Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Eyewitness video taken after shooting by Tiffany Mitchell, a resident of an apartment overlooking the incident

Tiffany Mitchell's video contains the best elevated point of view footage (aka photos) I have seen of the incident area, including both the police officer's SUV apparently just as it was when he got out of it to pursue Brown and Johnson, as well as a clear view of Johnson's body. One can see the direction that the front wheels are turned in, suggesting that he did in fact drive forward on the street after speaking to the two young men, then backed up as Johnson claims, then pulled forward placing the car's front bumper at about the curb, the car diagonal against the lane furthest away from Mitchell's apartment, i.e., on the police officer's left as he would have been driving forward. Tiffany's eyewitness account given to KMOV is extremely exculpatory with respect to allegations made by police that Brown either pushed the officer into the car, assaulted him, or tried to take his gun. I post this as I retire for a time to sleep in hopes that others will pore over the report by KMOV and bring as much of Mitchell's testimony into the article as possible. And in hopes that we can find a usable still frame from that video to show to the world what the scene looked like to those who came out on hearing the gunshots on Saturday. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I had to remove some content that was referenced to the video because it was original research. We're not allowed to view the video and then add our analysis or interpretation to the article. We can directly quote Mitchell, as long as it's done with WP:DUE weight.- MrX 12:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand. It's a shame that we can't just put up a photo from that video to allow the readers to draw their own conclusions. Clearly the placement of the SUV supports the statements made by Dorian Johnson and Tiffany Mitchell. Omitting photos and videos may be the right thing to do with respect to copyright, but it is hugely prejudicial to withhold such evidence from the public when such evidence is so patently exculpatory with respect the serious allegations that the police have raised against a young man who is not here to defend himself because they expired him. Do I sound like I have an opinion on what happened? I just want fair. All things considered, the way information is being suppressed in this article voids any claim that this article is fair in the highest sense of the word. Just sayin' -- 'cause it's true. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you Michael-Ridgway. Unfortunately, I do not have a Wikipedia account, and I am not interested in creating one, so there is nothing I can do to improve this article. But I did want to show my support, because every comment you have made on this talk page has been valid, and necessary. Thank you for that. 75.27.42.188 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have ideas for what we can do, feel free to communicate with me. I hope it's not against the rules to give out my email address. It's miketangoromeo@gmail.com. I'm a very open book guy and have no worries about spammers getting my email. They all have it already anyway. There is a correction I need to make though. The video does not show Darren Wilson's SUV. In the picture, the yellow tape is already up. He had driven away, if an eyewitness in one of the videos is to be believed. So it's all just a lot of people who came outside at different points in the course of this very noisy event. First squealing tires, then as many as 9 bullets fired at intervals. As best I can tell, there are probably no photos of that vehicle that could show how it was positioned relative to Michael Brown's body which lay there, as we know, for an extended period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Add photo file to article

Note: Graphic depiction of the deceased!

Extended content
File:Michael Brown Dead on Street.jpg Can the above file be added to the article?

[[File:Michael Brown Dead on Street.jpg]]

In short no. Long reason: It is shocking, of debatable origin, and is more likely to provoke the situation further. Restraint is needed in this delicate matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And "of debatable origin" here means "a likely copyright violation uploaded to the Commons under a fake claim of copyright". I'll nominate the image for deletion over at the Commons. Huon (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is highly irregular, Wikipedia isn't supposed to show restraint, it is an encyclopaedia, if there is a copyright problem, it will be deleted at Commons. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with @Yogesh Khandke:, Wikipedia is not censored. I think a picture would likely be useful to the article. If there is an issue with the image over on Commons, they will sort it out. I would support adding this image to the article. Zell Faze (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While a picture would be a good addition, this photo of Brown shot on the ground is not the appropriate content. A normal picture of Brown is acceptable, such as this Brown picture. Frmorrison (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is funny, this article is about the shooting of Brown, and if we are lucky to have a picture of the immediate effect of the shooting, Brown's corpse lying on the road, the picture should be there in the article. I'll wait for a while and be bold. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Photos for the article

I spoke to the webmaster for KMOV news in St Louis tonight about getting access to some photos that we can post on the website that won't violate anyone's copyrights or property rights. She was more than happy to be of assistance. Is everyone in agreement that photos would be an improvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 02:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that any such images would likely need to be verified via WP:OTRS if they have ever appeared in any media or if their is a belief that the images are of a professional nature. As a webmaster, they are likely to hold the actual rights because Wikipedia will need to have them as CC-BY-SA and not be copyrighted or have their "rights" sold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I am a semi-professional photographer and I am probably heading to the area Saturday. If you can get permission, that's great too. Best. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned on Twitter several times that this article needs Creative Commons photography. It's just a matter of getting the word out. kencf0618 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I just emailed Sarah at KMOV TV in St Louis in follow up to our phone call earlier today to see what kind of arrangement we can work out (committed to text so that I can post it here) for at least one or two pictures. Believe me, they have so many that they are never going to publicize that they can probably spare one or two was the sense I got from talking to her.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you can get us photos, I would definitely support adding them to the article. Zell Faze (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's already assured. But someone with authority needs to tell me how to proceed so that it's all by the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Police account of events section

The section is currently titled "St. Louis County Police account" and while the first paragraph is an account from St. Louis County Police, the remaining two paragraphs are cited to the Ferguson police dept. Different title name is needed for this section or create a sub-section for Ferguson police statements about the incident. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done- MrX 16:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Question, what happened to the earlier reports from the police that the events occurred as part of a routine patrol? The relevant material from http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-chief-worst-night-of-my-life/article_588ca269-0299-583f-b047-702a4268314b.html:

'[Police Chief] Jackson also explained more about the encounter between Michael Brown and the Ferguson officer who shot him Saturday. He said he didn't think it had anything to do with a strong-arm robbery on West Florissant Avenue earlier in that day.

Jackson said he thinks it was a "routine patrol encounter."

"It was just a clear-the-road type of incident," Jackson said.' 161.40.12.124 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

it seems pretty clear that mister jackson doesn't really know the specifics of the situation and appears to simply be guessing. Otherwise the article wouldn't have went out of its way multiple times to use the word "thinks".Whatzinaname (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree, but it appears that he made a similar statement this afternoon. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown

'The officer who stopped Brown wasn’t aware that the teenager was a suspect in the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday afternoon. He initially stopped Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, because the pair was blocking traffic as they walked in the middle of the street, he said.'161.40.12.124 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his initial attention to them had nothing to do with the burglary. And this initial attention ALSO had nothing to do with the shooting. If was when he realized they were the burglary suspects THAT is what the shooting incident stemmed from. This is in the police report and has been said by johnson, and it's even stated in the article you linked. Unfortunately MSNBC morons are a little too stupid to understand what happened, as they puzzle over why he supposedly says one thing and then says another. But i don't think it's his fault so much of the media is full of morons who lack basic logic skillsWhatzinaname (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Darren Wilson a Murderer

Should there be a section titled Darren Wilson is a Murderer, that briefly explains that Darren Wilson meets all the criteria for being a murderer? It seems like there should be, because his actions fit the exact definition of the word murderer: one who murders; especially: one who commits the crime of murder (which is itself defined as: the crime of deliberately killing a person). Of course, this is just a suggestion, but it seems like a good one. 75.27.42.188 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No. In the United States, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Since Wilson has not been charged, no.- MrX 19:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In order for Darren Wilson to be guilty of murder under Missouri law, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) he committed an act specified in MRS 565.020 or 565.021 and (2) he had no defense under Missouri law. That has not happened. Dyrnych (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

However, it might be wholly appropriate to reference any of the numerous articles which are out there now which define the standards for when killings are judicially justifiable and when they are not. The whole story is going to come down to that now --

It might also be worth looking for sources that speak to the question of whether a neutral jury pool can be found in this case, given the amazing amount of notoriety that attaches to it, and given the fact that for six day, the discharge of as many as nine bullets appeared, to any truly neutral observer (that's not me, of course) to be unjustified.

Perhaps articles which deal with both of these issues could be added to the SEE ALSO section. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While this is an interesting philosophical question, I am not sure that this article is the place to debate whether someone is a murderer. Whatever our personal opinions about the police officer in question, whatever we think about him doesn't matter as much as what opinions we can verify and attribute. Another interesting philosophical question is: "If (hypothetically speaking) Michael J. Fox calls Darren Wilson "a murderer," does that belong in this wikipedia article?" I would say it does not. Peace MPS (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Barring a conviction, it would be improper to associate with "murder" to any person for that is the realm of the courts. Wikipedia policy is clear about this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We went through this with Trayvon Martin. The incident was a homicide, under all circumstances. Any killing of one human by another is one, regardless of it was legal or justified, or not. Murder is a subset of homicide where the killing was illegal and meets a very specific set of criteria. Whetehr an incident does or does not meet that is dependent on the results of a trial (or guilty plea), however statements saying that it was a murder may be relevant but must be dealt with under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV not as statements of fact in wikipedia's voice. 23:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

To the un-identified commentator: Murder can only be attributed after the court ruling on Wikipedia. I don't care who claims it, they better be judge and jury before direct attribution of "murder" is slapped on someone. The reason is WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK Wilson hasn't even been charged, let him be, then Wikipedia can inform, not till then. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On Day 1, word on the street was that Brown was suspected in a convenience store theft

Here's video we can use that supports the surprising claim made in the section heading. http://www.kmov.com/video/raw/Raw-video-Witness-describes-officer-involved-shooting-scene-270621691.html (Sorry to omit the link the first time. It's ready for use now.) Partially choppy unofficial transcript made by me.

 BRITTANY: So the officer was in the car?
 WOMAN: He was in the car shooting the boy.
 He wasn't standing out.
 - - - -
 He was in the car shooting the boy!
 He was in the car shooting this boy!
 - - - -
 They say he was supposed to've took something out of Quik Trip.
 I don't care.  He didn't have no gun.

We should have a second reference that we can use presently. KMOV is working on finding it for me.

There is no rush. We shall wait for a secondary source to report on this. It will not be added to the article until that time. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And even then... not until someone fact checks it and that it is referenced properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Found another one. Anyone want to help me transcribe it? It's a self-published YouTube video of a person who claims to have seen a great deal taken from within an apartment likely in that neighborhood. He talks about suspicions that Michael stole something from the Quik Trip. A discussion ensues with people in the room not visible in the camera (apparently an Instagram video) where they clarify which store was actually the target of the shoplifting (as they viewed it at the time). http://www.mikeridgway.com/ace/vstable/start.php?id=tfy5FiqzWHI The software for transcribing is something I just happen to have been working on for a few months now for collaboratively transcribing YouTube videos. If you're not able to edit this article, you're welcome to help with this. It shouldn't take long. But he does talk fast so it will take a little effort to get it all. But we start with the automatic captions so some of it was transcribed by Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

For a reliable source, Youtube is not usually one, but especially because the person who is giving the account is unknown and not proven to be credible by any other newspaper or official. Wikipedia does not make the news or take blindly from questionable sources, please wait for this to be picked up and evaluated by the media - at minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Robbery in lead?

