Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 1 October 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Michael Brown article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 4 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Killing of Michael Brown. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Killing of Michael Brown at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Michael Brown article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 4 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

1 - No adult criminal record

2 - No criminal record

3 - Left out entirely

RFC Survey — no (adult) criminal record

• No criminal record, per preponderance of sources. Just do some basic research on the sources available. ( 126,000 for "no criminal record" vs 1,250 for "adult criminal record") - Cwobeel (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• No criminal record, which is consistent with both sources. If it emerges that Brown has a juvenile record, we can qualify the statement. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out Entirely. (1) There seems to be only one credible source, USA Today, which mentioned "no criminal record" as a quote from the Police Department three weeks ago, but the Police and Prosecutors have now backed away from the definitive statement; however, other blogs and editorials continue to quote USA Today. Other sources quote the Brown Family statement about "no criminal record". (2) Since MB had only been an adult for 3 months and it takes longer than that to get a criminal conviction, and the criterion being used to define the term "criminal record", seems to be a conviction for a crime committed as an adult, this is a moot point. Thus there is no reason to include a meaningless piece of data which has no bearing on the Shooting of Michael Brown. If he had a record of minor criminal convictions, I don't see this as pertinent to the Lede either. Nor do I see the point in discussing Wilson's record of no disciplinary actions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Left out entirely. Not the correct solution, but the best of the three choices given here. More in discussion. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• No criminal record, use the sources. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• No criminal record as per the reliable sources. As per Dyrnych, if there is a juvenile record, we can discuss it when that becomes a public matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out utterly Few people have adult criminal records in the span of three months, thus it is a "d'oh" comment at best. Collect (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave it our entirely - There's no reason to state what should be the default assumption of anyone reading the article. There's no content to support the notion that the officer stopped Brown, or shot Brown, because of a prior criminal record. In the future, if sources reveal that Brown had a juvenile criminal record, then that may be worth mentioning.- MrX 23:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Left out entirely or No adult criminal record — There isn't sufficient support in the reliable sources for "no criminal record". See threaded discussion below. If the question of whether Brown has a juvenile criminal record is answered through the pending court case, we can then make appropriate modifications, either including a juvenile criminal record or stating that Brown has no criminal record. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• leave out entirely or no adult criminal record or no adult criminal record and no serious juvenile convictions Its very obvious the original statement was loose and that they were not commenting on the presence or absence of a juvenile record. I agree with the concerns about implications, but WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV win out. if its a WP:BDP issue, then it can be left out all together, but making a statement that we know is not accurate to what the sources say is just plain wrong.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• no adult criminal record. I'm weak on this however. While the preponderance of sources does not use "adult", the latest source apparently do. They should be given far more weight.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely if there is no criminal record, then there is no point in added it to the page. Fraulein451 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely from the lead, possibly include "no adult" and "no serious juvenile" in the body This is not a significant point in the body and per WP:LEAD it doesn't belong in the lead regardless of what the sources say. While the preponderance of the sources use "no criminal record", the latest sources have started using "no adult". Since these newer sources are working from newer information, and have been fact-checked, they should take precedence over the older ones.Two Kinds of Pork_Bacon 04:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• No criminal record should be mentioned because the rumors flying around have attempted to claim that Brown was a criminal (otherwise of course we wouldn't mention a lack of any given peculiarity). Saying "no adult criminal record" implies that there is a juvenile criminal record, so we shouldn't say "adult" unless at least one source establishes that there was a juvenile record. Does any source establish that Brown had a juvenile record? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC) EDIT: Would also accept "no known criminal record," reasons below. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Left Out Entirely as he only recently turned 18 and therefore it's not significant that someone who just recently turned 18 has no criminal record. Leave Out Entirely any mention of a juvenile record that does not exist. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely If there is no record, then it should probably be left out. Misplaced Pages can't be used as a control for potential rumors, that's what snopes is for. -- xcuref1endx (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely from the lede and if it is relevant in the body insert no adult criminal record. I can't find any sources adequately referring to juvenile record. SPACKlick (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out Entirely. If sources at a later time have something definitive and articulate to say on this or a related point, such material can be added at that time. We are discussing a "bald fact" at this point. It may be premature to make a definitive statement about this at this time, and ultimately commentary on this may have to be nuanced as it may not be 100% clear what constitutes a "criminal record". Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely. (I found this RFC through a random invitation left on a user talkpage I watch.) I find persuasive the fact that (A) there is such sketchy sourcing for mentioning it at all; and (B) he was only an adult for 3 months, making it a moot point to mention that he had "no adult criminal record." Also, saying "no criminal record" implies something we can't know for certain: that he had no juvenile record. Since records of many juvenile offenses are sealed, there's simply no way to know that, so implying it is wrong. Thus, in my view, saying nothing regarding "a criminal record" at all is the best option. LHM 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely One other thing to note is that the term "criminal record" is an ambiguous term and a juvenile record can be considered a criminal record in some states, even if disclosure of that information is restricted or treated differently. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely. Summoned here by bot. What is the point of this criminal-record text? He was not charged with any crime prior to his death. Coretheapple (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Leave out entirely as unnecessary and potentially misleading. Instaurare (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Results

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

• NOTE: This RfC is NOT closed, please feel free to leave a comment. The statement no criminal record has only been removed from the lede. The content has been moved to his bio section and NOW the article states: Brown had no criminal record as an adult, and had no pending charges, or serious felony convictions as a juvenile. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)19:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Threaded discussion — no (adult) criminal record

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

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

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

This is only Misplaced Pages, Kevin Murray. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

• Sources:

Aug 14 USA Today

"Michael Brown had no criminal record, police say"

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

Aug 15 NY Times

“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.”

