Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morpheus ad (talk | contribs) at 01:22, 25 September 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

1 - No adult criminal record

2 - No criminal record

3 - Left out entirely

RFC Survey — no (adult) criminal record

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

Results

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

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

Threaded discussion — no (adult) criminal record

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

Yes, it is a tough one, but I am inclined to follow the sources rather than my opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds bit like "I was just following orders." A historically flawed strategy in defending wrong actions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is only Wikipedia, Kevin Murray. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't respect the WP project enough to avoid wrong actions here? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources:
Aug 14 USA Today[1]
"Michael Brown had no criminal record, police say"
”An 18-year-old [Brown] shot and killed near a Ferguson apartment complex Saturday afternoon had no criminal record, according to the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office.”
Aug 15 NY Times[2]
“He [Brown] had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile.”
Aug 17 Christian Science Monitor[3]
“The black teenager [Brown] had no adult criminal record, according to the St. Louis County prosecutor.”
Sep 3 Associated Press/ABC News[4]
”The 45-minute hearing before a St. Louis County family court judge didn't reveal whether Brown had ever been charged with lesser offenses as a juvenile, or charged with a more serious crime that resulted in a finding of delinquency — the juvenile court equivalent of a conviction.”
[another source added on Sep 11:]
Sep 9 USA Today[5] (note same author as Aug 14 USA Today)
"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good cherry pick, Bob. There is an overwhelming number of sources countering these few. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well bring it, then. Bob brought hard facts, you brought your own words. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Washington Post [6]
  • St Louis Business Journal [7]
  • KSDK [8]
  • VOX [9]
  • The Strait Times [10]
  • St. Louis American [11]
  • Al Jazeera [12]
and thousand more sources using “no criminal record” - Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I looked at your source list, no wonder you are so confused:
• Washington Post [38] – Clearly an editorial piece - this is not neutral nor pretending to be.
• St Louis Business Journal [39] – bad link – goes to KERA News not the Business Journal.
• KSDK [40] - August 18, 2014 quoting Prosecutors who have since changed statement
• VOX [41] “Brown had no criminal record at the time of his death, according to police.” That doesn’t seem to be consistent with current statements.
• The Strait Times [42] – direct quote from Brown’s parents in what seems to be a fairly biased piece
• St. Louis American [43] - say confirmed no criminal record, but no source mentioned
• Al Jazeera [44] – Are you kidding me? Again a direct quote from Brown's family --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that,
• KSDK article was written by the same author as the USA Today article and repeats it.
• VOX article has inline text link to its source, the USA Today article, “Brown had no criminal record at the time of his death, according to police.”
--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the corrected link for the St Louis Business Journal [13] . --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem with Al Jazeera? Please explain. Once you do I will respond to your other comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(A) Read the article and tell us if there is any bias in the style. (B) They pander to a readership that likes to see the US embarrassed, and (C) it is a direct quote from Brown's family. I think that you have demonstrated either an extreme bias or a lack of capacity to evaluate the difference between reported facts and editorial hyperbole. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that measure we should not be citing Fox News which "panders" to certain group, or MSNBC for the same reason. FYI, Al Jazeera is a news outlet, a WP:RS, and Al Jazeera America is becoming one of the top news channels in the USA, if you have not noted. And before you say you are confused to others, look in the mirror, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't answer the question(s). I've seen your tactics here for a week or more. I can't see any benefit to continue dialog with you. I'll let your comments stand to demonstrate your abilities. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My tactics, sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So Bob, the last three sources seem to be hedging away from an unequivocal "no criminal record. USA Today doesn't say that Brown has no criminal record. They quote that "police say" he has no record. And it seems that the authorities have since backed away from that definite of a statement. So considering the changing statements the more recent sources may be the most reliable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Authorities backed away where and when? Source? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Bob's post above. It's pretty clear that they no longer support an unequivocal "no criminal record." --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did. There is nothing there to support your contention that authorities have backed away from their original statement. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Gaijin42's recent comment in the Survey section, "Its very obvious the original statement was loose and that they were not commenting on the presence or absence of a juvenile record. ..." --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though more sources use "no criminal record", the latest sources appear to use "no adult criminal record". I would give greater deference to the latest sources.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sep 9 update from the same author and same news organization for the Aug 14 source that our article uses for "no criminal record",
"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."[14]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't have a problem with that. While I think that no mention is best, too much time is being spent here on this one issue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not he has a juvenile criminal record is known to Family Court, who aren't releasing that information. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Wikipedia articles should operate in a vacuum; they should stand on their own, independent of all sources except those we as editors choose to include. Other reliable sources that we don't use don't matter. Other non-reliable sources (eg rumors) also don't matter. Those who are say that by using "no adult record" we are implying a juvenile record exists are making a fallacious argument. We make no implication whatsoever. If your doctor took a a fluid sample and reported that you did not have gonorrhea, that does not imply you are not a virgin. If we stated Brown had an adult criminal record, would anyone be complaining that we are implying Brown did not have a juvenile record? I should hope not.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side topics