It seems like there's a substantial WP:WEIGHT issue in mentioning the robbery in the lead. The officer who shot Brown did not know about the robbery and there's no indication that it had anything to do with the shooting (and every indication that it did not). Given that this is the case, can someone supply a rationale for including the robbery in the lead? Dyrnych (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The text in the lede reads that the robbery was unrelated, so I don't see an issue with leaving it there. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If it should be left in the lead, one of the two nearly-identical sentences that mention the robbery should be deleted. I'll go ahead and do that, although I still don't think that it warrants a mention in the lead. I see you've already done this. I've slightly rewritten the remaining sentence. Dyrnych (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the long sentence that was recently added. The other sentence already refers to it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The officer didn't know about the robbery. Brown DID know about the robbery, and more importantly, didn't know that the officer didn't know about the robbery. Being immediately involved in a crime just before interacting with police, makes it a lot more plausible that Brown acted in a way that was, or could be construed a threat by the Officer. This analysis has been made by 3rd parties, and noted in reliable sources. It may or may not be related, do we have reliable sources specifically describing it that way? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Long time no see! Been awhile since I last bumped into you! Seconding Gaijin's comment here. Anything concrete? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A reunion, I see. Here is what is in the article now: “Obviously the cop's reaction is not affected, but what could be affected is [Brown's] reaction to the cop.” [1] Isaidnoway (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the coverage in the body is fine on that point. The question is how to say it in the lede. I think saying the robbery was 10 minutes prior to the shooting is important, and we should only be saying "unrelated" if thats the description used by reliable sources. We can say the cop was not aware of it but "unrelated" is a little strongly WP:POV I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ferguson police chief said at the time the officer stopped, he didn't know about the robbery, but once the officer saw Brown, he supposedly saw cigars in his hand. I don't know how you would say that in the lead without fleshing all that out. I couldn't tell you if the term "unrelated" is supported by the RS there. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute...how can you say the robbery was irrelevant? Just because the officer did not know of the robbery, does not negate the lack of respect for authority and propensity toward violence toward authority (i.e., the store clerk), that Mr Brown demonstrated. In fact, the behavior Mr Brown displayed toward authority in that store video, corroborates the description of the incident with the police officer that was given by the police department (i.e., when Mr Brown is challenged by authority, he will resort to violence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the post above. Even if the officer was unaware of the convenience store robbery, Brown himself was certainly aware of it. Furthermore, Brown did not know that the officer was unaware of it. In fact, Brown probably assumed that the officer was indeed aware of it. Brown likely suspected that the officer was approaching him about the robbery (not about the jay-walking). This goes to Brown's state of mind in his dealing with the officer due to Brown's misperception of the situation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, guys: unless an RS says this, it does not belong in this article. You can certainly believe this, but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: Is it your claim that RS's are not mentioning the robbery as a part of the whole "Michael Brown shooting" story? Really, is that your claim? If not, why exactly does the robbery topic not belong in the article? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I said initially that I didn't think that the robbery belonged in the lead, and then revised my view. Nowhere have I said that the robbery doesn't belong in the article. My point was that the speculation about how the robbery affected anyone's state of mind does not belong in the article unless an RS makes that claim. Don't argue with straw men, please. Dyrnych (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: Point out for me exactly where I (or others) stated that speculation belongs in the article. I'd like to read where I supported adding speculative comments to the article. If indeed I did so, I'd feel obliged to retract that. So, please point it out for me. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If your purported justification for including information in the article is speculation about Brown's beliefs or state of mind, that is inappropriate. That is precisely the rationale being advanced by both you and the IP editor above. Here are two examples of your speculation: (1) "Brown probably assumed that the officer was indeed aware of it"; and (2) "Brown likely suspected that the officer was approaching him about the robbery" (emphasis added). If you are advocating adding information to the article on account of either of those, you are advocating that information belongs in the article based on speculation. Dyrnych (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to split hairs and play semantic gymnastics. It is laughable to think that the robbery issue does not belong in the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Literally no one is suggesting that "the robbery issue does not belong in the article." Read the title of this section and stop arguing with straw men. Dyrnych (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I remind editors that this is not a discussion forum. That goes in particular to Joseph A. Spadaro comments, Gaijin42, and the anon 181.129.196.77 - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: My post above was not a "discussion forum". It was my response to whether or not the robbery was important and whether or not its mention belongs in the lead of the article. And, the reasoning behind my response. So, in other words, I was "talking" about the content of this article (i.e., whether or not certain material was germane to the article and why certain material was or was not germane). That, I believe, is the very purpose of this Talk Page. Am I incorrect about that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing the relevance of information, and arguments which are being discussed in reliable sources, and is currently in the article. That is not a forum. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you, Gaijin42. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Gaijin42, Isaidnoway and myself did a fair amount of weighing on "breaking news" and sources on another page and quietly dismissed and prevented the addition of bogus reports and other "dramatic" material by weighing the evidence and not running blindly with "X said Y". Such type of discussions are establishing the level of connection and cutting off yellow journalism by getting to the base details without all the fluff and speculation. While "state of mind" is rather useless, but the evidence that the officer was responding to the scene of a reported crime is relevant. Saying who was aware of what and their mindset is speculative, at best. Careful wording is always a top priority in a BLP article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys/gals, but the speculation above (for example quote: Even if the officer was unaware of the convenience store robbery, Brown himself was certainly aware of it. Furthermore, Brown did not know that the officer was unaware of it. is not for this page. Not needed. Thank you for your consideration. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: What on earth are you talking about? Regarding the following quote of mine: "Even if the officer was unaware of the convenience store robbery, Brown himself was certainly aware of it. Furthermore, Brown did not know that the officer was unaware of it." Yes, that is exactly what I stated. I never said that that quote of mine needs to be placed in the article. Nor did I state that the substance of that quote needs to be placed in the article. That quote was used as my rationale in arriving at my conclusion that the robbery is germane to the article. Whether or not the robbery is germane to the article is the exact topic of this Talk Page thread. So, stop accusing people (i.e., me) of inappropriate conduct. That's twice now. I am doing exactly what this Talk Page is intended for. Don't tell me what quotes and what topics and what content I can or cannot use in supporting my arguments. Also, stop putting words in people's (i.e., my) mouths. If it continues, I am taking further action. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To my point. Your speculation is not welcomed. Of course, you are free to continue with it, I am just stating what I see as inappropriate. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: You are calling it "speculation". I am calling it "my reasoning, rationale, and argument in support of the position that I am advocating on this Talk Page (i.e., that the robbery topic is germane to the article)". Which, again, is the exact topic of this Talk Page thread. And, again, the very purpose for which this Talk page exists. What exactly is inappropriate about taking a position and giving reasons that support the position taken? Especially, in a Talk Page thread in which I am taking a position on the very topic under consideration. Please advise. Also, please stop instigating trouble where there is none, with your inflammatory accusations. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As you have a right to assert your opinion, I have the same right too. Have a good night. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: You do have the right to your opinion. What you don't have is the right to accuse others of inappropriate conduct, simply because their opinion disagrees with your opinion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel, No one has been asking for speculation to be added to the article. This discussion started because someone suggested that Mr Brown's robbery of a convenience store be dropped due to the cop not knowing of that robbery at the time he first stopped Mr. Brown. Myself and other have only been making arguments as to why the robbery is relevant. We were not arguing that speculative information about state of mind be included, but instead pointing out why the robbery was relevant to the story (i.e., it could affect state of mind). It has now been learned that when the police officer originally approached Mr Brown and Johnson he did not know about the robbery, but while observing them, he learned of the robbery and Mr Brown fit the description of the suspect - thus the original call to remove the info about the robbery would have been speculation.

By my reading of this wiki page it is absolutely full of speculation on the part of people who have already tried and convicted this cop. Mr. Brown has been portrayed as some innocent gentle kid. The convenience store video points to him being something different than that speculative portrayal. And while Mr Johnson's statement of what occurred during the confrontation with the police officer is his actual statement, this wiki source should make clear, in the same or next sentence, that Mr. Johnson was at Mr Brown side while he committed the strong armed robbery. While the article should not speculate about Mr Johnson's statement, it should provide the full information so that readers can realize that in fact Mr Johnson's statement came from someone that had more skin in the game than just being a casual observer. Withholding information such as the robbery and the fact that the key witness making accusations about the police was involved in that robbery comes across as nothing more than a nefarious attempt to sway opinion. A lie of omission is still a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To IP User 181.129.196.77: you are 100% correct. I agree with your above post. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? The robbery is mentioned in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by asking: "What is he talking about? The robbery is in the lead" ... ? That was the exact item up for debate, whether or not the robbery is pertinent to the article (and, where it belongs). Yes, it may be in the lead now. Yes. But, it was proposed to be removed from the article altogether (at the onset of this thread); or, at least, to be removed from the lead. That is what he is talking about. He was responding to that proposal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No. No one has ever suggested that the robbery be "removed from the article altogether," as you'd know if you read the title of this section and the words that people are actually using. Dyrnych (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych:How does that address the issue at hand? IP User 181.129.196.77 was responding to a proposal about whether or not the robbery should be mentioned in the lead. And he gave his reasoning to support his opinion. That was the topic of this entire thread. No? And then Cwobeel asks him what he is talking about. So, I told Cwobeel was he was talking about. That is the gist of the conversation. So, again, how does your post address this issue at hand? You also opine that I should read the thread and pay attention to the words that people are actually saying. (Implying that I have not done so.) If you would take your own advice, you can re-read my above post. It very clearly states: "It was proposed to be removed from the article altogether (at the onset of this thread); or, at least, to be removed from the lead." Do you know what the bold clause means? Do you know what the word "or" means? Those are exactly "the words that people (that is, me) are actually using". Therefore, is not your advice to me somewhat hypocritical? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for help

I'd like to request the help of an administrator. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I responded to the tag placed by JAS. I read the article, and this section, went out and took a walk, came back and read both again. Here's my read.

I don't see the NOTAFORUM problems being alleged, I do see the relevance of the discussion above to questions of what should be in the article.

There is a serious question asked at the start of this section. It is "Should the robbery be mentioned, and if so, how?" That is an important question to get right, and I'm sure there are divergent views on it, and feelings are running understandably high--a fact I'm sympathetic to.

My recommendation is to abandon the threads above, and, if you are unhappy with the current text, start a new subsection asking a concrete question with some oppose and support columns. That may help. And please, everyone, try and exercise just a little more AGF and patience with each other duringg such a contentious news event.

That is all. I am closing this request. You are welcome to reopen if it if you want the opinion of another admin, or, consider dispute resolution. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 03:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

Please change the following sentence:

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States. Brown was an 18-year-old African-American male who died after being shot multiple times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Brown was unarmed[1][2] and had no criminal record.[3]

The fact that he had "no criminal record" is irrelevant in light of the convenience store video which clearly shows Michael Brown (who was accompanied by his friend Johnson) committing a robbery and a violent assault. The fact that Michael Brown had not been caught committing a violent crime to date and therefore did not have a "record", is a bit disingenuous in light of the fact that only 10 minutes before his confrontation with the police he was involved in a violent robbery at the convenience store. In fact, the early description that the police gave for how the confrontation with Mr. Brown went down, seems very similar to Mr. Brown's behavior towards the convenience store clerk (i.e., Mr Brown would not accept authority and demonstrated an absolute desire to use violence to challenge authority). The fact that he had "no criminal record" must be qualified with a note that he was caught on video committing a violent crime, and demonstrated a disdain for authority.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not donePersonally, I agree, however are you aware of a source directly comparing the two facts? If not it is WP:SYNTH and we cannot include it. Currently we have the two facts in adjacent sentences in the lede, which is the best we can do, unless a WP:RS is making this argument (not a blog etc). Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he had no criminal record is highly relevant, because criminal records are established by the courts, rather than by you, personally, watching a video clip and drawing conclusions (about his "disdain for authority", sheesh) from it. For purposes of the article, he has been accused (in a self-published statement by the the police department, which is not a reliable source) of being involved in a robbery. Yeah, maybe if he'd had a trial he would have been convicted. Or maybe he would have been hit by a meteor, but we're not going to put him on List of people hit by meteors.

lolMichael-Ridgway (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem with saying "no arrests or criminal record." The citation is to a statement from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney. However, their records include only ADULT arrests or criminal record, not juvenile arrest or criminal records that have been sealed. There is no way to know if arrests or convictions were made if they were sealed. Thus, it is true there is no record, but false to claim that the absence of a record shows he was never arrested. Several persons have posted elsewhere that Michael Brown was arrested in nearby St. Ann at age 17. There is no way to confirm this or refute it. The problem is compounded by the fact that Mr Brown just turned 18, making it unlikely there would be an adult record anyway. I suggest just eliminate the "arrest or criminal record" claim. It appears only to provoke sympathy for this person not objective fact.

