Talk:Killing of Michael Brown

Grand jury hearing section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what the source says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Crime scene"

We refer to "crime scene" five times. I just wanted to confirm that this is deliberate and that the rationale is that some crime was committed there, the crime and perpetrator undetermined. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

While I think I understand your concern, I think this may be a situation in which the correct term just has unfortunate implications. In any trial in which the defendant is ultimately acquired (or not charged as in this case) those bits of evidence are still from the "crime scene" in general parlance. Charitably one could also interpret these scene as a crime as either Wilson or Browns take your pick depending on POV. But I would also not object to "incident scene" or "shooting scene" or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"Incident scene" sounds like a form that HR has to fill out after a fight in the break room. "Shooting scene" is not as awkward, but I think we should just track the terminology used by sources and trust that our readers will be discerning. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's a crime scene, then what was the crime and who committed it? That's a pretty sticky question. Shooting scene seems most accurate to me, is well represented in sources and has zero stickiness. – JBarta (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since crime scene investigators (CSIs) work all homicides, justifiable or not, I'd support the use of the term "crime scene." Apart from that, the testimony of Officer Darren Wilson was that Michael Brown was guilty of initiating an assault on Darren Wilson at that location. At the time that data are recorded from the scene of any homicide, the possibility of a crime having been committed is assumed by first responders and crime scene investigators. Both Darren Wilson and Michael Brown were regarded by press accounts as criminal suspects when that crime was investigated. loupgarous (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Would it be correct to say that a "crime scene" can also refer to an area of investigation where a crime may have been committed? – JBarta (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That appears to be common usage, whether or not it's literally correct. Common usage is good enough for me. In any case, I think it's clear enough that at least one crime was committed there, assault on a police officer (aside from conspiracy theory, is there any other plausible explanation for the facial discoloration that persisted for hours?). There may or may not be mitigating circumstances, but it's still a crime AFAIK. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems a little loose. We've exposed criticism of the term "crime scene". Is there any direct criticism of the term "shooting scene"? Not asking if you prefer something else, but looking for direct criticism of the term itself such as being inaccurate or problematic in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarta (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating "crime scene" over "shooting scene", but merely saying I'm not opposed to "crime scene". I don't see "shooting scene" as being inaccurate or problematic in any way. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not called a "shooting scene," it's called a "crime scene." Call it what it's called, not what you think it should be called. Roches (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it's called a "crime scene"? To you it seems crystal clear. To me it's not. What is it that you know that I don't? – JBarta (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Crime scene says it's called a crime scene. Vfrickey gave a clear explanation of why it's called a crime scene. Roches (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Crime scene says "Crime scenes may or may not be where the crime was committed" which I admit I missed. However, despite explanations, I still find the rationale for calling it a crime scene a little shaky, and as discussed earlier, "shooting scene" isn't shaky at all. My preference (slight as it is) is still for "shooting scene", but it's arguably a minor matter and if a consensus of editors prefer "crime scene", then so be it. At least it was examined and discussed. – JBarta (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is common knowledge what a crime scene is. We all understand that it is a place where police are investigating a possible crime. It does not mean that just because we have labelled it such that we have bypassed judge and jury and want to throw the suspect in prison because, oh yea, we called it a crime scene. I've never heard the terms "shooting scene", "robbery scene", "assault scene", "arson scene", "shoplifting scene", etc. in my entire life. —Megiddo1013 05:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of beating an unconscious horse and just for the sake of argument, I'm really not moved by what you think everybody knows or what you think everybody understands or what you've never heard in your entire life. I was looking for some definitive evidence as to whether a scene that may or may not have been the scene of an actual crime (depending on who you ask) is still called a crime scene. The rest of my comments are above (I hate repeating myself). One more thought that I don't think was brought up... is the Ferguson Police (or State Police or FBI or whoever is investigating there) calling it a "crime scene"? If not, how do they refer to the site? Just a thought. – JBarta (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I see here the grand jury is hearing testimony from a "crime scene investigator" and they do mention the words "crime scene" several times. Other than simply "the scene", they don't really call it anything else. So I suppose if you walked up to the investigator while he was measuring and examining and asked him "Whatcha doin?", he would most likely reply with "Investigatin this here crime scene. Now get back behind that yellow line or someone's gonna shoot you too!" – JBarta (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Micheal Brown attacked Officer Wilson there, as well as resisted arrest, so there's really no question that it is the scene of at least some crime committed, regardless of whether or not Wilson committed any crime. Crime scene, scene of the incident, scene of the shooting all seem to be pretty commonly used. I don't think it is unnecessarily POV; we should use whatever the sources use. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Another narrative of events has it that Darren Wilson gunned Michael Brown down from 13 yards out of anger or wounded pride because Brown tuned him up in his own police cruiser. Time magazine and CNN carried this narrative through the month of September and for a while after that. In either case, a crime was committed. I say we stick with what the other sources use in describing the scene of the incident, and that's "crime scene," regardless of which version of events you believe.

Sad to say, in conveying the events to our readers, until a published version of the grand jury deliberations is available to cite as a source, we're stuck with the press's narrative. Even if it's palpably biased toward one side of a very contentious controversy.

BUT - Darren Wilson still lives until someone collects on the bounty on his head. He's protected by our policy regarding contentious statements about living persons.

Are we allowed to assess whether or not what are ordinarily considered good sources have themselves fallen short of normal journalistic standards concerning objectivity and verification of statements about their subjects?

I ask because Mr. Wilson and possibly his legal counsel will eventually question whether or not we exercised due diligence in assessing the plausibility of press statements about him, and whether or not individual editors were as objective regarding his presumptive innocence as they should have been, and wikipedia administrators as zealous in enforcing the "living persons" rules in his case as they have been in during the drafting of articles on other living persons. loupgarous (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not our job to create false balance based on the sources out there, it's to describe what the sources say in proportion to each side as time progresses. Removing what sources said in September won't help with that, but emphasizing that this is what they said in September does. Also, the policy protects living persons from contentious material that is poorly sourced or is not sourced. Well-sourced, reliable contentious material does not fall under that. In addition, it's Wikipedia policy to assess verifiability, not truth. We care about what sources say about Wilson, not what editors say about Wilson. --RAN1 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right, but the marginal return on encyclopedic value of extra quotes starts dropping, while the risk of BLP goes up. the 10th quote isn't adding much that the first 9 didn't cover. The 40th even less. Look at any controversial figure and think about how many quotes you could find about them from notable people. What Would Clinton's, Bush's, or Obama's articles (or sections about their particular actions) look like if we did this kind of quote mining? How about Mr. Gruber these days for someone of similar notability. Weight requires us to reflect the balance of the RS, it does not say how to do that. We can easily in prose say "received significant criticism" and I'm sure we can dig up some WP:RS/AC type sources that do the meta-analysis for us of the what the overall reaction was. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Incident reports

I changed the incident report section. The complaints are really examples of journalists writing about how they think people should do their jobs; if this incident report isn't different than a normal one about the same thing, then it's not lacking in information.

The reason why the incident reports have very few details is that they are admissible in court. Filling in only basic information is a normal thing to do in a case like this, because the incident report is just the beginning of an investigation. In most cases, such as a collision involving a police vehicle, the incident report is a full description of the event because nothing more ever needs to be said about it. These incident reports are not the official story of the police department, they're the individual account of the person who might have to go to trial. Journalists should have known better than to speculate that details were being omitted improperly.

Something was made of the date of the report (ten days after the shooting); this is the time the report was entered. The date it was submitted isn't there. The times of day must also not mean what they appear to mean, since other accounts have police arriving at the scene in much less than 40 minutes.

Roches (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, no, and no. You are not here to decide what journalists should do or not do, or what they should report or not report. If you find a source that describes your opinion, by all means add it. But do not delete material just because you think the journalists are doing a poor job. Who cares what you (or I) think? We report what sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

According to a spokesman for the St. Louis County police department, it's normal practice not to give out the details and that under the Missouri State “Sunshine” Law, the department was not required to release the information during a pending investigation.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Then report that, alongside the critique from other media sources, even if unfounded. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't tell me how Wikipedia works, even if it's using WP:article links to things that are not policy. I changed the section to describe the level of detail on the forms, and mentioned that Wilson sought legal advice about completing them. I kept the ACLU statement, because it is important to convey that people objected to the way the forms were completed, but I didn't keep the paraphrased list of things the HuffPo author thought were missing.

Reporting the Huffington Post author's opinion of how police departments should fill out incident reporting forms is not NPOV. That's an opinion of one journalist at one source; the ACLU's public statement is a much better, and entirely sufficient, way to report objections to the way the forms were completed.. See WP:ONUS. Roches (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC) (Added policy link to post at 4:30.)

we report opinions and attribute opinions to those that hold them. That is our work as editors, and not pass judgement. I will remove these edits and expect you to follow WP:BRD, as there is an implicit consensus on material that has been in the article for a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If the opinion isn't found anywhere other than HuffPo, it's probably not notable. Notice also this was published in August and never followed up on. Not exactly quality sourcing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I started looking over the current version of the section Incident reporting forms and there was a problem with verifying the first two sentences.

"MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported on August 21 that Wilson did not complete an incident report about the shooting, after being advised by a union lawyer not to do so.^[68] According to O'Donnell, Wilson did file a report, but not until ten days after the shooting, and the report contained no information other than his name and the date.^[68]

68. O'Donnell, Lawrence (August 21, 2014). "Ferguson PD didn't file report after shooting". The Last Word. MSNBC. Retrieved August 26, 2014.