Aug 17 Christian Science Monitor

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

Sep 3 Associated Press/ABC News

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Washington Post
• St Louis Business Journal
• KSDK
• VOX
• The Strait Times
• St. Louis American
• Al Jazeera

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also note that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side topics

Alleged convenience store robbery and video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions, and consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shaun King

I just reverted some additions attributed to Shaun King regarding the distance of the body to the SUV. While I think his distance analysis may be correct, there is no way he is anywhere near to a reliable source, and given the sensitivity of this article, we should not be setting any kind of precedent regarding souring things to twitter and unreliable blogs , even if they may be right or have a point. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As much as I respect the work that Shaun has done here, I would concur that he is no more a reliable source than I am. And let's be clear. I'm not claiming to be a reliable source. Further, he is in the process of creating an organization that is very much on one side of the issue. And yes, I'm on the same side of that issue and just as passionate as Shaun in defending my POV born out of my POR and my PSYNTH.

I will, however, respectfully request that if, at any time, any of you see a reliable source that substantially calls into question Chief Belmar's claim that the distance between the SUV (not a cruiser as I think of cruiser, typically) and the deceased body of Michael Brown was substantially more than 35 feet, that you please message me as a courtesy so that I can propose wording to reflect the same in the article. I've been looking at Instagram videos taken that day and am persuaded that 35 feet may be inaccurate. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that the source of "35 feet" was Chief Belmar, but I pointed out on this page several weeks ago that that number was probably due to a confusion about which SUV was Wilson's, and that Wilson's SUV was probably one of the ones near the cap rather than the closest one. I noticed the 105' distance mentioned on the conservativetreehouse site shortly thereafter, so this observation isn't unique to King, though the MSM has still not to my knowledge run maps of the incident, which is odd, as they certainly did so in the Martin-Zimmerman affair. King writes, "An officer is allowed, expected even, to use force, when in danger, when as much as 25-35 feet away. Mike Brown was ONE HUNDRED feet away.". Somehow he thinks that this is evidence for a narrative in which Brown stops 105' feet away from the SUV and Wilson marches up and executes him. This is nonsense -- the Josie/Wilson account ends with Brown only a few feet away without contradicting the 105' distance from the SUV in any way. Andyvphil (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Major lede issues

1. "controversial" video release is editorializing and reeks of POV pushing. Several other issues of editorialized word choices exist.

2. Claims that the "incident began" only after being noticed on the street. If mike browns behavior was the root cause of the scenario, than the "incident began" with the robbery. Claiming otherwise is again POV pushing. Sans the robbery, Wilson's interaction with brown would have ended at the issue of walking in the street. What exactly is "the incident", anyway? If "the incident" was the shooting itself, being in the street had nothing to do with it.

3. The entire thing is way too long, and way too may people trying to inject political angles into it. The lede should be relatively concise and factual which brings me to...

4. Speculation shouldn't be found in a wikipedia entry and certainly not in the lede, yet statements like "in part due to the belief among many that Brown was surrendering as well as racial tensions between" is 100% speculation. And again appears to the typical POV pushing nonsense that Misplaced Pages is rife with.

The length is the only debatable thing I see, the rest needs fixed or i get out the axe. The obvious editorialized phrasing and speculation is completely unacceptable even outside a lede, but doubly so inside one. Whatzinaname (talk)