This is still under WP:BLP and this article must be more careful then whatever the general media is running with. I don't care if this article is not "up to the minute", but there is absolutely no need to try and BE the news. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page has been changed a ton to show a certain biased perspective. The robbery incident has continually been obscured. The witness accounts are placed prominently above a crucial piece of information for the prosecution. The "context" in the witness account shows a clear agenda. Talk of the KKK is prominent when it bears no relevance to the case. Sy9045 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir/Ma'am, I believe you are asserting a biased perspective that is projecting a bias that is not within this article. There is no agenda but only a citation of facts that happen to be relevant to this article. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "facts" can be obscured and presented in a way to show a certain bias. The original "Overview" was rewritten to prominently show a bias in favor of Michael Brown supporters. The robbery incident was shown below the witness accounts, which was quickly followed up with a "Context" that shows the racial makeup of the Ferguson police force to imply a racial bias on the police. Sy9045 (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to relax a bit, and assume good faith. This is not a battleground in which "supporters" and "opponents" are fighting for their point of view. We are reporting what reliable sources say, and that is the way of Wikipedia. If you has specific issues that are actionable we can discuss in here to arrive to a consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to stop politicizing this article. You've shown blatant biases throughout the day (first you stated we should rely on primary sources, then when the primary source is show, you change your position). Please stop. Sy9045 (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The robbery incident is prominent in the article, and we are reporting what is being said in numerous sources. Please be patient as this is a rapidly evolving situation and not all the facts are yet known. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The robbery incident was hidden at the bottom of the "Witness Accounts" section. Sy9045 (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "hidden". It is in the article in the lede and in the appropriate section. Please don't revert with major changes without discussion, as many have work hard during the day on the article, and you are undoing a lot of that work. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You're showing a blatant disregard for neutrality.Sy9045 (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am digging up facts as fast as I can about the robbery. But the thing that is at the heart of this controversy is what caused the policeman to stop Michael and Dorian. The police today admitted that the officer was not aware of the robbery when he approached him. And as we speak, the number one article on Google News is from the New York Times and it's titled: "Officer Stopped Teenager for Blocking Street, Police Say" I've listened to the pirated dispatch recordings. I believe that the police are being truthful in their claim. If it is true that the officer didn't know about the theft/robbery, then it has little bearing. It is an interesting side fact. It has to be included. But not before a discussion of the shooting itself.Back to the central question we go.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it does have bearing: If Brown had just committed a crime moments prior he would absolutely be nervous when a patrol car pulls up. If the Officer felt like something was off and decided to investigate further it might just have been enough to push Brown to make poorly judged actions. Its a very viable possibility. Also, digging up facts isn't necessary. The report was released. Video available. "News articles" are just reporters who write about the reports with their own spin. We are not investigators. Provide the official facts and let others build their opinions.-JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 07:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Is there still a need for the POV tag in the article? Perhaps Sy9045 could explain what about the current content is not neutral and what changes are required to make it more neutral.- MrX 12:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree @MrX:. I've removed the tag for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

8/16: A new insight into potential motive for the officer backing up and confronting after he seemed to be driving away

From the New York Times article of 8/15, titled

 Any suggestion that Officer Wilson sought out Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson because they were robbery suspects, 
 however, was dispelled by the police chief at the afternoon news conference. Adding to the day’s confusion, 
 Chief Jackson told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch later on Friday that while Officer Wilson did not originally 
 approach the two youths as suspects, he was aware of the nearby store robbery.
 THE OFFICER HAS SAID THAT ONCE HE SAW CIGARS IN MR. BROWN’S HAND, HE “REALIZED THAT HE MIGHT BE THE ROBBER,” 
 CHIEF JACKSON SAID. (Emphasis added.)

Sounds plausible to me.

But boy did they bury that one deep down in the article! Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, I agree with you. Some people editing this page have a clear agenda. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I better clarify. BOY DID THE NEW YORK TIMES WRITERS BURY THIS WAY DOWN IN THEIR ARTICLE. I'm not giving anyone here grief for how we're doing what we're doing. It's Madison theory of factions. Strong opinions on both sides will keep this fair in the end. Me, I admit to believing that the police aren't being as forthcoming as they could or should be. But this piece of information makes sense to me and might just explain what has seemed so inexplicable for all of these days of double shift editing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The editors that have repeatedly obscured impartial facts like these are embarrassing to the Wikipedia community. This is such a shame. Sy9045 (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors like Cwobeel who have repeatedly shown a complete disregard for impartiality should be suspended from further editing. It is an absolute outrage that this is allowed to continue. Sy9045 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw the press availability where the Ferguson Police Chief made those comments. What he said was maybe that's what happened. He didn't say that is what happened. Earlier he gave a definitive statement that the officer did not know at the time of the encounter. I could look it up if it's important. ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Police officer's version of the encounter

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

Just FYI. "Alleged Friend of Officer Darren Wilson Offers His Side" is farther away from the subject than you ever go for reliable information on something like this. This has been proven time and time again. You may watch it, but please do not think about adding something like this to the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Please re-read my above post. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please restate, too many comments, too much text to infer which you mean. I don't want to misunderstand or draw the wrong conclusion from your comment which I cannot identify. Thanks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In a nut shell, I was not advocating to place this info into the article. I was giving editors the "heads up" that this is what is being reported as the officer's (purported) version. And we should keep an eye on further developments (i.e., as to where this goes, or if it goes nowhere). And use the subsequent pertinent info to add in the article, as appropriate. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if other news sources did pick it up and ran with "alleged", would you be comfortable wanting to use it. In my opinion, if she came forward and was vetted and did an interview, then it can be used and attributed to her, but if she doesn't come forward and all we have is alleged, regardless of who is reporting it, I don't know... Isaidnoway (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Me, as an editor, am willing to look at anything, if for no other reason than to look for tipoffs to truths that might not jump out at me if I don't at least hear what is being said by someone who claims to be bringing accurate information to light. It's been working so far, if I may say. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

- - - Okay, I've listened to that video/audio several times now and the more I listen the more I can tell you it's not going to get picked up by anyone. Darren Wilson knows very well that he can give the world his version of events at any second and that there will be hundreds of reporters hanging on his every word. The last thing he needs is to make some third party grape vine player his conduit -- and then to make Dana Loesch the next link in the grapevine. Oh boy. To me this is a slick way of sneaking out the talking points to the folks who desperately want the policeman to be exonerated because of how unpalatable the alternative is in the grand scheme of things. And if I were looking for a way to sneak that out into the ether, I'd use the Dana Show too.

As I say, Darren Wilson doesn't need people like this to tell his story. His name is known now. It was known when this recording was made. He is of age and can speak for himself. Until he does, this kind of stuff has no business in this article, in my opinion.

I take a different position with videos made of people who didn't want their names known who were witnesses to the shooting or at least claim to be such. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the forum, but I think it would be extremely instructive to be able to take every YouTube video there is where someone claims to be an eyewitness, catalogue them all, including the date of upload -- very important -- as in the case of the video I found today that talks about "cigarillos" uploaded on the 10th of August. And then just compare and contrast all of the claims made in every one of them -- and then put that synthesized wall of information side by side with the tiny drips of information we get from the police every 24 or 72 hours or so. And see which one stands the test of plausibility. I've been digging through this stuff so deep and hearing enough from people who talked to the people who talked to the witnesses -- I can tell you -- the journalists have their minds made up -- because they know there is no way all of those stories could have aligned so quickly on Saturday if they were all false. I mean think about it. I have three videos already that I have found where an African American with tight ties to that neighborhood talks about the suspicion that Michael Brown stole cigars, cigarettes, cigarillos. One of them identifies the Ferguson Market (going off of memory). But the rest of the world only came to know about the cigarillos yesterday (Friday). So dear journalist. If you're reading this as you prep for another day of work on this story, why not go out and get a Pulitzer prize by fleshing these witness accounts out to where we can quote them on Wikipedia. You won't have to give me any credit at all. I don't want credit. I want the truth. So do a few people out there whose minds aren't resistant to facts, I believe. And yeah, I know, that's not everyone. Believe me, I do. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Please everyone remember that were an encyclopedia, not a news source. Our purpose is not to publish novel information or conduct our own analysis of events, and we especially should not be analyzing raw video footage. There are plenty of reliable sources for coverage of this subject. We simply do not use questionable sources in pursuit of truth.- MrX 12:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No one's analyzing raw video footage in the article. Happily, my one and only venture down that path was reverted. Thankfully, as I learned later from KMOV that the vehicle in a photo that I thought was Wilson's vehicle was not his vehicle at all. But I would beg to differ as to what this article is. For the last nine days, this article has been the one persistent reference for the lead story on pages such as News.Google.com, which still show the respect they have for Wikipedia by giving us that kind of authoritative endorser as the dispenser of a reliable summary explanation of all that IS going on CURRENTLY and has gone on for the last 9 days. Fact is, there is so much happening that the small number of editors we have can't keep up. But the world expects us to be on top of things -- and not a year from now. Now. Which means we have an obligation to be as current as you would expect Wikipedia to be if you weren't an editor and were just checking in to get your daily briefing on what is going on so that you, a politician, or a journalist, or an educator, or a police officer, can speak intelligently to the question should the topic come up in your work or in idle conversation. I am a self-employed programmer who isn't programming this week. When this comes to some state of partially resolution, I won't be a Wikipedia editor anymore. Because white paper stuff isn't really what I do. But I think that the need for people to be able to know what is going on -- in this story -- is extreme. For those who need a refresher after a couple of days disconnected from current events, we're a great resource -- if we do our jobs right and well. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Robbery prior to the shooting

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

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

Why is mentioning the racial makeup of the police force fine, but mentioning the racial makeup of the three witnesses out of bounds?

It's already a racially charged section in itself. Either we remove it or we mention the races of the witnesses to provide impartiality to the article. Sy9045 (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Once we work out an agreement with KMOV on the use of their photos, this won't be a problem. Photos will say. We won't have to. Of course, we may never get a photo of the white policeman. See how life isn't fair, Sy9045. My desire to make it more so is why I'm doing this instead of earning income this week. But it goes both ways. It really does. Be patient. This is a work in progress and I've been impressed at how much we have gotten right -- in time. [Takes arm from behind back -- back to typing.] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not complicated. Just follow our best sources. If they mention the race of those involved, then so should be. Of course, photos would be helpful too.- MrX 12:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

New (for me, anyway) information from another alleged witness to the shooting who isn't afraid to go on camera.

YouTube Title Eyewitness speaks on the murder of Mike Brown URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfy5FiqzWHI Upload date: August 10 Quarter of a million views and climbing on this version of the YouTube video which the person uploading admits is not his. This video and other copies of it appear to be going viral in the hip hop community nationwide. Would hope that we can get a reliable source that runs with it, gives us this man's name, etc., because it includes allegations which are clearly plausible and should be weighed with the statements of the other witnesses, I believe. Coarse language may dissuade some news organs from making this one available if they have seen it at all. Of interest is a deep discussion that takes place as to which convenience store Michael Brown was accused of shoplifting from. Note that this video was posted on YouTube on August 10 and so it was either recorded on Saturday or Sunday, five or six days before police released information to support a claim of strong arm robbery (with shoplifting) against Michael Brown. That being the case, I hardly think this video is a fake. Further, the witness claims to have seen the officer use the door as a weapon against Michael, in the same way that we sometimes see in action films involving police and criminals. He gives no support to the claim that Michael was in the car at any time. Refers to him as the meekest of meek souls -- someone who was so quiet and deferential that if he knocked on your door, you couldn't hear him. He clearly knew Michael personally. If any of you run across this video on a reliable source site, please post the reference in response to this post. Thanks. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"other forms of social unrest"

In the second paragraph the article states:

"The incident sparked reactions within the St. Louis suburb and at the national level, including peaceful demonstrations[8] and protests, acts of vandalism and other forms of social unrest,[9] as well as national calls for an investigation.[10]"

"other forms of social unrest" is an obscure description for looting and burning.

References

I am going to replace it with "looting and burning".

Tomtul2 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2014

Please change the following sentence to more accurately reflect Michael Brown's character: "Brown recently graduated from high school and was about to begin college studies. He had no history of arrests or criminal convictions.[3]" by adding the following: "...however, a convenience store video, taken 10 minutes earlier, caught Michael Brown committing violent felongy strong arm robbery of a local convenience store"

The way this currently reads makes Michael Brown seem like an innocent kid. The video shows he was a thug and a bully, who had no inhibitions about using his size and weight to bully people. While the police officer may not have known that Michael Brown had just committed a strong armed robbery, Michael Brown and his accomplice Johnson did know they committed a strong armed robbery. That is the only relevant point that matters here because Brown had reason to believe the cop was stopping him for the crime he committed only moments earlier. Thus BROWN HAD A MOTIVE TO ATTACK the cop, whereas the cop had no motive to just shoot an innocent Mr Brown UNLESS MR BROWN HAD ATTACKED HIM.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Partly done - All of that content already exists in the first paragraph, but it does look like a copy edit is in order. Connecting two unrelated facts together with the word "however" would tend to breach WP:SYNTH, so it would be best to avoid it.- MrX 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mr X, are they really unrelated facts? They both speak to Mr Brown's character (i.e., never arrested, seen on video committing robbery). However, the never arrested is irrelevant (as the following will explain) while the robbery is factual and relevant.

Here is my reasoning: I have many friends who, in their early 20s, sold things that they should not have been selling. Some of them got caught, were arrested and convicted, however many never were caught. Those who did not get caught are no more innocent than those that did....they just did not get caught. For me, the sentence..."He had no history of arrests or criminal convictions" is irrelevant and a red herring because it does not speak to Mr Brown's actual character, it only reflects that he had not been caught committing a crime (maybe because he had never before committed a crime, but that is speculative, or maybe because he had just been lucky, which is also speculative). And that is the problem I have with the "arrest and convictions" statement....it is meaningless in defining Mr Brown's character. The video on the other hand provides a pretty clear picture of his character (at least on that particular day at that particular time). Maybe that was the first time he committed a strong armed robbery, maybe it is something he did daily, but it is certainly more relevant than the fact he never got caught.