The link for the source doesn't go to the page where the info is, so I wasn’t able to verify the material using the citation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Searching for the title of the source in the ref, yields this: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word-with-lawrence-odonnell/watch/ferguson-pd-didnt-file-report-after-shooting-320755267999 - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, that link is to a 1:16 clip, apparently the intro to the episode. I can't figure out how to get the whole thing. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So who is correct, the prosecutor's office, O'Donnel, the ACLU? Was or was not an incident report filed? Because they did release the reports when pressed to do so. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, The current issue is verifying those two sentences. The link you just gave is insufficient. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was the when I sourced it, but it seems that it is gone. I will see if I can find it in the wayback machine. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The full episode may be on this page, but I am not 100% sure: [2], OTOH, this is a good source that could be used: [3] - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a relevant excerpt from a Nov 24 Newsweek source.[4]

"The official incident report filed by St. Louis county police 10 days after the shooting contains few hard details about the encounter, other than the fact that Brown was unarmed."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I made some edits involving the second and third sentences of the first paragraph, which currently is:[5]

"MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported on August 21 that Wilson did not complete an incident report about the shooting, after being advised by a union lawyer not to do so. According to the St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office, the Ferguson police didn’t file an incident report on the shooting because the case was turned over to the county police almost immediately. The St. Louis county police filed an incident report 10 days after the shooting with little information about what happened."

References

The first sentence is not supported by its source. The only thing it adds is the part about the lawyer. The rest is covered in the second sentence. I think we should delete it for now and consider restoring the lawyer info when there is a suitable source for it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Deleted. [6] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source is no longer online. In any case I think what we have there is covers this quote well. I have re-ordered the sentences for a narrative that makes sense. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was an improvement. I noticed that another editor reverted the re-ordering. [7] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The version reverted to does not make sense. It starts by describing the reasons why a report was not filed, only to say in the following paragraphs that reports were indeed filed. when you removed the O'Donnell reference, the section came out of whack. I am still trying to find the original source from O'Donnell. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph is OK and shouldn't be touched for now. I've been working on the rest of the section to get it into better shape. After I complete that, I'll revisit the lead paragraph. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Found it. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We have breaking news tonight in the killing of Michael Brown. St. Louis County prosecutors told NBC News today that the Ferguson Police Department has no incident report of the shooting of Michael Brown. Darren Wilson, the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, did not write an incident report contrary to standard police procedure. […] Yesterday, in response to a lawsuit from the ACLU, the St. Louis County police released an incident report that says, in effect, nothing other than the time and proximate location of a homicide and the victim`s name, Michael Brown. That incident report indicates that it was not filed until possibly 10 days after the killing of Michael Brown. […] In the decades I`ve been studying these cases, most of them involve incident reports written by the officers involved with the shooting. In recent years, it has become customary for the police lawyer to run in, police union lawyer usually, and prevent the shooter from giving any kind of comment or writing any sort of incident report whatsoever.

References

The excerpt you gave doesn't say that Wilson was advised by a union lawyer not to complete an incident report. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See my edit, which attributes that opinion to O'Donnell. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved it from the article to here for discussion.

"MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell reported on August 21 that St. Louis County prosecutors told NBC News that they do not have an incident report from the shooting, contrary to standard police procedure, and described a pattern in which police union lawyers prevent shooters from commenting to filing incident reports."

References

This Aug 21 item became obsolete when the police interview of Wilson, the day after the shooting, was released to the public. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? Can you provide a source that describes the police interview that was released? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link from a CNN webpage to the interview. [8] --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bob K31416:I see what you mean. But you are confusing two things. What O'Donnell is referring to is an incident report. What you are refrring to is an interview with Wilson. These are two different things. Please restore that edit, as this section is all about incident reports and not interviews. - - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: - You have to add the ping (yo) and your sig in the same edit, or there is no notification. I learned that the hard way. @Bob K31416: ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

O'Donnell said, "any kind of comment or writing any sort of incident report whatsoever.” --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? The fact is that Wilson did not file an incident report. That is undisputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Break1 Incident reports

@Bob K31416: I added additional commentary from legal and law enforcement analysts. I also re-ordered the sentences to follow the chronology. I think I got it right, but please change it if it is not correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

(Here’s a link to the version after Cwobeel's recent edits [9] and a link to the version before [10] .)

Cwobeel, Here’s some comments on your recent edits of the section.

1) The first sentence of your version misstated the source. O'Donnell was referring to only the Ferguson incident report. The info was already in the first sentence that you moved.

2) The second sentence of your version about Lisa Bloom’s opinion misstates the source. Lisa Bloom didn’t say that Wilson refused to file a report.

3) Re the 3rd sentence of your version about Jim Cavanaugh’s comment — The info was already covered in the first and second sentences of the original version.

4) The 4th sentence of your version about the Ferguson police not filing an incident report was the original 1st sentence.

5) The 5th and last sentence of the lead paragraph of your version was about a use-of-force report and was formerly the last sentence of the section. I hadn’t worked on the placement or content of this sentence yet.

6) The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of your version were obtained by switching the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the original version. I hadn’t worked on the content or placement of the material in these paragraphs yet.

7) The 4th and last paragraph of your version was the second sentence of the lead paragraph of the original version.

Before I try to edit the section again, could you list here in our discussion, in chronological order, the events that you are trying to portray in chronological order? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I cheeked again this evening and this is the correct chronology, my last edit was not correct:

• August 19 - (10 days after shooting) incident report filed by St. Louis county police
• August 21 - O'Donnel's reporting, commentary from Lisa Bloom and Jim Cavanaugh
• August 22 - St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office says that Ferguson police did not file a report because the case was assigned to county police
• August 26 - ACLU releases the report they received after their FOIA request
• August 26 - HuffPo reports on commentary by ACLU's Gupta
• Sept 25 - Yahoo News reports that key report does not exist

Regarding Bloom and Cavanaugh:

• Lisa Bloom: And if he refuses to follow standard operating procedure in preparing a report about the taking of the human life, he should be fired."
• Jim Cavanaugh: That is an expert opinion that should be presented.

I will attempt again to correct corrected the chronology. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: feel free to copyedit my rendition of Bloom and Cavanugh's comments, if you can make it better and closer to the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, On giving the section another look, I noticed that it is about not releasing information that has now been released. It’s obsolete and a digression from the topic of the article, the shooting of Michael Brown. We could summarize the incident report issue in a couple of sentences and merge it with the Police section. Thoughts? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a thought regarding Laurence O'Donnell's stated opinion - he's a political columnist, not a police beat reporter. Yet, what we have is his opinion regarding police procedural practices. Unless we have some information on O'Donnell's "years of experience" in this area, we have to treat him as a political beat reporter giving opinions on police procedure.

Laurence O'Donnell is well-known to use "The Last Word" not as a factual reporting forum, but as a soapbox to advance very contentious statements such as his opinion that Mitt Romney would not make a good President of the United States because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and went on to make an extended derogatory and factually incorrect series of statements about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. [11] O'Donnell was later required to apologize to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for these comments. [12]

When Laurence O'Donnell gives his opinion on political matters, it's notable and a good source. When he holds forth on religion or police procedures, we have to question his credentials and the objectivity of his comments in an MSNBC editorial slot. If we cite him on the incident report on anything but the timing of the report and that alone (not his conjectures about why it may have been delayed) we must emphasize in an inline citation in the article that he is giving his opinion on police procedures and that his specialty is not police reporting, but political reporting, and that his "The Last Word" program on MSNBC is a political editorial slot, not a program in which he is retained by MSNBC for his knowledge of police procedure. I do note now that he's only quotes as mentioning when the incident report was submitted by reference to a third source.

Further, in evaluating his credibility and deciding whether to cite him at all, we have to consider the times Laurence O'Donnell has made disparaging comments about other living persons and had to issue retractions or apologies for false statements he made on that program in the past. loupgarous (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use photos of Michael Brown and Darren Wilson

I'm wondering about grabbing some photos of Brown and Wilson and uploading them as fair use. I have in mind these... Brown,Wilson, and using them in a manner similar to the ones in Shooting of Trayvon Martin. Brown is dead so "historic portrait" applies, unless someone wants to argue that anyone who owns a photo of Brown could conceivably upload it here under some sort of free license. Wilson is still around, but I think the chances someone will upload a free picture of him anytime soon is pretty slim. And even if 30 years from now someone finally does, it won't do us much good in the meantime plus he won't look anything like he did during the event... which sort of kills the encyclopedic value. I think that since this a historic event (historic meaning this particular event happened at only one time in history), contemporary photos of the main participants are fair use. Thoughts on the validity of "fair-use" here? Thoughts on using the images in general? – JBarta (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

For Brown, we get one (and and only one) "fair use" photo under the "dead, no future free photos available" bits of WP:NFCC. So if consensus can be built on which photo to use, then we can go with it.

For Wilson, as he is living, we do not get such exceptions. I already uploaded a pic of Wilson's face injury under the NFCC for a non-reproduceable historical photo that is discussed in the article (the degree of injury or not). Having just an "What does Wilson look like" photo is not going to survive the fair use discussion tho.

