Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Video and police report where Wilson arrests citizen videographer for "Failure to Comply" to his demands that he cease videotaping

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/shock-video-darren-wilson-violates-1st-amendment-ill-lock-ass-up-arrests-man-filming/ Notable in that Wilson is clearly understood to threaten that if the individual takes one more picture of him, "I'm locking your ass up." Also notable is the full inclusion of the police report where Wilson gives his version of events and admits to arresting the individual for "Failure to Comply," the same infraction for which a large number of Ferguson protesteres have been arrested in the the months since the shooting. The article states that this story is an exclusive. I guess that means we can't use it, right? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian picked it up: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/16/ferguson-video-shows-darren-wilson-arresting-man-for-recording-him Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, a user Bdel555 added that about 13 hours after your comments. Some time after that, I removed it on NPOV grounds. If RS reported an incident two years ago when Brown shoved a girl, I would oppose inclusion of that for the same reason. I'm not 100% confident on this, which is why I encouraged the user to take it to talk. Btw, I don't see any reason why an exclusive from a reliable source would be prohibited, that fact wouldn't make it any less reliable. Btw #2, I note that the home page of thefreethoughtproject.com includes a convenient index to all their articles that have negative things to say about cops. "Police Throw 3-Year-Old in Jail Cell After Arresting Mother." Very impressive. I wouldn't want them and The Guardian to be my only sources for something like this. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay out. The facts about that earlier arrest are unclear (What was the cause of the incident? Are we sure the "failure to comply" was about filming as opposed to a lawful order?), and in any event, I don't see the relevance to the Michael Brown shooting or the question of whether Wilson was justified in using lethal force. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be left out. Has nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be added back in order for NPOV is to be maintained. "Wilson received a commendation for extraordinary effort in the line of duty'" also has "nothing to do with the shooting and whether it was justified or not" yet that bit of fluff is in the article, apparently in order to push on the reader the POV that Wilson is some sort of model officer. There are also paragraphs and paragraphs under "Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson" yet, as the Guardian clearly pointed out, Wilson's claim in the police report that he had a camera in his face, etc was not what everyone would call a full and accurate account of what actually happened. Readers are entitled to know what to make of the source's reliability when Wikipedia is using the source (Wilson) so extensively.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555: So fix it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not about to add back material with three clear "votes" against, but I'm going to read your take, and that of the original poster, as partial to inclusion, so together with my own view (by the way, I'm the one who added Brown's theft to the "Shooting" section, so it's not like I think only one party's history here is notable) I take it as reasonable to re-add until there is another comment here addressing 1) exclusively having the "commendation" stuff and 2) the relevance of the question of how accurate Wilson's report about the video-ed incident was.
I'll add here that there's a lot more about Wilson that is still left unsaid, e.g. had an unstable childhood with his mother remarrying 3 times (and her being convicted of financial crimes), himself divorced last year, his former department, Jennings, was disbanded over race relations problems and a corruption scandal, many accusing felons are now walking right back into the community because Wilson has been a no show at any of their court appearances since the shooting, etc. Yet the Washington Post is reporting this stuff... and "old video surfaced of an officer who looked like Wilson threatening to arrest a man who was videotaping him" as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's called NPOV. You'll also note that we report that someone said Brown "didn't cause trouble" and was "a gentle giant", and that he was scheduled to start trade school in a few days, things that could also be called "fluff". There's a balance already there, and you don't balance a brief mention of a commendation with a 116-word paragraph on an unrelated incident from 2013. Your POV is showing here, clearly evident in your final paragraph, and you go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize adding the paragraph back (for example, "So fix it", without an accompanying argument, doesn't count for much, but you gave it full weight). Even after your rationalization, you still only have a 3-3 tie, which is not a consensus for change, and thus you rationalize twice. Frankly, it's stunning from someone at your level of experience. I'm not going to edit war with you, so I ask that you please remove this content again. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Usually I would have more patience on something like this. But I think it will be especially important to be as neutral as possible just after the no bill is announced. If I'm awake and around when that happens (I have irregular sleep hours), I will remove this content if it's still there. I hope Bdel555 does the responsible thing before then. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Noting consensus or the absence thereof is not "rationalization" in the pejorative way you use that term, it's a reason why it is unreasonable to take a "my way or the highway" take on this and imply another editor is being disruptive (or ir"responsible") by adding back well sourced material you deleted. Reasonable people can disagree about this, which is why I have given time for more community input. Reasonable people, however, provide reasons, not just opinions. I am not calling here for the inclusion of "gentle giant". That is not the issue here. The issue here is the continued lack of any substantive argument for suppressing material that the Guardian, the Washington Post, and others have found notable besides that it doesn't flatter the shooter in this incident as if that automatically means a NPOV violation. I should note that the other opinions calling for deletion are equally poorly substantiated in terms of actual argument as opposed to hand waving about "NPOV" where NPOV is defined to be whatever the hand waver claims it to be. To quote policy (always a good idea when there is a disagreement), "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments".

NPOV means we do not try to push any particular POV on the reader about this subject. We instead follow the lead of the Guardian and WaPo and we present the facts, and do not spin them because you perceive them as negative or unflattering. Wikipedia is not a public relations platform. I will now ask you again to address my concern that we have possible reason here to question Wilson's reliability and thus readers should be informed of that so that they can draw their own conclusions instead of Wikipedia editors deciding for them that Wilson's account should be presented very extensively (ie a LOT more than the 116 word limit you seem to see as a trigger threshold for excessive) without any hint that RS like the Guardian have questioned his credibility. Our job is provide accurate information to readers, not spin it, and to anyone arguing WP:RS to call for deletion, I would say it is unreasonable to contend that the scans of Wilson's report, or the video, are faked. You say this incident is "unrelated". No, it is not. It goes to both Wilson's credibility and how he reacts. It's certainly more related than how many people live in Crestwood, yet I don't see you complaining about that. If you want this material excluded, then explain just why it is that something deemed unflattering should be excluded instead of just defining NPOV as the inclusion of unflattering material. If the article was a giant hit piece against Wilson, we'd have a NPOV problem. We'd also have a NPOV problem if all reliably sourced material that Wilson would presumably want excluded was excluded. Is there anything else in this article Wilson would want removed? Unflattering material about Brown ("robbery" is mentioned 19 times in the article) is certainly not being excluded. Calling for the exclusion of negative material (by implying that having even just this 1.2% of the article referring to negative material about the shooter would be WP:UNDUE) is, in fact, the exact opposite of maintaining neutrality.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

From the police report, here is what the Failure to Comply was about.[1]

”Arman was then escorted to my patrol vehicle, #108, where he was seated in the rear seat. I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

And whether this is true or not is disputed since there is reason to believe that the "request" was to stop recording and that stopping recording was not, in fact, "needed in order to complete the summons process.” One can deliver a summons while being recorded. But no one associated with Wikipedia need to come to a conclusion one way or another about that as readers inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value are free to do so. We should not be denying readers not inclined to take Wilson's claim at face value the opportunity to become skeptical. Skepticism about Wilson's claims would not be an issue if Wilson's claims about another event were not being repeated in the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears that The Guardian article is getting from the police report the information about what Arman was charged with. The article says, "Arman, 30, was charged with failing to comply with Wilson’s orders." It is consistent with what was in the police report, "I then advised Arman that he was under arrest for Failure to Comply, as he refused to comply with all the requests needed in order to complete the summons process." --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob, where the Guardian questions Wilson's credibility is the paragraph "Despite being shown at the other end of Arman’s garden path, Wilson wrote in his report that he told Arman 'to remove the camera from my face'. He [also] claimed to have asked Arman to place his hands behind his back, [but this] is not visible or audible from the recording. 'I was forced to grab his wrists one at a time and secure them into handcuffs,' Wilson wrote."--Brian Dell (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We were discussing what Arman was charged with. Let's try to finish that before continuing on another aspect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian Dell, Just a reminder of my above response to you. Did you want to continue our discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. What question would you like me to answer? May I first ask just what edit to the article you would like to see? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shooting of Michael Brown article." Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re your comment "Is it not a waste of time to talk about Arman being charged with "failure to comply" with when nobody has introduced into the article, or has proposed introducing, any particular claim about what Arman was charged with?” — No because your edit implied that Arman was charged with failure to comply for not stopping his video recording. Here's the excerpt from your edit:[2] "A video later emerged of Wilson standing near his vehicle telling the resident on his front porch, 'If you wanna take a picture of me one more time, I’m gonna lock your ass up.' Wilson subsequently advanced to the porch to arrest the resident while insisting that the resident did not have a right to record.” --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not necessarily imply that. Wilson could be of the view that there was a "failure to comply" with some other instruction of his that was off camera. The edit does not rule out this possibility so why are you? If, in your view, something between those quotes must, as matter of logical necessity, be factually false because something is necessarily implied that is indisputably false, please spell out for us just what it is that is indisputably false. If your contention is rather (the more comprehensible objection) that I am misrepresenting the Guardian by creating an implication the Guardian did not, I already addressed that above (but you called that off topic).--Brian Dell (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose your edit because it has a false implication per my previous remarks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You're saying, if A then B, but not B, therefore not A, right? First of all, where's your proof of "not B"? I would advise you to keep WP:NOR in mind when attempting to assemble that proof. Secondly, it isn't necessarily an if A then B situation anyway, because if could be if A then C.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I think people here will attest to the fact that I tend to get a little "pejorative" with editors who ignore the controls, the checks and balances, that make this encyclopedia work (somewhat), when they don't have inexperience as an excuse. You didn't have consensus for that edit, and you knew it, but you did it anyway. I'll try to stay out of any further discussions with you. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation of bad faith on my part is completely bogus. You reverted me and declined to raise the matter on the Talk page for discussion before you reverted me. It is not true that I was editing against consensus while you were editing consistent with consensus. You did not know what consensus was when you reverted me. And consensus remains disputed, in my view. I do have some experience, yes, experience with editors who take a "consensus" of the sort you called a "3-3 tie" and then manipulate that into something they think is solid enough and strong enough to just start shoving on instead of addressing the pros and cons of the edit in question. The ball is in the court of those calling for exclusion, and absent a Talk page response that addresses the specific reasons for inclusion that have been given, editors should not be intimidated into not editing by other editors who are not engaging in discussion. This page is for discussion of the edit, and in your last response here, you've refused to engage in that discussion, or answer the specific points I put to you, instead trying to make this about an editor instead of about the edit in question. if you don't have the time or the inclination to discuss this, then you don't have the time to edit war over it.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware of the concept of de facto consensus? De facto consensus before you showed up was without that content. It remained for 6 hours before I removed it, and 6 hours does not establish a new de facto consensus. That's less than a decent night's sleep for most of us. I'm sorry, but you're playing a very weak hand here, Brian. I couldn't count the number of times I've had to just give up on something because I couldn't force anyone to talk to me about it. It sucks, but it's Wikipedia. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I previously complained about your defining NPOV to suit your purposes but the way you've just defined consensus is self-serving in spades. I presume this is why you just now deleted this, yet again, a mere TWO MINUTES after it was added. Because every minute that goes by strengthens the "de facto consensus" in favour of keeping it? And you clearly can't have that! How about giving it a chance to find "de facto consensus" like I've been giving your edits? ie 24 hours. If no one else removes it during that time, maybe Wikipedia doesn't need your deletion services as badly as you think they do. For the record, I'll note that another editor appeared on your user Talk page to question your deletion of this material, an inclusion opinion you have not disclosed here in your claims about what the consensus is.

I take it that "the number of times I've had to just give up on something" doesn't include many cases of edit warring because you don't seem to be at all willing to stop THAT (and instead address, substantively, why we should not include what the WaPo, the Guardian, FOX News,, USA Today, etc all include. What else about Wilson is not notable, in your books? You disagree with Erik Wemple that "That Wilson would be absenting himself from official court testimony while shopping his story around to TV network types is enormous news"? If we can't nention that either just what are we allowed to say about this guy?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We clearly have very different ideas about what's correct procedure, so I'll bow out and let you resolve this with others. If they feel less strongly about it, fine. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time you've brought up the fact that Wilson hasn't appeared to testify as the arresting officer in other cases he's been involved with. I don't see how that is relevant in any way to the Michael Brown incident, especially given the facts that Wilson is the subject of a criminal homicide investigation and also some death threats. That and a whole host of really tangential points you mentioned previously, like Wilson's mother's marital status, only serves to question your NPOV further IMHO. 216.64.189.242 (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:NOCONSENSUS inclusion of material for BLPs requires positive consensus. There does not appear to be consensus at this time. Therefore, the material is correctly not included in the article at this time. If you would like to get a wider audience to develop that consensus, the next step would be to create a concise and neutral RFC to more formally gauge consensus and get a wider input. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As an FYI, Brian has created a thread advocating policy changes as a result of this discussion that may be of interest to editors here Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#An_example_of_the_absurdity_of_this_policy Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that in this case the text (as opposed to one of the citations) was deleted because of a "BLP objection". At least I do not recall BLP being cited as the reason. My comments about BLP were more about a hypothetical than anything.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this piece should be added back in to maintain a NPOV for the article. It is relevant to the shooter's background and has been reported in the news as a presumably relevant event. Seriouslyonlyusernameleft (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days without comment on this - has this been resolved by the (apparent) removal of the content on Wilson's "commendation"? I don't see the content Bdell555 mentions. I'm not sure the short video clip provides enough context and informational value to be relevant here, but if it's not resolved, and the issue is about the length of the proposed addition and POV concerns based on that, would some more concise version of the addition be more acceptable? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The races of both Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are not relevant and should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.