What cannot be denied is that only minutes earlier he instigated a violent confrontation with the store clerk. I am not a human physiologist, but I am a doctoral level biologist, and it is hard for me believe, 10 minutes after his violent confrontation with the store clerk, that Mr Brown was not still pumped up on adrenaline. I am not speculating about state of mind here, rather I am speaking of true physiological response. Even a Zen master would not be able attenuate the adrenaline surging through his veins that soon after the confrontation with the store clerk. By far the store robbery is far more relevant to the events that happened 10 minutes later than that fact that Mr Brown had never been arrested. And not qualifying the "never arrested or convicted" statement with the "however" statement is misleading in that it obfuscates and diminishes a relevant character trait that Mr. Brown displayed only minutes earlier.

By the way, does the "arrest and conviction" statement include juvenile records? Or only things that may have occurred since he turned 18 (which was less than a year earlier)? Has anyone request an FOI for Mr Brown's school records? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing "Brown had no history of arrests or criminal convictions" and "Wilson has served four years with the Ferguson Police Department, two years with another local police department, and has no disciplinary history" from the lede, although I do think they are relevant parts of the story for the body of the article. Not to sound like a parrot, but we do not used original research or editor's analysis of facts in articles. We do not allow ORIGINALRESEARCH←Please read this carefully If it is not in a published, reliable source it can't go in the article.- MrX 17:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

KKK reference

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

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

You may be right. It doesn't seem that the mainstream media is really taking note. I won't object if someone want to remove it.- MrX 14:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That is supported by a WP:RS and should remain as part of the reactions to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

it should be deleted. There is no evidence that Wilson authorized such fund raising or would accept funds from the KKK. Scam artists shouldn't be mentioned especially given BLP concerns. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

RFC

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

Survey

• not include WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV WP:BLP many groups say many things. This group has no relationship to any of the participants, organizations, city, etc at all. Its inclusion is obviously meant to be salacious and create a guilt by association (when there is no actual association) thats a clear WP:BLP issue. Yes, it is sourced, but everything which is sourced is not necessarily included. This is not a significant part of the story, and it has not gained any traction in the many many sources which are covering this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't Include Per Gaijin42. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. Having watched a few hours of news coverage, this didn't get mentioned once. It seems WP:UNDUE to include this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include per AQFK, unless it becomes some big deal, or there is more too it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include I cannot even believe this is an RFC.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean we have to include it. There is nothing notable or relevant about this content. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude as being inflammatory with no basis for any claim that the police officers support such a KKK action at all - thus it is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and the onus is on those wishing to include those allegations to demonstrate that they comport with the policy. Collect (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• of course include' - This is part of the record of this event, and reported by several reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude Zero relevance to the incident. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Include It happened. It is connected to the event. People want to know about it. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include For the reasons I've given above. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak include It's reliably sourced and related to the incident. That said, it's not terribly noteworthy in the context of the incident. I'd say include it for now, though I note that there are legitimate concerns about undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I don't have much of an opinion on this either way and I tend to agree that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive. I did notice that there is some coverage now in the media: [2][3][4][5], FWIW.- MrX 19:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive, it's more a question does this "material" rise to the level of relavence and noteworthyness that it merits inclusion? At this point, no. As I said above, IF it becomes some huge deal, then yes, reconsider inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I disregard the attention getting part of my argument and focus on WP:DUE weight, that puts me on the fence leaning toward include. So far, we have at least four good sources, and quite a few weaker sources. If coverage of this increases in the media the next couple of days, then I would likely !vote to include the material.- MrX 20:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we report what reliable sources say about the subject without bias. This is a valid and interesting point regardless of how we may feel about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• When a highly controversial organization makes a statement like this during a national story, we should not be surprised that it would receive some attention in the media. However, WP is not a place to try and sell newspapers or get internet clicks. It serves no purpose to use WP to further inflame the situation and play towards the goals of the KKK, especially when their supposed support of the officer has no relevance to this event. Arzel (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is controversial or salacious or gives someone we don't like attention. If it is part of the facts of the story, it should be included. The Michael Brown story is extremely racial, so there will be extremists on either side and people in the middle reacting to the incident. It should all be reported if it is part of the story. The only question we should be asking is: Is it a significant part of the story. People who read WP want all the facts. They don't want other people to make up their minds for them. They want to read the facts and make up their own minds. There are people who see the story as Oppressors/Oppressed. There are others who see the story as Chaos vs. the Rule of Law. There are others who see it as Freedom vs. Police State. Everyone would like the slant the story toward their own particular viewpoint. But the best article will just tell the facts and let each person make up their own mind.174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ths is widely reported, including international press:

• The Independent (UK): [6]
• UPI [7]
• RT (Spain) [8]
• Prensa Latina [9]
• International Business Times [10]
• Salon [11]
• Liberty voice [12]
• Uptown Magazine [13]
• The Real News Network [14]
• MintPress News [15]
• The Inquistr [16]
• Brasil Post [17]
• El Mundo [18]

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

As of now the shooting incident has about 500,000 news hits on google. The KKK angle has less than 5,000. This is not a significant viewpoint. It doesn't help that most of your sources above are fringe. Arzel (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

fix bad writing by continually looking at big picture

We must continually look at the big picture, then write the wikipedia article.

In this case, the dead man has been accused (but not charged due to his being dead now) of robbery, leaving the scene, and a confrontation with a policeman (who was unaware of the crime), which ended in a shooting and protests.

We shouldn't report it as a time log. For example, a kid shot, then protests, then new information.

If we report 9/11 that way, the wikipedia article would read that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center and may be an accident. Oh, a second one crashed into the building oh. We don't know who did it.

The way we handle 9/11 is that after a very short summary, we start from the beginning.

In this case, we should start with that the shooting resulted in rioting. Then we start from the very beginning, such as the robbery.Actually, it looks like shoplifting and a confrontation, though legally it might be robbery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Eventually, I'm sure we'll refactor into chronological. Since this is a rapidly evolving situation, it's easiest to keep things in order of public knowledge. Once the content stabilizes, I agree we'll likely move to pure chronological. --Darmokand (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stephanie, this is incorrect: "who was unaware of the crime" As has now been reported (but buried in many news articles) when the officer first saw Brown and Johnson he did not know of the crime. As he was observing them, he heard on the police radio about the strong arm robbery (i.e., grabbing the clerks shirt and pushing him makes it an assault) and the description of the suspect, which fit that of Mr Brown. That is when he went back and confronted him. Even without this information, the robbery would be relevant because Mr Brown and Mr Johnson were certainly aware of the crime they committed minutes before the police officer confronted them. We can not speculate on how that would have made them react to the police officer approaching them, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

this article is so laced with biased leftist invective it's a virtual propaganda piece

it's quite clear this article is atrociously biased and uses tons of political talking points and manipulation of quotes and context of those quotes. Almost everything in the lede needs to be purged back to the most basic details of the actual shootings instead of this blatant attempt to politicize everything. Unfortunately the media's liar lefties learned little in the Trayvon martin incident are back to their old game of racist yellow journalism and shoddy journalistic standards in general, such as seizing on the fact that the "initial stop" was the perp was blocking the highway, but not when that was the same time he realized it was the robbery suspect. when does the "initial stop" begin and when does it end? And why is it even being made an issue? The media just makes it up as it goes along. Whatever is best to manipulate the teaming morons reading their headlines seems to to be their modus operandi, apparently.Whatzinaname (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about the media don't belong here.

Could you be more specific about how you believe the article is biased? I just revised the lede to make it as factual and straightforward as possible. What would you like to see changed? - MrX 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually gave a very specific and detailed example. and it's pretty much par for the course. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so your talking about "..., although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery." This is almost exactly what the police chief said in his original interview yesterday. Isn't this also what most of the sources are reporting? - MrX 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX the "although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery." is misleading. Initially the cop had words with them for walking in the middle of the road. He drove away slowly and was observing them. Then, he got word on his radio of the robbery and a description of Mr Brown. It was at that point he went back and confronted Brown, and Brown allegedly attacked him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please convince me with sources.- MrX 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your own statement reinforces that the text we have is correct. initially the cop had words with him for walking in the middle of the road, then he got word - that directly supports the statement that "initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it may be technically true, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the initial stop. At the initial contact between Wilson and Brown, the officer was unaware these were the suspects in the alleged strongarm robbery, but while he was still at that location, he did become aware they matched the description of the alleged robbery. The article should reflect that reality and say that at 11:51 am, Brown was observed at c-store allegedly commiting a strongarm robbery, at 12:01 pm Officer Wilson is on his way in response to the 911 call of strongarm robbery, sees Brown and Johnson in the roadway and stops to tell them to move out of the roadway and onto a sidewalk, unaware these are the suspects in the robbery. While still at that location, hears description over radio, it matches Brown, officer wilson sees cigars in Brown's hands and goes back and re-engages and a confrontation occurs. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Another issue is that in the "Shooting incident" section, the first paragraph implies that the reason for the physical encounter and subsequent shooting is because of Wilson telling them to get off the street and onto the sidewalk. It says that Brown and Johnson were walking to grandma's house. Wilson drove up and ordered them off street and onto sidewalk. An altercation ensued which ended with a shot being fired in police car and wilson pursuing them and shooting brown. That paragraph implies that the altercation and shooting arose out of wilson telling them to get off the street, it completely leaves out the fact that after he told them to move out of the street, he became aware that they were suspects in an alleged robbery and he re-engaged with them. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX, the source is under the headline above: 8/16: A new insight into potential motive for the officer backing up and confronting after he seemed to be driving away (NY Times).

My issue with the "although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery. is that it is inflammatory. It makes it appear that the cop had no reason to have contact, and Mr Brown was the sweet angle that they media has portrayed him. What we have since learned is that initial contact was nothing more than the cop telling them to get out of the road. After that, the cop got a description of the person who committed the crime and realized it was Brown. And Brown was not a sweet angel but a man with a propensity to violence.

I don't agree with Whatzinaname politics, but it is pretty clear that the media and many on this wiki page have been hijacked by the far left, and they are more interested in crucifying this cop than getting at the facts and presenting the truth. The convenience store video unequivocally demonstrates that the initial picture of Mr Brown portrayed by the media, as a sweet innocent boy, was nothing more than a fabrication. He had clearly demonstrated a violent tendency only moments before his run in with the police. Portraying this accurately is important because the life of a cop, who likely was doing nothing more than protecting his own life from an attack by a demonstrated violent person, is on the line. It is a shame that the officer had to use lethal force to protect himself from someone who only moments earlier committed a violent assault (we have the video to prove it). A much bigger shame, is the continued crucifixion, here and in the media, of that cop for taking the action he needed to, to protect his life from that of a violent thug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to take you seriously when you write things like "...it is pretty clear that the media and many on this wiki page have been hijacked by the far left". Also, did you read The policy that prohibits original research as I suggested above? I'm guessing no based on comments like:

• "It is a shame that the officer had to use lethal force to protect himself from someone who only moments earlier committed a violent assault" (How could you possibly know this unless you are the officer. If you are, you should declare your WP:COI)
• "He had clearly demonstrated a violent tendency only moments before his run in with the police" (no, he demonstrated violence, not necessarily a "tendency")
• "...that cop for taking the action he needed to, to protect his life from that of a violent thug." (Just wow.)

- MrX 18:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX..."Just wow". So you mean, grabbing a man 1/3rd his size, and pushing him into a store rack, and then facing off toward him until he back off is not a violent thug? Sorry, he displayed the actions of a violent thug. Certainly not the "gentle giant" that he has been portrayed to be. And his family's lawyer has suggested that there are other things that "happened in the 18 years before [the shooting]", which he feels do not matter. So while he displayed violence, his lawyer has tangentially suggested that there are other things that "happened in the 18 years before the shooting", which is suggestive of a tendency.