Alleged convenience store robbery and video

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

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

That does not go into the lede, but feel free to develop the material into the article first. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you were paying any attention you would have noticed that I had already rewritten the relevant maintext to, among other things, include the explanation the Ferguson City Atty gave for releasing the video that I then included in shortened form in the lede. It is really annoying to to have ones work reverted by someone who imagines they own the article and have the right to use simple reverts to keep it the way they like it. Your airy assertion, "That does not go into the lede...", without feeling any need to address my point, is offensive. My argument, AGAIN, is that that (a) if the POV-pushing twaddle that is the criticism of FPD's release of the video is given prominence, then (b) the fact that the FPD has demonstrated that it was legally required to do so ought to be mentioned as well. See WP:NPOV. What is your counterargument, if you have one? And, other than that you are too lazy to pay attention, why did you restore the redundant adjectives, both "controversial" AND "criticized"? Andyvphil (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I support that you are trying to achieve a balance, but I'd rather see the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the Lede modified, than to add more on top of this already troubled paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (
Ferguson has established to my satisfaction that since the robbery case was "exceptionally closed" and that the city has no more than three business days to respond a Sunshine Law request (though it has more to actually provide the material IF it must take more time to accomplish), so that it needed to release the robbery report which included the tape. This is covered to my satisfaction, pretty much, in the maintext. Why the unremarkable and unjustified wingeing about it doing so merits mention in the lede of this article I cannot imagine. So I deleted it. But that was reverted. NPOV requires the city's answer be mentioned IF the accusation is. That's the way it is right now, and I can live with it. Andyvphil (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the part about the sunshine law is lead worthy material. I'm not so sure about the 2nd part discussing the pending lawsuit for the juvineille records. Please ratchet the language back a bit (eg "lazy"). We've had too much of that here already. ThanksTwo kinds of pork (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the evidence I saw and provided the revert was clearly lazy. I'll stop calling attention to it when it stops happening. Andyvphil (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIU the law [15], there was no more obligation to release the video than there is to release the police reports. --Japarthur (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Results

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

That is not how RfCs work, Kevin. You're prematurely assuming that your viewpoint has won out when the RfC has been open for what, a day? There is no "emerging consensus" just because slightly more editors are currently in favor of leaving it out than keeping it in. That's the hallmark of a lack of consensus, in which case: "[i]n discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Please revert your edit and let the RfC run its course. Dyrnych (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the statement is a magnet for editing controversy, where people keep trying to sanitize it rather than remove it. You could always put it back if the RfC changes direction. Interpreting consensus should not just be counting votes, but also measuring the discussion leading to the RfC and considering the activity in editing the article during the RfC. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we're having the RfC: because it's controversial. Let it run its course and we'll all abide by the outcome. Dyrnych (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's barely been 24 hours since the RfC was opened. We need to let this run for several days to try and get some community input, this debate has been ongoing for a couple of weeks now and the content in question should be left in the article. If we just remove it now, new editor's may not want to comment if they see it has already been removed before the RfC is completed. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so happy with the other changes in that paragraph, that I'm less concerned about the Criminal Record standing for now. I don't like the Adult Criminal Record as it implies a juvenile record, which may be unfair. I'm OK for now. Thanks Dyrnych for your cleanup of my "fix". Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Verifiability policy, section Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support removal at this time, but don't want to start the struggle. I'm happier to gain the support of those seeing inclusion, on other cleanup of the Lede. The POV issues here work collectively and no individual component is as egregious as the negative synergy which had developed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second that. Don't make me quote Rodney King. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

RFC's are usually closed by an uninvolved admin who will evaluate the !votes and arguments. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs - Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this. Can you find one? I felt that asking a respected member from the minority to close this could be a good solution. Frankly, I'd be comfortable with you demonstrating your fair and unbiased nature by closing this for us. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the excerpt here from the link you reference: "However, if the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable..." --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For an administrator to close, see Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I am a regular at WP:ANRFC and there is generally a long backlog. Stuff sits there sometimes for a month or more without being handled. If we can set aside our personal opinions and !votes and come to an agreement as to what the RFC result was it will save a lot of time and headache. (And we would likely only have an uninvolved editor handle the request, not an admin in any case) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A judge has denied two petitions to release Ferguson, Mo., shooting victim Michael Brown's juvenile criminal records."[16]

