Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

RfC: Should ages be mentioned in the lead?

NAC: There is clear consensus for including Brown's age in the lede. There is a lesser consensus for including Wilson's age in the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

1 - Include Brown's and Wilson's ages

2 - Include only Brown's age

3 - Include only Wilson's age

4 - Don't include anyone's age

Survey

No super strong opinions. In rough order of preference #2, almost tied 2nd and 3rd #1, #4, (distant last #3). Brown's age is relevant because there are competing ways he is being described by reliable sources and public voices. Wilson's is much less relevant. If he was very young it could raise issues of inexperience, but anything between 25 and 55 is not going to make much of a difference Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Support 1 — Brown's age is relevant. Wilson's age is necessary to avoid neverending debate about age parity, and it's only a few extra characters if written as "Wilson, 28,...". Support 2 as per Gaijin42. Oppose any ages in the first two sentences. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Include Brown's and Wilson's ages in the first sentence in the lead where they belong. Leave out "unarmed". Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

All or nothing ages are covered elsewhere in the article. Either both individual's ages should be in the lead or neither. There ages had little to do with the incident - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As a Canadian, you may like to know Death of Sammy Yatim has been adjusted accordingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Support 2 but, like Mandruss, not in the first paragraph. Brown's age might go in 3rd graph of the lead as: "Brown, 18, had no criminal record." but only if you find a RS saying that one of the causes of the unrest was Brown's age. This really should go in 2014 Ferguson unrest. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Support 1 - While many people know the details now (such as Brown's age) Years from now, many readers will not. The ages will help readers from a clearer picture of the events.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Support 2 — Brown's age has been part of the issue regarding his shooting, whereas Wilson's hasn't, as far as I know. Also, adding it to what is presently in the article seems more accurate, "unarmed 18-year-old black man". "black man" alone could be 18, 30, 40 ... year-old. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that I care about this, (weakly) support 2. I genuinely don't think that this is as big a deal as it's being made out to be, especially in terms of needing to include Wilson's age to provide some nebulous form of balance. Dyrnych (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the nebulous stuff, it also simply lets readers know how old the cop was. This isn't exactly a biography, but it's also two. Age is near universal, almost compulsory info in those. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

...and readers can find that information in the body of the article. No one is proposing that we exclude Wilson's age from the article entirely. Dyrnych (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's always an option, as it is for Brown. Just figured leads are for introductions, and it makes sense to set up the story by introducing the main characters, not building a protagonist first and only fleshing out the enemy's backstory after they meet. That's for entertainment purposes. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Support 2 - I see value in including that Brown was young and am Ok with the age as the best way to clarify that, though I would prefer that it not be in the first paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC) I have refactored your comment into the correct place, and assumed option 2 since (1) you placed your comment directly under option 2, and (2) you did not say anything about Wilson's age. Correct me if I assumed wrong. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Include Brown's age, which coverage has returned to again and again. It's crucial for understanding the incident and, even more so, the reactions to it. To me Wilson's age seems less important. I'm not opposed in principle to including it, but as the lead is written currently I don't think it makes sense to add. But I'd be open to persuasion that it's more important than I apprehend. So I guess option 2, but no prejudice against option 1 given the right context. Lagrange 613 04:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Include both ages at the time of the incident — once, without comment and not in juxtaposition. The right place to do it is in the background paragraphs of the respective two persons. The lede as it stands needs no ages and is adequate (in fact, I would be inclined to split it into the first paragraph and a "summary section", but suit yourselves). As the dates of birth are given, it is not even logically necessary to give ages, but it will do no harm and will make some readers more comfortable. Inclusion should not be in any form suggesting any type of advocacy, but purely as information, which is the function of the 'pedia. If it were to surface in the context of justifiably reporting on advocacy by other parties, that would be a separate question, but I have not seen anything of the type (not having looked much). JonRichfield (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

4 - Don't include anyone's age in the lead. First, I am strongly opposed to including Wilson's age in the lead because it is simply a trivial detail. I'm opposed to including Brown's age, for two reasons: It's not a neutral detail. It perpetuates the media-created notion that Brown was an innocent child, contrary to at least some of the facts and witness reports that have arisen. Second, if we were to include Brown's age in the lead, there will be demands to include Wilson's age for parity. I think it is sufficient to list each of their ages in the appropriate mini-bio sections in the body of the article.- Mr X 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

1 Why would it not be appropriate to include the ages of the two major participants in the event? Support addition on both. AlanS^talk 22:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

2 as being in accord with the sources - all mention Brown's age in their lead, few give Wilspn's age in their lead. Collect (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Threaded discussion

Results

Attempt to simplify and tabulate. No attempt to (1) assign weight to strength of opinion, (2) account for second and third preferences, or (3) deal with tangential opinions such as "all or nothing" and specific presentation of ages. Note that, as long as the RfC remains open, this cannot possibly be the final results, as that would require the ability to predict the future.

	For	Against	Running Tally
Include Brown's age in the lead	Gaijin42, Mandruss, Isaidnoway, RoyGoldsmith, Elmmapleoakpine, Bob K31416, Dyrnych, Kevin Murray, Lagrange613, AlanS, Collect, NorthBySouthBaranof, Cwobeel, Andyvphil, Activist	JonRichfield, MrX	16-2 for(?)
Include Wilson's age in the lead	Isaidnoway, Elmmapleoakpine, AlanS, NorthBySouthBaranof, Cwobeel, Andyvphil	Gaijin42, Mandruss, RoyGoldsmith, Bob K31416, Dyrnych, Kevin Murray, Lagrange613, JonRichfield, MrX, Collect	9-7 against(?)
Include Brown's age only if Wilson's age is also included in the lead	InedibleHulk, maybe others incorrectly included above	?	?
Include age(s) in the first two sentences	Isaidnoway (I said first sentence, second sentence doesn't even mention either participant), Andyvphil	Mandruss, RoyGoldsmith, Kevin Murray	3-2 against

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not misinterpret brief silence as endorsement. I also oppose the table. This is not a vote, and the table suggests that it is. This page is attracting a lot of people to Wikipedia, and this highly irregular measure is giving the wrong impression about how things work here. I didn't say anything at the time because I was invited by a bot and I'm trying to keep my distance from the rest of the civility sinkhole that is this talk page. But now that my silence is being interpreted as support I have to weigh in. You really should take the table down. Any admin who deserves the bit will ignore it when closing this RfC, and in the meantime it really does look like a wikitable version of "neener, neener". Lagrange 613 11:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No juvenile record for Brown

“The 18-year-old fatally shot by a suburban St. Louis police officer didn't face any juvenile charges at the time of his death and never was convicted of a serious felony such as murder, robbery or burglary, a juvenile court system lawyer said Wednesday.” [1], and [2]. This needs to be added to the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The articles you cited and the quote you gave do not say that Brown had no juvenile record. For a proposal that includes the part about no serious felony convictions or pending charges as a juvenile, please see a previous Talk section [3]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I read that. Have you read the sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There was one part in the first article you cited that said,[4] "The authorities have said Mr. Brown, 18, had no adult criminal record, and his relatives have told reporters he did not have one as a juvenile, either." Is that the basis for your statement that Brown had no juvenile record? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is all rhetoric and media spin. He did not have a "serious" felony? But – what? – he had a felony that was "not serious"? Isn't the definition of felony "a serious crime", as opposed to a misdemeanor (less serious crime)? Again, this is just rhetoric, media spin, and double talk. When these statement are so carefully parsed and worded, you can bet that they are trying to be slick and are using linguistic gymnastics to make something sound like what it is not. So, for this article, proceed with caution. In particular, be cognizant of the exact wording that sources employ. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The very first sentence in the Wikipedia article for felony states: The term felony, in some common law countries, means a serious crime. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, the RS's are only addressing adult criminal record and partially addressing juvenile Class A and B felonies. Note that relevant lesser felonies include assault without a deadly weapon on a police officer[5] and resisting arrest.[6] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

...and also making a false bomb report. It is pointless to speculate as to what crimes are contained in Brown's juvenile record when we don't even know that Brown HAS a juvenile record. The fact that relevant authorities have disclosed that certain crimes are not contained in the record does not in any respect suggest that other crimes are contained in the record. The authorities are basically just reciting the law. Under V.A.M.S. 211.321 2.(2): "After a child has been adjudicated delinquent pursuant to subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 211.031, for an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult, the records of the dispositional hearing and proceedings related thereto shall be open to the public to the same extent that records of criminal proceedings are open to the public." As I and a number of other editors have noted, it would be irresponsible and a WP:BLPCRIME violation for us to adopt wording that implies that Brown has a juvenile record when there is literally no indication that he has a juvenile record. If we're going to state that Brown had no adult criminal record and no Class A or B felonies against him as a juvenile, we should also clearly indicate that we have no knowledge of whether or not Brown has a juvenile record at all. Dyrnych (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

and also various drug offenses. Brown was not a juvenile when he was shot, nor was he a juvenile when he robbed the convenience store. His juvenile record, or lack thereof, or any discussion about a juvenile record should be kept out per BLP. I have no objection to saying he had no "adult" criminal record. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as we know, he has no criminal record, period. If and when we have further knowledge, if there is any knowledge, then we can change what we state. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

State the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—even if it takes two or three sentences to do so. It ain't rocket science. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

You are assuming that he has a juvenile record to release. That is a claim not in evidence, and your edit will be reverted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming nothing about his juvenile criminal record and my deletion obviously didn't put anything in the article about whether or not he had one. It's a fact supported by RS's that his juvenile criminal record hasn't been fully released. On the other hand, you have restored to the article "Michael Brown had no criminal record", which assumes he has no juvenile criminal record and which is a claim not in evidence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not. There is no evidence that Brown has any juvenile record to release in the first place. As Dyrnych has aptly noted, the existence of the lawsuit does not somehow prove that there is a juvenile criminal record. It would be trivial to game the juvenile court records system otherwise. What has been released is the same thing that would be released about any person who has resided in the state of Missouri in response to such a request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As the reliable sources have reported, he has no criminal record. If that changes, we can change it at that time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources that you are referring to stems from an Aug 14 USA Today article that misreports what authorities said as no criminal record whereas the authorities said no adult criminal record, which was reported by subsequent articles in reliable sources that weren't based on the USA article. You should know that statement is not reliable because you know that the authorities have not fully released Brown's juvenile record, don't you? It's not clear why you are blocking this improvement to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that the article "misreports" something is apparently your own unsourced original research, which does not belong on Wikipedia.

And no, you again seem to completely miss the point of the lawsuit and the juvenile court's position. Authorities have not "released" any part of "Brown's juvenile record" - indeed, there continues to be no evidence that he has a juvenile record. What has been confirmed is what would be confirmed for every person who has ever lived in the state of Missouri and not been involved in such offenses as a juvenile. The release of the information that has been released does not constitute evidence, much less proof, that there is anything else in the record. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more careful about the use of the term juvenile criminal record. Thanks.

Please note that almost all the remarks made on a Talk page (including your last message) are the original research of editors and at the end of the first paragraph of WP:NOR is the statement, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages."

It is a legitimate function of editors to evaluate the reliability of information in a source by comparing it to other sources. In the present case, we have an Aug 14 USA Today article that asserts that the authorities have said that Brown had no criminal record. As mentioned for example in subsequent articles in the NY Times[7], and Christian Science Monitor[8], the authorities had actually said no adult criminal record and didn’t state whether or not Brown had a juvenile criminal record. (See a previous comment of mine for more details.) So by checking the statement in the USA Today article with the subsequent statements in the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor articles, the statement “Brown has no criminal record” is not reliable information and shouldn’t be in Wikipedia. This might be finally clarified if the judge decides that the information about whether or not Brown had a juvenile criminal record should be released. Until then, the statement "Brown had no criminal record" should not be in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is longstanding consensus that the material should be in the article and your claim that it is "misreported" is again completely unsupported original research. You may engage in original research on a talk page, but you are attempting to remove material from the article based on nothing more than your own supposition. This you may not do. I suggest you open an RFC to determine if there is a new consensus on the matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What I see here is that there is no compelling evidence on either side of the coin, that he did or didn't have a criminal record. There seems to be as lot of hair splitting here to support POV. Frankly I don't see why whether he did or didn't have a record as pertinent to why he was shot (Wilson wouldn't have known either way). Since you can't say with certainty, why say anything at all. I would remove that comment until the facts are verifiable through a RS. --Kevin Murray (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

No. We do not insert even the supposition that he might have had a juvenile record until and unless it is proven that he had one. The record may remain sealed for all time - the judge may well decide not to release whatever may or may not be in there on the grounds that doing so undermines the integrity of the idea that juvenile records are to be sealed. That does not constitute proof or even evidence that there is anything in there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Every human being on the planet, living or dead, might have had a juvenile record, so it can't be prejudicial to imply that Brown might have had one. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you'll surely explain why every single Wikipedia article about a person doesn't include a sentence saying "It is unknown whether he or she had any juvenile record." Because obviously, including that fact in a biography *is* prejudicial - it serves to suggest that there might be one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that's because that fact isn't relevant to the article. Such an article might also omit the color of the person's eyes, but that isn't because to reveal it would be prejudicial. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, When you wrote "We do not insert even the supposition that he might have had a juvenile record", were you referring to this edit [9]? If so, I don't understand your remark because if that edit was kept, there would be no supposition, one way or the other, regarding the existence of a juvenile criminal record. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That edit removed reliably-sourced information based upon nothing more than your unsourced and unsupported assertion that it was "misreported." Endlessly asserting that something is "misreported" does not constitute evidence of any "misreporting." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

From your response, it appears that this isn't about inserting a supposition as you previously wrote. Is that true? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that my comments did not use sources, I used the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor in my previous comments regarding the matter. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Those two sources do not contradict the USA Today report.

I note that your bold removal of the reliably-sourced information has been reverted. It is incumbent upon you to discuss your proposed removal and gain consensus. I recommend that you open an RFC on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving the statement that Brown had no criminal record in, pending completion of this discussion. I'm confident that it won't survive that, being false as written (Brown had no criminal record that has been revealed), so a relatively small number of readers will be misled. Again, I'm for stating the known facts—all of them—without POV spin. I support the idea of an RFC. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think a RfC is a good idea as well, instead of edit-warring this material. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I think we should just keep it simple and ask if "should we mention in the article the circumstances surrounding the juvie record, or lack thereof" and if there should be any mention in the article that there is "no adult criminal record". Then if there is consensus to include either/or, we could hammer out the language. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Re your first sentence, is that one RfC, or two? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just one I guess, we already have "no criminal record" in the lead, the debate surrounding that phrasing seems to be just focused on the addition of "adult" or not, I think we can figure that one out. So, I guess the question we would be proposing would be - "Should the information we presently know about Brown's juvenile record be included in the article", or similar language. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Nice rant, but you didn't say exactly what you think the article should say. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, you are right. My first choice would be to eliminate the topic from the Lede. (a) if he has a criminal record it is no reason for him to have been shot. (b) since we have no idea what we are talking about, we should say nothing on the issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we know what I boldfaced above, no more, no less. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, we don't. We only know that Brown wasn't "convicted" (adjudged delinquent) of certain charges, else those records would have had to be released. Contra the bolded text, we don't know that Brown wasn't charged with such offenses and the charge disposed of some other way than conviction (pled down, diversion, ...). Multiple sources get this distinction wrong as to GotNews' Charles C. Johnson's assertions on this point (including, iirc, the writer for his co-plaintiff(!), a RS(!)), that is to say they say that his claim that Brown was "involved" in a murder was disproved by the statements of the defendants atty, which they were not.

Wikipedia is not a court of law and the consequences for Brown if some random reader jumps to unwarranted conclusions when told that we do not know if Brown had a juvenile record are not severe. It is completely inappropriate for us to infantilize our readers in the way that courts do jurors.

We know perfectly well that any source that we have that says "Brown had no criminal record" is not a reliable source for that assertion unless it claims unauthorized access to those records, which, so far as I know, none of them do. Calling this editorial conclusion "original research" is WikiLawyering at its least tolerable.

The assertion, "if he has a criminal record it is no reason for him to have been shot" is misguided. It is observed upthread that a previous unarmed attack on a police officer, confirmed by an adjudication of delinquency, cannot be precluded by the known facts and we should not write something that implies otherwise. Andyvphil (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I'm not emotionally invested in those exact words. If they can be modified for better accuracy, I'm for that. Feel free to propose something specific, something that won't lose the average reader in legalisms. My second choice would be to say nothing about Brown's record, adult or juvenile. What's unacceptable to me is a patent distortion of the truth (i.e., falsehood) based on a misapplication of NPOV, which is what we have now. NPOV may require us to tell only part of what is known, but it does not require us to lie. In this case, NPOV requires us to tell everything that is known, or nothing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What we know is that Brown had no adult criminal record[10][11] and when he was a juvenile he had no convictions or pending charges for the most serious felonies, which are Class A or B.[12]. Further information regarding whether or not he had a juvenile record is not presently publicly available, so we don't know whether or not he had a criminal record.

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

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

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

Neutrality tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The judge has denied the request. [13] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Ferguson Police Department Record

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

"At least five Ferguson police officers have been named in civil rights lawsuits.
"In four federal lawsuits, including one that is on appeal, and more than a half-dozen investigations over the past decade, colleagues of Darren Wilson’s have separately contested a variety of allegations, including killing a mentally ill man with a Taser, pistol-whipping a child, choking and hog-tying a child and beating a man who was later charged with destroying city property because his blood spilled on officers’ clothes.
"One officer has faced three internal affairs probes and two lawsuits over claims he violated civil rights and used excessive force while working at a previous police department in the mid-2000s. That department demoted him after finding credible evidence to support one of the complaints, and he subsequently was hired by the Ferguson force.
"... A former officer involved in one of those cases is now a member of the Ferguson city council."

These reports may bear on the Justice Department's investigation of the civil rights aspect of this event. Most of this information consists of allegations and internal department investigations which have not been adjudicated. Our article currently has little background information on civil rights issues, except for the racial makeup of the community, city council, grand jury, and the police department. However circumstantial the allegations, they form an impressive dossier. Shouldn't these allegations of racially motivated and abusive policing be mentioned? [unsigned by Fconaway, 23:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)]

This is much more related to the 2014 Ferguson unrest article at this point than it is to this one, IMO. Dyrnych (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, FPD, with brief mentions and links in both other articles. There's no direct connection to this article or Ferguson unrest, although RS may discuss them in the same context. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the same reasoning would apply to the general civil rights investigations already in this article, as well. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glide recording of gunfire

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

Washington Post: Acoustic experts detail purported Ferguson shooting\

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

Possible text for discussion:

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

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

We might mention that they did indicate that with an exact address, they would be able to confirm whether the gun shots were fired at the location where Michael Brown was shot.

Also, I think that it might be good to clearly state that ShotSpotter did confirm that the primary sounds heard were gunshots, as distinguished from other sources that might have been used to by hoaxers in an attempt to create a recording resembling gunshots. So maybe:

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

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As to your first point, my text says "could not verify, with available information". The details of what additional information would be required to make that determination would be available in the cited article, for anyone who is interested, and don't cross the significance threshold for inclusion, in my opinion. Re your second point, my text says that the company said "it is the sound of ten gunshots". It doesn't say it resembles the sound of gunshots. That clearly and concisely excludes any other possibilities as far as I'm concerned. I'm for stating the significant facts with as few words as possible, and I think my text does that. Let's wait for other opinions. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't wait. Include it. The "all ten shots/three-foot radius" claim is remarkable (read: dubious), and contradicts the "worker" eyewitness who said Wilson was retreating, iirc, (and the witnesses who said Wilson fired while pursuing) but we're not endorsing it, just relaying it. Andyvphil (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. I hesitated only because they couldn't verify that it was this shooting, which greatly diminishes the value/significance of the analysis. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Awesome synthesis there, Mandruss. Can I try my hand now? The analysis by the ShotSpotter team, when added to the confirmation from Glide that the recording was made at 12:02:14 on 8/9 greatly increases the confidence that an objective observer (read: a juror) might have that this recording accurately captures the sound of 10 gunshots fired by Darren Wilson in the 2900 block of beginning at 12:02:17 pm on August 9, 2014. Glide, you will recall, (but possibly not from our article) confirmed that the recording was made in the vicinity of Ferguson. But the Washington Post failed to connect the dots, so we are helpless to connect them in our article. And no other media source that I am aware of has reported on the research done by ShotSpotter. So our article has come to one big indeterminate ending, thanks, apparently to the short attention spans of journalists who could have tied this all up very nicely, but who, instead, are writing about other topics now. Oh and the new witness that you detail. Yeah, I just love how he describes an extended saunter by Brown back from a distance of 90 feet all the way to a distance of 35 feet. He doesn't seem to know that Brown's brain was eviscerated by two devastating shots to the head, one that went in at the apex and the other which had a trajectory that was more or less parallel to the alleged "last" shot -- the apex shot. But far be it from me to question out loud the sincerity of his claims or their accuracy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think "independently authenticate" necessarily means CNN in-house expertise. It simply means that CNN commissioned and paid for the analysis. Nobody suspects that CNN has an in-house acoustic forensics lab.
I agree that Glide+ShotSpotter tends to authenticate the recording. But we can't say so unless RS says so, that's how Wikipedia works. Take it up with Jimbo Wales and WMF, and stop whining; it's getting tiresome. Any intelligent reader can put that together without our help, anyway. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I wrong to suggest that this section gives way too much WP:WEIGHT to the non-experts who assailed the recording as an obvious hoax almost as quickly as it was released but who have, apparently, been silent with the release of supporting analyses from Glide and ShotSpotter? If that is in fact the case, then I take umbrage at the nonAGF slam that I am whining and I reassert my insistence that this section be repaired so as to bring it in line with the policies of Wikipedia. I ask for no more and no less. But a little less in the way of personal attacks would go a long way. Or an indication that personal attacks are not okay even if they are aimed at me, would be a nice touch as well. Not expecting. Just well, not expecting. Assumed Good Faith for as long as I could. But how many insults does one have to sustain before one can rightfully drop such a presumption? The obvious WP:DOUBLESTANDARD, supported by, I must presume, every one of you in this editing pool, got past tiresome a very, very long time ago. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that you whine in good faith. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Yeah, the Klinger-Fuentes reaction (it doesn't rise to the level of "analysis") should be removed. Go ahead. Andyvphil (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Adult criminal record

Regarding this edit [14] by User:Dyrnych and the previous edit by User:Editor993, the following appeared in a NY Times article about Michael Brown,[15]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Anchor placed here. Bob K31416 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC))

That was an Aug 14 USA Today article titled "Michael Brown had no criminal record, police say" by Aja Williams of KSDK-TV, whose report of the prosecutor’s statement was that the prosecutor said that Brown had no criminal record.[16] It wasn’t clear from Williams’ report of the police and prosecutors statements that those statements included Brown’s juvenile record or was just his adult record. An Aug 15 article in the NY Times by Bosman, Schwartz and Kovaleski was more specific and clarified that the police statement about Brown’s arrest record did not include his juvenile record.[17]

“He [Brown] had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile.”

Then another article on Aug 17 in the Christian Science Monitor by Scott clarified that the prosecutor’s statement was referring to Brown’s adult criminal record.[18]

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

And a week later an Aug 24 article in the NY Times by Eligon was specific about Brown not having a criminal record as an adult and left the question of his juvenile record to Brown’s family’s account.[19]

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

So we have an Aug 14 report of a KSDK-TV journalist in USA Today that is presently used in our article vs Aug 15–24 reports of 5 journalists in the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor. We need to change to "no adult criminal record" in our article to be specific because the statement "no criminal record" is misinformation that misrepresents the police and prosecutor's statements. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. WP:WEIGHT & WP:V is clearly on the side of "no adult record", but I also agree with others that "no record in the 2 months since he turned 18" is mostly meaningless, and "no adult record" does infer/imply the existence of a juvenile record. I say we hold off just a bit, we are likely to know something about if he had a juvenile record shortly. If he had a juvenile record (of any kind) then we will need to correct the above statement (which is not the same thing as saying we should detail the contents of the juvenile record - such a decision would need to be based on the relevance of that record, and how its covered in RS) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think footnote [2] should be changed now from the USAToday article to the above St. Louis Post Dispatch article http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/juvenile-court-michael-brown-had-no-most-serious-felony-convictions/article_43c9bbbb-356f-5ea6-b9e2-7dde7e3e5c83.html and please remember that Judge Spiwak took the request to open the juvenile record under advisement and apparently has the power to release it later. For now, "no criminal record" is reasonable if that footnote can explain the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.163.144 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How much credence should be given to stories like these?

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

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

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

The folks who are happy that the article implies that we know that Brown never had any run-ins with the police will never join any consensus to remove the misleading sentence. What's the next step? Andyvphil (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hearing results

Per court officials, at the very least, Brown was never charged with any A or B felonies as a juvenile. [20] This directly and definitively disproves the claims that he was charged with murder. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You really need to get your confirmation bias under control. The statement wasn't made by a "court official" and says nothing at all about whether Brown had been charged with murder, only that there had been no "convictions" and no charges were pending. The "Reliable Source"(sic) (StL Post-Dispatch) is no better than you, claiming that "the hearing on Tuesday put to rest claims by blogger Charles C. Johnson and others that Brown was facing a murder charge at the time he was shot to death" which is NOT what their co-plaintiff claimed. Well, maybe somewhat better than you, but not much. Andyvphil (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

According to statement from court, no "A" or "B" felony convictions or charges are a juvenile. Court taking under advisement (for release of other non felony records?) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/juvenile-court-michael-brown-had-no-felony-convictions-did-not/article_43c9bbbb-356f-5ea6-b9e2-7dde7e3e5c83.html

Fixing edit conflicts with same link. JYNX! Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Second source http://fox2now.com/2014/09/03/lawsuits-seek-any-michael-brown-juvenile-records/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters a great deal, but notice the careful wording which doesn't rule out the possibility that he was charged and acquitted of class A or B felonies as a juvenile. But 'innocent until proven guilty', I guess. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Or diverted (although diversion would be unlikely for murder one thinks) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Brown had no adult criminal record[21][22] and he had no convictions or pending charges for serious felonies as a juvenile.[23]

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

The lede says flatly, "Brown had no criminal record." Indeed, that echoes the USA Today source. But a little common sense would be helpful here. Juvenile records are normally sealed (with, in MO, the exception of class A & B felony convictions) and there is no indication that the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office was here making a release of the sealed information that there are now two suits to extract. In fact we don't know the contents of Brown's juvie file and the USA Today headline and sentence were, at a minimum, misleading. Just because you have a Reliable(sic) Source being careless about details doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow it into inaccuracy. (btw: I don't expect there's much in Brown's juvie record - one of the bios, WaPo or NYT I think, mentions he'd -recently- started seeing religious visions in cloud formations, and his suddenly reckless behavior may have a common cause with that...) Andyvphil (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus that it needs to be changed. There is no proof that there is any juvenile record. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof that there is or isn't a juvenile record. Yet the article presently says that there is "no criminal record". The proposed change does not say that there is or isn't a juvenile criminal record and is supported by three reliable sources that essentially correct the misreporting in the source that is presently used in our article. (For more details, see my previous comment of 13:04, 2 September 2014 in the main part of the section.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that it is "misreporting" is entirely unsupported and unsourced, which makes it prohibited original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gawd, this assertion is attempted WikiLawyering of a very low order. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that prohibits Bob or I from concluding from evidence and logic that USA Today misreported as fact something that is not a fact, and we do not need a "reliable source" stating that USA Today was not talking about Brown's juvenile record when it said Brown did not have a criminal record to so conclude. Apparently you have learned to bluelink, but not to comprehend: The article you link to says, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research". That's a limitation on what we may state as fact in an article ("USA Today editors are incompetents.") and not on what we may argue for, conclude, and say here ("USA Today editors are incompetents.") Andyvphil (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced factual assertions don't belong in WP articles, quite irrespective of consensus among editors frequenting the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The item you're referring to is currently in the third paragraph of the lead,[24] "Brown had no criminal record". --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also an instance of it currently at the end of the first paragraph of the section Michael Brown Jr [25] . --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The early sources say he had no criminal record. It's up to editorial discretion to decide is we know that was his adult record. Of course this begs the question of the existence of a juvenile record.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, aside from USA Today, most if not all of those early articles aren't from upper tier news organizations and were based on the USA Today article, usually with links to that article. Upper tier news organizations, for example the Pulitzer prize winning news organizations NY Times and Christian Science Monitor, have subsequently reported that the authorities said no adult criminal record. Information about whether or not Brown had a juvenile criminal record has not been released, so we can't really say in our article that he had no criminal record. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

That's a strange message. Re "we have a judge stating that he had no criminal record as a juvenile" — Where did you get that from? The judge has taken the matter of releasing full information regarding the existence of a juvenile criminal record under advisement, and has yet to rule. All that has been released is regarding Class A and B felonies. For your convenience, here's the result of a google search I just made using the keywords: michael brown juvenile criminal record. [26] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No judge said Brown did not have a criminal record as a juvenile. The attorney for the juvie dept said he had no convictions for Class A or B felonies, or pending charges for same, when he died, otherwise the juvie dept would have had to release info under this law [27] , and they are saying there is nothing they are required to release. ("Convictions" is the wrong word [28] - Brown had not been "adjudged delinquent" on charges which are not precisely defined by "Class A or B felonies", but never mind -- close enough.) Brown's privacy interest in the secrecy of his juvie records expired at his death [29], and the public policy issue is what's currently under consideration.

To answer some silliness above, this is indeed "original research", but I am not required by any Wikipedia policy to preserve my ignorance nor to make any editorial decisions as if I were ignorant. Sheesh.

And the suggestion that there is a consensus to continue exhibiting USA Today's incompetence in this article is nonsense. Andyvphil (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Polished Lede

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

Media Commentary in "Police Account" Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiresome attribution in Accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Mandruss, would you be willing to work with me offline to put together an alternate presentation of the accounts? I too think they could be improved. I agree with you that one improvement would be to make it very clear up front that we are letting the speakers speak for themselves but that in so doing, we, as Wikipedia, are not at all endorsing or disendorsing any of the claims made. This would allow us to remove all of the "the speaker said" tags after each phrase or paraphrase. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

From your use of @, I'm thinking you meant to ping me. If so, that requires {{ping}} or {{u}}, as @Michael-Ridgway: or Michael-Ridgway.
I'm personally ok with the presentation of the accounts, except for the readability issue discussed above. So I don't know what I could contribute to said private collaboration. If you want to work up alternatives in your sandbox to facilitate discussion in talk, I think that would be a worthwhile pursuit. Specifics are almost always more useful than generalities, I think, which is why I gave specifics above. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually got duped into going and pounding sand by someone who suggested a sandbox as a way of getting the lede improved, along with the accounts, I guess. Fool me once, shame on you. You know the rest. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Yes, that's been bothering me also. A single attribution for the account should be enough. The second version of the content above would be perfect, but I do think that one clear attribution is needed. In stead of "...on condition of anonymity, saw Brown...", "...on condition of anonymity, said that he saw Brown...".- Mr X 21:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur, but shouldn't we make it clear at least once in their individual accounts, or in a brief paragraph at the outset of the accounts section, that these are accounts given to the media, rather than an official statement given to the police. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, and I can do that. "Following the Police section below are accounts from people who say they witnessed the shooting. These accounts summarize what the individuals said to the news media, and are not official statements to the police." ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that. And thanks for the tip on how to ping editors directly. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Josie"

Since Josie's performance was a one off, and not likely to be repeated, would anyone object to her entire account being included verbatim in the accounts section? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this section on topic. Josie can have her own section if she wants one. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do. It's absurd that we don't have the Josie/Wilson account. Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following your unsupported suggestion that an appeal for a non-attributed account of what Josie told the world is not germane to this topic. Accounts: Josie. Style of delivery: Don't weary the readers with attribution. Run it verbatim. Then add one of the dozens of reliable sources that remind us that the police affirm that Josie's account is truly Darren Wilson's account. And as always, know that I am WP:AGF and please, do not assume otherwise. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Josie's friendship with the family may only be purported, but her recitation of Wilson's story is vouched for."Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN." [30] Andyvphil (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I take that back, as this Josie may have been a fake account [31] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A better explanation and chronology, here [32] -- Surely some sources picked this up, but it is very dubious. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