The Trayvon Martin article is working under slightly different rules, because Florida does not allow state agencies to keep copyrights and so all of the evidence stuff is in the public domain. Missouri specifically does allow state agencies to keep copyright. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That fair use can indeed encompass "what does a main participant look like?" in a very notable "moment in time" event is an incorrect belief? – JBarta (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally only if there is some specific thing that is being commented on significantly in the article that the "moment in time" captures. For example injuries, or "iconic" status. "Here is a random snapshot of Wilson" won't qualify. You can always try of course, but I've seen hundreds of photos trying that argument get deleted. The relevant criteria are Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UULP. In our case a hypothetical free replacement would let us see the general ID of Wilson just fine (As opposed to the injury photos, which cannot be replaced ever in the future). More detail can be found at Wikipedia:Replaceability_of_fair-use_images#Living_people Gaijin42 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the guidelines, just wondering how far they can be stretched in this context. We could argue that not only is this hypothetical future free image of Wilson unlikely to materialize, but it may very well not capture him as he looked during the event. No doubt he'll probably lay low for the forseeable future, he may grow a beard, etc. So one way to look at it is that Wilson, as he was during the event, is in fact a not reasonably replacable historic image. Compare this context with say a movie star with a career that spans many years. If we don't get a picture of him today, he's likely to be out and about still making movies and appearing at events in the future, not to mention his notability is not tied to one particular moment in time. Very different context than Wilson here. I'm not looking for a "you can always try it and see how it goes". I'm looking for a consensus that a "what he looks like" image of Wilson is a valid application of fair-use and while stretching WP guidelines, doesn't necessarily run afoul of them.– JBarta (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a re-read of Wikipedia:Replaceability_of_fair-use_images#Living_people (thank-you Gaijin42) makes me think a photo of Wilson is well within the guidelines simply as a "not reasonably replaceable image of a living person". Add to that the idea of his notability being tied to one moment in time, and it's starting to look like a pretty solid case. No? Again, I'm looking for a consensus on that point rather than a "try it and see how it goes". – JBarta (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that choice of Michael Brown's photo, for several reasons. One reason is that is only shows his face. In the context of this article, I believe it is important to see his physical size (i.e., his body/frame/physique). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to any images you would prefer? – JBarta (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't have any access to such photos. And I don't particularly understand (or follow) all of the intricacies of the copyright/fair use rules, etc., as discussed above. Nonetheless, I disagree with this particular proposed photo. For the reason stated above, and for other reasons as well. I am sure that I have seen many photos of Brown in the news and on the internet, etc., over the past few months. I will see if I can point one out in particular. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is one photo: [13]. And I thought that I had seen this photo in a not-cropped version, showing his full-length body shot. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if you have a full body shot, unless he's standing next to someone much smaller, you probably won't get a true sense of his size. And even if you did get such a photo, people will come out of the woodwork screaming that we're trying to portray him as a "big black monster". I'm thinking maybe it should be a neutral sort of image that no one has much of a problem with. Then again, he was a big dude and that certainly plays a part in the narrative. – JBarta (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

People can visualize 6'4" 300 lbs. without a photo. Unless we feel it useful to show that his build was more that of a lineman than a linebacker (I don't, particularly). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the proposed photo by JBarta is just fine, as it is the one that was used by most sources. Go head and add it. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To counteract Spadaro's comment, we are not showing a full body shot of Wilson who is 6' 4" either. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

JBarta Regarding your question above about Wilson and replacability, I do not think the photo serves any purpose in the article that qualifies under NFCC. What he looked like in general is not a subject that is discussed in this article. Relative sizes between Brown and Wilson may be relevant, but the photos in question do not show that. Your proposed justification would basically apply to any photo of any person for almost any article, it renders the restriction meaningless. If NFCC had an exception for "this photo has been widely used by news media for this story" I would support that, and would perhaps support a change to NFCC to create such an exception, but as the policy currently stands, I think its pretty clear generic photos of Wilson do not make the cut. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The photo showing the redness on the face, relates specifically to the investigation and thus it can squeeze through (hardly,IMO) under NFCC. A generic photo of Wilson would not. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"What he looked like in general isn't important" could be similarly argued for any person who is dead, yet has a fair use photo in their article. By my reading of the guidelines, it's not the importance that is important, but whether the photo is reasonably replaceable. If one agrees that a photo of Darren Wilson (especially capturing him at this moment in time) is not reasonably replaceable to an extent similar to a person who has died, then I would think the guideline would apply to Wilson as well as a person who has died. It's not like Wilson is going to be out posing for photos at the next Fergson Community Days or anything. – JBarta (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia works in hypotheticals quite often. WP:V has WP:V#Access_to_sources for example. (Its in a physical library in Peru in a village only accessible by foot. Doesn't mean it isn't verifiable. ) There is a zero percent chance of free photos of Brown being taken in the future. I can come up with many ways we could have photos of Wilson in the future. (someone catches him in public, federal evidence released, federal charges, cspan testimony) etc. The main point that its tripping you up on replacability is that you have not stated how a photograph of him at the time is of particular encyclopedic value to justify the copyright issues vs a hypothetical image of him from the future. What does his "look" at that moment in time illustrate for the article? His skin tone? his physical fitness? We discuss none of this in the article, therefore illustrating it is not adding anything. In any case, the general policy won't get changed here. As I said feel free to try, but I have seen literally hundreds of photos go down in flames on the same type of reasoning. And fair warning I would !vote as I have indicated here (although I certainly don't make the consensus alone). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On the issue of having a photo of him at this time and its replacabiliy. Imagine for a minute an article about a famous fight between two boxers back in the 1970's. You show each boxer... one a contemporaneous photo, the other forty years later all crippled up hunched over a cane because we can't find a free image of that boxer from back in the 1970s. The article is about the fight in the 1970's. The recent image of the one fighter arguably has little to do with the fight. It's not the same person that was in the fight. The same replacabilty concern exists with Darren Wilson, only the circumstances are less extreme and we're at the beginning of not having an image of him rather than far down the road. – JBarta (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Per NPOV I don't see how we could justify a photo of one without a photo of the other. A photo would serve no purpose other than to personalize the subject for the reader. If you think we've seen battles here to date, just make the popcorn and add Brown without Wilson. We have the shot of Wilson's cheek, but that's not equivalent to a full face shot, with eye contact, in the subject's bio section (which I presume is where Brown's photo would go). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• User:Jbarta asked me to comment here.

Wilson: This person is still alive. Jbarta seems to be concerned that Wilson may look very different when a free image is created. However, I note that the event took place only four months ago. It is therefore obvious that the person currently looks more or less the same as he did when this event took place. There is a potential that someone might take a photo of him tomorrow, next week or in January, and that photograph would then serve as a free replacement. It is important to note that WP:NFCC#1 disallows non-free content if free content can be created, and it is perfectly possible to take photos of him for the moment. The image is therefore replaceable, at least for the moment. If, after 40 years, it turns out that there is still no one who has taken a free photo of him, things may be different and he may look a lot different. WP:NFCC#1 allows non-free images in some situations if the person has changed a lot from the time when he became famous, but non-free images are not allowed in all such situations. It may be useful to point out that a similar situation (a child actor active in the 1990s) currently is being discussed at deletion review.

Brown: This person is dead, so non-free images of him are not replaceable. The image proposed by Jbarta, [14], looks like an image of children at an amusement park or some similar kind of place. It looks as if Brown could easily be at about the same age as the children in the background. However, it says that he was 18 at the time of his death. Is this a 10-year-old photo or something? If Jbarta is concerned that the photo of Wilson must be contemporary, then why does he think that the photo of Brown doesn't need to be contemporary? I suspect that this photograph isn't suitable for the article. However, I don't know what other photographs, if any, would be suitable. I am also not sure if it is necessary to include a photograph of him in this article per WP:NFCC#8. I believe that there have been other discussions about murdered people at FFD, but I don't remember the outcome.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin: Jbarta mentioned this article because this article also contains non-free pictures. This article seems to have problems, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 December 10#Pictures of Trayvon Martin. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of Brown's age in this photo you'll notice the bit of beard on his chin. It's the same as this photo where I assume he's graduating high school. I think the photo I chose isn't more than a year or so old. At any rate, I'm not firmly fixed on any photo. It doesn't entirely matter to me. No matter what photo is chosen there will be those who see some sort of suspicious reason for the choice.

And while it's "possible" someone could snap an image of Wilson in the near future and upload free it here, I'd say it's highly unlikely. I'd also like to point out again that Wilson fits precisely the criteria set out in the 'May not be reasonably replaceable' section of Wikipedia:Replaceability_of_fair-use_images#Living_people. He's the poster boy for not likely to get a free picture of him anytime soon. The only thing he's likely to show himself for is a possible lawsuit from Brown's family... but I suspect he won' be out front signing autographs. – JBarta (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikipedia:Replaceability_of_fair-use_images is a failed proposal. It carries zero weight. My argument just took a shit. – JBarta (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:REFU appears to be a failed proposal. I obviously overlooked the beard on the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: You probably missed the goatee, Brown doesn't look 8 years old in that photo. Judging by the federal autopsy report's description, the photo is probably recent, although it could use a bit of cropping. Trayvon Martin's photos aren't relevant to the discussion; as of when I wrote this there hasn't been any consensus regarding those images. That leaves Wilson's images. It's possible that a photo of Wilson might be released publicly, so NFCC#1 probably doesn't work here. The only nonfree image that's irreplaceable is that of Wilson's injuries, except they're probably not appropriate for the short biography. Those are better suited for descriptions of the shooting. I think that posting only an image of Brown with the biographies would violate impartiality, so I don't think their photos should be posted in the article. --RAN1 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you all from experience that there are editors (you know who you are) who will fight tooth and nail to prevent non free images of living people from staying on Wikipedia. I would advise you to try and find a free image instead of bothering to upload a fair use image of wilson. It will be an exercise in futility. -Myopia123 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't see much point in comparing the Shooting of Trayvon Martin with this article from a formatting perspective. That article has infoboxes for both shooter and victim. Something that was vetoed by consensus on this article. -Myopia123 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Always keep in mind that consensus is not permanent. – JBarta (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am not challenging any consensus. I am simply saying that there are editors on Wikipedia who cannot stand their perceived violations of WP:NFCC no matter what the situation. While I would personally support adding a fair use image of Wilson, I am just giving you a heads up that even if our reasons are bulletproof, those editors are going to go to immense lengths to oppose and remove those pictures, just because. -Myopia123 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"baseline position" on diagram

Cwobeel I think it may be helpful to include a spot on the diagram for the "baseline" position where all the measurements are from. Note that this point is not a WP:SYNTH issue derived by us from the witness testimony/sources, this is the "zero" point for the diagram measurements, per the crime scene photographers/investigators, and that point is explicitly marked on the original diagram.

