Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Lead expansion

I made a few changes to the lead. Since this is about a shooting, we should at least provide some information about the shooting as reported by the eyewitnesses.

  1. Moved the non-legal history of Brown and Wilson's service information to the top to set the stage.
  2. Elaborated the robbery incident and the reason Wilson stopped Brown and his friend
  3. Provided a brief description of eyewitness accounts and explained where they agreed and differed the moments before the fatal shots were fired.

Hopefully this helps the lead better stand on its own.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I salute you for your boldness. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit per WP:BRD. At this point any summarizing of witnesses accounts will be difficult, and would push us into WP:SYNTH. Better to keep the lead simple and short. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Short is good. But are all the main sections accurately summarized in the lead at this point? Collect (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cwobeel:, explain how any synthesis was in the version you removed. It was an accurate paraphrasing of the witness accounts as reported by the NYT. As for the lead being simple and short, I too share @Collect:'s concern that the lead should accurately summarize the body of the article. The lead should be able to convey all the salient points made in the rest of the body. As for the version you restored too, that doesn't come close to explaining the background and the shooting itself.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

These two sentences are worrisome.

1: A lawyer for Brown's friend said his client and Brown got into a verbal dispute with Wilson about whether walking in the street constituted a crime. The Ferguson Police Chief, Thomas Jackson, said that after Wilson started talking to the men he realized they matched the descriptions of suspects in the robbery. Why are we mention Johnson lawyer when there is no context provided?
2: Eyewitness accounts of the moments leading up to the shooting for the most part are consistent with each other. There was a struggle between Wilson, who was inside his patrol vehicle, and Brown, who was leaning inside the car through an open window. Wilson's weapon discharged inside the vehicle and Brown started to run away. The officer exited his vehicle and fired his weapon at Brown. Brown turned and faced Wilson, who then shot and killed Brown. The crucial moments before the fatal shots is when the eyewitness reports begin to sharply conflict with each other. Some witness say Brown approached Wilson in a possibly threatening manner, and other witnesses say Brown was not moving and may have been holding his hands up. This is borderline OR.

Good try, but given the controversial aspects of this incident, and how it is begin covered, less is more. There is plenty of time to craft a great summary for the lede, and we should do this once this stops being a current event. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll address point 1 later, but point 2 comes from the NYT. Please reread it and tell me what is OR. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: For point 1 above, there is no problem with the lawyer's statement. The context has been provided, because we note that Wilson stopped Brown and his friend. We could remove it sure, but the point of even mentioning this is because when Wilson talked to the young men, is when he realized they might be suspects in the robbery. What were they talking about? The high cost of milk? But we do know from the lawyer an argument ensued. We aren't drawing any conclusions for the reader. As for point 2, I ask (a second time) that you please read the NYT source. The text above comes from that source, paraphrased to avoid copyright issues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
when Wilson talked to the young men, is when he realized they might be suspects in the robbery. That is just speculation, and speculation does not go in the lede. As for the summary from the NYT's article, that is the opinion of the NYT but you wrote it here in Wikipedia's voice as it these were facts. As I said, the current lead is as good as we can expect for now. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You could add "according to the New York Times" to precede that sentence, but there are other media outlets with their own summaries, which they always present withing the context of "this is what we know now" or other similar statement, which makes it unusable as a summary of this article. That is what a lead is, see WP:LEAD. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
As is, the lead looks biased because the only info about the altercation is "an unarmed 18-year-old black male, died after being shot at least six times". Perhaps the two of you could work something out to give some brief balanced info about the altercation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "balance". One person is dead. Do you mean to add some content about why Wilson shoot Brown? The problem is that we don't know why at this point, all we have is conjecture and a few leaks. The only fact we know now, is that he was shot multiple times and killed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
By balanced, I mean that there are different accounts of what happened, for and against Wilson. Use both the for and against accounts to compose a brief NPOV version. Note that we have an Accounts section in the article to summarize for the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Good luck with that. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Cwobeel:So now that you have changed to a different argument, are you now acknowledging there is no OR? I've asked twice, and am asking you a third time to

address this point, since you removed the text on this basis. You appear to have a new argument, that this is somehow speculative, and it could be addressed by adding "according to the NY Times", but there is no need to this because when Wilson talked to the young men, is when he realized they might be suspects in the robbery. is being attributed to the Police Chief. Surely the NYT put's some stock in that or they wouldn't have mentioned it.

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing match about this, but I spent a lot of time crafting that text because what we had before, and have now is poorly written and doesn't explain the sequence of events in a way that a person looking for a quick explanation will say "oh, that's what this is all about". I'd like the following to be addressed in the lead.
  • Identify Wilson & Brown and their relevant background
  • State the robbery had occurred, and Brown was a suspect
  • Explain how Wilson stopped Brown and his companion for blocking the street, and though Wilson knew of the robbery prior to the stop, had no reason to believe either of the young men were suspects

All of these points can and should be made. The latest sources agree that this is what happened. Now let's get into the details of the prior to the start of the physical confrontation:

  • An argument ensued between Wilson and Brown. It would be nice to know what the argument was about (hence the lawyer's statement)
  • Explain how Wilson realized Brown might be the robbery suspect. (Police Chief says he saw cigars)

Now we need details from the eyewitnesses about how the fight progressed, and the NYT and other RS all have eyewitnesses agreeing on:

  • Their relative positions to each other (Wilson in the car, Brown outside)
  • A gunshot occurred
  • Brown ran away from the car. Wilson exited the car. Brown stopped and face Wilson

Eyewitness accounts immediately prior to the fatal shots that killed Brown.

  • Some eyewitnesses say Brown charged Wilson, while others say Brown had his hands up in an act of submission

We need this last part so that the reader can understand how the differing eyewitness accounts and poor relations between the community and police led to the sustained period of civil unrest. Now I'd appreciate it if you helped me get there.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but after Cwobeel wished me good luck, I noticed the section Shooting incident which was about what I was looking for. So I composed the following from that section so that you two might consider working with it.

Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. An altercation then took place between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A shot was fired from within the vehicle and the two men began to flee. Wilson left his vehicle, pursued them, and fatally shot Brown.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's good for starters (did they both flee?), but it lacks the differing eyewitness accounts that either Brown charged Wilson, or Brown behaved submissively. The outrage and unrest derives in large part from those that believe Brown was not an aggressor.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: You might want to check out the version of the lead worked on before it was removed.
(edit conflict)We could add the following.
Accounts differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was charging Wilson when he was fatally shot.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I went ahead and added it
Good effort but still we are saying all that in Wikipedia's voice and that we can't do. We have to attribute all this so someone. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a attributed it, and removed the last sentence, as there is no official conformation about the narrative of Brown charging Wilson at this point. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I added it back but explicitly attributed it to witness reports. We may never get an "official" narrative about what happened. What happens officially doesn't give it greater weight. We don't put a court of law's ruling over those of witnesses. The sources make those calls.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Note I would like to point out that this version, is also attributed to witness reports via RS. Witness reports are primary. The RS are secondary. The RS did not make any statement of fact about who did what. If they could, then they would not attribute their reports to witnesses. We are stating "in voice" what the RS found relevant from the witness reports they examined.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Cwobeel is being most unhelpful.
  1. He states the modification to lead is OR. Three times he was asked to define why it was OR, and he has still yet to do so.
  2. Next he states that the text is not attributed, when it fact it was. In spite of this, we took extra measures to ensure that the modifications were attributed.
  3. Now there is no objection except "consensus hasn't been reached". This is just gamesmanship of the rules and should be ignored accordingly. So far the only one

objecting to this text is Cwobeel. It is sourced and paraphrased.

  1. He opens a new section to try to start the conversation anew. This is getting ridiculous!Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is at #Lede below. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RS with 2009 Pulitzer Prize contrasts Wilson's appearance after shooting with rumored massive facial injury

At least it looks like a reliable source. SOURCE: The "WMD" of the Ferguson killing For people who are searching for the truth, and who have seen many reports of the facial injury in circulation, but not necessarily the articles calling those claims into serious question, I believe that it would be important to alert said readers that there is at least a reasonable basis for skepticism of the veracity of such reports. As this RS says it so eloquently, I cannot conceive of a reason for not seizing on this writer's analysis to simply pass on said reminder to our audience.

I would hope that a similar RS source analyzing the "charging at" claim could be found, since, as far as I know, not one verifiable RS-reported witness is on record as using that expression to describe Brown's actions as the final fatal shots were fired. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Pure contentious opinion:
But I do suspect that the "fractured orbital socket" that many people inclined to defend Officer Darren Wilson are bringing up over and over, as if it were established fact, will prove to be false.
is worth a tad less than a sou for use in a BLP. Collect (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If your're going to jump over the part that is usable in the article, then I guess I will have to quote it here directly, just to be fair to the author who is being impugned by selective presentation of what he has to say. Let's be fair, please. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    I haven't seen anyone in a position of responsibility in the case assert that Wilson 
    had his eye socket fractured. And I have seen video -- CNN aired it -- of Officer Wilson 
    walking around next to Michael Brown's body, talking with another officer, after the shooting. 
    He does not appear to have suffered a bad injury, like a fractured face. He appears to be, 
    as well as can be assessed through a not-close and not-sharp video, fine and healthy. 
    He does not appear to be in any physical distress. So either he is one tough dude, 
    who isn't bothered by a fractured eye socket (which undermines the argument that 
    the injury justifies him shooting an unarmed Michael Brown), or he did not 
    suffer an injury as bad as that.
Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Juan Williams provided exactly the same analysis in a recent debate between himself and Sean Hannity on Fox News, but video is more cumbersome as a cite for our readers. I would urge inclusion of both cites if and when someone brings this point forward. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Look, we have the eye socket claim in the article. We also have multiple claims that the eye socket claim is inaccurate. Until we have a definitive account of Wilson's injury or injuries in an RS, that's what we've got. I appreciate that a reporter and a pundit believe that the eye socket claim is inaccurate based on their observations, but it's not our job to prove one way or another that the eye socket was or was not broken. And any addition would amount to "some reporters and pundits believe that Wilson's eye socket was not injured" or something like that, so ask yourself how useful that statement would be. Dyrnych (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
How would that be different from all of the other conjecture that litters the article at present? This is important conjecture as it is supported by the actual video evidence that anyone can review on their own. To omit the fact that there are very notable pundits who are severely calling into question the eye socket claims is yet another nod to both Darren Wilson and the police for whom he works who could have, at any time, provided actual statements, claims, and supporting evidence, but who appear quite content to allow the world to spin sideways on the basis of unverifiable leaks taken as plausible by the likes of Sean Hannity et all. I'm just saying that the way we are handling is not fair, especially when the statements that would make it fair which we are intentionally omitting are so imminently supported by RS sources. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Good lord, are we QUOTING Sean Hannity? Are we presenting his view? We absolutely are not, because who honestly cares about his view? So why bring him up as though this is needed to counterbalance his view (that we're not including in the article)? Dyrnych (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Please be more respectful to fellow editors on this page, Dyrnych. It's beginning to be just a tad bit irritating. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If we are using the expression "charged at" in our article, then we are absolutely quoting Sean Hannity (without naming him as a source, of course). Rhetorical question, which primary witness can we point to who has ever used that word? (NYT is an RS, but not a primary source. So please don't say NYT.)
I will get for you the link to the video of Sean Hannity battering Patricia Bynes with that term over and over and over in the course of a very short and very unfair interchange with her just a few days ago. That this article gives courage to people who speak like that when there is no primary source to my knowledge who has ever used that expression makes me sad. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Mediaite: ‘Let Me Educate You’: Hannity and Ferguson Politician Battle over Police Brutality
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/let-me-educate-you-hannity-and-ferguson-committeewoman-battle-over-police-brutality/

