larger and stronger. 74.215.242.83 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting and I defer to your excellent knowledge of shooting sciences (or whatever one would call it.) But can we agree that the shots to the arm were likely taken from a distance? I mean, if the two were within, say. five feet of each other when those four shots were taken, wouldn't Wilson have hit something more suited to actual self-defense than Michael's right arm? I mean, isn't it strange that there is not a single true hit to the chest, but instead two to the head, one through the top, and four to the arm? I am having a very difficult time understanding how that could be construed as shots taken in self-defense. I ask with all of the sincere hypocrisy that I can muster. A jab at someone who is breaking the rules. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Why four to the arm?: Regarding your discussion about whether the shots to the head occurred first or last, the NY Times states the following from Dr Braden: "One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said." The Times article also suggests that Braden's opinion was that too many bullets were shot. However, if 4 of the 6 bullets hit Brown's arm, those certainly wouldn't be enough to stop him. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

@ Michael Ridgeway, the bullet to the top of the head, most likely would have meant that Brown had his head pointed toward the police officer. The three "witnesses" say that the last shot was fired when Brown had his hands up. I am not saying this should be added to the wiki page, but quickly raise your hands up over your head. If you do so, your head will naturally go back, not forward. Again, not saying this should be added to the wiki page....but just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) }}[reply]

"contradict" sources

We should not organize the article into consistent/inconseistent but as a statement for inclusion, that previous accounts are contradicted by the autopsy seems well sourced at this point. I'm not taking a strong stance on if we should do so, but the arguments against doing so are getting pretty weak.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My original objection was to the term "physical evidence" being used. As far as I know all the physical evidence has not been reported yet, has it. Has the physical evidence from the scene of the shooting been released? Has the physcial evidence from the police car been released? This is a single autopsy report (1 of 3) and no way reflects all the physcial evidence and it shouldn't be reported by WP that it is. If editor's want to say it contradicts the single autopsy report, fine, but to say otherwise is irresponsible. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement. The sourcing currently only allows to say that this autopsy contradicts particular statements. Larger analysis of other evidence has not been done/released for us to use at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaijin42: You state: "the arguments against doing so [indicating that the autopsy results contradict the witness statements] are getting pretty weak." I agree. They are well sourced. They are highly relevant. They merit inclusion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


we are not conducting a criminal case here, we are not judges, prosecutors, or defense attorneys. All we have to work with is the sources we have. There is no problem in adding that sources are saying that there are possible contradictions, just note that Baden said that the wounds to the right arm were consistent with Brown having his back to the officer, facing the officer with his hands above his head, or in a defensive position, so yes, this is a fast evolving story and we have to be careful of recentism - Cwobeel (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing the autopsy, we can certainly say that it could contradict some previous witness statements. On the other hand, we absolutely should not say when discussing specific witness accounts that the autopsy could contradict the account, because that is synthesis unless a published source makes that claim. Dyrnych (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's no "original research" in pointing out an inconsistency in the article narrative. I would not include speculative language like the MSNBC article above {"may have had his hands up when..."). -- Veggies (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Foreign Language Entries

This topic has international attention. Help with other language versions is especially needed for Korean and Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeraner (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

Tiffany Mitchel's account says that Mr Brown was hit from behind while fleeing the police officer. It should be noted, as was the case with Darian Johnson's claim of Brown being shot in the back, that Dr. Braden's autopsy directly contradicts this...all shot entered the front. In both cases it should be noted as fact the Dr Braden was hired by the Brown family.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baden.   Mandruss |talk  12:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