As an aside, the quotes below has bearing on the "Crime Scene" discussion above, as we have the police specifically referring to this location as a crime scene.

• [15] (See figure 2 cone photo)

• https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1370513/grand-jury-volume-24.txt
  • And why is it that this cone was placed at that location on Canfield Drive? A As best we could tell based off of witness accounts, that would have been the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went to. So that intersection of roughly Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive. or Canfield Road? [...]That was the point that they had made reference to and so we used that as the furthest eastern point to go to.
  • In terms of on August 9th, one of our crime scene detective's jobs was to take various measurements of items of evidence at the scene. And he used what starts as a baseline at Coppercreek Court and Canfield Court, and used this baseline here and measured items during the entire, I should say, within the entire crime scene and those items were documented in a diagram that he completed with specific measurements, feet down to inches. So when we went back out there to take those 360 degree panoramic shots, we based, obviously, Coppercreek Court and Canfield Drive is subjective in the sense that we are basing that off of where, again, witnesses were telling us is the furthest point east that Michael Brown would have went So that is a subjective point that we use that intersection, northwest corner of that intersection right there.
• Witness 14 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/interviews/interview-witness-14-01.pdf
  • "the boy was still standing on the, on the, on the partially on the parking lot and on the grass. 'Cause he had ran that way. The officer came out came around got into his stance. And he said ?stop.? Because the boy looked up at him and he took two steps, about two or three steps.
  • When [Brown] turned around he had about one foot on the grass and one on the driveway.
• Dorian
  • [Brown] was barely on the sidewalk, he was barely on the sidewalk to the parking lot. He was going towards this building. I presume that’s the way he was running. He wasn’t really all the way on the driveway when the . . . shot went off, and he turned around, and he was in the street

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have the exact position of the baseline cone? I don't see it on the police report diagram. Is it on the legend list? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel It is at 0 feet 0 inches for both directions. on the diagram (text at bottom right corner saying "Baseline starting at 0'0" ) with a line pointing to the corner. On the legend the very bottom says "baseline runs east to west on north side of canfield with 0'0" starting at copper creek ct." The testimony indicates why they chose that spot as the baseline, and that the cone in the photograph is that point. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Added baseline as suggested. Also added the cross street Copper Creek Ct. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Suggestions: 1. Extend the bottom curb to the right edge of the image, to show that Copper Creek does not cross Canfield. 2. Is there a little too much space between the C and T in CT., or is that just more flaky rendering? 3. If there is any way to establish the distance between the left edge and the baseline, I can use that to fine-tune our coordinates, using the distance measuring tool in Google Maps. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done . Thanks for the feedback. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss The legend of the original diagram includes the exact distance in feet and inches to every other item from the baseline, so just pick the furthest left item? (looks like its one of the casings by the car) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I tweaked the coords to a position halfway between items 4 and 20, or about 105 ft NW of the baseline (they moved about 20 ft SE). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Obsessively checking my work, I came up with 118 ft NW of the baseline, and the coords were already correct. I could be taking this accuracy thing too far, or perhaps someone as anal as I am would care to check my work. Item 4: 210' from baseline. Item 20: 26'7" from baseline. 26'7" = roughly 26.6 ft. ((210 - 26.6) / 2)) + 26.6 = 118.3. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I vote accuracy too far. A few feet certainly won't matter for the purposes of the infobox. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thought so. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As for the other witnesses narratives, that would be a good addition, as it explains the position of the casings and other evidence when the final shots were fired. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel How are you making the SVG? Are you just eyeballing positions, or do you have it gridded out so you can convert from the actual feet/inches to the right pixels in some deterministic way? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither. I used the diagram of one of the media sources as an underlay, and positioned the evidence items accordingly. As the media sources did not have the baseline cone, that one I added by eyeballing. If we want to be scientific about it, I will have to re-do the position of each item using the measurements and converting the positions to the XY grid in Omnigraffle. Pretty laborious I'd say. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how this is not original research or synthesis? You're converting a not-to-scale diagram to a scale diagram using information from two different primary sources. The article is in poor condition, with many outdated sections, far too many references, and duplicate information in several places. There are also far, far too many statements of the type "A B of XYZ News stated on August 21 that..."

For comparison, 2014 Grozny clashes has a better balance of opinion and fact, and an appropriate use of citations. That's just a random news article that I like the style of.

Does this article require mediation? I haven't done that before, but I think there are issues that need to be addressed. I mean ownership, if it's not clear. Roches (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From WP:Citing sources: Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed.

Based on the above, your concerns about too many references are unfounded and clearly unsupported by WP content guidelines.

I honestly don't see where you're getting the ownership claim, but please be specific and back it up.

I'll let others respond to your concerns about the diagram. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Roches was referring to there being too many citations, but rather too many in-text attributions.

Regarding ownership, I think it's more a matter of there being some very active editors. This can result in there being misinformation and bias that would take more time than most have to correct it, but I don't see how that can be avoided, considering there is open editing. All I can say is to hang in there and do what you can.

Regarding the scale of the diagram, it looks like the same scale as the diagram in this source [16]. In fact, the identifications and placement of the individual pieces of evidence look about the same too. If something is added to the diagram that is not supported by a reliable source, or it highlights something that is not specifically mentioned in a reliable source, then that might be a problem. So far I don't know of that happening here. Items that are the result of calculations can be questioned, but then there is the policy WP:CALC that allows some, and whether or not it is suitable for an article can be determined by consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

On second thought it doesn't look like the same scale. our article source Maybe we need take out a ruler and check it and then add a note to the diagram, "not to scale", or redraw the diagram, using the source's diagram as a model for the scale. I notice that the source's diagram uses an actual picture of the street and surroundings on which it overlays the items in the crime scene. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: I just now added the above source to the diagram. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the plotting of all points in the diagram used in the article was down to the inches from the baseline point based on the data published in that measurement table. If the scale in the diagram is questionable, it may be good for us to add a scale bar with 10-foot increment along the bottom part of the diagram. Z22 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob, I disagree that we need to inform the reader that the scale of our diagram is a little different from that of the source, for the sake of improved readability. All that matters is that the distance proportions are the same, and a "not to scale" statement could easily be interpreted as meaning that they are not. I think we're better off without it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

About the diagram, as per WP:OI, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." This diagram was created from published data here and here, same document. There is no unpublished ideas or arguments included in the diagram, so it is not an original research, but it is just an original image. Also it is not synthesis because it is largely based on that same source. Other references listed next to the diagram were to show that same idea/argument has been published by multiple reliable sources. Z22 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the arguments above by Z22 and others, the diagram is not OR. Can it be improved? Sure, there is always that possibility. As for the state of the article referred to by Roches, same applies. It can always be improved, but generalizations don't help here. If there are specific things that you want addressed, join in and do the hard work. You may get reverted and challenged, but that is the way of this land. Collaborative editing is hard work and requires patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 8:39 am, Today (UTC−6)

Collaborating, OR, and inline attributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New documents released

New material has been released by the prosecutor's office. As I will not have much time today to work on this, maybe others can take a look. [17] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So far the docs seem all over the place. A few supporting brown, a few supporting wilson, one completely off the wall "walk out" one that claimed to personally see Brown on his knees and Wilson shoot him in the head point blank, and then saw/heard 8 more shots into Brown while he was face down, who then stopped the interview when they were told what they were saying didn't match the evidence. Mostly they seem to be all followup interviews asking specific questions after the local interviews. On from the guy Brown was living with that week.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Added above source as LATimes.Documents. It includes a link to the federal autopsy report, and I added that report separately as LATimes.FederalAutopsy. Added mention of the release of the federal autopsy report. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

More terse summaries in the witness accounts

As there are now a massive amount of witness statements available, I think we need to change how we are doing things in the accounts section. Obviously covering each account in the level of detail we currently have for dozens of additional accounts, and then criticisms of those accounts, would not be viable - it would be multiple standalone articles worth of content. Keeping things the way it is now represents an WP:NPOV issue as well. I suggest we move to a more WP:SUMMARY style overall bringing all of the media witnesses together under a WP:SUMMARY section (as they are mostly saying the same thing), and then a Grand Jury section that discusses the various testimonies again at a high level - Using sources such as the PBS comparison (even with its well known flaws) or the links that TParis pointed out in ANI.

Perhaps the Police/Wilson and Johnson should keep standalone sections, as they are directly involved and therefore their statements have more importance, and have been scrutinized more carefully by the media and other analysts. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I was saying this, thinking this, and in one case tried doing this, for several days before taking it to ANI. I don't like that I had to take it to ANI because of objections that it would destroy people's work or might constitute original research. There was no critical discussion of any witness that opposed Wilson, and much discussion of discrepancies and flaws in the few accounts that supported it.