The races of both Michael Brown and Darren Wilson are not relevant to what actually happened and should not be mentioned in the first paragraph. Their races are relevant only in the sense that this event is causing racial tension, so they should only be mentioned in the paragraph about reactions to the shooting.

Sure. Thanks for your opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a warning template for being a troll. Myopia123 (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion. I don't believe that the ethnicity of Michael Brown or Darren Wilson played any role in the incident. It played a role in discussions of the aftermath, but there is no evidence at all that Michael Brown's ethnicity influenced Darren Wilson's action leading up to the fatal shooting. 76.78.3.93 (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown committed Robbery 2nd Degree (Strong-Arm Robbery), not simple theft/stealing/shoplifting

Brown was caught on video not only taking an item from a store without paying for it, which by itself would simply be a low-grade Misdemeanor at the price/value level of the item in question (some cigarillos), but when you intimidate & push the clerk around when confronted, you are then taking the item not quietly & passively like a typical thief or shoplifter, but by the use of force, and that act then becomes Robbery 2nd Degree (a "strong-arm" robbery), that per the Missouri statutes at this link. It would have been Robbery 1st Degree if he had beaten the man up or threatened him with an object or weapon. Robbery 2nd Degree carries a sentence of 5 to 15 years. This is not my opinion --- it's a fact as proven by the excellent Missouri State Government citation I provided. So at every place in the article when it refers to the criminal act in question, it should be updated to say "Strong-Arm Robbery suspect", or a "Robbery suspect", not that he was "stealing" or a "thief" or a "shoplifter" & you should use that link as a citation. So the police weren't hunting for a thief/shoplifting suspect --- they were hunting a STRONG-ARM ROBBERY suspect. The NY Times did a great job of laying out the entire case evidence and all the witness accounts at this link.PhilOSophocle (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your concern is misplaced. The article unequivocally refers to the event as a robbery except when tracking sources that refer to "stealing" or "thieves." There's little point in repeatedly referring to the event as a "strong-arm robbery," because it's a subset of robbery that specifically means larceny + force (robbery) without the use of a weapon (i.e., not "armed robbery"). Perhaps you could point out the particular passages you're objecting to? Dyrnych (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Try the second paragraph: "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, shortly after stealing a box of cigarillos from a convenience store..." He didn't steal them. He robbed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.10.7.131 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Violence after the grand jury decision

After the grand jury decision, there was a certain amount of violence, arson, looting, etc., that ensued. I read that some male relative (step-father? or uncle?) of Michael Brown told a crowd of protesters something to the effect of "Let's all burn this city down!" Is that mentioned in this article? I didn't see it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A source from CNN: Michael Brown's stepfather at rally: 'Burn this bitch down!'. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See companion article 2014 Ferguson unrest. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am referring to this article. Not the Ferguson unrest article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand. The stepfather's statement ("Burn this b*tch down!") that (some say) provoked the crowd to engage in violence is already discussed at that article, so it is unnecessary to also discuss it here, where the focus is on the events immediately before and after the shooting. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. It is clearly relevant to the shooting of Michael Brown. One of the critical events related to this article is (clearly) the grand jury process and, by extension, its "verdict" (so to speak) and the reaction to that verdict. Why are you suggesting that it's not relevant to this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The grand jury process is already covered here, along with its verdict and reactions to it. The stepfather's statement to the crowd assembled in the street in front of the Police Department was part of the aftermath of the grand jury's decision, more than three months after the shooting, and should be covered in the article that is the primary venue for discussion of that topic. It is not essential to understanding any aspect of the shooting or the grand jury's decision. Why would you duplicate it here? Dwpaul ^Talk 23:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything that happened after the verdict occurred more than three months after the shooting. So, that argument makes no sense. Are you suggesting we excise all of that stuff, also (i.e., all of the events that happened three months after the shooting incident)? This event (about the step father promoting arson and violence) is particularly relevant because it is the reaction of a member of the Brown family. Not just some random politician or talking head or legal analyst or whatever. It smacks of POV to specifically leave it out. Also, whether or not it duplicates material in the "generic" 2014 Ferguson unrest article is not relevant. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're saying you don't see any mention of the violence and unrest after the grand jury verdict here, see the end of the section Grand jury hearing. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not referring to arson and violence in general. I am referring specifically to the Brown family promoting violence (on live TV, no less). How is that not relevant to this article? The reaction of the Brown family to the verdict in a case in which their son was killed is not relevant to an article specifically about the killing of their son? Really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And, by the way, I noticed how it was so delicately worded in the "unrest" article. It couldn't get "cleaned up" (sanitized) any more than that! And I noticed it's "buried" in a long sentence describing the mother's grief. This is 100% POV. This is the statement verbatim: A member of the Brown family released a statement saying that "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want, it is very upsetting to me and my family." The statement also said, "Our family didn't ask for this but for justice and peace." On the night of the grand jury decision of a 'no true bill' the mother speaking to the crowd expressed disbelief and innocence, but after a brief silence and then sobbing was embraced by the step-father who promoted arson. That is truly laughable. And a clear attempt to sanitize (and skew) the actions of the step father. And, try to bury it, as well. We give a 32-word direct quote about the positive comments from the Brown family. And, in three clinically sanitized words, bury the negative actions. Why not use the direct quote "Hey, we need to burn this bitch down"? Indeed, I wonder why not. This is 100% POV. As is the attempt to not allow such information into this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

The unrest article says Michael Brown's stepfather Louis Head yelled to the crowd of protesters in front of the police department:"Burn this bitch down!". That doesn't seem sanitized to me. Am I mising something? – JBarta (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now I see the sanitized part. The item is mentioned twice, and yes, "promoted arson" is certainly a nice way to interpret "Burn this bitch down!". That said, I don't think it's necessarily an attempt to "sanitize" anything. maybe that's just how the editor chose to add it. At any rate, I don't think it's all that big of a deal because the actual quote is in fact mentioned in the unrest article.– JBarta (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it was an attempt to sanitize is not the issue. The fact that indeed it is a sanitized statement is the issue. The sentences I cited above go on and on and on and on and on (let's say, 50-75 words, as I did not count) all describing the positive words of the family and describing their pain and grief. And, as a tiny after thought (asterisk), we bury three sanitized words to describe a highly inflammatory negative action of the family. You don't see a disparity? Honestly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're making much out of nothing. My opinion. You asked. – JBarta (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I also think we are trying to follow the lead of most of our sources in not attributing a specific motive to the stepfather. Few of us can predict exactly how we would react if we had been through as much as this family has been through, and when they just received what they regard as highly unwelcome news. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What you say is true. But not relevant to the editing of this article. I am sure you would agree with that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Meaning you think the "burn this bitch down" quote should be in this article too? – JBarta (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not crafted the language of the edit. My initial proposal (met with resistance, which dumb founded me) was that the incident belonged in this article proper. I had not proposed any specific wording. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A tangential side note. The father said, quote, "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want". Didn't Mike himself just steal from the store only moments prior to the shooting? That tremendous irony just hit me. I am curious if any reliable sources commented on that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think the incident belongs in the unrest article, but this is not an exact science... editors will disagree. I will say it's probably not a good idea to think in terms of "POV pushing" or "sanitizing" on this issue. To me it seems merely an editorial difference. – JBarta (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. So, I did an exact count. A member of the Brown family released a statement saying that "the stealing and breaking in stores is not what Mike will want, it is very upsetting to me and my family." The statement also said, "Our family didn't ask for this but for justice and peace." On the night of the grand jury decision of a 'no true bill' the mother speaking to the crowd expressed disbelief and innocence, but after a brief silence and then sobbing was embraced by the step-father who promoted arson. A total of 86 words. Exactly 80 (which is 93%) describing in sentimental detail the positive words and actions of the family and describing their grief and pain. Exactly 6 words (which is 7%) (extremely clinical and sanitized) describing the family's promotion of violence (i.e., "step-father who promoted arson"). This is the very definition of POV and the very definition of sanitizing. How about we devote 80 words describing the step-father's inciting of arson and rioting and go on and on and on and on about that (for 80 words); and in 6 words clinically say "the parents also made a statement at the demonstration" ... ? Does that work just as well? That, also, would be a simple matter of "editorial difference", correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No one else seems to feel as strongly about this as you do. If you want to draft the 80 words or more to correct what you see as an imbalance, go for it, but make sure you get it right, meaning that it reflects NPOV, does not give this aspect undue weight and is fully sourced. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no one"? You will notice that this thread was only posted a few short hours ago. And a grand total of three people have participated in the discussion as of yet. Am I incorrect? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not intentionally delete your post; that is what is called an "edit conflict". It happens sometimes; we deal with it. And (I would have thought obviously) what I meant was no one among those who have responded thus far in this section. I suppose if you want to poll the rest of Wikipedia, or wait a few days, the ratio may change. In the mean time, my suggestion remains the same. Dwpaul ^Talk 05:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that your deletion of my post was unintentional. I did not know that edit conflicts cause that type of thing to happen. I apologize for accusing you of intentionally deleting my post. I was wrong to do so. Thanks for understanding. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It happens if you inadvertently click the Save button a second time after an edit conflict causes your edit to be unsaved, effectively re-saving an older edition of the page (the version without your attempted change and prior to the one that it conflicted with) and effectively "deleting" the change that conflicted with your edit. That was my error, but was not an intentional deletion. Dwpaul ^Talk 06:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand. And thanks for the explanation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, if you wish to discuss the wording of a passage in the unrest article, then it would best be discussed at that talk page. The other part of your comment was that you feel it should be mentioned in this article as well. That of course can be discussed here. For my view on that subject, I lean towards leaving it there and not duplicating it here. This article is already huge and it's geting huger (yes, in my world huger is a word). As articles expand an attempt can be made to divide them up into related articles. This is not an effort to hide anything from anyone, it's just a logical way to organize large amounts of information. – JBarta (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no interest whatsoever in that "generic" Ferguson unrest article. I have never even looked at it before (i.e., before this discussion above). I am only discussing this article. Obviously, to keep the article of manageable size, some information needs to stay and some needs to go. What I am opining is that the father's call to "burn the city down" is important enough to be among the information that "stays". To opine otherwise is POV. Or – at the very least – can appear to be POV. Once again, this is the chain: (a) this is an article very specifically about the shooting of a man; (b) a verdict is rendered about the shooting of that man; (c) that man's family reacts to the verdict about the shooting of that man. Not a stretch to understand that it is relevant and important. And belongs here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You can always edit this article as you see fit and see if it stands. Might be a better approach than simply stating an objection. Contributions from you are as welome as contributions from anyone else. If another editor has an issue with your edit he may change it or even remove it entirely. Then you come back here and hash out your arguments until hopefully some sort of consensus is reached (or at least that's the theory). – JBarta (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was attempting to be proactive. This issue/proposal seemed obvious to me. I was rather dumbfounded when it met with resistance. When I get time, I will craft some language. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson

Am I missing something, or are we still relying on "anonymous sources" and "leaks" for Wilson's version of the shooting. Now that we have his testimony to the grand jury and his interview, shouldn't we be eliminating this "leaked section" and replacing it with "his version of the shooting". I guess we could leave a synopsis of the leak and the reaction, but does anyone object to a sub-section under accounts with his version. Just wanted to ask before I started on a bold endeavor here.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have one narrow comment/suggestion... the fact that Wilson's testimony at some point was "leaked" should remain in the article. – JBarta (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's worth a mention but no more than that. I don't see the point of relying on the leaked testimony if the full testimony is freely available. -Myopia123 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That the testimony was leaked is part of the narrative. Certainly the published testimony should be used when referencing the testimony. Another potential issue might be differences (if any) between the leaked version(s) and the published version. Of course we wouldn't wish to do our own research on that, but if sources at some point mention notable differences, that might be appropriate here as well. – JBarta (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Another comment regarding the published testimony... it will be tempting for editors to comb through it looking for tidbits to enhance this article. That gets painfully close to original research (if not outright OR). The testimony itself is a primary source. (and for any inexperienced editors reading this, a primary source is not the best source and should be used with caution) What we should really be doing is looking for secondary reliable sources' analysis of the testimony. We are not detectives, we simply report what others have detected. – JBarta (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Only secondary sources, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with secondary sourcing, the draft I'm working on incorporates his version of the shooting as told to a detective back in August immediately following the incident, and then his testimony before the grand jury. I'm noticing some differences in the two versions he told, so we'll have to find secondary sourcing, if there is any, discussing the discrepancies. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Added Wilson's account of events. Feel free to trim, summarize, copy-edit or whatever. I didn't do anything with the "leaked testimony", maybe someone could tackle that. I also moved the "interview" down to that section and it might need some expansion. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

high level grand jury testimony summary from AP

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

The "money shot" summary from them is :

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown wasn't struck by any bullets in his back.

