Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Incident report states specifically that robbery suspect description was radioed out to Ferguson dispatch.

This from page 6 of the strong-arm-robbery information pack handed out by Chief Jackson on the 15th of August:

So I returned to the Ferguson Market to contact employee there. I contacted ____ on the parking lot, who continued to point of W. Florissant toward Quik Trip and say, "He went that way." he was indicating with his hands toward his chest and then north on W. Florissant. I still could not see the suspect on W. Florissant, and ___________________________. I went inside to contact a _______ clerk, who was not identified at that time, and ____ and _________ patron, who was not identified at that time, who advised the suspect took cigars and pushed ________ on his way out. He was wearing a white T-shirt, khaki longer shorts, yellow socks, and a red Cardinals ball cap. They also stated that another Black male was with him, but gave no further description on that suspect. I gave out that information over the radio and drove northbound on W. Florissant. so I went into Quik Trip to search for the suspects, and did not locate them. Anything further will be submitted in a supplementary report.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/ferguson-police-department-incident-report-on-aug-9-robbery/1256/

I submit it in support of a claim that it is highly likely that Darren Wilson, (who never left his vehicle until the moment that the first shot was fired) had heard the other officer give out Brown's description (along with, no doubt, a mention of the items purportedly stolen). I further contend that there is nothing unusual in the fact that Wilson chose to raise the issue of their walking in the street rather than immediately broach the subject of shoplifting, theft, or robbery. Police who suspect that a driver of a vehicle matches the description of a wanted suspect will often look for (or if they feel like it, invent) a pretext for pulling over a driver, which then gives them the ability to do further investigation without the driver necessarily knowing that he is suspected of a crime. Of course, Brown and Johnson weren't driving. How convenient for Wilson that they were walking in the middle of the street when it came time to move in for closer inspection.

I am searching Google News in hopes of finding a reliable source who makes mention of this radioing out of Brown's description, but so far have been unsuccessful. So the chance of finding an RS that has gone second level all the way to an analysis of the plausibility of the claim that Wilson wasn't aware of the theft or of the description of the thief on first approach, I'm guessing is going to be pretty tiny. So many primary source dots. So few journalists connecting any of them. So many holes in our article. Just sayin'. Not ragin'. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the account is that Wilson stopped Brown for jaywalking, went to drive off, immediately heard about the robbery on the radio then came back. I don't understand what you are trying to say. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If we had Wilson's account in the article...((insert repeated rant here))...you would know that Wilson reacted to the refusal to to go to the sidewalk - and to being cursed out - by pulling up, parking and calling for backup. Then he heard about the robbery on the radio. Andyvphil (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If Anonymous had secured the Ferguson dispatch recordings instead of the St. Louis County Dispatch recordings, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? But the police insist on withholding information that they could easily make public. The prosecutor insists on a star chamber proceeding rather than putting his cards on the table and telling us why or why not he is or isn't charging. And as best I can tell, what is secret today is going to stay secret for as long as any of us shall live. This is all very uncool. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You know that the Grand Jury will not write a report? Andyvphil (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, I still don't see what point you are trying to make regarding our article, and it's looking like you are just making random forum comments that aren't coherent. For reference, here's what's in our article regarding the police version of the stop.

"Hours later, Jackson said Wilson was not aware of the robbery when he stopped Brown.[46][47] Still later, Jackson told NBC News that while Wilson initially stopped Brown for walking in the street and blocking traffic, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery.[48]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The two statements are consistent, with the latter containing an additional suggestion by Jackson that is almost certainly misrepresented (in the source) as an assertion. So there is both unnecessary duplication and a probable falsehood. Congratulations, Wikipedia! Andyvphil (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To those asking what my point was in posting this quote from the incident report, it is to give people like Andyvphil (I think Andy is the one I looked it up for) down-page fodder for the conversation that was started above titled: "The Atlantic Wire and MSNBC have reported on the changing nature of the department's statements.[48][50]" [70][71] It was also me asking for help in finding a reliable source that specifically addresses this statement made in the incident report that the description WAS in fact radioed out, making it totally plausible that Wilson's decision to confront was based on BOTH the receipt of a description of the suspect that matched Brown AND the receipt of specifics as to what item or times were stolen. I haven't found such a reliable source. So we are stuck in the OR/Synthesis morass, right, i.e., we have a bit of very useful primary source info, but no RS, as best I can tell, has written about it in the context of the controversy over the question of whether Wilson did have full knowledge of Brown's shoplifting or not on his approach to the scene. I am persuaded that he did, for what it's worth. You probably don't want to hear why. Sorry to all of who view this attempt as an abject failure. Some of us aren't just born with that Wikipedia gene. We have to get our 10,000 hours in first. I have at least 9000 to go still. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, In my previous comment, I gave the part of the article that is the police account of the stop of Brown by Wilson. Is there anything in that excerpt that you would like to change or add to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I did. Get rid of the media-invented falsehood. Add the best, clearest, account of the encounter, which is Josie's, to the article. Note that what Jackson actually said accords with the Wilson account, and mention the problems a lot of the media had getting it right. When Salon and the Huffington Post are running headlines and articles saying, falsely, "Jackson Lied" I think that says something about the coverage of this event of which an interested reader should be informed. Andyvphil (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I would concur with Andyvphil. In researching witness statements today, I came across a video of MSNBC's Chris Hayes who was openly discussing, as of Aug. 11, the rumors that Brown had been busted for shoplifting. or words to that effect. If MSNBC was onto that rumor within 48 to 60 hours of the shooting, it would be hard to believe that there wouldn't, by the 15th of August, be multiple requests for information that could support or refute such rumors. I can't find a single reliable source that details the work of the other policeman who went to the Ferguson Market to get the full details on what had gone down there. My question to the rest of you would be to ask if we might cite directly to the incident report and inform our readers that, circa 11:53, the time stated on the report, that a second policeman had radioed a description of Brown cigarillos along with the complainant's claim that Brown had stolen cigarillos. We could then state, based on such statements which are plentiful in reliable sources that it is unknown whether Wilson had heard that report by the time he apparently decided to back up and "confront" Brown. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Again we don't have to rely on our intuition as to whether the FPD got relevant Sunshine Law requests. the Ferg. City Atty names two, and I found TV Anchor Mandy Murphy's statement that she had made a written request. The "The Blot" guy missed where it said in the FAQ that Sunshine Law requests don't have to be made on any particular form. Andyvphil (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We are neither investigative journalists, nor researchers weighing in on the merit or lack of merit of media sources in their reporting. That is not our role, per WP:V [article]] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway and Andyvphil, Suggest you each make a proposal with specific wording and ref that you would like for the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to be investigators. WP:V is satisfied easily for this information, http://kplr11.com/2014/08/15/video-timeline-of-robbery-surveillance-video-purportedly-showing-michael-brown/ verifies that Channel 11 made the sunshine request. Not to mention Mandy Murphey personally verifying her request as well as idenfitying requests by several other news outlets. .https://www.facebook.com/MandyMurpheyFOX2/posts/706732609401003 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If I make a request under sunshine law, I need to get what I asked. But Jackson chose to release that video to all the press at that very strange conference (he did not take questions, and asked the press to "digest" the tape and ask questions at a later conference), when what was expected is the release of the name of the officer involved. There are abundant sources that describe these action by Jackson in the press conference as not only a strategic release to criminalize Brown, but as one of the causes of the unrest that followed. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Abundant sources of tendentious unhappiness that, outside the fever swamps, the video quashed the usefulness of the "Gentle Giant" narrative do not add up to anything more than massed whining. Andyvphil (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing WP:V is your only recourse. I think you are crossing a line with these comments. WP:BLP applies here even if the person is deceased. Have some respect for Pet's sake. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ferguson unrest - article

The Ferguson unrest article had devolved into a POV mess which I have hoped to stay away from. But continued attempts to force the Lede here to echo that Lede forces attention there to cure neutrality concerns there. Frankly I think that article should go away and be merged here. I invite others to review and begin work to fix the problems there. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks. But, yes, the attempt to import a POV victory elsewhere was laughable. However, you reverted to an earlier version that I'd replaced simply to get rid of bad writing w/out changing the regnant POV. What is your objection to the version I've restored? Andyvphil (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We tend to agree more than disagree, but I did not feel that your writing was better, and it seemed more critical. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Critical of what or whom? I'm not seeing this. The version you reverted to asserts things that are dubious and incoherent, but not obviously supportive of any particular point of view. What the heck does it mean to say "the mix...continued"? The only thing that continued was that things kept changing from day to day. Was it really "significant(?) criticism "from(!) the media" that "led(?)" to control being shifted to the State Police, or was that just some decision by Nixon on his own hook? This is meaningless verbiage masquerading as information. Andyvphil (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I interpret the "mix' to refer to a mix of peaceful and non-peaceful actions (as enumerated). --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that the sources demonstrate a cause and effect between the criticism of the local agencies and the control being shifted to the State Police. Do you seriously dispute that?--Kevin Murray (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. The claim is unsourced in the lede, which would be OK except that it's not even made in maintext. What is your source for this dubious assertion of cause-and-effect? Andyvphil (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the on this assertion to the lede (that someone deleted) as there seems to be nowhere else to put it. Andyvphil (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath in Ferguson

This section is not balanced and does not represent an NPOV summary of the main article. There is very little information about what was reported as an over-aggressive police response, the ceding of authority by FPD to county and state forces, the controversy around arrests of journalists, the de-escalation, and other crucial information. I have placed a POV tag to encourage editing that section to compliance. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried checking it for NPOV by looking at it paragraph by paragraph, and looking at the pictures.[1] Here's my opinion about each of those parts, FWIW.