Time Article quote from Brown family lawyer: At a press conference late Friday afternoon, lawyers for the family admitted that it appeared to be Brown on the surveillance tape of the robbery released by the police, and said that Brown was not a perfect kid. The lawyers said the effort was a “strategic” move by the police to distract attention from the shooting. “What happened in the 18 years before [the shooting] does not matter,” one of the attorneys, Anthony Gray said.

http://time.com/3118559/ferguson-cops-tell-their-side-of-the-story/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Ffashionweek+(TIME%3A+Fashion+Week+)

This is YOUR ANALYSIS, and you are free to believe it. We don't rely on your (or any other editor's) analysis, though; we edit to reflect what reliable sources say. Dyrnych (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of victim's ethnicity

I do not see how the fact that Michael Brown was African-American is relevant to the case and should be included in the lede. The protests that followed the shooting were against police brutality, and racism was not a major theme of the conflict and the shooting. 98.15.254.104 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed "male"

I've gone ahead and changed "African American male" to "young man of African American background." The wording "African American male" strikes me as not so appropriate here. The use of the word "male" as a noun here has more the ring of a police description of a suspect - not the way Wikipedia typically describes a person. So I changed that to "young man," which is a more normal way of describing a person of that age. I also placed the "young man" before the "African American" because, while race is certainly an important issue in the shooting, I feel we should first identify the victim as a person before describing his racial background. -Helvetica (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Did a simple copyedit for clarity. Hope it works for you. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to add "young" as we are stating he was 18-years old when he was killed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, while we fine tune and fine tune and fine tune and fine tune the lead paragraph, significant facts that have transpired recently remain completely absent from this article. I do hope we can get past this as some point. We have enough sources in this article to help people know that the officer is white, the two young men he confronted are black, and that one of them didn't survive encounter, even if we don't say all of that just perfectly at all times. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

#ToDo List - Per Mike Ridgway

{TODO1} Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 Document the fact that at Gov. Nixon's August 16 news conference, the members 
 of the audience demanded that Officer Darren Wilson be charged with murder.

Cite (in existence as of 08/16/2014 6:04 CDT)

 "Missouri governor imposes curfew in Ferguson, declares emergency". 
 CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2014.

Relevant excerpt from the CNN article:

 But the meeting at a local church at times was tumultuous.
 People repeatedly interrupted Nixon and Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. 
 Ron Johnson, shouting, "You need to charge the police with murder!" and "We want justice!"
 Johnson, in charge of security for the town, said the investigation is speeding up. 
 He said some 40 FBI agents arrived in Ferguson on Saturday morning, going door-to-door 
 to investigate the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by officer Darren Wilson a week ago.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Tensions run high as Ferguson residents confront Missouri governor
 http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-news-conference-20140816-story.html
 ----
 EXCERPT: Then a woman who was holding a camera shouted at the governor, asking why the officer who shot Brown 
 had not been arrested and charged with murder.
 Nixon gave a long pause and didn't answer the question. Things only got rockier from there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 

{TODO2} Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Report on:
 "Ron Johnson Addresses Ferguson Police Officers' Failure To Identify Themselves"
 Huffington Post
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-identities_n_5682645.html

Excerpt

 "What happened is, some people are taking their names and going on the Internet and 
 getting their identities and social security numbers, and so that's been occurring," Johnson said.
 "I can't set rules for another police department," Johnson added, telling Reilly 
 the Ferguson police chief would have to address the identification issues. Johnson 
 also noted Missouri State Highway Patrol officers have removed their name tags 
 "for their safety and security, but if you ask them their name they've been told to tell you."

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC) - - - - -

NOTE: This section will be continually modified to include up-to-date listings of things that I, Mike Ridgway, a resident of St. Louis, believe need to be done to improve this article and to catalog the still-unfolding events in Ferguson. Other contributors are free to embrace or ignore the suggested items I will be listing here. As items are completed or drop in priority, they will either deleted or moved to an archive section. Persons who do not have edit rights to this are also encouraged to connect with me and assist back channel in curating sources so that those with editing rights can quickly update the article and source the same with rapidity and accuracy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I expect to be available to communicate with others more or less continually from now through at least 11:59 PM Central Time US, (St. Louis Time). I have the advantage of being able to watch events that are being broadcast in real time by local television stations and have great familiarity with many of the sources that figure in this article to this point. Also, I would be happy to assist any of you who might need help in discrete tasks, to the extent that time and priorities allow. If you would like to collaborate with me, please contact me directly. Thanks. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed personal information, per Wikipedia policy. Also note that direct accounts are not useful for Wikipedia, as we only report what reliable sources say about a subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why am I being scolded about direct accounts in this section? Where have I brought up the idea of including direct accounts?

Please see WP:TPG. This may be content that is best put into your sandbox or a subpage of your userpage. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. - MrX 23:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. In any case, I have removed your personal information. Also, it may be best to add each one of your suggestions into a separate section. BTW, the curfew and state of emergency is already in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Thank you. I've added mention of the same to the Timeline article as well. I believe that we should at some point make specific mention of the demands of local citizens that the now named police officer be charged with murder. There are now no shortage of cites, as I document above. Rather than insert the same into the article only to be reverted, I'm just putting it out to see if someone less likely to be reverted wants to add it somewhere. Personally, I think that there should be mention in the lede that the reason why this ongoing event has now lasted as long as it has (two days longer than the Rodney King riots) is that people are unsatisfied (to put it mildly) with the fact that the policeman is still at liberty facing no charges. Consider this my attempt to build consensus on this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Organization

I think there's a problem with the section organization. Under 'Witness accounts', we have each witness accounts, but we have 'Context', 'Investigations', 'Robbery Incident Report' and its child, 'Reactions'.

2 Witness accounts
   2.1 Dorian Johnson's account
   2.2 Piaget Crenshaw's account
   2.3 Police account
   2.4 Tiffany Mitchell's account
   2.5 Context
   2.6 Investigations
   2.7 Robbery incident report
       2.7.1 Reactions

Some of these things are not like the others. Some of these things just don't belong.- MrX 01:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Robbery incident report" can go into its own section. It was like that early in the day - Cwobeel (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's better, but I think maybe Context should be a subsection of something else. I'm going to try something and I'm sure I will be reverted if someone disagrees.- MrX 01:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Go for it - Cwobeel (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I'm concerned that the lede is being used for breaking news, which is not really its purpose. It's a broadly accepted principle that information should not be in the lede unless its already in the body of the article. Does anyone else share this concern, or have any comments about it?- MrX 01:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I thought that the curfew was already in the article. I will add it, but it is a significant aspect for the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The lede is not for breaking news. I agree that this particular aspect is probably pretty significant, but since it hasn't even happened yet it is premature to even be in the article. He may very well decide against the curfew before it even goes into effect. Remember, WP is a historical record, not a venue for reporting breaking news. Arzel (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The curfew absolutely SHOULD be in the article. It has been declared by the governor. Local news media is reporting on the police amassing to enforce it now. They also indicate that a hash tag has been created #resistthecurfew and that protesters plan to cross city lines and congregate in a neighboring city as of midnight tonight. Or not. Bracing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Channel 5 (KDSK) reports as of 22:18 "Protesters announce their intent to defy the curfew." Also the curfew has been the number 1 story on Google News every time I've checked in the last 12 hours and still is at present.

Reuters U.S. News ‏@ReutersUS 14 minutes ago on Twitter

We have LIVE coverage out of #Ferguson as tensions rise ahead of a midnight curfew: Bitly link omitted. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Did Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson rob QuikTrip?

Did Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson rob a QuikTrip store, shortly before the confrontation with the police officer? If no, what was the name of the convenience store? If yes, was it the same QuikTrip that was burned down during the protests / riots? 71.217.116.182 (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure, but this is what I read. The convenience store at which the cigars were stolen is Ferguson Market and Liquor Store on West Florissant Avenue. When the riots and such occurred, some residents were angry at the convenience store for "snitching" on Brown; and they wanted to "retaliate" against the store. However, they mistakenly thought that the store in question was the QuikTrip (when, in fact, it was the Ferguson Market and Liquor Store on West Florissant Avenue). So, the QuikTrip was burned down in a case of "mistaken identity". If I recall correctly, some later retaliation was indeed brought against the "correct" store, the Ferguson Market. Some of this info was in this article, but I can't seem to find it now. I will have to double check on the facts and reliable sources before I put it back into the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll help you on this one. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The information about the store was redacted from the police report. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

“Snitches Get Stitches” message spray painted on burned-out QuikTrip

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/11/quiktrip-sprayed-with-graffiti-set-on-fire-during-overnight-looting-near-ferguson/

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This video is heartbreaking:

 Ferguson Market asks not to become a target
 Employees didn't call police, didn't release surveillance video, lawyer says
 http://www.click2houston.com/news/ferguson-market-asks-not-to-become-a-target/27525080
 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  Police found evidence of the stolen merchandise on Brown's body. 
  Authorities determined that Johnson was not involved in the robbery 
  and will not seek charges against him, Jackson said.
  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/2537611-181/ferguson-officer-in-fatal-shooting
  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that is the info to which I was referring. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Day 9 Curfew (17 August)

Curfew was enforced using military tactics. No shortage of sources. Dispute as to whether the smoke bombs were tear gas or otherwise. Police officers put on gas masks before deploying them. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Prediction(s) that the curfew will backfire: LA Times | Some warn that Gov. Jay Nixon's curfew for Ferguson, Mo., may backfire http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-protests-020140816-story.html#page=1 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New Sourced Info: Darren Wilson is 28 and white

Paragraph 3

Ferguson officer in fatal shooting identified, unarmed teen suspected of robbery (w/video) http://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/2537611-181/ferguson-officer-in-fatal-shooting Associated Press BY DAVID A. LIEB & ALAN SCHER ZAGIER

Lieb David

Zagier Alan Scher August 15, 2014, 9:55AM Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourced Picture: Darren Wilson

Available here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chaos-erupts-ferguson-day-relative-calm-article-1.1905633

The picture/graphic supports the claim that Wilson received a commendation from an unnamed police department.

FWIW, this artricle also includes a picture of emergency personnel next to Michael Brown's body taken on August 9.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That is already in the article, the photo was found and reported by Yahoo News - Cwobeel (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Some things to keep in mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Urging a split

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

Has the situation changed much since the discussion that ended two days ago here Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Split? I'm not sure we should have an article that captures every detail of the protests. In fact, the content in this article will probably be trimmed eventually.- MrX 13:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the situation has changed. 7 arrested, 1 shot, state of emergency declared. [Soffredo] 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

7 arrested out of a town of 21,203? Soffredo, the LA Riots were on a scale that was so much worse than this. The people of Ferguson, for the most part, are just going about their lives. A few are protesting, and a very small few are being bad actors. -- Avanu (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet these "very small few being bad actors" are getting a lot of media coverage. The riots pass WP:Notability. [Soffredo] 19:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, why the rush to split the article? We can do it later if it's necessary once this is no longer a breaking story. Dyrnych (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we wait until this is no longer a developing story to decide whether to split the article? There's no pressing need for the split, I think. Do you see any urgency in splitting the article? Dyrnych (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Eventually, yes this is likely to be split. But for now is best to keep it here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it best to keep it here? I don't get why we don't split it now before the page gets clustered with information. [Soffredo] 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's time for a split. The media coverage on the protests/riots/looting has turned into 24/7. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But how is the coverage unique each day? And the idea that all the people are in a "riot" is a bit of an inflated idea isn't it? Daytime, people are peaceful; nighttime, it is a few opportunists. As with all current news articles, this one is massively bloated right now. Until the collary events, like protests or riots and looting take hold as a matter of life in Ferguson (or spread throughout St. Louis) it does really seem warranted. -- Avanu (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, because different and unique things happen each and every day, so far. I'm not sure where you got the idea that "all the people" are in a riot, do you have sourcing for that? Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No rush to split, but when you do, call it Aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown, not "Ferguson riots". Darmokand (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well we call it the 1992 Los Angeles riots, not the Aftermath of the Rodney King trial, don't we? [Soffredo] 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than have a split, why not rename the Timeline article to something like "Protests and Unrest after Shooting Death of Michael Brown?" It's very much heading in that direction already -- and there is little in the way of timeline info that is going to be added to that article that directly relates to the killing. The encounter, altercation, shooting and death all happened in the space of three minutes. But the aftermath is 9 days deep already (the Rodney King riots ended after 6 days) and with the kind of defiance seen both on the streets last night and heard as recently as yesterday and last night in one-on-one conversations with people such as Alderman Anotonio French, there is little reason to believe that the end is in sight.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

"According to Ferguson police, Brown was a suspect in a robbery minutes before the shooting, although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery" is incorrect.

Brown was a strong arm robber minutes before the shooting. This is evidenced by video of the robbery which plainly shows Brown and Dorian Johnson in the store robbing the clerk. In addition Dorian Johnson admitted that they robbed the store.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/video-timeline-of-surveillance-video-purportedly-showing-michael-brown-robbing-convenience-store/

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/

76.97.113.235 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC) andytotenkopf

 Not done - There is little dispute that the person in the video is Michael Brown, but that is not evidence that the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was related to the robbery. If I misunderstood your request, please post the exact wording that you propose.- MrX 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're suggesting that we change "was a suspect in a robbery" to "committed a robbery" or something like that, correct? If so, do you have a reliable source that states this? Both sources you cited support the current wording. Citing our own observations of the video in support of this change would be original research, so unless you have a source that states that Brown committed the robbery (without qualification) this should not be done. Dyrnych (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the Brown family lawyer, it was Michael Brown committing the robbery and Dorian Johnson reported that they were involved. Mincing words here just suggests an anti-police/anti-truth bias on the part of wiki.