(Note: The fact that no shots hit Brown in the back is not evidence that the officer did not fire at Brown's back; it's evidence that none of the shot shots him in the back. Shots can and do miss.) 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Although it is itself an item of some note (I believe already in the article) that the prosecutor was pointing out these flaws in their own "case". Gaijin42 (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I spend several hours today poring over reports as well as the evidence itself, and there are contradictions across the board, including from Wilson himself. Pity this was not an adversarial process in which defense and prosecution could cross examine witnesses. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Why pity? That's exactly what a grand jury is supposed to do. (And this side-note has nothing to do with the editing of the article.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the prosecutor is supposed to only supply the information that they think will get a case; the case itself is not supposed to be tried. It's highly unusual to have the defendant even present at these hearings. http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/whats-different-about-grand-jury-process-darren-wilson-case 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

May be you need to lawyer up a bit. Grand jury proceedings are very different than trial proceedings as there is no cross-examination. Henceforth, none of the witness are supposed to be challenged, although it seems that the only one left unchallenged was Wilson's, according to what is emerging from the documents released and reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: With all due respect, I find it quite ironic and hypocritical that you posted this comment immediately above. Which is a "forum" comment and has absolutely nothing to do with the editing of this article. And, in the very same breath, you delete my comment above, which is not a forum comment and which does relate to the editing of this article. Would you care to explain? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For example witness #10, the only one that seems to agree with Wilson about Brown charging him, said first that he was 100ft away (the length of a football field), only to change his tune in front of the grand jury, saying he was 50 ft away. There is a lot that will be uncovered as media scrutinize the evidence. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not pored over the reports. I am sure it is safe to say that there are inconsistencies on both sides. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I feel he need to point out we are not detectives. Note my comment in the above section regarding the published testimony. – JBarta (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. There are several reports coming out highlighting the inconsistencies. We will use that. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the description of Officer Wilson's weapon and number of rounds?

It seems odd that in all of the article, there's no mention of what weapon the officer used. According to CNN, twelve shots were fired - all but one in Wilson's weapon - so shouldn't that be mentioned in the shooting? http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/ferguson-grand-jury-documents/index.html There's obviously seven that intersected or found in Brown; that leaves five shots not in the wiki article as currently written. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Among the documents presented to the grand jury and available via the link you provided is the "Crime Lab Firearm Evidence". The weapon was a .40 caliber SIG Sauer P229 with a capacity of 13 rounds, including 12 in the magazine. Five bullets were recovered, 3 from Brown's body. Twelve casings found at the scene were analyzed. Page 2 of the weapon report (page 3 of the PDF) lists the location from which each bullet and cartridge was recovered. I'm not sure why you think this information is important to include in this article. There is no controversy about whether Officer Wilson was the shooter. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's account of events

Do we need such an expansive section on his account? Are we going to expand on each one of the 60 odd witnesses as well? I would argue that we have to attempt to summarize the reports, to keep the article manageable and avoid WP:UNDUE, which may be the case with this very lengthy description. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a big section for each testimony because there is some discrepancy between the two and editors hope readers will see that. Quite honestly that's an end run around WP:OR in my view. That whole mess should be trimmed down and broken into a few managable paragraphs reflecting the general gist of Wilson's statements all in one shot. If a source notes differences, we can add that too after his statement, but there's no need to overwhelm the reader in an attempt to manhandle him into seeing any particular editor's idea of the "real truth". – JBarta (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any value in duplicating the account as reported by RS, at pretty much the same level of detail. We don't just do it once, but in three separate subsections, each much larger than any of the eyewitness accounts. For those who like numbers, we currently have 335 words for the largest eyewitness account, Johnson's, and 2,139 words on Wilson's account, a difference of more than 6-to-1. Per OP, this is undue weight in spades. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 09:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I created the section for his account of the events because all we had was his "leaked testimony" for his version of the events. Like I clearly stated above (see Leaked testimony from Darren Wilson) after creating the section - Feel free to trim, summarize, copy-edit or whatever. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No matter what, it is still WP:UNDUE. You can create Testimony of Darren Wilson, move everything there and add a summary here per WP:SUMMARY. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to create a separate article for just his testimony. I will summarize it accordingly. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - Cwobeel (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit summary that it is still too long. Besides Brown and Johnson, Wilson is the other major actor in this incident, and therefore should be accorded an adequate section to detail the explanation as to how and why he killed this young man. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that all of the eyewitness sections are too long; as I've noted, we really need to cut down on them and chop out most of them. The reality is that it was all Rashomon Effect - eyewitness accounts were very heavily contradictory, and as it came out at the grand jury, some of them were given by people who weren't even there, while a number of accounts were directly contradicted by the actual physical evidence on the scene, meaning that they had either inaccurate recollections of the events or outright lied about them. What we should probably do in the long term is rearrange the article, putting the sequence of events as demonstrated by the physical evidence up on top, and then have the unreliable eyewitness accounts below that, and not really break them out but basically just kind of lump them all in and describe how they are contradictory, with different people saying different things about what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity is African American

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.

---

Please see Race and ethnicity in the United States where Ethnicity of people like Brown is African American. that is the official term people prefer for their ethnicity. Just as people are called Hispanic not Brown people. I have been to all the sources which cite his ethnicity is black not one of them say his Ethnicity was black, they use black in the lay way, not in any official capacity, so it is a misuse of a source. BTW race and ethnicity are not the same. So while news sources commenting on "race" have used both terms Black and African American, ethnic grouping is NOT black. Black is not actually an ethnic grouping. It is not like Hausa, Igbo, Zulu. So the counterpart in America in official terms is African American male. So if both terms are used equally African American is more accurate at describing him. --Inayity (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at great length in the Wikipedia community and there is no consensus for African American. I am not going to engage in that debate with you here, as you can find it if you try and this is not the place for it anyway. Whatever you mean by "the lay way", that is the way many quality mainstream sources refer to it, including the three big players cited in the infobox. Until there is community consensus for African American, I see no need for Wikipedia to bow to political correctness on this, and as far as I know that is the existing consensus in this article. Aside from a few drive-by attempts like yours, the word black has stood throughout the life of this article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have no need for engagement then do not comment, and leave that to someone else willing to address the issues. Nothing like this is cast in stone on Wikipedia. Can you please tell me where ethnicity in those sources is stated as Black. And I can discuss it here as it relates to one of the most central part of this whole incident. RACE. Something I spend a hell of a lot of time on Wikipedia dealing with unlike you. So drive by? You better watch you tone. per WP:AGF--Inayity (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Google News Archive, news sources prefer "black" by at least 90-to-1 depending on how you enter the searches. {{Infobox person}} states, "Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source" (we currently support it with three, not one), and it says absolutely nothing about a distinction between a "lay way" and an "official way". I'm perfectly willing to stay out of the rest of this discussion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree and support changing the infobox to state Brown's Ethnicity as African-American, and would even support using that in the lede sentence as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose explicitly, if we're !voting, per arguments already given. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing his ethnicity in the infobox to "African-American" (though I personally have little use for the term). What I would oppose is an across the board purging of the adjective "black". Sources routinely use the word "black' and so should we. – JBarta (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at the statements made in the first message here by Inayity and they seemed to be questionable personal notions. Here's some additional info. U.S. Blacks, Hispanics Have No Preferences on Group Labels

Re the editor's statement, "I have been to all the sources which cite his ethnicity is black not one of them say his Ethnicity was black, they use black in the lay way, not in any official capacity, so it is a misuse of a source." — Apparently the editor is evaluating the sources as to whether they explicitly use the term "Ethnicity". Inayity, have you found any sources that say Brown's Ethnicity was African American? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said both terms were used with equal frequency so between two terms African American is preferred. Black means what? On this note please go to Malcolm X, go to all these famous African Americans and see that the term African American is the category used for them, not black. Far more accurate than a color, is African American esp since this is not Fox News but an encyclopedia. All I am asking for is for his ethnicity be changed to something that actually more progressive, just like we do with Native Americans we do not call them Red Indians, or Inuit Eskimo. On that note I see this debate come up with Tim Wise he is not called White. And far from being a fly by editor, not only have I read this entire article and checked the ref, I have dealt heavily with issues of identity on Wikipedia for years now bushmen or san debate--Inayity (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I would sit this out. I am breaking that promise (and will avoid making it in the future).

• No, the two terms are far from being used with equal frequency, as I stated previously. 90-to-1 in favor of "black" is almost 99%. When one limits the searches to only the past month's news, thereby excluding things from a long time ago, the preference for "black" falls to about 70%. That would seem to indicate a trend away from black, but it also indicates that the trend has not reached the point of "equal frequency". Wait another ten years or so, and it might have fallen to 50% (it might also have risen to 80%, as trends have been known to reverse). You are welcome to verify my results at Google News Archive, challenge my search methodology, or do your own searches.
• Please point to something in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or consensus that says being progressive (in the opinion of some) should supersede following the sources.
• If the preponderance of reliable sources used Red Indian or Eskimo, I would support using Red Indian or Eskimo. As we both know, they do not, so that is a false equivalence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at some random articles of black people. Most don't list anything for ethnicity in the infobox, a couple list "Nationality - American", and one listed "Ethnicity - African-American". None listed ethnicity as "black". Keep in mind this was a completely random search of around a dozen names off the top of my head. This is really a minor issue. There are certainly bigger things to argue about here. I'm going to change it to African-American. As I noted earlier, I don't really like the term, but I see no problem using it in the infobox in the interest of compromise and consensus. Hopefully that will be the end of it. – JBarta (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well sorry to be a pain, but I believe strongly in following the sources, and, frankly, I feel your edit was out of line given the discussion so far. I hope you won't mind if I change it back until there is a consensus for the change. I think a few more people will weigh in if we give them a little time to do so. Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is arrived at by compromise. – JBarta (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not agreed to your compromise. As I said, I believe strongly in following the sources. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "African-American" has been in sources for a long time to describe the race/ethnicity of black people... including Michael Brown. Your claim that you're only following the sources is a hollow one in my view. I'm not suggesting we eliminate all instances of the word "black" (because THAT would go against sources), but use "African-American" in this one instance to describe his ethnicity in the infobox. A perfectly reasonable compromise and one that's easily supported by sources. – JBarta (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we have stated our positions articulately and no one has been swayed yet. That's not unusual, in fact it's extremely rare for someone to change their mind in the course of a debate like this. But it's premature to make the change before more people have given their opinions, and there's no urgency to make the change right this minute. I'm asking for a little patience. Fair? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose This is not an article about anthropology. The commonly accepted term in the U.S. for people of African American ethnicity is black, and that term is preferred not only by journalistic sources but generally by the population being described. There is no reason for us to use the more academic term here. The chemical name for table salt is sodium chloride, but we generally call it salt. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I opened an RfC below. – JBarta (talk) 02:51, 28 November 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.

Criminal justice critique

Some of the WP:RSs are addressing the question of whether Wilson "followed the book" or followed the best procedures from a criminal justice perspective. He had many ways of approaching the situation that were within the law, but some approaches would have avoided a killing. Most criminal justice experts didn't think that "Get the fuck on the sidewalk," if Wilson said that, is a good way to start a contact with the public. For example:

Experts Weigh Officer’s Decisions Leading to Fatal Shooting of Michael Brown
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
New York Times
NOV. 26, 2014
“The notion of riding through neighborhoods yelling, ‘Get up on the curb’ or ‘Get out of the street,’ is not where you want your officers to be,” Mr. Bealefeld said. “You want them out of their cars, engaging the public and explaining to people what it is you are trying to do. Drive-by policing is not good for any community.”