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable

The article should have a section (or at least some coverage) of how eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable: Why witnesses are often wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that Eyewitness testimony does an adequate job of summarizing the relevant issues. Why would we include that in this article? Dyrnych (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it's extremely relevant. Much of our article is based on eyewitness testimony and nowhere do we explain that it's close to worthless. We shouldn't be misleading our readers. Our job is to write informative, educational articles. Expecting readers to check another article is not realistic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the grand jury members are going to consider the eyewitnesses or their testimony to be "close to worthless." You exonerators crack me up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think that CNN is trying to exonerate anyone? CNN is a reliable source and Luftus is an expert who's testified in over 300 court cases. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Example of a question which assumes that the premise is proven, when actually the premise is not so. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not this article's function to educate the reader about the world. I can't articulate it any better than that at the moment, but it seems intuitive to me. Imagine a newspaper article doing that.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, it's our job as encyclopedia to provide informative, educational content. That's what an encyclopedia is, after all. You don't have to imagine. I already provided a news source that does exactly that.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Many have run articles on "eyewitness testimony" in fact. [2] Elizabeth Loftus in The New York Times (International New York Times Opinion section) Despite their lack of knowledge about eyewitness memory, these poorly informed jurors are holding the fate of defendants in their hands. ... (In New Jersey) After Henderson, defendants who can show some evidence of suggestiveness will be entitled to a hearing in which all factors that might have tainted the eyewitness evidence will be explored. The judge also will present to the jury more specific guidance on how to evaluate eyewitness evidence. The Washington Post [3] The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to make it harder to introduce eyewitness testimony at criminal trials, despite a recent proliferation of studies that show mistaken identity is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. Sotomayor said She said the “vast body of scientific literature” that has established the unreliability of eyewitness testimony — including the “staggering” fact that 76 percent of the first 250 convictions overturned by DNA involved eyewitness testimony — “merits barely a parenthetical mention in the majority opinion.” So, yes, major newspapers and the courts have indeed dealt with the unreliability of "eyewitness testimony." [4] presents a scholarly view. Collect (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
While I absolutely agree with you in principle, the issue is that nobody has discussed reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of this incident, which makes any inclusion here very susceptible to WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDO issues. Any comparison or application of this well-established truth to the particular testimony would obviously be OR. Any statements standing on their own are UNDO/OR as how are we deciding that the statement is relevant to the topic at hand? In the long run this will resolve itself. At trial, or in some other analysis the issue of reliability of testimony will surely come up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gaijin42: I already provided a source which discusses reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of this incident. It was in my very first post to this thread.[5] Did you view it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I would note that this would go equally for challenging police officers' statements, for they are either eyewitnesses or directly-involved parties. We don't have a good sense of what the forensic evidence in this case is yet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I buy the fact that mistaken identity is a problem with witness reliability. I don't buy the idea that 20 people who saw him die can't be relied upon to be truthful about whether Brown was substantially closing on the 7 to 25 foot separation between himself and the shooter. So far, the only thing that I have read suggesting that forensics can help us on with distance is whether there is any gun powder residue on his body or in his clothes. None on the body. No access to the clothes. So I guess we have to go back to eyewitnesses for now. Or we could just delete this article until the courts hear all of the evidence and make a determination. Those are our only two ethical options in my opinion. Whatever floats your boat. People who claim that forensics is going to tell us what the witnesses didn't see, I don't understand that logic at all. Call me a Luddite, I guess. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the some of the comments, I get the feeling that nobody actually watched the CNN news report I cited in my original post. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. The following is a CNN report which discusses reliability of eyewitness testimony in the context of the shooting of Michael Brown:

No WP:OR or WP:SYN is required. We simply report what reliable sources are already saying about the shooting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. Indeed I did not view your original source, and was thinking you were just discussing the well known general issues with eyewitnesses. If CNN has specifically commented on that topic in context of the case, then the OR/SYNTH issues go away, and all we are left with is WP:WEIGHT. I think a sentence or two is supportable, but more than that may be unjustified unless this topic gets further traction. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gaijin42. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that it's highly inappropriate in any case for Wikipedia to describe eyewitness accounts reported in reliable sources and then qualify those descriptions with: "But hey! These are eyewitnesses, and eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. (implied) Therefore, you probably shouldn't believe them." We're not here to inject doubt into or bolster any account. If someone wants to link to the eyewitness testimony article (which does contain some discussion of the reliability of eyewitness accounts), that's fine; users can go there if they want to know about what if any credibility issues the testimony might have solely by virtue of its eyewitness nature. To my knowledge, no Wikipedia article that includes eyewitness accounts includes the caveat in the article that they're unreliable; that's pretty telling in, my estimation. I don't see why this article should be any different. Dyrnych (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we're not here to inject doubt or bolster anything. Quite the opposite. We're here to report what reliable sources are saying about a topic. It's not up to us to say that reliable source's coverage is inappropriate because of our own personal feelings or opinions. As editors, we're supposed to remain neutral. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That material is better suited to Eyewitness testimony. There is an entire section on the subject. Not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Nothing here calls for mutual exclusion. It may indeed belong in the article on Eyewitness testimony. Just because it is appropriate for that article does not in any way mean that it is inappropriate for this article. It can go in both articles. Nothing is "forcing" us to pick "one or the other". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Concur. I would use this argument to lobby for a mention of the killing of Kajieme Powell here. I am not sure how his killing falls under aftermath of the Michael Brown killing. It hardly occurred as a result of Michael Brown being killed. It does have, however, certain parallels to the killing of Michael Brown, as Rachel Maddow pointed out before then highlighting the differences in how the police have handled each incident. Many reliable sources state, as do I, that the police chief in the Powell case, "thuggified" Mr. Powell, i.e., tried to create a false impression that his actions necessitated the firing of 12 bullets by two white police officers. Then we saw the video. And reliable sources were shocked (but not surprised) at the inconsistencies. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

New Washington Post source about Wilson's background

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?hpid=z1

Lots of stuff here. Enjoy. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much that's notable here. Unlikely that Wilson's childhood is particularly relevant, nor that his tenure on the Jennings force tells us much beyond that he was on the force. I don't see any need to include the Jennings information beyond the dates of his tenure, as there's no implication in the article that Wilson was involved in any misconduct there. It would be extremely problematic to include mentions of excessive force/corruption without something linking Wilson to those allegations. Dyrnych (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
There are some interesting quotes from academics that could be used to help explain some of the reactions or problems facing the FPD.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's be careful not to expand our scope, from "shooting of Michael Brown", to "problems facing the FPD". Sure, the latter probably had something to do with the former. But it's also an area that's not unique to this case by any means. If more of RS picks up on this before this story is eclipsed by more recent ones (hardly anyone is saying anything about Elliot Rodger anymore), then maybe one or two sentences somewhere. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The Ferguson Police Department has a Wikipedia page. Perhaps this should be included there, rather than here? Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless information surfaces that Wilson was involved in any incidents at the Jennings PD, this addition seems irrelevant. (ScubaSharky (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC))
May be useful at Ferguson Police Department (Missouri), but not here - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually only relevant to the Jennings PD -- unless one wishes OR that Ferguson somehow deliberately hired Jennings officers or the like? Collect (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
So it isn't just young black men who get thuggified in news reports, it would appear. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2014

In February 2014, Wilson received a commendation for "extraordinary effort in the line of duty" from the Ferguson city.