¶1 — neutral

¶2 — anti-police

¶3 — anti-protestors (long)

¶4 — anti-police (short)

¶5 — pro-police (short)

Picture 1 — pro-protestors

Picture 2 — anti-police

Picture 3 — anti-protestors

The POV tag doesn't seem appropriate. However, that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I'd roll up an old newspaper and remove the dog urination/rolling over memorial sentence in the 2nd paragraph, shorten the 3rd para then add a brief part to it about over-aggressive police response and ceding authority to county and state. Then we might restructure the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs, making them two instead of three. All the changes should be done with a moderate tone instead of an extreme tone.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a main article about this subtopic that is referred to at the beginning of the section, so we should try to minimize the use of details here.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The POV tag has nothing to do with "pro protesters" or "pro police", so I don't know why are you unpacking my concern in that manner. The section is not representative of the content of the unrest article, and it needs to be per WP:SUMMARY. It needs to be rewritten wholesale. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to looking at your proposed NPOV summary here. (BTW, I noticed that there is a POV tag at the main article 2014 Ferguson unrest so any summarizing should be careful not to transfer any POV problem from that article to this section.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

And I am open to yours too, if you want to give it a go. The POV tag was added two days ago without any explanation about why that was necessary. POV tags are not badges of shame, and are set to start a discussion. I have removed it and posted a comment in that article's talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Redundant paragraphs in the lead

I think the second and third paragraphs in the lead should be deleted. The ones starting with "Brown and Dorian Johnson were walking…" and "The Ferguson Police Department released a video…" Both of these paragraphs are overly specific, while the lead should be general. Readers will find the details repeated in the sections below. Fnordware (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The setence regarding the video has been trimmed down substantially since it first appears. I think it is important (and should be expanded) because it reflects the broader controversy surrounding whether the police were trying to disparage the memory of a man they killed. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think if we're going to lean on this claim that the police released the video to "criminalize" Brown or "disparage his memory", we should not fail to reflect the argument that Brown's parents were using dishonest claims about their son's supposedly "gentle" nature to attempt to disparage the police and undermine their account that Brown was fighting with Wilson and attempting to take his gun. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I added the word controversially to the sentence. The lede should be highly summarized, so getting into the details of why it was controversial, and what each sides arguments are, is too much for the lede imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But I don't think the video controversy is significant enough to be in the lead. It's more of an important footnote, described fully below. I would cut everything from "The disputed circumstances of the shooting…" to "…a store employee who tried to stop him from leaving." Fnordware (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with that much trim the MOS:LEAD should serve as a mini-article and discuss all prominent controversies and issues. Those paragraphs may need to be tweaked but removing all of those topics from the lead all together would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Gaijin42 - Cwobeel (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's use the Trayvon Martin article as an example. There is only one sentence in the lead that describes the actual event: "Zimmerman shot Martin, who was unarmed, during an altercation between the two." The rest of the lead is aftermath. The lead is not supposed to be a "mini-article" that discusses all prominent issues, it is supposed to be "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." In my opinion, the specifics of the event and the convenience store tape are not the most important things in the article, but that's just my opinion. Fnordware (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you from my experience from working on that article during the intital editing of the lead when it was still a current event (like this one is), it went through the same revisions, re-wording and attention that we are currently experiencing at this article. The lead will eventually stabilize when it's no longer a current event, just like it eventually did there. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUM & WP:TPO edit warring

Let me remind both of you that we are under DS here, don't work too hard for your sanctions, or you will get what you ask for.. Cwobeel, try to reign in the forum, I know its tough, we all have difficulty with it (seriously, I'm probably not one to talk here) but the comment in question probably isn't super helpful. Malerooster the comment probably isn't egregious enough to get sanctioned over. You made your point, that talk section will get archived before long, just let it go. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO Malerooster appropriately redacted a NOTFORUM comment by Cwobeel. I have repeatedly done the same, including removing that very same comment myself, only to have it restored. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Educate yourself. "NOTFORUM" despite its seemingly relevant name has nothing to do with what you're complaining about. And TALK PAGE GUIDELINES make it clear that no matter how many times you've been a dick, it was never "appropriate". Stop. Andyvphil (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What does it mean, then? I've read the policy many times; do tell. In any event I didn't say anything about approving of Malerooster being a "dick". I was commenting only on a single edit of his -- one which looked quite appropriate to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPO does allow for removal or collapsing of talk comments in very limited situations. While I think Cwobeel's comment was unhelpful to improving the article, it (by itself) does likely not qualify for summary execution by removal. Possibly collapsing could be appropriate, but in any case, warring over if it is included or not is way more disruptive than the comment itself ever was. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing Video

I posted about the Missing Video before. I was called a liar, had my post shrank in a window and then deleted. I am again posting about the Missing Video based on the statements in this link. http://gotnews.com/narrative-hero-cop-falls-apart/ My post was made three days after the incident and this story was put out much later. It is my belief that this story should provide enough proof that there IS a Missing Video.

I was watching the news that day. I think it was CNN that showed a video of the attack and shooting. This is what I saw. Mike was attacking the officer inside the police cruiser. He was using his bulk to hold the officer in place. The other guy was holding the officer's leg so the officer could not move. The other guy jumped up and ran away. Mike pushed himself off of the officer and stood up. He pulled up his pants, turned, and ran away.

The officer stood up. He was holding the left side of his face. He went to walk towards Mike but staggered to the left and then to the right. His right hand swayed back and forth with gun in hand. His arm swayed up as if to aim but did not stop. Not sure if he fired.

Mike stopped running, turned around, and ran towards the officer. The officer shot two times. Mike went down slowly and fell on his side. The officer staggered over to Mike and shot three times. End of video.

The video was shown many times over the next hour and then went poof. Never to be seen again. That was between 1PM to 2PM Cen USA.

Armchairnewsman (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be all over youtube if it were true. Perhaps you were dreaming. Plus, I don't even see any mention of this alleged video on that site. And what the hell is "shank in a window"?Whatzinaname (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about the video you mention, but your source is, to say the least, very far from being independent: The guy said he came to St.Louis to protect the Police Chief's home with a weapon... --Japarthur (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Without a real source this shouldn't even be an item of discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of unrest in lede

In the lede, this sentence:

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

… was replaced by

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

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

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

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

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

I'm fine with either of your preferred choices, and agree the middle replacement version has grammar issues (although I do not object to the content within it) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In typical underhanded fashion, Cwobeel defends his revert of my edit [[2]] without either linking to it or mentioning my edit comment, "'Some protesters were seen throwing Molotov cocktails at the police'", and I gather he has removed the supporting cite to the BBC, containing that quote, from the lede as well. The individuals throwing gasoline bombs, not to mention the brick which broke a cop's ankle, were neither vandals nor looters, at least at the instant of these violent acts. In the article linked to, and many others, they are called "protesters", and Cwobeel's assertion that we are obliged to import a POV-pushing fiction from another article is absurd. The "protests" were both peaceful and violent. That is a fact. Andyvphil (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In typical fashion, you need to cool off, this is not a battleground. Yes, I agree that there was violence (from both sides), some looting and riots, but what you have there in the lead does not present an accurate picture of the unrest. It only describes the first week, but protests have been going on for a month now and violence subsided almost completely once the highway patrol took over from whats was described as an incompetent police and over-aggressive response by local police. So, my point is that the lead needs to describe the protest in toto, not just the first week. Capsice? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that curfews were imposed three or four nights only during a month long protest, but what we say there seems to indicate that the curfews were ongoing and that the protests lasted a week. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

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

I think details of how the conflict de-escalated do not belong in the lead. The lead needs to be shorter, not longer. Fnordware (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Aside from a few copyediting (ie wording) tweaks I think your proposal strikes a good balance. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@ACanadianToker: Can you give it a go and improve the text? Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a try, I tried to integrate it with what was already there. I'd welcome any changes. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

redacted

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

Proposal to balance a criticism of prosecutor with a defense

In a recent edit, a sentence that defended Prosecutor McCulloch from a criticism regarding a 2000 case was removed.[3] I propose restoring it for NPOV. This proposal concerns the third paragraph of the current section Grand Jury, which would be changed to the following if the proposed sentence is added to the end of it (the proposed sentence is underlined in the following).

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

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

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

If you want that text, then we need to expand the criticism of McCulloch, which you deleted. So less is more. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Giving the reader a detailed understanding of the reasons why so many people want McCulloch to step down seems a sensible step. His documented manipulations of grand juries and lies to the public - and his close family ties with the police - go beyond what remains in the new version of the article and should be mentioned in some details, IMHO. "STLToday.Petitions" that was hidden is the most complete presentation I found. --Japarthur (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

With the Washington Post and Time Magazine, among others, practically predicting that no indictment will be forthcoming, a conclusion reached based on their obliterating list of McCulloch-driven irregularities either witnessed or whispered to date, I believe that this matter is of extreme importance and should be thoroughly reported in the article. A smattering of information that might defend McCulloch's practices would be appropriate as well, as long as proper WP:WEIGHT attaches to the same in proportion to the WEIGHTier criticisms -- weightier at least from my vantage point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

memorial burning

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Unrest in Lede

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

Chief Jackson apology, new violent protest

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/us/ferguson-michael-brown-police-chief-apology/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

These two issues should be split to make the discussion about them easier. --Japarthur (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confused, what are you getting at? Darren Wilson is a witness, and if he says Brown was not surrendering, then that's a witness account that "differs" from, e.g., what Dorian Johnson told the TV cameras. That said, perhaps we could alleviate your concern by changing the prose as follows: "Witness reports differ as to whether Brown was attempting to surrender when the fatal shots were fired." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, FactCheker, if my intent isn't clear. I'm fact checking. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Typically, in discussions of a shooting death, journalists and the public at large make a clear distinction between the person who did the killing and those who watched the killing occur. We call the person who killed (in cases where he or she admits to doing the killing, as in this case) the "perpetrator." We call those who watched the event occur without actively participating in the killing "witnesses" or "eyewitnesses." Is it our intent to turn this longstanding and almost universally accepted convention on its head?