You say Baden I say Braden...both irrelevant. Let's do the right thing and add a phrase to Ms Mitchel's account point out that the autopsy contradicts here statement about Brown being shot in the back while fleeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please cite a source that says "...the autopsy contradicts here [sic] statement about Brown being shot in the back while fleeing"- MrX 12:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The NY Times source reports Dr Baden's report that all bullets entered from the front. Ms Mitchel says he was shot in the back. Those are two sources that contradict each other. If wiki is about presenting facts stated by reliable sources (e.g., NY Times) it needs to point out when facts from reliable sources (Dr Baden) contradict facts presented by alleged "witnesses", particularly because no reliable news source has ever confirmed the presence of Ms Mitchel at the shooting. In fact, other than Darien Johnson, there is no credible evidence that any of the other alleged "witnesses" were present at the time of the shooting. And the fact that her statement contradicts Dr Baden's autopsy results suggests that her statement should be removed until a credible source confirms her presence at the scene of the shooting at the time it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No original research is permitted on Wikipedia. These conclusions need to be made by a credible source. Timeraner (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we as Wikipedia editors can't take Source A (Mitchell's account) and compare it to Source B (the autopsy) to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by either source (Mitchell either wasn't there or is lying). That's synthesis, and it looks like what you're asking us to do here. We have a reliable source that says that Mitchell is a witness and includes her statement. If it's inaccurate, that will come to light in reliable sources. But we don't synthesize sources to determine on our own and state in Wikipedia's voice whether a statement is accurate. Dyrnych (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demonising blacks and police violence against blacks

This article should mention that reliable sources point that this shooting should be seen in the perspective of facts like the extra-judicial killing of blacks with statistics like one black man killed by the police/ private security/ vigilantes every day. This article should also mention that reliable sources discuss the demonisation of blacks after they have been killed by police etc. there is a demonisation exercise set in motion. Reliable source.[33] Holy skit, police in civilised countries don't shoot for shop lifting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a shooting. If there is an angle that meets WP:DUE, then you will need to show multiple sources that support that this is important relative to the shooting. Also, "demonisation" is a loaded word, and I don't believe that the source you cited uses it. See also, WP:COATRACK.- MrX 16:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have paraphrased: Something that is important to prevent copyright violation, how do you describe MrX pictures of the victim that make him look like a demon? And don't throw wiki templates to personally attack me please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple, If they gunned ME down what picture would they use Christian Science Monitor AlJazeera USA Today How many more needed??? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "don't throw wiki templates to personally attack me please." Could you please elaborate?
Perhaps there is some content that could be added to the "Context" section. I don't think it deserves more than 1-2 sentences based on the sources you provided. More importantly, the content needs to be presented neutrally.- MrX 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Let it be. (2) I never asked that the subject be presented in an non-neutral manner. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an interest in starting a navigation template for all race-related 'incidents' between police and civilians of this sort in the United States? This way they can handily navigate similar cases in history. Please give your input. The Shooting of Trayvon Martin comes to mind, but there were also a handful of other such cases. One might also look to include the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy. Colipon+(Talk) 16:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category for that, and as a nav template its likely to be very large and unwieldy. Also while there some do consider TM a race incident (aftermath notwithsdanding), it wasn't between police and civilians. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck deciding what "of this sort" means... since every incident is different it might be hard to defend a template unless it only includes white police officers shooting at unarmed black teenagers in the midwsest US who had just robbed conveneince stores where the shootings led to riots. /snark I think you would probably want to use an established list such as List_of_race_riots_in_the_US. MPS (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release of Family-Requested Autopsy Results

"No sign of a struggle"

 "Members of Brown's family surrounded attorney Benjamin Crump at a press conference 
 as he described the emotional turmoil they've faced after an independent autopsy found 
 that Brown was shot at least six times, including twice in the head. 
 Dr. Michael Baden, the former New York City chief medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, 
 also addressed the media, saying there was "no evidence of a struggle" -- 
 a key detail at odds with the police's reported accounts of what transpired 
 moments before an officer shot and killed Brown on Aug. 9."
 CITE:Michael Brown's Family: What Else Do They Need To Arrest Killer Of Our Son? 
 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were Brown's arms when he was shot?