The last part of the sentence grammar needs to be fixed, "...from the Ferguson city." is grammatically incorrect. Jaybkun (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Root. RS or no?

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2012/11/about_us.html Editor in Chief, Dr. Louis Henry Gates. Site claims to be the number 1 Black news source in America. If I create cites to articles there, will they stand or be reverted as non-RS? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

See The Root (magazine). It accepts submissions from readers, and is heavily "commentary." Where you use such reader-provided material, I suggest you tread carefully. Where you use a commentary article, I suggest you make sure the commentator is notable, and that his or her opinions are clearly cited as opinions. It is used in a few Wikipedia articles - but please follow the caveats. It is not a "widely recognized news source" and having 70,000 followers (presumably Facebook) online is not that high a number. Alexa gives it a US site rank of 2,590 currently. 28% of visits are from Facebook links. Readership is 80% female roughly. Reading is heavily based "at school." Not a particularly notable news source, and one heavily weighted to Facebook links. For anything controversial, better sources are likely to cover the material in more depth and with more accuracy. Collect (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly your comments are valid in general application. But as this incident is so much about the perceptions and perspectives of African Americans, where are we to turn to get reliable source commentary that reflects the opinions of Blacks generally, if not from The Root? They did a compilation of the witness statements that, frankly, puts us to shame. They were also kind enough to transcribe the comments of CNN's Don Lemon when he broke the story refuting the claim that Wilson suffered an eye socket injury, to which we refer in the article. So to be more specific than I was, will there be any problem adding a cite to the Root transcription of the relevant passage from the CNN video as a second source citation? When you say tread lightly, I take from that that a cite from the Root, won't automatically be struck just because its the Root. So I think you've answered my question. So thank you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies do not allow such considerations as you seem to wish to apply here. Let's stick to the policies here -- there are certainly enough reliable sources reporting on the matter. Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No wishes. Just asking. If it's a no, it's a no. That I might find the law an ass doesn't mean I have wishes. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

New (and provocative) polling from Rasmussen

A Tale of Two Cities? Blacks, Whites Sharply Disagree About Ferguson Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That may be useful at the unrest article, there is a section on polls there. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Not directly related to this article - and I suspect we could end up with a few thousand words about polls -- my choice would be to keep this article focused on its topic, not on how others view the topic, and how still others view those others' views of the topic ad infinitum. Collect (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It can go here 2014 Ferguson unrest#Polls - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I knew that. Posted to this board by mistake. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

Vanita Gupta is misspelled as "Wanita Gupta" - please fix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanita_Gupta Vivekdna (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New law enforcement official confirmations, to be added to Police account

This article from the NYTimes contains information from law enforcement officials confirming Officer Wilson's facial injury and that he fired at Brown and his friend while they were running away:

"However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Officer Wilson did sustain an injury during the struggle in the car. As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials."

The confirmation from law enforcement officials is missing from the current Police account of the shooting. Can we add this? Saeranv (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't confirm a facial injury; it confirms an unspecified injury. If you look at the second graf of the police account in the Wikipedia article, it contains this: "Tom Jackson, Ferguson's chief of police, stated on August 13 that the officer who shot Brown was injured in the incident." Doesn't that adequately provide police confirmation of what the police have so far confirmed as far as the injury? Dyrnych (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion? Absolutely not. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right that doesn't confirm a facial injury and the existing article covers an unspecified injury already. The other point still stands though, I believe. There is not mention of law enforcement officials mentioning that Wilson fired his weapon at the suspects while they were running away.Saeranv (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the NYT specifying who these sources are? Are they leakers who are speaking under cover of anonymity, or are they named sources with titles and departments speaking officially on the record? If the former, that should be clearly stated if we are going to let them play this game with us (which, as you know, I very much object to). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. Unfortunately they are pretty much asking us to just trust them, these are anonymous sources. The fact that this might be poor journalism has been noted by the NYTimes itself: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/a-ferguson-story-on-conflicting-accounts-seems-to-say-trust-us/ Now, with regards to this article - I don't like that they're making claims without backing them up i.e. “witnesses have given investigators sharply conflicting accounts of the killing...” because it could just be sloppy thinking. I am less upset about the use of anonymous sources though, as I think it's unlikely that they would make that up. Saeranv (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll put it this way. Is it really fair and proper to give equal WEIGHT to the witnesses on both sides when the witnesses who seem to support Michael Brown are on the record, named, and have subjected themselves to numerous media interviews, while the "witnesses" who seem to be on Wilson's side are unnamed, and apparently speaking only to the New York Times? If we are going to give them equal weight, we could at least attempt to find an RS source to explain to the readers why the grant of parity is journalistically fair. For example, it could be pointed out that witnesses favorable to Wilson are in fear for their physical safety if the same can be established with reliable sources. Personally, I'm quite troubled by how we are presenting the information that we present (and that we don't present). People of good will can disagree on this, of course. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If we are to quote every strategic leak by "anonymous sources", we better pack our bags now. Let's stick with officia sources until all this gets clarified. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
A couple of distinctions/points:
  1. These 'law enforcement officials' are not witnesses, they are officials who are conveying Darren Wilson's account to the NYTimes.
  2. (To Michael's point) - This account is not favourable to Wilson. Cops can't shoot at fleeing suspects that pose no threat to others: "when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." - Tennessee v. Garner.
  3. It backs up all the other witness accounts that Wilson shot at Brown and his friend while they were running away.
I agree it's not ideal to cite anonymous witnesses/sources (a) but this is not your run-of-the-mill anonymous source and (b) it addresses an important gap in the current article. To not include this information, is worse, as then we have no account from the authorities (anonymous or otherwise) about Wilson shooting at an unarmed fleeing suspect. Thus I think the best thing to do is include it, but make note of the fact that it is anonymous. Saeranv (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The rules of engagement state that officer can shoot at a fleeing suspect if " the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. See Deadly force. Wilson can argue that in that instance that was his belief, and it all will hinge on this being accepted by the grand jury - Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
We also must consider Missouri law: Missouri law could protect Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Robbery or alleged robbery