I don't see this perspective in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a great quote which gets to the avoidableness of this tragedy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to stick "what ifs" into the article. We are WP:IMPARTIAL. The whole thing could have been avoided by Brown not being a criminal as well, or not attacking Officer Wilson, or not going for Wilson's gun, or not turning and charging at Officer Wilson at the end according to several eyewitnesses. This is all factually accurate, but it isn't our job to speculate on what might have been, but to report on reality. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Amen! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post: Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents

Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents Notable information, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That source is already used in the Controversy section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Article's claims despite disputes in evidence

Many of the allegations in the article do not have all the evidence needed to back them up. There have been many disputes in evidence.

"There is evidence that Michael Brown did not steal anything, the store owner of the supposed store that he reportedly stole the cigarillos from told reporters that he never even saw brown in his store at all, the time stamps in the video used as evidence do not match up to the time of brown’s murder

Analyst disputing the forensics (or lack therof) of the crime scene, and here’s pictures of Daren Wilson’s so called “life threatening injuries”, Micheal Brown never attempted to grab Wilson’s gun." (Statement from this person.)

Wikipedia should avoid making such statements without conclusive evidence. 92.20.203.57 (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnson himself has stated that Brown robbed the store; we know that this happened. Everyone involved agrees to this - Wilson, Johnson, the physical evidence, the video evidence, the phone call to the police from the store, and the description of the people involved matching Johnson and Brown.

The person who called the police about the strongarm robbery was a customer in the store. The descriptions of the two suspects - which matched Johnson and Brown - went out prior to the shooting.

Conspiracy theories spread by people on social media websites are not reliable sources of information, and indeed, everyone agrees that the footage was of the incident. The footage says 8, not 6.

People whined about the forensics on the crime scene. People always whine about forensics. And the sad reality is that the police screw up forensics all the time - see also the OJ Simpson case. The idea that there was some sort of grand conspiracy is a conspiracy theory with zero evidence behind it. The fact of the matter is that the events took place in a bad part of town, and a "hostile crowd" had gathered after the incident took place. Wilson washed his hands because he was worried that he would get some sort of bloodborne disease from the blood all over his hands. He had never shot anyone on the job before, and it is clear that everyone involved was not really totally on top of things.

Wilson's injuries were sufficiently severe that his supervisor felt it was necessary for him to go to the hospital, and Wilson testified that he felt close to passing out after being punched in the head repeatedly - the only possible source on that is Wilson, but there's not any evidence to the contrary, and the grand jury felt that the preponderance of evidence suggests that Wilson used appropriate force. As does every competent legal analyst. It is basic self-defense law; if someone is beating you to that point, they represent a lethal threat to your well-being.

Brown's hand was within an inch of Wilson's gun, at such an angle that his fingers must have been extremely close to if not actually touching the gun at the time his hand was shot, which is consistent with Brown having gone for Wilson's gun; there is blood on the gun, as well as flesh in the car and gunpowder residue on the wound on Brown's hand. The grand jury agreed. Again, every competent legal analyst has pointed out that the police have wide latitude in use of force, and that the evidence that Brown's hand was within an inch of the gun at the time he his hand was shot, and that his hand was very likely on the gun at the time, not only corroborated Wilson's story, but justified the use of lethal force against Brown. You can't just speculate about other things - you have to prove that Brown didn't do that. That's the standard in court. The most likely cause of Brown's hand being within an inch of Wilson's gun is that he had tried to grab the weapon; any other cause is considerably less likely. It doesn't matter what actually happened - what matters is what can be proved. And the fact of the matter is that the grand jury found that the preponderance of evidence pointed against the idea that Wilson had committed any crime. This was, in fact, exactly why legal analysts said for months that Wilson was not going to be indicted - once the evidence about the hand wound came out, that was pretty much the end of it for them, because they knew that barring evidence that there was not a struggle for his gun and that something else had caused Wilson's hand to be so close to the gun when it was discharged that there was no way that they could come to any other conclusion.

This is Wikipedia. It is our job to report accurate, correct, verifiable information to the public. People on Tumblr are free to lie about what happened. They have the first amendment right to do so, so long as they are not attempting to incite people to commit some crime. But don't trust some guy on Tumblr. IIRC, all the evidence the grand jury got is publicly available at this point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: Amen! Amen! Amen! Thanks for being a voice of reason. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It is our job to report report accurate, correct, verifiable information. Not sure I agree with you, because "correct and accurate" is not what the core content policies of Wikipedia speak about. Our role is to report what reliable sources say in a manner that can be verified, regardless if the source is correct or accurate. It may be counter intuitive, but that is how Wikipedia works. We present facts and opinions as reported by reliable sources, period. - Cwobeel (talk)

I think you're a bit confused about Wikipedia policy, Cwobeel; I'd take another gander at WP:V and WP:RS. The purpose of these policies to try and ensure that information on Wikipedia is verifiable, accurate, and correct as much as possible. Verifiability is the single most important standard because if you can't even do that, then how are you going to gauge its accuracy or correctness? Our goal is to be all three of those things whenever possible. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, your comment the fact of the matter is that the grand jury found that the preponderance of evidence pointed against the idea that Wilson had committed any crime means that you are not well versed on how grand juries work, which is very different than in a trial. What the grand jury had to do is just to find probable cause that a crime was committed and that has nothing to do with preponderance of evidence. These are very different standards. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd recommend re-reading the probable cause article, @Cwobeel:; to find probable cause, you must have a preponderance of evidence which suggests that a crime has been committed. Probable cause uses the preponderance of evidence standard. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

the phone call to the police from the store the store owner and his lawyer both have asserted that no member of staff made a phone call to the police from the store after the incident. As a side note, I'm not completely trusting 'evidence' from the Ferguson police, considering they're the ones who are under scrutiny and would wish to protect their image. Another thing, if Micheal Brown's hand touched that gun, why was no fingerprint test run? Wilson's injuries were sufficiently severe that his supervisor felt it was necessary for him to go to the hospital And said hospital claimed there was no evidence of anything to be alarmed about. While there was an altercation, I doubt Wilson's 'injuries' would be so small and light if he had been repeatedly punched in the face by someone 6'4 and much heavier than him.

The fact is, making conclusive statements on the article about allegations which have not been proven concretely is detrimental to its construction and validity. At the very least, it should be said that these are claims with disputing evidence, and not facts. A mention of the opposing evidence in the article would also be important. As Cwobeel said above: Our role is to report what reliable sources say in a manner that can be verified, regardless if the source is correct or accurate. It may be counter intuitive, but that is how Wikipedia works. We present facts and opinions as reported by reliable sources, period. 92.20.206.49 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, by definition, if a source is presenting factually incorrect information, then it means that the source was poorly fact-checked. Poor fact-checking is a sign that a source isn't reliable. While we may quote sources which contain inaccurate information for their opinions, we don't use them for factual information. This is why the Shape of the Earth article does not indicate that the Earth is flat, and why Evolution is presented as fact - because it is.

As far as assertions - I already noted what happened above. Please read my post. And as for "why was no fingerprint test run" - I know a lot of people don't know anything about fingerprints, but in real life, not fantasyland (i.e. CSI), fingerprints are surprisingly rare. If you touch something, chances are good you aren't going to leave behind useful, usable fingerprints. Also, I'm not sure if I've seen any assertion that a fingerprint test was not run on the gun; it may have been.

As for your doubts - his face was swollen. When I was a kid, I got punched a number of times and never really suffered any visible damage from them at all. Most punches aren't actually going to leave a mark at all; getting hit hard enough to actually show damage indicates that they weren't light punches. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: black or African-American?

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.

---

.... here is the entire RfC discussion...

Should Michael Brown's ethnicity in his infobox be listed as black or African-American?
(Note: This RfC stemmed from a discussion above.)

black per arguments in the other discussion, and it doesn't seem particularly kosher to open an RfC only when the discussion doesn't seem to be going your way. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I opened it because you said you didn't want to compromise, and you wanted more opinions. Now we'll get more opinions as you wish. – JBarta (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He's black. The standard appellation for such people is black. The RSs say that he is black. We use "black" and "African American" interchangeably on Wikipedia. Black people is an article on Wikipedia, as is African American. I tend to find black preferable, because someone from Egypt or an Afrikaner from South Africa would be "African American" (in the sense that they were an African immigrant to America) even though they would not be classified as black. There is no particular reason to deviate from what the reliable sources are describing him as being, so there's no reason to use "African American" instead of "black". Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is not about the use of black or African-American in general. We're not talking about someone from Egypt or South Africa. And we're not talking about purging the adjective "black" from articles. We're talking about one person (Michael Brown) in one location (his infobox under ethnicity). And we're talking about this as a compromise to those who favor the term African-American and acknowledging that the term is quite represented in sources. – JBarta (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Black. This is not an article about anthropology. The commonly accepted term in the U.S. for people of African American ethnicity is black, and that term is preferred not only by journalistic sources but generally by the population being described. There is no reason for us to use the more academic term here. The chemical name for table salt is sodium chloride, but we generally call it salt. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Both are acceptable... But it is never wrong to follow sources, so I would suggest you simply look at the various reliable sources that discuss him... see which term they use most often when describing him, and use that. Blueboar (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you say that a source saying something like "Michael Brown, who is black" is the equivalent of listing his ethnicity as black? In other words, is the use of a colloquial descriptor the same as an ethnicity classification? Because if you went by sheer numbers as you suggest, you'd probably find the word "black" used more often simply because it's the most common way to differentiate a black person from a white person. But to really compare apples to apples, you'd have to find sources that refer to his ethnicity specifically as "black". That might be a little harder. Given that, I think judgement takes over rather than just looking at numbers, and the phrase "African-American" in his infobox under ethnicity is a perfectly reasonable balance given the sources. – JBarta (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Black. Also, he's referred to as black by major news sources:

• Bloomberg That was the account of the chief witness to the encounter in Ferguson, Missouri, on Aug. 9, when Wilson, who’s white, shot Brown, a black 18-year-old who was unarmed.
• NBC News Michael Brown, an unarmed black teen, was shot and killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri.
• Fox News "The reason I have a clean conscience is I know I did my job right," Wilson said, adding that he would have made the same decisions had Brown, who was black, been a white man.
• The New York Times The St. Louis County prosecutor announced the decision of a grand jury not to indict Darren Wilson, the white police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in Ferguson, Mo.
• ABC News Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson discussed his account of the moment he shot and killed black teenager Michael Brown in an exclusive interview with ABC News. Eaqq (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Black. Insofar as the requester's concern is that "black" isn't properly an ethnicity, neither is "white." But the reason that the parties' "ethnicities" (in the non-technical sense) are included in the infoboxes is that race is a pertinent aspect of this article and as there's no option in the infobox for race (and believe me, when I created the infoboxes on this article I tried to find one), ethnicity is the best shorthand available. And, indeed, most sources reflect the pertinent racial aspect ("black" versus "white") rather than the less-pertinent ethnic aspect ("African-American" versus whatever unknown ethnic group that Darren Wilson belongs to). Dyrnych (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Question Can anyone point to an existing infobox of a black person where their ethnicity is listed as "black"? – JBarta (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A small sampling of articles concerning notable black persons do not contain an element for Ethnicity in the infobox or otherwise mention the subject's race there. They mention the subject's ethnicity in the body. I'm not sure it's really necessary here either. Clearly the difference in ethnicity between the victim and his killer is a notable factor in the case, but that cannot actually be conveyed by infoboxes anyway. I think it is enough to mention his ethnicity in the lead (using the common term) and discuss this aspect in the body, rather than try to expose this issue in the infoboxes which are ill-suited for the purpose. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that brings up an interesting notion... lose those infoboxes altogether. They don't really contain anything all that useful and certainly nothing that isn't covered in the article. Anyone else think those two infoboxes can go? – JBarta (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• black but I note that I do not think there is a strong policy based argument that would control which way to go beyond WP:STICKTOTHESORUCE. It does appear that the majority of sources in this case use black, but I feel this is something that falls clearly in the arena of editorial discretion and the correct answer is "whatever consensus decides". Agree with arguments abovethat race is the notable component of this incident, not ethnicity (nobody cares if Wilson is polish, or sweedish, or whatever. Nor do they care about the specifics of Browns ethnicity other than it falls into the black/AA/colored/negro/pickthetermfortherelevantdecade group Gaijin42 (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Black - Mr. Brown did not immigrate to the USA from an African nation. A born and raised American should not have a place of genetic ancestry attached to their identity or in place of any other. You do not see Italian-American or Irish-American attached on by those who say "White". Those arguing political correctness are continuing to promote the distancing of the black community by identifying said community as anything else than Americans, first and foremost. We should strive to be respectful and equal at all times. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Side question... why do we list anyone's ethnicity/race in an info box? I can understand mentioning the issue of race in the article text, since that became an important factor in the events that followed the shooting... but is there really a need to list ethnicity/race in an info box? Why not simply omit. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• black. Most accurate, most used by RS. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• African-American - However, my 1st choice would be to eliminate the infoboxes as being redundant because they only mirror what is in the opening paragraphs of each individual's bio (unless we get photos, see section below). 2nd choice would be to eliminate "ethnicity" from the infobox as the first sentence in the lead of the article makes it clear that Brown was a black man and Wilson was a white police officer. 3rd choice is African-American as that seems to be the trend here on WP. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I would support dropping the infoboxes.
  • No real reader value, beyond the aesthetic benefit of providing something besides consecutive screens worth of body text.
  • Due to their high visibility, they are magnets for conflict. Even if we eliminated Ethnicity, we'd soon be fighting over Height and Weight. More than once, probably. I'm not saying we should avoid anything controversial, only that things should be worth the controversy. See preceding bullet.
  • But it begs the question: Aside from the lead infobox in a biography article, when would {{Infobox person}} be needed/justified/appropriate? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• African American - Black is too general and can be applied to any dark skinned person internationally. Brown's ethnicity was particularly African American, which may have played a role in the incident and the aftermath, in the context of American culture. Black is not an ethnicity, and is not an informative category in this case. Other than this, I would also support dropping the infobox as it doesn't supply the article with any additional value. 76.78.3.93 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 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.