I've always thought there should be a section on Wilson's story and a section about the opposing views; I typed that a few days ago, though I'm not sure I posted it. I still think it's the best way to move forward. Roches (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC

Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

• This section needs an opening paragraph that gives a clear and concise overview of the nature of the controversy, convert table to text and summarize salient points, reduce amount of legal/academic opinions, remove all weasel phrasing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summary with representative quotes, keep table without charges row - Not most notable quotes, just representative of author opinions that can be included in as neutrally-worded as possible. We have people to attribute to, so undue doesn't apply. Table should be kept with charges row removed since it isn't consistent with grand jury transcript. --RAN1 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep charges row, I interpreted it wrong. --RAN1 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summary with representative quotes, keep table as is - The summary does not need to represent a false balance as, if the prevalent opinion as repressed in its reporting is negative, we should not hide that fact per NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Use minimal quotes and emend the table to accurately state that the charges were presented to the grand jury. Collect (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Use minimal quotes and emend table as per Collect. Quotes in this case should not be "representative." Summarize material included in quotes instead wherever the exact word-for-word nature of the quote does not make such summary difficult. If there is clear reason for doing so, it would certainly be possible to include any quotations deemed truly necessary in the individual citations for the summarized material. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace the table with text — See the subsection Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace table with text - Per: WP:QUOTEFARM and removing table fixes WP:UNDUE issue of the display. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion — POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

Table Charges Row

• Here's the charges row of the table.[18]

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

It has the false implication that the Wilson prosecutor didn't present a range of charges. The NYTimes article [19] made the same false implication in its table. If it was intentional on the part of the NYT author, it would be a lie by omission. [Note added 16:45, 12 Dec:] If we intentionally keep it, it would be a lie by omission on our part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've modified the charges row so that it puts the emphasis on the word "ask". Here is a copy below [20]:

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

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

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

It still leaves out that the prosecutor provided the grand jury with charges, which the source also left out. In any case, I don't think you can fix it because it's not in the source, WP:NOR. Here's the charges part of the source's table for reference.[21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to replace table

Replace this table that is currently in the article:[22]

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

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

with the following text:

According to The New York Times, the grand jury proceedings differed from typical ones in Missouri. For the Wilson case, they lasted much longer (25 days over 3 months vs 1 day), the prosecutor did not ask for an indictment, there were many more witnesses (60 vs a few), the defendant testified, and all of the evidence and testimony was released to the public after the defendant was not indicted, where in typical grand juries it is usually kept secret.[23]

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

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

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

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

Investigatory Grand Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson's case --should be removed or changed to reflect data and not opinion

It should either compare this case with a low profile case or just give the facts of the case. It is copied almost word for word from the the NYT and is not fact but opinion. As there are no references to real data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanisle2009 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Which NYT source are you suggesting is an opinion piece? Dyrnych (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition, if it reflects an analysis by (hence opinion of) a New York Times columnist or reporter, it should probably be adequate to simply make sure it is identified as such (inline attribution). Even opinion, when properly identified and attributed to a credible source, is fair content here. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with attributing the content to the NYT. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that solves that. --RAN1 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If the text of the table was copied verbatim, is there a problem with copyright infringement? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It was not copied verbatim. You can check and compare. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the Controversy section that has the table is bloated and could use some summarizing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the table is that it doesn't take into account what grand juries usually do, which is approving felony indictments that a prosecuting attorney's office has already decided to take to trial. The hearing in Wilson's case was intended to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for a trial. (A trial for second degree murder, since it was intentional but unplanned.) Now, I think this is the time when we got into why it's not up to us to decide when journalists are right or wrong. The table compares two very different things, and in so doing it misrepresents the purpose for the hearing in this case. I don't want to deal with opinions to any more of an extent than is absolutely necessary, but it's not right for Wikipedia to contain information that is factually wrong, or misrepresented, up to the point where one journalist discovers the error of another. Roches (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think your difference of purpose is the exact point of the criticism. The grand jury was not normal, and thats what the table points out. The prosecutors job is to prosecute, not decide if there is a crime. There is prosecutorial discretion, but if thats what was at play he should have just said so, and declined to prosecute. Having a show "trial" where he didn't actually prosecute did nothing except waste money and provide room for criticism. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, in this specific instance, this was a "normal" grand jury conducting "normal" grand jury business, it just so happened in August that they were thrust into the spotlight and given an unusual case under unusual circumstances - and the table doesn't point that out. The table is confusing because it seems to imply that some kind of special grand jury was convened to hear this case, and that's not what happened. A typical grand jury had already been convened and were conducting typical grand jury business when they were suddenly tasked with an unusual and controversial case, that's what happened and that's what should be relayed to the reader in prose instead of a generic table that doesn't address the context in which this case was given to them. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from adding other viewpoints about the grand jury process, besides the NYT's opinion and the other opinions already in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the makeup and convening of the GJ was normal. But was the presentation of this case normal? The table is about the GJ proceedings, not the GJ itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I read from the bloated opinions in that section, it's the decision and the presentation of the case by the prosecutor McCulloch and the unusual way he used the grand jury - that is the controversy, at least that's what the overwhelming sources indicate and what and who they are specifically criticizing. If anything, there should be a table comparing "Similar cases handled by McCulloch" vs. "Wilsons case". The controversy/criticism revolves around McCulloch and the decisions he made. And I'd also point out that the table says that they met 25 days over 3 months, that was a decision that this specific GJ themselves elected to do, so that is specific to them and therefore makes it about "the GJ itself" and an apparent scheduling decision they made for convenience purposes. Gee, isn't that controversial? And I'd also make note of the fact that a "typical" grand jury does not meet for a day or less, it meets for a specific timeframe decided by a judge, and these grand jurors were originally appointed for a four-month term (and later extended). Isaidnoway (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI grand juries are not the same as trial juries. Trial juries are directed by judges; grand juries are directed by prosecutors. --RAN1 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway You are completely misinterpreting the criticism Isaidnoway. Yes, the jury was convened for a set amount of time, but the amount of time they spent on a particular case was controlled by the prosecutor. This same GJ dealt with dozens of cases prior to this case, and most of them were less than a day. Probable cause is a really low standard. Did wilson shoot? Yes. Were there witnesses (that passed the initial "not obviously lying" test) that said Brown was surrendering? Yes. Ok, thats probable cause for a trial. Impeaching those witnesses, and showing the defensive evidence is the job of the defense, not the prosecutor. Self defense cases are tougher, because they need to show all the elements of the crime and one of those elements is "it wasn't justified" but its still a really low bar. I think there is no way they could get a conviction, but the criticism that the prosecutor would not be giving the random joe the same level of deference is absolutely correct. He used the GJ for political cover instead of just saying "I don't think there is a case here" Political cover is not one of the appropriate roles for a GJ.McCulloch essentially had a trial, where he was both the prosecution and the defense. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The amount of time spent on a case is not controlled by a prosecutor, the time is controlled by the jurors themselves, as they are certainly allowed to ask questions of the witnesses and to individually examine the evidence as it suits them. And your explanation here on the talk page about how they dealt with dozens of cases with most of them being less than a day is great, but that explanation for the reader is absent from the table. The implication presently in the table is that a "typical" grand jury meets for a day or less, sans any explanation or context. Probable cause was never there for the prosecution, the physical evidence is in line with the officer's version of events. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

" but it's not right for Wikipedia to contain information that is factually wrong" - Actually, the purpose of Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources say about a subject. If reliable source A said X, and X is factually incorrect because B says so, then we report what A said and what B said, and let our readers arrive to their own conclusions. But we can't avoid quoting A just because B said that A is factually incorrect. In addition, we can't use a primary source that contradicts A, unless the primary source refers to A's opinion. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Policy doesn't say that we have to include questionable material. See the policy Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

There’s a false implication in the NYT table and ours that the prosecutor didn’t provide a range of charges. He provided five, from murder in the first degree to involuntary manslaughter.[24][25]

In any case, I think we should summarize the information in the table with the following:

According to The NY Times, the grand jury proceedings were not typical of such proceedings in Missouri. They lasted much longer, the prosecutor did not recommend that the defendant be indicted, there was much more evidence presented, many more witnesses testified, the defendant testified, and all of the evidence and testimony was released to the public after the defendant was not indicted.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:BRD. I don't see any consensus emerging for this change. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your summary is inaccurate, to say the least. Using generic terms such as "much longer" and "more evidence" when we have hard data that is measurable. I still believe the table is the best and easy to read and appreciate for our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I recently made some edits that were reverted by Cwobeel, as indicated in the history of the article between 07:15, 11 December 2014‎ and 15:58, 11 December 2014‎. I essentially summarized, organized, reduced the wording, and changed the heading from “Reception” to “Discussion”, on the way to getting the section into a more encyclopedic form. Could some editors review and comment on any of the edits, reverts or their edit summaries? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment on the heading. It was originally "Controversy" but Cwobeel renamed it to "Reception", saying, This section needs to includes statements of support not just those views critical of the proceedings for NPOV. My reaction at that time was that "Controversy" correctly reflected the two sides to the issue, and there is no controversy on any issue without (at least) two sides. So I couldn't make sense of that editsum and didn't see how renaming to "Reception" was an improvement. Since then, we've been around and around between Reception, Response, and Discussion, when Controversy might have been more acceptable to most involved. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Restoring the heading to "Controversy" is fine with me. Feel free to restore it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with moving the content from the table into a more readable summary of the salient points. Might need a little tweaking on the language, but it's a good start on cleaning up this section. There are also 13 separate paragraphs with varying opinions being offered that should be trimmed back as well, we don't need that many opinions to get the point across that McCulloch's handling of the case was controversial. Weasel phrases like "some legal experts" and "others said" and "legal experts also noted" should be removed entirely, we have plenty of legal/academic experts with names giving legal/academic opinions that suffice instead of generic weasel phrasing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the agreement regarding replacing the table. Feel free to replace it with any tweaking of my version.