Here is the lawyer quote from Time Magazine:

At a press conference late Friday afternoon, lawyers for the family admitted that it appeared to be Brown on the surveillance tape of the robbery released by the police, and said that Brown was not a perfect kid. The lawyers said the effort was a “strategic” move by the police to distract attention from the shooting. “What happened in the 18 years before [the shooting] does not matter,” one of the attorneys, Anthony Gray said.

http://time.com/3118559/ferguson-cops-tell-their-side-of-the-story/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Ffashionweek+(TIME%3A+Fashion+Week+)

"It appeared to be Brown" is just as consistent with "Brown is a suspect" as it is with "Brown committed the robbery." We're not in the business of analyzing what the family's lawyer said (or any other purported evidence). You need a source that states that Brown actually committed the robbery, not a source that can be synthesized to infer that Brown committed the robbery. Please read my comments above as to "truth," verifiability, and original research. Dyrnych (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

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

---

I am again requesting that the information about Michael Brown never having been arrested or convicted be removed from the first paragraph due to irrelevance. Below is a quote from Time Magazine where the Brown family attorney, in response to the video footage of Michael Brown robbing and assaulting a store clerk saying: "Brown was not a perfect kid" and “What happened in the 18 years before [the shooting] does not matter,” (see below). By the admission of the Brown family lawyer, nothing that happened prior to the shooting is relevant. That should include the fact that Michael had never been arrested or convicted. It also, however, brings up a much bigger issue. What is Brown's juvenile record, which so far seems to have been hidden.

From Time Magazine:

At a press conference late Friday afternoon, lawyers for the family admitted that it appeared to be Brown on the surveillance tape of the robbery released by the police, and said that Brown was not a perfect kid. The lawyers said the effort was a “strategic” move by the police to distract attention from the shooting. “What happened in the 18 years before [the shooting] does not matter,” one of the attorneys, Anthony Gray said.

http://time.com/3118559/ferguson-cops-tell-their-side-of-the-story/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Ffashionweek+(TIME%3A+Fashion+Week+)

181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)MrB 181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Do you have a source that states that he had been arrested or convicted prior to the incident? Until a reliable source states this, the well-sourced claim that he had no criminal record should remain. Dyrnych (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking for anything to be added saying that he had been previously arrested or convicted. I am asking that the info about him not being arrested or convicted be removed, because based on his lawyer's quote (sourced above) anything that happened in the 18 years prior is irrelevant. Mr Brown was only 18. Crimes committed by juveniles are not adjudicated as criminal, but instead as delinquent, so lack of criminal conviction is certainly irrelevant to his first 17 years of life, but it does not mean that he was not delinquent.

The statement is verifiable. That is what is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. The family's lawyer does not determine what goes in the article, which is fairly obvious when you think about what else he might consider irrelevant or worthy of removal. Dyrnych (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is info from the NY Times that supports my call to remove the quote about no arrests or convictions:

NY Times quote: The family insisted that Mr. Brown had no history of violence or aggression. He had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/ferguson-mo-michael-brown-and-darren-wilson-2-paths-to-a-fatal-encounter.html?_r=0

Please see that part where police said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile. At the very least, the criminal record part needs to be changed to say that he had no "adult arrest record", and it should point out that he was only 18. How many months ago did he become an adult?

181.129.196.77 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)MrB

You are still engaging in synthesis and analysis. We have a source that states that he had no criminal or arrest record. You've offered some sources that can be interpreted to suggest that it is POSSIBLE that Brown had a juvenile arrest record, but that are not inconsistent with the source that we have. But we don't interpret or analyze or combine sources to reach conclusions not stated by those sources. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Also (on an unrelated note) you may want to check out this section on indentation on talk pages to keep your responses more readable. Dyrnych (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych...I would appreciate a quick correction to the wiki page since I have now presented a verifiable statement (NY Times) that the criminal record comment does not include juvenile records. As currently presented in the wiki page, the arrest and criminal record quote is misleading and inflammatory.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)MrB

You've presented a statement that the police officer quoted in the NY Times piece could not speak to whether Brown had been arrested as a juvenile. That doesn't conflict with the statement that we have. It may come to light that Brown has a juvenile arrest record, but until it does it is "misleading and inflammatory" to imply that he may have a juvenile arrest record solely because an officer neither confirmed nor denied that Brown has a juvenile arrest record, especially when the lack of a criminal/arrest record is separately sourced. Dyrnych (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

There is little information on this page on the police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown. As a citizen-journalist, I have found information from reputable Web sites on the Internet. The section on Darren Wilson should be flushed out ASAP; if not, it appears the writers/editors of this page are biased.

Thank you.

Plsmitha (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Be specific and note the template above. You should phrase your request in the form of "Change X to Y." What are you asking us to do and what "information from reputable Web sites on the Internet" are you referring to? What do you mean by "flushed out?" Also, I would refer you to Wikipedia's policy on civility, and specifically to WP:GF. You should assume good faith on the part of other editors; this means that you probably shouldn't level unjustified, blanket accusations of bias or tendentiousness. Thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This user may be referring to stuff being published about Wilson, such as this from tabloid press in the UK [19], which IMO is not suitable for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is incredibly irrelevant. Dyrnych (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OTOH, there is good information about Wilson, a compilation is available at the WAPO [20], which can be used to expand the section on Wilson. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond his reputation as a police officer, I don't think that much of this is notable (especially the personal assessments of his fear for his life). Dyrnych (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As a central actor in this incident, well sourced information about Wilson is needed in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need information about Wilson and I imagine that more will eventually come out. But not all information is created equal, and most of this stuff is not relevant despite being well-sourced. A lot of it is more along the lines of trivia (divorce, living situation, honor roll student in 9th and 10th grade). Dyrnych (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given this incident, sources see these personal aspects as notable enough to report on them, so we follow their lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that we both know that some of these aspects are not important to the subject at hand, despite their brief inclusion in reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention Wilson's family in this shooting article, nor do we need to mention trivia. It's beneath our purpose of being an encyclopedia.- MrX 19:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially because we've declined to include information about Brown being a high school graduate about to start college, facts which are much more widely reported and are equally trivial in context. Dyrnych (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And this trivial info about Brown in the lead should be removed as well, had no history of arrests or criminal convictions. It's not mentioned in the body of the article and there is no explanation as to how this is relevant to the shooting. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have a pretty tough time arguing that the criminal record of a man shot to death by a police officer is trivial, especially when the officer's disciplinary history is also included in the article. Both aspects are relevant and nontrivial. On the other hand, the officer's divorce and Brown's status as a high school graduate provide negligible context to the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no criminal record, that's my point. How is that relevant? If he did have a criminal record, would that justify the shooting? No. There is also the issue of their ages, Wilson is 28 and has had an opportunity to establish a history, whereas someone who is 18 years old, is more than likely not going to have an adult criminal record due to their age. And additionally, I wouldn't object to the officers disciplinary record being removed as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant enough to be reported widely and prominently in reliable secondary sources. I'm not going to substitute my judgment for the judgment of those sources with respect either to Brown's criminal history or Wilson's disciplinary record. This isn't even remotely comparable to the officer's 9th and 10th grade school records or his family status, so this probably isn't the right place to have this discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering that these two are the major participants in this incident, then another section should be created for Brown as well. Basic bio info can be included there and this sort of info under discussion here would be better suited there in their own sections. These two sections would lead and all other sections would be under them, this is pretty standard for articles of this nature, provide the readers this basic bio info about the major participants. And if and when any images of these two become available, they would be used here. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No objection at all to basic biographical information about both participants. I assume you're suggesting something like the "Parties involved" section in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article? Dyrnych (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think it was a mistake to include the number of participants that we did in that article. I wish now we had limited it to the "two" major participants. But I would defer to consensus on this article as to who should be included, if there is a consensus at all to include the participants here. I personally think the two major participants is enough. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on number of participants. Want to move this discussion to the topic below? Dyrnych (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

More details about the shooting

This article in the WAPO contains more details about the shooting [21]. See the section "Final minutes" - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already started to incorporate aspects into the article. Dyrnych (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being included? It is a redundant secondary source and doesn't relate anything not already claimed from witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.255.119 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's got some new information. Also, to the extent that it might be able to replace material cited to primary sources, that's the appropriate thing to do with this source. Dyrnych (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

why

why dont we see this in the main page in the ongoing events section? 95.10.158.56 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It was nominated here but failed to gain consensus for inclusion on the home page.- MrX 19:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much of a newby I was to catch that. I'd say do it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

More photos that are free to use

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

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

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

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

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

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

Juvenile criminal records are not always sealed, and in most states certain juvenile criminal records CAN'T be sealed. I'm not an authority on Missouri law (although I can tell you that under Alabama law, on which I am an authority, juvenile records are not automatically sealed) and I haven't seen any authority quoted in an RS. I think that this might run afoul of the prohibitions on original research and synthesis. Also, we currently have an unambiguous statement that Brown has no criminal record from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. No qualifications as to juvenile record. Dyrnych (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify this a bit since I seem to have responded to an issue that you didn't raise, juvenile criminal/delinquency records usually are CONFIDENTIAL, if not sealed. Still, I stand by my points regarding OR and SYNTH. Dyrnych (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't add up. If "juvenile criminal/delinquency records usually are CONFIDENTIAL", it seems strange that the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office would say he had no criminal record? Furthermore, according to the source, this was said by the 13th. It seems strange that no source for this statement can be found other than in a local business journal. I also noticed that this piece wasn't even written by a journalist, but rather a Digital Producer. Finally, not only have no other major news agencies reported this statement, but many have said that his past record is unknown. Now, if it were true that by the 13th the St. Luis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office already confirmed that he has no criminal record, why are the major news sources saying that it's not known? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Other sources reported the same statement. See, e.g., [22], [23]. I know of no sources that state that his criminal record is unknown. Dyrnych (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are indeed much better sources, and they should replace the current ones. Here are some examples of where I was/am coming from: MSNBC wrote "Brown was not believed to have a criminal record, either."[24] If the St. County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said that he had no criminal record, they would have said so rather than just "not believed. Another (stronger) example is the New York Times[25], which quoted his *family* as saying that he had no criminal record. writing "The family insisted that Mr. Brown had no history of violence or aggression." If the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said that, why would they be quoting the family? The article then says "He had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile." Which clearly indicates that it is unknown. and again why are they not quoting this statement by the prosecutor's office? And if the police can't say, how can the PA? and likewise if the PA can, why not the police? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Al Sharpton, Congressman Clay speaking at a rally being broadcast live in St. Louis right now

Already rich with quotable comments.

Web livestream here: http://fox2now.com/on-air/live-streaming-2/

Sharpton speaks of a class action civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of victims of abuses during the first three days of protests. Asks those who have been harmed to come forward with information, to possibly serve as plaintiffs.

Jesse Jackson just introduced but won't be speaking apparently.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Parties involved

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

I suggest to remove this until you have it done in a sandbox. As it stands now is really not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping other editors will help to fill in some of the details. I've started some basic biographical information about Brown to go with the basic biographical information that you filled in for Darren Wilson. I think it's more important that the structure of the article be established now than it is for the biographies to be complete or exhaustive at the moment. Dyrnych (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks better now, thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Parties involved section should be part of or after the Investigations section. We can move it later, if it's importance changes. Also, please remember that WP:BLP applies in it's fullest extent to the section on Wilson (you have a CN right now) and, by WP:BDP, to Brown as well. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Definitely important to remind editors about BLP and BDP. That said, I think that the usual practice is to place the parties involved section first in the article (see Shooting of Trayvon Martin; cf. Beating of Rodney King). Dyrnych (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition of race

"The shooting death of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, a suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old African-American man, died after being shot multiple times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, 28, who is white."

I question whether this is a fair way to write it. Sure, it is true, but why is race included? This would never have been written on Wikipedia if this wasn't the exact race mix. I think people jump too quickly to the conclusion of racism, and this isn't something Wikipedia should do. Instead, race should be mentioned as the spark of the protests.

DarkLightA (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's included because numerous reliable sources include it. Dyrnych (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's included because it's completely relevant to those who are protesting and worse, as numerous reliable sources have reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Difference between "Shooting incident" and "Witness accounts"

In my opinion, the Shooting incident section should relate information upon which there is no substantial disagreement. Differences should be left to the various Witness accounts sections below.

The Shooting incident section says "and Wilson fired his gun from within his police vehicle". But the Police account says "the officer's gun, which was fired at least once". Therefore the Shooting incident section should be changed to "and Wilson's gun was fired from within his police vehicle".

