Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

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: [1]. 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, [2], 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)

"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)

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.[3] There is pro-Wilson claims which are not being used properly via WP:BLP.[4] 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.[5] It happens in reverse with black officers shooting and killing unarmed white males between 16-24.[6] He was not indicted either.[7] 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 [8] 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 [9][10][11][12] Some others. [13][14][15] One of the most shocking is this attack on the prosecutor directly by copying all the negativity right to his biography page.[16] 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)

Recommendation to indict

I don't understand this edit [17]. 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.[18]. 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: [19] - 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) [20]. And another [21]. – 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)

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)

Lots more documents released

Two sets of documents have been released this week (on two separate occasions: December 8 and December 14): [22]. I have not been editing this wiki article so I will let someone else add this material. Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Backgrounds/Michael Brown Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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..."[23] Not every case needs to or can be included, but when prominent participants and reliable sources have repeatedly highlighted and grouped certain cases together, then it is encyclopedic of us to reflect this. Benefac (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vatterott College

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove blog

There is an issue with this claim:

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

Two sources are cited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of birth

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

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

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

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

'For Pete's sake. 30 second Google search Red hearts floated down from the balcony onto audience members below. "Requiem for Michael Brown, May 20, 1996 - August 8, 2014," said one side. Information on how to get involved was listed on the back. [24] - 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)