Also I agree with your point about too many opinions and I would add that there is overlap and repetition of their points. Phrases like "various legal experts criticized", "others said", etc. are useful when combining the same or similar sourced opinions from different people. I don't think we need in-text attribution when there is a source for the statement which does that. Any concern that it should be noted that it is an opinion can be done in text without the bulky in-text attribution and a description of who the person is, which hurt the flow and distract from the point that is being made. Using "various legal experts criticized", "others said", etc. is a normal way to summarize, as long as they are substantiated with inline citations. Please see the 1st 2 sentences of this version of the section [26] and you will see that they were. See also WP:WEASEL, which supports the fact that they aren't weasel phrases when they are substantiated with sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the table should be replaced. Granted, the charges row is wrong, but the rest of the information is verifiable and from a (otherwise) reliable source. It's mostly data, and putting that in prose would make the data less presentable. --RAN1 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On the issues raised on ANI

I've posted replies under three sections that dealt with issues raised in the ANI discussion. Now, I'm going to voluntarily avoid this article and talk page for 48 hours, and after that I'll respond to any outstanding issues.

For the editors who have worked on this article and who will be working on it, try to remember that this is one of the increasingly small number of places that people can go to even get a chance at not seeing news presented in the form of a top ten list. Your work is important, people read it, and it needs to be the best it can be. Roches (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What gun was used?

One of the key missing details is how the police officer's gun was wrested from him. I have tried to find the make and model gun used, as well as the make and model of holster. If this article was merely an overview, I could excuse it, but this article drills down to the level of "$48 worth of cigarillos." Not $47, not $49,but $48. I would like to see the same attention to detail for the gun issue.

Was the gun a Glock, a Smith, etc.? Did the holster have a butt strap, or an internal locking device, etc.?

Thanks for your attention. 50.0.36.243 (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but a while back I stumbled on this YouTube video that may be informative, or at the very least, interesting. (I'm not suggesting using it as a source nor suggesting the information contained is unimpeachable) – JBarta (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a .40 cal SIG_Sauer_P226#P229. Its a 12+1 gun, and Wilson had several spare mags. To my knowledge we do not know the type of holster he was using, but I don't think its relevant as there is no assertion that Brown went for the gun while it was in the holster - Wilson freely says he drew the gun from the holster himself. We don't talk about the gun much, because it has not been discussed much in reliable sources.

One interesting (to me, not covered in any sources I am aware of) discrepancy is that there were 12 cases found near the scene. Wilson states that after the shooting there was one round left in the magazine, which he removed. If there was a round in the magazine, there should also have been a round chambered. That there wasn't means that either there was a Firearm_malfunction#Failure_to_feed or the remaining bullet was not in the magazine but in the chamber, but wilson explicitly said "I lock the slide back, take the magazine out, take the one round that’s left in it out. I put it all in that bag, seal it with evidence tape and then sign it.".

http://listverse.com/2014/11/25/10-of-the-most-important-pieces-of-evidence-from-darren-wilson-testimony/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: There are 15 rounds on a P299 magazine, so 12 cases + 1 in the magazine according to Wilson, that leaves two rounds not accounted for? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: The .40 model uses 12-round magazines, it's the 9mm variant that has 15 rounds. --RAN1 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

CwobeelThere are both 10, 12, and 14 round magazines for a 229.[27] You can see Wilson's specific magazine in the photo at that listverse article I posted, and that it is a 12 round mag. The 14 round mag is longer (duh) so is more difficult to wear while seated. Some cops have the 14 rounders as their backup mags tho since you can move them around more easily than the holstered gun (Wilson said he had 2 additional mags, but their size was not released anywhere)Gaijin42 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In my time in the army (not in the US), we used to chamber an extra round in our small arms in addition to the mag. Is that not a practice in law enforcement the US? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is standard practice here too. Its a 12+1 gun, so the +1 is the "extra". That chambered round would have been the first one fired in the car. Wilson fired 12 times, so the final round should have been chambered in the end, but it could have stayed in the magazine if there was a failure to feed. Per wilson's testimony he also had 2 failure to fires in the car during the time he says Brown's hand was on the gun (see the video posted above for a technical explanation of how his particular gun works in that regard) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Also to add to my discrepancy above "locking the slide back" prior to removing the magazine would have loaded the round from the mag into the chamber. (This is why you ALWAYS REMOVE THE MAG FIRST WHEN UNLOADING A GUN) So my assumption is that what he meant to say was that he ejected the round from the chamber and removed the mag, but it was a sloppy way to talk, and I'm surprised nobody (rs) mentioned it, especially with how some sources (Shaun King etc) were saying he might have reloaded, and therefore exactly what happened to each round would be very relevant. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of See also

Resolution of my edit and its revert by Likeminas. Reason for revert was All these killings have been discussed as an overall recent trend in news articles. I don't think that justifies the revert. The killings are included in the umbrella list article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of the Travon Martin shooting, all these cases are discussed in news articles as a recent trend of police abuse of force. i.e. Police officers killing people under questionable circumstances. In fact, there's a good amount of sources that mention them all in the same article.

The killings in the List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States does not single out cases that have produced extensive news coverage and massive national outcry.

These cases are related and should be listed under 'See also' for readers that are interested in reading the most notorious cases in recent history. Likeminas (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Garner, Rice and Gurley are at least related by timing. Martin and Diallo less so, since they aren't part of this recent chain of events. --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to remove them, if chose to. Thanks Likeminas (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. Btw, should we keep the "hands up, don't shoot" in see also? We already have it in the navbox, having it in see also seems superfluous. --RAN1 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has multiple articles addressing that topic, including Police brutality in the United States and Police misconduct. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

True, but the three deaths that are still in there are related by timing: The grand jury trial against the officer who killed Garner ended in non-indictment last week, and Rice and Gurley's deaths coincided with the grand jury case against Wilson. Brown's shooting at the very least had an influence on the reactions to these, so including them in 'see also' wouldn't be a bad idea. --RAN1 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Common sense (wiki-linking Ferguson, Missouri)

In the opening sentence, I linked Missouri, and unlinked "suburb" (edit summary: "some of us don't know where Missouri is; everyone knows what a suburb is"). I was reverted (twice), and instructed to "talk it to talk and stop edit warring". So, I leave it here for others to consider. Thanks. zzz (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is two separate issues, which I will address separately. First, the Missouri linking. I don't know of a policy or guideline about this, but there is this essay by an editor very experienced with linking. I would encourage any editor to read all of it before becoming involved in any disputes about linking. It says, Uniqueness: Is the linked topic reachable—directly or indirectly—through another link in the vicinity? (If so, consider not linking.) In other words, Missouri is easily reachable via Ferguson, Missouri, so it probably doesn't need to be linked here. The general idea is the concept of overlinking, which says that having fewer links increases the value of the remaining ones. That concept is covered in the essay as well as guidelines.

As to "suburb", I don't think it's all that clear that everyone knows what a suburb is, but I feel less strongly about that. I might even support unlinking suburb on overlinking grounds. Frankly I didn't even notice that was part of what I was reverting. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea that it's "overlinking" because the link is available on another article is clearly wrong. (Incidentally, it's only available there because I just added it.) You should always check what your reverting, before accusing editors of edit-warring, (and quoting irrelevant essays and policies). zzz (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make statements about what's "clearly wrong" without some kind of backup; i.e., no matter how emphatically you present something as truth, that doesn't make it true. That's fundamental Wikipedia. And please don't lecture me about proper editing procedure while demonstrating complete ignorance of WP:BRD. The correct procedure was demonstrated in the dispute preceding this one. I was reverted once and I opened a talk discussion about it. You did not do that, instead re-reverting the revert, thereby starting an edit war. There is nothing gray or fuzzy about this area. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I started this discussion, not you!