Did a robbery occur or not? Or is it an alleged robbery that occurred? Because according to the lead of this article, it is stated as a fact: - According to Ferguson police, Brown was a suspect in a robbery - does not say alleged. And then we have a section devoted to this robbery in which the FPD clearly states it was indeed a robbery. This is what that section states as facts in regards to this robbery: - The report stated that the convenience store's surveillance footage showed Brown grabbing a box of Swisher Sweet cigars - and Chief Jackson confirmed - "the initial contact with Brown was not related to the robbery" - and Dorian Johnson's attorney: - Freeman Bosley, the attorney for Dorian Johnson, confirmed that they had in fact entered the store and cigarillos were taken, and that Johnson had informed the FBI, DOJ, and St. Louis County Police of this fact. - And again the attorney: - Freeman Bosley, confirmed that Brown had taken cigars from the store - and this from the attorney: - my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told the FBI that Brown did take cigarillos. Chief Jackson of the FPD says a robbery did actually occur. Dorian Johnson says a robbery did actually occur. So who is saying that a robbery didn't take place? Because everyone with knowledge of the incident - clearly states that a robbery did happen. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"They had entered the store and cigarillos were taken" is, at best, a statement that they shoplifted. We have no charges or convictions for any criminal offenses. There exist significant disputes about the nature of all of the related events. We can afford to wait for the legal process to complete the investigation before we assert any facts about the criminality of any person's behavior in this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, there is not going to be a conviction now that the perpetrator is dead. I don't think we need "alleged" here at all. StAnselm (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the edit that added "allegedly" and gave the following explanation in the edit summary, "reverted OR that adds material not in source". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, you're wrong.
These are directly from the sources list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I should have done an edit find when I first looked at the sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The sources all agree that there was a robbery. They also agree that Brown was a suspect. We do not need to "allege" that Brown is a suspect.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't need to allege that Brown is a suspect because that word means that the crime is still alleged, but no, they don't state the robbery as a fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Alleged is the correct way to describe this, per sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the sources say Brown allegedly robbed the store. Not that was allegedly a suspect.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is allegedly a suspect. They are or aren't a suspect. They allegedly committed a crime. As we have direct unambiguous evidence of him doing the action, the only question is was it in fact a crime. Nobody describes it as an alleged robbery. It was a robbery. He is the only suspect. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Nobody" except for the reliable sources cited in the article, you mean? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Why are we having this conversation exactly? Please re-read WP:V and move on, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"Alleged suspect" is bad writing. We don't have to mimic the bad writing in our sources. I think we can agree that Brown was a "suspect in an alleged robbery". That does not carry the same meaning as "alleged suspect", which is plainly redundant.- MrX 19:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Well said. Just because reliable sources fail to write decent prose, doesn't mean we should have to mimic their lack of style.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that Brown was a suspect. The lone criterion for one's being a suspect is that the police say that one is a suspect. That means nothing in terms of whether Brown was guilty or not guilty of robbery, but it does mean that there's no necessity for hedging when referring to Brown as a suspect. As far as whether the conduct alleged constituted a robbery, that's a separate question and one that Wikipedia has no business deciding. I'll note that the sources generally do refer to the incident as an alleged robbery. However, when it's clear that we're giving the police account, there's no need to qualify the robbery as "alleged." "According to Ferguson police, Brown was a suspect in a robbery" makes it clear that the police are saying this, not that Wikipedia is endorsing this view; no need for "alleged" in that sentence. Dyrnych (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also important to note here that Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown during the robbery, said through his attorney, the incident was a "robbery" and a "strong-arm robbery", no hedging there either. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a cite for Johnson's attorney's statement classifying it as a "robbery?" I'm curious, because I would never under any circumstances admit publicly (or advise a client to admit publicly) that my client's actions could amount to a felony (as Johnson could theoretically be considered an accomplice). If the attorney only stated that Brown took cigarillos, that's not quite the same as stating that Brown committed the crime of robbery. I'm not saying that the attorney didn't say that, but if he did he's a pretty bad lawyer. Dyrnych (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the WaPo, the (robbery) case is “exceptionally cleared.” You know as well as I do, that the police can "clear" a case without ever obtaining a conviction. And why is that in this case - because the police have a video of Brown and Johnson inside the store, they have an eyewitness who was with Brown during the robbery and admitting that fact. The police said they weren't going to charge Johnson in the robbery, because he didn't steal anything or use force. These are all facts that have already been told to the FBI, the DOJ and the STLCPD by an eyewitness to this robbery. Also according to the same WaPo article, Johnson's attorney said that Johnson told the FBI he thought the robbery was a prank. This article already makes it abundantly clear that a robbery did indeed occur and that Brown and Johnson were involved in that robbery. And according to this article, Johnson's attorney referred to the incident as a strong-arm robbery. Once your client has already admitted to the police that he was there during the robbery, and then told them that Brown stole the cigars, and then receives immunity from prosecution because he didn't actually steal anything or harm anyone, what difference does it make if he calls it a robbery. The case has been cleared and his client is not going to be charged. And since the case has been "cleared", it is no longer alleged to have happened, it did happen according to the police and the person who was there in the store with Brown during the robbery. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Another consideration is WP:BLP for a recently deceased person in this case where some reliable sources use "alleged". --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"Cleared" doesn't mean "immune from prosecution," and I would highly doubt that the police have granted Johnson immunity in this case. In any event, this is something of a tangent. My point is that the facts are not particularly in dispute. Whether those facts amount to a robbery is a legal question that hasn't been settled. Dyrnych (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, according to this article, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said that Dorian Johnson would not be charged in the robbery as he didn't steal anything or use force, but hey who knows, they could go back on their word and charge him as an accomplice. I'd agree with Bob that BLP is a legitimate concern and one that should be afforded to Officer Wilson as well, because BLP applies to him too. This article currently states that it was an;