“Josie” insisted that Brown attacked Wilson, grabbed his gun, and the terrified cop shot only in self-defense. The problem? The details were almost identical to those shared on a fake Facebook page set up to look like Wilson’s own. But before the tale could be debunked, not only Fox but CNN had reported on “Josie’s” tale with some credulity. As karoli notes over at Crooks and Liars, it’s not clear whether Loesch was punked, or was in on the punking. [33] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Third Paragraph of Lede

This paragraph is growing and really serves no purpose in the Lede other than to confuse the reader:Ferguson police released video of a convenience store robbery which occurred minutes before the shooting, stating that it "shows a confrontation between Brown and an employee at the store." The timing of the video's release was controversial and criticized by Brown's family, politicians and others. The Ferguson City Attorney responded that the statutory deadline in Missouri's "Sunshine Law" had been reached.--Kevin Murray (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

My work on the lede, including this, and a reverted replacement, is discussed above at [34]. If you don't want it to be the next subsection I suggest you place it adjacent. And while you're at it, please restore my response that you deleted, no doubt inadvertently, by using a simple revert... *FUCK* Now I've lost my other work in response to you, detailing your error in thinking Wilson didn't know of the robbery, a major nitwit reporter fuckup. Not entirely your fault, but a pain in the ass. Anyway, look at [35], esp. 2:05 and 10:30, which was widely misreported as the Ferguson police chief saying Wilson didn't know of the robbery. Instead he said only that Wilson didn't know of the robbery at "initial contact", and he couldn't speak to what happened after that since it was still under investigation and, anyway, he wasn't privy to Wilson's debriefing (which was by the County). Actually -- and our lede is totally screwed up in not mentioning this -- Wilson's interaction with Brown & Johnson came in two parts, and he backed into their path after making the connection. And of course Brown & Johnson knew, which probably affected what ensued. Andyvphil (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hands up

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

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

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

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

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

My suggestion: "While there are minor differences (see Accounts) all eyewitnesses have described Brown's hand's as up when he was shot by Wilson. According to the same accounts Brown may have been walking, stumbling or falling forward during the final shots. Officer Wilson, according to his account to the Ferguson police[36] has claimed Brown's arms were lowered and moved towards him." This Vox article explicitly states all eyewitnesses agree on the raised hands [37]. I believe only Michael Brady doesn't say Brown's hands were up, but he only sees the moment immediately after he's shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeranv (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force."[38]

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

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

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

I looked at the witness accounts in the article, other than any possible account by Wilson, and found the following regarding hands up and Brown's motion after he stopped running.[39]

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

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

Piaget Crenshaw — accounts in three different interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of the 9 witness accounts in the article,

-6 said Brown had his hands up

-5 said Brown was moving towards Wilson

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

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

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

Vox reliability arbitrary break for ease of editing

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

...and using Vox Media as a RS source for anything is highly problematic. It's fact checking seems rather understaffed. It was one of those sources for the assertion that Brown had no criminal record, which it had, patently, no way of knowing was true, and the vestigial Wikipedia article on it states, "it has... been repeatedly criticized for basic factual errors and the apparent poor familiarity of [its] journalists with [their] subject matter"[40] Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not true. I just watched the video at [41], and it's unmistakably editorial in nature. I think, except for a headshot, the only picture of Brown is sitting on the couch with his younger brother when about the same age as Trayvon-in-a-football-jersey. 13? 12? Then there's the assertion that the police armored vehicles "are basically the same as tanks", which will surprise anyone with a clue. Tendentious as well as unreliable. Andyvphil (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I don't have to ask anyone else. I can SEE VOX is unreliable, both in its record on other events (Did you know there's a "bridge" between Gaza and the West Bank? VOX does, LOL.) and in the article on Brown. Here's another: "St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, who's leading the investigation into Brown's death, said... Brown... attempted to grab the officer's weapon. At that point, the first shot was fired from the police car."[42] Except to support this VOX links to CNN [43] where it turns out that what CNN says Belmar said is, "A shot was fired INSIDE the police car." The accuracy of the guy writing for VOX isn't much better than yours, which is pretty bad. Why don't you ask at WP:RS/N if this signifies a "Reliable Source"? Andyvphil (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Vox is just Wikipedia without the crowdsourcing. Check this out: "Jackson also noted that Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown at the time of the shooting, wasn't believed by police to have been involved in the alleged robbery. (Johnson's attorney, however, says Johnson was involved.)" That's the current page,[44] and it came from an AP story April 15 that leads off, "The friend who was with Michael Brown when he was shot and killed by a police officer near St. Louis over the weekend is reportedly confirming that he and Brown had taken part in the theft of cigars from a convenience store that day.//That word comes from the attorney for Dorian Johnson, speaking to MSNBC." [45] But of course this never happened, it's just some moron AP stringer misinterpreting something he saw on TV as an admission that Johnson's attorney never made. But, hey, it's in many "Reliable Sources", including Vox. Let's run with it. Andyvphil (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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