Physical evidence map

I think a map such as this would be a good addition. We could possibly use this one directly if it falls into the govt exemption, otherwise we can reproduce it ourselves using this (or other secondary versions) as a source.

• map  : http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/capture.png
• Legend : http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/picture2.png

Gaijin42 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure it is free content, but it can be easily reproduced. I'll see if I can find some time and attempt to get it done. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better to recreate it using SVG and try to make locations to scale and insert to the article in the wide format. We should also have separate colors for 6 categories: red strains, casings, projectile, personal items, tires and body. This will allow readers to quickly classify items on the map. Z22 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are some diagrams that might be useful. – JBarta (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And another. – JBarta (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think those diagrams in your first link are the most useful I've seen, specifically this one. The fact that they were made by the New York Times is even better. The second link is of the diagram shown in court and has the unfortunate quality of being "not to scale" as indicted in the diagram. —Megiddo1013 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• A little off-topic here, but what about the photos of Wilson that were released as part of the GJ docs, do they fall under the govt. exemption? And also, what about getting a photo of Brown in the article under the Non-free use rationale - "for visual identification of the person in question", we used a photo of Trayvon Martin under this rationale successfully, any thoughts on this? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For the wilson photos, I think either the govt exemption would apply, or the fair use exemption would apply, as they can render to what degree there is or is not injury in a way that cannot be easily replicated in a text format. (We use the Zimmerman photos in a similar manner). For the Brown photos, we can get one photo as fair use under the "dead, so no future free photos" exception, but would have to get consensus on which photo we wanted to use. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was thinking about the Wilson photo's as well. Totally agree on consensus for which photo to use of Brown, if any, and will work on that later, as I have to work tonight. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Attack on a Police Officer

Would a phrase like "Brown attacked the police officer" be useful to clarify the initial escalation of force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.209.30 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Attack" implies intent to do physical harm. Even the grand jury could not ascertain Brown's intent, only determine whether it was reasonable for Wilson to think he was being or going to be attacked. Since Brown's intent is unknown and is a contentious issue, it would not be neutral point of view to insert such a statement. We should describe only his actions, since we will never be certain of his intent. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly proven that Mike Brown had no intent to harm Darren Wilson, and in fact was running away with his hands up, and was shot in the back. There is no room for discussion on whether Mike Brown was aggressive. He wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No such thing has been "repeatedly proven", but thank you for your comment. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no; as I explained above, in the absence of evidence of premeditation or use of a weapon no one, including the prosecutor or the grand jury, can prove or be certain of what Brown's intentions were. Evidence other than the subject's testimony can only suggest assumptions about intent. But the answer remains the same. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of this is that the only point that matters is whether Wilson perceived an imminent threat to his life. It's impossible to ascertain what Brown's intentions were or were not. I believe the question that the grand jury had to decide was whether any other officer in Wilson's position would also have perceived that there was an imminent threat to his/her life to justify the use of deadly force. There's some more details at Deadly force and I remember reading the exact legal phrasing on a source somewhere. I'll post it here when I find it again. -Myopia123 (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike brown did not steal cigarillos.

This has been proven as false. Full convenience store camera video — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is proven at that link. Americans Against the Tea Party's Web outlet aattp.org is not a credible, reliable source. The article at the link says (emphasis added): "While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars ...". Therefore it is clear that it is the writer's interpretation of the video, not the only one. If a credible independent source discusses that interpretation, it could be linked – described as an alternative interpretation, not as fact – in the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to keep asking for "credible" sources, like news outlets that are not allowing genuine information to pour through to smudge over global protesting against a thrown murder case? The video clearly shows that Mike Brown paid for the cigarillos he supposedly "stole". Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The video doesn't show that Brown is paying for anything. He doesn't have anything in his hands at the beginning of the video and he never reaches into his pocket to get anything to pay with. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are going to keep asking for credible sources. Especially since we have johnson admitting to what happened multiple times. In any case, at what point do you see payment in that video?Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42, you say above that "we have Johnson admitting to what happened multiple times"... "what happened" implied to be "stealing cigarillos". I've seen in sources Johnson admiting it was them in the store with Brown, but not necessarily admitting they actually stole anything. Could you point out a couple of these sources you mention? – JBarta (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Jbarta The most important one is his grand jury testimony http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2014/11/24/dorian-johnsons-testimony-before-the-grand-jury.html but secondary interview based ones are easy to find http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/15/isnt-that-lying-by-omission-don-lemon-asks-why-dorrian-johnson-didnt-initially-mention-the-convenience-store-robbery/ Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The testimony of Johnson pretty clearly has Johnson describing a theft. (I suppose I should have read that earlier) Thank-you and thank-you for your patience. – JBarta (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would also remind the anonymous poster that WP:BLP is applicable to talk pages as well, so please stop using the word "murder", Wilson was not indicted on any charges. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring your obvious lack of neutral point of view: Yes, we are going to continue to ask for credible sources. See reliable sources. And the video doesn't clearly show anything, other than the subject reaching across the counter for what we understand are cigars. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2014

Spelling/grammar. "strains" -> "stains" in two instances. Also "roadway" -> "the roadway".

In the section "Physical evidence".

Original:

There are also two groups of red strains on driver side of the vehicle. The center area, which is approximately 44 feet (13 m) east of the western area, contains the right sandal. The eastern area, which is approximately 80 feet (24 m) east from the center area, comprises Brown’s body, many casings and one apparent projectile. Within this 29 feet (8.8 m) area, Brown’s body is located in the western half with his head in the direction toward the west. There are also seven casings and one apparent projectile in the western half. The eastern half includes two groups of red strains in roadway and three casings.

Fixed:

There are also two groups of red stains on driver side of the vehicle. The center area, which is approximately 44 feet (13 m) east of the western area, contains the right sandal. The eastern area, which is approximately 80 feet (24 m) east from the center area, comprises Brown’s body, many casings and one apparent projectile. Within this 29 feet (8.8 m) area, Brown’s body is located in the western half with his head in the direction toward the west. There are also seven casings and one apparent projectile in the western half. The eastern half includes two groups of red stains in the roadway and three casings.

Tyler wpda (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson personal life details

Details are emerging about Wilson's personal life that are relevant to this article, such as his marriage in secret two months after the shooting, and the violent altercation with his wife's ex-husband six months before the shooting. I have added a short summary of these details, as they are as relevant as personal details about Brown that are already included. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is as relevant to the shooting of Michael Brown as the incident about the citizen taking video of Wilson. Which is to say, not at all. What negative things are we saying about Brown for which the best RS validation we can find are The Telegraph and The Daily Mail? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the secret marriage may be relevant. I'm fairly confident the domestic incident is not, particularly since the violence was directed against Wilson and not by wilson. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the possible relevance of the secret marriage? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Its weak certainly. However, its fairly obvious the reason it was secret was due to the issues surrounding the shooting. Its not negative, so I see no harm in it as part of him mini BLP.I also see his presumed retirement as relevant to his BLP once that is finalized. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not Wilson was or is married has no relevance to this article. Therefore, how and when he became married, and whether the ceremony was public or private, has no relevance. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, Re your comment "its fairly obvious the reason it was secret was due to the issues surrounding the shooting." — It's possible but not obvious. Another possibility is that Wilson is a private type of person and may have been married quietly in any case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no harm in mentioning he's married, details about the marriage aren't relevant. I agree with other users about the domestic incident in leaving it out, if he does retire, that's certainly worth a mention. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would only be worth a mention if this article was Darren Wilson instead of Shooting of Michael Brown. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Still opposed to the marriage. "Does no harm" is not a high enough bar for a BLP, imo. Same rationale as the removal of his city of residence. Agreed that the retirement is relevant. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see the city is still there. I thought it had been removed, and I think it should be. No personal details about a living person should be included unless relevance is shown, especially in a story like this one, where a lot of people would take a shot at Wilson if they thought they could get away with it. Neither city of residence nor marital status is relevant. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The marriage is significant because of spousal privileges in court.. It further protects him if further charges from other sources arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has claimed that Wilson's now-wife played a role, was present or has any knowledge of the events on August 9, I'm not sure what spousal privilege has to do with this. Also not sure what you mean by "further protects him". How? From what? Dwpaul ^Talk 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning one's marital status in a BLP is pretty standard info and widely accepted on WP, but like I said, the details are not relevant. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

See my comments. This is not just any BLP. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't a BLP, biography of a living person, it's an article about a shooting and Wilson wasn't married at the time of the shooting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to any article or portion of an article that presents detailed biographical information about a living person. The references above were to the "mini-BLP" for Wilson contained within this article. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to Isaidnoway's comment, "Mentioning one's marital status in a BLP is pretty standard info " which isn't a WP:BLP issue. Here again is what I wrote, "This article isn't a BLP, biography of a living person, it's an article about a shooting and Wilson wasn't married at the time of the shooting." Regarding your point that WP:BLP applies to mini-BLPs, I agree but again that wasn't the issue. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand all the comments above, but I would argue that like it or not, Wilson's personal life details are relevant. This is a person that killed another and two months later while in hiding during the grand jury proceedings he gets married. Six months before the shooting he gets embroiled in a violent domestic dispute. We have included elements of Brown's personal life, haven't we? The fact that he is dead and Wilson is not should not make a difference. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the if there is a civil suit filed against him, his new wife would not be able to be called as a witness. Let's be clear: Wilson has had the opportunity to get good lawyers that have advised him not only on what to say in his testimony to claim self-defense ("Brown had his right hand on his belt below the shirt", which only Wilson testifying on that, no other witnesses) but also on how to manage his personal affairs. Nothing wrong with it, but relevant indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your line of reasoning assumes that Wilson's lawyers believe that his now-wife possesses some knowledge that could be damaging to Wilson in court. I see no way to introduce this information to the article without engaging in speculation or synthesis and creating that implication when currently no evidence for it has been presented. We should not include it just because someone somewhere might suspect that she could be called some day as a witness. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculation aside, it is being reported and for a reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, the above discussion indicates that the item isn't appropriate for the article, based on information available so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, this is precisely the type of novel synthesis of published material that I have warned you against countless times, do you even care? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "The communications privilege begins on marriage, and cannot be invoked to protect confidential communications between now-married spouses that occurred prior to their marriage."[3] So according to this, getting married wouldn't have helped Wilson if there was something incriminating that he had told his wife before they were married. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's info from a collateral source, "For the privilege to attach, the communication must have been made during a valid marriage."[4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He didn't "get involved with" he was assaulted. And he apparently was seeing the woman for at least 8 months, we have no idea when they got engaged, or when their wedding was originally scheduled for. This info tells us nothing about him, and certainly doesn't tell us what you wrote in your original edit. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. We are not here to speculate just to describe facts as reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Shall we report the mean annual precipitation in Luxembourg, too? No, because it's not relevant. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow up to the RfC - the infoboxes

Should we get rid of the two infoboxes altogether? – JBarta (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, for reasons already discussed above. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - Ditto Dwpaul. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - No added value to the article. 76.78.3.93 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes does not add anything new to the narrative in the respective sections. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: infoboxes are removed. – JBarta (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they did not offer anything of serious value to the article, especially considering the length of the sections for each. However, if there are fair use pictures of both I think this discussion should be revisited. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. After this discussion and RfC I noticed the pair of infoboxes in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. That would be a good model for this article as well. – JBarta (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for guidance. Here's the first sentence from that guideline.

