Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Grand jury hearing section

The grand jury hearing section has, as far as I can tell, only one statement by a law professor in MO. To get an accurate idea of whether the hearing was out-of-the-ordinary, it's got to be compared to other police-involved-shooting cases in the same state.

I made some changes to the table. I know this makes it different than the Times' table, and it incorporates facts about grand juries from Grand juries in the United States. According to this page from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, "a little less than half" of the felony cases in the county result in a grand jury hearing and the others go to a judge for a preliminary examination. So this is not a "typical" MO grand jury case.

I also removed a statement about witnesses being repeatedly asked about whether Brown appeared to reached for a gun "despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed." The Times has legitimate concerns about the grand jury hearing which are in the article, but this claim is faulty. In the last seconds of Brown's life, he knew he didn't have a gun, but nobody else did. That emerged later.

Disclaimer: I hope that Wilson went through essentially the same process as any other officer, and I hope he had faced the same likelihood of being prosecuted. I deplore abuse of power, whether it's a court making an example of a person or a police officer using excessive force. But if the people of MO feel there is a need for change, it's a matter for the legislature, not the criminal courts. Roches (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Look I am trying to AGF here, but you can't just make changes to a table sourced to a an RS and add whatever you want from material from other sources that it is not related to this incident. That is a violation of WP:OR. As for the "faulty" claim of the NYT, that is none of your business to assess. We need to stay close to the sources, regardless if we believe the source is wrong. See WP:V 15:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I also warn you again, that this page is not a forum, so please keep your opinions out of it. It does not help. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No troubles whatsoever AGF'ing, his good faith seems pretty obvious to me. Also he is correctly pointing out source misrepresentation. The NYT article does not say "it was known he was unarmed" and neither should. Of course, I am shocked, shocked, shocked that it was Cwobeel who edit warred to defend the source misrepresentation which was intended to wrongly defame a living person, because that's not like his MO or anything. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you stop characterizations? It is becoming insufferable. If you wanted to restore that portion you could have done it. But instead you reverted everything back to OR. Stop the nonsense!!!! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Try making objectionable edits all by themselves so that your other work won't be touched when the objectionable edits are reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what the source says

Over the months, the jurors seemed to focus intently on the final movement that Mr. Brown may have made toward Officer Wilson, after a brief chase. The prosecutor asked witness after witness if it seemed as if Mr. Brown were reaching for a weapon, though few said they saw anything like that. Mr. Brown was found to be unarmed.

I am restorring the material with some tweaks. Next time, please read the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

'Yes, that is precisely the source text which failed to substantiate your WP prose claim that "prosecutors ask[ed] witness after witness if Brown was appearing to be reaching for a weapon when confronting Wilson, while it was known that Brown was unarmed". You ought to be thanking me for removing that fact-falsifying, source-misrepresenting prose, and yup you do this all the time, it's super annoying. Now you have gotten all mad & chided me angrily for reading correctly & reverting you correctly.

In response, you've changed it to "prosecutors ask[ed] witness after witness if Brown was appearing to be reaching for a weapon when confronting Wilson, while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed." Yet another editorial spin that is not found in the cited source. Reverted. You misrepresent sourced facts, you misrepresent sourced opinions, you do it over and over and you do it to further your own hyper-partisan anger and desire to defame people whom you despise. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think ,y last edit is accurate, so instead of endlessly complaining, do the the hard work and make it better. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain, as clearly as possible, how you think your last edit was accurate. Or any of them, for that matter. "despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed" wasn't right, "while it was known he was unarmed" wasn't right, and "while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed" is not right. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed" - refers to the prosecutors, not the witnesses. That is the point the source is making, at least that was what I understood. while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed, was my attempts to unpack the statement "The prosecutor asked witness after witness if it seemed as if Mr. Brown were reaching for a weapon, though few said they saw anything like that". I accept that it was not perfect, but still valid. Now, please propose how to include in your own word that last sentence, because you have deleted it and it is a crucial point in that reporting. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the source didn't use those words — and since prosecutors, like Wilson, did not know at the time of the incident that Brown was unarmed — this sounds like obvious BS. Also, "few witnesses said they saw him reaching for a weapon" is not even remotely equivalent to "none of the witnesses said he was armed". So once again it looks like you're adding your own spin, and there is no "validity" to it. Could you please propose content here before adding it to the article so that others can remove the errors and policy violations first? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

. My read is this: The critique is that prosecutors were acting as defense attorneys trying to validate Wilson's testimony regarding his perception that Brown was reaching for a weapon, when actually no witness other than Wilson made that case, and the prosecutors were asking again and again about that, which was very unusual. That is my reading of the source. Please re-read the source in its entirety and propose how to best reflect it. BTW, I intend to add more from that source, currently working on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for spelling out your uninformed opinion which does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. I decline the invitation to grind your axe for you. I have already read and re-read the source. You are now on triple-explicit notice that the source does not say any of the things you previously wrote into the article, and thus I humbly request you bring any further material from this source HERE, to the talk page, so it may be vetted by editors who aren't quite so prone to accidentally misrepresenting a source to defame a living person. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you suggestion, but I have no intentions to refrain from editing. I am working an additional material that I would add in due course. Thankfully, the collaborative process of Wikipedia will, as always, catch any mistake you or I make in our editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Mistakes", mmm, yes, it's quite amazing how your "mistakes" always result in WP prose that misrepresents a source to trash a living person, and it's further amazing how it's invariably, always and without exception, the targets of progressive wrath that get this treatment. What I find remarkable is that you do this deliberately, and repeatedly, and without the slightest hint of remorse and without the slightest hint of apology for those whom you dumbly snark at, threaten and insult, in the process of trying to defend an indefensible anti-policy edit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

^When I posted the above, I hadn't see that you went ahead and added more source misrepresentation. Please be advised that all opinion commentary is supposed to be well-sourced to notable commentators, not Wikipedia editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess we're fortunate in this case that the WP prose in question doesn't trash anyone. At any rate, I think it's worth mentioning that paraphrasing "Mr Brown was found to be unarmed" is hardly an unsourced opinion, considering it's a New York Times report. If you were to provide a better paraphrase than any in the list that you've accumulated on Cwobeel's attempts, it would resolve this issue fairly easily. Explaining why the information shouldn't be included would also be informative. As an aside, the NYT article was corrected today as it misattributed questions asked of Wilson to the prosecutors. The questions were actually posed by one of the grand jurors. --RAN1 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It has gradually evolved from something that misrepresented the source to defame McCullogh, into something that merely reports what the source says without WP-editor embellishment intended to defame McCullogh. And as an aside, Cwobeel's level of activity and "accidental source misrepresentation" is far too intense for me to go around actually ghostwriting his prose for him. Fortunately, BLP explicitly provides that I needn't do that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Except, again, nothing you edited out seems to show any hint of defaming McCulloch. The only thing that comes remotely close is this edit, which was neither libelous nor non-notable as it is a well-documented controversy about McCulloch by at least two sources (the last link was to the source cited in the edit). The Huffington Post source brings a different perspective to the controversy, which merits it being referenced in the article in a neutral tone. Btw, perhaps it would be in everyone's best interests if you were to be bold and give insight into how to rewrite the prose in an acceptable way, or to provide justifications on why the information shouldn't be included. As far as I can tell, BLP doesn't provide defenses for not contributing rationale. --RAN1 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the specific instances of source misrepresentation I noted above had defamatory effect, so it's unclear to me why you're focused on non-misrepresented source language, which I removed for non-notability per sourcing guidelines, rather than the specific defamatory source misrepresentation I was talking about. I don't have any problem with representing critical sources accurately. You would do well to pay much much closer attention while editing WP, we don't need more careless editors or editing. It is also unclear to me how you think I could have been more specific in identifying the defamatory source misrepresentation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately because you didn't actually cite any specific diffs or links, the argument was unclear and I had to reconstruct it as best I could. Sorry if that came off as careless to you, but it's hard to discuss specifics without links. Some advice: using quotes and links would help more with arguing your point and finding a solution rather than claiming I'm using an argument from silence. --RAN1 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone involved in the discussion knew which edits were being talked about, and the argument was crystal clear, 100% impossible to misunderstand. If you cannot understand why we should not misreport what sources say in ways that are damning to living people, not sure what you're looking for other than an opportunity to sit down and read and re-read WP:BLP at length. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone discussing this can make claims as to which arguments were crystal clear. Anyways, this is resolved so let's stick to what other stuff needs rewriting. --RAN1 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am discussing this, I was the one who marked the source misrepresentation in the first place and laid it out in plain text, and I do explicitly claim and affirm that the explanations given above were 100% crystal clear. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the correcting by the NYT. I have deleted the miss-attributed sentence. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Collaborating, OR, and inline attributions

Cwobeel, you have mentioned WP:OR three times since the talk page was last archived, and none of those instances were legitimately original research. I don't think the diagram is OR, actually, but it seemed inconsistent, for example, that you'd estimate the position of the baseline.

I'd like to contribute in a collaborative and positive way, but that will require the active editors to assume competency on my part. I would use fewer in-line citations, I would use primary sources to some extent, and I would have to remove existing content in the process of editing it. I can't justify every change I make, but all the changes I make are justifiable. So, if I remove content, replace it, and if I make a change that needs justification, please ask for justification. Roches (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, you call for fewer inline citations, but this time you're doing it without responding to the guideline excerpt that clearly says you're wrong on that. If you're in fact referring only to in-text attributions, as Bob said, then please use the correct term and say so.

If you want to work collaboratively on this article like the rest of us, I don't think anyone here will oppose that. We can use all the collaborative help we can get. Doing things like asserting, quite incorrectly, that your disagreement voids a consensus is not collaborative. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I second Mandruss comments about consensus. @Roches: What I am puzzled about is your assertion that you want to use primary sources to some extent. Can you clarify what do you mean by that? As discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Source_bombing, while primary sources are not forbidden, most materials in articles are expected to be drawn from secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A point about in-text attributions. These are needed in each and every case in which an opinion is expressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to WP:BUNDLING, not to any removal of inline citations or in-text attributions that are required. It didn't occur to me that there was even a possibility of someone thinking I meant removing references that needed to be there.

About consensus: That was in reply to an assertion that I was deliberately removing content. The idea was that it had been there for a long time, and so it should stay. I thought that it needed to be updated, and that's all. If I was really trying to do something incorrect there, I would have undid the revert, and I didn't.

About using primary sources to some extent: I really just meant what I said here (and everywhere else, for that matter). There are aspects of this case where primary sources are the best ones. An example would be the autopsy report, which is the work of a medical professional and makes all of the appropriate conclusions (and none of the inappropriate ones), as opposed to an article about the autopsy.

In general: I don't have a lot of Wikipedia edits, but I've been using the site almost since the beginning. I've written and edited a substantial amount of scientific text, some of which is published. This does not mean I'm better than anyone else, but it's difficult for me to understand the hostility towards my comments here. (I don't mean replies to things that were already hostile.) It's even more difficult to understand the hostility I got when I tried to edit the article.

I have posted to the admin noticeboards incident section. I tried to resolve this with the last post, but all that happened is that I got told I wasn't being collaborative. I can't see any reason why I was being uncollaborative that does not involve altering someone's content.

Roches (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration. Expert editors sometimes have difficulties adapting to the realities of Wikipedia editing. A couple of good essay on the subject are WP:EXPERT and WP:EXR - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with WP:PRIMARY sources is that they can only be used for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". As can be seen in the "shell casing pattern" discussion above, deciding what is or isn't analysis vs objective fact is often itself controversial per your statement "Objective facts from a primary source are not original research, and synthesis of objective facts when only one conclusion is possible is not speculation". Clearly there is disagreement about how many conclusions are possible for almost all the facts of this case both on wiki and in the real world. Further, your specific example for wanting primary sources is itself problematic "An example would be the autopsy report, which is the work of a medical professional and makes all of the appropriate conclusions (and none of the inappropriate ones), as opposed to an article about the autopsy" By definition you are stating that your analysis of the primary source disagrees with the secondary source analysis of that same source. You may be right, you may be wrong, but policy prohibits any such analysis all together. There are plenty of places all of us disagree with various secondary sources, and think they got it wrong. The answer to that is to find an equally reliable secondary source that you think got it right and put it in, not just delete what we disagree with, or put in our own analysis. To some degree those restrictions are less on the talk page where we can briefly discuss why we think a particular fact or analsysis is relevant and worthy for inclusion in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't have argued it better. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't be offended by the admin noticeboard post, at least not to a great extent. Things were gradually building up, and I held back from resorting to the admins for a while.

The autopsy report may not be the best example, because that section is okay. I wouldn't analyze a primary source; there is always a need and a place for secondary sources. I just don't think secondary sources are necessarily better. Maybe a witness account is a better example; it could be quoted directly and supported by secondary sources rather than using several sources to write the account. Roches (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the WP:BUNDLING that Roches referred to above. The help page isn't much help, but as far as I can tell this bundling simply means multiple Cite templates within one set of ref tags. Instead of one citation for each source, you would have one citation for each combination of sources that the article requires. Given sources A, B, and C, you could potentially end up with citations A, B, C, AB, AC, BC, and ABC. The upside is no ugly long series of citation numbers in the body. The downside is greater complexity and a maintenance nightmare as things get shuffled around (like refs aren't already enough trouble). I think the downside clearly outweighs the upside unless the article is very stable. I experimented in my sandbox if anyone wants to have a look. The example citation is Big.Cite, citation [33], which contains four sources. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

I pretty much agree with everything that TParis wrote at ani. This article has NPOV issues. The article relies too heavily on the opinions of non-notable commentators and their criticism. The article is also littered with weasel words and phrases like "some legal experts" and terms like "asserted" and "claimed", which are all discouraged by MOS. The controversy section for the grand jury hearing is a prime example of undue weight with the amount of criticism in that section. That table really needs to go too, what is the significance of having that, it's not even true. These jurors were a typical grand jury that were conducting typical grand jury business, doing exactly everything listed in the first column, before Wilson's case was given to them, there's no mention of that in the table. The criticism in Wilson's section has weasel phrases like "sources reported" and "other discrepancies" without defining who the sources are or what the other discrepancies are. It also provides no context at all either, like the fact that the grand jury was made aware of these inconsistencies before Wilson even testified. There just seems to be a lot of cherry-picking sources to negatively portray Wilson, law-enforcement officers, prosecutors and the grand jurors. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason for at least one occurrence of "some legal experts" is that the source says "some legal experts". Obviously we can't say it in Wikipedia's voice, so are you suggesting it should be left out of the article because the source declined to identify the legal experts? I would disagree. As for "other discrepancies", if those were elaborated it would be attacked as undue weight, so it appears there's no way to include such material at all. It's either undue weight or weasel words. I'll abstain from discussion about the table for lack of competence in that area. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First, this has almost nothing to do with Gaijin42's post in #More terse summaries in the witness accounts and I've refactored it into a new section (if not, go ahead and undo it). I disagree that this article has NPOV issues. Notability does not apply to content, and we should instead be looking at due weight. In this case, it seems that the majority of opinions are biased against Wilson, the prosecution team and the grand jury, which is why it's reported so heavily in the article; unless it's out of proportion, there shouldn't be anything wrong with this. Sources that argue to the contrary are present; if there are others, they should be included to keep due weight. The "some legal experts" phrase is a leftover from the LA Times article, which provided a number of legal opinions. While out of context it may seem like a weasel phrase, the rest of the section references by legal experts mentioned in the source by name, so it really isn't a weasel phrase. Assertions and claims are only weasel words when implying a point is inaccurate, which is hardly the case here. The table is sourced to NYT, which is why we have it. I don't see what's the problem with having it here, maybe you could clarify? The other two instances are poorly paraphrased: the "sources reported" is actually the Huffington Post's analysis, but the analysis that went into their article was cut out of ours so that'll have to be reworked; there's only one discrepancy reported in the CNN article, so I went ahead and reworded that phrase. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be blatant cherry-picking of POVs as far as I can tell. --RAN1 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Once you have summarized and presented information to the reader in an encyclopedic tone - following that up with an endless stream of cherry-picked opinions of non-notable commentators is undue piling on. I completely agree that the majority of the reporting is negative against Wilson and the other entities involved in this case, but that doesn't mean we pack as many negative opinions that we can into a section, or the article, and still claim it's NPOV, because that's not neutral. We should be summarizing and including the most notable opinions or academic opinions, instead of being a depository for negative opinions that don't really impart any encyclopedic information to the reader. The weasel phrases "some legal experts" and "sources reported" is exactly that - weasel phrasing - and should never be used in this article, especially when there are more than enough legal experts identified by name offering legal opinions. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think the opinions are cherry-picked unless we're missing pro-Wilson/prosecutor references, and notability really doesn't matter for sources. I took a closer look at the article though, and I noticed that we're quoting a lot of the opinions directly, which is probably compromising impartial tone. We should neutrally summarize the arguments instead of quoting them, and I think that should fix the POV problem. Btw, "some legal experts" isn't a weasel phrase when used in the header or (especially) when the legal experts are clarified after the fact. Using that phrase should be ok. "Sources reported" is weasel phrasing, and I'll take the time to reword that sentence later today. --RAN1 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. And now my refactoring's a moot point. Whoops. --RAN1 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was blatant cherry-picking of POVs, but I think there was a desire to represent a greater variety of opinions than was necessary. There are so many opinions from so many sources that it would be much more helpful to avoid arguing why a given source is acceptable despite having issues like weasel words and unnamed sources. We could simply choose sources that don't do that.

In general, I objected to the inclusion of journalists' opinions about the legal issues because there were also several published opinions from real lawyers about the legal issues. In the point where there was a formal statement from the ACLU and an analysis by the Huffington Post, the first source was a much better choice than the other. Roches (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :

The grand jury Controversy section currently* consists of 18 quotes/opinions plus the table.

• Should we keep quotes, or move to a more prose style summary
  • If kept as quotes, should the number of quotes be reduced
  • Or a summary plus a small number of representative quotes
• Should the table be kept, or moved into prose

* The current version may differ from the version when this RFC started.

Survey

• Move most quotes to summary style keeping only most 2-3 most notable/important voices as quotes. Keep table. IF WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is controlling, reduce number of quotes/opinions as currently WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Convert table to prose per Bob's excellent point that doing so allows us to avoid the WP:SYNTH issue while presenting more accurate information. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

See the subsection Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• This section needs an opening paragraph that gives a clear and concise overview of the nature of the controversy, convert table to text and summarize salient points, reduce amount of legal/academic opinions, remove all weasel phrasing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summary with representative quotes, keep table without charges row - Not most notable quotes, just representative of author opinions that can be included in as neutrally-worded as possible. We have people to attribute to, so undue doesn't apply. Table should be kept with charges row removed since it isn't consistent with grand jury transcript. --RAN1 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep charges row, I interpreted it wrong. --RAN1 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summary with representative quotes, keep table as is Convert to prose - The summary does not need to represent a false balance as, if the prevalent opinion as repressed in its reporting is negative, we should not hide that fact per NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Use minimal quotes and emend the table to accurately state that the charges were presented to the grand jury. Collect (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Use minimal quotes and emend table as per Collect. Quotes in this case should not be "representative." Summarize material included in quotes instead wherever the exact word-for-word nature of the quote does not make such summary difficult. If there is clear reason for doing so, it would certainly be possible to include any quotations deemed truly necessary in the individual citations for the summarized material. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace the table with text — See the subsection Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace table with text - Per: WP:QUOTEFARM and removing table fixes WP:UNDUE issue of the display. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace table with text - It will make things much easier for the reader to parse the text and understand the issues if we do these things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Replace with prose. Use as source material only quotes from notable people who have specific knowledge of the field, with an emphasis on those from MO. Clearly explain why this is different than the majority of grand jury hearings. Do not criticize the system by criticizing the way this case was handled, because it was not handled in an unusual way according to the legal practices in that jurisdiction. Roches (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion — POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

Table Charges Row

• Here's the charges row of the table.[1]

	Typical grand jury	Wilson's case
Charges	Prosecutors presents a range of charges and ask grand jury to indict.	No recommendation to charge Wilson.

It has the false implication that the Wilson prosecutor didn't present a range of charges. The NYTimes article [2] made the same false implication in its table. If it was intentional on the part of the NYT author, it would be a lie by omission. [Note added 16:45, 12 Dec:] If we intentionally keep it, it would be a lie by omission on our part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

red herring. The sentence needs to be read in toto: "Prosecutors presents a range of charges and ask grand jury to indict". McCullough did the former, but not the latter, which is the point that NYT is making. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Then say that more explicitly, as the table reads as if they did neither. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, as is we can't say it explicitly because the NYT article didn't. WP:NOR We would have to change the in-text attribution from "According to the The New York Times" to "According to the The New York Times" except as indicated", then give an inline citation at the item, for the source that said he presented a range of charges. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, we wouldn't have to go through these contortions if we summarized the table in text instead of using the table form, which takes up an excessive amount of space compared to a text summary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point that moving to prose lets us avoid the WP:SYNTH issue. I have changed my !vote accordingly. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Table must state "Range of charges presented to grand jury which did not decide to charge Wilson" as being accurate here. Else we imply in Wikipedia's voice that the charges were not presented to the grand jury. The table currently inaptly implies that the Wilson grand jury was not typical, and by not mentioning that the charges were presented, implies that charges were not presented. Collect (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've modified the charges row so that it puts the emphasis on the word "ask". Here is a copy below [3]:

	Typical grand jury	Wilson's case
Charges	Prosecutors ask grand jury to indict based on a range of charges.	McCulloch did not recommend any of the charges against Wilson.

I'm thinking this should clarify the wording, looking for other opinions. --RAN1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Good for me. Thanks for the effort. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It still leaves out that the prosecutor provided the grand jury with charges, which the source also left out. In any case, I don't think you can fix it because it's not in the source, WP:NOR. Here's the charges part of the source's table for reference.[4]

	Typical	Wilson's case
Specific charge	A prosecutor usually provides a charge or range of charges, then asks the grand jury to indict based on those options.	The St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, did not recommend a charge or charges against Officer Wilson.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced it with "McCulloch did not recommend any of the presented charges against Wilson." That should resolve the issue. --RAN1 (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I'm going to source vox as a matter of sourcing the charges presented. If this still looks like NOR, go ahead and suggest alternatives. --RAN1 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RAN1, It suggests that the charges were presented by someone else, or may be confusing because "recommend" and "present" are similar. That's one of the reasons why the source was a problem. Also, it's OR because the Vox article wasn't making a comparison with a typical grand jury. A possible improvement that is clearer for comparison in various ways is, "The prosecutor provided a range of charges for the jury to consider but didn't ask the jury to indict." However, without a source that uses this in a comparison with a typical grand jury, it would be OR too, although there is WP:IAR. In any case, note how this was easily handled in the Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you're probably right on the OR part. That said, writing it in prose form would also be OR as it's mainly the synthesis of information that's violating OR, so ultimately this doesn't work out. --RAN1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RAN1, No, the proposed version wouldn't be synth because it would only use the NYT article, not the Vox article. The proposed prose handles it by mentioning the differences, not the similarities. The differences between a typical grand jury and the Wilson grand jury was the point of the NYT's table. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of the prosecutor asking for an indictment in the NYT article, so it's OR as far as I know. I've made my best effort to focus on the difference in the table as well. Still, I decided to move the Vox sourcing to outside of the table since you were right about the synth. Let me know what you think. --RAN1 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Could you clarify your comment, "There is no mention of the prosecutor asking for an indictment in the NYT article, so it's OR as far as I know."? Quoting the excerpt from NYT that you're referring to might help.
• In your latest version, "McCulloch did not recommend any charges against Wilson.", what is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that he didn't ask for an indictment, or that he didn't present any charges for the jury to consider, or what?
• BTW there were 5 charges, not 4. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The only mentions of the prosecutor in the NYT is comments about the grand jury not indicting and which witnesses were "most credible", as well as his release of evidence and the grand jury leeway on evidence. Then it's the table. There's no mention of him not asking for an indictment, which makes that prose (if sourced to the NYT) OR in that regard. What I put in the table means he didn't ask the grand jury to indict on any charges, which seems to correspond to the implications provided in the article. The Vox statement clarifies that charges were presented. I've only seen four charges in media and in the released grand jury transcript, what was the 5th charge? --RAN1 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Re "There's no mention of him not asking for an indictment, which makes that prose (if sourced to the NYT) OR in that regard. What I put in the table means he didn't ask the grand jury to indict on any charges.” — What’s the difference between “not asking for an indictment” and "didn’t ask the grand jury to indict on any charges”?

• Re "I've only seen four charges in media and in the released grand jury transcript, what was the 5th charge?" — ABC and USAToday reported there were five charges. In the grand jury transcripts, Vol. 24, p133–134, there was 1) Murder in the first degree, 2) murder in the second degree, 3) voluntary manslaughter , 4) involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, 5) involuntary manslaughter in the second degree.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You're correct about the charge count. There was a page break in the grand jury documents that...um...disrupted my ability to count to 5. As for the other part, there is no difference, you're correct. If the survey keeps shifting toward text, your prose version should be ok policy-wise. There is a formatting issue I want to bring up: Can we drop the parentheses and rework the data into the sentence? Dropping in (A vs B) 3 times into a sentence makes for a really awkward display of data. --RAN1 (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to replace table

Replace this table that is currently in the article:[5]

According to the The New York Times, differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson's<ref name=NYTimes.Happened/>

	Typical grand jury	Wilson's case
Length of proceedings	One day or less.	Twenty-five days over three months.
Charges	Prosecutors ask grand jury to indict based on a range of charges.	McCulloch did not recommend any of the charges against Wilson.
Witnesses	Testimony by a few people, usually investigators who interviewed key witnesses.	Sixty witnesses called to testify, including extensive testimony from investigators.
Defendant Testimony	Not usual for defendants to testify.	Wilson testified for four hours to the grand jury.
Secrecy of proceedings	Grand jury activity is secret. Transcripts may be released at a court's discretion.	McCulloch released all grand jury transcripts, photographs and other evidence.

with the following text:

According to The New York Times, the grand jury proceedings differed from typical ones in Missouri. For the Wilson case, they lasted much longer (25 days over 3 months vs 1 day), the prosecutor did not ask for an indictment, there were many more witnesses (60 vs a few), the defendant testified, and all of the evidence and testimony was released to the public after the defendant was not indicted, where in typical grand juries it is usually kept secret.[6]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey consensus seems to be to keep the table. If it changes though, this looks like a decent draft replacement. --RAN1 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Replace the distracting table. There is much wrong with the assumptions being advanced, but we do not need a giant table drawing really inappropriate and WP:UNDUE attention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

#Survey is up there. --RAN1 (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Investigatory Grand Jury

If there is consensus to keep the table, then the header titled "Wilson's case" should be re-titled to accurately reflect that this was an "Investigatory grand jury", which is obviously why there are differences. We shouldn't be implying that Wilson's case was handled any differently than other investigatory grand jury proceeding. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, there is no such thing as a investigatory grand jury under Missouri Statutes. Also, Missouri grand juries are usually kept secret and aren't described in that way. Because of both of these issues, the label "investigatory" is simply contentious and contributes nothing of value. --RAN1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a typical grand jury under Missouri statutes either. In Missouri, the citizens that are empaneled to serve are simply called a "grand jury".period. My comment is in relation to the labels describing the different tasks they were assigned. The source used for this table described it as a "grand jury investigation", so did other sources USA Today, WaPo. Sources are what we use on WP and that is what my comment was based on. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I used the wording typical because you used the wording typical, but if you're willing to discard it, I'm all for it. Also, the wording "grand jury investigation" is not synonymous with the wording "investigatory grand jury". One refers to the investigation of the grand jury, the other implies that the grand jury was of a different type. The latter is contentious wording (implying that the grand jury operated differently because it was of a different type) and should not be used. --RAN1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I never used the wording typical, so that doesn't even matter. --RAN1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Investigatory is nothing more than an adjective used to describe the conduct of the proceedings, which in this case was a "grand jury investigation" - per the sources. The table under discussion here is used to highlight how the grand jury operated differently in Wilson's case, which was an investigatory case vs. a typical case, so obviously there is nothing contentious about using an adjective to accurately describe their conduct of a "grand jury investigation". Isaidnoway (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted below, investigatory isn't language that is rooted in Missouri state law or comparisons of grand juries there, since most proceedings are kept secret. Therefore, there's no way to use this language to compare Wilson's case with other grand jury cases in Missouri. Also, describing the grand jury as "investigatory" might be interpreted based on the laws of other states, so it's pretty contentious. This isn't even mentioned in any other survey opinions, so unless an RfC is made specifically for this, there is no consensus for this. --RAN1 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I never asserted that investigatory was rooted in MO state law or any other law, but rather it was an adjective in the English language used as a descriptor for purposes of labeling the differences in this table - based on reliable sourcing. So there is nothing contentious or inapppropriate about using a simple adjective in the English language as a term to label the differences in the table under discussion. Don't really care if it's mentioned in other survey opinions, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I'm certainly not going to open a RfC, and whatever the outcome of the survey is and the consensus is for the table, I'm OK with that as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a pain in the ass, but it was a sitting grand jury. Debating over this part of the fact seems a bit odd when they sit for terms and it was extended for this case, but no context illuminates this fact in the article. Also, that table is being used to support a major impropriety of all conventional comparisons. I'll not distract the point here, but comparing the mundane to the extraordinary and holding it up as evidence of wrong doing is hilarious when grand juries can take years. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns

These concerns cover issues in the article in this state as of 18:01, 11 December 2014‎

Sources

Sources 1-10

Sources 1-10

Reference #1 - Now used solely for "coordinates" [7] which does not give the coordinates and contains much information that has been proved contradictory and leaves much speculation. This is unneeded and does not support the "coordinates". Numerous other references provide this data. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference #2 - For the sole use of the number of shots fired, it comes from the Grand Jury documents. I suppose this is a reliable secondary source for that claim. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference #3 - Does not link directly to the material. It is on the last page of the content, but this dates "Three autopsies agreed that seven or eight bullets hit Brown, all from the front." Should be given with more clarity in some form. Which of the autopsies said 7, which said 8, were they conclusive on the number or shots or did they say "7 or 8" because it was inconclusive? Why would it be inconclusive? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference #4 - Wait... this autopsy says it was 6 shots fired at him. Why is this even present in the article and why is it being used to support "the last was probably the fatal shot." when it doesn't even agree with the previous claim "three autopsies" which said "7 or 8". More so, it was not 6 shots fired at him, it was 12. So not only do we get the number of shots fired wrong, we cannot even get the number of rounds which hit? This raised more questions on why it is being used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 5 - Seems to be reliable, but as a source, does it really need to be parroting the original source. Seems to be an unnecessary duplication. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 6 - A key source, but also early. "Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times" differs with Reference 3. Citation A checks out. Citation B checks out. Citation C does not check out "At 12:01 p.m., Wilson drove up to Brown and Johnson in the middle of Canfield Drive and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. Wilson continued driving past the two men, but then backed up and stopped close to them..." - This should be for the private autopsy data. Citation D - "Wilson fired his gun again, with at least six shots striking Brown in the front" - again differs from the reports, replacement is best. As the other citations are in "Independent autopsy" these are fine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 7 - This source can probably slide given the usage, but the source is flawed. This line "The office of Missouri’s attorney general concluded in an annual report last year that Ferguson police were twice as likely to arrest African Americans during traffic stops as they were whites." is really a clear example of a bias or shoddy reporting. The reason is actually cited in the very article is this report which shows that 369 of the arrests were for "Outstanding warrant". We should get a better source if possible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 8 - "In a press conference on November 24, Robert P. McCulloch, the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County, Missouri, announced that the jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson for his actions." is tangential because the source is "Gunshots, looting after grand jury in Ferguson case does not indict officer in Michael Brown shooting". Why is this source being used like this? Reference 9 - Checks out but vagueness is an issue with the line "Some legal analysts raised concerns over McCulloch's unorthodox approach, asserting that this process could have influenced the grand jury to decide not to indict." This is given in the source. Same with Citation B. Citation C makes an error, "not unusual" which is different from "not strange", also this is not a quote, it is an attribution, which was also the subject of a correction a day later. Citation D needs the claimants. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 10 - An acceptable source. Citation A is vague, should be handled by Reference 9. Citation B should have the text reworded better, as it is close wording. I know this is limited with the three key pieces of information though. Citation C has an issue that " probable cause need be proven to obtain an indictment" when it does not need to be "proven". Accuracy issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References 11-20

References 11-20

Reference 11 - No issues with the source. Citation A could use specifics in the line. Citation B reads "Blood on the ground supports statements that Brown continued to move closer toward Wilson after being hit by a number of bullets." and the text states "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets." Be specific. Ref D is used in the image - no concerns, but source 167 was not used in its creation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 12 - Fine. Not sure why it is being used in the lead and not the body. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 13 - Fine. Not sure why it is being used in the lead and not the body. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 14 - Fine, but this is covered by reference 13 and does not confirm the $75 million figure. Making it unnecessary.[8] 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 15 - Is a primary source for a BLP claim in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. [9] This should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 16 - No issues, wish Time got more use still... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 17 - No issues, missing information on "And 10 days after that, he was to start at a local technical school to learn how to fix furnaces and air conditioners...." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 18 - Reliability questions with the source. The quote usage is not really appropriate, but otherwise some information not utilized in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 19 - Contradictory with Reference 18 in a sense, but irrelevant. Instead his planned attendance of Vatterott College is left out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 20 - Instead of highlighting the commendation or clean record, is referencing some comment instead. Poor utilization of the source. Also, many personal details are left out, probably for the best in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References 21-30

References 21-30

Reference 21 - Duplicating reference. The amount of public record details, are like WP:COATRACK on Wikipedia, this may be better removed if not for the accusatory title "Little trail of Ferguson police officer behind the gun". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 22 - Same as reference 21 in many details and should be removed. Reference 20 works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 23 - A source which summarizes other sources and adds nothing. Best removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 24 - Again, a public record dive. Best removed as it adds nothing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 25 - Not my favorite source, but can we lose the quote "felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan". I find that inappropriate analogy and I would rather not use the source at all because despite being the same height, this is just misleading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 26 - Probably best used for personal details over the others. Citation A works. Remove Citation B by dropping that quote. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia in light of the clear "no disciplinary record". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 27 - ABA Journal is a blog site, but this use is from a senior editor. Wikipedia makes a major violation by stating "Jennings Police Department was disbanded due to corruption." The source says "The Ferguson police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown had a prior job on a police force that disbanded amid racial tensions and a probe into misuse of grant money." This is a big difference, especially since it wasn't the effect of a reached conclusion, but amid a grant money issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 28 - Immediately remove because it is a blog. It also uses "following an internal corruption scandal" when this is not reported to match Reference 27. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 29 - Used to cite "Wilson became a police officer in Ferguson." and the quote by Orr. Adds nothing and should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 30 - This is Chief Defends Release of Robbery Surveillance Video yet I do not see evidence for: "At 11:51 a.m. on August 9, 2014, a convenience store security camera captured video of Brown taking a $48 box of cigarillos and physically assaulting and intimidating a convenience store clerk." Bad reference, miss reference. Does not support data. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References 31-40

References 31-40

Reference 31 - Supports the time aspect of "At 11:51 a.m" with "three minutes later", but does not back up " physically assaulting" with "The video shows the suspect, apparently Brown, pushing away a clerk." So that needs to be cited. Seems like a decent RS.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 32 - Reliable, but better reading of the text would be helpful to establish the setting. Citation A, B, C works - so no sourcing issues. Reference 33 - A compilation of sources. Not necessary in any fashion, a source reporting a source reporting another source at its core. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 34 - This is not in dispute, but one citation works, this is also included in Wilson's Grand Jury statements. Why not use Reference 35 or 36 instead? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 35 - Works for the claim, but not sure why it needs 3 others. Pick one? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 36 - Works for the claim, but not sure why it needs 3 others. Pick one? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 37 - Reference 35 works here. Why not use it instead? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 38 - Used a lot. Citation A works. Citation B misses clarity in the Grand Jury documents, but works. Rest work. No concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 39 - As a source this works, but it does have some quotation issues in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 40 - A video... Reference 38 works. Why this one to add nothing? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS concerns

I'll limit this section to key reference concerns. Essentially, Vox and Huffington Post are not Reliable Sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reference 28 - Is a blog. Not a reliable source.
• Reference 33 - Vox is not a reliable source.
• Reference 49 - Vox is not a reliable source. Author is a "Jetpack Comandante"
• Reference 57 and 58 - While "false" they do not report as such. Use 61.
• Reference 60 - Vox is not a reliable source.
• Reference 62 - Daily mail is not reliable and makes errors regularly.
• Reference 66 - Many details, including this story, debunked.
• Reference 70 - Debunked
• Reference 75 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 78 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 87 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 103 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 108 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 121 - Vox is not a reliable source.
• Reference 123 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 130 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 138 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 146 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 174 - Vox is not a reliable source.
• Reference 188 - Vox is not a reliable source.
• Reference 232 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 256 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 258 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
• Reference 279 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.

External links does not follow WP:EL properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To make it real simple for you: Both The Huffington Post and Vox (part of Vox Media are reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI: [10], [11] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable. When your author of the piece is not a journalist and describes themselves as a "Jetpack Comandante" in a BLP matter, you do not cite them as a source. You cite the sources themselves. This goes against WP:IRS and WP:BLP and most of them are merely parroting anyways. You may not like it, but this is not a review of a "Day at the Faire" so the editorial control and sourcing need to be really handled with extra care. Or are you saying they are reliable sources, because I got some bad news for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the WP:RS/N, or better search the archives there, because this has been discussed to death already. I think you will be convinced to WP:DROPTHESTICK (Here are some bad news for you: The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize.) - Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

^^^^ That's what I call an argument, assuming it's true. "Not reliable" is not an argument. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post is an opinion piece with little editorial controls and many differences in its "writers". The argument about winning a Pulitzer is irrelevant because the persons in this case did not. This has been debated many times at WP:RSN and the consensus has always been that you do not use them for BLP matters. Huffington Post does not exert proper editorial control and the posts are opinion pieces mostly published by bloggers and not employed by the press. They are not suitable to be included in the article as a reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then let's start with a link to said clear consensus. You'll forgive me for not just taking your word for it, as I've been around long enough to see a few experienced editors asserting community consensuses that evaporated when challenged. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Btw, I've long been in favor of putting actual community consensuses in a place designated for community consensus on a particular subject. But, apparently, that is not the Wikipedia Way, as it would prevent too much conflict for Wikipedia's conflict-based culture. The way it is now, you could point to a consensus reached in one discussion, while an opposite consensus was reached in a different discussion that may or may not have even taken the first into account. To really divine the consensus, or whether one exists, one has to be able to hunt down and then analyze every related discussion, a very haphazard, time-consuming, and error-prone way of doing things. Hell of a way to run an encyclopedia, in my opinion.) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in the case of a potentially problematic source such as HuffPost where reliability consensus is in flux, instead of a blanket all or nothing approach (yes they're all good or no they're all bad) the article might benefit by looking more closely on a case by case basis at the specific source and how the information is used in the article. Certainly some sourcings will be adequate and some may very well be inadequate. – JBarta (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Ref #49 is [12], written by Dara Lind. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post is an opinion piece ??? not employed by the press -- Where did you get that from? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In this version as indicated above: Ref 49 is When is it legal for a cop to kill you? by Dara Lind and Ref 60 is Did Darren Wilson have a broken eye socket after his encounter with Michael Brown? by German Lopez. I expect some things to change in relation to my raised concerns. Sorry for the confusion you had. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have already suggested to you how to take care of you concerns. Start slow and steady. This is not a peer review, good article review, or featured article review. Maybe you are too used to that process? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Standards should not come into play if it is a peer review, GA or FA. WP:BLP is not optional and just like my issues with the WP:BLPPRIMARY concern. I didn't start off by going through and purging everything - so don't take me the wrong way, but this article is reflecting a clear slant and agenda. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The slant is explained by the flow of the case. The bulk of the article was written prior to the GJ results and prior to that time almost all the RS were running anti-wilson stories because they didn't ahve any access to the exculpatory evidence or issues with the witnesses etc. The article has been steadily moving to accommodate the new information, although there are issues with the reactions section that are undue relative to the rest of the article (Im not sure if they are POV since there has been quite a bit of media focusing on the unusualness, but we have too many "example" quotes)Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So there you go, now we see were you are coming from. You are assuming that the editors that have made considerable contributions to this article, and that remain active for several months have an "agenda". So what "agenda" would that be, uh? . FYI The editors are of a wide variety of POVs, and the current article represents a clear consensus (with the exception of one section that has a dispute tag). What happened to WP:AGF, did you leave it in the drawer?- Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A common misapplication of "AGF". He is challenging our competence, not our good faith, not that that's any better considering the experience levels here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it is, you get my gist. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Having opened my big mouth, I'll self-correct. He did say agenda, which goes to good faith. So he's challenging both. And while some of us may qualify as POV pushers, I have always felt they were adequately checked by the rest. If there were less of a balance among the group, then I'd be concerned about POV in the content. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: is someone I've worked with before, and quite well I might add. I cannot fault any editor, given my unfamiliarity with the editors involved in creating the article, but I do recognize many problems which remain because they were unknown and likely present prior. How else can a demonstrably false claim like a whole paragraph by Saki Knafo go unchecked? This was in the article for months, was it not? I am not challenging the competence or the motivations of the editors involved, but NPOV can be adhered to even on an article like (yes... wait for it) Adolf Hitler. It is not easy and its not all roses and buttercups, but fixing errors and taking the emotions out of it goes a long way to being the cold and impersonal encyclopedia that we need to be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Add to the list of your concerns that the "fractured-eye-socket" was a made up story. We all know that now. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I did. 57 and 58 report it, but do not label it as false, that's why they the article should use 61 instead. The two sources are being used in direct opposition of what the reader would expect. WP:V has not held true for a lot of statements in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:V is not about "truth". Did you forget that basic principle? The fact that a false "eye socket fracture" was reported as a leak by Ferguson police, and later was found to be a total lie, WP:V means that we report the lie. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand, we do not say something is false when the source says otherwise. You instead cite the source which highlights the error of the earlier report. In short you do not say "It was falsely reported that Tom likes the color blue.[Ref to Tom liking Blue]" it is instead "It was falsely reported that Tom likes the color blue.[Ref to Correcting Report]". Again, WP:V is about verifying what the source says. The source doesn't say it is false, so even though you know its false by a later reference - you can't cite the original which states otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I give up in trying to clarify this for you, maybe others will have better luck. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 1

Source check: Knafo, Saki (August 22, 2014). "Ferguson Police Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on August 23, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2014.

Use in article:

Saki Knafo of The Huffington Post commented that the Ferguson incident report was "almost entirely blank", with the address and time of day of the shooting, and other "bare-bones details". In Knafo's opinion, police reports generally include details about the crime scene, interviews with witnesses, and the names of all the officers involved. Vanita Gupta, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said "[it] just further demonstrates the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about the Michael Brown shooting." A spokesperson for the county police said that the information they provided contains details they are required to share by law, but that other information was "protected until the investigation is complete". The report states that county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident, and that county officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesperson for the county said that their response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time.

Problems:

• County police were aware of the case by 12:07 and Ferguson police asked them to take it over.
• St. Louis County patrol officers arrived on scene at 12:15.

As a result, the timeline being advanced by Knafo is incorrect and is of a major concern. Knafo may be a journalist of good caliber, but it does not change the fact that the data he is reporting is incorrect and even KMOV reported the heavy police presence upon their arrival at 1. The source is flawed and should be removed immediately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See also

It was not until 12:43 p.m. that detectives from the county police force were notified of the shooting, according to county police records. Officer Schellman, the county police spokesman, said Friday that Chief Belmar did not recall exactly when he had received the call from his counterpart in Ferguson. But, Officer Schellman said, Chief Belmar reported that as soon as he hung up, he immediately called the chief of detectives.[13]

Are Julie Bosman and Joseph Goldstein from the NYT also wrong?

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the primary source:

Saint Louis County Police Department - Investigative Report 14-43984 On Saturday, August 9, 2014, at approximately 12:43 p.m., Detective Sergeant of the Saint Louis County Police Department's Division of Criminal Investigation, Bureau of Crimes Against Persons, received a phone call from the Saint Louis County Police Department's Bureau of Communications. Detective Sergeant was notified of a homicide where an on-duty police officer from the City of Ferguson had discharged his firearm and shot a male. The male had been pronounced deceased at the scene by responding paramedics from Christian Hospital EMS. The Ferguson Police Department was requesting the Saint Louis County Police Department conduct an investigation into the incident. […] Detectives began arriving at the scene at 2947 Canfield Drive at approximately 1:30 pm. There was a large crowd of bystanders and a large uniformed police presence at the scene when detectives arrived.[14]

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between the Saint Louis County Police Department and the Detective branch? Saint Louis County Police had officers on scene at 12:15. Here Saki Knafo is not only making an error, but it is clearly false here is the NYT stating so.

"According to police logs, the county police received a report of the shooting at 12:07, and their officers began arriving around 12:15."

And here is the relevant text for the detective role

"It was not until 12:43 p.m. that detectives from the county police force were notified of the shooting, according to county police records. .... The detectives arrived around 1:30, and an hour later, a forensic investigator...

Do you not understand there is a clear difference in this from what is in the article? Again, the article currently reads:

The report states that county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident, and that county officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesperson for the county said that their response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time.

Not only is it inaccurate it is calling additional attention to the issue as if it was some departmental problem! That is unacceptable because it is clearly false and being used to attack persons. This, at its core this is a WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV issue. Do you understand now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are seeing shadows when there are none. I will let others comment. If all you are arguing for replacing "county officers" with "county detectives", you could have done so already and spare us the tirade. - Cwobeel (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand. The entire source needs to be removed because the entire paragraph and all its statements are false. Changing it to "county detectives" makes an outright hoax. Given the source is not a RS, not accurate and is an opinion piece you advocate taking its false statements and substituting the "correct wording" while retaining and giving the appearance of it being sourced? I take it you will not allow the removal of the entire paragraph and source just like you removed the POV tag in light of all the issues raised thus far. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. You questioned the validity of the source. I provided you with (a) A NYT source that says exactly the same, and a primary source, which is what both HuffPo and NYT used in their reporting, saying exactly the same. You, on the other hand, started the discussion claiming that the entire paragraph be deleted, just because you believe they got it wrong and without providing any sources. Then finally, all you have to say in defense of your argument is that you don't like that the HuffPo used "county officials", when they should have used "county detectives". Now, if you want to add text based on a source that says that county police officers arrived at the scene at 12:15, you could have done that without this thread, and be done with it. Again, rather that pass judgement on the work of others, do the bloody hard work to improve the article by researching, finding sources, and editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I will be removing the entire source and its content. Cwobeel added the false information in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic (albeit short-lived) approach when you can't win an argument. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Why are you choosing to edit war([15]) instead of getting consensus on this open discussion? Your assertion that this source is "false", is incorrect as proven above with the NYT source. You also deleted other material from that source. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please read the section again because you do not understand what you are saying. The article's claims are not at all backed up by the Huffington Post source and it definitely does not match what the primary source actually says. All three are completely different. I have already explained why. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll let others respond, because I am not getting through despite my efforts. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Knafo

ChrisGualtieri - This is what you deleted:

Saki Knafo of The Huffington Post commented that the Ferguson incident report was "almost entirely blank", with the address and time of day of the shooting, and other "bare-bones details". In Knafo's opinion, police reports generally include details about the crime scene, interviews with witnesses, and the names of all the officers involved. Vanita Gupta, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said "[it] just further demonstrates the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about the Michael Brown shooting." A spokesperson for the county police said that the information they provided contains details they are required to share by law, but that other information was "protected until the investigation is complete". The report states that county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident, and that county officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesperson for the county said that their response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time.<

Could you please kindly indicate what is false about this entire sentence? is it the use of "county officers"? what? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Saki Knafo of The Huffington Post commented that the Ferguson incident report was "almost entirely blank", with the address and time of day of the shooting, and other "bare-bones details". In Knafo's opinion, police reports generally include details about the crime scene, interviews with witnesses, and the names of all the officers involved. Vanita Gupta, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said "[it] just further demonstrates the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about the Michael Brown shooting." A spokesperson for the county police said that the information they provided contains details they are required to share by law, but that other information was "protected until the investigation is complete". The report states that county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident, and that county officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesperson for the county said that their response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time.<

Okay, line by line:

• 1. "Saki Knafo of The Huffington Post commented that the Ferguson incident report was "almost entirely blank", with the address and time of day of the shooting, and other "bare-bones details"." - This was explained by other sources because the Ferguson police transferred over this to the other department within 5 minutes of the incident. This draws undue attention to a minor fact that instead is covered by other sources. This is not a major concern by itself.
• 2. "In Knafo's opinion, police reports generally include details about the crime scene, interviews with witnesses, and the names of all the officers involved. - Knafo's opinion is not an opinion, because this is true. However it is worded to further imply something is wrong without saying what it is.
• 3. "Vanita Gupta, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said "[it] just further demonstrates the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about the Michael Brown shooting." - Yes, except this issue was resolved later. "At the time" it was an issue, but this is long resolved.
• 4. "A spokesperson for the county police said that the information they provided contains details they are required to share by law, but that other information was "protected until the investigation is complete". - This is still the case with Holder's side. No issue here.
• 5. "The report states that county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident.... " - This says county police learned of the killing at that time. This is false, it was 12:07. The "40 minutes after the incident" is also wrong and is being used to show that there was a unusual and improper delay in notification. The correct term would be the detectives, they are a separate branch.
• 6. "...and that county officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesperson for the county said that their response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time." - If you remember the New York Times article says county police were on scene at around 12:15. This is again the detectives. And of course this makes the response seem slow and makes a lame excuse which is tongue-in-cheek way of saying that Michael Brown was not important to send someone. Only problem, is more than 100 officers were already present on the scene by that time. Detectives were delayed, but not the county police.

Is that a better explanation? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My replies:

1. So explain in the narrative that the excuse given was that the case was transferred to the county police, and find sources that say that.
2. We are not here to decide what a journalist may or may not imply. That is not our role as editors.
3. I don't care if it was resolved later or not. This was the opinion of the ACLU, which was significant in the chronology of events.
4. OK
5. Again, the quote from the primary source says exactly the same. And in any case, you cant impeach a source because you believe the source has an agenda.
6. That was the spokesperson's own words, and if you have a problem with their PR, call them. and let them know.

So your black and white opinion that this is "false" does not hold any water. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you honestly not understand what is the problem? I.... I.... Can someone else please explain it to Cwobeel because I give up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I'm afraid you're gonna have to explain why #5 and #6 are demonstrably false when the secondary source provides the relevant primary source and its analysis seems consistent. #1-4 aren't reasons to keep this off the article, so I don't understand the reasoning for scrubbing this out in the first place. --RAN1 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

RAN1, I think the point ChrisGualtieri is making is that the county police were informed at 12:07 and arrived at 12:15.(NYT) Our article says county police were informed at 12:43 and arrived at 1:30.(HuffPo) It looks like the HuffPo author misinterpreted the incident report to mean county police instead of the detective branch of the county police, and that’s why HuffPo is inconsistent with the NYT. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I think this has been discussed quite in detail, and your arguments are not convincing to warrant removal. You have been given the opportunity to explain your reasoning, but it does not make any sense. You removed it on the basis that the source is "false", and when pressed you come back with an faulty analysis of the source. It is obvious by now that you are unhappy about the HuffPo, but that is not enough to scrub that content from the article, or to edit war. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You guys... this is not funny now. I've proven it. Do you really.... and I mean it... really cannot look at the source and this source and not see that Knafo's article and the piece in the article are wrong? I mean. This is obvious. I'll ask for someone else to look at it since there seems to be a major communication issue at play. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No funny would be the understatement of the year. Comments from other editors will be most welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's where the patience thing comes into play. Simply wait for other voices, or you could solicit them on user talk pages if you think people might miss this for all the other wot on the page. Me, I'm recusing for lack of competence in the area. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I just now made a response a few messages up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, @Bob K31416: . I mentioned this in my original post up here now. The false timeline is being used as an attack, the police were aware at 12:07 and were on scene around 12:15. Knafo's error is being used to support attacks on the county police not the detectives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the NYT, I get what your complaint is now. Then again, I just looked over the HuffPo article and it mentions "detectives" verbatim in the county spokesperson quote, so the implication is that the officers in question were actually the detectives NYT mentions. Maybe using the NYT to clarify that county officers got to the scene first and then detectives were notified 40 minutes later would do the trick, add reference to NYT? It might be a faulty paraphrase but the source itself isn't crap. --RAN1 (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good way to resolve this. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, I followed your link to the discussion and I found a link in one of Cwobeel's messages that was helpful and explained the interest in the timing. Here's an excerpt from the source.[16]

"It was not until 12:43 p.m. that detectives from the county police force were notified of the shooting, according to county police records. Officer Schellman, the county police spokesman, said Friday that Chief Belmar did not recall exactly when he had received the call from his counterpart in Ferguson. But, Officer Schellman said, Chief Belmar reported that as soon as he hung up, he immediately called the chief of detectives.

The detectives arrived around 1:30, and an hour later, a forensic investigator, who gathers information for the pathologist who will conduct the autopsy, arrived from the medical examiner’s office, said Suzanne McCune, an administrator in that office.

Mr. Brown’s body had been in the street for more than two hours."

It seems to help explain why Brown's body was in the street for the 4 hours. County police arrived immediately, Ferguson called county detectives 40 minutes later, county detectives arrived 47 minutes later, the forensic investigator arrived an hour later and took 1 1/2 hours to process the crime scene: for a total of about 4 hours that the body was in the street. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed @Bob K31416:, Knafo is attacking the police on an apparent delay and bumbling up the detective branch with the county police as a whole. That source says the county police were notified of it by 12:07 and were on scene about 12:15. This also is why the Ferguson report would later be "mostly blank" because within 5 minutes of the shooting it was out of the Ferguson's polices' hands. The detectives got word at 12:45, yes and by the time they showed up at 1:30ish there were more than 100 authorities on scene. Though it would take another hour still for the forensic investigator to arrive. That means that for almost 2 hours and 30 minutes the appropriate persons to "clear the scene" were not even on site. The length the body was uncovered and left on scene was a concern, and we can note that and other errors that were made. It is only proper that clear and unmuddled facts should drive this article. Knafo lacked clarity at the time, and had a clear slant, but we have the timeline from the NYT and others. With the whole perspective, I can't see why Knafo or his opinions are relevant. We should not be even providing opinions when the facts suffice and do so better than any quote. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Knafo of the HuffPo didn't understand the significance of the timing whereas the NYT authors did. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, I mentioned above how HuffPo implied that the officers in question were the county detectives. You guys haven't even taken that into consideration and pretty much flat-out ignored what I said. Could you please go back and re-read what I said so we can actually come to a consensus about this? Also, I think it might be a good idea to put Knafo and others in with a section about criticisms (and explanations for them, a la county spokespeople justifications) of the investigations since the investigations also seem to be a source of contention in all of this. --RAN1 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the source and used a stronger, more clear source, while rewriting the tiny section. We do not "imply" because that is WP:OR and we do not silently correct factual errors of a source and change the wording to represent and argument they did not make. It actually makes more problems because it fails WP:V because it is not actually reflected in the source. I replaced it with the text: "Immediately following the release of the Ferguson incident report, Time reported that the lack of detail would likely increase the already widespread criticism that the police were protecting Darren Wilson." also see section below because I had to fix a few other key issues in that section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 2

Cherkis, Jason; Wing, Nick (November 25, 2014). "Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on December 2, 2014. Retrieved December 4, 2014.

As used in the article:

Sources reported reviewing Wilson's testimony and highlighted a number of inconsistencies, including Wilson's first interview with a detective, hours after Brown’s death, in which Wilson didn’t claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of the robbery, and that in that first interview Wilson told the detective that Brown had passed "something" off to Johnson before Brown punched him in the face, while in his grand jury testimony, Wilson referred to Brown's hands being full of cigarillos.

Problems. "Sources reported[who?] reviewing Wilson's testimony and highlighted a number of inconsistencies,[clarification needed] including Wilson's first interview with a detective..." is a clear starting point. Which sources, Cherkis and Wing, whom? Are they really qualified to make such an examination? Certainly does the previous statements not include Wilson's own report? If anything we are not to take Wilson's word as gospel, or for much of anything for that matter if we want to hypothetically frame this in a court matter - given the situation. While mistakes were made, linking to 200+ page documents and not better legal opinion on a BLP matter. This should be replaced. Even so, this does not owe to source verification of its claims, nor does it reference them either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

To put it bluntly I don't give a fuck if Cherkis and Wing are qualified to make that assessment or not. They are journalists working for an estabished media outlet, like many others. Best we can do is attribute that text to the HuffPo or to them. Note that the piece in the HuffPo raised several issues at that time, and it is part of the narrative of this incident. For example, look at some of the leaks from law enforcement. These have proven to be completely made up. Should we remove that because now we know these were false? Of course not. It is part of the record of this incident and so we report on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP matter, they aren't qualified and the role of one is a "viral manager". This is not a piece with scholarly care, it was piece put together for attention and money. The fact these issues are not stated in the NYT piece as you like to cite shows issues. How about the New York Daily News, not the best, but says

"Wilson was aware that Brown was wanted for stealing cigars from a convenience store minutes earlier. That point had been in dispute since Ferguson police released a video of the convenience store and said Wilson had known Brown was a suspect — only to have the police chief retract that statement not long after, saying the cop didn't make the stop in relation to the theft."[17] The key argument being put forth was in dispute because the police chief retracted that statement soon after it was announced and it returned again in later statements and in the grand jury. The source is lacking nuance and neutrality, any excuse that it is "at that time" it was November 25! This needs to be removed and replaced at minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue whatsoever. You do';t like what they say, I can understand that. But it is valid commentary pointing out the inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony, as these journalists have reported. Biased? Maybe. All sources have some one bias or another. - Cwobeel (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 3

Really two separate ones here for some reasons. One original and one updated:

McCormack, Simon (September 5, 2014). "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape: Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 2, 2014.

McCormack, Simon (September 6, 2014). "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape: Report (Updated)". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on October 14, 2014. Retrieved November 2, 2014.

Something is clearly off here. The Huffington Post refers to "The Blot" which refers to the very same article on Huffington Post which says: "Karr’s statement to TheBlot appears to contradict one published earlier in the day by the Huffington Post:

"Many requests were made verbally due to the fact that the City’s website and email were down at several points during that week,” Karr told the website. “City personnel cataloged all requests and treated them in the same manner as it would any Sunshine Law request.”"

So... Huffington Post is citing the Blot which is citing very same Huffington Post article and some document, not picked up anywhere else is being scrutinized by the Blot because apparently this release was to the Huffington Post which is criticizing it because of the Blot's report. Least it is not a case of Citogenesis. Still, WP:BLP applies and so I will remove both the original and the "updated source" because of cyclical feeding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We discussed this bit some time ago Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_14#The_Blot and my determination at that time was that the blot was the origin. No objection to removal, but I do think this could probably be sourced elsewhere similarly, so don't be surprised if it comes back. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify what passage in the article you are referring to? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#cite_ref-HuffPost.Chief_130-0 - but its sourced to many sources, so no objection to just dropping the source all together with no change to the text. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please stop raising purported WP:BLP violations, without explaining what the violation is. Just claiming it is a BLP violation, is not enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Starting with the "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape" with poor and unproven circular sourcing? How is this not a BLP violation? The article says that a living person lied and uses a source which points right back to the Huffington Post for verification. Use a copy of the actual release without the inflammatory title and attacks by Huffington Post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, what is the passage in this article that you are referring to? Without it I don't have enough information to assess your argument. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that Gaijin already responded. I am fine with removing that source. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Anything else on this? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 4

Hart, Andrew (August 16, 2014). "Missouri State Senator On Michael Brown Killing: Theft Does Not Equal Death". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on August 17, 2014. Retrieved August 20, 2014.

Use in article:

Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a Missouri state senator who represented parts of Ferguson and was tear-gassed during the demonstrations, said in an interview, "It doesn't matter if Michael Brown committed theft or not. That's not the issue. The issue is what happened when Darren Wilson encountered Michael Brown, and when he died—when he was killed. Those are the only facts that are necessary."

The Huffington Post is publishing its own interview which states:

Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D), who represents parts of Ferguson, said in an interview with The Huffington Post on Friday, "It doesn't matter if Michael Brown committed theft or not. That's not the issue. The issue is what happened when Darren Wilson encountered Michael Brown, and when he died -- when he was killed. Those are the only facts that are necessary."

The video included is actually worth seeing because the Huffington Post took a selective part of a very informal and personal interview and ran with it. The comments are under "Reactions -> State Government". At this point she doesn't even really know who Wilson is in the interview and makes many statements that show ignorance of the situation. Even worse, we are saying she was was tear-gassed during the demonstrations. The source she was tear-gassed is not given, but it seems to be another Huffington Post article which references right back to the original (this) Huffington Post article. However, even if a reliable source was found I think that the source is unusable and replaceable. It was not even a formal announcement, it was a very casual interview and it being held up a a "state government reaction". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maria Chappelle-Nadal is a Senator, and her opinions thus notable. I am sure there are other sources reporting on her comments, if your personal preference is not to use the HuffPo. Do the work, help out, and do some research to find a better source than this. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is one from CBS Channel 4 KMOV: [18]. 18:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, she says that. That is a source which says she says that. This has nothing to do with her opinion, the fact is that a casual and informal statement far removed from an official statement is being used when the whole "timeline" is itself drawing attention to the matter. I could not find a reliable source with that specific detailing because Huffington Post conducted that very short and impromptu interview following the events. Can we at least get a formal stance on it instead of an cut part of a question in a restaurant? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We work with the sources we have. You are welcome to do some research and find a better interview. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is an RS reporting on comments by Chapelle-Nadal [19] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference 1 Discussion

Resolved

Please suggest one of the "numerous other references" that provide geo coordinates for the location of the shooting. I'd be happy to make that change. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) But it does not provide the geo coordinates nor the map used with said detail or accuracy. We have street data and police reports and other documents which describe the location, but why is this source with its other flaws being used for something it doesn't provide? We do not even need a source, though the scene and the body come to lay 20ft SW on Canfield Dr from that position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Honestly, considering the article is about a bit more than just the location of the shooting, but also the trial, etc., which are not at the exactly same geolocation, I'm really not sure WP:GEO necessarily applies to this article. Given the nature of the content, I would think maybe something that just indicates the location of the city of Ferguson would probably be sufficient. Having said that, in all honesty, this is possibly one of the most minor conceivable objections I can imagine, and this is from someone who was involved in one of the lamest edit wars in the history of wikipedia regarding exactly where Hogenakkal Falls is located. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) The article title is Shooting of Michael Brown, and the coordinates give the location of said shooting. I think there is value in allowing a reader to easily access an interactive map with the shooting location marked. The map can then be scrolled or zoomed to provide context information that is not readily available in any other way. I'm open to improving the sourcing, as I said, but I'm strongly opposed to removing the coordinates. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I think it's useful in one fashion or another to include the (geo) location of the shooting. The location is not exactly in dispute. – JBarta (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Btw, I'm sure I don't need to point out that things only need to be verifiable. The source given provides the undisputed location at a low resolution, and other sources such as grand jury diagrams allow that resolution to be refined. In this middle of this thread you'll see that we obsessively established the coordinates to a resolution of a few feet. They represent the midpoint of the shooting scene as delimited by the outermost items of crime scene evidence. They deliberately do not point to the precise location of Brown's body. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Verifiable, not original research. The National Register provides GPS coordinates, but they do not need to be sourced in an info box. My issue is the source is vague and our coordinates are specific. The specific data and coordinates are not on the page, and are indisputable (within reason) so why make a citation which is vague and not the actual source? The coordinates as placed now are about 20ft from where Brown's body lay, this is much more accurate and precise then the "map" cited gives. Why keep that reference at all? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1. I've already said that the coordinates are not intended to indicate the location of Brown's body, so why do you keep referring to that? 2. The greatest precision for the coordinates comes from two associated grand jury exhibits: the diagram of the shooting scene, and the list of evidence items with their distances from a baseline point. Would you be happier if we changed the cite to use those sources instead? I wouldn't be opposed to that. They show the position of the crime scene relative to the intersection of two streets, Canfield Dr and Copper Creek Ct. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Removal of the citation or replacement works. This is a small matter, it is not of great importance to me, but I would appreciate either solution equally. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Replaced CNN map source with grand jury exhibits as described above. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC) To hedge my response to John Carter's concerns above, I wouldn't oppose moving the coordinates to the Shooting section. The problem is how to incorporate them into prose text in a Wikipedia-acceptable way. "The coordinates of the shooting scene are 38.73847°N 90.27387°W / 38.73847; -90.27387<ref name=NYTimes.Documents/>" seems more than a little awkward. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception section

This area is a major section of the article and has many major problems to establish a clear POV that is unacceptable. A major section is dedicated to criticism, establishing a negative slant. The second sentence/paragraph mix is also negative, but unspecific despite sources which provide names... including Ronald S. Sullivan Jr and Jeffrey Toobin... in the first paragraphs source. Then a balancing of sorts with Ben Trachtenberg, but bumbles the source and the law in the description. Then more criticism with the New York Times sourced paragraph. Dan Abrams balances only to criticize again. Then more criticism from the The Washington Post. Then we get a comparative table of the "usual" vs "the extraordinary" with the table "According to the The New York Times, differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson'" Then more criticism...courtesy of the New York Times. Ronald Kuby adds more criticism. Tom Nolan seems to bring balance... then more criticism. Eugene O'Donnell's statements add more criticism, and possibly create a BLP issue. Jay Sterling Silver, criticizing again. Jeff Roorda is a counterpoint, but then it follows up with Mark Weisbrot to cap off the issue to make criticism become even more poignant. The WP:UNDUE tag is there, but NPOV is really not being adhered to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and what I'm getting is that "it's not balanced." Mind you, in this case we use the principle of due weight, not that of equal validity. I've done my best to try to give everything prior to the NYT table an impartial tone, but the rest I haven't gone over yet and definitely needs a re-evaluation and rewrite. In the pre-table text, I checked the sources for relevant opinions and included them as concise, neutrally-worded and correctly-attributed as I could. If I screwed up, go ahead and fix it. --RAN1 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is undue weight, the response is not to delete content, but to add additional POVs. So go ahead, do the hard work and research and add content that supports the prosecutor's handling of the grand jury proceedings and its decision not to indict. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, I prefer not to edit war with people like you when I am deconstructing their arguments that everything is "fine" because this page certainly has plenty of issues that need to be resolved first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As many have said, there is no one here that does not want the article improved. But this approach of yours is not getting us any closer to that goal. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been searching for sources supporting McCullough's approach to the grand jury, but found only one source, which I added today[20], besides the ones already in the article. If other editors can apply themselves to find additional sources for a better balance, that would be the way to approach this rather than delete content. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Accounts and BLP

We should remove of minor (in role) witness names and the identifying details per WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPNAME. This applies to Brady and other witnesses. Crenshaw witness reports are not really necessary, but do we need to personally identify the individual at all? Mitchell as well. And can we just remove the "Construction worker" section of the accounts? One or two sentences tops. There is no need to give so much detail to the account which is not even supported by the facts. McKnight's testimony is two sentences and we have a section for it, definitely under BLPNAME to me. Walker and Freeman as well. Also... do we really need a section for "Bystander heard on video"? Can we agree on this much? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to give so much detail to the account which is not even supported by the facts - Which facts are these? These are part of the record of this incident, right, wrong, confusing, misleading, crazy, or whatever. We are not here to qualify or to assert what was wrong and what was right in the witnesses reports. In particular when there are still pending investigations. No, we can't agree that much., at least for now. A year from now, maybe.- Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to serve as some pseudo-talking points and database of attributed statements. The individuals involved as witnesses and even some "unnamed bystander" are given UNDUE sections over grand jury testimony by having their statements aired and publicly connected to their real names. WP:BLPNAME applies and it specifically says that it should be scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts over news media. This whole matter is a media circus and the full name and age and where they live is clearly overstepping for a witness afforded one sentence in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You can complain to the prosecutor's office. Most grand jury proceedings are kept secret to protect the identities of witnesses. Not in this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments

See below

Comment: I gotta say.... so far this is trivial stuff, not the "extreme POV" issue you were screaming about earlier. I'm getting a "boy who cried wolf" vibe. I hope you do come forth with some substantial issues here. If not, no worries... we all get excited sometimes. – JBarta (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I'm going through all the sources and the information. Give it time, since many issues exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I'd suggest level 4 subsections for each Reference to avoid a wall-of-text effect and to ease editing. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Every 10 work? I doubt some of them are going to be really contentious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) If they aren't contentious, just fix it. You made some pretty strong claims about POV/BLP issues, lets talk about those instead. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Aww, you are no fun Gaijin42. I am going to go through this with a fine tooth comb, certainly you don't object to the raising of issues with sources, accuracy problems and other concerns which should be handled first. It will take time to go through them all, but quite a few will be removed by the end of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Good thing BOLD and BRD has you covered. The wot really wasn't needed and should be refactored. --RAN1 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Read through this exchange and my impression is that this is a lot of smoke with very little fire. None of the arguments and concerns presented by ChrisGualtieri raise to the level of having to question the neutrality of the entire article. @ChrisGualtieri: Just fix whatever you think is needed fixing and use WP:BRD, please. There is a good number of editors with a wide divergence of opinion here that have worked really hard for months on this article, and in most cases, able to collaborate despite the differences. You are welcome to join the fun. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC) In any case, things are going to get very confusing when someone inserts or removes a ref within your range. Your labels will then be worse than useless. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Strike that, now that I see the reason for the revision you linked at the top. Everyone will need to use that for reference, not the current article revision (if this section survives as a useful tool, which isn't clear based on above comments). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, thank you. I've begun with the first BLP issue in a source and highlighting under utilization of the sources. I am happy to go through this piecemeal, but I am still a bit reeling from the concerns which I immediately see with the article. A few can be removed, but I am finding information which should be added from others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Keep in mind that articles are built by consensus. Be prepared that editors may disagree with your views no matter how fervently you believe something. You are welcome to build a list of grievances, but that doesn't automatically mean other editors will agree with each point or that your view by default is the correct one or that those who disagree are by default POV pushing. Correct can be subjective. – JBarta (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Of course, I understand as such. I know some are not going to be major contentious points, but I've found under utilized sources and inaccuracies, BLPPRIMARY violations, and cases where the information is contradictory or not even there. I'm not even 1/8th of the way through my review yet and we have blogs and such on this list. There is much much more to come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Also keep in mind that coming off as a self-styled one-man review board is also not helpful. Editors have egos, and the best way to piss them off en-masse is to explode onto the scene with blustery talk about "your review". You are not above other editors and I would suggest getting down into the trenches and editing with everyone else rather than proclaiming your wisdom from on high. – JBarta (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Refactor this out

Could you please move the reference problems to a page under your userspace? This isn't the appropriate place to post your personal list of problems with the references and if needed for discussion you can reference the list with a link. --RAN1 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Issues pertaining to this article should stay here. It may be largely a list of one person's grievances, but other editors may add their thoughts as well. – JBarta (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And I expect some push-back over a few behavior quotes. Quotes as to someone's behavior or such after the fact can be objective or flawed, but both do no good for the article. The quote from Orr, useless, the quote attributed to teachers or family, little. It is far better to explain what the records (pre-incident) show and simply state the facts and leave the "human equation" out of it. After all, by utilizing these quotes we ignore Brown's further education details and we use some really poor quotes for Wilson while allowing violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY and a blog to surpass a senior ADA Journal writer. Recapping without summarizing where the problems exist and why they are wrong do little, because it would be a question of backing up my statements or a lack of clarity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jbarta. This page is for discussion of any kind of proposed improvements to the article, no matter how minor. The question is whether the same end could be accomplished with routine BRD; i.e., discussing only disputed edits. The assumption that every edit would be disputed is a faulty one, but any disputed change should be kept out until consensus for it is reached. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I don't think your approach is a sound one, doing a dump of all your concerns en masse. Just take a few items that are important in your view, discuss the edits (or use BRD), get these resolved and the move to the next one. Just think of your fellow editors here: we are not here to serve you. There are other areas of the article that need work, and your approach will suck the air out of any other conversation. - Cwobeel (talk)

Like the NPOV tag? I know you are not here to serve me or anything, but I expect things like BLPPRIMARY to be followed and missing references or behavior attributes and other issues to be resolved long prior. The article has many references that do nothing and do not even refer to the content let alone add anything. I'm still posting up the sourcing matters... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

At the very least it's collapsed now, I still disagree that dumping concerns here is a good idea but there isn't a consensus regarding that as of now. --RAN1 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just post one or two items at the time. This is not the time for a WP:PR or WP:FACR. Not there yet. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, Good job. I appreciate your efforts. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh noes, has my intention to put this up for Good Article Nominations been found out?! Simply put, if we get to that point then we can nominate it, but we should always strive for quality, neutrality and accuracy. They do not suddenly become relevant when it is decided to review it. Treat all articles, and especially BLP articles, as early GA and FA candidates. Given that we've had false information in the article for over three months about the timeline - was it okay because it wasn't reviewed? What if it was reviewed and missed by the reviewer(s)? I think its the fact that I am finding these problems and highlighting them so rapidly and with a bit o bluster that is the unsettling part. I'll let some people review my new additional issues of WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP as well as the factual inaccuracies highlighted. Rome wasn't built in a day after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence says it all. It feels like your goal is to rebuild Rome in a day. We've seen more than one experienced editor descend on this article like a swarm of hungry locusts, and I suspect that colors our response here. My suggestion would paraphrase what others have said: take it slow, no more than two or three issues at a time, and plan to be here awhile doing it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Driving away editors is never good, but no one will stay in a hostile place. Though hopefully you do recognize that there many issues and many ones of a serious nature. I welcome a differing of opinions because it usually results in better articles forming and I learn from every dispute how to better present my evidence and arguments. If I am wrong, I admit I am wrong. So if something's off let me know, I try to be as accurate as possible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I know you made these statements in good faith, but there's no need to bring up all of these issues at the same time. It's why I suggested you compile this on a userpage in the first place before bringing them up on the talk page or in the article in the first place. Dumping all your concerns here as one massive RfC is going to make it very hard to get consensus for what you're doing because people will be overwhelmed by all the info to process, and doing it step-by-step makes it much easier to identify potential problems and obtain consensus for them as they show up. --RAN1 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As with the other editors I mentioned, any perceived hostility results from the approach, not the opinions. I assure you that, while things here get heated on a regular basis, this place does not single out for hostility any editor who is willing to accept consensus, as wrong as they "know" it to be. There are many places like that in the project, but this ain't one of them. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "accept consensus" does not mean don't bring up your concerns. It means make your best case, give enough time for people to respond, let the discussion play out for a reasonable length of time, and then move on if the result isn't what you wanted. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmm okay. I think we can all work together, any real POV pushers seem unlikely to have gained an actual position given the circumstances. I know a few editors can handle big working pages, but I think it would actually get really long if I keep laying out issues. Fine. I won't do a FAC checklist. Since I am at 3 edits with the NPOV tag I can't touch the content. Though I am content to discuss on the talk page in the interim or make a draft. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU - Cwobeel (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Except maybe you. ^-^; Was sarcasm when I said that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If you expect an response from me to that statement, you will have to be content with none. Go do the work, and take a step at the time.- Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: "Since I am at 3 edits with the NPOV tag I can't touch the content" ...I disagree. It probably wouldn't be wise for you to slap the POV tag on again, but I see no problem in general editing. I am (was?) a little bothered by your approach, but I believe your intent is good. Heart in the right place and all that.

I would also like to do a little armchair psychology here. I see first you repeatedly dump a tag on the article with little substantive justification, but you do not attempt to actually edit the article. Then you go through with "your review" putting forth a list of grievances, but you do not attempt to actually edit the article. And just above, you say you may create a "draft", but still do not attempt to actually edit the article. In each case here, it seems to be an effort to edit from a distance. An attempt to bypass actual trench warfare in the article ...probably because of sheer ego. Anyhow that's my observation. If you're still reading and you're further interested in my opinion, you might do what has been suggested... pick a FEW issues you find particularly egregeous and start actually editing the article. Along the way, maybe you'll find a few minor and probably uncontroversial issues that you could just quietly fix on your own. – JBarta (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll drop a line, but good show. I'm glad someone like you is here, a good balance will exist. I see good things for this article's future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation to indict

I don't understand this edit [21]. The text is accurate, there were no charges recommended by the prosecutors. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the grand jury transcript (Testimony of Grand Jury, 11/21/2014, p. 132-133) and Vox, the prosecutor team provided 4 charges to indict on: Murder in the first and second degree and involuntary manslaughter in the first and second degree. --RAN1 (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That was not a recommendation. In most GJ the prosecutors ask for an indictment. That was not the case here, and thus the controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a fascinating article at SCOTUSblog, which describes case law as it relates to grand juries and prosecutors.[22]. Basically, prosecutors have discretion to withhold substantial exculpatory evidence to get an indictment. Yes, you read that right. AN excerpt here for your reading pleasure. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The question in United States v. Williams was whether it is prosecutorial misconduct, requiring the dismissal of an indictment, for the prosecutor to withhold from the grand jury “substantial exculpatory evidence” in his possession that might lead the grand jury to reject the indictment. The Supreme Court said no. Justice Scalia, joined by four other Justices, held that the Constitution does not require exculpatory evidence to be disclosed, even when it is directly contrary to the prosecutor’s theory of guilt. That is partly because the grand jury’s role is not to determine guilt or innocence, but rather to decide whether there is enough evidence of a crime that a conviction is possible. The grand jury itself can say “we’ve heard enough,” and so the Court declined to impose on the prosecutor a burden to present it with all of the evidence.

Justice Stevens dissented, in an opinion that was joined by the other three Justices. For him, the idea of the prosecutor withholding known exculpatory evidence was inconsistent with the grand jury’s historic role in preventing “hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution” and its “function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused.” Notably, however, even Justice Stevens’s dissent admitted that the prosecutor need not “ferret out and present all evidence that could be used at trial to create a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt.” He suggested that it would be enough to require prosecutors to present evidence known to them that “directly negates the guilt of a subject of the investigation” – a requirement taken from the (unenforceable) United States Attorneys’ Manual.

What does this mean? It means that when a prosecutor really wants an indictment, you would not expect the grand jury process to look anything like what happened in Darren Wilson’s case. The prosecutor would have no obligation to put forward the conflicting eyewitness testimony, or introduce pictures of Officer Wilson’s injuries – although grand jury members could ask for them if they somehow knew they existed. Instead, the prosecutor could put forward only the first few witnesses corroborating his own theory, along with the evidence that Wilson fired ten shots from a substantial distance away. Eventually, all the exculpatory evidence would have to be shared with the defense before trial, under a line of cases that started over fifty years ago with Brady v. Maryland. But once charges are on the table, the prosecutor has enormous leverage in bargaining for the kind of plea he wants – a case like Wilson’s, for example, might even include the threat of the death penalty.

I interpreted the difference wrong on the table, thought the distinction was on charges presented and not recommendation to indict. That SCOTUS blog is an interesting read, might even be worth including. --RAN1 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should read up on the "investigatory role" of a grand jury. When the jurors in this case were tasked with an investigative role to examine the evidence in this case - that means all the evidence - including exculpatory evidence. This was not one of those "typical" cases you are talking about where prosecutors have discretion to withhold exculpatory evidence, once they asked the grand jury to take on an "investigatory role", the prosecution no longer had the discretion to withhold evidence from them, because they asked the jurors to look at all the evidence for themselves and make a determination. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and thus the controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Cwobeel's table is taking the "ordinary" and comparing it to the "extraordinary". Was there routine or normal about the events, it was a media circus and the entire event was covered with sensationalist stories and anonymous sources making outrageous claims. The table should be completely removed, it is a terrible POV pushing and eye-catching distraction from meaningful content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like what the New York Time has presented, or if you believe they are sensationalist, or that the "media" made a circus of this tragedy, that is your problem, not Wikipedia's. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's Wikipedia's problem of not wanting to be an encyclopedia of false and misleading information. BTW, as you know there is a discussion in another section that indicates this "charges" item is a false implication. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading in what are facts. And even if there was something wrong on that source, which is not the case, WP:NOTTRUTH - Cwobeel (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The controversy and criticism is about McCulloch and the decisions he made, it shouldn't be about the grand jury and the civic duty they were asked to perform, they did nothing wrong. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is arguing that the grand jury did something wrong? I have not seen any sources making that claim (neither I have seen any editors making that claim). - Cwobeel (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source highlighting how this grand jury proceeding was atypical: [23] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously when you compare a "typical" grand jury proceeding to an "investigatory" grand jury proceeding, there will be differences. But this wasn't a "typical" grand jury proceeding, so I don't know why you keep comparing the two - they are two totally different proceedings with different objectives. If you examine the role of an "investigatory" grand jury, you will see they did exactly what was required of them. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not compare anything. Reliable sources made that comparison. In any case, do you have source related to this case in which the distinction between a typical vs an "investigative" GJ is made? Or is this just your personal opinion? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney tasked this grand jury to "investigate" Wilson's case, thereby bypassing the "typical" process of asking for an indictment, did he not? And if I'm also not mistaken, you keep posting these comparisons between a "typical" grand jury vs. "Wilson's case" which the grand jury was asked to "investigate", do you not read your own sources to understand what the distinction between the two proceedings are? Isaidnoway (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources, please? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you not read your own sources you post to this talk page? Isaidnoway (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is not such a thing in legal terms as a an "investigative grand jury" as different than a "typical grand jury". That is why I was asking you for sources that make that distinction. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar and/or confused with the distinctions between the two - read your own sources. If you are unfamiliar and/or confused with how grand juries operate here in the United States, try reading - Grand juries in the United States. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ask a lawyer friend if you wish. My understanding is that there is no such a distinction. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

- @Isaidnoway: does seem to be correct in this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a source that notes a difference (though in regards to some other case) [24]. And another [25]. – JBarta (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Missouri Statute has no language referring to or defining "special" or "investigative" grand juries. Google searches for Missouri special and investigative grand juries turn up nothing relevant. There is no reason to believe that the grand jury looking at Wilson's case was of any distinct type. --RAN1 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I am no expert in Missouri law, but I do know some jurisdictions make distinctions. Though, nothing about this situation was "typical" given the long-standing media attention and rioting over the event. I feel that to compare the extraordinary to the ordinary is irrelevant because it is an "apples and oranges" comparison. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

...I'm not going to justify a response to that, that is just plain wrong. --RAN1 (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@RAN1:... try this instead. – JBarta (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And here, pg 21 of this document titled "Search & Seizure Law in Missouri" mentions an "investigative grand jury subpoena". There does seem to be some sort of distinction. – JBarta (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the looks of things, grand juries in Missouri automatically are entitled to process, so the distinction is semantic at best. --RAN1 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Can we close this now? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds a little more than just semantics. If every grand jury is entitled to process (I'm repeating you... I have only a layman's understanding of the topic) and only some (few?) grand juries use this, or this grand jury used it to an unusual extent, does this not rise to the level of a practical distinction? Especially if the consequences of such a difference are significant? – JBarta (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't relevant to discussion because the difference doesn't matter as much as you think. The grand jury being entitled to process means the grand jury can subpoena and request witnesses to testify (just as the prosecutor can). When they say it's an investigative grand jury, they mean that the grand jury on the Wilson case did a lot more looking into evidence than your usual Missouri grand jury. It doesn't necessarily mean the grand jury asked for the evidence; as I said, the prosecutor has that option as well. To know if the grand jury used it, you'd have to look over the published grand jury transcript to see if any grand jurors requested subpoenas or witness testimonies. Unfortunately, because most grand juries are kept secret, we won't have access to other examples of grand juries and the wording "investigative grand jury" is useless in looking up examples of similar cases. You'd also have no point of reference in determining if the grand jury overused its entitlement to process. So ultimately, no, it isn't significant enough to contribute practically to discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Massive removal of content and sources

I have undone the recent massive removal, per WP:BRD. There are ongoing discussions on these matters, and until consensus is established, the material should remain. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a proposal for ChrisGualtieri who believes that HuffPo and Vox are not reliable sources:

• If there is text in the article sourced to any of these two sources, but there are other sources supporting the material, you can remove the source.  Done
• If there is text in the article sourced solely to any of these two sources, indicate these with a {{cn}} inline tag, and let editors find suitable alternatives. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel that ChrisGualtieri's edits in the past half-hour or so stand Wikipedia principles including WP:CONSENSUS on their head. I also believe they are contrary to what he agreed to do yesterday. You don't make disputed edits without consensus, no matter how certain you are that they are correct. This view is clearly supported by Wikipedia policy and guideline. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." This is not a matter of consensus and I have proven that numerous sources are demonstrably false like the Knafo source. These are to be removed immediately per policy. I said yesterday I would be removing them because they do not meet WP:IRS and are used for concerns under WP:BLP. This gives wide latitude to remove first and deal with it later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We all know what WP:BLP says. But your argument is not applicable here. You have made a decision that VOX and HuffPo are not reliable sources, but that does not mean that you are correct, and does not give you that latitude. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My question is: are you willing to work with me and others based in my proposal above? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The notion that HuffPost is poor sourcing is in dispute. You claimed a community consensus that HuffPost is not RS, I asked for a link to said consensus, you did not respond, Jbarta commented something to the effect that a blanket community consensus is probably not useful in this case, you ignored all responses and unilaterally declared HuffPost unreliable. I'm sorry, but I don't know how a rational person could call that collaboration. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You already know that HuffPost was once on a "shit-list" just like you know how it has actual journalists now. If the material is false or not of high quality, you don't insert it in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I posted this earlier, I'll repeat it because it's applicable here:

Maybe in the case of a potentially problematic source such as HuffPost where reliability consensus is in flux, instead of a blanket all or nothing approach (yes they're all good or no they're all bad) the article might benefit by looking more closely on a case by case basis at the specific source and how the information is used in the article. Certainly some sourcings will be adequate and some may very well be inadequate. – JBarta (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be a very sensible approach. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

RSN is still in the beginning, but I gave four cases of the Huffington Post above. The first case was demonstrably false in its claims and its use in the article. The second is a BLP matter which assumes that Wilson didn't suspect Brown until it became convenient which goes against the established facts. The third was to be replaced without the opinion piece attached. The fourth as well. Huffington Post should not be relied on, and all sources in general should not be assumed to be impartial or accurate "just because" of their publisher. Huffington Post doesn't seem to have a single source worth keeping and this article would not make Featured Article Status with them in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What about some good manners and announce this here when you posted it? Sheesh.- Cwobeel (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any notable and reliable fact reporting will be found in places other than HuffPo. If you've got something with defamatory potential and you can't find a better source than HuffPo, you are not on solid ground. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That has always been my stance on it. I may not like the New York Times, for numerous nitpicky reasons, but they do fact check really well in most cases and keep the POV to the left. Not that there is anything wrong with a NYT stance - after all the New York Times-style democracy is sorta an ideal for most. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Why are you discussing the NYT as if it has a " POV to the left". Please stay on topic. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, Who do you think you're kidding? Not anyone who can read and understand the two previous messages by Centrify and ChrisGualtieri. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sophistry, disingenuousness and overt reality defiance are among the hallmarks of this editor's . . . ahem . . . style. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, FCAYS. How nice of you. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I appreciate your enduring dishonesty in service of revealing the WP:TRUTH to the world. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[squelch]: "suppress the output of a receiver in the absence of a sufficiently strong desired input signal." I will ignore these type comments, as they add nothing to the discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, do you think dishonesty and source misrepresentation are somehow helpful to this project? I think perhaps we have different projects in mind. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove blog

There is an issue with this claim:

Wilson had no disciplinary history with the department. After the Jennings Police Department was disbanded due to corruption...

Two sources are cited:

• Weiss, Debra Cassens (August 25, 2014). "Ferguson officer's first job was on a police force disbanded amid racial tensions and probe". ABA Journal.
• Tucker, John H. (November 11, 2011). "New Jennings Police Commander Tries to Right the Ship". Riverfront Times Blogs. Archived from the original on August 30, 2014. Retrieved December 5, 2014.

• Weiss in the ABA Journal source states: "The Ferguson police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown had a prior job on a police force that disbanded amid racial tensions and a probe into misuse of grant money."

• The Tucker in the Riverfront Times Blog states: "Last fall a joint federal-state investigation revealed that a Jennings police lieutenant had accepted federal money earmarked to pay for DWI checkpoint shifts that never happened. The chief at the time, who never got linked to the scandal, resigned. In November, Fuesting and his boss, Cpt. Troy Doyle of the North County Precinct, took over temporarily, and in March, the Jennings City Council voted 6 to 1 to disband the local police department and enter into a $2.8 million contract with St. Louis County."

While there was a scandal, it was a single individual and not the entire department and it considerably changes the tone of "After the Jennings Police Department was disbanded due to corruption..." While there was an issue, I think writing it off as "corruption" and placing it near to the situation results in poor context. Wilson was not involved and I think we can get a better source than a blog for the details. It really isn't a RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is something that could have been fixed in a single 3-word edit. Applying WP:SOFIXIT would have been a better use of database space, for the record. --RAN1 (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, this should fix your other problem. You're welcome. --RAN1 (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

RAN1, I think ChrisGualtieri's point was that the corruption involved one person, not the whole department and not Wilson. The way it's worded suggests that Wilson may have been corrupt. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record The Riverfront Times is not a blog. It is a weekly newspaper. Blogs published in RS, are fine if properly attributed. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct, I re-added it yesterday. Sorry for the delay, domain confused me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Date of birth

Na, rather not edit war and discuss all matters because that is what I just said I would do and I didn't find a satisfactory replacement. Also, this coming from someone who reverts the clear removal of WP:BLPPRIMARY issue. Also, BLPPRIMARY specifically says: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." This source is just copy of that public record and is invalid. Considering the situation which explicitly pertains to this exact issue being highlighted in my edit summary to remove, it is not a great argument to make. We cannot directly cite the Grand Jury documents either, so why directly the FOIed incident reports? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the emphasis is on public records, not the fact that it includes date of birth. Besides, Michael Brown is dead, so BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. Also, if you are seriously going to disregard WP:BRD, the least you can do is be concise about what you want to talk about since you aren't going to be able to link diffs. --RAN1 (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP because Michael Brown is still under it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

He is not recently deceased, and date of birth is hardly contentious information. I'm not continuing this line of discussion, including date of birth doesn't harm the article and applying IAR seems to be in order here. --RAN1 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

'For Pete's sake. 30 second Google search Red hearts floated down from the balcony onto audience members below. "Requiem for Michael Brown, May 20, 1996 - August 8, 2014," said one side. Information on how to get involved was listed on the back. [26] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Your exasperation is unnecessary, I was merely highlighting policy. Seems that the matter with "HuffPo 1" would serve as a reason to be picky on sources and get distance from primary documents. As you ignored the NYT source and pounded the primary source as proof. A good case of a WP:PRIMARY problem. Easy to misuse and easy to misunderstand there are numerous examples which come to mind. I do not even trust NRHP documents, but one gets a sense of accuracy once you are familiar with a person's work or the general area. It takes time though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, IAR. You really don't seem to understand that derailing a talk page section over so much as a DOB is a waste of everyone's time. The fact that you won't even recognize the complaint is even more telling. This should be dropped. --RAN1 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A great way to deflect responsibility for one's action. Show some respect for the community consensus on the use of primary documents. This is not the first time they were used in error. Considering there is protests, vigils and an ongoing investigation into the death of Michael Brown by the federal government, there is definitely reason to believe WP:BLP applies to his person. You do not seem to understand a difference between the quality of the sources being used. And frankly, that is where the concern is. A difference between a blog and The New York Times does not seem to be appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bloody waste of time. I don't know if you are aware of it, but you come across as know-it-all, with your highfalutin way of talking, and implying that only you understand policy. Get off the pedestal. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And The Huffington Post is not a blog, no matter how many times you repeat it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, BLP guidelines apply to a deceased individual for up to two years from the date of death. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Still, the DOB of Brown has been published in 2ndary sources and highly relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It was always relevant, but using a document released under a Freedom of Information request goes against the very wording of WP:BLPPRIMARY. That is why I mentioned it. The information was not incorrect or wrong. It was always the fact a WP:PRIMARY source, in the form of police report, was being used to do so. Don't forget Ran01 said "Michael Brown is dead, so BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply". I was highlighting that BLP still applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPPRIMARY is referring to going directly to a primary source, instead of using a secondary source that contains it. Seems OK to use the DOB here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me @Bob K31416:, the source is actually the entire 19 page document of the police report. The Date of Birth being pulled from page 4 of the document, directly from the Offense / Incident Report. The fact it is being republished in full by the Washington Post without modification or commentary doesn't change the fact it is still a police report. Furthermore, there is no real difference in citing "Offense / Incident Report" directly because you are just reading it off a scan on the Washington Times' site. By this same argument why not pull our sources from the Grand Jury transcripts and cite them to the news agency as the source! Since they republished the grand jury transcripts, it should be fair game by that logic. See? This is no different from doing that and ignoring that it is still a WP:PRIMARY issue. It just gives the appearance of being a legitimate secondary source when it really is just a copy of a WP:PRIMARY source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate characterization

What is inappropriate in quoting what Wilson said of Brown? [27] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored that sentence per WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Cwobeel undid a pretty flagrant misappropriation saying I did not explain. My edit summary including the reason is: "Remove totally inappropriate characterization: In his testimony to the grand jury, Wilson said that he "felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan" while he attempted to restrain Brown when he reached through his police car window." This dramatic characterization picked up by the media is of absolutely no factual importance to the shooting on the matter what so ever. This serves to further denigrate both parties by claiming that Brown was so much stronger and bigger than the officer and is a gross exaggeration of the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dramatic, or not, we are here not to judge what the media reports on or does not report on. You can't just delete content, that is properly sourced just because you believe is "dramatic". You can also not the deciding factor about what is is of factual importance. We leave that to our sources. 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs)

The Hulk Hogan quote has been all over the news and is a part of the narrative. It should stay. That sources report that many found it to be a ridiculous statement is also somewhat relevant, though I don't think the article should use that fact in an overt attempt to make Wilson look like a fool. It was simply how he described the encounter, and considering Brown's size, is not an entirely unreasonable remark (irregardless of how tall Wilson is). – JBarta (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And what is the point of it being in "Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting" though? It seems like this slipped through because that "demon" comment would be too-inappropriate. Can we not have just the plain details without having two overweight men of the same height being diminished by some "Tiny Tim holding onto Hulk Hogan" farce? Throw Wilson's theatrics on his own testimony, but do not ruin what should be emotionless and forensic backed detailing of the event. The section does not even go into the alleged cursing and other unproven dialogue, but you want to keep "Hulk Hogan" in? Are you sure that is the stance you want to take on it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what I said and as I said it is the stance I want to take. Though I would agree that you have a good point in suggesting the Hulk Hogan bit belongs more in the Wilson Testimony section than the Shooting section. – JBarta (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I noted that the only cite was Bloomberg, and was tempted to "improve" that by adding this CBS/AP source (in which the Hulk quote dominates both the title and the first paragraph). If we were already using that source somewhere else, I might have done so, but we're suffering from some ref bloat (Now Serving: 291), so I decided not to. It's sufficient that the source and others exist. Agree with moving the content. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(OTOH, I see that Washington Redskins name controversy is at 540 and climbing. Maybe we're not so bloated.) ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should worry about "ref bloat" here. – JBarta (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you think the CBS/AP source should be added, or just a general statement? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

General statement. – JBarta (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree to that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved it to Wilson Testimony section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Vatterott College

The mention of Brown's plans to attend Vatterott was part of material removed by Gaijin42 on 22 Nov in this edit. It stayed out for three weeks and then was re-added as part of this massive edit by ChrisGualtieri, on 12 Dec, with less justification than the removal and no talk. The latter edit did not re-add the rest of what Gaijin42 removed. Under the circumstances I think it needs to be removed again, and I'm doing so. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem for mentioning it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 can elaborate, but IIRC the edit arose from an NPOV complaint. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? Brown was enrolled and in a program that he was set to start within days, this not some "I want to be a X in the future" issue. In a page full of twisted POV attacks, improper characterizations and lengthy debates over trivial matters, an NPOV issue with this? The mere mention Brown was enrolled in college is a NPOV issue that needs to be scrubbed? I think I need more information because I do not understand how an argument can be made against this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue was not that that the college itself was a problem, it was that there was a tit-for-tat buildup of the BLP sections with arguments along the lines of "if XPos is in then we need XNegative (on the same blp) to balance it, and also need YPos and YNeg on the other BLP for neutrality" and it was just going in cycles and getting bigger and bigger, and causing warring and other conflicts. So to resolve the issue I pulled it down to the bare essentials that were relevant to the shooting. What I kept was basic biographical info, plus one "character reference" for each. Ill try to find the discussion that triggered the edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure, but I believe this was the discussion that triggered my edit Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_18#Video_and_police_report_where_Wilson_arrests_citizen_videographer_for_.22Failure_to_Comply.22_to_his_demands_that_he_cease_videotapingGaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A fallacious argument was made at that time then. When you requesting putting positive and negative spin you are ignoring the bare facts and inject an attempt to provoke an emotional response of the readers. NPOV is not positive or negative, anger or sorrow, it is about being completely indifferent while remaining distant, neutral, and emotionally uninvolved in the specifics. You were right to respond as such at the time Gaijin42, but I do not think "character references" are needed at all. The facts speak for themselves. And please, no Kantian ethics discussions on it. Haha, I'm not a fan of Kant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some notable sourced commentary on the effect that a violent felony conviction might have had on Brown's college enrollment. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not like to entertain hypotheticals like that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Shooting of John Crawford III in See Also related cases

A wide variety of the world's most reliable sources include mention of the Shooting of John Crawford III in their analyses of this case and others like it, that have sparked widespread large protests across the USA and coverage of them. As noted by the Washington Post after yesterday's (12/13/2014) protest march in Washington, DC: "The day’s most poignant moment came when a number of family members of black men and boys killed by police — Eric Garner, Michael Brown, John Crawford III, Tamar Rice and Amadou Diallo - took the stage..."[28] Not every case needs to or can be included, but when prominent participants and reliable sources have repeatedly highlighted and grouped certain cases together, then it is encyclopedic of us to reflect this. Benefac (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Strong argument, good work and thanks for not edit warring. The counter-argument is that the subject article is proposed for deletion, and it seems reasonable to wait until that is resolved. Awaiting other opinions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 12:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather, it was proposed for deletion until you removed the proposal — over the support of at least two editors — 57 minutes after my first revert, which referred to the proposal in its edit summary — after allowing it to gestate for all of four days. Impressive. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be mentioned that this incident is noted in List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2014 (Not offering an opinion either way on article-worthiness, just mentioning the incident does appear in Wikipedia.). – JBarta (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I also note that, in that entire list (I think the number is 108), Michael Brown and John Crawford are the only ones with their own articles, unless some besides Crawford are missing their wikilinks. The comment from one of the deletion supporters was: Sadly, this is run of the mill, and I think it's spot on. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

On a personal note that list makes for sad reading. I can't help but be reminded of Hyman Roth in Godfather II... "Stupid. People behaving like that with guns." – JBarta (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, include the Shooting of John Crawford III in the See Also list. There is well-documented inclusion by very reliable sources, key participants include these cases together, etc. This is a natural fit. Editors might want to improve the John Crawford III article, rather than trying to exclude it here. Take a WP:WIKIBREAK if getting too involved. Eugene Banks (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The removal of the deletion proposal was within the letter of policy, if perhaps not its spirit. As that was the only real argument against this See also addition, and as no one else seems opposed to it, I am self-reverting to re-add the entry, and we can put this one to bed. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a shaky article of questionable notability. I commented on the talk page. – JBarta (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, the article meets N and GNG. Though, more importantly it is in the media focus and it is referenced in relation to Michael Brown. As a result, I believe that it should be listed under See Also. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Backgrounds/Michael Brown Jr.

A read of this short section with the quotes "a student who loomed large and didn't cause trouble", and "gentle giant" gives the impression (at least to me) that Brown was just a big lovable guy. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. It might be useful to explore whether this introductory portrait is in fact balanced, neutral and accurate. I don't have any specific thoughts or proposals, though I'd be curious know if others have an opinion. – JBarta (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not for the characterizations, especially since it's very quote-dependent. It's a stretch of NPOV at the least. --RAN1 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. To clarify, that's about both Brown and Wilson. --RAN1 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jbarta. Yes, I removed both characterizations for Brown and Wilson before but was reverted. These behavior characterizations are emotional and do cause an issue with NPOV. For Wilson is it not enough to have no disciplinary record, but to instead add a quote from Orr to back up the fact as if the quote is better than the record? We should not be relying on quotes or emotional sentiments in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not our role as editors to pass judgment about if sources are "emotional" or not, or if they are written to solicit an emotional response. Wikipedia does not report on bare facts. Wikipedia reports significant viewpoints, per WP:NPOV, being these viewpoints emotional, disturbing, fallacious, factual, non-factual, or any other attribute that you would want to assign. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but does the section fairly and proportionately represent all significant viewpoints? Are there other viewpoints? – JBarta (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with Cwobeel, passing judgment (itself a loaded phrase) of that type is a necessary part of this task. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Our job is not to simply add sourced material that represents a viewpoint, but to also evaluate that material (pass judgement) and be sure the addition maintains a proportionate balance (pass more judgement). If a particular addition upsets neutrality, balance and objectivity, the editor making it must then consider if a further addition will restore it. Unfortunately this may result in a buildup of tit-for-tat "talking points", so again it's our responsibility to evaluate these sources and viewpoints in reporting an encyclopedic and neutral narrative. It's possible that an editor may add a sourced viewpoint that might add imbalance, but figure that another editor has the option to come along and restore that balance if he wishes. That, in my opinion, is highly destructive to the spirt of Wikipedia. EVERY editor should evaluate EVERY edit he makes judging whether his addition maintains a suitable balance. Another editor once said that the personal viewpoint of the best editors are impossible to determine just by the edits they make. Something to consider. In other words, again, just reporting a sourced viewpoint is not enough. – JBarta (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For a controversy or reception section, a compilation of opinions might be ok, but for biographical sections, this is about who they are from a completely objective standpoint. Compilations of opinions about their personality are inappropriate. --RAN1 (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course we have to apply editorial judgement. I was just questioning the use of "emotional" as an assessment of a source. My view, is that bio sections for both Brown and Wilson, should avoid painting them in one light or another. I will do an edit, and see if it sticks. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of picking a nit, I wouldn't go quite so far as to say "avoid painting them in one light or another". I wasn't necessarily thinking the section should be devoid of characterization altogether, just that it be examined for balance. – JBarta (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to undo my edit, per WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to undo it, but I'll add this... beyond a short, sterile and safe description of Brown and Wilson, would it be useful for the background/bio section to actually contain a little background and biography? Neither has their own article, and absent any notable future developments, they probably never will... so this section is it. Or do we just shut up, be safe and let the rest of the article define each of them? Instead of cutting the background info, I was actually thinking in terms of expanding/changing it a little to maybe a hundred or so words each that just gives a brief and honest sketch of each man (good bad and ugly) without an overt attempt to portray them in a sympathetic or unsympathetic light. It's a foggy idea and I have no idea what to include or how to word it, but the thought is out there for consideration. – JBarta (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be opposed, for two main reasons. One, as much as I hate glib declarations about what Wikipedia or an article "isn't", this isn't a human interest piece, for lack of a better term. I don't see it as our mission to help the reader "know" the parties involved. Two, we don't need another NPOV battlefield, and I know you know that would be one. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole article is a NPOV battlefield. Hell, half of Wikipedia is a battlefield. So to me that's a weak reason. However, I did look at a random biography and view it in terms of "characterization". The bio was Alan Turing. I was surprised to find pretty much nothing in he way of characterization... just a narrative built of facts and events. And it happens to be a "good article". To me that's a pretty good validation of your first point. – JBarta (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you caught me. It occurred to me after I wrote that that we couldn't add anything without creating a new NPOV battlefield. Strike that argument. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with Mandruss on this one. Their personal stories and background is not was is notable about them. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not like backgrounds, but I do not think that it is the most important part of the article at this point. The removal of the characterizations is a good start, but other sections need a thorough copy-edit and check. The background information will be useful for quite some time still before its (possible) integration. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of 2015 dates redux

[I pulled this out of the archives to avoid linking to it there. If we wait until this becomes an issue in a couple of weeks, a decision will have to made quickly, and sound decisions are not made quickly.] ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For brevity we have omitted the year from most 2014 dates. When we start adding 2015 dates, should we include the year for clarity? Or will it be clear enough until August 2015? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think within each section (or depending on length, perhaps paragraph) the first date mentioned should include the year. Subsequent events in chronological order, especially where the dates are within a month or so of the previous date, the year can be omitted, until you get up to 2015, then include the year, then go back to yearless. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That will be a very tough system to maintain while content is being added, removed, altered, and reorganized. It will also be sufficiently complex that most editors won't understand it without first finding and reading the instructions (i.e., few editors will understand it). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that based on WP:REALTIME, we need to write this article as if it will be read by someone in the year 2025. —Megiddo1013 05:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point I'm in favor of (1) continuing to omit year for 2014 dates except the few exceptions we already have, and (2) including year for all other dates (unless something dramatic happens, there shouldn't be many of the latter). I think a system like Gaijin42 described would be unworkable. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Real-time will not be an issue within a year or two, because the events will past into history and we can refer to context appropriate for that. Much of the timelines and other issues probably will be converted to prose or integrated and a chronology will take over the entire scope of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not grasping this REALTIME thing and how it applies to this question. I do know that we can talk about things that happened 50 years ago without specifying a year on each date, provided we have established the necessary context, and I don't see why the 2014 context in this article would change with time. No matter what happens from this point forward, 2014 will always be the year that the shooting occurred. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 08:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll give an example of WP:REALTIME. "Tomorrow the Grand Jury will convene..." is a WP:REALTIME issue, because "what is tomorrow" will change within 24 hours. Anything like "15 Years Ago Ferguson was" will be invalid because it could be 16 or 17 years ago by the time you read it. The article uses "recently" just once, but provides appropriate context ".... noting that an individual had recently, at 2:12 p.m., ...." which is appropriate per REALTIME. By giving the time, the context is preserved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have just said I'm not grasping how that applies to this thread. As I tried to say, omitting year does not imply present or even recent time if the necessary context is established. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots more documents released

Two sets of documents have been released this week (on two separate occasions: December 8 and December 14): [29]. I have not been editing this wiki article so I will let someone else add this material. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we also are going to get a dump after Holder which will probably be quite some time away. These documents have proved useful because a distanced and more complete view is given than in the August-November sources. I still think it will be some time before excellent compilations or scholarly sources come out of it. Still, editors will be getting more good secondary sources from this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Incident report

I rewrote this small section since there was considerable issues. Changes. Key to context is that the report was not filed to August 19 and it was approved for release on August 20. This followed both the ACLU and the National Bar Association (which some how wasn't mentioned) law suits into the matter. I could not find the McCullough statement with a date that the report was non-existent, so I highlighted that. I did this because it stands against the despite numerous reports on August 21 and beyond that the report did not exist, when it in fact it (now) did. I removed Knafo's HuffPo piece and replaced it with a source by Time because the criticism which was rooted in an error is not really related to the incident report in the first place and instead wrote: "Immediately following the release of the Ferguson incident report, Time reported that the lack of detail would likely increase the already widespread criticism that the police were protecting Darren Wilson." I think that is much more accurate and relevant to the situation. I am still looking for some more details, but I lost it in my papers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Such a big edit calls for a more informative edit summary, otherwise looks good to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good start, but you have omitted significant viewpoints on your edit. I'll let others weigh in, but we need to expand on the controversy surrounding the incident report, and not whitewash it.- Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made some needed copy-edits, to stay close to the sources, and to respect the chronology. I still believe that there needs to be some information about the reasons for the lawsuits, and the commentary from these sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The August 19 date is the date the report was entered into a database. There is also the name of the person who entered the report into the database, meaning Wilson cannot have done it himself. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the report was not filed for ten days, because we don't know how long it took to process.

Having numerous criticisms of the incident report is a problem if it is never raised anywhere that an almost-blank incident report might actually be standard procedure. Wilson may have withheld his narrative so that it could not be used in court against him, which is part of the right against self-incrimination. We need a statement from a police union representative or some similar reliable source on whether it is sometimes acceptable to fill out reports this way. Roches (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, how many times are you going to reinsert that false information? Do you realize that the detectives have nothing to do with the incident report. Also the NYT Times says "the county police received a report of the shooting at 12:07" and you inserted Knafo's "county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident". Which is false. You mean "the detectives", but neither can you give undue attention to that fact in relation to an incident report. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what the NYT source says The St. Louis County Police Department, which almost immediately took over the investigation, had officers on the scene quickly, but its homicide detectives were not called until about 40 minutes after the shooting, according to county police logs, and they arrived around 1:30 p.m. It was another hour before an investigator from the medical examiner’s office arrived. [30]. Please re-add, fixing the other issues you mention. But why delete factual information contained in the report. Or are you arguing that the police report is incorrect? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added the break down to the "Shooting" section because this is recorded fact relevant to the clearing of the scene and the timing and arrival of the persons needed to do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Was that so hard? Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To this date.... you do not understand what was wrong with "county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident". Even when you quote the source directly which states "...had officers on the scene quickly, but its homicide detectives..." I'm sorry, but you seem to have a reading comprehension issue here and from the HuffPo 1 section. I've explained it so many times that I gave up trying to explain it to you. But yes, the detectives were notified of it about 40 minutes after the incident occurred and more specifically: 33 minutes after county police were notified. Mmm kay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment of my reading comprehension aside, at least now you have restored the chronology that you previously deleted. BTW, you could have saved many bytes of comments, by using the NYT source and leaving it at that. I have added some more content to complete the chronology of that day. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not an issue of reading comprehension. It's an issue of deliberate & repeated source misrepresentation, for POV-pushing purposes, which persists even after other editors have painstakingly outlined exactly what is misrepresentative about the text in question. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting

The section opens with this: At 11:51 a.m. on August 9, 2014, a convenience store security camera captured video of Brown taking a $48 box of cigarillos and physically assaulting and intimidating a convenience store clerk. but the source says this: Earlier in the day, police identified the officer who killed Brown as Darren Wilson, 28. They also released surveillance footage of the convenience store robbery, in which Brown was suspected of stealing a box of cigars and assaulting a clerk. [31]. I fixed this to stay close to the source, but was reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You saved me from making another fuss. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: what RfC are you referring to? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The RFC on how to describe the robbery was just closed. suspected is just a sysnonym for alleged. Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_20#RFC:_Alleged_theft_of_cigars_from_convenience_store.3F Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and dig up a source on the legal matter, but this is going to need a footnote to explain this to the readers. Unless we have a source which perfectly relates to both the incidents and the legal matter we are going to run into an issue. My suggestion is to look for a conservative reliable source which doesn't get emotional or nasty. Something that lays out what the terminologye means and addressing the robbery incident without making any "thug" or other comments against Brown, particularly in a personal matter. Please no Breitbart. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:: OK about alleged or suspect in the robbery. But we are saying physically assaulting and intimidating, when the source says suspect of assaulting a clerk. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The RFC closed, why are we taking two bites at the apple?

• Vox (how ironic!) "Johnson, remember, was Brown's friend. He was there when Brown robbed the convenience store. He was there when Wilson first saw Brown. And he was there when Brown was shot and killed" http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story
• Newsweek "At the same press conference in which he released Darren Wilson’s name to the public, Ferguson chief of police Tom Jackson gave reporters copies of security camera footage depicting Brown and Johnson robbing a convenience store in Ferguson minutes before Brown’s death." http://www.newsweek.com/no-charges-ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-case-285976 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel I'm fine with changing it to shoving rather than assaulting since that is indisputable and the shove might not raise to the legal level of assault Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Do the honors then? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There really is not much question that this act of shoving, even if not pursuant to a robbery, was actionable, arrestable, convictable assault in all 50 states. IAAL. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

lede narrative

Currently paragraph 2 of the lede starts "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of a street when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk. An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle until Wilson's gun was fired. "

There is no mention of the robbery until paragraph 4. Since the robbery is confirmed and we now know that Wilson was specifically looking for the suspects in the robbery (though he did not initially recognize Brown & Johnson in that capacity) I think the context of the robbery needs to be moved into that paragraph.

Here is a version I propose, but I am entirely open to other versions that convey similar information

Shortly before the shooting, Brown stole several cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description and stopped Brown and Johnson while they were walking down the middle of the street. Wilson did not initially recognize Brown and Johnson as suspects and the initial encounter was for jaywalking. An altercation [...]

That could result in a trim of paragraph 4 where we can now just talk about the video of the robbery and not the robbery itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, Wilson's knowledge of the robbery and his identification of suspects is still disputed, as there are contradictions in Wilson's testimony. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

His identification of the suspects I agree, and would not oppose clarifying that. His knowledge of the robbery itself is undisputable as we have recordings of him talking to dispatch about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gaijin42 - opening with "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of a street..." doesn't provide context when Wilson who is not directly responding but in the immediate area of a reported robbery. His knowledge of the suspects is in dispute, but this is not happening in a vacuum. I find it dishonest for a "lead" to state:

"The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson, in part due to the belief among many that Brown was surrendering, as well as longstanding racial tensions between the majority-black population and the majority-white city government and police.[7]

Before getting to that whole "robbery incident" - Wilson's alleged knowledge that Brown was a suspect seems unproven and may be part of the federal investigation, but context is important. We do not even need to mention the "assault" (weak as it is) matter because that frames the situation more negatively. Balance in all things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI:

1. Jackson press conference

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said six-year veteran Darren Wilson is the police officer who who shot 18-year-old Michael Brown on Friday. Wilson is from the St. Louis area, and has no history of disciplinary action. Jackson also said, in statements around 2 p.m. on Friday, that the Wilson did not know about the robbery at a gas station prior to incident with Brown that lead to his death. […] The Ferguson, MO police chief said the robbery "Was not related to the initial contact" between Wilson and Brown"

2. First interview hours after shooting, Wilson does not make a mention of the robbery, and said that Brown had passed "something" off to Johnson.

3. In grand jury testimony, Wilson referred to Brown's hands being full of cigarillos.

Without passing judgement on the competitive narratives and the chronology, we can't assert in the article as a fact that Wilson identified Brown and Johnson as the suspects in the robbery. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jackson was not in charge of the investigation and that denial was itself refuted later. Wilson's claim to have identified Brown during the encounter is what is in the grand jury and other documents and is widely reported. It does not "make" it true, but is claimed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Refuted by whom? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't believe anyone is suggesting to do so. Is there some tweak you would make to my wording to clarify the state (or not) of identification? I am merely saying that we should mention the robbery, and that Wilson was aware of the robbery and description, and was looking for the suspects. I agree absolutely that it is contested at which point (if ever) he recognized them as the suspects. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, so just make sure that we are not asserting Wilson's viewpoint as a fact. I would also would not want that in the lede using attribution. Best to leave that to the article's body were the competing viewpoints are presented. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel So do you have an objection or tweak to my proposed text above? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think that it is the best we can do to keep it factual, although the "initially" implies that he may have done that later, and that is disputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made the change. I see your issue with initially. I left out recognition all together in the lede. He had the dispatch, he stopped them for jaywalking. there was an altercation. Further detail can wait for the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm. I am still not happy with the edit, because it implies something that is still disputed. Shortly before the shooting, Brown stole several cigarillos and shoved a store clerk at a nearby convenience store. Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description, and later stopped Brown and Johnson while they were walking down the middle of the street. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should add that there are conflicting viewpoints about the identification of Brown and Johnson? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be re-worded to reflect why Wilson was even in that area in the first place, otherwise it implies he was specifically dispatched to the robbery, he wasn't. He was in that area on another call and according to his statements, he heard the dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description, and then he encountered the two. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel I wouldn't say "conflicting reports" but saying "it is unclear if" or something I am fine with. I was trying to take into account your earlier issue, but I do note that my version dropped the "for Jaywalking" bit we used to have, which might help clarify. Isaidnoway Its more than his statements that he heard, we have recording of him specifically asking units 22 and 25 if they want help searching for the suspects. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made updates to paragraph 2 of the lede to address the concerns. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gaijin42. It works for me. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I added clarification. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the sentence "It is unclear when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with Brown and Johnson". Wilson did make it clear "when" in a subsequent interview and in his testimony that specifically addressed this issue to the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway Wilson's POV cannot be claimed as objective truth, we describe his claims in his section. The lede needs to be neutral and not relying on anyone's narrative. There are conflicting statements from the police about this. There are perhaps good explanations for those conflicts, but we cannot pretend they don't exist. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. The sentence needs to go back. We are not describing just Wilson's testimony (which by definition would be self-serving), but the entirety of the evidence and the known chronology of reporting from Ferguson police in the aftermath of the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree and it is not only Wilson's POV, and if that sentence remains, it will have to be sourced, because it is not neutral to say it was unclear, when it is clear through evidence presented to the grand jury, not only by Wilson, but through the testimony of other individuals as well. And what conflicting statements were there made by those who actually interviewed him and testified before the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The discrepancies are reported in the sections "Darren Wilson's interview and testimony" and also in this source used in the article [32]. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That source you provided was from August 15. We now know that Wilson did "clear" up "when" he recognized the two as suspects through evidence presented to the grand jury by officers who interviewed him, so even if you want to discard Wilson's testimony as being prejudicial and self-serving, what about the officers who testified as to "when" he became aware, are we just dismissing their testimony altogether. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We can't re-write history. Surely we have testimony, but we also have media reports after the shooting reporting on police activities, press conferences and the like. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nope, sure can't re-write history. But it's not NPOV to solely rely on "media reports after the shooting", when we now have media reports after the testimony presented to the grand jury that shows a different perspective. So I guess the answer to my question is that we are just dismissing their testimony altogether in favor of "media reports after the shooting". Isaidnoway (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source used in the article (ref #121):

Update at 3:20 p.m. ET: Police Chief: Officer In Shooting Was Unaware Of Robbery. Jackson, speaking at an afternoon news conference, said he wanted to respond to questions raised about the timing of the release of the tape. "This robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown," he said, adding that the "strong-arm" (unarmed) robbery occurred about 10 minutes before the stop that led to the fatal shooting. "It had nothing to do with the stop," Jackson said. Asked why Wilson stopped Brown, the police chief said because Brown and his friend "were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic." Jackson said he had gotten numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from the media to release the video. "I had to release it," he said. "I had been sitting on it and too many people put in FOIA requests for it and I had to release it," he said."We needed to release that at the same time we released the name of the officer," he said.[33]

- Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway we aren't dismissing their testimony all together, we are saying it is unclear. We aren't taking the media statements as gospel, we are taking multiple unambiguous statements from the police to the contrary. It is unclear. the only person who can say for sure whether or not Wilson made the ID is Wilson, and as you say his own statements are self-serving. Its perfectly reasonable to think that the earlier statements were mistaken (the position I personally hold). But its also perfectly reasonable to think that people will adjust their statements to fit a more favorable set of circumstances (As seen in the AP analysis of the witness statements). You mention the other police reports/statements. Are any of those documented from PRIOR or current to the conflicting statements from the chief? Are any of them from prior to Wilson's first statements to that effect? In any case, how would those other people know what Wilson did or did not realize? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Using "unclear" captures this quite well. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that their testimony to the grand jury was unclear about "when" Wilson became aware? Because the way I read their testimony and the follow-up questions, they specifically addressed this issue - just for the sake of clarity - but you say it's unclear? And where are all these multiple statements from the police, as far as I can recollect, Chief Jackson was the only one who made ambiguous statements, and you all seem willing to rely on that source (Jackson) for that sentence, when that source (Jackson) conflicts with testimony given to the grand jury and conflicts with other sources about what Jackson stated when Wilson became aware. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not only Jackson, but Wilson too. Just read the commentary about the discrepancies between his early interviews and the GJ testimony. Note that Wlison had months of coaching by his lawyers before his unchallenged testimony to the GJ. So, any early comments by him or his superiors, is highly relevant. So all we can say now with the modicum of hindsight we have now, is that while it is clear from factual evidence of what he knew, and when he knew it, it is very unclear when he may have or not realize that Brown and Johnson were the robbery suspects. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson did not have months of coaching. The shooting happened on August 9, he testified on September 16. His testimony to the grand jury was challenged on this issue, and the other officers testimony about this issue was challenged as well - in order to provide clarity to the jurors about what Wilson knew and when he knew it. Thomas Jackson's factual accuracy concerning this case has been questioned and controversial from the start - and if you don't believe me, just read the damn article, it says so. At first he says Wilson didn't know, and then a couple of hours later he reverses himself and says Wilson did know. Now usually in cases of instances where there is contradictory statements like this put out, the latter statement (reversal) would supercede the previous statement, thereby making the latter statement Jackson's offical postion on the issue. And if that's true, then it stands to follow that Jackson's position is not "unclear" - Wilson did know. And I'd also add that Wilson testified that he did know and we don't know if the juror's found Wilson's version of the "When and if" of the robbery/suspects story to be credible or not, so we don't know if it was unclear or clear to them either. It should be removed and it's not necessary for the flow of that para and it's also not even relevant to Wilson's primary claim of self-defense. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is telling, is that in the first press conference, Jackson unequivocally said that there was no connection, and gave the excuse that the release of the video tape from the robbery was due to the FOIA request. Hours later he tells the media that Wilson made the connection with the robbery. So here you have it. If there was a connection, he could have said that in the first press conference that the entire country was waiting for, and without resorting to excuses, but he did not. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• You seem to not understand that is was reported as Wilson identified Brown as a suspect initially. This results in mass-hysteria. Jackson refutes this based on some undetailed reasoning, this itself is clarified soon after. While something may not be "proven" to any extent for you, you seem to be hung on the fact that Jackson, who does not appear to be in charge, is infallible and all attempts to explain and provide context are "framing" Wilson's defense. You have little objectivity to anything police related and assume conspiracy over ignorance and error. That is creating a clear problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While I will refrain from drawing references to certain high-profile events, repeatedly altering your official story is something we have to report, regardless and irrespective of conclusions that may be drawn. This also has nothing to do with the actual discussion here, which is whether we should include the "unclear if Wilson drew the connection" sentence. In this case, I agree with Isaidnoway, we should dump the sentence since it's pretty much a weasel sentence in the lead (.....and I didn't think that was possible). --RAN1 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Coverage of case mis-information

So I just watched a recent Dr. Phil episode where they discuss this case, and some of the guests were making claims that do not seem to be consistent with the state of the article as it is.

For example, here it says that at noon, Wilson contacted officers searching for the suspect asking if they needed help. If that time can be confirmed, that is direct prior knowledge of the suspect description.

Yet one of the Dr. Phil guests claims that he did not have knowledge of the robbery when he confronted the pair. But the confrontation happened at 12:01 so he had to have known for 4 minutes (hearing the description on the radio) and it would have been fresh on his mind a minute recent since he had just radioed about the descriptions. One would assume that there would be radio chatter from 11:57-12:00 prior to him radioing it in.

The discussion happens in the last 10 minutes of -Black and Blue: Race Relations in America which aired 12 December 2014. At around 51:25 (including commercials) Phil says of Wilson -he claimed to not know about the robbery, then changed the story, said brown fit the description of the suspect-

This is confusing, if Wilson responded on the radio about the suspect description a minute prior to the violent encounter, it seems like he would have known about the robbery... so I am not sure why he would claim he did not know. If this was not true I would like to know what led Phil McGraw to claim this.

Phil also thinks there is some issue with the chief requesting X-rays from Wilson, but since there was an encounter at the cruiser (with the 2 detainees escaping) it seems like there could be a risk of injury to Wilson, which would explain that.

A guest says there is no record of a freedom of information request from the media, seemingly contradicting the claim of the chief that the media requested the video. I do not see that as proof though, as media can make casual non-official requests for the release of things without filing a FOI req. --Ranze (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You can listen to him asking if they need help searching , along with him asking for backup, and other chatter about the incident http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html There was a lot of confusing and potentially incorrect statements from officials about what Wilson did or did not know, so it is reasonable for some who did not follow the case closely to think that he did not know. Or one can think that those statements were correct, that Wilson definitely did not know, and that the recordings are some sort of coverup. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And there are statements from the reporters who said they made the sunshine law request for the video (some saying they made blanket "give us everything" statements, others saying they were aware of the video and specifically asked for it.

• http://kplr11.com/2014/08/15/video-timeline-of-robbery-surveillance-video-purportedly-showing-michael-brown/
• "Reports today claim there were no media requests for the robbery video at ferguson market prior to the day it was released. I absolutely did make a formal written request for the video two days before it was released. A source told me about the video. Betsy Bruce and I asked the mayor about it. During a taped interview." https://www.facebook.com/MandyMurpheyFOX2/posts/706732609401003

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So it seems like the guest on Dr. Phil was being misleading since technically a -freedom of information- was not requested, but the effective equivalent in -sunshine law- was. Since Phil seems to be co-operating with the deceptive behavior of his guests by supporting the unfounded rumor about story-changing, I am wondering if due to the popularity of that program it might qualify for some coverage here regarding controversial or misleading coverage of the event by various media sources.

A detective not mentioning the robbery suspicions of Wilson in what seems like a paraphrase of a brief on-the-spot interview (otherwise we would have a tape or a transcript) is not absolute proof that Wilson did not have such suspicions. Nor would him not mentioning them, since a person who is involved in a violent altercation may not perfectly summarize every detail, or tell the story in the right order, and may overlook some factors. -Ranze (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I would add that even after the release of documents from the prosecution, this issue is still unclear. The first interview with Wilson was not recorded, but the detective that interviewed Wilson after the shooting said nothing about the later claimed identification. So, this will remain part of the controversy for the foreseeable future. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Being aware of the robbery is not the same thing as making the ID. There is very strong proof he was aware of the robbery. As you say there is conflicting and ambiguous information about if he made the ID or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement :) - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is possible that he could have heard the first report on the radio about the robbery and then minutes later got busy playing Words with Friends and not been listening when an update was given about the description of the robbers... but given that he shortly asked if assistance was required after the description update, it gives one the impression that he probably heard that second report too. --Ranze (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's also important to note that this line of questioning was pursued during the GJ investigation and the jurors were completely aware of the minor discrepancy and even asked questions about it themselves, and that context is missing from the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorain versus Dorian

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/ calls the guy with Brown in a different vowel order than I see here, wondering if this is a common mistake and worth mentioning on the page.--Ranze (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Fox News, I don't think that qualifies as a common mistake. For reference, https://www.google.com/#q=dorain+johnson&nfpr=1 --RAN1 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that the same source says that Wilson suffered severe facial injuries including a bone fracture near one eye and was nearly beaten unconscious, which now we know was not the case. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson testified that he feared he would lose consciousness from the injuries sustained from Brown, which is not inconsistent with the physical evidence. However, the idea that his eye socket was fractured does indeed appear to be false; I've seen nothing corroborating it and it was not in any of the grand jury testimony. We should rely on latter-day, more accurate sources about the facts. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What we should do, and have done is to document the chronology of events, including the misleading leaks. It is part of the story, and new information does not release us from reporting prior information. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Do not legitimize and give platform with a chronology of false allegations. Deal with major ones in proper context and do not defend them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

For minor false allegations, we can disregard them as unreliable. Major ones reported by official sources should be included, but the bone fracture isn't one of em. It's a rumor perpetuated by "a family friend", which, if you're Fox News, can mean just about anything in this situation (for reference, Fox News says it's a source "close to the department's top brass"). --RAN1 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You do not know the source of Fox News or whether or not it was some purported "friend" at all. Given that it could have been an officer - a co-worker type - both could be legitimate and describe the same source without issue. It seems almost obvious where the credibility aspect would come from, but such claimants of these disputed factual reports are similar to witnesses who fabricated the entire thing. Well...save the fact that it is perjury to do so in legal context, but not to the news. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if there's a source with outdated or inaccurate information, the encyclopedic thing to do is ignore it, not write about the fact that there was an article published at one time with outdated or inaccurate information. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fingerprinting

Watching the ABC interview, at around 5:30, Wilson says that after he pulled his gun that Brown grabbed the top of it and twisted it around to aim at the hip or leg of Wilson and then was trying to get at the trigger.

I do not see any mention of the word fingerprint on this article. I would like to know if any official reports mention whether the firearm was fingerprinted. This seems like a key issue in relation to the testimony of Wilson. --Ranze (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The detective acknowledged that he had been told that Mr. Brown might have struggled with Mr. Wilson for control of the gun while Mr. Wilson was seated in his police vehicle. So he swabbed the gun for DNA. He explained that he had to decide whether to check the gun for fingerprints or for DNA (other than Mr. Wilson’s), because doing one check would wipe out the ability to do the other. If there was a struggle between Messrs. Wilson and Brown for the gun, the detective said, it was determined they had a better chance of getting results from a DNA test than a fingerprint test. The prosecutor and the detective didn’t get into any results of the DNA testing. [...] There was also some questioning regarding the Ferguson Police Department’s handling of Mr. Wilson’s gun as evidence. The detective said he found the gun stored in an unsealed envelope. He indicated that this wasn’t the evidence-handling procedure used by his department and went into some detail about that. The detective said he couldn’t speak for the procedures of other departments."[34]

we should add something about this to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Added new section Shooting of Michael Brown#DNA evidence - Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of blood of Brown on gun and on interior of car door

When they mention that the blood of Brown was found in these 2 spots this makes me think they must have DNA tested it to confirm, or at the very least made the assessment via comparing the blood types of the officer and suspect, I do not know if the blood type of either is mentioned in association with the case, could possibly be an interesting detail to include.

I am wondering if we might possible have a more detailed analysis of these blood locations, like a spatter analysis here a CSI could give an estimation of how it got there.

Like for example, when Wilson mentions trying to fire his gun in the ABC interview at 6:30, and he says that it jams, he says he thought it was because the finger of Brown was blocking the hammer from striking the slide. I have heard that sometimes people can cut their hands while firing a gun if holding it improperly so it made me wonder if that was possibly where the blood of Brown came from.

I would like to know if the coroner found any cuts on either hand of Brown which might have been caused from the gun, and if there is a way to know whether gun on the uniform or the gun or the inner door could have come from a bleeding hand that was cut by the moving parts of the gun as Wilson tried to fire it.

A second explanation (or perhaps both contributed, dunno) would be when Wilson mentions his third trigger pull finally resulting in a shot hitting the door and shattering the glass of the rolled-down window. I am wondering if we know whether the blood came from a cut from a shattered window or a cut caused by a finger caught in the moving parts of the gun, or some other explanation.

A spatter analysis (think Dexter) might presumably inform us if this or some other explanation is likely, based on whatever patterns the blood took when analysed in these 3 locations. --Ranze (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson had scratches at his hairline and a bruise on his face, according to police and the doctor who treated him. Wilson’s DNA was not found under Brown’s fingernails or on his right hand. Wilson’s DNA was detected on Brown’s left palm. […] Brown’s DNA was found on the left thigh of Wilson’s pants. Brown’s DNA was also found on the gun. While inspecting the gun, a detective observed a reddish substance, consistent with blood, on the slide and frame of the firearm. Brown’s DNA was also found on the inside driver’s door handle of the police SUV. Investigators said they could swab for DNA or dust for fingerprints but not both. One test would destroy evidence from the other.[35]

We ought to add some of his as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Blood spatter analysis is not useful for much, I kind of doubt it's going to tell us anything other than that Brown was more or less in the cruiser when the first shot hit. Also, slide injuries are basically like a ten pound mechanical shear slicing off part of your skin. Blocking the gun's hammer would not cause an injury. And I'm not aware of any slide injuries on the hand. So I don't think there is any basis for thinking that Brown's blood in the cruiser came from a phantom hand injury that that medical examiner somehow missed. Ditto for possible phantom glass cuts that I don't think any actual commentators have raised as a possibility. And of course inn any event we would need sources for any kind of speculation of this nature. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to speculate, as the autopsy found Brown was shot on the thumb from close range. See the DNA evidence section. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

External Links

Much of the External Links section would not survive at a Featured Article Candidates review and should not be included. First, with nearly 300 references - much of the material is just a "video link" to material already covered in the article. This includes the video of the robbery, the incident report, a compilation of witness statements by Huffington Post, 6 video interviews, social media posts, a statements and of course, the documents themselves. I really only think the "grand jury documents" really qualify here per WP:EL.

It is redundant to curate videos and other materials which are cited or included in the sources. Most of these sources are just an external links video gallery that does not provide substantial value to readers that is not covered in the text and its references. I think these should be cleaned up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and got rid of the interviews and social media. The rest we should go link by link, I'm not entirely convinced we should ditch the observational videos or the press conference link but I haven't looked em over yet either so I'll take the time to do that now. --RAN1 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

Timelines in articles as lengthy as this are often redundant and are better served by prose. Currently, many are useless and offer no additional insight that could not be better served in the article already. Do we really need a timeline with entries like:

• August 13 – A fundraising webpage was created for Michael Brown's family.
• A similar online fundraising drive for Wilson achieved its desired goal of US$235,000 within four days and was followed by one for Wilson in association with a tax-deductible charity.
• August 17 – About 150 people protested in downtown St. Louis in support of Darren Wilson....
• September 4 – Attorney General Holder announced that (redundant...)

The timeline is not even maintained and serves little more than a lengthy and segregated list of "statements" by date. It is not appropriate to duplicate and segregate details by time in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, even the international reactions section is closer to what the other reaction sections should be. This'd also be a good chance to include any new reactions. as that timeline's been abandoned since August. --RAN1 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the integration would be appropriate, it is better to give context without pulling out an independent timeline. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support bringing that sub section closer to how the International reactions section is laid out. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The NYT table

The controversy section, despite all the fixing, is still the biggest BLP problem in this article, but let's fix the elephant in the room.

• "According to the The New York Times, differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson's" - Is a distracting and very biased use of facts that comes off as disingenuous and taken way out of context.

"In 2010, federal prosecutors sought indictments in about 162,000 cases, according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Grand jurors declined to indict in 11 of these federal cases. On a state level, grand juries returned indictments in similar numbers."

"US police officers kill approximately 1,000 citizens per year in the line of duty. On average, four officers are indicted for causing gun-related deaths on duty every year, according to a study by Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

In one sample, grand juries in Harris County, Texas, haven't indicted a police officer in a decade. Grand juries in Dallas looked at 81 possible cases of police criminality between 2008 and 2012, but handed down only one indictment, according to the Houston Chronicle."[36]

With a little perspective you can see that grand juries rarely indict police officers. Combined with a little more information that grand juries can take years, the secret nature of grand juries with "public officials, officers" and such goes outside the realm of normalcy. With a lot more on the line, Giuliani's comments about using them to determine if it should go to trial makes sense. By many accounts, the grand jury was really normal given circumstances at play. The point by the NYT is being used to advance that the grand jury's length and actions were beyond compare. I have deep issues with that. I suggest that the context be given and the "controversy" table be removed entirely because it is grossly misleading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the controversy seems to root in the idea that this is not the way grand juries operate outside of cases in which police officers are charged. The evidence you cited above only goes to show that the controversy is well-justified. I would also like to remind you that there's an RfC open relating to this. If you'll look back at it, you'll see that we have a prose version ready to go up in case the RfC results in a prose consensus. You can help contribute changes to the draft there. --RAN1 (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to legitimize an invalid comparison and use it an example as evidence of some wrongdoing? A grand jury is not a rubber stamp on the way to the court house and the entire process drastically changes when a police officer is the subject of the situation. A prosecutor typically does provide great detail and seeks to establish whether or not the case could be successful in court. What the actual section is doing is comparing apples to oranges because it is not a fair or justified representation of like cases. Giuliani mentioned he had a grand jury investigate for three years, I cited a two year one above - many go for months. The only difference is this one went "public". It is deceptive in its charges and witness proceedings. Instead of highlighting and explaining, the entire section is used to pass judgement that states McCullough was grossly abusing power when unbiased legal experts have conclusively rejected the notion that the prosecution would have ever been successful at trial. To show how far the "criticism" is twisted, statements which vindicate McCullough are pulled out of context to condemn. The process deserves criticism, not the result because it was damn typical and almost indisputable given the evidence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I am a huge hater of grossly misleading WP prose, especially if it does not track cited sources, or offers unsubstantiated opinions, or offers substantiated opinions of people who are non-notable or not experts on the given subject. Do any of the above apply? Does the disputed material imply that a living person has engaged in professional misconduct or dereliction of official duties? If so, please remove it without further discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It definitely gives that stance because the entire table is a undue and very misleading comparison being used to attack McCullough. It does have a BLP issue because of its use and structuring. Factual data is easy to abuse and this case is quite clear, many other New York Times pieces have gone to fair lengths to explain the situation. In fact the source I note above makes it obvious that this grand jury proceeding is actually not that unusual save its public release when it concerns officers. Actually, given everything it was quite expedited. I'll remove it because you do make a good argument that it is an issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. We are still discussing this, and there is no BLP violation whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is and was. I removed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD, as you promised. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't appear to be supported by consensus or by policy, why do you think you are justified in reverting? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We ought to follow the sources. Any neutral observer would notice that the proceedings were nothing close to the norm. This aspect of the proceeding is widely covered and we should not have any problems establishing due weight. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a neutral observer and I didn't notice anything out of form. Actually one of the biggest complaints protesters had was that the normal process wasn't being fast-tracked for purposes of 24/7 news cycle coverage & because people were impatient for their pound of flesh. Anyway I would say that charges of grand jury manipulation or irregularity are going to require exceptional sourcing. And, as implied, we can't go around misrepresenting the sources or making up stuff to attribute to them. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

How exactly are we misinterpreting The New York Times? There is substantial coverage on the controversial manner in which the prosecutor's office handled the case, and not reporting that would be a violation of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the table is being used to imply a conclusion that the source itself does not reach, then it is being used improperly, in violation of multiple core policies, and should be removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm something of a neutral observer too. I'm not American, and I don't follow the news about the story except with respect to this article. The process wasn't fast-tracked, BTW, because grand jury members are empaneled for a set period of time (3 to 6 months or so), and they continue working their regular jobs. That also explains why they weren't sequestered. It's also not being considered, in my opinion, that the jury is entirely responsible for making their decision, and that these people were already the county's grand jury before the shooting occurred. No matter how much anybody tried to influence them, the jury was still made up of adults who were completely free to make whatever decision they wanted to make. Roches (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with FCAYS - the situation was entirely normal and criticism that it a gross miscarriage of justice (as often it is put) is a fallacious argument. Just like the notion that McCullough to write off the whole grand jury or preliminary hearing choice, this out of context table is used to construct a narrative in direct contrast to established fact and push an agenda. Because it does this to a living person, it is a BLP issue. Essentially it was cherrypicking a NYT section and twisting as far as possible into a statement and banner to attack McCulloch. Ignorance is one thing, deliberate misrepresentation is another. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarify, I'm not saying it was entirely normal, just that I didn't notice any serious irregularity and IAAL. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note that there is an RFC pending on this issue: Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#RFC. @ChrisGualtieri: I would expect that you would avoid edit warring, but it seems that you have forgotten the basics.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy or guideline (not an essay) that says that NPOV means including every opinion? I really don't interpret "neutral" that way. Roches (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, no personal attacks, don't comment on contributor, and especially don't do so unnecessarily. Also, NPOV requires that many opinions be excluded, especially ones that have not been published in a source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I did not break 3RR - I didn't even touch that before. Also, WP:BLP says it is to be removed immediately. As the person who added it - you are the last person to reinsert something pulled out of context to attack a person in an entire section dedicated to attacking McCullough. Roches, NPOV does mean providing balance and context, but WP:RSOPINION, WP:QUESTIONABLE, and WP:BLP give wide latitude for editors to analyze and discard sources with inherent bias in a sensational case. Being removed from the "drama reports" gives that neutrality much easier - there is actually significant issues with the law and the grand jury process which is made and being made - now that the Ferguson situation has moved on. Time gives most people perspectives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

On the RFC above, you !voted "Summarize the quotes and replace table with text". There is an emerging consensus on the RFC, so your action to remove the table without summarizing it is disrupting WP:DR. Why not let the RFC run its course, or act on the emerging consensus? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the table is being used to imply a conclusion that the source does not state, it is being misused. And if that conclusion has defamatory potential about a living person then it is being very seriously misused and no consensus is needed for removal. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of policies and guidelines in play here, with room for trouting all around I think. NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The POV that there was significant irregularity in the process certainly rises to that level. However, the table causes NPOV problems imo, because it unduly emphasizes that one particular analysis (NYTs) and makes it appear to be "official" or in wiki-voice. A paragraph saying "They NYT analysis said..." does not have that issue. The paragraph also allows us to deal with clarifying the facts without running into WP:SYNTH. There is a BLP issue here, and while I personally do not see it as being severe enough to require immediate removal until after the RFC, it has been removed on good faith BLP objections, and per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE should not be restored until there is clear consensus for it, as BLP issues are not subject to normal BRD restoration. As a reminder, we are under DS here, so warring and other issues can result in sanctions. Santa is watching people, be good! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for also highlighting the BLP issue, while not extremely severe I consider the misuse of the NYT to be also an issue. This makes three editors seeing the BLP issue. I did not remove it when I was solely of the opinion because I was not sure it was obvious to others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

All innuendo is unencyclopedic, except for that exceedingly rare case where you've got notable innuendo cited in quotation marks, with textual attribution to both publisher and source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Per Gaijin, we have agreement that BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies on the table presentation, but we have an RFC with emerging consensus about summarizing the table into a narrative. So, my point is that this can be very quickly resolved by just presenting the NYT viewpoints in narrative form. That would take just a few minutes of work. Any volunteers? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Converting it to prose does not resolve the problem, it requires proper context and a "Controversy" section doesn't do much when all you are doing is changing the formatting. Yes, the source says [X], but changing it to X still doesn't resolve the entire issue. If anything, the basic facts were illustrating that the release of public documents and the fact Wilson testified as a witness were clearly unusual elements. This most be conveyed without passing judgement. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

While we in general need to rewrite the controversy section into a summary style per the developing RFC consensus, at the current time we have a collection of reliable sources and analyses. Adding the NYT into that collection is not an issue. You may disagree with the NYT, but they are certainly a reliable source, and representative of a notable POV, even if that POV has issues. I do not see a BLP issue with covering the NYT view as long as it is not unduly emphasized relative to the other views. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. We have an ongoing RFC with emerging consensus. Proposal below. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to your proposal below for now. But my interpretation is that the RFC is saying that the section needs to be compressed and further summarized by using less opinions, and combining paragraphs that are essentially saying the same thing. In that eventual state, the paragraph below would probably not survive as is, as it would be incorporated into the higher level summaries. My personal preference would be to resort to some WP:WEASEL wording, but back that wording up with Help:Footnotes that could include the detailed opinions that we have now - perhaps all of them. I'm thinking something along the lines of the example used in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Bundling_citations Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problems. One step at a time. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Conversion to narrative proposal

Here is a proposal to respond to the RFC emerging consensus to convert to narrative: - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times presented what they report as differences between a typical grand jury in Missouri and the grand jury proceeding in Wilson's case, including that a typical case takes about one day vs. 25 days over three months, that grand jurors seldom hear testimony from the defendant vs. Wilson testifying for four hours, that grand jury activity is usually secret vs. McCgulloh releasing testimony and evidence, that the number of witnesses is usually a few witnesses, mainly from investigators vs. 60 witnesses being called in Wilson's case, and that prosecutors usually asks the jury to indict vs McCulloch not recommending charges against Wilson.

References

Feel free to improve upon. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are just further exacerbating the problem here. Instead of reflecting that grand jury deliberations and evidence are typically secret you highlight other "unusual" aspects first. This is improper because its criticism is based on two completely different situations that are run through the same process. In short, it does not provide any context on like cases. That is the problem. The paragraph actually looks even worse than the table because, the table reflected authority in its simplicity. It does not change that out of 1000 deaths approx police deaths, indictments return on average 4 times a year. Additional context into the normally secret world of grand jury proceedings against police officers puts big holes in this simple and misleading summary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Christian Monitor's Bruinius makes quite a similar case to the NYT's presentation. See below. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Heaven's no. Bruinius does not make a similar argument, he makes a completely different and better one. Context is everything, the NYT source you use does not make a distinction between cases concerning police officers in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Replacement part

Given the issue, think it is time to resolve the issue without getting to wrapped up into the "he said X and he said Y" situation. So let's try to resolve it with basic facts from the The Christian Science Monitor source and insert things from there. I suggest something like:

State and federal grand juries overwhelmingly provide indictments except in cases which concern law enforcement officers. Harry Bruinius of The Christian Science Monitor stated that state grand juries returned indictment at similar rate to federal grand juries, citing the US Bureau of Justice Statistics that 11 out of 162,000 federal cases did not result in indictments. Bruinius refers to studies which state that "US police officers kill approximately 1,000 citizens per year in the line of duty [and on] average, four officers are indicted for causing gun-related deaths". Bruinius attributes the low indictments to numerous factors including the deeply held social compact stemming from the pressures of the job to the jurors bias to trust the word of the officers. Critics point out the close working relationship between officers and prosecutors in the legal system and have pushed for independent investigations in these cases.

Not a great starting point, but certainly gives a more balanced approach and new criticism that is not covered in the article while we deal with the NYT in proper context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the source is this [37] there is material you have omitted from it that is quite close to what the NYT says: "But critics contend that this evidence did not undergo rigorous cross-examination by opposing counsel, giving the prosecutors sole control over the shape of the case. " […] "prosecutors took the unusual step of presenting nearly all the evidence to the grand jury – including the testimony of the officers. " […] "Typically, grand juries remain secret. The prosecutor controls the proceedings, and in most jurisdictions, no judge or defense counsel is present. And in the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor only presents one or two witnesses, as well as additional physical or forensic evidence if necessary. This normally takes place in a day or two." - Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Brunius also says that "Because of the close working relationship between prosecutors and police officers, many have called for independent investigations whenever a person dies in police custody." - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that I don't object to providing context as you suggest, as that is always good practice. But we can't cherry-pick from a source, or avoid presenting viewpoints that seem to be in the majority. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I did point out the issues you highlight, I just summarized it without giving undue attention because other arguments and sources exist. Roughly 40% of this proposed section is describing, without excessive wording, that exact problem. However, you forget the reasons why a grand jury exists and that they can be legally used to see if it is proper to press charges in the first place. Your ordering goes from specific criticism to a broad comparison of all grand juries - it is not an honest comparison. You say do not "cherry pick" from a source, but conclude with such an improper "factoid" devoid of context. As if normal grand juries including deaths by police officers typically take one or two days to resolve - they do not. These issues can take months or years as noted. More importantly less than 1% of all officer-related deaths will be taken to a grand jury and result in an indictment. By even suggesting or allowing the assumption that cases of his nature are decided in 1-2 days by a grand jury is a gross misinterpretation and inexcusable if willful in my eyes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look, it is quite easy, really. We can add general context for our readers, and your initial try is not a bad start. But we need to present not only the context, but the significant opinions about it. And as the source you provided is almost word by word of what the NYT is reporting, how can you say that the NYT and the Christian Monitor's opinions are not to be included? (if that is what you seem to be arguing for. If that is not what you mean, please clarify.) - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, could you please provide an example of this alleged cherry-picking or failure to include a majority viewpoint? Note, grand juries don't have cross examination, thus of course testimony before a grand jury has not been subjected to cross. Also, grand juries typically meet once a week and thus are not over after a couple days as this prose implies. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am just following the sources, including the NYT and the source suggested by Chris. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, could you please provide an example of this alleged cherry-picking or failure to include a majority viewpoint? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I did already above. Here is the diff [38] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a talk page diff and I clearly referenced it with "Critics point out the close working relationship between officers and prosecutors in the legal system and have pushed for independent investigations in these cases." - It is suggested wording. But it is not an absolute and I do find faults with it still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So, Cwobeel, is it fair to say that your preferred version is also quite problematic because it cherry-picks from the source and fails to present the source analysis tending to suggest that there was, in fact, nothing improper about the grand jury proceedings? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also it includes: "But critics contend that this evidence did not undergo rigorous cross-examination by opposing counsel, giving the prosecutors sole control over the shape of the case?" These critics do not know that evidence does not get cross-examined by the defense lawyers - that would be a preliminary-hearing and is really bad for prosecution because it allows the defense to do exactly that. It would be the worst choice for the prosecutor and be the worst possible option to take. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris : You raise a good point about comparison of all GJ cases to GJ cases involving officer shootings, but that point is WP:OR unless made by a reliable source. I think that POV would be an excellent addition though, if you can find sourcing for it otherwise we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the source is this [[39]. Waiting for Chris to confirm. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, which is why it is not WP:OR. Also, in a response to Cwobeel I made an error. Not all 1000 related deaths by police officers go before a grand jury in the first place, but I do not have the source on hand directly make said distinction, but the source does state: " Q: How many police officers are indicted by grand juries? Very few. According to studies, US police officers kill approximately 1,000 citizens per year in the line of duty. On average, four officers are indicted for causing gun-related deaths on duty every year, according to a study by Bowling Green State University in Ohio." Though this says "gun-related" and has a fault because not all deaths are gun-related. So even still it is not without its faults. This does represent a problem and raise the issue with either untabluated/unknown information or a bias in the source. We need a more direct comparison to be ideal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So, are you retracting your proposal? I actually think it is a good start, but we should include both this and the NYT commentary in particular when they agree with each other. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? They do not agree and I highlighted a possible source improvement because I found faults with part of the comparison. The comparison can be broken down for you to understand in this fashion.

• NYT = There are many cars but this was a Pagani Zonda R.
• Bruinius = Pagani makes supercars in small numbers and the Pagani Zonda R is one of them.

That's how big of a difference there is. In this hypothetical, the number of Zonda R's is not given, but at least we know they are made in small numbers and they are distinguished from all other "cars". So it is not "perfect", but it provides a lot of context that NYT. And P.S. do not get me started on the analogy or sidetrack it - this was an illustrative example to show the disparity in your argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Combining two proposals into one: - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Harry Bruinius of The Christian Science Monitor stated that state grand juries returned indictment at similar rate to federal grand juries, citing the US Bureau of Justice Statistics that 11 out of 162,000 federal cases did not result in indictments. Bruinius refers to studies which state that "US police officers kill approximately 1,000 citizens per year in the line of duty [and on] average, four officers are indicted for causing gun-related deaths". Bruinius attributes the low indictments to numerous factors including the deeply held social compact stemming from the pressures of the job to the jurors bias to trust the word of the officers. Critics point out the close working relationship between officers and prosecutors in the legal system and have pushed for independent investigations in these cases. Bruinius and the New York Times also reported differences between typical grand jury proceedings and Wilson's case, including that the number of witnesses is usually a few witnesses, mainly from investigators vs. 60 witnesses being called in Wilson's case, that grand jury activity is usually secret vs. McCulloch releasing grand jury testimony and evidence, and that in the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor only presents one or two witnesses, vs. 60 witnesses being called in Wilson's case. The New York Time furthers that prosecutors usually asks the jury to indict, but that McCulloch did not.

Way to drag Bruinius into statements and opinions that are actually just the basic factoids from the NYT. So not only have you stripped out context you've kept the BLP issues with the invalid comparison which was not okay as a table, but justify it by let's combine them and its "neutral" and somehow not a BLP matter? Compare like cases not the biggest disparity you can find. We can deal with the perception issue separately and without passing judgement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Three additional reliable sources making very similar claims as the NYT and Christian Monitor: - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• WaPo In atypical approach, grand jury in Ferguson shooting receives full measure of case [40]
• The New Yorker How not to use a grand jury [41]
• St. Louis Post Dispatch Legal experts react to grand jury process in Michael Brown shooting [42]

@ChrisGualtieri: I don't know where you got the idea that comparing apples and oranges is a logical fallacy, but unfortunately (disregarding the actual fallacy) that is a valid method of analysis. You haven't shown how this actually constitutes a fallacy, much less how the analysis is poorly-sourced. The analysis was pulled verbatim from the NYT with table and all. --RAN1 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I am really not following your logic. Here are the similarities between NYT and Christian Monitor's Bruinius for clarity:

• NYT: grand jury activity is usually secret vs. McCgulloh releasing testimony and evidence
• Bruinius: prosecutors took the unusual step of presenting nearly all the evidence to the grand jury

——

• NYT: typical case takes about one day vs. 25 days over three months
• Bruinius: This normally takes place in a day or two.

——

• NYT: the number of witnesses is usually a few witnesses, mainly from investigators vs. 60 witnesses being called in Wilson's case. Wilson testifying for four hours.
• Bruinius: in the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor only presents one or two witnesses. Prosecutors took the unusual step of including the testimony of the officers.

——

• NYT: prosecutors usually asks the jury to indict, but that McCulloch did not.
• Bruinius: One reason a grand jury could “indict a ham sandwich” is that a very low bar is required to establish probable cause.

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I have made my case, and you have made yours. Let's leave some space for others to comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Made a WP:BOLD edit, adding the context piece proposed by ChrisGualtieri, and using sub sections to group and differentiate between media and legal analyst's commentary. This may be helpful when we undertake summarizing the viewpoints as previously proposed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for better illustrating the BLP issues, because now I can attack them more directly because you are conveniently segregating them and making it easier to find and relate to. Also, Cwobeel and Ran1 do not understand what is going on. Also - Ran1 doesn't catch the farce in the Apples and Oranges article and takes it to be serious. This is humorous for the wrong reasons because in all seriousness - the apples and oranges analogy has been used repeatedly by sources, even specifically to highlight these issues. The difference between the NYT table and Bruinius's arguments are so striking that if you cannot understand even after lengthy explanation - I can not help further. I feel like I am speaking another language, but I am beginning to be convinced it is a reading comprehension issue on your part. Do you honestly not understand the differences even after reading both sources? At this point, the needless explanations and re-explanations on simple discussions are becoming disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately here in the real world I do understand. I get that you think comparing grand jury process on police officers and grand jury process on non-police officers is an apples and oranges argument, but that is exactly what the controversy is about. That fact holds as documented by reliable and verifiable sources. The fact that such a controversy exists is neither contentious nor poorly sourced. --RAN1 (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

unclear if Wilson associated the robbery with the two men

"though it is unclear when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with the two men"

This statement in the lead has been tagged with "citation needed", and as it's an important point, I figured I'd bring up here. My understanding is that from the various statements by and attributed to Wilson, "when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with the two men" is in fact unclear. I'm sure others have a better handle on this than I do and might wish to comment. – JBarta (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed already. I will add the refs. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing contradicts with what is presently in the body of the article from this source and also this source:

Later that day, Jackson told CNN and NBC that Wilson did notice that Brown was carrying the cigars as he began driving past them. Jackson said at that point, Wilson "made the connection" that Brown might have been involved in the convenience store robbery.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know that, but there are inconsistencies as described in the sources, starting with the very strong assertions by the Chief of police that there was no connection, only to change his tune a few hours later, following with Wilson's testimony of a male on a black T-Shirt, when Brown was wearing a white shirt, Wilson contradicting testimony about Brown passing "something" to Johnson in his first interview with a detective, changed later to "cigarrillos", and so on. So yes, it is unclear despite the very obvious efforts to tie the two events as a reason for Wilson's use of force. Unfortunately the case did not go to trial, were a prosecutor would cross examine Wilson, so we have to live with what we know now with the hindsight provided by the chronology of events. But we can't assert when and if Wilson made an ID. That is still disputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read this article in its entirety, dated Aug 15 [43]. It includes Jackson's later "correction" and then tell me what you think. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there is sourcing that contradicts that phrasing and it should be removed, it wouldn't hurt the flow of the narrative if it was removed. As for your assertion that it was a "very obvious effort to tie the events as a reason for Wilson's use of force", you are sadly mistaken. Wilson's justification for use of force was based on Brown sucker-punching him in the face and going for his gun, the fact that he recogniozed them as suspects in a robbery had nothing to do with his justification for use of force. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(OT: Regarding the use of force, and the "sucker-punching", have you seen the DNA evidence Shooting of Michael Brown#DNA evidence ? Brown had no DNA from Wilson on his right hand; Wilson's DNA was only found on Brown's left palm. In cross, this would have certainly come up, but we had no trial...) Also see this source [44] with discrepancies listed on the forensics related to Brown's hands. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Forensic Evidence that may contradict Wilson’s testimony about the "sucker punch", based on DNA report:

• Palm of Brown’s left hand – Brown, possible Wilson (low probability)
• Back of Brown’s left hand – Brown only
• Palm of Brown’s right hand – Brown only
• Back of Brown’s right hand – Brown only
• Fingernail scrapings/clippings of Brown’s left hand – Brown only, Wilson excluded
• Fingernail scrapings/clippings of Brown’s right hand – Brown only

I am researching to find a source that covers this in detail. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There is sourcing that contradicts the phrasing, and there is sourcing that asserts the phrasing. In that case, we can't use Wikipedia's voice to assert something as a fact, when we have conflicting reports about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

maybe a way out of it would be to say: There were conflicting reports about when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with the two men. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, strike when, as it implies a situation or condition that we are certain of. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait for comments from others. There have been a lots of edits today and we need to leave time for editors to comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail source is an unreliable, completely biased and factually inaccurate BLP-violating opinion piece. This whole conspiracy schtick is not legitimized by reliable sources because the conspiracy disregards established facts. Considering Wilson is clearly acknowledging the incident in the audio records and this is a good place to start:

"At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

Given the sources Cwobeel has added and hopefully read throughout his time on the article this should be obvious. Wilson responded to the officers looking for the thieves, clearly he is aware of the robbery, but he was not the "responding officer". A discrepancy of a few hours is founded on the accusation that Wilson "got his story straight". I feel that Cwobeel is not being honest and using "breaking news" reports from August 15 to insert a fuss over the situation. This is the whole "eyesocket" issue in complete reverse. Per WP:NPOVT, we should seriously keep this out of the article as it is a major BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the sources we have, I think it should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"all from the front"

The lede reads in Wikipedia's voice that: Brown was hit seven or eight times, all from the front. But the evidence is not conclusive, since the "front" of the arms are the undersides in line with the palms, but which would be facing backwards in a person running away. The autopsy also described a grazing wound to Brown's right bicep which could have come from either direction. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I re-added this because the noted source says this explicitly. I've heard some chatter about the possibility of the arm wound coming from the rear, but I was under the impression it was just weak speculation. Granted, I'm not as well versed in the details as many others, but it's an important point and we should do our best to present it as accurately as possible. What are your thoughts? – JBarta (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What we should do is remove that from the lede. The issue is well covered in the autopsy, with all the nuances. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, I am insisting that the tag remain per policy because we have many ongoing and deeply disputed issues with NPOV that are not sectional, they span the entire article and the article is changing rapidly to address it. However, given that dozens of unresolved issues remain, the NPOV tag needs to remain. This is not a banner of shame, but a call to editors that there are issues with the article and it makes the matter transparent to readers. The tag is supposed to remain until these are resolved. These NPOV issues include numerous BLP concerns as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the end game? The tag says don't remove until "the dispute" is resolved. There is no "dispute". There are however "disputes". Disputes that are endemic to ALL contentious articles. The disputes were here before you came along, and the disputes will be here long after you've gone. The way I read it, you want the tag at the top of the article as a permanent expression of your displeasure and you want it there until every issue is resolved in the way you see fit. I think it's no more than a hissy fit and I think it's complete bullshit. – JBarta (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Jbarta - when this article switches over from being a gross violation of NPOV is when it will be removed. Not after all issues, but when the majority are resolved. An article is never "perfect", but the article fails WP:YESPOV in almost every section and in numerous ways. "Avoid stating opinions as facts" - there is a huge amount of this issue. "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." - plenty of this in the controversy section. "Avoid stating facts as opinions." is also an issue. "Prefer nonjudgmental language." is almost completely ignored in favor of a "we report what they say" attitude which has resulted in numerous BLP violations of which dozens still remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And the tag achieves what purpose here? – JBarta (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, it informs the reader and draws additional editors to the talk page to discuss the issue by further highlighting a problem exists and is actively being rectified. Now, keep calling it a "hissy fit" and "bullshit" if you are so inclined, but when almost every section save the now stripped out "Background" has glaring issues. The tag is appropriate and not the mere placement of it on each of the dozen plus sections to which it applies. If you recall, I came to this page in response to its major NPOV issues and there seems to be no end to it. More eyes on this and the assistance of additional editors capable of resolving the situation is a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, half the readers think it's slanted one way and the other half think it's slanted the other way. So, you don't have to tell he reader it's neutrality is disputed, it will simply reinforce whichever opinion he already has. In other words, in that department you're not doing anyone a useful service. Regarding drawing other editors in.... you will probably get more of the same. More disputes, more charges of NPOV more contentious editing... only with a few more editors dipping their toes into the pool... at least for a while. Then what? You still won't get your way all the time. If editors fight you you'll still think the article is riddled with problems. Then what? Two tags? If you're seeing no end to major NPOV issues, then maybe a large part of the problem is your seeing. – JBarta (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Being combative and attacking the editor highlighting the issues doesn't exactly work well when arguments made in a state of ignorance are used to support the "controversy" section. The Eric Citron argument is false and uninformed in many aspects, but to be blunt every source from November 25 and 26ish are going to be uninformed responses by individuals who did not have the grand jury documents in the first place. The entire controversy section hinges upon reaction based on appearances and not fact. Clearly, NPOV applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are acting as a Lone Ranger, and that is just unacceptable. I will be off most of the day, will resume when I can later. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Example section Shooting of Michael Brown#Police

Shooting of Michael Brown#Police has numerous NPOV issues.

• First sentence has use of a quote followed immediately by what could be described as scare quotes.
• According to Belmar... as if Belmar is the origin
• "allegedly" which is covered by WP:ALLEGED.
• "more than a couple" - got to keep that August 10 context flowing for reasons unknown with more quotes.
• Opens with unspecific date with "In August..." when source provides date to highlight Jackson's announcement of Wilson's injury. Proceeds to jump into anonymous and false statements (not declared false by the two sources cited inline) in the next sentence. Continuing lines do not detail injuries at all, but instead provide criticism by the Brown family attorneys and concludes with the release of pictures.
• Next section is a jumbled mess of quotes and a lack of context in complete contrast to the actual matter. Concludes with a lack of context courtesy of a poorly parsed NYT source.
• Section completely forgets that the section is Accounts and police did not provide accounts of the shooting.

This is for starters, and I wasn't even being an ass about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: You are welcome to improve the article, as all articles can be improved, but I don't think it serves the process well to make a blanket statements such as "numerous POV issues". Some of the issues you highlight, can be easily fixed, while others may require a longer discussion. Please respect the editorial process of Wikipedia: discussion, collaboration, compromise and seeking consensus. And not, "you are all wrong and I am right" kind of approach. Editors have pride, and we have worked really hard on this article for months now. New blood is welcome, but your approach seems to be my way or the highway. Please correct me if I am wrong. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So you want me to "just fix it", but you complain about "fixing it" and that the "changes are without consensus" even when they violate WP:BLP. For someone who complains at changes and complains about discussing of changes you have no grounds to complain now. Please read the policies and stop complaining when numerous editors are agreeing and correcting the BLP problems in the article.

These other editors include, @Roches:, who highlighted that the paragraph beginning with Ronald S. Sullivan Jr "suggest misconduct in the grand jury hearing. None of them entertain the possibility that this hearing was standard practice in Missouri. This is a problem, because it's suggesting wrongdoing when all it should be doing is making a comment about an imperfect system. These opinions state that something "should have" been done differently without considering whether that was even possible."

Cwobeel, I am growing tired of explaining this to you - I will soon stop entertaining and responding you unless required. As the person who repeatedly inserts BLP and other non-neutral material into the article the correct response is "I won't do it again" instead of trying to justify the inclusion of WP:FRINGE things like conspiracies sourced to Huffington Post which arguing against established facts as reported by NYT, Time, Washington Post, CNN and others. You actually argued that it was important to preserve the uncertainty of "as it happened" because it proves that the facts "are" in question even after they were not. This is deeply symptomatic of why your edits go against WP:NPOV even when you think they are neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Red herring, yet again. We are not discussing HuffPo anymore, are we? You keep arguing that I am inserting "non-neutral" material, as if there are opinions that are neutral and others that are not, based on your own perception. We don't judge sources about being neutral or not, as all sources have a bias. Now, if you are arguing that some of the sourced used are "fringe", then you need to provide arguments to substantiate that assessment. To your last comment, about my "symptomatic anti-NPOV" characterization, you are not the only editor here striving for NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: @ChrisGualtieri: I'll remind you both that you should be aware that you're on a sanctionable page and have been warned as to the consequences of that. Having a hissy fit over what NPOV issues still need to be ironed out is not a good reason for you two to start explaining grievances at each other, much less go on a policy violation diatribe. Please focus on the article, which has genuine POV issues and is at the very least in need of a rewrite. --RAN1 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no dispute as to NPOV issues continuing to persist in the article in almost every section. Here and in private numerous editors have expressed concerns. This is seen as one of Wikipedia's worst pages because of its prominence and sensitivity yet clear agenda. Long has the neutrality of this page has been disputed, including by the opinions outside of Wikipedia since soon after the events and including some who are also Wikipedia editors. Things are not perfect, but the criticism of this page for its non-neutral stance has been the subject of concerns both on and off Wikipedia. Correcting it is important and working together to understand and fix it is important. These two things go better when done together, but WP:EVENTUALISM does not apply here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but bringing hard right-wing and left-wing viewpoints as http://www.truth-out.org and http://joeforamerica.com/ does not really help your case. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You have pretty much disregarded what I was trying to say in my last comment. The fact that this article is a mess is not an excuse to act above dispute resolution. While I don't disagree with the idea that this might qualify as a subpar page, this does not justify your response. Please stop. --RAN1 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Deconstructing the controversy section

On November 25 and 26, numerous opinions were advanced by persons responding to the indictment were made and later added to the article. The many of these sources are based entirely on opinions of rumor, speculation or made in complete ignorance of fact. To this date, not all documents have been released, nor has the federal investigation been concluded. Critics of critics is perhaps an unusual way to look at the weeks following the decision, but it is a step removed from what amounts to an appeal based on emotion. No less than three the opinions cited in the "controversy" section represent a deviation from their actual intention: Rudy Giuliani, Ben Trachtenberg and Jeff Roorda. For others, they are taken largely at face value and while the article no longer reflects many of the direct BLP violations sitting as the foundation of the argument - it is still improper to reference a conclusion founded upon assertions of manipulation. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. makes this assumption. Those like Dan Abrams advance opinion as fact, which goes to the core of WP:NPOV. Perhaps the most relevant and pressing matter is arguments and space given to those who advance arguments in ignorance, but who's words are used to advance the perception that ignorance as the majority view. This again refers to numerous arguments being advanced in the controversy section, by those who have not read the grand jury documents because they had not yet or were just recently released.

I am willing to give some time to the public outcry aspect of the case still given that not even a month has passed since the grand jury returned the decision. However, sources we should be looking for need to be dated in the following weeks of the decision and not in the immediate aftermath. Numerous sources are beginning to take in and reflect on the Brown case with most of the evidence in hand and realize it was not the case public outcry said it was. Criticism of the grand jury often went against the basic definition of what a grand jury does or remained entirely ignorant that a grand jury can indeed be a sort of trial in of itself that is conducted in secret - far from the eyes of a judgmental public. So many of the voices given space and outcry are those who had the least authority and standing to do so, making their emotional, biased, or personal interests known for the sake of contributing to the moment. As the days pass and more information is released it is clear that some witnesses were flawed or advanced outright fabrications - this was not just Brown supporters, but also Wilson supporters. In the words of Michael Smerconish, "The death of the unarmed Michael Brown is a terrible tragedy. While the process by which it was investigated wasn't perfect, the result, warts and all, was just." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ADVOCACY, you can do that in your blog or your Facebook page. In Wikipedia we follow the sources, and as sources evolve so will this article (and any other article that is based on a recent event). Your arguments since the beginning are all based on an attempt to "right a wrong" (e.g. there was mass hysteria, there were rumors, ignorance of facts by the media, and a perversely narrow interpretation of BLP). But there is no such a thing, as discussed extensively here and in other noticeboards. I disagree with your blanket statement that the entire article violates NPOV and BLP and deserving of a tag. So take a deep breath, and work with me and others to continue improving the article one step at a time. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The tag will remain per policy until issues are resolved, but if you have issues better stop attacking the editor and start reflecting reality. You are still arguing data from August 15 in clear contrast to all the facts and you are use November 25-26 data from the indictment announcement before the data was released and use very weak opinions which do not hold up. So much so that reliable sources are highlighting and dispelling the arguments with fact. Sorry, but you do not understand where I am on this matter and you cannot begin to comprehend my thinking - accusations of POV when I am adding more criticism and arguments against McCulloch than you were even aware of is a cheap shot and doesn't fool editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't blame me. Just read your own comments. You are passing judgement on the motivations of sources, how false their assertions are, their attempt to foment mass hysteria, and others personal characterizations of legal experts and commentators, for Pete's sake. If that is not WP:ADVOCACY, then what is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were going to stop making replies to me? Actual reliable sources are doing this.[45][46][47][48][49] Though if you insist on using blogs instead, Why Ferguson Officer Wasn’t Charged: A Look at ‘Use of Force’ Doctrine is a good start and highlights Graham v Connor and includes "Prosecutors in police-shooting or police-misconduct cases often struggle to win indictments against police officers, partly because it’s often hard to show that an officer’s behavior was objectively unreasonable, even when the actions lead to tragedy." Please stop using poor sources, this source was from November 24 and it still did a better job of illustrating part of the matter without any grand jury documentation to begin with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Get a dictionary and look up "chronology", and then you may be able to understand my point. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Facts are facts, a chronology of "things later proven to be false" does not belong here unless it has substantial reason to remain. This is part of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVT, WP:IRS and WP:V. Also, start trying to refute the arguments raised by the sources. I welcome a critical analysis of the points raised by the reliable sources, but do not give me "opinions portrayed as facts" and tell me its neutral. That is all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Facts are facts, indeed. And opinions are opinions. Look up the instances in WP:NPOV in which there is a mention of the word "fact". What do you see there? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the entire section is 100% attributed, so your argument that that these are "opinions portrayed as facts" is fallacious. Opinions are presented in that section for what they are. - Cwobeel (talk)

section duplication

Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Post-decision_analysis seems to largely duplicate in purpose Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Controversy although there are some unique sources in each section. I propose the sections be merged? If two sections are two remain, one possible dividing point would be those commenting on the result of the GJ vs those commenting on the process of the GJ, but the two seem to be mostly intermingled, so I am not sure such separation makes sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It does no make sense to me either, I combined it only to be immediately reverted by ChtisGaultieri. I think that he wants to separate commentary before the GJ decision, from commentary after the decision., based on his personal interpretation that the latter supersedes the former. But that is contrary to NPOV, this article is documenting a chronology of events. This article is not Grand jury decision in the case of Darren Wilson, but the shooting of Michael Brown - Cwobeel (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, the controversy section should be removed as it cites a conclusion based on problems of misquoting, blatant racism and manipulation. As much as I do not like using "Persons say X and People say Y" for everything, an intermediate step before returning to pure fact and not opinions need to be done in the interim. Most of the actual and valid criticism against the handling of the case is unambiguous and is not partisan. Removed from the immediate "Firestorm" the facts are indisputable and all sources agree - anything less is bias. I would dare you to try and find objective sources to validate some of these "criticisms". My current favorite, that the defense lawyers did not get to rigorously cross-examine the witnesses. Why? Confuses preliminary hearing with a grand jury proceeding. Second, any argument that McCullough did not need to bring it to a grand jury or those criticizing the choice of a grand jury. Third, attacks that the grand jurors were confused, inexperienced, mislead, steered or overwhelmed into giving no indictment. And reliable sources cover all these supposed "criticisms". From above: [50][51][52][53][54]ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I agree with you in result on this situation (combining these two sections), I disagree in reasoning. I believe you are unduly focused on chronology. This article is not a timeline. Certainly some flow of events is important, but in the WP:10 year test, the flow of events is going to be much less important than the end result (for each particular bit of info/section). Every twist and turn and the date that particular information was released or known is not important, unless that dating itself had significant impact. "So and so made a request on date A, complained on b that it wasn't released yet, then finally released on C, corrected/clarified ad D and then commented on at E, F,G" is not adding a ton that could not be summarized much more effectively.

To the degree that the timeline itself is controversial and a topic of discussion, we should directly discuss that, not try to make the reader infer that by giving unneccesary detail about timelines everywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point @Gaijin42:, I raised the issue of the timeline and some of its "data" as having questionable relevancy. The 10 year is actually where I've been trying to work from, but I did not realize WP:RECENTISM has such an argument! I was waiting for the situation to be concluded in the public eye, knowing that participating in the matter during an ongoing situation would likely bias future releases. Cwobeel's chronology argument is just confusing and contradictory to reflect the "as it happened" instead of "as it is". We should keep the timeline for the time being until it can be evaluated. Some of the details are perfect to be integrated into the article and others less so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

the controversy section should be removed as it cites a conclusion based on problems of misquoting, blatant racism and manipulation. - You are not the arbiter, that is not your role. Our role is to describe without bias what reliable sources say about a subject. But you have chosen to use your own personal opinion and bias to decide what is "blatant racism", and "manipulation". That is WP:ADVOCACY and inconsistent with the core policies of Wikipedia. Furthermore, your assertion of "as it happened" vs "as it is" is fallacious, because there is no such a thing as an "objective truth" when presenting viewpoints, which by nature are not facts. You are basing your entire argumentation in a misreading of our core content policies, that our role as editors is to report on a purported "truth", when our role has nothing to do with that. My view is that we have to bring this dispute to WP:DR, be that the use of RFCs or mediation, given the significantly different interpretations of core elements of Wikipedia content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

These are all the legal experts commentary in the controversy section. As you can see, without exception all were made after the decision was rendered, making them "post-analysis". That is why it does not make sense to have two different sections.

• Citron: Nov 25 - Post analysis
• Sullivan, Toobin, Cohen: Nov 25 - Post analysis
• Fitzpatrick: Nov 25 - Post analysis
• Trachtenberg: Nov 25 - Post analysis
• Abrams: Nov 26 - Post analysis
• Ruby: Nov 27 - Post analysis
• Nolan : Nov 28 - Post analysis
• O'Donnel: Nov 29 - - Post analysis
• Sterling Silver, Dec 6 - Post Analysis

- Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cute, calling me an arbiter? You added this source maligning the prosecution because the incident report that was just released was not in ABC News hands. You added the Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. comment "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result." - That is a claim of manipulation and bias. And what of this James A. Cohen pick, "[McCulloch] did worse than abdicate his responsibility: He structured the presentation so the jurors would vote no true bill." which is another accusation of manipulation and deliberate and flagrant dereliction of duty. Jay Sterling Silver is calling McCullough's announcement Orwellian and criticized the grand jury's "no true bill" as a failure. You stand Jeff Roorda's comments on its head, the is even source which is titled "McCulloch supporter: McCulloch never intended to indict Wilson". which shows a clear an inherent bias in the reporting. Editors are supposed to pass judgement on sources and remove factual inaccuracies and inappropriate personal opinions being advanced as fact. This is part of the core of Wikipedia policies for WP:IRS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[Sigh]. -NPOV is to report without bias significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources - Are you saying that these opinions are not significant? Are you saying that these sources are not reliable? Or are you saying "I don't like it"? Which one is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Collectively the POV expressed by those sources is certainly notable. Individually, each restatement of that POV is generally not notable. Hence the RFC we have going to summarize instead. Giving 10 quotes that all essentially make the same argument is not neutral. We don't achieve neutrality by putting every sour cable quote into the article, and saying "we are neutral, because they are proportional to the real world, because our sample size is the same as the population". These POVs are important, and should be included into the article, but we need to do it the correct way. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I already agreed with the need to summarize. But what we are discussing is ChrisGualtieri's attempt to suppress the viewpoints of legal analysts such as Cohen, Sullivan, Silver and others, because he believes "they got it wrong" or that they are "biased" I am starting an RFC - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not suppression, clearly critics made arguments and were covered by the media, but that does not make their arguments true. It is a case of WP:NPOV "opinion as fact". You may call it an opinion, but you are legitimizing it by drawing attention and attempting to back up the criticism by name and title despite the premise of the argument being fallacious. I do not take any pride in making "legal experts" look bad so I prefer responding to criticism of critics who make bad arguments without calling them out. Immortalizing and drawing undue attention to bad arguments are also a WP:BLP issue of sorts, because it is a form of public shaming. Which is why I need to revisit Casselman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never said that their arguments are true. They can be true, they can be false, or any shade in between. We follow the sources and attribute viewpoints to those that hold them, without bias and in a neutral manner as much as possible. NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Amusingly, I just did a spot check on the publication dates of all of our controversy sources. All of them are dated on or after November 25, 2014, when the prosecutor's office released the grand jury testimony and definitely after the decision to indict. The only exception is Dan Abrams, who released his analysis on November 24, prior to the document release (which, by the way, makes me question whether he's a reliable source for this). Therefore, the post-decision section makes no sense in the context of the controversy. General consensus here seems to be that the post-decision section contributes nothing but confusion to reader understanding,so I'm gonna go ahead and re-integrate it into the rest of the section. --RAN1 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources?

Are viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion if they paint a negative view of the prosecution, or represent biased opinions? - 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Permalink [55]

Details on legal analysts

• The legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker
• the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute
• a law professor at Fordham University
• the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association
• a University of Missouri law professor
• the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News
• the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department
• a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• an experienced defense attorney
• a professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC Survey

• No - not in all cases. In all honesty, the RfC question is probably a bit too broad to be able to allow reasonable responses. There is no definition of "legal analyst" provided, nor an indication of the relative reliability of sources, and there are other concerns as well. I would suggest working toward a clearer and more answerable question might be in order, and also adding the RfC to the more clearly appropriate category for politics, government, and law. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• complex. negative opinions are allowable under BLP, but a section full of randomly picked quotes are probably not. Agree with John that a more narrowly tailored RFC needs to be formed, perhaps trying to build consensus for a particular proposed section. If the version linked in the RFC is such a proposal no because it is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The critical viewpoints are very notable, but we need to write a section describing that criticism in a summary style and not just list off everyone who said something about the GJ or prosecutor. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No per John Carter. The legal analyst could be an arm-chair lawyer who has no perspective, training or familiarity with the matter at hand. The article is already full of cases which those with no insight of background have been used to advance a certain viewpoint, often against their intention by the media. If the analyst is incorrect on the basic premise of the argument, then the entire source is compromised. There is no requirement to give multiple points of view on an issue if the argument is critically compromised - it would be seen as giving authority in defiance of fact. Each case must be examined and weighed, not just the "talk heads or angry voices" which shout nonsense. Again, any legal analyst who says the grand jury was flawed because there was "no rigorous cross examination by the opposition" is not reliable statement of opinion, no matter who might say it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, if the sources are reliable and the legal expertise of the commentators is not questionable. In this case we are talking about the legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker, the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, a law professor at Fordham University, the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association, a University of Missouri law professor, the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News, the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department, a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, to name a few. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Vaguely worded survey, but would agree with complex as well. If the negative and biased opinion of the legal analyst had itself received significant and widespread coverage, then yes it's suitable for inclusion. Dershowitz ripping Corey over Zimmerman comes to mind, he's notable, qualified for legal analysis and it was widely reported on. The way the legal analyst's opinions are being used in this instance - No - this looks like a farm of quotes set up to deliberately attack McCulloch, as they don't impart any significant or encyclopedic information and are sometimes wrong or misrepresented to imply wrongdoing by McCulloch. The 27 year veteran wrote that it was "McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify" and then goes on to rip him for allowing it. This is false, as it was the grand jury's decision to let Wilson testify, not McCulloch, an obvious BLP issue. The lecturer from John Jay doesn't even mention the grand jury at all, his opinion is about the handling of the shooting and its aftermath and talks about police departments. And who is Ronald Kuby and why should we care what his opinion is? The POV pushing going on in this section (and article) needs to be curtailed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

RfC Phrasing

I agree with Carter, this question needs to be better defined. The real question here seems to be "Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" I'm not particularly set on the second sentence phrasing, but it's as close as I can get it. --RAN1 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also add that another subject of concern would be when and under what circumstances the comments were made. I imagine all of us know that some public figures tend to lunge at any camera in their vicinity, sometimes doing or saying rather unusual and sensationalist things to get their name in the news and their name recognition higher. Also, honestly, although I haven't checked in this case, play-by-play analysis of a proceeding while it is happening is generally much more problematic than post-game review. Anyone who remembers the O.J. Simpson trial and its wall-to-wall contemporary coverage will probably be able to think of at least a few statements made by the talking heads involved during the case which were, well, perhaps regretted by those individuals later. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

John, see the thread above. All the comments in question were made in the few days and weeks after the grand jury decided not to indict and focused specifically on the prosecution's handling of the proceedings. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings, after the release of the grand jury testimony, suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" How's that? --RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed phrasing will be a very good follow up to this RFC. I think we are too late into it to change it now. It will be great to hear comments from uninvolved editors, as we are way too close to this and we all know when each one of us stands on the issue give or take. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove the opinions

This was originally in response to my OP in #RfC Phrasing. It has been refactored to this section since it is a different line of discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Even still, the answer is no because "neutrally-summarized" does not mean the argument is supported by fact. Having a job in the "legal" field does not mean you suddenly become an authority on all aspects of the law. Each case is unique and must be evaluated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

From a closer analysis, 6 of the 9 legal analyst opinions are coming from law professors or attorneys proper, arguably experts of the field. While state statutes in the US might be vast, that hardly means that those opinions should be summarily dismissed. Also, I should note that your comment doesn't clarify whether the question is more appropriate for the survey. --RAN1 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There is already an agreement that we need to summarize these viewpoints. The purpose of this RFC as specifically worded, is to assess if the viewpoints of these legal experts can be summarized in due course. ChrisGualtieri's argument is that these are not to be used at all, because they are "fringe", "racists", "false", and so forth, thus the need for an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I explained perfectly, each case is unique and must be evaluated. The entire section linked by has very serious issues underpinning each argument which may not be obvious from the conclusions provided on this page - but in effect entire list has problems which would make it fail NPOV or RSOPINION. This normally results in the removal of the problematic source and replacing it with a better argument or summary in a better source. I've already explained why some of these are so problematic on McCullough's page, it would be trivial to detail them again here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So, basically what you are saying that you have deconstructed the opinions of each one of these legal experts, and you , ChrisGualtieri, has decided that they are worthless and that they need to be replaced. Did I get that right? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting you: to be blunt every source from November 25 and 26ish are going to be uninformed responses by individuals who did not have the grand jury documents in the first place. - This is the core of the dispute. You are arguing that without the GJ documents, their opinions are useless. But even if that is right (most, if not all the opinions where made after the documents were released), many of the opinions are unrelated to the documents, or the evidence, and focused on the GJ process and the prosecutor's actions. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, my argument is that without the knowledge of the situation those opinions critical of McCullough in the case are ignorant. It reflects the notion of "trial by media" and has absolutely no bearing on the facts. The documents have not all been released, the first batch was covered in this time period, but it hardly represents a complete picture. It is easy to criticize a result you do not agree with, but it is difficult to admit that it was fair and would never have gone to trial. Smerconish took the time and came to the realization the same as many others. An uncomfortable reality for many, but... that is sometimes the case. Delving into criticism with nothing more than unsupported allegations and poor conjecture is not a valid argument - it is like going through the Kübler-Ross model. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

At least we are now clear on what the dispute is all about. In a few words, you believe that these sources are ignorant and a "trial by media" (whatever that means) and thus should not be included. Fair enough, let the RFC run its course. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I removed the wiki linking to United States v. Williams in that section where it was being used to support the opinion from Citron. This is the United States v. Williams case he is referring to in his opinion piece, which was about something entirely different than the WP article about child pornography that was being linked to. Probably an oversight, but still we should always double-check to make sure what we are wiki-linking to actually supports the text, especially in that section. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Thank you. Time to create United States v. Williams (1992) - [...] requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Wow. Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Did the grand jury subpoena Wilson

• Comment - Where did you find that the grand jury subpoenaed Wilson? If that's true that is a major BLP issue that is not subject to RfC. --RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson volunteered to testify and the grand jury allowed him to. The grand jury was in charge of this investigation to decide whether probable cause existed to indict, not McCulloch. The grand jury had the option to issue a subpoena, but he volunteered instead and the grand jury heard his testimony. It was not McCulloch's decision to allow or not allow Wilson to testify once he turned over the investigation to the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The grand jury isn't the only one who can issue subpoenas, the prosecutor has that right as well. Also, you don't "volunteer" to be a witness - the court has to issue a subpoena first. You can invoke the Fifth after the subpoena has been issued, but Wilson didn't in this case. It's entirely possible McCulloch issued the subpoena. If there's really a BLP issue here, there should be better evidence of that. Judicial process seems to indicate the absence of a BLP violation. --RAN1 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Witnesses can be compelled to appear to the grand jury by subpoena, but the fifth could be invoked at that time. If you submit willingly you are cooperating and do not need a subpoena in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I still don't find any evidence in sources that Wilson participated in his own accord, and given that the proceedings were secret and directed by the prosecutor, not the prosecuted, Wilson probably did not have the ability to have the court to hear his testimony without them serving a subpoena first. --RAN1 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That is why we need to stay close to the sources: Veteran defense attorney John Rogers, who is not involved in this case, said Wednesday, “It’s unusual but not unheard of for a prosecutor to extend an invitation” for the target of an investigation to testify to a grand jury. He said he had rarely allowed it. [56]

Basically, all and every piece of evidence or witness presented at a GJ hearing is at the sole discretion of the prosecutor, or by subpoena. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Source for that assertion? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I take it neither of you have actually read Wilson's gj testimony, where they actually discuss the fact that he volunteered. He volunteered, therefore it is not possible that McCulloch issued anything, why would he, he wasn't investigating the case, the jurors were and they said OK, why wouldn't they? Personally, I can't understand the criticism. Wilson wants to testify to give his version of what happened to substantiate his self-defense claim in person to the jurors and the jurors have the opportunity to hear his version in person, assess his credibility in person and ask him unfiltered questions without his attorney present, and somehow that's worthy of criticism?

Even ignoring the very obvious 5th amendment argument where he cannot be compelled, and therefore he obviously volunteered, and the GJ testimony just mentioned by CG, there are numerous secondaries saying this for us. One of them is even already in the article, sourcing the statement that he was not obligated. [57]Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

From the grand jury testimony, the prosecutors spoke to Wilson's attorneys before testifying for the court, so the testimony was at least arranged for by the prosecutors. Invoking BLP here on a criticism of the prosecutors letting Wilson testify seems out of place. --RAN1 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source [58] "narrative of self-defense put forth by Officer Wilson in his voluntary, four hours of testimony before the grand jury" I am not commenting about if its BLP or not. I havent followed the discussion above closely enough for this particular issue. But a source was asked for, and they have been provided.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless Ran1 cite a source to back up the accusation that McCulloch personally made the decision for Wilson to testify, then it is a BLP issue. You need to be very aware of who is being implicated and for what action. Saying "prosecutors let Wilson testify" is changing the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing the subject how? The source we're debating specifically says "McCulloch's decision to allow the target of a grand jury investigation to actually testify before that grand jury is practically unheard of". That isn't different from "prosecutors let Wilson testify". Again, I don't see how this is a BLP issue. --RAN1 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It still clearly implicates that McCulloch decided to allow it. Though, you are getting into specific legal matters which become complicated and are completely inappropriate to discuss here. Either back it up or it stays out because that is not how the process works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple, really, the prosecutor has full discretion to allow any witnesses to testify. Wilson indeed volunteered to MacCulloch, not the grand jury. So MacCulloch allowed it, and the criticism is a fair one. No BLP issue whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel reinserted an unsupported accusation under discussion, a BLP violation, acknowledged by two editors back into the article. It is fair to assertion that Ran1 and Cwobeel do not know the law. Nolan doesn't even understand the processes - you are going to need something better to back up that McCulloch personally made the decision. Also, you restored factually inaccurate material as well. The whole source and paragraph fails WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

....Point of order, "this is not how the process works" - which process? Your argument has moved on from contentious and poorly sourced to "getting into specific legal matters". This has nothing to do with BLP, so I suggest we come to some sort of compromise about this. --RAN1 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Two editors, policy and my section certainly point out the issue. Take it there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Witness 40

Witness 40 (the one with the obviously racist diary entries about going into Ferguson so she could meet black people and stop calling them N-s) has been doxxed by TheSmokingGun and stories picked up by blogs and other (some reliable) sources. Thus far all sources seem to be pointing back to TSG, so I think going too much into detail will result in BLP issues. Therefore, I don't think we should focus much on her as an individual , but she could be used as an example of the "outright fabricated" witness statements (Along with the witness who claims Brown was on his knees and shot at point blank range in the head, and then shot in the back 7 times while face down)

40's credibility was already discussed prior to doxxing by many reliable sources, and the prosecutors themselves raised issues with her credibility in front of the GJ. [59] [60] Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we reporting witness #40 testimony in the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it not unusual to present witness testimony to a grand jury, when the prosecutor knows 100% that the witness was not really a witness, or when it is obvious that the witness lied (with evidence that shows that he/she lied)? Puzzling. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The records and in this case the CNN source reads, "Some, however, told entirely contradictory or made-up stories and were called out by prosecutors, who went to great lengths to discredit some witnesses." The purpose of the grand jury is not just to rubber stamp convictions, that screening can be handled by the prosecutor in advance. Typically grand juries are a step on the way to the trial process that does not confer a major advantage to the defense with the alternative - a preliminary hearing. In this case, the grand jury was doing the screening and ultimately prevented a critical and costly public backfire that would have come in a preliminary court hearing even before the trial phase. There was some unusual aspects, like Wilson speaking without an attorney and all of the data entered with the ability to be used in actual court trial if it occurred. It is pretty clear that very unreliable witness accounts were part of it, however, their presence does not represent a liability for the prosecution at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Extra note: From another perspective. If a witness enters into the record a false account, their "usefulness" ends and they could be charged with perjury in exceptional cases. The defense would not call a witness to provide false testimony - that would devastate their case. Also, the grand jury is not a trial, so this records their testimony. The grand jury is a filtering process and a check to see if a case could be successfully brought in court. To make it blunt: If Wislon was indicted, no one would have called witness 40 to testify - to say otherwise would be laughable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is peculiar that a prosecutor would bring an obviously fake witness to testify in front of a grand jury. I don't think there is a precedent for this type of action by a prosecutor. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Enough said. --RAN1 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ran1, stop trying to control the discussion. This is not a forum issue, the fact that sources are highlighting a BLP issue and are discussing it with a highly negative slant and using it to attack the prosecution, the process and the "lack of indictment" is problematic. We cannot even LINK these pages per WP:BLP - which applies to talk pages - but we can certainly discuss what we see and comment on its relevancy and merits. To conclude Cwobeel's arguments - it is not unusual in cases and doubly so in cases like this. The witness has done this before. Though Witness 22 and 35 could have lead to indictments except they were false, 40 was well.. directly and immediately discredited by prosecutors according to secondary reports and the documents. Claims of collusion and such are more of the ignorant and biased commentary from what passes as "news" these days. Another may surface soon. We just need to not touch this BLP nightmare because the family of the person is being targeted. Can we agree that per WP:BLP we will keep all identifying information of this witness off Wikipedia - it is a "hot topic" right now, but let a week or two pass before evaluating it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

At least we agree on something. No identifying info whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tim Nolan removed

Given the BLP issues which incorrectly comments on grand jury operation, claims bias and misconduct and that it was personally "McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify" when all documents show Wilson volunteered and cooperated with the jury. Further evidence that Tom Nolan is not a reliable source is that he has no understanding of the prosecution process. The argument that "Robert McCulloch could’ve indicted Michael Brown’s killer himself. Instead, he barely pushed the jurors to charge the cop and allowed the unprecedented step of letting the officer testify."[61] He argues "the prosecutor has the option to bring charges against a defendant directly before a judge without invoking the grand jury process at all." without calling it a preliminary hearing. This allows the defense to cross-examine. Tom Nolan does not indicate that the process does not understand the basic premise that McCulloch does not indict and bring the case to trial, it would go to a judge who would then decide if probable cause exists instead of the grand jury. Nolan's arguments do not reflect procedure or fact and the opinion piece clearly shows that. It should not be used and it makes a BLP issue by its use and unsupported assumptions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We are in the middle of a discussion above at #Did_the_grand_jury_subpoena_Wilson, so why the rush? I will revert. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And there are a number of sources besides Nolan making exactly the same point. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just explained above how that reasoning is botched. The prosecutors arranged with Wilson's attorneys to testify in court on the day he testified, so they arguably allowed him to testify in court. You're stretching some pretty silly arguments to invoke BLP, reflected in the fact that you're criticizing him for not talking about the preliminary hearing process in detail when a cursory reference would do just as well given the context and the audience. The additional perspective that McCulloch brought the grand jury investigation to Wilson's attention without precedent and that there's a double standard, given he's a veteran, is reliable, well-sourced and verifiable. BLP really doesn't cover removing this. --RAN1 (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is another source: The grand jury deciding whether to charge Wilson has three black members. The deliberations are secret. A prosecutor assigned to the grand jury has enormous sway over the outcome, by deciding what charges to consider, what evidence to present and who will testify [62] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And another one: [63] Veteran defense attorney John Rogers, who is not involved in this case, said Wednesday, “It’s unusual but not unheard of for a prosecutor to extend an invitation” for the target of an investigation to testify to a grand jury. He said he had rarely allowed it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I see a bunch of generic statements, but no citations of case law or procedure to actually connect that McCulloch personally made the decision to have Wilson testify. Per WP:SYNTH none of these directly make the connection and it is a WP:BLP accusation. NY Law states "CPL article 190 governs grand jury proceedings, and CPL 190.50 specifically discusses the defendant testifying at the grand jury- The right to testify at grand jury is a statutory one. A defendant who is denied the right to testify may bring a motion to dismiss the indictment." And "once the case is out of local court and has been referred to the grand jury, the DA's notice obligation is over. At this point if the defendant wants to testify, it is defense counsel's obligation to serve written notice on the prosecution. Given the law and proceedings, there may have been multiple factors and these may not have been something McCulloch can just "decide". Right now the two of you are WP:SYNTHing an argument and trying to defend the inclusion of a source that cannot even figure out basic process from a (likely) unqualified person from a completely different state and jurisdiction. Provide proof or remove it, it is not that hard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Um......this is far from showing the statement is contentious and poorly sourced, I suggest we come to a compromise about this instead of jumping to BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: and I agree - the statement is unsupported and contentious. I clearly showed Nolan is unreliable. The accusation is a BLP issue because it is an allegation against McCulloch by a person who is attacking McCulloch and trying to place personal blame on McCulloch for an allowing or deciding that Wilson could testify. The law is complex, but grand juries call witnesses and Wilson came voluntarily. There is no reliable evidence that Wilson testified or was allowed to testify by McCulloch by fiat. Do you two understand that your arguments are logical fallacies? They do not actually connect the accusation to established fact. If you cannot, then it is false. False accusations are, by definition, BLP violations on Wikipedia. But more importantly, they are false and should not be included on Wikipedia because they fail WP:V. So I ask again. Can you VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment and McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented and choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.? Prove it or remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say that it was under McCulloch's discretion that Wilson testified. What's the point of arguing otherwise, when we have plenty of sources that assert that? Maybe WP:DROPTHESTICK? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, we can't "VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment", but we can VERIFY that there are a number of experts that asserted that opinion in reliable sources. NPOV and V 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I do see CG's point on this. People have criticized McCulloch and in doing so have implied certain facts. That is not sourcing for the fact. Including their quote in a way that has the wiki implying that fact is problematic. I agree with you that notable opinions (even if wrong) are includable by WP:NPOV but we need to find a way to include them without leading the reader down the Primrose Path. As far as I know we have NO sources that actually directly indicate how Wilson came to testify. Did he show up and ask to be let in? Did the GJ ask for him? Did the prosecutor subpoena him? We have a big void there (unusual for this case!) and we can't let the opinions of people who are themselves uninformed as to this basic fact drive the way we present this (non)fact Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom Nolan

RFC

This RfC concerns the following content:

Tom Nolan, the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department, wrote that McCulloch's failure to secure an indictment, given that grand juries are under direction of the prosecution, indicated that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment. He also said McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented, as targets of grand jury hearings are usually kept unaware of the investigation. He also stated that the prosecutor choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.

References

Should this be added back into the article or should this stay out per WP:BLPREMOVE?

For reference, WP:BLPREMOVE states that contentious material that is poorly sourced or not sourced, based on a conjectural interpretation of a source, relies on self-published sources, or relies on sources that fail to meet WP:V standards should be removed in violation of WP:BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC Survey 2

• Stay out - It contains three unsupported BLP accusations which are sourced to an opinion piece with an agenda, logical fallacies and ignorance of the legal process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose inclusion - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ..." Prosecutors can't indict on their own, as ChrisGualtieri said, and there is a very good reason for this. Also see Grand juries in the United States, and in particular this cited source on subjects of investigations. Stop including factually incorrect sources in this article, especially with extensive quotations.Roches (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• stay out the "' failure to secure an indictment" part is just opinion bashing and is a tautology to boot, the "unprecedented" bit could be used but would need to be tweaked in light of the confirmation we have from other soruces that such does happen and is allowed but is rare, the final bit about grand jury vs direct is relevant but covered sufficiently elsewhere and repeating it doesn't add anything. To the points above by CG and Roches, Missouri law allows for "indictment by information" which means the probable cause hearing - its clear that is what they are referring to. because people didn't use the right technical terms is not cause to dismiss their opinions - we have plenty of other reasons to do so, don't WP:GAME things. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Include in summary of legal experts opinion - Nolan's opinion is not that different from the opinion of most of the legal experts that discussed McCulloch's approach to the case. The vast majority of legal commentators, as well as a substantial number of media sources have leveled similar criticism, with a few exceptions. The argument that the criticism is a BLP violation is unfounded, as we are presenting expert opinion described in reliable sources. Not including Nolan's and other legal expert opinion will be a violation of WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
• Stay out - Nolan is certainly entitled to his opinion, but when his opinion implies serious wrongdoing against an individual, and there are BLP concerns associated with his opinion, then his commentary should be evaluated to determine if it's acceptable for inclusion. In this case, we should be asking if his opinion imparts any substantive encyclopedic information that would help the reader to better understand this "controversy" - no it doesn't, it's just an opinion piece attacking McCulloch. Err on the side of caution and leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Article title: Prosecutor Used Grand Jury to Let Darren Wilson Walk

Opening argument: "Robert McCulloch could’ve indicted Michael Brown’s killer himself. Instead, he barely pushed the jurors to charge the cop and allowed the unprecedented step of letting the officer testify."

Clearly not a reliable source for numerous reasons. Aside from being a clear opinion piece, the personal feelings and emotion of Nolan are unabashed and naked with comments like: "It had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence and everything to do with the prosecutor’s unwillingness to try the case in court and his reluctance to incur the wrath of the law-enforcement community to which he is so incestuously tethered." Nothing about this source maintains or even gives the appearance of neutrality. Too many arguments are rooted in absolutes and factual inaccuracies to hold any objectivity or value as a Wikipedia source. The usage is for three serious BLP accusations:

• McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment
• McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented
• Choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.

Cwobeel said these are not BLP issues as he restored the material. WP:YESPOV's "Opinion as Fact" refers to all three of these claims. Nolan argues that grand juries "are at all times completely and unalterably under the control and direction of the prosecutor." This is a gross perversion and demonstrably wrong, just like Nolan's concepts of indictments. The preliminary hearing option, the alternative, is not quick and simple in these cases and the defense gets to cross-examine the witnesses and provide evidence while the judge could still find no probable cause. For many reasons, the source is factually inaccurate and unacceptable for use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, the reasons you stated above are strong ones, and I felt the comments I made above were sufficiently strong to go in "Survey" rather than "Discussion." The way to stop abuses of power is not to strip away the laws that protect people from abuse of power. Also, "criticism" in the "he should have done something more in line with my politics" is being presented as professional misconduct, as a deliberate attempt to misuse the system and break the rules. In other words, if McCulloch did what he could within the confines of an imperfect justice system, then he can't be faulted for his performance, even if it can't achieve the supposedly desirable result.

There shouldn't be a double standard with respect to an officer's conduct, but that's not what's being talked about. There is no double standard if police officers have the same standard as other cases of justifiable homicide. (FBI's "Crime in the United States 2013" shows 414 justifiable homicides by police, 3% of the total, and around 281 justifiable homicides by private citizens, with a total of 13,716 murders and cases of non-negligent manslaughter) Roches (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel your !vote is somewhat making my larger point I've made elsewhere. If this guys opinion is repetition of other opinion we have, what additional value does it add? If its a widely held opinion, we should say it is a widely held opinion not repeat it 10 times and hope the reader gets the idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: we have agree already, but you need to note the strategy pursued by Gaultieri. He is asserting that the summary should not include any of the criticism, so I am arguing first for the inclusion of the source, and we will worry later about hiow to summarize it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury instructions

I made some changes to the "grand jury instructions" section.

• There is a use of [sic] in what might be originally spoken material.
• Removed the reinterpretation beginning "In other words"
• Koster's statements: Removed "misleading", "admitted" and repetition of "information regarding the use of force ..."
• Jost: Removed "the grand jurors had in mind..." as it is unknown what they were thinking; kept "unring the bell".
• Flanders: changed "laid criticism" to "said"
• Freivogel: removed "to criminalize police action." When a law is found to be unconstitutional, that does not mean that a legislature must, or should, criminalize the opposite of that law.

Please consider these before reverting. In particular, what is at issue here is the use of force against suspects trying to escape. I would imagine many potential jurors have Tennessee v. Garner in their minds already, since the ruling is almost 30 years old. In the Brown case, the use of force was in self-defense, not to prevent escape or effect an arrest. Roches (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You have made deep changes to that section ignoring what the source says and making your own commentary. You can't do that. If the source says In other words, the prosecutors instructed the jury that they had to find not only that there was probable cause to believe Wilson had committed a crime, but also that he did not act in self-defense and that he did not use lawful force to make an arrest you can't delete that because you think the source is incorrect. We report what reliable sources say, not what we believe is right. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I am sure that everyone here wants the article to be a great one, after the countless hours that we have invested in it, but give that Wikipedia does not need you, I am removing this article from my watch list for a week at least, and focus on other articles for a while. Have fun and happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)