SOURCE: St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Did Michael Brown have his 'hands up' when killed by police? Private autopsy can't say - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be mindful of confirmation bias when we edit this article. For example, someone added that all shots were from the front, but in the press conference, Baden said that the wounds to the right arm were consistent with Brown having his back to the officer, facing the officer with his hands above his head, or in a defensive position. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I struck part of this per WP:BDP. In addition to what Cwobeel said, the shot down through the top of his head is neither to the front nor back. What is the purpose of this section supposed to be? 9kat (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath Section - Structure Suggestion

I'm not going to just jump into this on my own, but I want to suggest a minor restructuring of the "aftermath" section. Right now it seems to be organized by topic: Protests, Arrests, & De-militarization. But it seems to me like it should be chronological. For example, right now, the "Protests" section goes from August 10-13 and then picks up again on the 16th. The Pax Highway Patrol is down in the Operational Shift section. I would think either a new section or an expansion of the highway patrol section would make sense for the 16th onwards. JEB90 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may know that there is already a Timeline of the shooting of Michael Brown article that gives a time-ordered view of the event and aftermath. Also, I am about to make a "modest proposal" below that may also help us organize aftermath content Peace, MPS (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, (thinking about this a little more) the aftermath categories of "(1) Protests (2) arrests (3) demilitarization" made sense chronologically last thursday as it seemed like (1) there were these riots Sunday through Wednesday, and then (2) on Wednesday night the police arrested some journalists and (3) on thursday there was a concerted effort to have new police leadership and demilitarize. ... so I think the aftermath coudl still be chronological but maybe the subsection headers could be brought up to date. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List-defined references

I am going to boldly begin converting this article to use list-defined references, since I believe its benefits greatly outweigh its costs when it comes to ease of editing.

The benefits: For an example of the end result, edit 2014 Isla Vista killings and note how much less cluttered the body of the article is. Then look at the References section and note how it's so much easier to read the refs. Anything you need to do to a large number of existing refs, such as adding archive parameters, making the format of author names consistent, etc., is vastly easier when they are together in one place and well organized.

The costs:

  • Every ref needs a refname.
  • Every new ref requires (1) a change to the References section, to add the ref, and (2) a change to the body where you want to invoke the ref, as <ref name=refname/>. In a busy article like this one, where edit conflicts are more common, I do this by editing sections rather than the entire article. I update the References section first, which creates a red error due to the unused ref, and then do the body edit(s), which eliminates the error. In some cases the ref you need will already exist in the References section, so you can skip that step.

LDR isn't an all-or-none deal. Putting a ref in the body won't break the article. If doing refs this new way is too much to handle, then don't. Someone else will come along and move any body refs to the References section.

If anyone strongly objects, I will immediately cease being bold and we can discuss it. Fair?   Mandruss |talk  17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thumbs up Great! I strongly support that (and wish you luck). It makes editing text much easier. It will result in orphaned refs, but fortunately a bot comes around pretty frequently to clean them up. I would only ask that you do not use (deprecated) quotation marks around ref names unless they have a space (or better yet, just don't use a space) and that the ref names be descriptive (not ref1, ref 2, ref3).- MrX 17:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, the naming convention that I'm bringing over from 2014 IVK provides for no spaces and no quotation marks. As for your orphaned refs comment, I don't think they're inevitable and I'll do my best to avoid them! If I create any, I'll fix them in short order. Re the deprecated quotation marks, is that deprecation in writing somewhere? I had an editor who tried to mass change 2014 IVK to use quotes and spaces because he thought they were more user-friendly. I'd like to have something to point to.   Mandruss |talk  18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it now, but I'll keep trying.- MrX 18:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also not that I greatly appreciate this as well. Thanks! Dyrnych (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly needs to be a "legal issues" section, with a subsection dedicated to what the defense will argue. In this case, any novice legal analyst can see the impending train miles down the track: the defense will argue--despite what the police chief has claimed--that Wilson was aware of the robbery APB and that Wilson correctly identified that Brown fit the description. The defense will further argue that Wilson had never encountered a robber that was unarmed, and that Wilson had never heard of any cases of unarmed robbery. The defense is free to argue that Wilson thought Brown was reaching for a weapon. Though untried and innocent until proven guilty, Brown had indeed committed robbery moments prior. As a result, no jury will ever convict Wilson of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.242.93 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of starting a section called Legal issues. It would contain the legal basis of the investigation under Missouri law: the Fleeing felon rule. My sources could include: The Guardian, St Louis Public Radio and FindLaw. These are all analysis pieces, not hard news.