But let's go with your interpretation of the word witness, FactChecker. Now that you have identified this outlier "witness," can you provide for me a Reliable Source that quotes this "witness" as stating that Brown never put his arms up as a gesture of surrender?

Personally, I would contend that to lump Wilson into the category of witnesses borders on an attempt to to lump a dog's tail into the category of dog legs. While it is technically true that Wilson did witness himself killing Michael Brown, it is also true that by not making clear to our readers that your basis for the claim that witnesses disagree is to create a flagrantly false impression that there is substantial disagreement among the nonhomicidal witnesses to this event. That is journalistically or encyclopedically unprofessional, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest.

This, because, when it comes to the question of Brown's signaling an intent to surrender, the nonhomicidal witnesses are not in disagreement. (You are free, of course, to Original Research and/or Synthesis pontificate at length as to whether Michael's show of raised hands was a sincere gesture of surrender. And if you can find a RS to back up that OR/SYNTH, I suppose you can even raise that question in the article.

This being said, what would be so wrong with reporting in the lede and in the Shooting Incident section

1) the fact that the witnesses are in substantial agreement when it comes to Brown having raised his hands, and

2) the fact that Wilson's self-imagined and thoroughly debunked surrogate, "Josie", tells a different story?

I know this sounds harsh. But I do not recall any statements made by official police sources telling us anything at all about Michael's behavior at the time that the final 10 shots were fired. Do any of you?

Yes, Princess Josie, Defender of the Heroic, made the claim. And yes, anonymous police sources said, "Yeah, Darren's story is exactly Josie's story." But it is also true that these anonymous spokespersons glommed on to Josie's account *before* the same, with 99%-certainty, was tied by investigative reporters/bloggers to two bogus Facebook posts which went up and came down in the 48 hours leading up to Josie's placement of her anonymous phone call to the Dana Loesch Show. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dareen Wilson is not a witness; he is an actor in this event, but in any case we don't have his version of events and what we have heard so far is unconfirmed hearsay. We have rehashed that sentence during a long discussion a few weeks ago and we arrived to the current sentence via consensus. Please check the archives. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Dareen Wilson is not a witness; he is an actor in this event" — do please explain what you mean by that?

No need to answer, Cwobeel. Just substantiate my answer as being identical to the one that you have given your friends in private communications. :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And, I don't have a problem with the current revision, was only offering a suggestion to allay the concerns of another user. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Wilson's proxies being valid, other witnesses such as Brady say they saw the final moments, and do not mention hands up. "emphatically saying hands were down" is a made up standard. Saying proxies are not included is a made up standard.

In any case, we have to follow the sources, not our own research, and the sources say there is a difference in witness accounts.[4] "But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed." (NYT) [5]Gaijin42 (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42, your suggestion that we must defer to demonstrably untrue reporting from reliable sources who are acting in unreliable ways leaves me speechless -- figuratively speaking anyway. To suggest that Michael Brady is a contrary witness is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, since you and I both know that he was moving from his bedroom to the exterior of his apartment at the very moments when the other witnesses unanimously concur that he had his hands in the air and so he wasn't a witness during that phase of the incident. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On the witness debate above, I see your point, but would also put Johnson into the "participant" bucket. Brady claims to have seen the final shots, which are the ones the other witnesses say the hands were up for. If the claims vary so wildly that the hands could have been up for the final shots, or could have been up 10-15 seconds before, then we still have a lot of variability in the witness statements that should be described. It is not my suggestion that we follow the sources, it is wikipedia policy. There is room for compromise, certainly there are some sources that make the analysis that the majority of published witness accounts (published being an important distinction) agree on hands up. I have no objection to saying so, but I do have an objection to removing any hint that there is an alternate view of events. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My proposed and unfleshed alternative clearly includes a place for the alternate view. I simply want that alternate view tied to Josie -- unless of course there is someone else to tie it to. To my knowledge, Chief Belmar has been silent on the matter. The same is true, I believe, of Chief Jackson. Josie's the only person who has actually gone out and made a claim of what actually happened between Michael Brown's horrible mauling of heroic Officer Wilson and the regrettable but eminently justifiable eradication of this very large, very taunting, very juiced up on something, and very threatening menace. (Sorry, my swimmingness in the septic reservoirs of police-friendly social media is clouding my characterizations. Admit though, that I am being very euphemistic compared to what my "friends" are actually saying.)

And to further clarify, I am not talking about the question of whether Brown was standing still, coming at Wilson or bum rushing Wilson. I am focused 100 percent on the question of hands being raised. The sentence that I am targeting, regrettably, blends the two into one construct, at least as I perceive it. I believe a little disambiguation is in order here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I am going to restate my challenge to those of you who defend the current wording, but this time, in more unmistakable terms: Can anyone point to a claim in any reliable source of an actual NONHOMICIDAL witness (not a Darren Wilson surrogate -- an actual witness) who is emphatic that Brown never at any time raised his hands? If your answer to this challenge is "no," you would do us all (or me, at least) a great favor by stating the same on the record rather than keeping your answer silent. Or you could just fix the sentence in the lede. That would be extrasatisfactory as well. Take all the time you need to research the answer to my challenge. That's cool. What isn't cool is leaving that statement up in the article where the sources provided for the same don't provide this smoking gun NONHOMICIDAL witness that you are suggesting to the world is out there somewhere. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph you speak of is already a BLP nightmare, best to leave it as is. All we have at this point is media interviews, we have no idea what the witnesses actually told the police in their statements. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of suggesting that I find the paragraph to which I am responding relevant to the topic at hand, which I do not, sadly, I must ask you, Isaidnoway, do you make a distinction between he meanings of the following two phrases, "media interviews" and "witness reports?" Personally, I would consider them pretty much interchangeable, as in "... witness reports obtained in the context of media interviews ...." Disallowing the use of the term witness to refer to Darren Wilson, what other kinds of "witness reports" do we have? And if we have no witness reports at all, just media interviews, then why the use of the phrase "witness reports" in the lede? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your confusion is understandable, so let me be clear - "Media interviews with witnesses" vs. "Police interviews with witnesses", two separate and distinct meanings. And since we have no "Police interviews with witnesses", the lead is fine as is with witness reports, however once we do start seeing some statements from the police, then obviously the distinction between what the witnesses told the media vs. what the witnesses told the police will be noted in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So what are we referring to at present, Isaidnoway? witness reports or media interviews? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Media interviews of witnesses. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fact Checker, I will reiterate that my complaint is not against my fellow editors -- my complaint is against the use of a word which has multiple semantic meaning associated with it. Of the two senses of witness we are describing, the one that would be understood by the public generally as being implicated in this case would be an individual who watches, as a third-party, what the perpetrator did to the victim and how the victim responded to the actions taken against him or her by the perpetrator. If I were to post a video of the killing of Kajieme Powell and ask 1000 speakers of English how many witnesses appear to have been present when the police discharged 12 bullets to put him down, not one respondent in 10 would instinctively count Powell and the two police officers as witnesses. The exceptions to that rule would be the ones second guessing themselves on the possible belief that I was asking a trick question.

That being the case, it is unethcially misleading for us to claim that "witness reports" are somehow evenly divided on the question of whether Brown put his arms up as a sign of surrender. And I don't care if the prime perpetrators of this journalistic atrocity are sources as reliable as Mother Thersa or Desmond Tutu. It's still wrong and it still needs to be corrected (by someone who isn't going to be reverted by a bot five seconds after making the change). Yes, this is my opinion. Yes, others may disagree. But those who disagree have the obligation to provide a nonhomicidal witness report that is substantiated by a reliable source in order to have their wording in the article prevail -- that or change the wording. So far, no disagreer has been able to produce such a report. Which just strengthens my resolve in this matter all the more. And isn't that what makes Wikipedia great? Editors with strong convictions and opinions? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually people with strong feelings on an article subject often make the very worst editors. What you need is a Facebook or Twitter account to express your strong general feelings on the subject. I'm collapsing this section since it isn't about improving the article per WP policy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

|}

photos

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

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

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

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

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

The memorial shows both the memorial, and hands up don't shoot. what do 3 photos of people carrying signs show that is not already illustrated by 1? None of those photos involve the police, or violence etc. I realize some of the other photos are not yet in the article, but since you asked for them to be uploaded I am assuming you intend to use them at some point. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No that was not my intent, I added some of these to the unrest article, not here. The sharpshooter aiming his weapon at peaceful protesters in broad light, is another one that we should keep, as it was the image that stirred the controversy about militarization and the response by the Federal government and state government. We should be thankful that a journalist has released these images under CC. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the sharpshooter is aiming the weapon because he isn't looking through the sight.[6] He seems to be at the ready. Also, that picture overflows into the next section about the federal government.[7] Looks like too many pictures. Recall that there is a main article for the unrest topic, so we should keep this section short. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here as another one of the sharpshooter from the same photographer [8] (and if you watched news that day, you could clearly see him aiming at the crowd that was peacefully protecting and in broad light. No, I am not kidding. In the USA from all places). - Cwobeel (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That photo also doesn't show the officer aiming the weapon at anyone (or aiming it at all, for that matter). The way he's positioned, he wouldn't even be able to see the lens of his sight. Are there any available photos of the armed gang members who were present at the "peaceful" protests and who declared their readiness to use their guns against the police? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed your newly added picture per my previous remarks. If you would still like to add it, you'll need consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? Maybe we need consensus to remove it? Just kidding. I think the sharpshooter photo I posted above is the one we need, as it is very telling of what happened there in the aftermath of the shooting. I'll wait until that photo is in Commons before I re-add it for discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought you were going to "re-add it for discussion" here before you added it to the article. Oh well, just an honest miscommunication. I deleted it for similar reasons that I mentioned for the other picture. Additionally, NPOV considerations for pictures in that section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Haw can a photo of police militarized action that was covered substantially in the press , and which resulted in Gov. Nixon removing FPD authority from Ferguson be an NPOV issue. Not having that photo is a violation of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The images of the officer atop the vehicle pointing his mounted weapon at crowds is quite important to understanding the events and received in-depth commentary and coverage. Good addition. Darmokand (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I see that you are trying to get this new edit into the article by edit warring.[9] I think you should be waiting for a consensus for the new edit like I am doing in a similar situation in the talk section below, Proposal to balance a criticism of prosecutor with a defense.