  • execution-style murder by this police officer
  • execution-style murder
  • brutal assassination of his person in broad daylight
  • execution style murder of their child by this police officer.
I certainly don't see the word "alleged" prefacing any of those inflammatory statements. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Re officer Wilson, I agree that he should be accorded the consideration of WP:BLP. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Isaidnoway. You made very valid points. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If any of those things are expressed in Wikipedia's voice, I agree completely that they should either be qualified to note that they're someone's opinion or not expressed at all. Dyrnych (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Having reviewed the items that "the article" states, I'll note that they are each explicitly characterized as quotes from Brown's family and thus not stated in Wikipedia's voice. That said, I consolidated these down to one sentence quoting Brown's family. I think that one sentence worth of well-sourced quotes is neither excessive nor implicates WP:BLP. Wilson is a public figure with respect to this incident, so it is not unreasonable to include the notable reaction of Brown's family provided that we don't give excessive space to that reaction. Dyrnych (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
And I'll note that the term robbery and strong-arm robbery was explicitly stated by Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson when he released the video of the robbery and the police report on the robbery, and has steadfastly maintained that there was indeed a robbery. He even went so far as to classify the case as being exceptionally cleared - case closed. But yet it is stated in this article that he said or somehow implied "alleged" in relation to the robbery. That was, and still is my objection, but obviously I will have to defer to consensus and let the distortion of what the chief of police explicitly stated remain in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we're disagreeing here. Here's what I'm saying: when attributed to the police, it should be called a robbery. When not attributed to the police, it should be called an alleged robbery. Is that your understanding as well? Dyrnych (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The only instances where alleged is still used in the article is in the diff provided above, where an editor edit-warred the term into the article despite the fact that Chief Jackson never used the term alleged. The very reason we learned of this robbery is because of the police, and if they aren't saying it's an allegation, then why should we? They've solved and closed the case, a robbery occurred, they have the proof, they know who did it, and if it wasn't for the fact that Brown was killed, he would have been arrested and charged. I don't think it's necessary to say "alleged" at all, unless there is a specific instance where someone is "quoted" as saying alleged. In this particular instance, the chief of police was not quoted as saying alleged. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You make good points but then there's the use of "alleged" in the sources that was pointed out by NorthBySouthBaranof in the message of 18:58, 23 August 2014, and the consideration of WP:BLP for recently deceased persons. Just asking what you think of that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I see the sources that he provided, and I provided one from the WaPo that does not use the term alleged at all in their reporting. And they described the robbery as being committed by Brown. As far is BLP is concerned, I think WP:BLPCRIME would apply here, wouldn't it. And it says we must give serious consideration to not including material that suggests that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. There is zero probability that Brown will be convicted of this crime. So, is the FPD "suggesting" or "accusing", or in other words "alleging" that Brown committed this crime, I would argue no, they have emphatically stated that a robbery occurred, described Brown as a suspect in the crime, released a video of Brown committing the crime and they also have a confession from Dorian Johnson as well. And additionally they closed and classified the case as being "exceptionally cleared". So I don't see any issues with BLP by not saying "alleged" when referring to this robbery. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem there is that the police are not the arbiters of whether a robbery occurred, regardless of whether they consider the case cleared. There are three basic elements to any crime: criminal conduct, criminal state of mind, and the absence of a defense. We have a bunch of people who corroborate that the actions that would constitute a robbery occurred. We don't know anything about Brown's state of mind, which is relevant because he had to intend that a robbery occur. We also don't know anything about whether Brown would have had a defense under Missouri law to robbery. We can't just say that Brown will never be convicted because he is dead but that the state totally would have convicted him, so we should just assume that the evidence that we've seen amounts to a conviction. Dyrnych (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And to get back on track in this discussion, here is the diff of where the term "alleged" was edit-warred into the content.
Here are the sources as they correspond and support the content in the article, and the relevant passages from the RS from which the content is based upon:
As you can see, the term "alleged" is not used by the RS in the passages that the content in the article is based upon. So he edit-warred that term into the article and I would also point out that in the edit summary of the diff, the editor used a MSNBC reference to justify his last revert, and as you can see above, that RS was not even being used. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the two sentences at issue are just worded poorly. How about: "Prior to releasing the officer's name, Jackson stated that a "strong-arm" robbery had occurred a few minutes before the shooting at a nearby convenience store. The police released an incident report to members of the media that described Brown as the suspect in the robbery." That eliminates "alleged," makes it clear that it is Jackson (and not Wikipedia) stating that it was in fact a robbery, is generally better prose, and is further from being plagiarism than the almost word-for-word quote in the current article. Dyrnych (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggest giving a source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The source would be the same as the one to which the current passage is sourced. Dyrnych (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That passage works and avoids copyvio. The other two passages need to be re-worded as well to accurately reflect what the RS says. Since the term alleged is not used by the RS in those passages, why are we inserting our own editorial judgment and implying that the source said "alleged". Isaidnoway (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The word "alleged" is not used there because they are directly quoting a member of the police, who is directly asserting without qualification that a crime occurred - because that's the police's POV. We cannot take the police's POV and adopt it unchallenged. Quoting a police officer's statement is fine, so long as it is clear that it is their opinion only. When we use Wikipedia's voice, we must use "alleged." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that the term "alleged" is not used there because of the quote. That's why we're trying to fix it to accurately reflect the sourcing there. The way it was originally worded was indeed plagiarism, but it accurately reflected the source, until you edit-warred the term "alleged" to be included there. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether it accurately reflected the source or not, it made a statement in Wikipedia's voice that a robbery had occurred. Which is not acceptable. The reliable sources clearly state "alleged robbery" when speaking of the events in their own voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here's the paragraph from the source.[6]