However, these three are the only very reliable sources I can find, besides a few legal comments on CNN and MSNBC. (I have other sources; for example, by Police Mag and answers.yahoo.) Do you think this is enough to start a section on Legal issues or should we wait until some official on the case brings the subject up? Remember, we're theoretically writing an encyclopedia article, not news reports. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too early and we need to be mindful of WP:NOR - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are reliable, but they're highly speculative at the moment with lots of "Brown would have been considered dangerous if he was struggling with the officer for the gun" type statements. The officer's defense is going to come out eventually, and if it includes the fleeing felon rule we should absolutely include it. I think that until there's some indication that the fleeing felon rule is actually implicated, it looks like undue weight to include this. Dyrnych (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Money quote: "So, a key question for investigators to consider: Was shooting an unarmed teenager the objectively reasonable response given the specific set of circumstances the officer was dealing with at that time? In other words, did the officer “have reason to believe” Brown posed a threat – with or without a gun? This of course cannot be determined without the results from ongoing investigations into the shooting."[34] Dyrnych (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article by William Norman Grigg on some possible legal principles that apply in Missouri and may which have bearing in this case:
SOURCE: Michael Brown, the “Tom Joad Test,” and Darren Wilson’s Likely Defense Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FindLaw item has a problem in that whatever analysis it is making is not in reference to this incident. Therefore it can only be used for general statements about how the law works, not how that law applies in this situation. That makes it less useful. LewRockwell.com may not be an WP:RS for this particularly as Grigg has no legal qualifications that I am aware of.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, I'd just reiterate that there's no rush to include this type of section before we actually know what legal issues are implicated. Once we have enough information to stop speculating about what issues the officer might raise, we can start including analysis from RS about those issues; until then, it's just total speculation and not encyclopedic. Dyrnych (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Modest Proposal to change article name and create two new aftermath articles

I have a "modest proposal" that might be too crazy to consider: what does anyone think about renaming this article to Michael Brown Incident and then creating TWO new aftermath articles. One ( Investigations after the Shooting of Michael Brown ) would cover the nitnoid details that come out of the shooting investigation, and the other one ( Civil unrest after the Shooting of Michael Brown would cover the nitnoid details of the protests and crowd control and riots and militarized response to riot police. The rationale would be that the “aftermath” part of this article is long and confusing and hard to organize right now. It might be good to have a place to “bin” important details. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The investigations pretty clearly belong in this article, because they are an inextricable part of the event itself. They have no real independent significance as yet and will (presumably) eventually establish what happened, so moving them makes little sense to me. On the other hand, the protests and unrest are taking on something of a life of their own and have some independent significance. I'm beginning to agree that they need to be split off. Dyrnych (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Give it a go. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Michael Brown Incident seems a little too sanitized and potentially vague to me. I think the name Shooting of Trayvon Martin was thoroughly hashed out there so I lean towards following that precedent here, at least while this is all fresh. Besides, it seems like this is a common format for these types of things. For instance, it was not the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria Incident that started World War I, it was the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria that did so.
Of course, since you are referencing A Modest Proposal then I might surmise that your suggestion is purely satirical, in which case kudos. —Megiddo1013 18:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I overlooked the fact that it was a "modest" proposal. I think I'll have to turn in my English degree. Dyrnych (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to make a WP:POINT, just aware that it is something most people would find untenable. I think it is a legit issue to sort through what belongs in the article itself versus being in a companion article. I am not saying that the investigation or civil disorder would be taken out of the article; just that we could have a WP:SPINOFF article. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have a 2014 Missouri unrest article and move much of the aftermath there. To use the same example above for a slightly different purpose, World War I does not redirect to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. 9kat (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of Missouri or just Ferguson area? 2014 Ferguson unrest??? MPS (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

Under "eyewitness accounts", the first source is from an unnamed, barely decipherable "bystander" whose eyewitness status is not established. This account should probably be excluded, or at least should follow the more reliable accounts, e.g. those from named, identifiable people (the three actual eyewitnesses, and the Ferguson PD). Thanks. Sisypheanlaborer (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. This was moved to the top as part of an epidemic of edit warring and vandalism last night and apparently never fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! Dyrnych (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Police release autopsy and toxicology results 8/18