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

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

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

An RFC is not a !vote. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTUNANIMITY , WP:GAME, WP:POINT - Are your arguments more than twice as strong as the other side?Gaijin42 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but considering the votes is part of the process. You have criticized me over belaboring issues. Please consider that you might be doing the same. I am really impressed by some of the quality and commitment that you show here, but I don't understand some of your fervor on particular issues. Clinging to this point appears inconsistent with your finer contributions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC should not be closed until there has been no activity for a least a couple of days. It should then be closed by an admin or experienced editor, unless there is near near-unanimous agreement here as to the result.- MrX 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion of the current result (assuming no additional activity occurs). To be clear, that is a very different question that what is your opinion of the "right answer" for the RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion of this three day old RfC is that comments are roughly spit between the three choices, with some commentors choosing more than one, or responding outside of the scope of the question. If I closed it now, it would be as no consensus.I believe more input is needed. - MrX 15:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr X, you seem to be a very fair minded person who follows policy. Please read the policy cited above regarding closing RfCs. The issue has not been contentious in itself. Only the closing of the RfC has become a contentious point, and I think unfairly so by people trying to use lawyering tactics to postpone the inevitable. I don't see any precedent at this page to drag-out the recognition of an RfC. Besides, as Bob has pointed out above, the onus falls upon those who wish to include disputed material to demonstrate the need for inclusion. Continuing this charade is counter to policy and counter to veracity. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know what policy you're referring to. Could you clarify? RfC is structured processes so that consensus can be better determined. They don't end after three days, or a few hours after the last comment. I've created many RfCs and commented in many more. This is how they work. When editors have stopped commenting, someone can post a close request at WP:ANRFC.- MrX 15:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions, and consensus

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

  • "to ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"
  • WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, but in this case BLP also applies to Brown even if he is deceased. And in this case the contentious issue is not to include the fact that he had no criminal record. And yes, the previous consensus was the current version with "no criminal record". Also WP:BURDEN has been plentifully established already- Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The policies specifically say that removal is the default where there is not a consensus. There may have been a consensus before. At this time there is either no consensus, or a consensus to remove. Either way its going to get removed, don't be disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. We can disagree without calling each other names. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have notified BLPN, RSN, and NPOVN about this RFC. So let's wait and see what uninvolved editors have to say. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

@Cwobeel: Please revert your bold edit. The RfC is still in progress so it is very inappropriate to add disputed content, especially to the lead.- MrX 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have BRD, so if this BOLD attempt is not welcome, it can be reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your bold addition, per WP:BRD.- MrX 17:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support Cwobeel in an excellent step toward meeting WP:V. Thank you! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that you were reverted. I would actively repost your text, but I've already put myself in jeopardy this morning, ironically for reverting you. I encourage another editor to replace Cwobeels excellent compromise. He/she speaks the TRUTH --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now at least the section on Brown has wording that is factually correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of having a RfC and asking editor's to comment on article content when that content has already been removed? You've boldy removed the material, why not just go all the fucking way and boldly close the RfC (after 72 hours) and call it a day. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree I'll close it per your request. You opened this with the best of intentions, but it has become an abomination of mendacity, game-playing and stall tactics. What is clear is that what was originally posted in good faith was later refuted by subsequent information. This is too fast moving of topic to expect static processes to work. I oppose the use of future RfCs in this article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I opened this with the intention of leaving it open for the process to work, and for the community to have a chance to comment. But it seems some would rather just bully their way into getting what they want, remove the material while the RfC is ongoing and then close the RfC just as fast as they can. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone my archive so that the process can continue and we can get more outside input. As the matter is disputed and a BLP issue, I thiink removal until there is consensus for inclusion is appropriate, but there is no harm in waiting for additional input. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gaijin42, thanks for the revert, but the disputed BLP issue was only edit-warred from the lede, the disputed BLP issue is still in article space with the juvenile record added. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of unrest in lede

In the lede, this sentence:

"The mix of peaceful protests along with vandalism and looting continued for more than a week with occurrences of violence and curfews at night."

… was replaced by

"Protests, both peaceful and violent, and vandalism and looting continued for more than a month, along with night curfews."

The second version does not reflect the lead of the Ferguson unrest article, so I have restored the previous version, which it does, not to mention the grammar of the second version with two running "and"s - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or event better, we can use what is currently in the lead of the unrest article, which is concise and to the point:

"Along with peaceful protests, there was looting and violent unrest in the vicinity of the original shooting."

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either of your preferred choices, and agree the middle replacement version has grammar issues (although I do not object to the content within it) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In typical underhanded fashion, Cwobeel defends his revert of my edit [[17]] without either linking to it or mentioning my edit comment, "'Some protesters were seen throwing Molotov cocktails at the police'", and I gather he has removed the supporting cite to the BBC, containing that quote, from the lede as well. The individuals throwing gasoline bombs, not to mention the brick which broke a cop's ankle, were neither vandals nor looters, at least at the instant of these violent acts. In the article linked to, and many others, they are called "protesters", and Cwobeel's assertion that we are obliged to import a POV-pushing fiction from another article is absurd. The "protests" were both peaceful and violent. That is a fact. Andyvphil (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In typical fashion, you need to cool off, this is not a battleground. Yes, I agree that there was violence (from both sides), some looting and riots, but what you have there in the lead does not present an accurate picture of the unrest. It only describes the first week, but protests have been going on for a month now and violence subsided almost completely once the highway patrol took over from whats was described as an incompetent police and over-aggressive response by local police. So, my point is that the lead needs to describe the protest in toto, not just the first week. Capsice? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that curfews were imposed three or four nights only during a month long protest, but what we say there seems to indicate that the curfews were ongoing and that the protests lasted a week. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Given the contention, rather than being BOLD, here is a proposal to add as a second sentence to the lede describing the unrest after the first ~10 days:

After tactical changes in policing where implemented by Governor Nixon, in which local police ceded much of its authority to the Highway Patrol and in which the use of militaries police was drastically reduced, de-escalation ensued with mainly peaceful protests continuing for the next weeks at Ferguson.

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think details of how the conflict de-escalated do not belong in the lead. The lead needs to be shorter, not longer. Fnordware (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from a few copyediting (ie wording) tweaks I think your proposal strikes a good balance. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ACanadianToker: Can you give it a go and improve the text? Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a try, I tried to integrate it with what was already there. I'd welcome any changes. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redacted


EDIT lol oops @Cwobeel: it was already in the lead, a little lower. I'm going to delete it - A Canadian Toker (talk)

photos

Its great that we have a wide selection of photographs for this article from several photographers who have released their photos, especially photos of the notable individuals are great additions.

For illustrative photos though, once we get past one or two photos for each concept (scene, peaceful protest, looting, police actions, etc) I think the marginal utility of additional photos diminishes very quickly.

For example, these protest photos are already in the article, or have been recently uploaded at cwobeels request. I object to none of them, but once one (or perhaps two) of them is in the article, what is the next adding? Similar galleries could of course be created for photos of the police, or looters, or each other subject - to be clear my concern is not about the just protest photos, it is just the easiest to illustrate.