I dunno. #1 seems like a pretty faithful paraphrase of sourced opinion in the article, or if it isn't, such sourced opinion should be found and included because it's definitely out there and significant. #2 is highly debatable... out of all that's been said I don't think I've heard anyone describing the incident as beginning with the robbery. #3 is too general to immediately address. #4 is practically demanded by the encyclopedic style. More specific discussion is needed IMO. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, someone's opinion! An irrelevant, non-expert opinion, and a paraphrase no less. You do realize this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Who is the mental midget in the media suggesting a government official following federal laws = "controversial", anyway? No one has properly defining what "the incident" actually is. This current version is the same regurgitated propaganda turd that was pooped on the page quite awhile ago that chose to focus on the first time the cop saw Brown, but ignore the fact the shooting was actually related to the SECOND contact when the officer actually realized they were the wanted for robbery. And "practically demanded by encyclopedic style"? I'm not sure someone who thinks paraphrased non-attributed, non-expert opinions belong in an encyclopedia should be commenting on "encyclopedic style".Whatzinaname (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the feds themselves objected to the release of the video release. "The Department of Justice urged Ferguson police not to release surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a store shortly before he was shot and killed by police, arguing the footage would further inflame tensions in the St. Louis suburb that saw rioting and civil unrest in the wake of the teenager’s death." . I don't buy your argument here. 69.63.37.21 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Saeranv (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The crux of your argument seems to be, quote: "It's not controversial to follow federal law, it would be controversial not to." This is a reductive argument. It ignores the context of the situation - opposition from the DOJ, the manner in which it was presented by the police, interpreted by the local community, the subsequent effect it had on the protests and ambiguity/confusion about whether it was requested or not . Not to mention the criticism of the police's delay/obstructionism of public records requests for the incident and use-of-force reports for the shooting, in contrast with the release of the information regarding the robbery . Again, I don't buy your argument. The release of the video has been consistently criticised by involved parties, documented in numerous sources. That the police were just following federal law is the statement made by the police, and is duly noted in the article. I don't see how it then follows that the video was non-controversial, you are simply ignoring the evidence. Saeranv (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Release of the robbery video was required by Missouri, not Federal law. It was "controversial" only because those who preferred the "Gentle Giant" narrative to the truth were so disappointed to have the truth catch up with them so quickly. Whatzinaname's objection to "controversial" is, as I understand it, that it leaves the unjustified impression that the "controversy" had a shred of justification, which it did not. Obama's DOJ has a record of being repeatedly unconcerned with the law, so this incident is not uncharacteristic of it. Andyvphil (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Whatzinaname: Welcome to the discussion. In its current state the lede represents consensus achieved after lengthy discussions over a long period of time. Please check the archives, as it is unlikely we will rehash this again unless there is new material that surfaces. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. Particularly when it was never a consensus, just a predominance of obstructionist editors. @Whatzinaname: Welcome to this nutcamp. I have little interest in resuming the attempt the improve this article in the face of entrenched opposition. But, good luck. Andyvphil (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheePharoah

Now that VICE news has interviewed @TheePharoah who is identified by name in their reporting, shall we turn him into a real person with his name in the heading which details his "account?" SOURCE: Vice News: Exclusive: The Man Who Live-Tweeted Michael Brown's Death (Dispatch 7) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mrx:When I posted this for discussion. Why did you not raise the issue of the reliablity of Vice News as a source?

Here is Misplaced Pages's lead paragraph on Vice News.

 VICE News is a global news channel where Vice broadcasts documentaries about current topics. 
 It was founded in December, 2013 and is a division of Vice Media. 
 VICE News broadcasts in-depth documentaries about various subjects including events 
 that may not be as well covered by other news sources. 
 They update their website daily with breaking news stories and investigative reports 
 along with daily updates to their YouTube channel that include daily news updates, trailers, and documentaries.

To me, it sounds as at least as reliable as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch or Fox News. Not you?

To the rest of you, I added mention of Emanuel's name to the article. MrX reverted it claiming that it is not reliably sourced. Vice got an exclusive -- in the same way that Channel 4 got an August 12 exclusive of the two white contractors. And once you get an exclusive, others don't usually plagiarize your work. So we have an organization which does amazing work at researching things on a worldwide basis -- not just an aggregator like the Huffington Post but a real investigative fact checking news source. And all other news organs are respecting the exclusivity of their reporting, such that one can find no mention of Emmanuel's name virtually anywhere. Do we all concur that a news source which provides to us direct video evidence that Emmanuel Freeman is TheePharoah is not reliable and that therefore this information which they published on an exclusive basis cannot be added to Misplaced Pages. My reading of WP:RS screams otherwise. If I am wrong, then for the umpteenth time we decline to report what we could truthfully report but for the rules of Misplaced Pages, which apparently were not crafted to take into account the way that journalists work in the real world. Imagine that. Isn't WP:BRD handy for making people who don't want to discuss with you discuss? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Since posting the above, I did a search for Freeman's name outside the context of Google News, which is my usual go-to source for finding information about the shooting.

This time, I got a direct hit to a source that we not only cite in our reference list but that we have cited in inline text on multiple occasions. So anyone have a problem with the fact that I just put Freeman's name back into the article using this new cite:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/witness-michael-brown-photo-dead_n_5683166.html

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only objection I would have is possibly WP:BLPNAME but thats an issue that we would have for all of the witnesses. So unless we are going to drop them all, I think its fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed name spelling and date formats. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No publicized witness reports allege that Brown never raised his hands

Recently, I asked some of the smartest people I know to see if they could help me find a witness report that would make true our claim that witness reports are divided on the matter of whether Brown raised his hands or not before he was killed on August 9th. Neither I nor they have been able to produce such a report. I am, therefore, going to state it as my considered opinion that no such reports are in existence. That being the case, Will anyone object to me boldly correcting the sentence in the lede that suggests that there are witness reports on both sides of this question? My apologies for the creation of a new section. I would have posted this comment in the section that I created before but someone who is violating Misplaced Pages policy in the most extravagant ways has collapsed the section on the grounds that I do not seek the betterment of the article. And not one of you has objected to the same. In Ferguson, we view knowing silence as consent. Which is why I tell my friends that Misplaced Pages is a dreadful place to be if what you want is for the truth to be told. I'd tell you the same but I'm sure that there is a Misplaced Pages policy that prevents me from doing so. So I'll be silent now. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any actual witness accounts, we have alleged witnesses and their alleged stories -- what they decided to tell the media. we only have a a portion of the witnesses, and they can freely lie/embellish as much as they wish. Several media sources have said that the police have multiple witnesses that corroborate Wilson's version of what happened. Given the "snitches get stitches" and the general savage nature of the *peaceful protesters*, no one in their right mind who lives in that area will say a single thing harmful to the "gentle giant raising his hands" narrative. All information/evidence in this case will be released should the grand jury choose not to indict, and if they do we will get to hear the evidence at a trial/later point. In short, we will get all this information eventually. Whatzinaname (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