BREAKING INFO SOURCE: Official autopsy: Michael Brown had marijuana in his system, was shot 6 times

Sorry to add this as a second step, Cwobeel. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Otherwise what is the point of posting this? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source is WaPo, read the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is already in the article, there is no official autopsy released, just a comment from Case and an unnamed source. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with the section names in this talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, it says "intoxicated with marijuana" which is an unusual construction. It should stick with stating that an anonymous source said there was marijuana found in Brown's system, and leave it at that. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. AFAIK the level of MJ was not released, and we have no clue when he used, or what his tolerance is, so "intoxicated" is unsupportedGaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and thanks for the edit. I had to refactor the entire section because it said something that was incorrect. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

]== "Aftermath in Ferguson" section ==

Yes, the word "aftermath" is vague. However, I can't think of a better way to capture that the reaction has been at varying times lawful (peaceful protests) and unlawful (rioting, looting). As long as we note that both peaceful protests and civil disorder occurred in the synopsis below the heading, is it necessary to be more specific in the heading itself? Dyrnych (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read civil disorder article, there are a bunch of synonyms that we editors may consider. I understand and agree that we should have a NPOV term for the "unrest" and not peg the "unrest" events as all good or all bad ... even so, I feel like the "Aftermath in Ferguson" section is specifically about the Ferguson "tension/clashes" as the police and the protestors take to the same streets with occasionally conflicting purposes. Suggestions for section title? I want to use whatever editors consider an agreeable term. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the title "2014 Ferguson Protests and Unrest" or "Ferguson Protests and Unrest 2014" or "Ferguson Protests and Unrest". Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of an article title. Maybe "Aftermath in Ferguson - Protests and Unrest"? Dyrnych (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason for that. It should be its own article, just the way that Rodney King is one article and the Rodney King Riots is another article. The National Guard is involved. I say that a situation with the National Guard involved deserves its own article. You know, Kent State, Desegegration of Schools against wishes of Alabama Governor, Ferguson 2014. Why is this so hard??? Michael-Ridgway (talk)
I am beginning to agree that it needs to be its own article, but that's a separate discussion from the one that we're having here. That's all I'm saying. Dyrnych (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok I just changed section title to "Aftermath in Ferguson - Protests and Unrest" per talk MPS (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should this section be condensed and left with a link and a single paragraph to the Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014) split or is it too soon? This section just duplicates the events day by day that are in the split article. Bil Simser (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I'm going to start archiving some of the discussions on here that seem to have ended, since the talk page is becoming EXTREMELY long and unwieldy. Dyrnych (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done. Let me know if I've archived something that's still under discussion or if something else should be archived. The page is still pretty cluttered. Dyrnych (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Josie's" Claim to speak for Darren Wilson -- now covered by CNN

SOURCE: CNN: Michael Brown rushed officer, radio caller says Hope this helps. If it doesn't, that's fine too. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your desire to help. I deliberately left the "Police officer's version of the encounter" section alone when I was archiving so that this sort of information could go there. That's probably the appropriate place for this post, not a new section. Dyrnych (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that I should put this in the Police Officer's version of the encounter is to suggest that this person DOES in fact speak for the police officer. You might be willing to go there. I don't think we have anything to support that at all. But CNN is covering the story and talking about it. Maybe, some day, we'll get a reliable source to do the same. I'll leave it here if it's all the same to you. (I'm guessing it won't be. That's fine. I don't care.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that I mean the section of the talk page (it's at the top), where there's already a discussion about this exact thing. I'm not suggesting that you add it to the article but that you continue the discussion above. Sorry if I was unclear. Dyrnych (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was reported yesterday, a woman saying that she spoke with Wilson's wife calling into a radio station and recounting what she heard from Wilson's wife. So this is hearsay, and not sure relevant at this point. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's hearsay. I'm just giving those who want this in something to run with. Hope it helps. I don't care, personally. You guys are way too strong for me to think that I'm going to push an opinion here and prevail. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are all in this together. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me in a long time. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this page has been created Darren Wilson (police officer)