"An infobox template is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, (in the desktop view) or at the very top of an article (in mobile view), that summarizes key features of the page's subject."

It looks like an infobox is meant to be used for an article, rather than a section in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction... usually meant. – JBarta (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The "usually" in the sentence was referring to the position of the infobox, not its content, which is described at the end of the sentence, "summarizes key features of the page's subject". --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury

There is an excellent article in the NYT highlighting the difference of application of grand jury process in this case, and why it has been deemed unorthodox and controversial. [5]. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason for this is pretty well-known: the prosecutor knew that Wilson hadn't committed a crime, but was afraid of rioting and being blamed for clearing Wilson if he simply dismissed the charges. So he made use of a grand jury and presented them with all the evidence and thus could point the blame at the grand jury rather than be blamed himself, and say that the whole thing had been investigated fairly and that people outside of the justice system were involved and arrived at the correct conclusion. It didn't work, but it isn't anything nefarious. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added a table indicating the differences as reported by the NYT. I will not respond to the above if it was nefarious or not, as it is irrelevant to what we are trying to do here, which is reporting on what reliable sources said about the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

timeline of events

I'm a little surprised that important details of the timeline of events seem missing. From a forensics view, the timeline is one of the best ways to organize the critical steps to understand a fast moving chain reaction like this. For example, what is now generally being described as the whole event is a period of: -"90 seconds" from the altercation at the car window to the last bullets being fired.

I'm quite sure that wasn't the whole event. Wasn't there at least a prior ~30 to ~60 seconds that set up the disastrous escalating confrontation the followed?

Please correct me, but just from recalling early news reports it seems the officer had an altercation with Brown and a friend first, and then drove off as if having settled it. He then stopped his car and put it in reverse, backing up at high speed to reinitiate the altercation, right? That he backed up at high speed to confront Brown again, and in some reports hit brown with the door of the moving car (that would have left marks), then started an argument through the open window is what I think needs to be examined closely.

That is what appeared to trigger the final altercation, during which the officer got out of the car to shoot Brown who was trying at first to get away. The officer may have been trying to make an arrest, having seen possibly stolen cigars in Brown's pocket or recognizing his face, but it seems much more likely he was just responding to Brown's parting epithets, and acting in a rage irrationally. He appears when he backed up he pulled up along side Brown to argue rather than getting out at a safe distance to make an arrest...

If generally true, both parties would seem to have been exchanging escalating insults, the whole time. The officer then let his emotions get out of control, and instigated a confrontation with Brown at the open car window in a way that would get out of control.

Escalating an altercation that way is as dumb as you can possibly get, for either side of course. Doesn't it still mean that the officer willfully engaged in a manner of confrontation that got way out of control, and needlessly killed someone?

So I think the article should go into more detail on what's known about the timeline.Jlhenshaw (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that once the grand jury testimony is examined by more RSes we will be able to expand and detail a better timeline. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me the grand jury was steered away from discussing it, and the media certainly has been. There's been no word of it on the "thorough" discussions I've heard...Jlhenshaw (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

General Clean-up Note.

With the release of the Medical Examiner's Autopsy Report and Summary of Michael Brown's injuries, any reference to the number of gun-shot 'hits' Brown received should be updated/corrected (particularly in light of their sourced information coming form media outlets).

For example, second para, fourth sentence at the top of the article immediately jumped out at me. It states Brown was shot six times while the Medical Examiner's Summary Sheet (Findings) records six gunshot entry wounds and two grazing wounds, implying Brown was 'hit' eight times, not six. Any references to news reports relating to this should also be updated, referring instead to the ME's reports (which hold more credibility IMHO).

Just my 0.02$. MelioraCogito (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown not convicted of theft.

Article still displays that Michael Brown 'stole' cigarillos. If we are not going to reffer to his death as a murder due to a lack of indictment, it is only fair not to inflict criminal connotations to the victim for charges that were never laid or pursued.

Please remove reference to this lawfully ambiguous and possibly fabricated incident until it is proven that Michael Brown was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

-Agair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.113.30 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been changed to say that he allegedly stole the cigarillos, and that the cigarillos were allegedly stolen. Those are the only changes needed to address your criticism, as those are the facts. The article cannot be changed to say, however, that Wilson allegedly murdered Brown, because there is no evidence that that was ever alleged by authorities and murder is the judicial determination of a killing without an affirmative defense, a determination that will never be made in this case. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back, there is no need to say alleged, Brown is dead and therefore cannot be prosecuted, but that does not negate the fact that he stole the cigars. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary that "alleged" is unnecessary because "Johnson said Brown stole them and that Brown was walking down the street with them in his hands". However, neither fact means that the cigars were stolen. Johnson is only one witness who could have lied, and Brown would have them in his hands whether he paid for them or not. Since it will never be proven, we should say alleged, as we do routinely on Wikipedia when a charge will not be brought or proven. Please revert. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is video. There is johnson's version. There is brown's families admission. We can say alleged, but then we also have to dump in all of the evidence supporting that allegation. This is not merely "someone accused him" Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As discussed innumerable times here, the video does not show conclusively whether Brown did or did not pay for the cigars, despite efforts to say that it does. Johnson is one witness who could have been misinformed or lied. I am not aware of the "Brown family's admission", nor that the Brown family was present in the convenience store in order to have first-hand knowledge of Brown's acts. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And no, the inclusion of the word allegedly doesn't obligate us to include any more information than the claim that he committed a robbery obligated us to include. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't say that Adam Lanza allegedly shot all those kids at Sandy Hook, because there were plenty of eyewitnesses to the fact. There are multiple eyewitnesses here as well that said Brown definetely stole cigars and as Gaijin42 rightly points out, there is a video of him stealing them and the family attorney said it was him as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

At the article on the Lanza case, the reason that we don't say allegedly is not because there were lots of witnesses; it's because there was a judicial determination that he was responsible, and because there was no alternative theory. Neither is true here. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The video does not prove that it wasn't an alien shapeshifter that was impersonating brown either. there are multiple supporting pieces of evidence and testinomy, and more importantly for wiki purposes, hundreds and hundreds of reliable sources that say he stole them without qualification. And per the previous comment, there is numerous precedent on wiki for this type of qualification. But we are obviously going to go around in circles here. Someone craft up a neutrally worded RFC on this specific question, and lets be done with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Several times now an editor has said that the "Brown family admitted" that Brown stole the cigars, or perhaps even that he committed robbery. I don't recall seeing such an admission, and I wonder how the family was able to make it since presumably his family was not present at the time Brown was in the convenience store. Can someone point me to the source for that admission? Dwpaul ^Talk 03:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

More importantly then the theft / alleged theft of the cigarillos, why is there no reference to Brown threatening and assaulting the shop keeper, for which there is clear and unequivocal video evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.176.12 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The video (at least the video I have seen) is not clear or unequivocal about anything. It would have served as evidence to support the State's case (if it was being prosecuted), but it is open to interpretation exactly what is going on. Had the robbery case been prosecuted, the defense would have successfully argued that the video by itself is inconclusive. Dwpaul ^Talk

Just want to double check with you whether it is the same video you saw. This one contains the interaction from two cameras. Z22 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had not seen the first video segment at that link, only the second. Even so, the first segment provides (to 24.192.176.12's point above, which I concede) substantial visual evidence that an assault occurred, but doesn't (by itself) speak to the accusations of theft and/or robbery, since it doesn't show clearly what occurred during the transaction. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear in case the article is expanded as the IP suggests, the video isn't evidence that Brown threatened the shopkeeper, since unless audio is also available we have no idea what Brown said to him. A threat is an utterance, not an action. We can see, however, that he intimidated (made threatening gestures, assumed a threatening stance) and assaulted (pushed) him. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In the video looking at the counter, he clearly took the first box and gave that to his friend. You may argue that he might actually obtain that box legally (paid for it). However, his friend later placed that box back to the counter. If his friend knew that the box was obtained legally and it was Brown's property by that time, then why didn't his friend return that box back to Brown, but instead returned that to the clerk? For another box, the box was yanked from its place with such force that items inside felt out all over the floor. It will be extremely unlikely that the number of items that fell on the floor which he took matched exactly to whatever you think the amount he might have paid to the clerk. As for the payment, you can take a note of both of Brown's hands at the beginning of the "transaction" that you mentioned. There video clearly shows that there was no money, credit card, or anything on his hands. His hands never been put inside his pocket at anytime, giving no opportunity for him to give any sort of payments to the clerk before he started taking the first box. It is up to you to think for yourself whether he had made a payment for those items that fell on the floor or not. If not, then it is stealing. If stealing, it will be combined with the use of physical force in that event, making that a robbery. Z22 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

All a very reasonable interpretation of what appears in the second video segment. My point is only (has only ever been) that it is exactly that, an interpretation, not necessarily the only (reasonable) one, and very possibly not sufficiently unique to allow the video (the second segment at the link above) to serve as incontrovertible evidence of a crime (much less the absence of one). Dwpaul ^Talk 04:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of a conviction means we have to misleadingly imply he didn't do it... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, but really has no bearing here. Evaluating and drawing conclusions from our viewing of a video is WP:OR. Any statement one way or another should be based on WP:RS the wording should be based on those sources. I think any other discussion on this is moot. Rmosler | ● 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

In the beginning of paragraph two the first passage states 'Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street, shortly after Brown stole a box of cigarillos from a convenience store, when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk.' Please edit this as it was only speculation that Michael Brown stole cigars, and instead new evidence has come out that he had purchased them. Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/19/1323057/-Crooks-and-Liars-Brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars#

Please take out this part of the section 'shortly after brown stole a box of cigarillos from a convenience store' either entirely or change it to allegedly.

Thank You. Whattheheckareyouposting (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been changed to say that he allegedly stole the cigarillos, and that the cigarillos were allegedly stolen. (Change was already made in response to previous comments above.) Dwpaul ^Talk 01:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that the video you included a link to is not "evidence that [Brown] had purchased [the cigars]." The article at the link speculates that that is shown in the video, when the video does not show that conclusively (nor does it show conclusively that he didn't). Dwpaul ^Talk 01:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Page unprotection requests at Wikipedia:Help Desk

I probably don't belong here but can everyone who wants to continue asking us to unprotect this page and "remove inaccuracies" from it on the Help Desk please stop? We've asked you many times to stop and it's wasting our time that we could be using to resolve real problems. We understand your strong feelings about this subject; if we ask you to stop more than once, please stop. Thank you.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 01:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see, responding editors chose to waste their own time. The responses could have been shorter and easier, and could have been copied-and-pasted from one section to the next:

This is the Wikipedia Help desk, which is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Issues such as yours should be discussed on the article's talk page. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Force Escalation

It might be useful to have a force escalation timeline and identification of the persons and their force category, like a script listing the verbal, physical, and force application :

Officer Wilson (verbal) : ...
Michael Brown (verbal) ...

...and so forth. Force escalation training is used extensively in the military and in many police departments.

Use of force continuum

71.243.209.30 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

While this could be valuable, it would also be cumbersome, and more importantly, it would likely be WP:OR unless we can find a reliable source that has done all that analysis and categorization for us. Gaijin42 (talk)

RFC: Alleged theft of cigars from convenience store?

In references here to the theft and/or strong-arm robbery of cigars from a convenience store prior to the shooting of the decedent, should this article use the term alleged or allegedly before any such claims since the decedent was never and will never be charged or convicted of theft or robbery? Dwpaul ^Talk 02:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

survey

• (As nom) Yes, as that is Wikipedia's standard practice when a criminal act is alleged but will never be prosecuted. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• no There is video of the event. An admission from his friend who was present, and admission from the Brown family. We actually have numerous opposite examples of non-convicted persons who are described as having done certain illegal actions, and we have hundreds of reliable sources saying without qualification that brown took the Cigars without paying. However, describing that theft in a specific legal crime term should not be done as we do not have sufficient proof that all elements of a crime were done, it is enough to say "stole cigars" or "took cigars without paying" but not "committed robbery" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the question whether there is "sufficient proof that all elements of a crime were done", we just need to follow the MO law. It says, "A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property." Did he steal the items? Did he use force when confronted by the clerk? If you say yes to both questions, then all elements of the crime were done and the act is called robbery in the second degree. Z22 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No per Gaijin42 above and also see Columbine Shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting,, Isla Vista Killings and numerous other articles here on WP where a crime has been committed with the individual being killed and/or suicide with no prosecution and/or conviction and the word alleged is not used in those articles. I would also note that the police have classified this case as being "exceptionally cleared", a stringent standard to meet in a case when there will be no prosecution or conviction. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• No - Alleged refers to something that is said, without proof, to have taken place or done. Also, by the same logic of Dwpaul, you cannot identify someone for a criminal act if they are incapable of being tried. Glad to know that despite the Columbine Shooting evidence that you are content to put "alleged", again a reference to "unproven", in front of any act or attribution of the killers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't say you "cannot identify someone for a criminal act"; simply said you should make clear you are not claiming they have been convicted of it, if only for your own protection (in this case, for the protection of the project). That is all allegedly does. Dwpaul ^Talk 06:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not "convicting" anyone. Your understanding of "alleged"'s use is wrong according to the dictionary. Allegations in a legal sense are no different, but you should be aware of that process. Since this is not a pending court matter so kindly take your armchair lawyering off this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. According to WP:ALLEGED, alleged is "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." In this case, Brown will never go to trial so the issue won't be determined that way. However, we are not entirely without the ability to make an editorial determination here. We have a published security video showing what certainly appears to be a theft (or more accurately strong arm robbery) and there is the published testimony of Brown's friend Johnson describing the events in the store. That description supports that it was in fact a strong arm robbery. In addition, many (though not all) sources refer to the event as a theft and do not use the term "alleged". Taking all this into consideration, I think it's perfectly reasonable, neutral and accurate to treat it as an actual crime and leave out he word "alleged".