Secondly, "overlinking" is best avoided for the reason that it draws attention away from the text. In this case, Ferguson, Missouri appeared entirely in blue, ie. identically to my edit, so this reason does not apply. And you apparently agree about "suburb". So, we are in agreement, then. zzz (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And thirdly, to reiterate, you should always check what you're reverting ("fundamental Wikipedia"). zzz (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Ferguson, Missouri is fine. No need to link the city and state separately. Regarding suburb, I could go either way. I lean towards not linking it as relatively common knowledge. Then again, I'm from the U.S. If '"suburb" is not a commonly used term in oher English speaking countries then wikilink it. – JBarta (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This will be my last comment. You failed to mention any reason why Ferguson, Missouri is better than Ferguson, Missouri. zzz (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First, never say "this is my last comment" because it rarely is. There's really no need to... if you're done commenting, just don't comment any more. No need for a parting shot. And if (like so many do) you re-enter the discussion, you re-enter it looking a little silly. We all look silly sometimes accidentally. There's really no need to do it on purpose. At any rate, to answer your question, while I know of no policy that prefers one way or another, I see no need to offer two links where one will do. – JBarta (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post Reception Source

The Boston Post source that was used in the reception section has a couple of problems. First, it's actually a repost of The Washington Post, but The Washington Post doesn't allow the Internet Archive to preserve it. Should it still be sourced to Boston or to Washington? Second, it seems to be a lot of analysis that can't be summed up easily without trimming it out, and doesn't really fit with the reception section and should probably moved next to Wilson's testimony. Any suggestions? --RAN1 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Re your first question, assuming you're in fact talking about sourcing rather than attribution, I'd be inclined to go with the one that can be archived, even if it's a repost. Btw, according to our article, The Boston Post folded in 1956. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury no bill reception

Bob K31416 has started a process of summarizing that section, in a manner that I believe it to be counter productive. We have expert opinions from legal, law enforcement, politicians, and media outlets all of which are notable and informative. Wikipedia is not paper – If the section is too long, the correct process to avoid losing good content that is well sourced, is to create a sub-article with all the detail, and summarize here per WP:SUMMARY. But deleting useful and well sourced material, is not acceptable. We are here to build an encyclopedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Extremely biased POV

The lead and the entirety of this article is so clearly biased that this article needs immediate action. This is so apparent that current lead is so POV that I will ask for the immediate blocking of anyone removing the NPOV tag. The opening paragraph is "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of a street when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk. An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle until Wilson's gun was fired. Brown and Johnson then fled in different directions, with Wilson in pursuit of Brown, eventually firing several more times. In the entire altercation, Wilson fired a total of twelve rounds;[2] Brown was hit by seven or eight[3] and the last was probably the fatal shot." And that is just the beginning of the problems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In what way do you believe that this is biased? Sorry, but you can't just rely on your assertion that it's self-evidently POV. Dyrnych (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific here. You quoted a passage that you take issue with, but you've not made any suggestions as what would be better. A drive-by NPOV accusation and tagging is not constructive. – JBarta (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Without any specifics the tag is not constructive. Neither is the threat to call for a block of any editor who removes the tag. The passage you quote as egregious pov is more or less the consensus on the events from all the parties involved. I don't see the problem. --Daniel(talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it as an unconstructive mis-use of the tag per the above discussion and the tag instructions. – JBarta (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A consensus the article is not of NPOV has been made at ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to discuss or form consensus regarding an article specific NPOV dispute. It's place to seek administrative action. If those there want to bring their issues to this talk page they are welcome. In any event, I don't see anything like consensus in the section you linked. -- Daniel(talk) 17:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That in no sense represents consensus on the content of the article (or, for that matter, on anything else). Dyrnych (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any sort of consensus there either. It seems more more of a squabble over editing style and civility than anything else. Again, the NPOV tag requires certain things of the tagger here which have not been done. It is a mis-use of the tag by ChrisGualtieri. – JBarta (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... @Tparis: made a clear argument and @John Carter:, and I am inclined to agree because numerous times have opinion pieces and details from the Grand Jury have been outright ignored. Including the fact that Brown was a suspect in the robbery after the first verbal exchange before the "altercation" occurred.[28] There is pro-Wilson claims which are not being used properly via WP:BLP.[29] Then there are numerous BLP matters attacking parties in the case which should not even be present. The article has many many many BLP violations which should not be here. Even a cursory reading gives too many examples to list here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As others have stated, ANI is not where consensus over content is formed. And you have yet to provide anything SPECIFIC that you believe violates NPOV. Dyrnych (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, this is a highly contentious article with many strong opinions flying all over the place. One person's neutrality may be another persons POV. If you feel that strongly that the article could stand improvement I would suggest you take part in the editing making changes as you see fit rather than just a drive-by tagging. – JBarta (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can provide evidence to support the contention that WP:BLP is being violated, and that would include unsourced or poorly sourced potentially damaging content relating to a living person, like either the decedent's companions or the officer in question, that questionable content can and should be removed immediately, and any concerns taken to the WP:BLPN. Also, if anyone edits the article in a problematic way at all, it is as per the discretionary sanctions template at the top of this page clearly acceptable and appropriate to take those concerns to the WP:AE page to address those problems. But I would very, very clearly warn all editors involved that given the fact that this article is under both discretionary sanctions and BLP policy, that there is no reason whatsoever to restore any content which is questionable without first taking it to the talk page here and seeking to address those concerns before the material or some variant form of it is restored to the article. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll make a new section below to highlight concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Chris that there are POV issues with this article. Some issues I see are the use of weasel phrasing and weasel words/terms being used, when there is absolutely no need for it, there have been plenty of legal/academic experts with names offering their opinions about this shooting, so that we should never have to use phrasing like "some legal experts" or other weasly phrasing or words. There are way too many quotes/opinions from non-notable commentators being used that don't offer any encyclopedic information thats of any value to the reader. There is a noticeable difference in the way various accounts of this shooting are being handled as well. Content that criticizes Wilson, the various law-enforcement agencies and the prosecutor is quite abundant (as is should be, considering the media coverage), but that same media coverage about the various eye-witnesses and their discrepancies/contradictions in their statements/media interviews/testimony are noticeably absent from the article. Dorian Johnson went on a national media tour and said that Wilson shot Brown in the back, but that has been proven to be false, yet there is absolutely no mention of that discrepancy in his account (section), and it has been widely reported on. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Isaidnoway: - Also, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" protests still repeating that Brown had his hands up when he was shot dead.[30] It happens in reverse with black officers shooting and killing unarmed white males between 16-24.[31] He was not indicted either.[32] Bit different on the most recent though, not like a year back. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Isaidnoway, Please note that if those phrases are substantiated by sources that name the people, then they are OK. Here's a copy of a message from another section where I addressed your concern, which perhaps you didn't see.

"Also I agree with your point about too many opinions and I would add that there is overlap and repetition of their points. Phrases like "various legal experts criticized", "others said", etc. are useful when combining the same or similar sourced opinions from different people. I don't think we need in-text attribution when there is a source for the statement which does that. Any concern that it should be noted that it is an opinion can be done in text without the bulky in-text attribution and a description of who the person is, which hurt the flow and distract from the point that is being made. Using "various legal experts criticized", "others said", etc. is a normal way to summarize, as long as they are substantiated with inline citations. Please see the 1st 2 sentences of this version of the section [33] and you will see that they were. See also WP:WEASEL, which supports the fact that they aren't weasel phrases when they are substantiated with sources."

Please note I am talking about citations to sources that name the people. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob K31416 - If we have citations to sources that specifically name the expert and his opinion, then we should be using those "names" instead of ambiguous phrasing like "some". It's not necessary to say "some legal experts", if we actually have the names of those experts giving opinions. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the POV occurs when excessive space is given to topics that portray the authorities/Wilson side in a negative way. An example is the section Incident report. The section is part of the greater section “Accounts", which is about accounts of the shooting incident. But the Incident report section doesn’t give an account of the shooting incident. It’s about the police not releasing information and Wilson not giving an official account. The information has been released and it was found that Wilson gave an official account the day after the shooting. Yet our article still portrays this as a significant issue with the space it is given. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We are not here to rewrite history. We are here to describe a chronology of an incident, and how the incident was covered by reliable sources. The information was not released btw. There is no use of force report, and there is no report filed by Wilson after the incident as per Ferguson police's own SOPs. What we have is an interview. These are two very different things. So what we have in that section is accurate and factual. - Cwobeel (talk)

If you want to indicate that a section requires an NPOV check, please use {{POV section}}. And this specific section we have edited it to death already just a few days ago, and you were part of that edit. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

This response of Cwobeel’s is an example of why it is difficult to correct the POV in the article: incessant fallacious reasoning and not addressing the main points of criticism. This brute force method to control an article seriously obstructs productivity. I also note that Cwobeel has recently removed the POV tag from the article(diff) while there are active discussions going on here about serious POV issues in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the entire article, 13,500 words worth is not NPOV? If the answer to that is no, and if you have a section about which you have POV concerns, then tag the section. If the answer to that is yes, what you are saying is that the dozen of so editors (including you btw) have done such a poor job that the article needs to be redone. Which one is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My take: Read the text of the template message. It doesn't say, "Please help make this article more neutral." It says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't see how that could be much more true than it is here. Jbarta says in an editsum, There have been POV accusations and discussions from all sides since this article began, and will continue... probably indefinitely. That this is a contentious article doesn't justify an indefinite display of this tag. Fine, so raise the bar so the tag isn't there all the time. For example, your criterion might be significant recent claims by multiple experienced editors, some of them with long experience with the article, on the article talk page and a noticeboard. Cwobeel, I think you're being combative and hyperbolic. A neutrality tag does not imply that "the article needs to be redone". End of my take. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

being combative and hyperbolic - Well, guilty as charged. Nevertheless, the article may have some areas that need improvements, and if past is any proof, we have managed to do that just fine through a collaborative (even if contentious at times) effort. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are a major reason the article is in this problematic state? Anyone with tooltips should see these diffs. Cwobeel attacks the prosecutor. Another opinion piece attack. Another POV-pushing addition and another. More poor sources being used with a singular POV [34][35][36][37] Some others. [38][39][40] One of the most shocking is this attack on the prosecutor directly by copying all the negativity right to his biography page.[41] He reinserts them after removal and again. Cwobeel does not understand WP:BLP or WP:NPOV and has a clear bias. Despite warnings, I do not know why he is allowed to continue reinserting false information (as seen with Huff Post 1) and opinionated attacks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dsicuss the edits and not the editor, please. As for the article on McCulloch, I have trimmed as much as possible after your mass deletion, please join me in that article's page to discuss and come to a compromise. It would also help if you start doing the hard work. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I count 14 diffs there. How is that not discussing the edits? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Because is is not discussing the edits. He is making lists of edits, and besmirching me in the process. How is that helpful? Me and others have already asked him to go one step at the time. Can any one address 14 diffs in one go? I am not playing that game. Note that ChrisGualtieri has made not a single edit to this article besides adding a POV tag. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