I did not create this page. I noticed this new page while doing New Pages Patrol. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant BLP1E example IMO. Collect (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Dyrnych (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, there is very little in the way of sources to support a dedicated biography. Of course, that could change. For now I have redirected it here.- MrX 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now _THIS_ is what BLP1E looks like. It's not like Chief Jackson-- nobody'd ever heard of Darren Wilson a week ago. --Darmokand (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: "Accounts" or "Statements"

With the growing number of additional interviews being granted by Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell, and Piaget Crenshaw, and the possibility that more witnesses will begin giving multiple press interviews, I would urge that we replace the term "account" in the singular with "statement" "statements" whenever we are sourcing statements made in two or more different interviews. At a minimum, the title of the section Witness Accounts should be changed to "Witness Statements" as soon as we can. Concurrence anyone? - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think that "statement" is more specific than "account." I don't really see a problem with an "account" comprising an ongoing series of statements. Dyrnych (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Statement" is a term frequently used for formal statements to the police or other officials etc. As we have no cites saying that any of the witnesses spoke to the police saying what is in their "statements", we are safer with using "accounts" or "statements made to the press", "interviews" or the like. Further, we likely should avoid the term "eyewitness" in this article as we do not "know" whether they are accurately stating what the saw,or, in some cases, what others had said to them. We can not be in a position if implying in any way the common use of "a formal account of events given by a witness, defendant, or other party to the police or in a court of law" here. Collect (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The word "statement" implies – or at least sounds like – it is a "formal" statement (e.g., one given to authorities, the police investigators, in court, etc.). As opposed to an informal TV interview or such. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vote for sticking with "account" as it more accurately describes the wide ranging nature of the info, as they are not all formal "statements." -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, when we quote a given "statement" made by any of the witnesses, we should specify the when and where, like we're doing with the various police "statements." Shoved him in car. Struggled in car. Bullet fired in car. Shot him a more than a couple of times, not many more. DROP. Told them to get off of road. DRIP. Suspected in robbery. DROP. Officer didn't know they were suspected in a robbery. DRIP. When the office drove on, he maybe (pure speculation by the chief) saw the cigars/cigarillos and realized that Brown might be a shoplifting suspect. DROP. Injured in the encounter. DRIP. Cigar's recovered when they scooped them up at some point during the four hours during which they didn't get around to scooping up Brown. DROP. His face, gestures with hand on driver window side of his face was swollen. DRIP. The officers name was Darren Wilson. DROP. He had a commendation. DRIP. We did an autopsy but we can't tell you how many bullet holes. We spent four hours going over the scene while Brown's body lay in the middle of the street. But we can't tell you how many casings were found in the vehicle and how many were found on the street. DROP. Oh, would you like some surveillance video with those fries? DROP. We won't have the toxicology for weeks. DRIP. Oh, uh, did we mention we found traces of marijuana in his blood? DROP. DRIP. DROP. Water torture. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael-Ridgway: I take exception to the way you are engaging in this page. Could you please consider staying on point and avoid making all these unnecessary comments? It is not helpful and it is becoming quite disruptive. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to Ferguson, Missouri riots 2014

Yes? No?

98.118.62.140 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. See next section ( I propose making a new article ) Peace MPS (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of splitting the article. Dyrnych (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As one who watches the events unfold each night on local TV, I would strenuously object to calling this riots. Focused vandalism is vandalism not a riot. Standing your ground when the police decide to push you off of a street is resistance, not a riot. Doing a flash mob in an upscale mall is a flash mob, not a riot. Filming an officer instead of packing your bags to avoid arrest is not a riot. Then there's the fact that in too many cases, the police have been aggressors, not defenders, tear gassing and rubber bulleting innocent citizens, members of the media, elected officials, and community organizers time and time again. However, I strenuously support taking all of the aftermath stuff, splitting it out and merging it with the Timeline article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014) article