There have been theories suggesting that maybe Brown did pay for the cigars and the clerk just wanted an ID. This is an interesting theory, but entirely unsupported by anything. Others note that no store employee contacted the police (a customer did). In no way does this cause other evidence to vanish. Again, taking ALL things into consideration from what is available to us, it is reasonable to say that a crime was committed and there is nothing "alleged" about it. – JBarta (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That actually brings up an interesting question. Let's suppose Brown (who is of age) wants to buy cigars and the clerk wants to see an ID. Let's further suppose Brown throws down the money and says "screw the ID, here's the money" then grabs the cigars and leaves. The clerk tries to stop him still wanting to see the ID. Brown pushes past and exits the store (we'll forget about the hard shoving). Has a crime been committed? Or more specifically, is it theft? – JBarta (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If for some reasons you put a million dollars cash on the counter but the clerk refuses to "sell" an inexpensive product (no matter what it is) and you take that product anyway, then you use force to clear your way out of the store, you will still be charged with robbery in the second degree as per MO law. Even when give a correct amount of money to the clerk for the cigar, but the clerk refuses to sell that to you. The transaction does not take place. When you take valuable propety from that store when you have not been the owner of that property yet, it is stealing. To add to that, you use force, it's a robbery of the second degree. Z22 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What a poor example - the discussion below shows it is closed and why. Original research or other accusations carry no real weight because the official report is our proper source. As a result, no matter what excuses or theoretical case you come up with, it does not apply to this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No – In prior weeks there was some question from news sources whether Brown might have actually paid for the cigarillos, that analysis seems to have disappeared even in Brown-friendly news outlets as more information has come out. Also, John Wilkes Booth did not "allegedly" assassinate Abraham Lincoln, even though he was never convicted of it. —Megiddo1013 01:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - In the absence of any other reasonable explanations for what can be seen in the footage and testimonies, it seems safe to go with what the recently written RSs say on this one. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - There's really no question at this point of what happened, and Brown is very much dead and thus we have no reason to worry about prejudicing a jury against him. It is safe to not use "alleged" here as we have video, testimony from his friend, RSs which don't use "alleged", and standard Wiki policy that in cases like this that we don't use it (John Wilkes Booth, Columbine shooting, ect.). Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• COMMENT Due to the apparent WP:SNOW above, I am going to remove the "allege"s that are referring to the robbery. However, the RFC remains open, and consensus could certainly swing the other way over the next days/weeks. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No - Per the users above. There is no question as to the factual nature of the crime.--TMD Talk Page. 16:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• No Per AdventurousSquirrel. We should be going with what the recent WP:RS are saying. Rmosler | ● 16:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Can you include a source for the "exceptionally cleared" classification being applied to this case and its meaningsignificance, since this information (not there now) would be useful to include in the article? I can find references to the police report including this notation, but none that say it gives it some special degree of "truthiness".Dwpaul ^Talk 03:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Exceptionally cleared is a Uniform Crime Reports term. It means "solved" by "exception" not the "awesome" meaning of exceptional http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances NPR is one of many many sources saying that the case was closed with this status, but they appear to be doing so based on just viewing the police report. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/15/340594634/ferguson-police-release-name-of-officer-who-shot-michael-brown Gaijin42 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was about to point out the same finding to Isaidnoway, with a caution against using it to suggest some special quality of the investigation. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Its not some special quality, but it does indicate that the case was formally solved including identifying the perp sufficient for FBI reporting purposes. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is one interpretation; I would tend to go with your suggestion above that the case was said to have been resolved "by exception", in this case by the death of the only suspect at the time rather than by diligent and detailed police work that would have achieved a conviction. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

From the Missouri Uniform Crime Reporting Program (Missouri State Highway Patrol):

Exceptional Clearance - If all four of the following questions can be answered 'Yes' the offense can be cleared “exceptionally”.

1. Do you know who the offender is?
2. Has the investigation determined there is enough information to support an arrest/charge of a specific individual?
3. Is the location of this individual known so the subject could by taken into custody now?
4. Is there some reason outside law enforcement‟s control that precludes arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender?

Examples of exceptional clearances include: death (suicide or justifiable homicide where the offender is killed by a police officers or citizen). This case meets all the above criteria for the case to be closed as "exceptionally cleared". Isaidnoway (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The police report (external links) says that it has been exceptionally cleared and if you search the archives of this talk page, you will see that this very same discussion has been had before about using the word alleged in relation to this strong-arm robbery committed by Brown. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see this previous discussion from August, and I see you making the same arguments you're making now, but I don't see that any consensus evolved in support of them. In fact, I see quite a lot of dissent on the question. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC, maybe we can put these unsourced conspiracy theories to rest once and for all.

• Michael Brown Robbed Convenience Store, Stole Cigarillos Before Darren Wilson Shooting, Dorian Johnson Says
• Dorian Johnson told the grand jury he was stunned when Brown stole cigarillos from the convenience store
• The attorney for Dorian Johnson, the man who was with Michael Brown when he was shot, says it was Brown who stole the cigars from the store where police say the two were filmed before Brown’s death, and that the FBI is aware of it. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also... "Brown was a suspect in an alleged robbery" is horrendous writing because you cannot "allege a robbery" and the nature of the matter requires "alleged" be dropped. Either a robbery took place or it didn't; it is mutually exclusive here, just as you cannot be an "alleged suspect" in the case. One alleged needs to remain in the article: "Brown then allegedly attempted to seize Wilson's gun..." which has not been conclusively proven. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dwpaul, I ended up as a main dissenter in that August discussion, based on the use of reliable sources available at that time. However, more information has been published since then, notably Dorian Johnson's testimony under oath, and I have more carefully reviewed the video, and I don't think that using allege is appropriate. It gives the impression that there is a reasonable doubt that Brown stole the cigars, which isn't the case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether to use the word "alleged" or not, one thing clear is that we should not misrepresent the act as a theft or stealing. It should either be called "forcibly steal" or "robbery". Apparently, the force was involved. The first mentioning of the act as just stealing in the lead is actually misleading. See definitions here: [6] [7]. Z22 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson city of residence

I brought this up in #Wilson personal life details but it got lost in that discussion. I feel it's important enough to resolve. I'm tempted to boldly remove the city, but I generally err on the side of caution and it's not clear removal would be uncontroversial.

NYT and WaPo have both reported the name of the street on which Wilson currently lives, resulting in some public debate, but we are not bound by their editorial judgment. As I said in the other discussion, a lot of people would take a shot at Wilson if they knew where he was and thought they could get away with it. While such a person could find what they need to know easily enough on the web, there's no requirement or justification for helping them do that.

The inclusion of city of residence was easier to tolerate when Wilson was in hiding. As far as I can tell, he is no longer in hiding. The information is not relevant to this article, and it should be removed. I would apply similar reasoning to middle name, birthdate, and birthplace, but I'm okay with limiting this particular discussion to city of residence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the location of his residence is relevant or has anything to do with the shooting itself. Inclusion of the location of his residence is an undue weight and not encyclopedic. Therefore, that should be removed. Z22 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson's city of residence is unnecessary information. As editors it's not our job to pack the article with every bit of infomation we can find, but only what is needed for the reader to gain a thorough understanding of the subject. Unless someone can explain why Wilson's city of residence is necessary to understand the Shooting of Michael Brown, it can be left out as unnecessary clutter. – JBarta (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Where Wilson lives is entirely irrelevant to the events here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed city of residence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

The protection of this page to permit only autoconfirmed users to edit it directly expired at 20:30 UTC 29 November. Any reason not to request that it be renewed? We are already seeing unconstructive editing by IPs. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Already done. Sam Walton (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson resigned.

Wilson resigned. Source: Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown resigns. Please add this to the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed digressed discussion of talk page etiquette

By the look of it you have a keyboard too. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Some editors may not feel comfortable editing. Personally, while comfortable with small edits, I find others often do a much better job with larger edits. Every editor is welcome to contribute in any capacity he wishes... including just asking that an edit be made ;-) – JBarta (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC) @JBarta: - thanks for your comments (and insight). @Cwobeel: there is no need for your sarcastic and snarky comment. I did not have the time, energy, or inclination to craft appropriate language at the moment. I could get to it, maybe in three or four days from now. So, I posted the news updates here, so that everyone would be aware of it and some editor would take the time and attention to word it correctly. Not that I need to explain myself to you. But, nonetheless, I did. Now, in reciprocation, do you have some reasonable explanation for your comments? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think an explanation is necessary. Let's just let it be and move on. – JBarta (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) @JBarta: Why do you say that? The explanation was for me, not for you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC) There is no explanation. It was a snarky remark. We're all human, we've all done it. He said it, then I called him on it and you called him on it. It's done. Sometimes it's good to just file it under 'shit happens', let it go and move on. – JBarta (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC) When I make a mistake, I apologize. So, I am not sure why you are so quick to want to bypass that (important) step (i.e., to relieve him of that "obligation"). Especially when the apology is owed to me, not to you. Please explain? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Joseph, I am not taking sides in this, but if you want to pursue this further, please take it up with Cwobeel on their Talk page, since your complaint is with that editor and this discussion has completely ceased to be about the improvement of this article. Thanks. Dwpaul Talk 03:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Agreed. Or you could challenge Cwobeel to a duel at dawn tomorrow. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, my question was directed to JBarta. But, thanks to you both for your valuable input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Discussions on an article talk page are open to everyone (and very visible to everyone). The best way to reduce or eliminate comments from others is to post on the user talk page of the person you wish to address. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC) And this applies to me only, but not the other two gentlemen, is that correct? In the comments of the other two gentlemen, I don't see anything related to the editing of this article. Nonetheless, I don't see you (Mandruss) or the other editor (Dwpaul) advising them to take their comments off this page and onto a User Talk page. Only me. Am I correct? Or did I miss that? And to think ... all this adolescent bullshit started by my simple and well-intentioned request that an editor add some vital information to the article. Wow. You editors at Wikipedia really have your priorities straight. Really. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Don't waste your breath waiting for an apology; do prepare yourself emotionally for when the dude does it again. Won't be long. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC) @Factchecker atyourservice: Thanks for the heads up. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take all of the above discussion as a "thank you" to me for my attempt to add to and to improve this article. You're welcome, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been updated. – JBarta (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent chart from PBS of what all witnesses said

PBS has an excellent chart they developed from the research they conducted about the key critical points of each witness. Can we include it?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/ Quisp65 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include it in the "External links" section. In fact, it should be added there. (And perhaps elsewhere in the body of the article.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the witness tesimony has proven a little unreliable. I'm wondering... if a witness says he saw X, then later admits the reason he said he saw X was because he heard someone say that X happened, does this chart still reflect that he saw X? While interesting, I'm wondering about its actual usefulness. That said, I have no problem with it as an External link. Elsewhere in the body of the article? I don' know about that. It's a potentially dodgy bit. I don't mind a link to it, but let's not wrap ourselves up in it. – JBarta (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but it's PBS and the date is pretty current, so I think our usual practice is to just assume they got it right. Thoughts? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Quisp65: @Factchecker atyourservice: @Joseph A. Spadaro: @Jbarta: I don't think we should use this chart at all; it contains a number of inaccuracies and I haven't even read all the testimony. Just looking at the first line, it states that Officer Wilson did not say anything about whether Brown was fleeing when he was fired upon by Wilson, or whether or not Brown was kneeling when Wilson shot him, but this is quite wrong: Wilson testified that he did not shoot Brown until Brown turned around and began to charge him, and that Brown was charging him at the time he was shot to death. He also stated that Brown's hands were not up in surrender when he was shot to death. Likewise, he said he stopped shooting when Brown went down, which would preclude that he shot MB repeatedly when Brown went down. Given that the very top line contains four factual inaccuracies, I wouldn't use that chart for anything or use it as an external link. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

One item that makes the "what the witnesses said" charts problematic, is that it doesn't really get much into the reliability of the witnesses, depending on what items were selected for the chart. For example, The construction workers show up as "hands up" in the charts, but the worker also said three cops were chasing brown down the street but only one was shooting. Unless the chart also includes "how many cops did the witnesses report" that type of inconsistency is not visible. This STL story goes into quite a few instances of this type of problem http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/in-grand-jury-testimony-passion-but-little-agreement-from-witnesses/article_f2fc0e21-dc59-59bf-82bc-c0f35fd40572.html Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Content

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.