I'm posting this to the talk page because, even though the change is only a few words, this discussion is too long to fit in an Edit Summary. I have not made the change as yet. I believe that who made the first shot (in the car), Wilson or Brown or a struggle in which both men grappled for the gun, will be important to the investigation. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. Go for it - Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made this correction. Dyrnych (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

More participants added

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

No, participants are only the deceased and the officer that killed him. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(See my next comment below.)

(edit conflict) I think the participants should be limited to the participants in the Shooting of Michael Brown, not everyone mentioned in the media reports.- MrX 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If we were to split this into two stories, that would be true. But the story covers both the shooting and its aftermath. Therefore, it cannot be contended that those major players are not participants. Their names appear so often, that they should be referenced in a legend box. And I really don't like the abbreviations. FPD is meaningful to those of us who know this story backwards and forward, but not to a 12 year old in Japan who is trying to understand this story for the very first time. Tell people who these participatns are with sufficient clarity for it to be helpful. For instance, referring to Dorian as a witness alone is not helpful. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The norm is to include only those immediately involved in the infobox (see Shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example). Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to know where to draw the line for inclusion. I would certainly expect witnesses to be included before government officials, family, reporters, commentators, etc.- MrX 23:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So where do we list the participants in the aftermath, given that we insist on not splitting the article? A second participant box for the aftermath, maybe?Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New Developments: Day 9

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

This is already included in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to miss it. I had seen a major article with a headline that it was up in the air followed by another headline giving the impression that the decision had just been formalized which appeared a few minutes later and which was only 45 minutes old. So I assumed that it was new news. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Dyrnych (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy release

Suggest discussion here, if any

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MailOnline account

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

What's unconfirmed about it? It's from a reliable news source, and you can see/hear the recording. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a particularly reliable source. If there's a better source for this claim, I'd be interested in seeing it and probably not opposed to mentioning it. Dyrnych (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper.

We need a reliable published source (not raw video or audio). The Daily Mail is largely regarded a tabloid of questionable reliability, so I would advise against using in this case. We can't view a video and report what we think we heard.- MrX 23:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC

Tabloid is just a format. In the United Kingdom by nearly all local newspapers use that format.The Independent and The Times are also 'tabloids'. In the U.S., the format is less popular in respectable media sources, hence the association with bad quality; but even in the U.S., papers like New York Post, the Daily News, Newsday, etc. are tabloids. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times is also largely regarded as a liberal rag of questionable reliability. The DailyMail is the most visited

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

Here's the YouTube video the Daily Mail cited:[27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.134.249 (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No one's arguing that the Daily Mail faked the video. The question is whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source for interpreting what the video says. Breitbart and the Daily Caller have similar issues. They're reliable sources for something like "some conservative publications suggest X," but not reliable sources for factual matters. That looks like it's exactly what you're saying. If so, then I agree. Dyrnych (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked at these two sources, and if these are to be used and we have to be very cautious on how we represent this material, as in both sources there is a lot of speculation, so whatever we say if anything has to be fully attributed and not stated as fact. For example, Breibart says "However, this private conversation minutes after the incident seems untainted by any desire to protect or tarnish the reputation of either Brown or the police", to my point. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added the account, appropriately qualified. OK with everyone? Dyrnych (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems OK. I added some material about the provenance. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to wait until this is picked up by mainstream sources. At this point this is far more WP:UNDUE than the KKK matter.- MrX 01:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it's a notable view and I think that it's appropriately qualified. I'm not invested in it appearing in the article, but I think that noting that it's an argument advanced by opinion publications based on a couple of sentences in the background of a YouTube video doesn't ascribe undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Daily mail is mainstream media. As I mentioned earlier, It's the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper. (In 2011 MailOnline was the second most visited English-language newspaper website worldwide.) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sales don't really matter here. Per WP:RS the criteria are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Daily Mail fails for sure with respect to accuracy. Dyrnych (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It is properly attributed, I am sure we will hear from other sources as well. Either affirming or denying it. The Daily Caller has been there before... - Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

He used the term "mainstream sources" which Daily mail is. (I just found that Mailonline is currently the the most visited newspaper website in the world. Which I think makes it pretty mainstream (according to the proper definition).) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I have restored it, let's discuss the merits for not including this. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter that a conservative publication discovered the video when (1) other conservative publications reported on it, (2) we're citing those reports, and (3) we're noting that they're coming from conservative publications? The potential for bias is the same in any case. Dyrnych (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources are certainly sufficient to note the existence of the video (and audio, of course). The content of the comments may or may not be opinion, but citing them as such would comport with WP:RS and WP:BLP. I do not suggest we use Wikipedia's voice for those comments at this point. Collect (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. The question is whether or not we need to further note that "The finding of the video was first reported by The Conservative Threehouse [sic] blog, and reported by The Daily Caller, and Breitbart." First of all, this is inaccurate: the sources state that the background chatter was first reported by The Conservative Treehouse, not that the video's finding was first reported by The Conservative Treehouse. The video was uploaded on August 14 by a YouTube user who appears extremely unsympathetic to the Ferguson Police Department. Dyrnych (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) This is why I think it is notable. An unidentified bystander shoots a video in the aftermath of the shooting and post it in YouTube. A Conservative blog finds the video and reports that you can hear a background account over the voice of the person shooting the video with his phone. The DC and Bretibart then publish this without any attempt to verify the video or the account, with a very calculated intent. That is notable, given the politicization across the board of this horrific incident, which left a person dead and another person never to be able to live a normal life. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You're going down a rabbit hole here, I think. It's one thing to (correctly) suggest that the conservative blogs may be using motivated reasoning to interpret the video how they'd like (which is clear without the account of The Conservative Treehouse "finding" the video). It's another to suggest that the video itself is somehow questionable because The Conservative Treehouse "found" it, which is what it sounds like you're doing. Dyrnych (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is an attempt at using this article as a WP:COATRACK to politicize this incident by discrediting sources as "conservative", then indeed we have a problem. Either they're reliable sources or they're not. Their political leanings are irrelevant, unless that becomes the subject of coverage by other media. - MrX 02:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

They're as reliable as liberal opinion sources would be in interpreting similar information. Which is to say reliable as sources for the opinions offered, but not (in general) reliable for factual claims. Pretty clear application of WP:RSOPINION, right? Dyrnych (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS permits sources like this if they are deemed reliable and attributed accordingly. See here − [30], so I don't see anything wrong with identifying them as conservative. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right. If we must keep this content, then it should be rewritten. Something like:

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

- MrX 02:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Think we have to identify them as potentially biased sources to satisfy WP:RSOPINION. Not enough to just say that they're "publications." Dyrnych (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree we should identify them as well, it's not like we're making an inflammatory statement about the publications, I'd daresay they are proud to be conservatives. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then we're back to my original objection that their opinions are not important enough to merit inclusion in the article. If they are not journalistic sources, then I think we do our readers a disservice by distracting them with opinions or cherry-picked analyses.- MrX 02:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a disservice or distraction to our readers to offer varying POV's about this incident. Just because the source reporting this information is not MSM, doesn't mean we can't include it. And I don't think it can be argued that this is a fringe theory either, because the officer is almost assuredly going to say it was justified because he was in fear of his life and/or bodily harm. This is a totally plausible scenario. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

They are journalistic sources, at least as journalistic as many of the sources already in the article. In any case, the RS noticeboard would be the place to argue whether they are RS's. Arzel (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel: - The Daily Caller's status as an RS has been discussed many times on the RS noticeboard. I don't think we'll be breaking any new ground with a new discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a RS. Arzel (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For opinions. Not facts. I just realized that I read that as "The Daily Caller." Dyrnych (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@StAnselm: - You removed "conservative" from the account in the article. What nonconservative sources have reported on this? Dyrnych (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Examiner.com. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Cite? Dyrnych (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be cited in the article. I can't post it here, since the site is on the blacklist, but it can be easily found with a search engine. StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't post a link to the article here? That seems like the bare minimum required for claiming this as fact rather than opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Like MrX, I fail to see what "conservative" has to do with this. If there is opinion involved, it's only opinion about what words are said. I'm fine with avoiding WP voice, and having "source X said they thought the witness said Y", but I fail to see any connection with political orientation. StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I'd advocate for the same labeling requirement if it were a liberal source at issue. Dyrnych (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I don't think you have consensus to reintroduce the information on the purported discovery of the video. I understand that you think it's important, but I'm asking that you self-revert that addition until consensus is reached. Thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the discussion above and did not use "Conservative sources" as argued above, which is fine with me, rather, I just described facts as reported by the sources used. namely the name of the blog, and the sources that reported this video. That is not controversial, as these are facts included in the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what the source says: "The man’s account was captured in the background of a video uploaded to Youtube. The blog The Conservative Treehouse first discovered the background chatter." - Cwobeel (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to the sentence: "The finding of the video was first reported by The Conservative Threehouse [sic] blog, and reported by The Daily Caller, and Breitbart." Several editors have expressed skepticism that this belongs in the article and (I believe) none have supported its inclusion. Primarily, it doesn't belong because the sentence states that the "finding" of the video was reported by The Conservative Treehouse, while the source actually states that the background chatter was discovered by The Conservative Treehouse. In any event, it does not belong until consensus is reached. Dyrnych (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This source just popped up right on the main Google News page. Personally, I think this gives them nothing, now that the diagram of the six bullet holes is out. But hey, you guys defending the policeman, knock yourselves out. The New American is from the folks at the John Birch Society. (Full disclosure: My parents used to be members.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Ferguson Shooting Shock: Witness Unwittingly Captured on Audio Corroborates Police Story

Thomas Jackson (police officer)

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

It should be deleted. Not notable outside of this story. Dyrnych (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, not notable. None of the officers are notable for their own articles based off this one event. Arzel (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Why did you add the another section about the robbery? We already have a large section covering the robbery.- MrX 04:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The robbery incident relates to the shooting incident because the police officer suspected Michael Brown of being the robbery suspect when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). It serves as an important context for the shooting incident. Further, the robbery incident was not described in detail below. The section I added did. Sy9045 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the sources. The initial stop unquestionably had nothing to do with the robbery. At some point after the initial stop, Wilson may have become aware that Brown was a suspect; Jackson has offered conflicting accounts of whether this was accurate. That does not mean that we place the robbery before the shooting as though the robbery precipitated the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Me stating the "police officer suspected Michael Brown of being the robbery suspect when he saw the cigars" is consistent with what Chief Jackson said happened. That relates to the shooting incident. In no way did I say it "precipitated" the robbery incident or that Wilson suspected Brown of being involved in the robbery before he made his first contact with him (you are just putting words in my mouth), but it does relate because Wilson made the connection between the cigars in Brown's hands and the robbery incident that occurred shortly prior. Sy9045 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you have independently arrived at the conclusion that the robbery led to the shooting, which is not what the sources say. Also, please explain why we need two robbery sections and why your version is superior to the existing version created through collaboration.- MrX 04:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd that you would say that when I said explicitly Wilson made the connection to the robbery incident when he saw the cigars (this according to Chief Jackson). Do you disagree with what Chief Jackson said? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Don't you think that's intellectually dishonest? The robbery section I added describes the robbery incident in detail while the robbery section at the bottom gives a mention of the robbery, but does not describe the robbery in detail.Sy9045 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that MrX did NOT say that you said or believe that the robbery led to the stop (nor did I, in fact). He said that you "independently arrived at the conclusion that the robbery led to the shooting" (emphasis added). You are connecting the robbery to the shooting in a way that is not stated by reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In what world did I say it "led to the shooting"? Why are you repeatedly putting words in my mouth? I've already said that Wilson did not know about Brown being involved in the prior robbery incident, but he made a connection when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). That by itself shows there's at least some connection between the two events (again do not put words in my mouth; the connection exists strictly because Wilson had a suspicion Brown might have been involved in the robbery incident when he saw the cigars; please do not imply anything further than that).Sy9045 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, you've now tagged the entire article as non-neutral because you dispute an undue weight tag in one section. Think about that for a minute. Dyrnych (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If even one section is not neutral, that means the article by itself is not neutral.Sy9045 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

You are not seeking consensus. You just remove statements without even using the talk page to describe why you're removing sections. You've shown your biases throughout. Sy9045 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anybody but you advocating for your position, or any rationale that is valid in your arguments. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As for biases, we all have them, including you. But that does not mean that we can;t edit this article in collaboration. It seems that you are only interested in adding the robbery material, while there is still a lot to add to the article. Show that you care about Wikipedia more than your POV and that would be a good step. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There was definitely a connection between the robbery and the shooting. Wilson was called out in response to the robbery. That's a connection. Brown committed the robbery. That's a connection. Wilson suspected that Brown was the robber. That's a connection. And finally, Brown not just innocently walking down the street, as dishonestly related by Johnson, he had just committed a robbery and I'm sure that affected his state of mind. It's tragic that Michael Brown is dead. But the problem with this article, and much of the media reporting, is that it tries to paint a simplistic morality play that "racist white police officer guns down innocent black teenager". That's not what happened, Michael Brown is a big guy, had just been pushing around a shop-owner after robbing him, and there was a struggle over a gun. 71.217.116.182 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The connection exists immediately when Wilson suspected Brown of being involved in the robbery incident when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Wilson). The robbery is crucial evidence as you said. It's absurd that this article is being edited is such a politically charged manner by some of these editors. Sy9045 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Look. I reported the official police account of the robbery incident. How is that not neutral? That is key evidence for this case. It's absurd that you would accuse me of being bias when you are removing official reports from this case that don't agree with your opinion.Sy9045 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The robbery incident has a full section in the article already. And some of the assertions above are not what sources are reporting. If the robbery is key evidence or not, it is not for us to judge. We just report what sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For the nth time, it only gives a glancing report of the incident, not details of the robbery incident that describes a felony strong arm robbery. That existing robbery section is also full of other details that do not describe the robbery. The strong arm robbery is key evidence (see http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/so-why-wasnt-officer-wilson-arrested-plus-answers-other-questions-about-law) for this case and removing it is not a neutral position.Sy9045 (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

@Sy9045: - I'm quoting WP:NPOVD here: "Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the [NPOV] tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." You have not done this, and I'm asking that you do so here. Dyrnych (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately removing details of the robbery incident that cites the official police report of that incident is not neutral. The police report describes a felony strong arm robbery, which is key evidence for this case.Sy9045 (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Place that within the ambit of WP:NPOV. Also, the "official police report" is a primary source. Use of primary sources is discouraged in Wikipedia under most circumstances. Dyrnych (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So do you want me to cite USA Today, New York Times, ABC News, NBC News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN etc. that also cite the robbery incident in detail? It's absurd that some of you editors are trying to silence reports on the robbery incident. Sy9045 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I want you to do what you're required to do when placing an NPOV tag on an article. And yes, citing secondary sources that cite the police report is unquestionably preferable to citing the police report. And no, no one's trying to "silence" anything. Be civil and stop making unfounded assumptions about editors' motives. Dyrnych (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So if I cite USA Today or CNN (or any other secondary source), I can add the robbery incident back in? Can I get a confirmation on that? It won't be removed again correct?Sy9045 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a tangent to what I am asking that you do (and what you are required to do). I'm pointing out that the police report is not a sacred document, as you seem to believe. However, that has nothing to do with your obligations under WP:NPOVD, which you have as yet failed to do. So let's not discuss secondary vs. primary sources for the moment; I'm truly sorry that I brought it up. Dyrnych (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the NPOV section below.Sy9045 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Shooting incident

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

Just for reference, a quick scan of the article shows that the phrase - "strong-arm" robbery - is used 3 times in the article and once in the lead. The term "robbery" occurs 11 times. There is a link to the police report in the article content. It is painfully obvious that Michael Brown was a suspect in a strong arm robbery. Adding another section would give this aspect of the incident way too much weight. Improve the existing section if you wish, but adding another section devoted solely to this robbery is out of the question. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not describe the robbery incident in detail, which would dispute reports that Brown was a "gentle giant" and also gives evidence to his state of mind before the shooting incident. We don't need to add another robbery section if you wish. We can add the details of the robbery to the shooting incident section, which occurred approximately 10 minutes prior to the shooting. We can re-title that section "Shooting of Michael Brown" that includes details of the robbery incident. This would give a chronological timing of the events as it happened. It's important that we add the robbery before the shooting because Officer Wilson made a connection with the robbery when he saw Brown with the cigars. What do you think? Sy9045 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sy9045: I have been reading all your posts. I have also seen your efforts to stop those editors who want to "whitewash" the article and scrub it clean for their pro-Brown anti-cop agenda. I agree 100% with all you have said. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Joseph! You made my night. Thank you.Sy9045 (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Quality sources please

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

Was he shot in the front or back?

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

Source: Private autopsy reveals Brown was shot 6 times. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Quote from above source: "Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City chief medical examiner, told The New York Times that one of the bullets entered the top of Brown's skull, suggesting that his head was bent forward when he suffered a fatal injury. Brown was also shot four times in the right arm, and all the bullets were fired into his front, Baden said." Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss which accounts are most credible. We report what reliable sources say. Also, we, the editors, do not synthesize sources with witness accounts to report something that reliable sources do not say. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. All reliable sources are reporting on this autopsy. The results of which are inconvenient for some people, it seems. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

They are reporting on the autopsy, and that's fine; we should include their reports on the autopsy. What we should NOT do is take those reports, compare them to other sourced information, draw conclusions, and then report on that in Wikipedia's voice because THAT IS SYNTHESIS AND IS PROHIBITED. Please REVIEW the relevant policy. Dyrnych (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You don't think that reliable sources all over the place will be pointing out these inconsistencies? Really? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Okay, let's wait for them to do that. Then we can put them in the article, because then we won't have to worry about those pesky prohibitions on doing our own original research. Dyrnych (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. See here. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/08/17/michael-brown-was-shot-times-ferguson-officer-preliminary-autopsy-shows/izi6zze4Z2QebrpaWtG2nI/story.html. Search for "contradict". Should we include that source? The USA Today source already includes "contradict" but we can add that too. Do you want additional sources too? Sy9045 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, what do the unbiased witnesses say? I'm sure there must be a long list of them that you're consulting with. You realize that Chief Belmar and Chief Jackson, the conduits of information from the "defendant's" side of the line were not eyewitnesses, right, and that everything that they say is pure hearsay, in a very literal and unimpeachable sense? Same goes for Josie, Dana Loesch's confidential informant. That being the case, it would be awesome if you would stop acting as though your side has a stellar list of honest witnesses while Michael Brown has none. That's just silly and it makes people who look like you and me look worse than we already look right now. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My point is that the autopsy is proven and scientific and that it contradicts biased witness statements. Statements which, by the way, caused all these problems (i.e., that a cop shot a guy in the back while he was surrendering with his hands up in the air). Accounts that now appear to be not only biased, but also fictitious. (No public outrage over that, I bet.) So, again, what are you talking about? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to draw those conclusions on Wikipedia. Sorry. Dyrnych (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I can draw any conclusions that I want. Are you aware that this is a Talk Page and not an article? Are you aware of that? Seriously? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

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

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

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

Are you kidding me? The autopsy is not "reliable" but witness account statements that include one from someone who was involved in a felony robbery (and a friend of Brown's) is? Care to explain your logic? The USA article cited even stated that the autopsy contradicted those witness accounts. Sy9045 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sy9045: The autopsy results are a bit too "inconvenient" for some editors, who will fight tooth and nail and cite a million Wikipedia policies to keep them out. And to keep out the fact that all of those witnesses are scientifically proven to be contradicted. But, don't worry. Reliable sources all over the place will soon be reporting on the autopsy results and how they contradict all those witnesses. Those reliable sources will not be hard to find (as much as some editors want to keep this information out of the article). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree with you Joseph. I can't imagine what how many other articles on Wikipedia are edited in the same manner. I cannot believe this is allowed to happen. Sy9045 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr. Spadaro, but it's more than a little absurd to claim that someone who cites policy, and disagrees with you, is simply using policy as a weapon to get their bias into an article. A reasonable person might consider the possibility that they are citing policy because they believe in policy and believe, right or wrong, that policy supports their argument. Please review WP:AGF and stop this destructive talk.   Mandruss |talk  07:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you so strongly support policies, here is another one for you to support: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Or is that one a bit "inconvenient" for you to support? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've yet to invoke that particular one, and I suspect I never will, for multiple reasons. First, I haven't needed it; second, I think it's a cop-out for lazy thinkers; third, it means we might as well throw out all policy, surrender to the lawless Wild West of Wikipedia, and watch Wikipedia crash and burn as a result. This applies when you look only at the three words and take them literally, but the fact is that the policy is far more nuanced than that. So I don't object to the policy per se, but rather to the literal interpretation of its name.   Mandruss |talk  08:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly says that EACH account is contradicted? No? Then you CANNOT INCLUDE that claim in Wikipedia's voice. You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. I would advise you to look carefully at Wikipedia's core content policies, ALL OF WHICH YOU ARE CURRENTLY VIOLATING. Dyrnych (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We just simply title it "witness accounts" and list those accounts. The reader can determine for themselves if they think it contradicts something or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/), cited that witness accounts that described Brown being shot in the back was contradicted by the autopsy. It's sad that you (and editors like you) are politicizing this article. Sy9045 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am thoroughly sick of you accusing me of politicizing the article as you BLATANTLY push your own POV in completely disregard of basically every Wikipedia policy. You have at no point cited any policy that allows you to synthesize sources in the way that you are doing, which is revealing because you CANNOT cite any such source. Now you are misrepresenting the source that you cite, because it UNAMBIGUOUSLY states that the autopsy finding "could contradict a witness statement." It COULD contradict A witness statement. Does it contradict a statement? It sure could--but that doesn't mean that it DOES! Which one? Who the hell knows! Dyrnych (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: Fine, for now, use the word "could" in this article. Just wait a few more hours, and we can change it does "does", as soon as the reliable sources state so. Which will obviously happen. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

It has nothing to do with a crystal ball. It's called common sense. You want to "hang your hat" on semantics and linguistic gymnastics. Clearly, it is only a matter of time before a reliable source outright states the contradiction. Ya know, the contradiction that is apparent to everyone ... except you. My mistake, I should have said "contradictions", plural. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding "could" is not controversial since it was in the USA Today article. The Boston Globe one above also writes "appears to contradict". We can use any of those terms. We can even use "unsubstantiated". Sy9045 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not willing to edit war with you over this as I know it will eventually be removed. Good night. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. So we all agree on what we can't do.

What we could do, though is make an awesome table that takes each of the points of dispute and lists all of the statements that we have in reliable sources from each of the eyewitnesses that have come forward and from each of the official spokespersons for the police who have made their own claims as to what happened. Then the readers could see those claims side by side and could do their own analysis as to which seem to align with the results of the autopsy and which do not. I have found Dorian Johnson and Tiffany Mitchell to be very credible from the beginning. But I'd be the first to admit that Dorian's belief that Michael was shot in the back is not borne out by the diagram we have from those who performed the autopsy. Do I think he was attempting to deceive us? No. I think he really believed that that is what happened given the fact that Michael had run 35 feet away from the vehicle and then turned around abruptly. He admits to being at a disadvantage as far as viewing what was going on as he was hiding behind a car fearful for his life. Do I think that Michael turned around rather than just keep running? I do. But here's a question for the 6-bullet shooter fans among us. If Michael was such an imminent threat to Wilson, why are there four bullets in Michael's arm and none in the center area of his chest where you would think that all bullets would be aimed if there was any danger to Wilson at all? I ask with great sincerity. I want to know the mind of a 6-bullet apologist. What scenario could have possibly led to the planting of four bullets in one arm? Extra bonus points if the scenario you manufacture actually supports a claim that Wilson was in danger of death or serious harm is also supported as he fired each of those six bullets. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would have stopped writing after the first two sentences. The rest is WP:OR and not what we're here for. You said, "the readers ... could do their own analysis," and then proceeded to do analysis. At best, it's a waste of disk space and our time.   Mandruss |talk  08:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I believe I saw some excellent player of tactics, who, using a policy that grossly contradicts facts in certain cases, and thus by enforcing this little Verifiability, not truth rule, deliberately hides and suppress even the simpliest truth. I remember that in the final of 2013 Copa del Rey Final, the 35' goal of Atlético Madrid was scored by Dirgo Costa, yet in the official report, it states the scorer was Arda, which was a big mistake because video footage shows that there is no doubt/no ambiguity that Costa was the scorer. Some users adhered to the official report while other users adhered to the simple facts. And it was even brought to Wiki:football for a discussion. The English wiki eventually disregards the mistake in the official report, and documents the correct scorer. The Spanish wiki adheres to the report and put a clearification below. I see that the exactly the same things here happen, and some editors are trying to hide certain simple facts by adhering to "old" mistaken reports. So lying is their goal, and the policy? --merely a tool. And yes, this remark is somehow sarcastic, yet I don't try to conceal it by saying "I ask with great sincerity", as some childish hypocrite did above.

So my advice? If you truly care about wikipedia, don't fear to update the contents, when some old reports, be it reliable or not, are proven to be wrong. 128.189.191.60 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)