MICHAEL. We've been through this. I attempted to discuss with you possible alternative wordings that would satisfy you without violating WP policies. You ignored me and kept on ranting. IF YOU HAVE A SUGGESTED TEXT, POST IT HERE. Rarely, if ever, should BOLD edits to a controversial article be made willy-nilly by an editor who is resistant to discussion. Oh and by the way, I continue to not appreciate your insults, even as you coyly insist they're not insults! "Silence is consent" — please take your agitating posterboard nonsense elsewhere. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Silence_and_consensus#What_does_not_constitute_silence Guess which part of this essay we are experiencing now? Not all of the witnesses report his hands up. The reliable sources specifically say there is a difference on this point. You have an argument, your argument may be "right" in the end. wikipedia does not care. wikipedia will care when that argument is made by the reliable sources. We do not break the news, we WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. This is a core policy. You have made many wonderful contributions to this topic area. don't ruin it for yourself by going down in flames. Pick your battles. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to what the reliable sources say. Misplaced Pages is not a place to debunk what you heard in reliable sources. Also, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Here is a reliable source that says the nonhomicidal witnesses are all in substantial agreement. Who wants to add this important information to the lede? Or shall we continue to defer to the reliable sources who get it wrong even though "weight" is not on their side? Because if none of you are willing to add it, I am. WP:WEIGHT WP:COMMONSENSE WP:BRD

SOURCE: HUFFINGTON POST: Witnesses To Michael Brown Shooting Tell The Same Basic Story About His Death (VIDEO)

Note that implicit in the term "witnesses" as used in this headline is an exclusion of him who killed and his surrogates who witnessed nothing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The text of the story never mentions hands, and while the video does show several witnesses mentioning hands, it certainly does not show every witness mentioning hands. Find a source directly saying all the witnesses mention hands up if what you want to put in the article is that all the witnesses say hands up. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There is this Vox article that I've brought up before headlined "Eyewitnesses agree Michael Brown was shot with his hands up" . Not sure if it's considered a RS. Saeranv (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent article, Saereanv. It's too bad that we can't substitute that article for ours. Very well done. And based on the description that Misplaced Pages gives for Vox.com, what's not to like? Eminently more reliable than the incremental news sources, I would say, as the article Saeranv points us to handily demonstrates. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On WP the principal gauge of reliable sources of fact is "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and so when major RS's that clearly have precisely that reputation disagree with some random website that launched a few months ago with a stated emphasis on moving away from traditional reporting, the major RS's that are known to be very good at that traditional reporting win out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a gift, Fact Checker for putting the most negative spins on things that you deem unworthy. The moving "away" that you refer to is a moving away from incremental reporting of the news, something which I think is very problematic when it comes to consumers of news having a real grasp of what is happening and why the events reported might have importance. As best I can tell, Vox is a web site where a bunch of former reporters for the Washington Post, including some assigned as bloggers, got tired of the sound bite approach to reporting and decided to give stories substantial and comprehensive telling. I have reviewed a lot of reporting since the day that Michael Brown was shot and I must say that this Vox article is probably the best article I have seen on the subject. Contrast that with our very first cite in the article from CNN which collapses immediately with the bogus claim that numerous witnesses saw Michael Brown assault the officer. The writer is a young "researcher" for CNN that you can learn more about by pulling up his Twitter account. Contrast that with the amazing body of work of German Lopez that you can see when you click on his Vox author link. Then tell me who is reliable and who isn't. As always, I look forward to your response. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it another way. To the extent that an "analysis" piece by a twentysomething lefty blogger with an axe to grind, on a spanking new website attempting to brand itself as not-quite-journalism, disagrees with reporting by the New York Times, that analysis piece doesn't get cited as authoritative fact on WP. Definitely not mentioned in the lede, which is what we are talking about in the first place. Perhaps cited as an opinion below, with explicit attribution.

A quick look at other stories by this young go-getter reveals discussion of the "desecration" of the Brown memorial, so perhaps objectivity and not making stuff up are some of those inconvenient little journalistic niceties that the stalwarts at Vox can do without. And yet here you are arguing that such things make it better than a reliable source. No.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bogus claim" but again I'll remind you it's not the purpose of WP to undermine and question what RS's say. Could you be a little more specific on what you're talking about? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone on the team who doesn't view the CNN claim that "some witnesses" claim to have seen Brown assault Wilson as bogus -- i.e., unsupported by actual reports of witnesses who claim to have seen the same? Even if you count Darren Wilson as a witness, he is not multiple witnesses. This is the quote that I contest: "Some witnesses say the teenager assaulted the officer at the outset and tried to grab his gun." None of us dispute that CNN is a reliable source, i.e., no one would seriously revert a CNN cite on the grounds that CNN is not a reliable source. But in my world view, reliable is as reliable does. When a statement made in a reliable source is incontrovertibly false, it should not be relied upon when there are other reliable sources that get it right. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what this "team" is to which you refer, but it's hard to see how Brown got inside the SUV's window as far as he did (see the witness account on the Tommy Sotomayor show I've previously referenced) if he wasn't fighting Wilson for the gun that went off.