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "hands up no shoot" has been the motto of the protests and it should be illustrated. The memorial is a powerful image as well. As for other images, we need to show the clashes with police, the peaceful protests, and the violence as well. A well illustrated article is always an improvement. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The memorial shows both the memorial, and hands up don't shoot. what do 3 photos of people carrying signs show that is not already illustrated by 1? None of those photos involve the police, or violence etc. I realize some of the other photos are not yet in the article, but since you asked for them to be uploaded I am assuming you intend to use them at some point. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No that was not my intent, I added some of these to the unrest article, not here. The sharpshooter aiming his weapon at peaceful protesters in broad light, is another one that we should keep, as it was the image that stirred the controversy about militarization and the response by the Federal government and state government. We should be thankful that a journalist has released these images under CC. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the sharpshooter is aiming the weapon because he isn't looking through the sight.[18] He seems to be at the ready. Also, that picture overflows into the next section about the federal government.[19] Looks like too many pictures. Recall that there is a main article for the unrest topic, so we should keep this section short. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here as another one of the sharpshooter from the same photographer [20] (and if you watched news that day, you could clearly see him aiming at the crowd that was peacefully protecting and in broad light. No, I am not kidding. In the USA from all places). - Cwobeel (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That photo also doesn't show the officer aiming the weapon at anyone (or aiming it at all, for that matter). The way he's positioned, he wouldn't even be able to see the lens of his sight. Are there any available photos of the armed gang members who were present at the "peaceful" protests and who declared their readiness to use their guns against the police? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your newly added picture per my previous remarks. If you would still like to add it, you'll need consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Maybe we need consensus to remove it? Just kidding. I think the sharpshooter photo I posted above is the one we need, as it is very telling of what happened there in the aftermath of the shooting. I'll wait until that photo is in Commons before I re-add it for discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I thought you were going to "re-add it for discussion" here before you added it to the article. Oh well, just an honest miscommunication. I deleted it for similar reasons that I mentioned for the other picture. Additionally, NPOV considerations for pictures in that section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Haw can a photo of police militarized action that was covered substantially in the press , and which resulted in Gov. Nixon removing FPD authority from Ferguson be an NPOV issue. Not having that photo is a violation of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The images of the officer atop the vehicle pointing his mounted weapon at crowds is quite important to understanding the events and received in-depth commentary and coverage. Good addition. Darmokand (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cwobeel, I see that you are trying to get this new edit into the article by edit warring.[21] I think you should be waiting for a consensus for the new edit like I am doing in a similar situation in the talk section below, Proposal to balance a criticism of prosecutor with a defense.
Your remarks don't address the NPOV issue of having 3 out of 4 pictures in the section on one side of the controversy. Your remarks also don't address the other issues from our previous discussion a few messages ago that apply to this new picture too: “ Looks like too many pictures. Recall that there is a main article for the unrest topic, so we should keep this section short.” The current state of the section "Aftermath in Ferguson" after Cwobeel's revert is [22]. The subject sharpshooter picture is the fourth one of the section and overflows into the next section.
Also note that the gun and scope are directed to the right of the camera.[23] The sharpshooter appears relaxed with one arm down and is looking with his scope at something, and we don't know what it is or how far away it is. The caption that you put in the article says otherwise, "Police sharpshooter with weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests in Ferguson." --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the way described in the media: The Guardian: “A police sniper looks over the crowds” [24] Photo: [25]. The SWAT officer does not seem to me to be "relaxed"; he is aiming at the crowd. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, you felt that the caption in The Guardian didn't paint the police as the oppressive monsters they are, and so you decided to editorialize a little. NO CONCERNS AT ALL, BRO.
I suppose you also did not note my observation above that the sniper is not aiming at the crowd, and in fact not aiming the weapon at all. No? Well, now I've reminded you, so you can stop attempting to publish your misconceptions on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
t is not about my misconceptions or yours. We should follow what the sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note: The caption I used is the caption used in the Wikipedia Commons for that photo, which was uploaded by a journalist. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your willful IDIDNTHEARTHAT ignorance is becoming obnoxious. As I clearly stated, the source did not say what you said; instead you chose inflammatory POV-pushing editorializing, which is highly inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Pet's sake, cool it. Read the caption on the image at Wikipedia Commons: Police sharpshooter with weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests in Ferguson, MO [26]. So, your accusations are baseless and bordering on personal attacks. Stop it. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I of course already read the freaking caption. I simply mistakenly assumed the piece was from The Guardian and thus actually had some grounding in a RS.
Anyway, we can't just make up stuff like this. Whoever wrote, wrongly of course, that the cop was "training his weapon in the direction of the camera", was engaging in editorializing of the kind we reserve for RS's.
The photo shows a cop with a weapon on a rooftop looking out over a crowd, and nothing more. You're trying to make it sound like the cop was actually aiming at the camera, which he wasn't.
The photographer chose the angle of the photo, and it's pretty obvious he selected the shot specifically for the purpose of getting that menacing down-the-barrel look. So, kudos to the photographer for being manipulative. But we don't then use that as a platform for sensationalism, and we don't incorporate any POV-push advocated by the file uploader. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I write this the caption in the article mentions "crowd" there is no crowd in the photo. In addition the caption at Wikipedia Commons does not mention "crowd". My suggestion is to re-label the article caption as Police sharpshooter with weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests in Ferguson, MO Morpheus ad (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No — besides the POV concerns discussed above, he actually is "looking out over the crowd", but he is not "training his weapon in the direction of the camera". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we were using the Guardian photo, you would be right. But we are not using that photo. I don't think we will resolve this by a discussion, so we should keep the caption to the bare minimum. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that there isn't a "crowd" in the photo, and yet the caption for that photo in the article reads: "Police sharpshooter looks over the crowd". The photo itself doesn't reveal what the sharpshooter was looking at. It's reasonable to assume that the sharpshooter's attention is directed toward the crowd or to other areas of interest, I guess. But if there isn't an RS that makes a "crowd" claim (for whatever particular photo will be used in Wikipedia) it would seem that Wikipedia is making an assumption not supported by fact in mentioning "crowd" (maybe the sharpshooter is sighting-in on a billboard, we don't know). Also, in response to Cwobeel, above, you state: "The photo shows a cop with a weapon on a rooftop looking out over a crowd, and nothing more.". How did you determine that the cop was on a rooftop? It may be a good assumption, but it's difficult, for me at least, to make out where the sharpshooter is. I wouldn't expect such a face-on-view photo from a photographer at ground level looking up at the sharpshooter. It could be that the photographer was at ground level but was far enough away and using a telephoto lens to get such a shot, maybe. I suspect a photographer wouldn't be allowed on a rooftop with the sharpshooter, but who knows. How does "Police sharpshooter at protests in Ferguson, MO" sound to you? Also a date of the particular protest day may be useful, like: "Police sharpshooter at the DATE HERE protest in Ferguson, MO". What do you think?--Morpheus ad (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sharpshooter was at the rooftop of a SWAT vehicle. That is undisputed, it was all over the news that day. See [27]: with the caption A member of the St. Louis County Police Department points his weapon in the direction of a group of protesters in Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday. [Photo here: http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/1c1e9ca/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fef%2Ffe%2F2f8ef6df4258b1e90f6f5a3e5706%2F140814cops-editorial.jpg] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hah. I was thinking of a building's rooftop. So, a vehicle rooftop makes sense for the photo currently in the article. However, I think there should be a correspondence between what the caption says and what the photo depicts. In the article's photo a "rooftop" isn't visible (that I can tell, but also not mentioned in the caption so it's not an issue) nor any "crowd" (which is mentioned in the Wikipedia caption), but appears in the link you gave above. For those people who saw the photo you linked to and/or read about the sharpshooter's location the Wikipedia article's picture and caption will make sense. But standing alone, without prior knowledge, the "crowd" part of the caption belies the reality of what is seen in the photo. Is it for copyright reasons that the photo that actually shows the sharpshooter's location (vehicle rooftop) and the crowd can't be used in the Wikipedia article? If the only photo currently available is the Wikipedia Common photo, then "crowd" should be removed from the caption and I stand by my recent suggestions for a caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus ad (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to 'WP:DROPTHESTICK? The current caption reads Police sharpshooter at top of SWAT vehicle during protests at Ferguson. Let the readers arrive to their own conclusions, as an image is worth a thousand words. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a better photo, showing the surroundings, captioned: Protesters raise their hands in front of armed police in Ferguson. Photograph: JB Forbes/AP [28], so the current caption is consistent with what is depicted. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't be too captious (ha ha) with the current caption you suggest. I won't even mention that your suggested caption implies that a SWAT vehicle will be seen in the photo (god, I love apophasis) when I'm really hard pressed to see a vehicle in that photo at all ;) In any case, thanks for addressing my major concern about the "crowd". At least it saves me from countering any potential arguments invoking the sorites paradox--that would be a heap of work to refute for so small a matter ;) --Morpheus ad (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to balance a criticism of prosecutor with a defense