y'all, I am about to start an article called Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014). Outline will have a timeline along the lines of the current "Aftermath in Ferguson" with hopefully additional sections on (1) the population of demonstrators (2) stated purposes of different demonstrators (3) the looting and lawlessness perpetrated by SOME (but not all) of the demonstrators (4) the various police and law enforcement organizations involved in patrolling and crowd control (5) the statements by law enforcement officials about the conditions of protests and unrest over time (6) criticisms of protestors (7) criticisms of law enforcement (8) reports of protestors and law enforcement working together (9) other external reactions to the violence (which may duplicate and expand on reactions from the main "shooting of Michael Brown" article. That is the basice intent. I wanted to get feedback from editors here before I start because I want to avoid a lengthy WP:AFD process. We can always argue about the name of the article later but I would like to ask your feedback about the existence of such an article here. Support? Oppose? Comments? Peace, MPS (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boom! I just started it --> Protests and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (2014) Peace, MPS (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Police Changed their story (opening paragraph)

  • The way it's put in, doesn't flow with the surrounding text.
  • If true, it belongs in 4.3 Police account (in 'Witness accounts')not the opening paragraph.
  • Is the statement ("The Ferguson police have changed their story of the shooting several times.") accurate/supported?

As I understand it, people made assumptions/got a wrong impression about the police's story based on the report, which Jackson latter dispelled. If so, perhaps the word "changed" should be switched to something more similar to "clarified"/"quantified". Furthermore, if we conclude that they did change the story, did they change it "Several times"? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that we have for the police changing their stories say the following:
  • "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." [35]
  • "It appears that Chief Jackson's story has evolved once again. Jackson told the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Friday that Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson because they were walking in the street, and not because he thought he was a suspect in the robbery. However, after stopping him, Wilson noticed that Brown was carrying cigars and then realized he might be the robber." [36]
Both are adequately summarized by the language in the article. Is there a source that refers to Jackson "clarifying?" Dyrnych (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my last look at the article, I was rather shocked to see that statement made so cavalierly. I'm hoping it will be wiped from the lede. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been taken out of the lede, but I have replaced the statement in the section about the Ferguson Police Department's story. The issue of the story changing has been reported by multiple significant media outlets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then those sources should be cited in place of the current ones.
  • Both articles say "appears...", as opposed to the cavalier tone used here.
  • MSNBC writes "evolved", which is not quite the same as change.
  • What makes thewire.com a reliable source?
  • Neither say that it happened "several times". In fact, msnbc gives no indication that it even happened more than once. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wire is a sister site of The Atlantic, and has editorial controls that we'd expect of a reliable source. It is at least as reliable and far less partisan than The Daily Caller, which is apparently acceptable in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, we've cited the Daily Caller for claims which we've labeled as claims of the Daily Caller, not for facts. That said, I agree that The Wire is an acceptable RS. Dyrnych (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cigars, Cigarillos, appropriate sequential explanation

Problem 1) In some places we say cigars. In some places we say cigarillos. I'd suggest use of Cigarillos throughout. Problem 2) The first mention of cigars is the statement that Wilson may have noticed that Brown had cigars in his hand. If you're reading top to bottom, that comes out of nowhere. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poll detailing radical divide in polling along race lines deserves mention in this article IMO

SOURCE: Wall Street Journal: Subhead: Blacks Twice as Likely as Whites to Say Michael Brown's Death Raises Important Race Issues I promise. Before adding this new section, I searched for "poll" in the article and got 0 results. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article is behind a membership wall. This might be a better source.[37] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be added, but there is a lot in the Pew Research poll, so we have to summarize carefully. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fascinating report. Not sure how we give it justice in a short summary. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best to capture thekey points of that poll. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the lede, in Wikipedia's voice

I removed this from the lede:

"The incident sparked unrest in Ferguson, largely due to questions of racism as a factor in the shooting, since Brown was African-American, while Wilson is Caucasian."[38]