None of our sources are reliable sources. It's always a question of editorial judgement as to whether a source is reliable as to any particular statement it makes. From your description, I don't see the problem with this one by CNN, still less that it is "incontrovertibly false". Andyvphil (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Remarkable stretching there, Andyvphil. A claim that someone was inside the windshield is not a statement that someone assaulted someone and went for a gun. I don't expect to change your mind on that point. But, for the record, neither are you changing mine. Two witness statements claiming that Brown assaulted Wilson and went for his gun would, of course. Rather than disparaging my claim that the statement is bogus, why not substantiate it with something that doesn't involve remarkable stretching? If truth is on your side, how hard can this be? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's your claim that it is "incontrovertibly false" to say some witnesses claim to have seen Brown assault Wilson, and that's nonsense. You have no idea what information the CNN reporter reporter has. And, as I've pointed out, I believe we know of at least one eyewitness, "Steve" iirc, who interpreted what he saw as Brown assaulting Wilson. And convinced an initially doubting Tommy Sotomayor of this. Andyvphil (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that rather than being an egregious misstatement, that this statement may be true because CNN has multiple witnesses reports in their dossiers supporting the self-defense theory but that these witnesses' accounts have not been divulged by CNN? This in lieu of two statements by two witnesses claiming to have seen Brown assault Wilson and go for his gun? And when I say "claim," I do mean "claim" and not "leave to the imagination of very generous inferrers." Fair? (Right about now, I'm thinking it's time to change my handle to AliceInWikipedia. These arguments I find myself in day in and day out are simply mindbending.)Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that's exactly what he is saying. He is also gently implying that your insistence on assuming that CNN is wrong is dumb and that you have no basis for that conclusion. And he's right! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep changing what it is you're alleging. I have not the slightest doubt that CNN has multiple witness reports supporting a self-defense theory because in fact practically all the witness reports, and the audio evidence, support a self-defense theory as to the final shots. The witnesses don't necessarily recognize this (e.g., the contractors don't seem to recognize that when they report Brown closing a 25' gap to within a few feet of a retreating Wilson in the final seconds of his life that they've fully justified those final shots), but it's true just the same. You started out complaining that the current text said there was disagreement as to whether Brown had his hands raised when the final shots were fired and proceeded to conflate this with the question of whether Brown ever had his hands raised. But in fact some of the witnesses said he was gunned down where he stood after turning with his hands raised and others now -- actually immediately, with the discovery of the audio on the Young Canseco video -- have him advancing a considerable distance with no indication he kept his hands raised, and we know they ended up under his stomach. And finally you drag in the question of what happened in the initial struggle, alleging that the CNN reporter is inventing a claim (what cite is this?) that multiple witnesses say Brown assaulted Wilson. It could simply be, as you derisively suggest, that CNN has witness accounts it has not released. Perhaps it was given those accounts on the promise it not do so, which could be unhealthy for its sources. Or the reporter may simply be repeating what he's been told by a police source. In any case, I've pointed to one apparent eyewitness we know of who's said exactly that. Your insistance that CNN must be lying or mistaken is unpersuasive. Andyvphil (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole talk section is especially silly, as is the collapsed one above that came before, because Michael has repeatedly decline to suggest, or respond to suggestions of, text that would eliminate this supposed inappropriate lack of certainty and failure to state as fact that "Michael Brown was shot with his hands up". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

New section for Ferguson Police alleged public information violations?

I'm not auto-confirmed yet, so I can't add this myself. Here's a proposed addition to the Police account following the paragraphs re: the incident report:

Additionally, Yahoo News has reported that the use-force-report for the shooting is missing . The use-of-force report is required by Ferguson Police Department protocol after any lethal or non-lethal force is used. Its absence goes against the internal standards of the department and the recommended standards of state and national police credentialing groups.

Currently a third of the police account is about the controversies surrounding the incident report and (if accepted) the use-of-force report. For clarity should we create a new section 'Alleged Public Information Violations' under the 4.1.1 Police investigation, and move everything there? Saeranv (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A subsection could be added based on the excellent reporting by Yahoo News alone. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are autoconfirmed, according to this. Congratulations. You could try a dummy edit to test. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, I added the Yahoo news account to the end of the Police account, it doesn't seem to be contreversial. I'll wait and see what others think about starting a new section for Alleged Public Information Violations/Delays. Saeranv (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Lithistman reverted you with the editsum Lots of unsourced OR included with the initial note. I'll bite.

First, I tried to make sense of "the initial note". After a couple of hours of pondering that, I decided that it means "the first sentence". The first sentence was, "Yahoo News has reported that the use-force-report for the shooting is missing."

Next, I tried to find the "lots of unsourced OR" within the first sentence.

• Yahoo News has reported that - Yes, they did, it's their article and they don't attribute to anyone else. No OR here.
• the use-force-report for the shooting - Almost identical to the source article, any closer would be too close.
• is missing - This must be it, by elimination. The source article doesn't contain the word "missing", so that must be the unsourced OR. Apparently there is something sinister implied by the word "missing".