In a recent edit, a sentence that defended Prosecutor McCulloch from a criticism regarding a 2000 case was removed.[29] I propose restoring it for NPOV. This proposal concerns the third paragraph of the current section Grand Jury, which would be changed to the following if the proposed sentence is added to the end of it (the proposed sentence is underlined in the following).

Previously on August 17, Cornell Brooks, the president of the NAACP, had called for a special prosecutor in the case, saying that was needed to restore credibility with Ferguson's black community.[1] On August 21, State Senator Jamilah Nasheed presented a petition with 70,000 signatures calling for McCulloch's recusal, based on the close relationship between McCulloch and the police department, as well as accusations that he didn’t file charges when he should have against two undercover officers who shot and killed two unarmed black men in 2000, and other controversies.[2][3][4][5] A subsequent federal investigation found that the shooting was justified.[3]

3. Nicholas J.C. Pistor and Joe Holleman (August 16, 2014). "St. Louis prosecutor has faced controversy for decades". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved September 9, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want that text, then we need to expand the criticism of McCulloch, which you deleted. So less is more. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the reader a detailed understanding of the reasons why so many people want McCulloch to step down seems a sensible step. His documented manipulations of grand juries and lies to the public - and his close family ties with the police - go beyond what remains in the new version of the article and should be mentioned in some details, IMHO. "STLToday.Petitions" that was hidden is the most complete presentation I found. --Japarthur (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the Washington Post and Time Magazine, among others, practically predicting that no indictment will be forthcoming, a conclusion reached based on their obliterating list of McCulloch-driven irregularities either witnessed or whispered to date, I believe that this matter is of extreme importance and should be thoroughly reported in the article. A smattering of information that might defend McCulloch's practices would be appropriate as well, as long as proper WP:WEIGHT attaches to the same in proportion to the WEIGHTier criticisms -- weightier at least from my vantage point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun King

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

As much as I respect the work that Shaun has done here, I would concur that he is no more a reliable source than I am. And let's be clear. I'm not claiming to be a reliable source. Further, he is in the process of creating an organization that is very much on one side of the issue. And yes, I'm on the same side of that issue and just as passionate as Shaun in defending my POV born out of my POR and my PSYNTH.
I will, however, respectfully request that if, at any time, any of you see a reliable source that substantially calls into question Chief Belmar's claim that the distance between the SUV (not a cruiser as I think of cruiser, typically) and the deceased body of Michael Brown was substantially more than 35 feet, that you please message me as a courtesy so that I can propose wording to reflect the same in the article. I've been looking at Instagram videos taken that day and am persuaded that 35 feet may be inaccurate. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for evidentiary support for lede claim on the question of whether Michael Brown's hands were up.when he was shot

As of 8:47 AM 09/23/2014, the following sentence figures in the lead. 

   Witness reports differ as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson, when the final shots were fired.

Problem 1: the term "final shots" is so vague as to be meaningless. Does "final shots" refer to the last two shots (assuming that those two are the ones that went into his head)? Or are we referring to the final three shots after the smaller pause? Or the final four shots heard after the 3 second pause? Or perhaps the final 10 shots heard in the space of 6.6 seconds on the Glide recording? Or does final shots refer to all of the shots that Wilson fired after getting out of the car, which could well be more than 10.

That question aside, I must say that I find the statement lacking in Reliable-Source support, as I am aware of no witness statements that have been reported in the RSM (reliable-source media) where a witness categorically states that Michael's hands were not up at some point between the time that he stopped running and turned around and the time that he was killed.