---

There have been many people complaining about how this article has content that has been disproven. As shown in this social media post there are many articles that contradict previously undisputed information. I know that usually a request like this usually amounts to nothing but I think it is important for somebody to verify and find more articles. We can not show a point of view in this especially controversial topic. Thanks, 107.211.141.128 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The article already has more than 250 citations, and more are being added daily. If there is a specific article or other source you think should be used to add to this article, please mention it here, but this article does not suffer from a lack of citation of a variety of sources, nor have any reliable sources been intentionally excluded from it. Note, however, that Tumblr is not a reliable source. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think all those folks who "like this" should spend more time actually reading the article and the sources that back it up than what gets passed back and forth on social media. Another source of useful information is the talk page behind the article (not immediately apparent on a mobile device however). Sometimes getting at the "real truth" requires a little more effort than simply re-tweeting something you heard. That said, the bit about time stamps is interesting. I wonder where that came from? – JBarta (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Haven't investigated it, but I wouldn't expect that the inexpensive surveillance systems usually used by this kind of small business are necessarily going to use ntp or some other method of automatically ensuring the internal clock is correct. If time shown for both cameras is consistent, most likely it is VCR syndrome (i.e., the proprietor never set the clock correctly). Dwpaul ^Talk 03:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I didn't notice the video had a time stamp. It does. The older I get, the more dimwitted I become. – JBarta (talk) 04:04, 30 November 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.

there is a major error regarding the charging of the grand jury....

i am a complete newbie to wikipedia ( tho i have used it and donated to it for years). so i do not know how to edit this article to correct it. but the error is very important. the article as written says....

well it seems i cant go back and grab a quote without leaving this page, so i'll paraphrase. it says that the grand jurors had to decide there was probably cause that a crime had been committed and that it had not been in self defense, or in the process of making an arrest. this last statement is technically not true. while jurors were originally provided with the MO law stating that deadly force could be used to effect an arrest. and that jurors had operated under that belief thru-out the proceedings, at the very end of testimony the assistant prosecutors corrected their previous error pointing out that almost 30 years ago the us supreme court had ruled unconstitutional the use of deadly force simply to effect an arrest. the actual grand jury testimony in the pages between 134 and 140 of the last volumn discuss the charges and this correction, which was not done in the most definite of manners, leaving it possible that the prosecutors sobourned grand jury nullification by leaving this possible charge out there for the length of the jury, only half hardheartedly correcting it in the final minutes of the grand jury.

this is a major error in the article as written. if someone more experienced than i would like to edit the article to this effect, please feel free to email me at jbrown413@aol.com for more details.--Jbrown413 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to? For others, I believe this user is referring to this Lawrence O'Donnel MSNBC segment [8] where he points out the prosecutors gave the jury incorrect information thus lowering the bar for an indictment. I agree that this is important and should be addressed somewhere in the article. Saeranv (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The part of the Missouri law that is questioned as being unconstitutional regards non-violent felonies. There were no non-violent felonies in the Michael Brown case, so the criticism of the assistant prosecutor’s actions appears to be unwarranted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob is correct; while it is true that Missouri law is outdated, it is irrelevant in this case. It isn't relevant to the outcome of the case, so it doesn't belong in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. The prosecutors gave wrong instructions to the jury, which they corrected later. Sources are reporting that this created additional confusion for the jurors. I will find these sources and add a sentence or two about this additional aspect. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here [9] - I will summarize and add this later today. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, as other legal analysts have pointed out, is that the unconstitutional portion of the law was irrelevant, because Brown was a violent felon, and in the end, the revised instructions were disadvantageous to Wilson, and they still cleared him. We don't need to note every little thing in the article; this is not very relevant compared to more pertinent things. This isn't an in-depth legal article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think their point is that something that was disadvantageous to Wilson was left out until the very end. Especially something that affects the very lens through which the jurors viewed all the evidence in a multi-month process. —Megiddo1013 05:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't disadvantageous to Wilson. The tainted part of the Missouri law concerned non-violent felonies, which didn't apply to this case as there were no non-violent felonies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson: "Dorian Johnson was wearing a black shirt"

In his ABC interview and his testimony Wilson says that after Brown said "fuck what you have to say", Wilson looked in his rear view mirror and noticed cigarillos in the hand of Brown, and Dorian Johnson was wearing a black shirt... and that's what clicked for him that these were the suspects in the store theft. However, sources say the dispatcher reported a black male in a white T-shirt. Am I missing something here? – JBarta (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

While I am not sure if it is relevant or not to your specific question, but it is known that Johnson changed his shirt immediately after the shooting. He mentions this in his testimony, and I believe in some of his media interviews immediately after, you can see him holding the other shirt. It appears to me that he was wearing both a black and a white shirt at some point, but that may or may not be relevant to Wilson's identification. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnson is seen wearing a black t-shirt in the surveillance video. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Change the intro

People don't need to know that Brown was 'black' and Wilson was 'white' in the first sentence.

... it should be something along the lines of Wilson shot Brown, etc, etc... this has caused controversy as some believe it to be racially motivated.

--JT2958 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people absolutely do need to know that by the end of the first sentence. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the main issue is one of WP:IMPARTIAL. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the shooting was racially motivated, so we want to be careful about implying that race actually mattered in the incident. It did certainly matter for the reaction. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The racially charged nature of the incident and/or reaction is the sole reason for its notability, and I would think we can get that information across without misleading anyone. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Brown was black and Wilson was white is one of the major points in the narrative. Of course it should stay in. – JBarta (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

^^^^ Agree. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Darren Wilson quit his job

Several newspapers I see online have said this. I don't see it in the article in an obvious place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See here. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Eyewitness Testimony Issues

The AP wrote an article about issues with the eyewitness testimony. This seems likely to have some usable stuff in it to avoid OR, talking about testimony which contradicted the physical evidence or given by people who weren't there. Probably useful for when we re-write the eyewitness testimony section. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Revenge killing — Bosnian man near Ferguson beaten to death with hammers in front of wife by four Hispanic/black teenagers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855535/St-Louis-teens-beat-motorist-32-death-hammers-sparking-protests-Bosnian-community.html

Residents complain about lack of protection from violent black youths; cops respond that they can't provide more manpower. Residents retort: "But you can get 1,000 cops in Ferguson. Well, we’re going to protest to keep them here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/01/the-protesters-near-ferguson-who-are-begging-for-more-police/

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably want to put this over in the Ferguson Unrest article; this is about the shooting, the resulting protests/riots have a small section here along with their own article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of 2015 dates

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

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

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

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

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

Offensive Phrasing -- Style Question

Under the section Grand Jury Hearing (which should be capitalized, but I don't have editing privileges), it refers to the grand jury's makeup as "three blacks". This usage of black as a noun is not considered acceptable any longer in American English and is specifically prohibited in most style guides (I don't know if this is covered in wikipedia's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.125.200 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It isn't offensive and is frequently used in American English. Google shows how many people use it to this very day, including places like the Huffington Post. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the source used for that sentence, and the source uses the terms "blacks" and "whites" in relation to the race of the grand jury members. Based on that source, I don't see a problem. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway is correct, but there is no requirement to match the specific source on something like this, which is not within a quotation. We paraphrase all the time, and what matters is that the world of reliable sources frequently uses "blacks" as a noun. Here's an example from the New York Times, who are known for close attention to such details. Incidentally, the "Grand jury hearing" is correct; Wikipedia uses "sentence case" in section titles. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This black/African-American question is not going to be solved in general anytime soon around here. Sources generally use a mix of "black" and "African-American" and so should we. Sources however do NOT generally use the word "Caucasian" when describing Wilson, so that has little place in this article. We're not here to worry about what is offensive to this person or that... we're here to reflect the sources in a neutral and balanced manner. – JBarta (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oddly missing pieces of evidence

I've been looking around but there doesn't seem to be any of the following: 1.X rays 2.Pictures taken by the cops or the medical examiner(only pics from bystanders) 3.Distance measurements 4.Pictures of Mike Browns injuries(he did have some to his face) 5.Audio recording of the August 10th interview Have any of these been found? I saw the medical examiner on CNN say she didn't take pictures because she didn't have batteries. Strange that they had his body 2 weeks and took no photos of it. Turtire (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1. To my knowledge there are no xrays of either brown or wilson
2. bystander photos have copyright issues (if you are aware of freely licensed photos, please tell us). The medical examiner ones may as well (but may have a decent fair use exemption).
3. We are working on getting a map up of locations with distances
4. We are working on getting some photos of Wilsons face up
5. We discuss the interview I believe, but generally do not embed lengthy audio into the article. We could provide an external link perhaps, if it is hosted somewhere deemed both reliable and stable Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction to #1 -- There were x-rays taken of Michael Brown and Darren Wilson's jaw/head. Whether those are publicly available is another story. (and I don't know the answer to that) – JBarta (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

Please add in the security video of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store. I have heard dispute over whether the person in the video was actually him -- it is said that the figure in the recording is very blurry -- so that those on the page can see the video for themselves. Sunburst25 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but the video is copyrighted, and I don't think we would get away with fair use. We can see what others think, but for now  Not done Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I doubt that the video is released under a license allowing it to be reused on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--The video is in the External links section and has been for a while. (Clarification) - The video has not been uploaded to Commons or WP, but is hosted on a news organization's website, hence it being in the external links section. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you calling Michael Brown a man when being eighteen did not qualify Eric David Harris a man?????

If Eric Harris can be called a boy when he was also 18 yrs old when the shootings took place a Columbine High School, I believe we can come to the conclusion that Michael Brown was just a boy also. Stop making him out to be something another was not....... I do not know him personally, but you are adding to a problem that will not cease because of status that is not really true. He was only a boy!

Butterflygem (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's true that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Columbine High School massacre use the term "boys" in a few instances. That may or may not reflect source's descriptions of them. You would have to bring that up on those article's respective talk pages. Regarding this article, can you point out the specific part of the article you wish to change and what you'd like to see it changed to? Be prepared (if challenged) to back up your suggested edit with sourcing and a rationale that supports it following Wikipedia policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, and due weight. I'm not trying to make it hard on you, I'm just trying to show you that editing this encyclopedia is more than simply inserting one's opinion. – JBarta (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I am starting to see some unconscious racism creep in this manner in articles on wikipedia. Two white guys who shot up a school are boys but an unarmed black guy is a man. Just like missing white girl syndrome -Myopia123 (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with "unconscious racism". It's hard to visualize, much less describe, anyone who is 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) tall, weighs 292 lb (132 kg) and smokes cigars as a "boy". In every one of these cases, if the subjects are over 18, they should probably be described as "young men", but I think it's easy to see why the term "man" was used here instead of "boy". It's a bit too convenient to invoke the racism card when a simpler explanation will suffice. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think the "unconscious racisim" comment is helpful, it could be seen as casting aspersions and is not WP:AGF. If you believe that an editor is not following policies or POV pushing, discuss it here or their talk page with diffs. Man, boy, teenager, the choice of nouns should be by consensus and backed by WP:RS. If you have sources that would back a change, then please share them, and the proposed change. Rmosler | ● 14:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing any individual editors. I'm saying that RS's and all the editors as a whole(including me) are giving in to a very human tendency to judge on a class basis. -Myopia123 (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that, if not for the POV implications in this case and a desire for him to be perceived as the victim, we'd just as likely be criticized for calling Brown a "boy" because of the connotations that term has had when applied to young black men in the past. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Myopia, I believe that your comments on "unconscious racism" amount to silly navel-gazing. Also a more fit subject for your talk page than here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post: "Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown"

This excellent article should be cited in this article, as it is highly notable and relevant, and is from an exceptionally reliable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

74.98.32.91 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy is a self-edited opinion blog hosted by the Washington Post. It's definitely reliable for the authors' opinions, but not for claims of fact (i.e., the headline's claim of proof of reasonable belief). Dyrnych (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)