"Jackson prefaced the name announcement by describing a "strong-arm" robbery that had occurred a few minutes before the shooting at a nearby convenience store. A police report released to members of the media at the news conference described Brown as the suspect involved in the robbery, in which he allegedly took a box of cigars and grabbed and shoved a store clerk before leaving."

Note the last part, "...he allegedly...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And you also need to note that the "last part" was never in that passage in the article and under discussion here. Like I said above - the relevant passages from the RS from which the content is based upon. The "last part" is not under discussion or disputed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems like we should be careful not to take it out of context because of the "allegedly" part in the reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it could be taken out of context when the article plagiarizes the RS word for word, except the "last part". You want to take a crack at it and remove the copyvio? Isaidnoway (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me that the RS is characterizing the facts of the event as alleged, and if we use that source we would need to do the same thing. Otherwise, we are taking material out of context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks pretty straightforward to me. 1) "Jackson described a strong-arm robbery" 2) "A police report described Brown as the suspect" 3) "He allegedly took cigars". We are not even discussing #3 at all. 1 and 2 is under discussion here and it looks straightforward to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Not to me, for the reasons I mentioned. Looks like we've come to the end of our two-way discussion, at least for me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. I also think a reasonable solution would be to just get rid of that paragraph and the first two sentences of the paragraph below it. The same information is repeated in the opening paragraph, in the section, "Robbery incident report and video release". Isn't the "Police" section supposed to be accounts of the shooting and the "Robbery" section for accounts of the robbery. Regardless, the info is redundant being in both places. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is so hard to stay close to the sources? It is not.- Cwobeel (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Image thumbnail sizing

Some images in the article currently specify a fixed thumbnail size in pixels, overriding what users have specified in the Appearance tab of their Preferences. This is misguided and inappropriate. I am going to fix this after I post this.

If an editor feels that the thumbnails in this article are too small or too large, they should update their Preferences accordingly. They should not impose their personal needs and preference on every reader on the planet.

For one thing, different users have different eyes and different vision. For another, they have different aesthetic preferences. (For example, I feel that the enormous images on many news websites today are intrusive and classless, but that's just my personal opinion. I'm sure a majority of readers like it, or the sites wouldn't be doing it.) Lastly, users have displays with a wide range of resolutions, and 250px looks very different at the two ends of that range.

When it comes to images, what you see is not what every reader sees.

What happens when a Wikipedia reader upgrades to a monitor with a significantly higher resolution? The thumbnails are now too small for them. If the article fixes the thumbnail sizes, there is nothing they can do about it, and they are stuck with the too-small images forever. (Or, if they are a Wikipedia editor who misguidedly believes in fixed thumbnail sizes, they can edit the article and increase the fixed sizes to suit them, thereby making the thumbnails too large for many readers, who can't do anything about it.)

However, if the article respects the user's preference, then all they have to do is update their preference. Done and done.

The user preference setting was put there for good reason. Please allow it to work as it was intended. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Medical Examiner procedures - and "witness reports"

It appears that the ME generally conducts an autopsy on a body in a formal manner, making measurements of the body, etc. Baden did not have access to the clothing, which is something an ME would normally have access to, as part of the actual physical evidence regarding the body, and noted that. It is not normal for any ME to have "witness statements" and I suggest that part be struck from the commentary in this article about Baden. He did not have recovered bullets, if any. [7] makes no claim about not having x-rays or the like - only the x-rays from before the recovery of the bullets, and so that paragraph about Baden is inaptly worded. Collect (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede

This seems to me not to be right (my highlight):

Witness reports greatly differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was charging Wilson.

According to whom these reports greatly differ? Again. we are wading into very complicated territory, that's why we should just say that the circumstances of the fatal shots is in dispute, and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also note that the "charging" is only mentioned in the article as a speculating comment by Baden who performed the private autopsy. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, simply saying the fatal shots is in dispute is much more accurate. I haven't heard of any witness who has claimed Brown was charging Wilson. Saeranv (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also see no witness accounts suggesting "charging." The NYT says "mov[ing] toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner." Not charging. Also, the NYT suggests more possibilities than the two that are presented in the lead. Given that the sentence does not accurately reflect the source, I agree that it should be changed. Dyrnych (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The NYT says this. This has been discussed and rehashed above several times as Cwobeel is well aware. He has been nitpicking whether this is OR or unattributed. It has been pointed out to him on several occasions it is not OR. Despite being asked several times he could not show why it is OR. Next he complained the text was unattributed, so we made it 100% clear this was from witness reports. Now he opens a new section to rehash the same thing? Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see that many are saying what I've been thinking since I first saw that sentence yesterday. Sadly, that sentence is almost actionable in how closely it mimics what the New York Times reporter is saying. So I didn't challenge it. I just shake my head at how sloppy reporting by the NYT is and consign myself to the fact that if the KGB were alive and well today, Wikpedia would be reporting a whole lot of stuff that isn't true, thanks to planted stories which get picked up by one uncareful journalists and then repeated many times over by other journalists under pressure to get stuff out by deadlines. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That the Old Gray Lady might need a douche, you won't have an argument with me. But it is clear they analyzed the reports and simply presented them, with no value judgement. And we have done the same.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
But doesn't the WEIGHT principle say we should ignore this since this appears to be more of a quirk in her writing than the majority view among all sources out there? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope. And I suggest you not pursue the "planted stories" allegation about Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? I ask because I don't want to misunderstand you. To me, what you just said sounds suspiciously like the kind of intimidation I would have never dreamed possible when I signed on as a Wikipedia contributor back in the day.

From Wikipedia: Active Measures (Russian: Активные мероприятия) was a form of political warfare conducted by the Soviet security services (Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, KGB) to influence the course of world events, "in addition to collecting intelligence and producing politically correct assessment of it".[1] Active measures ranged "from media manipulations to special actions involving various degrees of violence". They were used both abroad and domestically. They included disinformation, propaganda, counterfeiting official documents, assassinations, and political repression, such as penetration in churches, and persecution of political dissidents.[1] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: - Can you point out the specific text that's being used to justify both (1) the "charging Wilson" language and (2) the binary "either hands up or charging?" distinction? Looks to me like neither is supported by the NYT source. Dyrnych (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.

But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed." Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, so as I said above we've got "moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner." That language is not even close to supporting "charging." And we have a third possibility suggested by that beyond "charging" and "hands up": "not moving," but not necessarily with his hands up. If that's the only support that we have for the sentence in the lead, I agree with Cwobeel and would suggest that his edit be reinstated. Dyrnych (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I will remove both your edit and mine, and let's reach consensus for any further changes or additions. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
To avoid further escalation, I suggest filing an RFC - Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessary. I think that we have consensus for your edit, given that we have numerous editors that appear to support it and one editor opposed. Dyrnych (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
{Two kinds of pork, thinks otherwise and has breached 3RR in the process. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Two kinds of pork: you may consider a self-revert. - Cwobeel (talk)

@Dyrnych, which version do you think has numerous editors supporting? The original discussion supports the differing accounts as reported by the NYT. This converation has Cwobeel, who has no policy based rationale, and the one user who said he agreed, if they read the source obviously got it wrong. You requested the text, which I submitted. What do you think?Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, the text in the lead did not accurately summarize the source and was not a great summary of this page. I think that Cwobeel's version is an adequate summary that avoids misrepresenting the source, and it looks like the consensus supports that version. Dyrnych (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
We are supposed to summarize this article, not the NYT article, that is. Show me where in the article we have a witness account saying that "[Brown] moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner"... - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me make it easy for you. This is from Baden, the doctor that performed the autopsy: This one here looks like his head was bent downward, it can be because he's giving up, or because he's charging forward at the officer.". That is not a witness, is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Dr. Baden is not a witness in the usually understood sense of the word. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The original modification

Please consider this text, from a version that Cwobeel seemingly deployed a popular Wikipedia discussion technique I like to call "20 objections" in which when if one argument is debunked, don't concede the point, go find a new argument!

... The crucial moments before the fatal shots is when the eyewitness reports begin to sharply conflict with each other. Some witness say Brown approached Wilson, in a possibly threatening manner, and other witnesses say Brown wasn't moving and may have been holding his hands up.[11]

This was objected to for reasons of "borderline OR". After multiple queries as to how it is OR, the next objection raised was this was being said in Wikipedia's voice, when clearly this text mentions this is from witness reports. @Bob K31416: made a suggestion to use "Accounts differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was charging Wilson when he was fatally shot." so we scrapped the paragraph above and started again. I see there are legitimate objections to using the "charging" because it does not accurately match the source. @Dyrnych: does the test in the indent above accurately paraphrase the NYT article? Is it OR? Is it attributed to the witnesses?

We may never get a source which definitively state what happened. We will always have to attribute the sequence of events to some source (witness, police reports, court findings, etc) because it is unlikely that a RS like the NYT is going to say "this is what happened", because they are doing what they should be doing as a RS; only report "facts" if they are damn sure of them. Otherwise they use qualifiers.

Now why is this important in the lead? The user who wants the 30 second pitch is not going to get a decent picture of why this incident is so contentious without a summary of the witness reports. Two competing witness narratives are at the heart of the matter. Either Brown was in pacifist mode, or he was in aggression mode. Knowing these conflicting accounts exist helps explain the rationale behind protests, counter-protests, legal proceedings and other "reaction" elements of the article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Either Brown was in pacifist mode, or he was in aggression mode. Well, I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of what is key in this article for the lead. The key is that an unarmed person was shot and killed by a police officer, and we don't know the details as of now. If we want a representation for readers about what this is all about, that summarizes it well: we don't know what transpired and what transpired is disputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your personal comment about me, please WP:AGF and avoid them. These comments are not useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:LEAD again. The lead must summarize the important points of the article's body. There is an entire section of "accounts". Your opposition to the text was a moving target, and now there is yet another one that seems to contradict best practices. And as for AGF, what am I supposed to do when you cite to me BRD and then refuse to participate and answer a direct question about your justification? Bold, Revert, Ignore isn't a best practice. I'll AGF up until the point someone fails to demonstrate they are doing otherwise.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Take a breather, if you could; I am not interested in a personal back and forth. Now, for summarizing the Accounts section, how can we do justice to that in the lede? By saying exactly what the current version says. Read it again. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"Under circumstances still in dispute" is not an accurate summary of the Accounts, because the "circumstances" are not explained. Dyrnych did not state that we have need not explain this, rather his objection was language related to the "charging". What can we do to succinctly tell the reader what are the circumstances under dispute? Fortunately we don't have to make hay out of this because the RS have done this already. The circumstances are why this is a story in the first place. Don't you think the reader wants to know what those circumstances are? Sure, they can read down, but that does not satisfy WP:LEAD. What is the problem with summarizing the circumstances in one or two sentences?Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The differing accounts appear in the article so I don't see why a brief one-sentence summary shouldn't appear in the lead too. It would succinctly explain the main point of contention: whether Brown was still or whether he was moving towards Wilson when he was fatally shot. Also, without the part about Brown moving towards Wilson, the lead appears biased against Wilson with regard to whether or not the fatal shot was justifiable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Collect: Would you kindly offer an opinion on this matter?Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This accurately reflects the NYT, and summarizes the Accounts in one sentence. I would prefer not to mix the sources and/or use the term "bum-rush".

Witness reports greatly differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up when Wilson shot him multiple times, or whether Brown was display aggression towards Wilson.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=1 NYT] Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"[M]oving toward Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner" is not accurately summarized by "display[ing] aggression towards Wilson." Dyrnych (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"Possibly" is fine.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Picture of Michael Johnson

I don't know what issues might have to be dealt with as far as copyright, etc. But thought I would point out that the photo that the family seems to prefer, as it has been given most prominent position next to the podium is the one that I'm sure most of you have seen of him where he is wearing a headset. By the way, should any be interested in livestreaming the funeral, it can be accessed here: http://fox2now.com/. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A link to a picture taken just moments ago at the funeral in support of my claim that this is the picture that the family appears to prefer as the picture by which the world will remember their son. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) http://media.kmov.com/images/265*175/454138368_8.jpg

You had it correct in your first post; There are copyright issues with that picture.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As Brown is dead and it will not be possible to take photographs of him in the future which do not have copyright issues, WP:NFCCP does have an exception for a single photograph of a deceased person for use in articles about that person. (See WP:NFCI #10). However, selection of that photograph (or decision to use a photograph at all) is still subject to normal editorial processes. The fact that a particular photo is preferred by the family may be one consideration, but it is not the only consideration. I personally do not have an objection to that particular photo if one is to be used, but remember that this is WP:NOTMEMORIAL - what does the photograph illustrate that specifically requires a photograph to do so? Since there are two participants in the event and we do not have a photograph of Wilson, there also may be some WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT issues in having only a photograph of brown.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_7&oldid=1155492120"