He previously stated that he has to abstain from editing for now, to avoid exceeding 3RR. Regardless, I know I don't need to tell you that it's perfectly legitimate to contribute only on a talk page, if that's how an editor wishes to contribute. Can you see the hypocrisy in attacking an editor minutes after insisting that he "Discuss the edits and not the editor, please"? Cwobeel, you're gradually turning me into FCAYS and I don't like it. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your slapping with a wet trout humbly accepted. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Trout-slapping aside, @ChrisGualtieri: Before I eat my own "for the last time"s, this is not about what editors think of McCulloch, Wilson or any other subjects of recent criticism. This is about the sources presenting that criticism. Per due weight, we include those criticisms and the minority opinions disputing them in proportion to the number of opinions presenting them. These aren't attacks by editors or POV-pushing, and posting the criticism of other sources about people is exactly Wikipedia policy, and not including those criticisms (and counter-arguments) would be violating the NPOV of the article. Granted they can be written better (hopefully I'll get to the post-NYT controversy opinions today), but that's not a reason to say there is massive POV problems and pushing. --RAN1 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you do not understand seem unable to appreciate that this article is pushing false statements and twisting words and sourcing nothing more than some angry blogger for much of the problem. The matter of balance and proper attribution in high quality sources is a requirement for BLP. Wikipedia is not a collection of dirt or mud on persons. I take a long term view when I look at articles. I'm used to dealing with centuries old reports and records and in the grand scheme of things most of this social media passed off as valid or encyclopedic information (as it is in a Wikipedia article) is equivalent to toilet graffiti in the bathrooms of the The New York Times. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, or a record of allegations and opinions - this is an encyclopedia. Context and balance is paramount. Any excuse of "we work with what we got" goes straight against WP:BLP which explicitly says that poor sources are not to be used. Also. I'm going to edit now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

dirt or mud on persons - Forgive me if this insults your perception of what an encyclopedic article should be. We follow the sources, if the sources are reliable. All of the sources in this article, without exception, fall in that category, and opinions in these sources are fully attributed. That is NPOV editing 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

poor sources - You have made your arguments about the HuffPo, which from your comments you consider that an opinion blog. Are there any other sources about which you make the same claims? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: What WP:DIRT describes is the tendency to turn biographies into collections of controversies about that person. This isn't a biography for starters, this is an event. Not only that, but the controversy regarding the event is almost inseparable from it. We can deal with bad sourcing as you explicitly explain what's wrong with it, but the fact of the matter is this encyclopedia deals with sources, not facts, regardless of whether those reliable and verifiable sources are provided inaccurate information. Unfortunately, controversies are rooted in opinions, and documenting those opinions (in a summarized, neutral way) is the only way to capture those opinions without doing original research. Btw, I just mentioned to you how false balance has no place here, due weight is what applies. Repeating that balance is needed is not a substitute for a counterargument. --RAN1 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns

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

Sources

Sources 1-10

Sources 1-10

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

References 11-20

References 11-20

Reference 11 - No issues with the source. Citation A could use specifics in the line. Citation B reads "Blood on the ground supports statements that Brown continued to move closer toward Wilson after being hit by a number of bullets." and the text states "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets." Be specific. Ref D is used in the image - no concerns, but source 167 was not used in its creation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 12 - Fine. Not sure why it is being used in the lead and not the body. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 13 - Fine. Not sure why it is being used in the lead and not the body. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 14 - Fine, but this is covered by reference 13 and does not confirm the $75 million figure. Making it unnecessary.[43] 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 15 - Is a primary source for a BLP claim in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. [44] This should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 16 - No issues, wish Time got more use still... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 17 - No issues, missing information on "And 10 days after that, he was to start at a local technical school to learn how to fix furnaces and air conditioners...." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 18 - Reliability questions with the source. The quote usage is not really appropriate, but otherwise some information not utilized in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 19 - Contradictory with Reference 18 in a sense, but irrelevant. Instead his planned attendance of Vatterott College is left out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Reference 20 - Instead of highlighting the commendation or clean record, is referencing some comment instead. Poor utilization of the source. Also, many personal details are left out, probably for the best in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References 21-30

References 21-30

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

References 31-40

References 31-40

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

WP:RS concerns

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

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

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

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

FYI: [45], [46] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, Ref #49 is [47], written by Dara Lind. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huffington Post source 1

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

Use in article:

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

Problems:

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

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

Absolutely not. See also

It was not until 12:43 p.m. that detectives from the county police force were notified of the shooting, according to county police records. Officer Schellman, the county police spokesman, said Friday that Chief Belmar did not recall exactly when he had received the call from his counterpart in Ferguson. But, Officer Schellman said, Chief Belmar reported that as soon as he hung up, he immediately called the chief of detectives.[48]

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

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

Here is the primary source:

Saint Louis County Police Department - Investigative Report 14-43984 On Saturday, August 9, 2014, at approximately 12:43 p.m., Detective Sergeant of the Saint Louis County Police Department's Division of Criminal Investigation, Bureau of Crimes Against Persons, received a phone call from the Saint Louis County Police Department's Bureau of Communications. Detective Sergeant was notified of a homicide where an on-duty police officer from the City of Ferguson had discharged his firearm and shot a male. The male had been pronounced deceased at the scene by responding paramedics from Christian Hospital EMS. The Ferguson Police Department was requesting the Saint Louis County Police Department conduct an investigation into the incident. […] Detectives began arriving at the scene at 2947 Canfield Drive at approximately 1:30 pm. There was a large crowd of bystanders and a large uniformed police presence at the scene when detectives arrived.[49]

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

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

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

And here is the relevant text for the detective role

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ChrisGualtieri: Why are you choosing to edit war([50]) instead of getting consensus on this open discussion? Your assertion that this source is "false", is incorrect as proven above with the NYT source. You also deleted other material from that source. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Knafo

ChrisGualtieri - This is what you deleted:

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

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

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

Okay, line by line:

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

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

My replies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ChrisGualtieri, I followed your link to the discussion and I found a link in one of Cwobeel's messages that was helpful and explained the interest in the timing. Here's an excerpt from the source.[51]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huffington Post source 2

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

As used in the article:

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

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

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

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

"Wilson was aware that Brown was wanted for stealing cigars from a convenience store minutes earlier. That point had been in dispute since Ferguson police released a video of the convenience store and said Wilson had known Brown was a suspect — only to have the police chief retract that statement not long after, saying the cop didn't make the stop in relation to the theft."[52] The key argument being put forth was in dispute because the police chief retracted that statement soon after it was announced and it returned again in later statements and in the grand jury. The source is lacking nuance and neutrality, any excuse that it is "at that time" it was November 25! This needs to be removed and replaced at minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Huffington Post source 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huffington Post source 4

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

Use in article:

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

The Huffington Post is publishing its own interview which states:

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

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

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

Here is one from CBS Channel 4 KMOV: [53]. 18:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Here is an RS reporting on comments by Chapelle-Nadal [54] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference 1 Discussion

Resolved

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

Reception section

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

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

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

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

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

I have been searching for sources supporting McCullough's approach to the grand jury, but found only one source, which I added today[55], besides the ones already in the article. If other editors can apply themselves to find additional sources for a better balance, that would be the way to approach this rather than delete content. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Accounts and BLP

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

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

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

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

Comments

See below

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

Refactor this out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

Change "The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old black man" To "The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old African-American teen" Jetserf (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed extensively and the current wording reflect editors' consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Recommendation to indict

I don't understand this edit [56]. The text is accurate, there were no charges recommended by the prosecutors. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

There is a fascinating article at SCOTUSblog, which describes case law as it relates to grand juries and prosecutors.[57]. Basically, prosecutors have discretion to withhold substantial exculpatory evidence to get an indictment. Yes, you read that right. AN excerpt here for your reading pleasure. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is another source highlighting how this grand jury proceeding was atypical: [58] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a source that notes a difference (though in regards to some other case) [59]. And another [60]. – JBarta (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massive removal of content and sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove blog

There is an issue with this claim:

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

Two sources are cited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of birth

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

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

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

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

'For Pete's sake. 30 second Google search Red hearts floated down from the balcony onto audience members below. "Requiem for Michael Brown, May 20, 1996 - August 8, 2014," said one side. Information on how to get involved was listed on the back. [61] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate characterization

What is inappropriate in quoting what Wilson said of Brown? [62] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vatterott College

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A wide variety of the world's most reliable sources include mention of the Shooting of John Crawford III in their analyses of this case and others like it, that have sparked widespread large protests across the USA and coverage of them. As noted by the Washington Post after yesterday's (12/13/2014) protest march in Washington, DC: "The day’s most poignant moment came when a number of family members of black men and boys killed by police — Eric Garner, Michael Brown, John Crawford III, Tamar Rice and Amadou Diallo - took the stage..."[63] Not every case needs to or can be included, but when prominent participants and reliable sources have repeatedly highlighted and grouped certain cases together, then it is encyclopedic of us to reflect this. Benefac (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backgrounds/Michael Brown Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment of 2015 dates redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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