This seem very inflammatory, especially since it's presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice.- MrX 02:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence seems to be a good summary of the article. All you needed to do is to attribute it to the WaPo, instead of deleting. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to replace it with wording tweaks, because it's incredibly well-sourced and is obvious in virtually every report about the issue. The crux of the protests is that people believe racism was a factor in the shooting. Whether you personally believe that or not is irrelevant - it is an unchallengeable fact that has been widely reported. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to correct, but go ahead and improve if you can. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Cwobeel: Not really. Attributing the passage is necessary, but not sufficient. Putting it in the lede and saying that racism is the largest cause of unrest is sensationalism, and not a conclusion that we should be glibly making for our readers.- MrX 02:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 33,700 Google News hits for "michael brown racism." It is patently obvious and incredibly well-sourced that the community's concern over the shooting of Michael Brown is driven by beliefs and fears that the police department is racist. Whether that conclusion is true or not, we are obligated to report what the community believes, even if you think it's wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@NorthBySouthBaranof: This has nothing to do with my personally beliefs, and everything to do with good writing. Mentioning racism as a factor is fine, but making the entire aftermath about racism takes complex issues and turns them into political soundbites.- MrX 03:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this incident is indeed political, and not reflecting the sources on the subject would be a mistake. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove "racism" from the search and add "Ferguson" (to remove other potential MB's) you get almost 19 million news hits, that is less than 0.3 percent. It does not appear to be a leading factor in news reports. Arzel (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All these impeccable reliable sources stridenly disagree with your conclusion. Want more? There are more. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No...they...don't... Did you read what I wrote? Arzel (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take it from a white guy from a biracial marriage (my wife died 14 years ago) who lives in downtown St. Louis and who is watching hours of live local feeds with wall-to-wall commentary and interviews and interviews every night. There is massive consensus among black residents in the St. Louis area that police treat them differently than they treat white residents, all other considerations being the same. To leave any mention of the perception of a racial double standard out of the lede is to leave people who don't read any further (especially if they are young, from foreign countries, etc.) baffled about what this is really about. I sense a hard bias in favor of sanitizing the image of white Americans in the comments above. Just sayin'. I hope all will try to consider how others not like us see these events. Especially the main performers in the events we are "chronicling" (not "reporting" on, of course). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Shooting of Michael Brown

Now that we have an International reactions section, this seems like a good time to consider spinning off a reactions article similar to Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. - MrX 03:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. There is now an effort to create a new article (see above), and we should take a step at a time. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in the future but right now it doesn't seem needed. --Fuzheado | Talk 10:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Michael's much delayed funeral

There are several important facts having to do with the delayed funeral of Michael Brown which have been reported so far, including the fact that it can't take place until after the third autopsy is performed and reports and that various individuals and groups are promising to cover the expenses for the same. As of Midnight 8/19 CDT, the word funeral figures nowhere in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Christine Byers says more than a dozen witnesses agree with the police officer's version of what happened

https://twitter.com/ChristineDByers/statuses/501556693382094848

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/boom-reporter-a-dozen-witnesses-confirm-ferguson-cops-version-of-brown-shooting/

173.75.159.115 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blaze and The Daily Caller and Breitbart are all running this story as well. It shouldn't be long till Fox News picks it up. Curious though, I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere on the STLP website anywhere. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this were true, would they really let her tweet it out to the world? In a neighborhood where people graffitied the Quik Trip with the expression "Snitches Get Stitches," the same night it was gutted by fire, in a neighborhood where the Ferguson Market and Liquor got ransacked and emptied the night after the surveillance tape from that store was publicized, giving testimony that could help clear Officer Wilson could result in similar retaliation or worse. It's not every day you see witnesses for the defendant put into a witness protection program, you know? But would they have any other choice? - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t know what kind of journalism is that. We don't have yet Wilson's testimony or the police report he filed on the shooting, and we have sources that say "Over A Dozen Witnesses Back Darren Wilson’s Story", when all they have is hearsay from a person that called into a radio station saying that she hear from Wilson's wife. Unbelievable they call themselves journalists. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't reporting it as fact - she is quoting unnamed "police sources." I shouldn't have to explain why that's problematic. This amounts to "police say police officer did nothing wrong." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&oldid=621918946"