So I'll restore the passage, changing "is missing" to "does not exist", per the source article.

If my analysis is wrong, feel free to revert me with a better editsum. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You did misunderstand what I meant by that--which is likely my fault for poorly wording it. I meant that the portion you included after the referenced material that the UFR was missing--where you explained in detail about what that meant--felt like it was WP:OR to me. That's what I meant by "with the initial note." The "initial note" to which I referred was where you simply reported the factual statement that the UFR is missing. LHM 05:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire passage is supported by the source. I have reverted your second revert, repeating the citation so it's clear that the second sentence is sourced as well. However, note that the absence of a citation does not necessarily mean unsourced. See WP:V. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "revert" anything that time. I just moved the source to the end of the graf, as there's really no need to cite the same source TWICE in ONE short paragraph. LHM 05:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Which you could have done six four edits ago, had you taken the time to read a relatively short source article. Don't mean to be a grump, but that's newbie stuff from a 4-year editor with over 3,000 edits. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you. I'll leave you to it. LHM 06:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Officer has been shot

Just heard that a police officer was shot and wounded while on patrol Saturday evening.As it happened in the same area where Michael was shot I think we should add these details to 'reaction' section. More info.:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/28/ferguson-police-officer-wounded-in-shooting-authorities-say/ --Chamith (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No apparent connection to this case, yet. Perhaps 2014 Ferguson unrest:

KTVI reported that dozens of protesters initially showed up at the scene in the mistaken belief that the officer had shot someone. By midnight, approximately two dozen officers stood near a group of about 100 protesters who mingled on a street corner across from the police department, occasionally shouting, "No justice; no peace."

That is to say, no more connection to this case than all the other stuff that has been relegated to the other article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Times — An Officer Is Shot in Ferguson, Mo. — "Authorities in Missouri said the shooting seemed to be unrelated to continuing protests over the killing of Michael Brown last month." ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see.So there is no sold evidence to prove that it was related to killing of Michael.I have to agree with Mandruss.If there is no connection between two incidents then there is no need to add details to this article.--Chamith (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The stories I am seeing is that the cop came across some guys robbing a store. so unless the robbery is connected the link is quite tenuous. However, even if not causally related it may merit a BRIEF mention in the unrest article as it has been discussed in this context and us informing readers that the shooting is not related does have some value.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are reading the wrong story. The cop approached one (or two) men at a rec center after hours, and the man (or men) ran. And for whatever reason it's unclear whether there were two men, or just one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Jackson apology?

We ought to include something about Jackson's apology and how it was received: , , , - Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems the FPD have a good PR firm: Police Chief Thomas Jackson in Ferguson, Mo., issued a video apology Thursday to Brown's parents and peaceful protesters, according to a St. Louis public-relations firm's video. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why "good"? Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

On Sep 25, Antonio French, city alderman in St. Louis City, tweeted the following with respect to the unrest following Jackson's apology: "For the record: This is the second riot this police chief has incited. He needs to resign." along with this Vine video clip: vine.co/v/OZKAFBFFqH3 Notable? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never found it so difficult to keep my personal opinions at bay and avoid WP:FORUM as I do now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't try so hard. If you've got something to say, spit it out. Andyvphil (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got plenty to say, but it doesn't belong here, per NOTFORUM. But thanks anyway. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You planning to place an ad? As noted before, NOTFORUM doesn't address what you think it addresses. Andyvphil (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "POV" to describe what the source says, that a press relation firm working for the city of Ferguson released a video with Jackson's apology? If the source found that relevant to be reported, why not including it? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's been somewhat routine to say as little as necessary about a channel. Recently, "x stated at a press conference" was changed to "x said", because it wasn't relevant where or how x said it. Note that RS deemed it relevant to report that it was at a press conference, but we omitted that anyway. I can hunt down other examples if you need me to. Unless the PR firm added something significant to what the public received, I don't see the relevance. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The determination to mention that the apology was released by the city's new PR firm is a POV-pushing attempt to imply that it was insincere, part of a PR firm-inspired media strategy to make Jackson and the city look good. Jackson was interviewed about the apology (I saw it, but didn't bother to note the url) and this accusation was put to him, and he denied precisely this accusation, saying that he'd been bothered by the time it took to remove the body for some time. This is of a piece with other frothing-at-the-mouth attacks on Jackson (who isn't even in charge of the investigation) since he put the kibosh on the preferred narrative by releasing the deflating video of Brown robbing a store. If we want to cover this let's do so. But sneaking in this innuendo in this manner will get the rebuff it deserves. Andyvphil (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about using a PR firm, and if you watch the video, you can see the name of the PR firm on the Vimeo page in which the video was released Video Courtesy of the Devin James Group. So, I think that it is relevant to report it, as it quite unusual. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's unusual for small towns to engage PR firms, but Ferguson didn't have one until it after it became an unusual small town for other reasons. It's unusual for the websites of small towns to go down from too much traffic, but that happened to Ferguson too. So what? Andyvphil (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated non-AGF accusations of POV-pushing are counterproductive, unnecessary, and futile. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I must have forgotten that Misplaced Pages talk pages are a reality-free zone in which the conclusions derived from an ordinary human capacity to recognize patterns is to be ignored at all costs. The connection between "PR firm" and alleged insincerity is however made in the world outside Misplaced Pages, and I'm allowed to notice that. However, if you would have me believe that Cwobeel is simply too dim to notice this... well, of course I will. Andyvphil (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Look man, you need to cool it a bit with your personal attacks; it is not helpful and muddles the discussion. If this was not relevant, why is that the sources are reporting on it? (In the video, released by a public relations firm representing the city of Ferguson, Jackson apologized directly to Brown’s family and to protesters) How many small town police departments have PR firms releasing video statements? Not many and that is why is relevant and reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you're allowed to notice it. But that doesn't mean you have to repeatedly inject your suspicions into a discussion. The three words, "counterproductive, unnecessary, and futile" could be elaborated into an essay, but in the interest of brevity I'm depending on your intelligence. When you think about it, they add up to illogical. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You apparently think that what you advocate works. My observation is that Misplaced Pages is sick because it doesn't work worth a damn. Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a very interesting and meaningful question, which I would enjoy debating with you on my talk page. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, who mentioned "insincerity" in this discussion? I think only you did. There is nothing wrong in using a PR firm; it shows that the city of Ferguson has become much more serious about communicating with their community. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned that Jackson was accused of it. Your problem with that is... what? Andyvphil (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to re-add the fact that the apology video was released by a PR firm retained by Ferguson city. It is sourced, and relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources (my highlights)