Can anyone point to a claim in any reliable source of an actual witness (not a Darren Wilson surrogate -- an actual witness) who is emphatic that Brown never at any time raised his hands? An actual verbaitm citation from said witness would be even more impressive -- and if you can provide that in the form of an actual video recording, well that would be extra-satisfactory. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused, what are you getting at? Darren Wilson is a witness, and if he says Brown was not surrendering, then that's a witness account that "differs" from, e.g., what Dorian Johnson told the TV cameras. That said, perhaps we could alleviate your concern by changing the prose as follows: "Witness reports differ as to whether Brown was attempting to surrender when the fatal shots were fired." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, FactCheker, if my intent isn't clear. I'm fact checking. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, in discussions of a shooting death, journalists and the public at large make a clear distinction between the person who did the killing and those who watched the killing occur. We call the person who killed (in cases where he or she admits to doing the killing, as in this case) the "perpetrator." We call those who watched the event occur without actively participating in the killing "witnesses" or "eyewitnesses." Is it our intent to turn this longstanding and almost universally accepted convention on its head?
But let's go with your interpretation of the word witness, FactChecker. Now that you have identified this outlier "witness," can you provide for me a Reliable Source that quotes this "witness" as stating that Brown never put his arms up as a gesture of surrender?
Personally, I would contend that to lump Wilson into the category of witnesses borders on an attempt to to lump a dog's tail into the category of dog legs. While it is technically true that Wilson did witness himself killing Michael Brown, it is also true that by not making clear to our readers that your basis for the claim that witnesses disagree is to create a flagrantly false impression that there is substantial disagreement among the nonhomicidal witnesses to this event. That is journalistically or encyclopedically unprofessional, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest.
This, because, when it comes to the question of Brown's signaling an intent to surrender, the nonhomicidal witnesses are not in disagreement. (You are free, of course, to Original Research and/or Synthesis pontificate at length as to whether Michael's show of raised hands was a sincere gesture of surrender. And if you can find a RS to back up that OR/SYNTH, I suppose you can even raise that question in the article.
This being said, what would be so wrong with reporting in the lede and in the Shooting Incident section
1) the fact that the witnesses are in substantial agreement when it comes to Brown having raised his hands, and
2) the fact that Wilson's self-imagined and thoroughly debunked surrogate, "Josie", tells a different story?
I know this sounds harsh. But I do not recall any statements made by official police sources telling us anything at all about Michael's behavior at the time that the final 10 shots were fired. Do any of you?
Yes, Princess Josie, Defender of the Heroic, made the claim. And yes, anonymous police sources said, "Yeah, Darren's story is exactly Josie's story." But it is also true that these anonymous spokespersons glommed on to Josie's account *before* the same, with 99%-certainty, was tied by investigative reporters/bloggers to two bogus Facebook posts which went up and came down in the 48 hours leading up to Josie's placement of her anonymous phone call to the Dana Loesch Show. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dareen Wilson is not a witness; he is an actor in this event, but in any case we don't have his version of events and what we have heard so far is unconfirmed hearsay. We have rehashed that sentence during a long discussion a few weeks ago and we arrived to the current sentence via consensus. Please check the archives. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Dareen Wilson is not a witness; he is an actor in this event" — do please explain what you mean by that?
No need to answer, Cwobeel. Just substantiate my answer as being identical to the one that you have given your friends in private communications. :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, I don't have a problem with the current revision, was only offering a suggestion to allay the concerns of another user. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Wilson's proxies being valid, other witnesses such as Brady say they saw the final moments, and do not mention hands up. "emphatically saying hands were down" is a made up standard. Saying proxies are not included is a made up standard.
In any case, we have to follow the sources, not our own research, and the sources say there is a difference in witness accounts.[30] "But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed." (NYT) [31]Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gaijin42, your suggestion that we must defer to demonstrably untrue reporting from reliable sources who are acting in unreliable ways leaves me speechless -- figuratively speaking anyway. To suggest that Michael Brady is a contrary witness is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, since you and I both know that he was moving from his bedroom to the exterior of his apartment at the very moments when the other witnesses unanimously concur that he had his hands in the air and so he wasn't a witness during that phase of the incident. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the witness debate above, I see your point, but would also put Johnson into the "participant" bucket. Brady claims to have seen the final shots, which are the ones the other witnesses say the hands were up for. If the claims vary so wildly that the hands could have been up for the final shots, or could have been up 10-15 seconds before, then we still have a lot of variability in the witness statements that should be described. It is not my suggestion that we follow the sources, it is wikipedia policy. There is room for compromise, certainly there are some sources that make the analysis that the majority of published witness accounts (published being an important distinction) agree on hands up. I have no objection to saying so, but I do have an objection to removing any hint that there is an alternate view of events. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed and unfleshed alternative clearly includes a place for the alternate view. I simply want that alternate view tied to Josie -- unless of course there is someone else to tie it to. To my knowledge, Chief Belmar has been silent on the matter. The same is true, I believe, of Chief Jackson. Josie's the only person who has actually gone out and made a claim of what actually happened between Michael Brown's horrible mauling of heroic Officer Wilson and the regrettable but eminently justifiable eradication of this very large, very taunting, very juiced up on something, and very threatening menace. (Sorry, my swimmingness in the septic reservoirs of police-friendly social media is clouding my characterizations. Admit though, that I am being very euphemistic compared to what my "friends" are actually saying.)

And to further clarify, I am not talking about the question of whether Brown was standing still, coming at Wilson or bum rushing Wilson. I am focused 100 percent on the question of hands being raised. The sentence that I am targeting, regrettably, blends the two into one construct, at least as I perceive it. I believe a little disambiguation is in order here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I am going to restate my challenge to those of you who defend the current wording, but this time, in more unmistakable terms:[reply] 

 Can anyone point to a claim in any reliable source of an actual NONHOMICIDAL witness (not a Darren Wilson 
 surrogate -- an actual witness) who is emphatic that Brown never at any time raised his hands?

If your answer to this challenge is "no," you would do us all (or me, at least) a great favor by stating the same on the record rather than keeping your answer silent. Or you could just fix the sentence in the lede. That would be extrasatisfactory as well. Take all the time you need to research the answer to my challenge. That's cool. What isn't cool is leaving that statement up in the article where the sources provided for the same don't provide this smoking gun NONHOMICIDAL witness that you are suggesting to the world is out there somewhere. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you speak of is already a BLP nightmare, best to leave it as is. All we have at this point is media interviews, we have no idea what the witnesses actually told the police in their statements. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of suggesting that I find the paragraph to which I am responding relevant to the topic at hand, which I do not, sadly, I must ask you, Isaidnoway, do you make a distinction between he meanings of the following two phrases, "media interviews" and "witness reports?" Personally, I would consider them pretty much interchangeable, as in "... witness reports obtained in the context of media interviews ...." Disallowing the use of the term witness to refer to Darren Wilson, what other kinds of "witness reports" do we have? And if we have no witness reports at all, just media interviews, then why the use of the phrase "witness reports" in the lede? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your confusion is understandable, so let me be clear - "Media interviews with witnesses" vs. "Police interviews with witnesses", two separate and distinct meanings. And since we have no "Police interviews with witnesses", the lead is fine as is with witness reports, however once we do start seeing some statements from the police, then obviously the distinction between what the witnesses told the media vs. what the witnesses told the police will be noted in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what are we referring to at present, Isaidnoway? witness reports or media interviews? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Media interviews of witnesses. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, this irrelevant argumentation and grandstanding has got to stop. If you can't participate here without constantly broadcasting your hostility to article subjects and other editors, please don't participate at all.

You're allowed to edit the article. I made a suggestion that ought to fully address your stated concern. You didn't edit the sentence to your liking, you haven't even suggested what would be acceptable to you, nor did you even respond to my suggested edit. Instead, you launched on another tirade insulting article subjects and questioning the motivations of the editors who are trying to work with you, as well as quite ridiculously accusing the NYT of "demonstrably untrue reporting from reliable sources who are acting in unreliable ways".

The common usage of terminology is as I said — Wilson is a witness. This is probably one reason why the NYT chose the wording it did. Your bizarre insistence on finding the direct account of some "nonhomicidal witness", and on having editors line up and be counted as to whether they think this completely made-up standard is satisfied, is irrelevant to the article, disruptive, and insulting.

The plain fact of the matter is that there is disagreement among witnesses as to whether or not Brown was attempting to surrender. That is the reality, and that is what sources say, and WP is a platform for reflecting that reality as given to us, not for questioning it or arguing with it or presenting one editor's alternative view. We can perhaps play with the wording a little — would you be satisfied if we just said "accounts differ", without saying the word witness? — but we're not working with a blank canvas here.

Please respond directly and to the point, if at all; otherwise this discussion is offtopic and needs to stop. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

memorial burning

Possibly better for the unrest article, but this is starting to percolate through the blogs and some RS. Apparently the memorial got lit on fire. Some residents claim the cops did it intentionally (Witness Piaget Crenshaw in particular is quite vocal in this accusation on her twitter). Cops claim the candles that were part of the memorial lit the stuffed animals on fire.

http://host.madison.com/special-section/ferguson/part-of-michael-brown-memorial-burns/article_15dfca6f-a457-53a4-b924-33a2ad687c99.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fire-destroys-michael-brown-memorial-missouri-25699069

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/michael-brown-memorial-burns-candles-spark-fire-cops-article-1.1949518

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Unrest in Lede

This phrase in the lede - "and in which the use of militarized police was drastically reduced" - appears to be an editorial comment unsupported by the RS in the body of the article. What is "militarized police" and how was subsequent policing not "militarized police?" There either needs to be an objective definition, or a RS needs to be presented that - while not providing a definition - at least supports that unambiguous statement. I've made a WP:BOLD edit. BlueSalix (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown&oldid=626970754"