Your remarks don't address the NPOV issue of having 3 out of 4 pictures in the section on one side of the controversy. Your remarks also don't address the other issues from our previous discussion a few messages ago that apply to this new picture too: “ Looks like too many pictures. Recall that there is a main article for the unrest topic, so we should keep this section short.” The current state of the section "Aftermath in Ferguson" after Cwobeel's revert is [10]. The subject sharpshooter picture is the fourth one of the section and overflows into the next section.

Also note that the gun and scope are directed to the right of the camera.[11] The sharpshooter appears relaxed with one arm down and is looking with his scope at something, and we don't know what it is or how far away it is. The caption that you put in the article says otherwise, "Police sharpshooter with weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests in Ferguson." --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the way described in the media: The Guardian: “A police sniper looks over the crowds” [12] Photo: [13]. The SWAT officer does not seem to me to be "relaxed"; he is aiming at the crowd. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So in other words, you felt that the caption in The Guardian didn't paint the police as the oppressive monsters they are, and so you decided to editorialize a little. NO CONCERNS AT ALL, BRO.

I suppose you also did not note my observation above that the sniper is not aiming at the crowd, and in fact not aiming the weapon at all. No? Well, now I've reminded you, so you can stop attempting to publish your misconceptions on WP. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

t is not about my misconceptions or yours. We should follow what the sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note: The caption I used is the caption used in the Wikipedia Commons for that photo, which was uploaded by a journalist. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your willful IDIDNTHEARTHAT ignorance is becoming obnoxious. As I clearly stated, the source did not say what you said; instead you chose inflammatory POV-pushing editorializing, which is highly inappropriate. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For Pet's sake, cool it. Read the caption on the image at Wikipedia Commons: Police sharpshooter with weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests in Ferguson, MO [14]. So, your accusations are baseless and bordering on personal attacks. Stop it. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I of course already read the freaking caption. I simply mistakenly assumed the piece was from The Guardian and thus actually had some grounding in a RS.

Anyway, we can't just make up stuff like this. Whoever wrote, wrongly of course, that the cop was "training his weapon in the direction of the camera", was engaging in editorializing of the kind we reserve for RS's.

The photo shows a cop with a weapon on a rooftop looking out over a crowd, and nothing more. You're trying to make it sound like the cop was actually aiming at the camera, which he wasn't.

The photographer chose the angle of the photo, and it's pretty obvious he selected the shot specifically for the purpose of getting that menacing down-the-barrel look. So, kudos to the photographer for being manipulative. But we don't then use that as a platform for sensationalism, and we don't incorporate any POV-push advocated by the file uploader. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As I write this the caption in the article mentions "crowd" there is no crowd in the photo. In addition the caption at Wikipedia Commons does not mention "crowd". My suggestion is to re-label the article caption as Police sharpshooter with weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests in Ferguson, MO Morpheus ad (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No — besides the POV concerns discussed above, he actually is "looking out over the crowd", but he is not "training his weapon in the direction of the camera". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If we were using the Guardian photo, you would be right. But we are not using that photo. I don't think we will resolve this by a discussion, so we should keep the caption to the bare minimum. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that there isn't a "crowd" in the photo, and yet the caption for that photo in the article reads: "Police sharpshooter looks over the crowd". The photo itself doesn't reveal what the sharpshooter was looking at. It's reasonable to assume that the sharpshooter's attention is directed toward the crowd or to other areas of interest, I guess. But if there isn't an RS that makes a "crowd" claim (for whatever particular photo will be used in Wikipedia) it would seem that Wikipedia is making an assumption not supported by fact in mentioning "crowd" (maybe the sharpshooter is sighting-in on a billboard, we don't know). Also, in response to Cwobeel, above, you state: "The photo shows a cop with a weapon on a rooftop looking out over a crowd, and nothing more.". How did you determine that the cop was on a rooftop? It may be a good assumption, but it's difficult, for me at least, to make out where the sharpshooter is. I wouldn't expect such a face-on-view photo from a photographer at ground level looking up at the sharpshooter. It could be that the photographer was at ground level but was far enough away and using a telephoto lens to get such a shot, maybe. I suspect a photographer wouldn't be allowed on a rooftop with the sharpshooter, but who knows. How does "Police sharpshooter at protests in Ferguson, MO" sound to you? Also a date of the particular protest day may be useful, like: "Police sharpshooter at the DATE HERE protest in Ferguson, MO". What do you think?--Morpheus ad (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The sharpshooter was at the rooftop of a SWAT vehicle. That is undisputed, it was all over the news that day. See [15]: with the caption A member of the St. Louis County Police Department points his weapon in the direction of a group of protesters in Ferguson, Mo., on Wednesday. [Photo here: http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/1c1e9ca/2147483647/resize/652x%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fef%2Ffe%2F2f8ef6df4258b1e90f6f5a3e5706%2F140814cops-editorial.jpg] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah hah. I was thinking of a building's rooftop. So, a vehicle rooftop makes sense for the photo currently in the article. However, I think there should be a correspondence between what the caption says and what the photo depicts. In the article's photo a "rooftop" isn't visible (that I can tell, but also not mentioned in the caption so it's not an issue) nor any "crowd" (which is mentioned in the Wikipedia caption), but appears in the link you gave above. For those people who saw the photo you linked to and/or read about the sharpshooter's location the Wikipedia article's picture and caption will make sense. But standing alone, without prior knowledge, the "crowd" part of the caption belies the reality of what is seen in the photo. Is it for copyright reasons that the photo that actually shows the sharpshooter's location (vehicle rooftop) and the crowd can't be used in the Wikipedia article? If the only photo currently available is the Wikipedia Common photo, then "crowd" should be removed from the caption and I stand by my recent suggestions for a caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpheus ad (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Here is a better photo, showing the surroundings, captioned: Protesters raise their hands in front of armed police in Ferguson. Photograph: JB Forbes/AP [16], so the current caption is consistent with what is depicted. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IMO all of those wider-angle shots are preferable because you can actually see the orientation of the guns relative to the crowd. So if we are allowed to use one that would be good. As far as holy-crap-that-looks-scary imagery that might be used in the article, I know there are pics and video out there somewhere of the cops standing in a line in the street advancing towards people with the weapons raised and ready. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

New section for Ferguson Police alleged public information violations?

I'm not auto-confirmed yet, so I can't add this myself. Here's a proposed addition to the Police account following the paragraphs re: the incident report:

Additionally, Yahoo News has reported that the use-force-report for the shooting is missing [17]. The use-of-force report is required by Ferguson Police Department protocol after any lethal or non-lethal force is used. Its absence goes against the internal standards of the department and the recommended standards of state and national police credentialing groups.

Currently a third of the police account is about the controversies surrounding the incident report and (if accepted) the use-of-force report. For clarity should we create a new section 'Alleged Public Information Violations' under the 4.1.1 Police investigation, and move everything there? Saeranv (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A subsection could be added based on the excellent reporting by Yahoo News alone. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You are autoconfirmed, according to this. Congratulations. You could try a dummy edit to test. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, I added the Yahoo news account to the end of the Police account, it doesn't seem to be contreversial. I'll wait and see what others think about starting a new section for Alleged Public Information Violations/Delays. Saeranv (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Lithistman reverted you with the editsum Lots of unsourced OR included with the initial note. I'll bite.

First, I tried to make sense of "the initial note". After a couple of hours of pondering that, I decided that it means "the first sentence". The first sentence was, "Yahoo News has reported that the use-force-report for the shooting is missing."

Next, I tried to find the "lots of unsourced OR" within the first sentence.

• Yahoo News has reported that - Yes, they did, it's their article and they don't attribute to anyone else. No OR here.
• the use-force-report for the shooting - Almost identical to the source article, any closer would be too close.
• is missing - This must be it, by elimination. The source article doesn't contain the word "missing", so that must be the unsourced OR. Apparently there is something sinister implied by the word "missing".

So I'll restore the passage, changing "is missing" to "does not exist", per the source article.

If my analysis is wrong, feel free to revert me with a better editsum. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You did misunderstand what I meant by that--which is likely my fault for poorly wording it. I meant that the portion you included after the referenced material that the UFR was missing--where you explained in detail about what that meant--felt like it was WP:OR to me. That's what I meant by "with the initial note." The "initial note" to which I referred was where you simply reported the factual statement that the UFR is missing. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire passage is supported by the source. I have reverted your second revert, repeating the citation so it's clear that the second sentence is sourced as well. However, note that the absence of a citation does not necessarily mean unsourced. See WP:V. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "revert" anything that time. I just moved the source to the end of the graf, as there's really no need to cite the same source TWICE in ONE short paragraph. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Which you could have done six four edits ago, had you taken the time to read a relatively short source article. Don't mean to be a grump, but that's newbie stuff from a 4-year editor with over 3,000 edits. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get in a pissing match with you. I'll leave you to it. LHM^{ask me a question} 06:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheePharoah

Now that VICE news has interviewed @TheePharoah who is identified by name in their reporting, shall we turn him into a real person with his name in the heading which details his "account?" SOURCE: Vice News: Exclusive: The Man Who Live-Tweeted Michael Brown's Death (Dispatch 7) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mrx:When I posted this for discussion. Why did you not raise the issue of the reliablity of Vice News as a source?

Here is Wikipedia's lead paragraph on Vice News.

 VICE News is a global news channel where Vice broadcasts documentaries about current topics. 
 It was founded in December, 2013 and is a division of Vice Media. 
 VICE News broadcasts in-depth documentaries about various subjects including events 
 that may not be as well covered by other news sources. 
 They update their website daily with breaking news stories and investigative reports 
 along with daily updates to their YouTube channel that include daily news updates, trailers, and documentaries.[1]

To me, it sounds as at least as reliable as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch or Fox News. Not you?