• USA Today: “Police Chief Thomas Jackson in Ferguson, Mo., issued a video apology Thursday to Brown's parents and peaceful protesters, according to a St. Louis public-relations firm's video.”
• St Louis Post Dispatch “In the video, released by a public relations firm representing the city of Ferguson, Jackson apologized directly…”
• CBS News “The video was released by a public relations agency on the same day Brown's parents were in Washington pressing for a full federal investigation. “
• New York Times “In the video, released by a public relations firm nearly seven weeks after the shooting, Chief Jackson spoke for about two and a half minutes, occasionally glancing down at notes in his hand.”
• New York Daily News “I’m truly sorry for the loss of your son,” Ferguson, Mo., Police Chief Thomas Jackson said in a video released Thursday. It was produced by the Devin James Group, a public relations firm hired by the Missouri city, which found itself racked by racial unrest and rioting after Brown was shot to death on the afternoon of Aug. 9.”

Of note is the reporting from NYDN about the PR firm producing the video. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than the accusation of insincerity made in the interview I mentioned, the PR firm is "relevant" to the "Shooting of Michael Brown" in what way? Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article, of course, as it denotes the importance that the city of Ferguson is giving to communications to the community after the unrest. It is also important, because sources found it important. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Local convention for ref tags

Michael, the local convention for ref tags is without the unnecessary quotation marks and space before slash. I thought you noticed that in this edit (since you thanked me for it), but apparently you didn't. I do a lot of standardization edits here, and I have no problem with that, but others aren't coming along and changing stuff I've standardized to make it nonstandard again. If this is something that Visual Editor is doing, and there's no option in VE to prevent it, (1) I think it would be reasonable for you to do manual edits afterward to re-standardize the ref tags, and (2) someone needs to take this up with the VE people (which I would be happy to do if I knew where to do that).

Would you like to fix these, or shall I? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to do this. I'm not intentionally undoing anything you are doing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In my opinion, VE shouldn't be used on this article until that issue is resolved, but that's not for me to decide. In the meantime, I'll include this as part of my standardization edits. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I did use VE for the edits that you had to correct if that helps any. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I could tell that from the history entries for your edits — they credit VE. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

My take is that the bouncing door is too much detail for that section (and, yes, it is only one person's story). My takes have been known to be overridden by consensus. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

But that isn't the explanation you gave when you actually did the revert, Mandruss. You said that it was already in the Dorian Johnson section. Where is this mandate in Misplaced Pages that forces us to leave out key details of the 120-second encounter which ended the life of an unarmed man, yet obligates us all through the rest of the article to go on and on and on about things that are wholly tangential to the actual killing itself? I mean, isn't the title of the article, "The Shooting of Michael Brown?" Because as of yesterday, in the Shooting Incident section, there was one paltry paragraph. Pardon my boldness, but I believe that that needs to be addressed. If I am once again the odd man out on this kind of question, I will again be saddened by the ostracism that my apparently peculiar conscience will have backed me into yet again. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Michael-Ridgeway, have you considered the possibility that what sets you apart from other editors is not that you have a conscience and they don't, but that you're in fact colossally bad at editing WP and understanding its policies? I ask you this in part because if you said to my face that I lacked a conscience, my response would be nonverbal. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Centrify, I think that it would be awesome to actually meet you face to face, as long as I were wearing a body cam. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

You're right about the editsum. I remember thinking, it should have said, "too much detail for this section, and it's in johnson's account subsection". I wished there were a way to edit editsums. I considered doing a dummy edit to provide a better editsum. I could have started a talk section to clarify my faulty editsum. But I didn't do any of that, and I humbly apologize, noting that I just two days ago complained about an inadequate editsum.