To the rest of you, I added mention of Emanuel's name to the article. MrX reverted it claiming that it is not reliably sourced. Vice got an exclusive -- in the same way that Channel 4 got an August 12 exclusive of the two white contractors. And once you get an exclusive, others don't usually plagiarize your work. So we have an organization which does amazing work at researching things on a worldwide basis -- not just an aggregator like the Huffington Post but a real investigative fact checking news source. And all other news organs are respecting the exclusivity of their reporting, such that one can find no mention of Emmanuel's name virtually anywhere. Do we all concur that a news source which provides to us direct video evidence that Emmanuel Freeman is TheePharoah is not reliable and that therefore this information which they published on an exclusive basis cannot be added to Wikipedia. My reading of WP:RS screams otherwise. If I am wrong, then for the umpteenth time we decline to report what we could truthfully report but for the rules of Wikipedia, which apparently were not crafted to take into account the way that journalists work in the real world. Imagine that. Isn't WP:BRD handy for making people who don't want to discuss with you discuss? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Since posting the above, I did a search for Freeman's name outside the context of Google News, which is my usual go-to source for finding information about the shooting.

This time, I got a direct hit to a source that we not only cite in our reference list but that we have cited in inline text on multiple occasions. So anyone have a problem with the fact that I just put Freeman's name back into the article using this new cite:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/witness-michael-brown-photo-dead_n_5683166.html

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only objection I would have is possibly WP:BLPNAME but thats an issue that we would have for all of the witnesses. So unless we are going to drop them all, I think its fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed name spelling and date formats. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Major lede issues

1. "controversial" video release is editorializing and reeks of POV pushing. Several other issues of editorialized word choices exist.

2. Claims that the "incident began" only after being noticed on the street. If mike browns behavior was the root cause of the scenario, than the "incident began" with the robbery. Claiming otherwise is again POV pushing. Sans the robbery, Wilson's interaction with brown would have ended at the issue of walking in the street. What exactly is "the incident", anyway? If "the incident" was the shooting itself, being in the street had nothing to do with it.

3. The entire thing is way too long, and way too may people trying to inject political angles into it. The lede should be relatively concise and factual which brings me to...

4. Speculation shouldn't be found in a wikipedia entry and certainly not in the lede, yet statements like "in part due to the belief among many that Brown was surrendering as well as racial tensions between" is 100% speculation. And again appears to the typical POV pushing nonsense that Wikipedia is rife with.

The length is the only debatable thing I see, the rest needs fixed or i get out the axe. The obvious editorialized phrasing and speculation is completely unacceptable even outside a lede, but doubly so inside one. Whatzinaname (talk)

I dunno. #1 seems like a pretty faithful paraphrase of sourced opinion in the article, or if it isn't, such sourced opinion should be found and included because it's definitely out there and significant. #2 is highly debatable... out of all that's been said I don't think I've heard anyone describing the incident as beginning with the robbery. #3 is too general to immediately address. #4 is practically demanded by the encyclopedic style. More specific discussion is needed IMO. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, someone's opinion! An irrelevant, non-expert opinion, and a paraphrase no less. You do realize this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Who is the mental midget in the media suggesting a government official following federal laws = "controversial", anyway? No one has properly defining what "the incident" actually is. This current version is the same regurgitated propaganda turd that was pooped on the page quite awhile ago that chose to focus on the first time the cop saw Brown, but ignore the fact the shooting was actually related to the SECOND contact when the officer actually realized they were the wanted for robbery. And "practically demanded by encyclopedic style"? I'm not sure someone who thinks paraphrased non-attributed, non-expert opinions belong in an encyclopedia should be commenting on "encyclopedic style".Whatzinaname (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the feds themselves objected to the release of the video release. "The Department of Justice urged Ferguson police not to release surveillance video purporting to show Michael Brown robbing a store shortly before he was shot and killed by police, arguing the footage would further inflame tensions in the St. Louis suburb that saw rioting and civil unrest in the wake of the teenager’s death." [18]. I don't buy your argument here. 69.63.37.21 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Saeranv (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The crux of your argument seems to be, quote: "It's not controversial to follow federal law, it would be controversial not to." This is a reductive argument. It ignores the context of the situation - opposition from the DOJ, the manner in which it was presented by the police, interpreted by the local community, the subsequent effect it had on the protests and ambiguity/confusion about whether it was requested or not [19]. Not to mention the criticism of the police's delay/obstructionism of public records requests for the incident and use-of-force reports for the shooting, in contrast with the release of the information regarding the robbery [20]. Again, I don't buy your argument. The release of the video has been consistently criticised by involved parties, documented in numerous sources. That the police were just following federal law is the statement made by the police, and is duly noted in the article. I don't see how it then follows that the video was non-controversial, you are simply ignoring the evidence. Saeranv (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Release of the robbery video was required by Missouri, not Federal law. It was "controversial" only because those who preferred the "Gentle Giant" narrative to the truth were so disappointed to have the truth catch up with them so quickly. Whatzinaname's objection to "controversial" is, as I understand it, that it leaves the unjustified impression that the "controversy" had a shred of justification, which it did not. Obama's DOJ has a record of being repeatedly unconcerned with the law, so this incident is not uncharacteristic of it. Andyvphil (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Whatzinaname: Welcome to the discussion. In its current state the lede represents consensus achieved after lengthy discussions over a long period of time. Please check the archives, as it is unlikely we will rehash this again unless there is new material that surfaces. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE. Particularly when it was never a consensus, just a predominance of obstructionist editors. @Whatzinaname: Welcome to this nutcamp. I have little interest in resuming the attempt the improve this article in the face of entrenched opposition. But, good luck. Andyvphil (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Local convention for ref tags

Michael, the local convention for ref tags is without the unnecessary quotation marks and space before slash. I thought you noticed that in this edit (since you thanked me for it), but apparently you didn't. I do a lot of standardization edits here, and I have no problem with that, but others aren't coming along and changing stuff I've standardized to make it nonstandard again. If this is something that Visual Editor is doing, and there's no option in VE to prevent it, (1) I think it would be reasonable for you to do manual edits afterward to re-standardize the ref tags, and (2) someone needs to take this up with the VE people (which I would be happy to do if I knew where to do that).

Would you like to fix these, or shall I? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to do this. I'm not intentionally undoing anything you are doing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In my opinion, VE shouldn't be used on this article until that issue is resolved, but that's not for me to decide. In the meantime, I'll include this as part of my standardization edits. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I did use VE for the edits that you had to correct if that helps any. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I could tell that from the history entries for your edits — they credit VE. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Officer has been shot

Just heard that a police officer was shot and wounded while on patrol Saturday evening.As it happened in the same area where Michael was shot I think we should add these details to 'reaction' section. More info.:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/28/ferguson-police-officer-wounded-in-shooting-authorities-say/ --Chamith (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No apparent connection to this case, yet. Perhaps 2014 Ferguson unrest:

KTVI reported that dozens of protesters initially showed up at the scene in the mistaken belief that the officer had shot someone. By midnight, approximately two dozen officers stood near a group of about 100 protesters who mingled on a street corner across from the police department, occasionally shouting, "No justice; no peace."

That is to say, no more connection to this case than all the other stuff that has been relegated to the other article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

New York Times — An Officer Is Shot in Ferguson, Mo. — "Authorities in Missouri said the shooting seemed to be unrelated to continuing protests over the killing of Michael Brown last month." ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see.So there is no sold evidence to prove that it was related to killing of Michael.I have to agree with Mandruss.If there is no connection between two incidents then there is no need to add details to this article.--Chamith (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The stories I am seeing is that the cop came across some guys robbing a store. so unless the robbery is connected the link is quite tenuous. However, even if not causally related it may merit a BRIEF mention in the unrest article as it has been discussed in this context and us informing readers that the shooting is not related does have some value.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are reading the wrong story. The cop approached one (or two) men at a rec center after hours, and the man (or men) ran. And for whatever reason it's unclear whether there were two men, or just one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No publicized witness reports allege that Brown never raised his hands

Recently, I asked some of the smartest people I know to see if they could help me find a witness report that would make true our claim that witness reports are divided on the matter of whether Brown raised his hands or not before he was killed on August 9th. Neither I nor they have been able to produce such a report. I am, therefore, going to state it as my considered opinion that no such reports are in existence. That being the case, Will anyone object to me boldly correcting the sentence in the lede that suggests that there are witness reports on both sides of this question? My apologies for the creation of a new section. I would have posted this comment in the section that I created before but someone who is violating Wikipedia policy in the most extravagant ways has collapsed the section on the grounds that I do not seek the betterment of the article. And not one of you has objected to the same. In Ferguson, we view knowing silence as consent. Which is why I tell my friends that Wikipedia is a dreadful place to be if what you want is for the truth to be told. I'd tell you the same but I'm sure that there is a Wikipedia policy that prevents me from doing so. So I'll be silent now. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't have any actual witness accounts, we have alleged witnesses and their alleged stories -- what they decided to tell the media. we only have a a portion of the witnesses, and they can freely lie/embellish as much as they wish. Several media sources have said that the police have multiple witnesses that corroborate Wilson's version of what happened. Given the "snitches get stitches" and the general savage nature of the *peaceful protesters*, no one in their right mind who lives in that area will say a single thing harmful to the "gentle giant raising his hands" narrative. All information/evidence in this case will be released should the grand jury choose not to indict, and if they do we will get to hear the evidence at a trial/later point. In short, we will get all this information eventually. Whatzinaname (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

MICHAEL. We've been through this. I attempted to discuss with you possible alternative wordings that would satisfy you without violating WP policies. You ignored me and kept on ranting. IF YOU HAVE A SUGGESTED TEXT, POST IT HERE. Rarely, if ever, should BOLD edits to a controversial article be made willy-nilly by an editor who is resistant to discussion. Oh and by the way, I continue to not appreciate your insults, even as you coyly insist they're not insults! "Silence is consent" — please take your agitating posterboard nonsense elsewhere. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus#What_does_not_constitute_silence Guess which part of this essay we are experiencing now? Not all of the witnesses report his hands up. The reliable sources specifically say there is a difference on this point. You have an argument, your argument may be "right" in the end. wikipedia does not care. wikipedia will care when that argument is made by the reliable sources. We do not break the news, we WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. This is a core policy. You have made many wonderful contributions to this topic area. don't ruin it for yourself by going down in flames. Pick your battles. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not a place to debunk what you heard in reliable sources. Also, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Here is a reliable source that says the nonhomicidal witnesses are all in substantial agreement. Who wants to add this important information to the lede? Or shall we continue to defer to the reliable sources who get it wrong even though "weight" is not on their side? Because if none of you are willing to add it, I am. WP:WEIGHT WP:COMMONSENSE WP:BRD

SOURCE: HUFFINGTON POST: Witnesses To Michael Brown Shooting Tell The Same Basic Story About His Death (VIDEO)

Note that implicit in the term "witnesses" as used in this headline is an exclusion of him who killed and his surrogates who witnessed nothing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The text of the story never mentions hands, and while the video does show several witnesses mentioning hands, it certainly does not show every witness mentioning hands. Find a source directly saying all the witnesses mention hands up if what you want to put in the article is that all the witnesses say hands up. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There is this Vox article that I've brought up before headlined "Eyewitnesses agree Michael Brown was shot with his hands up" [21]. Not sure if it's considered a RS. Saeranv (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent article, Saereanv. It's too bad that we can't substitute that article for ours. Very well done. And based on the description that Wikipedia gives for Vox.com, what's not to like? Eminently more reliable than the incremental news sources, I would say, as the article Saeranv points us to handily demonstrates. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On WP the principal gauge of reliable sources of fact is "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and so when major RS's that clearly have precisely that reputation disagree with some random website that launched a few months ago with a stated emphasis on moving away from traditional reporting, the major RS's that are known to be very good at that traditional reporting win out. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You have a gift, Fact Checker for putting the most negative spins on things that you deem unworthy. The moving "away" that you refer to is a moving away from incremental reporting of the news, something which I think is very problematic when it comes to consumers of news having a real grasp of what is happening and why the events reported might have importance. As best I can tell, Vox is a web site where a bunch of former reporters for the Washington Post, including some assigned as bloggers, got tired of the sound bite approach to reporting and decided to give stories substantial and comprehensive telling. I have reviewed a lot of reporting since the day that Michael Brown was shot and I must say that this Vox article is probably the best article I have seen on the subject. Contrast that with our very first cite in the article from CNN which collapses immediately with the bogus claim that numerous witnesses saw Michael Brown assault the officer. The writer is a young "researcher" for CNN that you can learn more about by pulling up his Twitter account. Contrast that with the amazing body of work of German Lopez that you can see when you click on his Vox author link. Then tell me who is reliable and who isn't. As always, I look forward to your response. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll put it another way. To the extent that an "analysis" piece by a twentysomething lefty blogger with an axe to grind, on a spanking new website attempting to brand itself as not-quite-journalism, disagrees with reporting by the New York Times, that analysis piece doesn't get cited as authoritative fact on WP. Definitely not mentioned in the lede, which is what we are talking about in the first place. Perhaps cited as an opinion below, with explicit attribution.

A quick look at other stories by this young go-getter reveals discussion of the "desecration" of the Brown memorial, so perhaps objectivity and not making stuff up are some of those inconvenient little journalistic niceties that the stalwarts at Vox can do without. And yet here you are arguing that such things make it better than a reliable source. No.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bogus claim" but again I'll remind you it's not the purpose of WP to undermine and question what RS's say. Could you be a little more specific on what you're talking about? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone on the team who doesn't view the CNN claim that "some witnesses" claim to have seen Brown assault Wilson as bogus -- i.e., unsupported by actual reports of witnesses who claim to have seen the same? Even if you count Darren Wilson as a witness, he is not multiple witnesses. This is the quote that I contest: "Some witnesses say the teenager assaulted the officer at the outset and tried to grab his gun." None of us dispute that CNN is a reliable source, i.e., no one would seriously revert a CNN cite on the grounds that CNN is not a reliable source. But in my world view, reliable is as reliable does. When a statement made in a reliable source is incontrovertibly false, it should not be relied upon when there are other reliable sources that get it right. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what this "team" is to which you refer, but it's hard to see how Brown got inside the SUV's window as far as he did (see the witness account on the Tommy Sotomayor show I've previously referenced) if he wasn't fighting Wilson for the gun that went off.

None of our sources are reliable sources. It's always a question of editorial judgement as to whether a source is reliable as to any particular statement it makes. From your description, I don't see the problem with this one by CNN, still less that it is "incontrovertibly false". Andyvphil (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Remarkable stretching there, Andyvphil. A claim that someone was inside the windshield is not a statement that someone assaulted someone and went for a gun. I don't expect to change your mind on that point. But, for the record, neither are you changing mine. Two witness statements claiming that Brown assaulted Wilson and went for his gun would, of course. Rather than disparaging my claim that the statement is bogus, why not substantiate it with something that doesn't involve remarkable stretching? If truth is on your side, how hard can this be? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's your claim that it is "incontrovertibly false" to say some witnesses claim to have seen Brown assault Wilson, and that's nonsense. You have no idea what information the CNN reporter reporter has. And, as I've pointed out, I believe we know of at least one eyewitness, "Steve" iirc, who interpreted what he saw as Brown assaulting Wilson. And convinced an initially doubting Tommy Sotomayor of this. Andyvphil (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that rather than being an egregious misstatement, that this statement may be true because CNN has multiple witnesses reports in their dossiers supporting the self-defense theory but that these witnesses' accounts have not been divulged by CNN? This in lieu of two statements by two witnesses claiming to have seen Brown assault Wilson and go for his gun? And when I say "claim," I do mean "claim" and not "leave to the imagination of very generous inferrers." Fair? (Right about now, I'm thinking it's time to change my handle to AliceInWikipedia. These arguments I find myself in day in and day out are simply mindbending.)Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that's exactly what he is saying. He is also gently implying that your insistence on assuming that CNN is wrong is dumb and that you have no basis for that conclusion. And he's right! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep changing what it is you're alleging. I have not the slightest doubt that CNN has multiple witness reports supporting a self-defense theory because in fact practically all the witness reports, and the audio evidence, support a self-defense theory as to the final shots. The witnesses don't necessarily recognize this (e.g., the contractors don't seem to recognize that when they report Brown closing a 25' gap to within a few feet of a retreating Wilson in the final seconds of his life that they've fully justified those final shots), but it's true just the same. You started out complaining that the current text said there was disagreement as to whether Brown had his hands raised when the final shots were fired and proceeded to conflate this with the question of whether Brown ever had his hands raised. But in fact some of the witnesses said he was gunned down where he stood after turning with his hands raised and others now -- actually immediately, with the discovery of the audio on the Young Canseco video -- have him advancing a considerable distance with no indication he kept his hands raised, and we know they ended up under his stomach. And finally you drag in the question of what happened in the initial struggle, alleging that the CNN reporter is inventing a claim (what cite is this?) that multiple witnesses say Brown assaulted Wilson. It could simply be, as you derisively suggest, that CNN has witness accounts it has not released. Perhaps it was given those accounts on the promise it not do so, which could be unhealthy for its sources. Or the reporter may simply be repeating what he's been told by a police source. In any case, I've pointed to one apparent eyewitness we know of who's said exactly that. Your insistance that CNN must be lying or mistaken is unpersuasive. Andyvphil (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole talk section is especially silly, as is the collapsed one above that came before, because Michael has repeatedly decline to suggest, or respond to suggestions of, text that would eliminate this supposed inappropriate lack of certainty and failure to state as fact that "Michael Brown was shot with his hands up". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Shaun King

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

As much as I respect the work that Shaun has done here, I would concur that he is no more a reliable source than I am. And let's be clear. I'm not claiming to be a reliable source. Further, he is in the process of creating an organization that is very much on one side of the issue. And yes, I'm on the same side of that issue and just as passionate as Shaun in defending my POV born out of my POR and my PSYNTH.

I will, however, respectfully request that if, at any time, any of you see a reliable source that substantially calls into question Chief Belmar's claim that the distance between the SUV (not a cruiser as I think of cruiser, typically) and the deceased body of Michael Brown was substantially more than 35 feet, that you please message me as a courtesy so that I can propose wording to reflect the same in the article. I've been looking at Instagram videos taken that day and am persuaded that 35 feet may be inaccurate. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that the source of "35 feet" was Chief Belmar, but I pointed out on this page several weeks ago that that number was probably due to a confusion about which SUV was Wilson's, and that Wilson's SUV was probably one of the ones near the cap rather than the closest one. I noticed the 105' distance mentioned on the conservativetreehouse site shortly thereafter, so this observation isn't unique to King, though the MSM has still not to my knowledge run maps of the incident, which is odd, as they certainly did so in the Martin-Zimmerman affair. King writes, "An officer is allowed, expected even, to use force, when in danger, when as much as 25-35 feet away. Mike Brown was ONE HUNDRED feet away."[22]. Somehow he thinks that this is evidence for a narrative in which Brown stops 105' feet away from the SUV and Wilson marches up and executes him. This is nonsense -- the Josie/Wilson account ends with Brown only a few feet away without contradicting the 105' distance from the SUV in any way. Andyvphil (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2014

The rumors of a "robbery" were called into question when the full video appears to show a black male, purchasing the cigars prior to a physical altercation that followed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhA36PDkC8c http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/19/1323057/-Crooks-and-Liars-Brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars . Claims have been made that the merchant was trying to stop him because after making the purchase, the customer handed the cigars over to a minor. The call to the police was made by another customer in the store who had possibly misjudged the situation, not by the store owner or anyone in his employ. http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/store-owners-talk-about-surveillance-released/.

Claims are also made that the officer involved in the shooting did not notify the department about the shooting incident. Audio tapes regarding the notification of the police department by the media, were released through the hacker group Anonymous. http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-st-louis-police-tapes-2014-8 Jozzief (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. But what are you requesting? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilson didn't notify the department about the shooting? Then why did all those police show up? Must have been the backup guy.

Johnson was significantly older than Brown, and didn't keep the cigars. Here's what the police report says (per USA Today, or you can find it online): "An employee at a Ferguson convenience store saw Brown grab a box of Swisher Sweet cigars and hand them to another young man identified as Dorian Johnson, who was standing behind him. The employee said he told Brown he had to pay for the cigars and instead, Brown reached across the counter and grabbed numerous packets of cigars and turned to leave the store..."

The name of the crooksandliars site is a good description of what they do, the lying part anyway. That dailykos created a "Crooks-and-Liars-Brown-appears-to-have-paid-for-those-cigars" page to repeat an utter trash story directly contradicted by simply looking at the video accompanying it says something almost amazing about their credulity when there's something they want to believe. But then, we've got editors like that. Andyvphil (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Brown stole the cigars according to Dorian Johnson and the police and eyewitnesses at the store. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

investigation complete

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/01/justice/missouri-ferguson-shooting-investigation/index.html

"The investigation has been basically completed that is being conducted by both the FBI and St. Louis County PD," Ed Magee, the spokesman for the prosecutor's office, told CNN."

No results released as far as I can see, they may be waiting to coincide with the grand jusry.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackson apology?

We ought to include something about Jackson's apology and how it was received: [23], [24], [25], [26] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems the FPD have a good PR firm: Police Chief Thomas Jackson in Ferguson, Mo., issued a video apology Thursday to Brown's parents and peaceful protesters, according to a St. Louis public-relations firm's video. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why "good"? Andyvphil (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

On Sep 25, Antonio French, city alderman in St. Louis City, tweeted the following with respect to the unrest following Jackson's apology: "For the record: This is the second riot this police chief has incited. He needs to resign." along with this Vine video clip: vine.co/v/OZKAFBFFqH3 Notable? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never found it so difficult to keep my personal opinions at bay and avoid WP:FORUM as I do now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't try so hard. If you've got something to say, spit it out. Andyvphil (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got plenty to say, but it doesn't belong here, per NOTFORUM. But thanks anyway. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You planning to place an ad? As noted before, NOTFORUM doesn't address what you think it addresses. Andyvphil (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you won't say it, I'm free to guess: The idea that Jackson can properly be accused of "inciting a riot" by apologizing to his family for the amount of time Brown's body was left at the scene is demented. The apology is "controversial" in the same sense and for essentially the same reason that the release of the robbery video was "controversial" -- when it comes to Jackson, the left has rabies. Andyvphil (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is it "POV" to describe what the source says, that a press relation firm working for the city of Ferguson released a video with Jackson's apology? If the source found that relevant to be reported, why not including it? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's been somewhat routine to say as little as necessary about a channel. Recently, "x stated at a press conference" was changed to "x said", because it wasn't relevant where or how x said it. Note that RS deemed it relevant to report that it was at a press conference, but we omitted that anyway. I can hunt down other examples if you need me to. Unless the PR firm added something significant to what the public received, I don't see the relevance. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The determination to mention that the apology was released by the city's new PR firm is a POV-pushing attempt to imply that it was insincere, part of a PR firm-inspired media strategy to make Jackson and the city look good. Jackson was interviewed about the apology (I saw it, but didn't bother to note the url) and this accusation was put to him, and he denied precisely this accusation, saying that he'd been bothered by the time it took to remove the body for some time. This is of a piece with other frothing-at-the-mouth attacks on Jackson (who isn't even in charge of the investigation) since he put the kibosh on the preferred narrative by releasing the deflating video of Brown robbing a store. If we want to cover this let's do so. But sneaking in this innuendo in this manner will get the rebuff it deserves. Andyvphil (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about using a PR firm, and if you watch the video, you can see the name of the PR firm on the Vimeo page in which the video was released Video Courtesy of the Devin James Group. So, I think that it is relevant to report it, as it quite unusual. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It's unusual for small towns to engage PR firms, but Ferguson didn't have one until it after it became an unusual small town for other reasons. It's unusual for the websites of small towns to go down from too much traffic, but that happened to Ferguson too. So what? Andyvphil (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated non-AGF accusations of POV-pushing are counterproductive, unnecessary, and futile. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I must have forgotten that Wikipedia talk pages are a reality-free zone in which the conclusions derived from an ordinary human capacity to recognize patterns is to be ignored at all costs. The connection between "PR firm" and alleged insincerity is however made in the world outside Wikipedia, and I'm allowed to notice that. However, if you would have me believe that Cwobeel is simply too dim to notice this... well, of course I will. Andyvphil (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Look man, you need to cool it a bit with your personal attacks; it is not helpful and muddles the discussion. If this was not relevant, why is that the sources are reporting on it? (In the video, released by a public relations firm representing the city of Ferguson, Jackson apologized directly to Brown’s family and to protesters) How many small town police departments have PR firms releasing video statements? Not many and that is why is relevant and reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you're allowed to notice it. But that doesn't mean you have to repeatedly inject your suspicions into a discussion. The three words, "counterproductive, unnecessary, and futile" could be elaborated into an essay, but in the interest of brevity I'm depending on your intelligence. When you think about it, they add up to illogical. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You apparently think that what you advocate works. My observation is that Wikipedia is sick because it doesn't work worth a damn. Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a very interesting and meaningful question, which I would enjoy debating with you on my talk page. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not here, where it might educate someone else and contribute to actually making this a better article? You say below that you've never seen a POV-pusher change his behavior because he's been "harassed" about what he's doing, but that's not the right standard. It is unnecessary and indeed generally impossible to get a POV warrior see the light. But it's at least possible that he might be marginalized. Someone is going to be marginalized, you or him. Right now, in Wikipedia, the maggots too often have a favorable environment, are in full control of maintaining it, and taking conflicts to powerless dank chambers in the bowels of Wikipedia where they are even more firmly in control is truly "counterproductive, unnecessary, and futile". Andyvphil (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW, who mentioned "insincerity" in this discussion? I think only you did. There is nothing wrong in using a PR firm; it shows that the city of Ferguson has become much more serious about communicating with their community. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned that Jackson was accused of it. Your problem with that is... what? Andyvphil (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to re-add the fact that the apology video was released by a PR firm retained by Ferguson city. It is sourced, and relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources (my highlights)

• USA Today: “Police Chief Thomas Jackson in Ferguson, Mo., issued a video apology Thursday to Brown's parents and peaceful protesters, according to a St. Louis public-relations firm's video.” [27]
• St Louis Post Dispatch “In the video, released by a public relations firm representing the city of Ferguson, Jackson apologized directly…” [28]
• CBS News “The video was released by a public relations agency on the same day Brown's parents were in Washington pressing for a full federal investigation. “ [29]
• New York Times “In the video, released by a public relations firm nearly seven weeks after the shooting, Chief Jackson spoke for about two and a half minutes, occasionally glancing down at notes in his hand.” [30]
• New York Daily News “I’m truly sorry for the loss of your son,” Ferguson, Mo., Police Chief Thomas Jackson said in a video released Thursday. It was produced by the Devin James Group, a public relations firm hired by the Missouri city, which found itself racked by racial unrest and rioting after Brown was shot to death on the afternoon of Aug. 9.” [31]

Of note is the reporting from NYDN about the PR firm producing the video. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Other than the accusation of insincerity made in the interview I mentioned, the PR firm is "relevant" to the "Shooting of Michael Brown" in what way? Andyvphil (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article, of course, as it denotes the importance that the city of Ferguson is giving to communications to the community after the unrest. It is also important, because sources found it important. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We get to exercise editorial discretion about which facts to put on this page that we select from all the dross reporters use to fill their news holes. What is the source of your assertion that the significance of Ferguson hiring a PR firm is that "it denotes the importance that the city of Ferguson is giving to communications to the community after the unrest"? Given that Jackson says the city spent so little on the contract the significance may simply be that the city got a great deal on services it has a temporary use for because the vendor was angling for product placement. Andyvphil (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm don't know it's worth the effort to oppose inclusion of this language, but I find the fact that you're clearly lying about your motivations to be very troubling, indeed. I know, I know, you're one of those editors who can't go 6 hours without being forced to remind somebody to AGF, so I guess I'd better AGF, neh? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. You should AGF because it's a widely accepted Wikipedia guideline. You're also in violation of WP:PERSONAL, a policy. It's amazing how many experienced editors think the rules are only for the new guys. Take it to the appropriate venue or stifle, please. Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool story, but I don't believe I am obliged to follow the rules any more faithfully than the next editor. Goose/gander. Also: AGF is not a suicide pact. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy that says your belief that another editor is violating the rules exempts you from WP:PERSONAL. Making 'em up as you go? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You essentially declared your own personal Wikipedia policy, WP:TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT. I didn't have too much trouble convincing my son that was wrong thinking, when he was about 5 or so. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a variety of WP policies and guideline essays that justify calling out a biased editor on the talk page of an article where he is pushing POV. And please do not compare me to your five-year-old; I am much smarter. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I don't claim to know everything. So point me to something that says it's cool to "call someone out" over and over, to no avail, ad infinitum et nauseam, making it impossible to get anything constructive done in talk. As I said, if you have a POV-pushing grievance, take it somewhere where it's possible to have some beneficial effect. This ain't it. I've yet to see a POV-pusher change his ways because he was sufficiently harassed in article talk. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"over and over, to no avail, ad infinitum et nauseam, making it impossible to get anything constructive done in talk." -- Sorry, what? Did you see me doing something like that? I suspect not. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just you, you and Andyvphil. Granted, it's only been going on for a day or two, AFAIK. So maybe I'm overreacting and I should be willing to live with just a little wasted time resulting from blatant rule violations by experienced editors. I'm prepared to accept that if I hear it from an experienced uninvolved party. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, editing in bad faith is a much more serious threat to the project than mild accusations of bad faith. The feelings-based rules of civility are quite easily gamed.

Elsewhere in this article alone, the gentleman is strenuously Wikilawyering for the removal of the "Josie" account — which should quite obviously be in the article — because he would prefer that we have a very one-sided article that has a clear tone of condemnation against Wilson/Ferguson PD. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the point that this isn't the place, so I'm whistling into the wind. I've reached my wasted time limit for the day, and I'm off to watch a movie. Take care. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said: I am not subject to any heightened obligations that require greater adherence to WP rules than other editors. Goose/gander. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have learned to grow a thick skin so I am no longer bothered by these type of comments, which are never useful, and I will not take the bait and argue the lack of merit in these accusations either. Can we go back to discuss the article, please? Again, my argument is that if sources find this issue pertinent to be reported, we should report it here as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As for the "Josie" account, I am opposed to including it but I am not the only editor here, so make your case and follow WP:BRD. That is what it is for. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus to include mention of the PR firm. In BRD the current result is D. If you don't like it, start an RfC. Goose/Gander. Andyvphil (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jackson … I admire his patience (and I am not saying that in a snarky way; he took quite a lot in that interaction and managed to keep his cool). But then all went really bad (at around 9 m minutes 45 seconds into the video) when his police officers seem to lose theirs and started shoving people (or so it seems). Disturbing. [32] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"...all went really bad... when his police officers seem to lose theirs and started shoving people (or so it seems)."

Seems to who? Dunno what Jackson was thinking, wandering off into an irrational mob, but who shoved who or did what to start things getting physical is not on the tape. Andyvphil (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

City demanding high fees to produce copies of records

For consideration for inclusion: "Bureaucrats in Ferguson, Missouri, responding to requests under the state's Sunshine Act to turn over government files about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, are charging nearly 10 times the cost of some of their own employees' salaries before they will agree to release any records." ABC News via AP-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It says they're doing what a lot of other "local, state and federal agencies" are doing. So the AP is singling out Ferguson for criticism of a widespread tactic. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That a lot of other agencies do it does not mean it isn't relevant to this article. A lot of other agencies are militarized too for example and that is clearly relevant for this subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest you folks read both pages 1 and 2 of the article for just the facts and ignore the spin. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

When is a witness not a witness (Episode 3)

Okay, let me try this one more time. I obviously didn't do a very good job of changing minds in my first two attempts. I think this may be more persuasive to those who are reachable. Some of you aren't, in my opinion, and so consider me not to be speaking to you at present.

My issue with the "researchers" at CNN who gave us this article is their abuse of the term "witness." Some of you have provided some of the most creative explanations for how this could be a proper use of the term. For instance, you suggest that witnesses could be understood to include A) Darren Wilson, B) people that we have come across in YouTube videos of whom the press has made no mention, and C) people that CNN has in their back pocket who told all but who won't allow themselves to be outed as witnesses.

May I suggest less semantically convoluted explanation. The researchers simply misspoke when they claimed that "some witnesses" had seen Brown assault Wilson while the two struggled at the car.

Here is my basis for the claim.

In the very same article where this unfortunate phrase occurs, when these researchers who wrote the article finally got to the task of fleshing out their listing of claims made as to what happened in the shooting, they split the information into two columns.

For the second column they didn't use the word witnesses at all. Instead, they titled that column What law officials and a Wilson family friend say. Clearly, they don't consider law officials or a Wilson family friend to be witnesses. And clearly they don't have any other witnesses to rely on when it comes to disparaging Michael and making him the bad guy in this story.

Please note, in the lede, they speak of two "perspectives" and then immediately split the formatting into two columns, one for each "perspective." Let me repeat. For the Wilson perspective, they have no "witnesses" reports. Just people who tell us what the homicidal witness to this event apparently has told them.

I don't want to spoil the ending of this story, so I won't make you take my word for how they titled the first column for those persons who speak from the "Michael-Brown-didn't-deserve-to-die perspective, based on what they saw and/or heard. Instead, I provide to you a direct link and implore you to read it for yourself (and weep).

 CNN: What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson

So what I contend we have in the CNN article is something very different than Gaijlin and Centrify (formerly known as Fact Checker) would have you believe. What we have is exactly what we may, on occasion, have in Wikipedia when editors are uncareful -- a lede that isn't supported by the information in the body of the article -- a lede that is, rather, contradicted by the actual information in the body of the article. In other words, we have a screw up that no one has corrected all of these days hence.

This being the case, (anyone object to me claiming that that case is virtually self-evident) can we all agree that it would be inappropriate for us to contend in our article that multiple witnesses claim to have seen Brown both physically attack Wilson and go for his gun based on one article alone where a screw up in the lede is made obvious by a simple reference to the titles of the two columns in the article, one for each "perspective" -- where CNN limits the number of known persepectives to two? I'm not saying that we are making such a claim at present. But Wikipedia articles are perpetually subject to modification, so I think it's important to try to build support for keeping such language out of our article even though we can find it in a source that most if not all would consider reliable.

So final question: Anyone think I have a valid point here after all? (Bracing for those of you who don't WP:DONTBITE.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Johnson version #1 : door bounced off of them because they were so close
• Johnson version #2: Wilson Grabbed brown
• Bosley (Johnson attorney) : verbal dispute, physical struggle near car (started by Wilson in his version)
• Brady : It was something strange, Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right
• Crenshaw : It looked like the two of them were arm wrestling
• Mitchell  : Struggle through window "Michael and the officer wrestling through the [car] window.”"
• Mitchell CNN : It looked as if Michael was pushing off and the cop was trying to pull him in
• Construction workers : Did not see initial moments
• Freeman (twitter guy) : did not see initial moments
• Overheard audio : did not see initial moments
• Belmar : Brown pushed wilson back in, brown "physically assaulted" "reached for gun"
• Police : "Dozen witnesses confirm police version"
• Josie : pushed back in, punched, reached for gun
• Spralding via friend (could be Josie, Guardian does not name) : pushed back in, punched, reached for gun
• unnamed police sources facial swelling, etc

So every witness who says something about what happened at the car says there was some sort of physical altercation. Brady mentions possibility of punching, cops and proxies directly allege. So I think a neutral summary of this would be (and more importantly, one that has been made by RS for us that we can summarize) "All witnesses and participants say there was some sort of physical struggle or altercation at the car. Some witnesses say that Wilson grabbed Brown. Some sources (and police statements) say that Brown may have punched Wilson or reached for his gun. Most sources say there was at least one gunshot near the car, and then Brown ran down the street." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your final summary is completely defensible. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that means you approve of something along those lines? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, something along those lines would be something I could support. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this all SYNTH, given that the whole point of all this research is to come up with a claim that has not been made by any source?

Also, if you don't nail the relevant citations directly to the sentence itself, or at least exhaustively pepper the prose with comments indicating the sources and their relation to the claim, you'll end up creating the worst kind of WP verifiability nightmare for future editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe the summary version I wrote would be easy to source, in fact I think its pretty much whats already in the article. A problem I have with the OPs post is that it didn't identify and specific text he thought was a problem, nor did it make a suggested replacement. I solved the second part, but in the absence of an identified first part, I'm not sure we would actually do anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure sourcing the individual points of evidence supporting an unsourced conclusion manages to avoid SYNTH, but in any event please don't fail to put footnotes in the final product even if it seems duplicative, because without the footnotes in the exact right place, the sentence will be mystifying and impenetrable to future editors trying to figure out where it came from. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

1. First off,I doubt we would have trouble finding a single source that did say all of that for us. The original CNN article I believe the OP is complaining about pretty much does that for us. I believe my summary/proposed text is a reasonable summary of this source (as well as several others of a similar nature I am aware of) http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/19/us/ferguson-michael-brown-dueling-narratives/
2. But anyway just for giggles, You agree that each individual statement is sourcable and would not violate WP:OR if put somewhere in the article right? Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition If every element is sourcable, saying all of them is not WP:OR, but we cannot produce the conclusion or analysis ourselves. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that approach is unproblematic when dealing with unambiguous, easily identifiable physical objects like apples. Real stuff in the world, I'm not so sure.

The proposed WP article prose we're discussing reads as follows: "All witnesses and participants say there was some sort of physical struggle or altercation at the car. Some witnesses say that Wilson grabbed Brown. Some sources (and police statements) say that Brown may have punched Wilson or reached for his gun. Most sources say there was at least one gunshot near the car, and then Brown ran down the street."

It stretches the concept of verifiability to say that this awkward and strategically vague statement is "verifiable from the sources". EVEN IF you list every single source in that sentence, untangling it will be a nightmare for any future editor — and that's assuming it remains relevant and uncontradicted. And even if it's not prohibited by policy outright, a sentence like this reflects exceedingly bad editorial style. I appreciate the fact that you are writing this to satisfy the concerns of an inexperienced editor who is genuinely interested in improving WP, but I think the result here would tend to do the opposite. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, my gut is telling me that this "accounts summary" technique isn't very encyclopedic. I can't do any better than that, so those who disagree are free to ignore per just don't like it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That "accounts summary" is provided for us by both the CNN article linked in this section, and other sources, for example http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html The NYT language is almost identical to what I wrote above. BUT I am not pushing for its inclusion anywhere, unless Michael is still saying that there is text already in the article somewhere that we are saying something wrong - I have not seen such an identification yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't verifiable, I said it doesn't feel encyclopedic. We're not a newspaper, and NYT is not an encyclopedia. Michael might want to meditate on that sentence. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)