You're good, Mandruss. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway: I am not in the mood to ignore your snark this time. I'll ask for an unequivocal apology for the implication that my apology was not sincere, or we're both going to learn what ANI is all about. I've had enough. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, Mandruss. No snark. I'm from St. Louis, right? You're good, as in we're good, as in no problem as in apology accepted. Are we good now? (Goodness! :-) )

I don't claim any policy basis for my take. If I did, I would have cited it. This is a fuzzy gray area, and that's why I'm waiting for other opinions. I have sent you a pie and a beer, enjoy and let me know if you need more beer. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Very pleased I am to see two members of the not a team seeing things as I do and apparently giving me a green light to make a go of fleshing out the Shooting Incident section. And I congratulate all of you who have made the other sections as solid as they are.

A sandbox for the shooting incident might be in order. But the last time we did a sandbox, nobody visited but me. So ... Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there pard, slow down. This discussion has been open for 8 hours, for most of which everyone but you and I were sleeping. It's now Monday morning, and a lot of people are busy paying the bills. As much respect as I have for Gaijin42, he's only one person (who is the other?). That doesn't constitute a green light in my book, unless it's still all we have about 48 hours from now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'd characterize my opinion as more of a yellow light. Proceed with caution. It would be easy to end up duplicating the witness sections into the overview and make it very complicated and unreadable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's my proposal for today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there RS support for 2? If not, that's pretty clear synth/editorializing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The police chief has said the report and description went out, and that Wilson "may have" turned around as a result. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like he said Wilson "may have" seen the cigars and made the connection with the robbery? Should we be including all this "may have" suggestion? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims that Wilson drove forward then backed up

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

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

From Josie in her radio call

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

Dorian Johnson through attorney as quoted in the Washington Post:

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

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

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

Thomas Jackson being interviewed by CNN's Don Lemon:

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

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

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

LEMON: What do you mean seen the evidence?

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

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

JACKSON: Right.

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

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

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

Wilson proxy accounts: Josie/Jill Meadows

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

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

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

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

8/17 the fake Darren Wilson post goes up

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

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

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

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

Fascinating. In any case, this is third-hand account without a clear provenance, so we will have to wait until we have a direct testimony from Wilson. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. The accuracy of Josie's retelling of Wilson's account is attested to by police sources "extremely familiar with the investigation" as reported by CNN, and it is also relied upon by CNN in its comparison of the competing narratives. Which is accordingly a much better account of what happened than appears in Misplaced Pages's article, which has for over a month failed to elucidate the two-part sequence of events in the encounter. That the "editors" of Misplaced Pages are just now evaluating "Claims that Wilson drove forward then backed up" makes them justifiably a laughingstock, as that has been obvious from the beginning. Andyvphil (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims that Wilson fired on fleeing Brown

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

City demanding high fees to produce copies of records

For consideration for inclusion: "Bureaucrats in Ferguson, Missouri, responding to requests under the state's Sunshine Act to turn over government files about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to release any records." ABC News via AP-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It says they're doing what a lot of other "local, state and federal agencies" are doing. So the AP is singling out Ferguson for criticism of a widespread tactic. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That a lot of other agencies do it does not mean it isn't relevant to this article. A lot of other agencies are militarized too for example and that is clearly relevant for this subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

When is a witness not a witness (Episode 3)

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

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

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

Here is my basis for the claim.

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

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

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

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

 CNN: What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

I think your final summary is completely defensible. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that means you approve of something along those lines? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, something along those lines would be something I could support. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected redirect at Shooting of Michael Brown. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

The rumors of a "robbery" were called into question when the full video appears to show a black male, purchasing the cigars prior to a physical altercation that followed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhA36PDkC8c http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/19/1323057/-Crooks-and-Liars-Brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars . Claims have been made that the merchant was trying to stop him because after making the purchase, the customer handed the cigars over to a minor. The call to the police was made by another customer in the store who had possibly misjudged the situation, not by the store owner or anyone in his employ. http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/store-owners-talk-about-surveillance-released/.

Claims are also made that the officer involved in the shooting did not notify the department about the shooting incident. Audio tapes regarding the notification of the police department by the media, were released through the hacker group Anonymous. http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-st-louis-police-tapes-2014-8 Jozzief (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. But what are you requesting? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Wilson didn't notify the department about the shooting? Then why did all those police show up? Must have been the backup guy.

Johnson was significantly older than Brown, and didn't keep the cigars. Here's what the police report says (per USA Today, or you can find it online): "An employee at a Ferguson convenience store saw Brown grab a box of Swisher Sweet cigars and hand them to another young man identified as Dorian Johnson, who was standing behind him. The employee said he told Brown he had to pay for the cigars and instead, Brown reached across the counter and grabbed numerous packets of cigars and turned to leave the store..."

The name of the crooksandliars site is a good description of what they do, the lying part anyway. That dailykos created a "Crooks-and-Liars-Brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars" page to repeat an utter trash story directly contradicted by simply looking at the video accompanying it says something almost amazing about their credulity when there's something they want to believe. But then, we've got editors like that. Andyvphil (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Law enforcement articles
• Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• C-Class Missouri articles
• Mid-importance Missouri articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests