Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Police report about robbery

Latest comment: 9 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

The police report of the robbery is a primary source. We will be better off using secondary sources as in this instance, rather to quite directly from it. There are many sources available and more emerging by the minute, and we should use these rather that cherry-pick and avoid making an allegation by police to be stated as a fact. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and there are plenty of secondary sources covering the robbery at this point.- Mr X 17:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I left that content for now after doing a bit of NPOVing, as I did not want to start an editwar. This will evolve as more sources start reporting on this. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dorian Johnson's lawyer on MSNBC that they did take cigarillos....

“We see that there’s tape, that they claim they got a tape that shows there was some sort of strong-armed robbery,” said Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney. “We need to see that tape, my client did tell us and told the FBI that they went into the store. He told FBI that [Brown] did take cigarillos. He told that to the DOJ and the St. Louis County Police.”

Peace, MPS (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is blatantly obscuring official reports of the incident. This is such a shame that you are doing this. You initially said we should rely on primary sources (because the report was linked from CNN). Now that you know that it's a primary source directly from the Ferguson Police Department, you are now backtracking and saying that we should rely on secondary sources. It's a shame that you are doing this. You are blatantly disregarding official police reports of the incident. The official police report is biased as you claim, but reports from other sources are not? How do you know that? Shame on you. Sy9045 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sy who are you addressing? Also, there is no harm in making police report an "external links" section. (as we did with the youtube of Johnson a few days ago). Also, does anyone want a cup of tea? I think this article is really well written so far. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm addressing Cwobeel.Sy9045 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Relax. The material is there, now duplicated. See the Investigation section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You basically hid it into the "Investigations" section when it's integral to the whole ordeal and preceded the shooting incident.Sy9045 (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to relax ... and avoid entering into an edit war. No one is hiding anything and your combative behavior is not helpful. The police report was released today, and we should respect the chronology of events. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

when it's integral to the whole ordeal. That is your opinion, which I respect, but we need to also respect the chronology. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sy9045: I would kindly suggest avoiding incendiary language such as "shame on you" and concentrate on working together, which you folks have done rather well so far. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a short fuse. I overreacted. Sy9045 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a short summary to the shooting incident section describing the alleged robbery. The rest should be kept in the Investigation section to keep with the chronology of events as reported. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope this works for you, Sy9045. If not, please don't revert and engage in a discussion here instead. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you're doing this. The chronology of events is as follows, (1) robbery incident, (2) shooting incident. Why is there no mention of the robbery incident before the shooting incident? Why is it hidden into a paragraph so far down the page? It's crucial to the ordeal because this is critical in how this incident is prosecuted. Sy9045 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the revisions looks much better. I can live with that. Thank you Cwobeel. Sy9045 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you. This is my rationale: The chronology of events is that the shooting was on August 9, and the report of the alleged robbery was made public on August 15. Some sources say that the release of the partial police report (there is no reporting on the shooting itself, the autopsy, the number of shots fired, ballistics, etc.), was released as a way for the police department to justify the killing (also the use of "strong-arm robbery" instead of "shoplifting" is discussed in sources as controversial). We can't at this point assume anything and have to rely on what sources will report on the subject as it unfolds. In any case, to address your concern, I have added a summary of the robbery to the shooting section at the top, and the rest in its own section. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Suspect"? Really?

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

For several hours now, MrX's insertion of the term "suspect" has stood as a reference to Michael Brown. Does anyone find this unfair as I do? I'm going to remove the term but thought I'd open this up for discussion simultaneously. If a suspect, exactly what was he suspected of? Jaywalking? Contempt of cop? I have never once seen any news organ this far refer to Mr. Brown as a suspect in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

He was suspected of assaulting the officer in his police cruiser. Remember that the police department is asserting that the officer shot Brown because Brown assaulted the officer and tried to take his weapon. That makes him a suspect from the perspective of the police.- Mr X 02:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

From the Wall Street Journal: "The suspect allegedly assaulted the officer in the car and the two struggled over his gun."- Mr X 02:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So the Journal did it too. That's shoddy. It's one thing to include the word "suspect" in quotes if you have a quote from the POLICE stating that he was a suspect. But do we have any such quote? If not, I vehemently object to the term suspect for the simple reason that suspect is someone that you suspect of wrongdoing WHEN YOU APPROACH THEM to start an investigation or to arrest when you have probable cause to make an arrest. Does anyone here SERIOUSLY believe that there was probable cause for the policeman to stop these two? If so, what is your support for that belief. As to the claim that he's a suspect because the police accuse him of assault, and that fact automatically makes him from a neutral point of view, a suspect, that's ridiculous. Every single witness in this story who has a name attached to him or her says that the assault didn't occur and that your SUSPECT didn't make any move for the gun whatsoever. Even if he did, he never got it and in any hypothetical situation where an ACCOSTED individual (not a suspect) makes a move for a gun and doesn't get it, that doesn't give you grounds for putting 8 bullets in them at a distance that may have been as wide as 35 feet for at least seven of the eight bullets. I strongly object to any attempt by any editor to restore the word Suspect into this article in reference to Mr. Brown short of a claim by the police that Mr. Brown was a suspect, i.e., the target of a criminal investigation. And in that instance, the word should absolutely be set off in quotes and linked to a source where that term also appears in quotes -- i.e., as in not like the Wall Street Journal article which irresponsibly carries water for the police without making clear that the view is the police's and not the Journals. I hope that I don't stand alone. But if I must stand alone, than sobeit. I will not be moved on this point, absent strong show that the police have ever used that term in a reliable-source reference. (And remember, YouTube videos don't count.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use the word "suspect" to describe Brown unless accompanied by official source citations (preferably police sources) that use the word "suspect" and describe some sort of meaningful context for someone official suspecting Brown of doing something. It is not that hard to just say "Brown." That said, I would remind everyone that we are all on the same wikipedia team, and our goal is a high-quality NPOV article that does not slant the article in any particular direction, for or against Brown (and also not for, or against the police). Peace, MPS (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason I changed it was to try to clarify the passage and make it accurate according to the sources. "Suspect" was convenient, and makes sense from the perspective of the police. Frankly though, I don't care what word we use as long as we remain neutral and accurate. Any editor with strong feelings about the subject needs to be especially careful that they edit from a neutral stance, and not substitute their own opinions, experience, or conclusions for what reliable sources plainly report. Original research is not permitted.- Mr X 03:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to add oil to the fire here. Please WP:IAR and avoid making comments about the "victim" or the "suspect" whatever it ends up being, regardless what some sources may say or not say at this point. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If it doesn't alter the context or meaning of the statement Belmar made, then it's ok to use another term for suspect. If it's required to convey a POV being made by the police, then follow the source and attribute it accordingly. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Would just putting the term suspect in quotation marks and attributing it to a police press release be better for conveying NPOV? Rselby1 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If the source isn't using the term in quotation marks, then we shouldn't either. If the term suspect is part of a statement being quoted, then the whole sentence should be in quotation marks and attributed to the person who said it. Remember folks, there a lot of POV's about this shooting, including the police, numerous witnessess, the family, the lawyers, the media, the mayor, the governor, the president, the protesters; we just need to present their varying POV's in a neutral tone and not give undue weight to any particular one over another. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. It just seems to me that using the term suspect carries some connotations with it, but I guess that's why many different points of view and sources should be cited for the article then? Rselby1 (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately you go with the sources, but I should say that obviously "suspects" can be innocent; they are suspects only because police suspect them. The root of the issue here might be whether you think the police did not suspect Michael Brown. And that is connected to what's not explained here in the reports, namely, if the police indeed attacked Brown the way witnesses say, what was their motive - was it suspicion or some other reason? I'd love to see someone find some detail on that. Wnt (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Suspects only because the police suspect them? Which police? 100 percent of the police? Or the policeman that is hiding for his life because he killed an innocent and unarmed man in broad daylight? And what do the police suspect Brown of? For the police to refer to Michael Brown as a suspect would raise loud criticism across the board, considering that they have yet to provide any probable cause for the officer having approached the two young men in the first place. He wasn't a suspect in the usual sense of the word. He shouldn't be called a suspect in this article unless a quote can be found in some extremely reliable source where an official spokesperson for either the county or the city police actually refers to him with intention rather than as a slip of the tongue. I just watched the governor take questions from the news media on local TV. Talk about inarticulate. Even laughing about things at times. That's the last thing that's needed as this situation continues to spin out of control.

Neither "suspect" nor "victim" for now, please. There is no need at thus stage to characterize this at this point, as the known facts speak for themselves. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting after the news conferences bringing out allegations and video footage about the convenience story -- what a difference a few days make!!! Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference is, and in any case, this is not a discussion forum. Please stay on subject on how to improve this article. Thank you for your understanding. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidence pointing to an awareness among at least some local residents that Brown was a suspect in an incident involving a convenience store

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Sorry for the long section heading. But before I went to bed last night, I was watching a video interview done by Brittany Noble of KMOV on the day of the shooting with Esther Haywood of the NAACP where I was surprised to hear Esther refer to allegations that Michael Brown had stolen cigarettes from a convenience store.

I have not yet found the video on the KMOV web site but someone apparently DVRed and put it up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBk5shZsEyM Here's my unofficial (but accurate) transcript of the video starting at 5:12,

ANCHOR: And the NAACP of St. Louis County says they're launching an independent investigation into the shooting, and they're asking the FBI to step in and help. Esther Haywood sat down with us this evening to express her concerns about what happened today. She tells us the young man may have stolen cigarettes from a nearby convenience store and he was unarmed when he was shot.

HAYWOOD: "When he ran, they shot him, and then when he went down, evidently, it is said that he went for his telephone trying to get his cell phone, that's when he was shot nine times. It's a frightening thing to think about what might be happening behind this.

ANCHOR: We wanna make this very clear -- police investigators haven't told us yet why the officer fired on the 18-year-old, or how many times he was shot, or if he was armed.

Haywood insists the NAACP will do everything in their power to get the details related to the shooting from Ferguson police and Saint Louis County Police.

I have found a second video which also mentions an incident at a convenience store which I'll add to this comment presently.

What are we to make of this??? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this. I would love to see a transcript if you can find that. I also have a couple questions that this vid raises: (1) I had not heard anything in eyewitness accounts about Brown digging through his pockets for his cell phone. Do we have other sources that say brown was vigorously going through his pockets while on the ground before he was shot? A police officer might interpret that as "going for gun" (2) how DID the NAACP person know that there had been a robbery? "it is said" by whom? Keep your ears open for reliable sources that investigate this angle. (3) the NAACP launches investigations? in addition to the FBI's investigation? What is the status/timeline of the NAACP's investigation and is Haywood the spokesperson who will present it? Again, thanks for finding this and posting it here. Peace, MPS (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Let;s wait until any of this gets reported in a reliable source. There is no need to rush to publish anyhting until that time, or to speculate in this talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify something. Are they donating the content freely, including for commercial use, with no strings attached, or are they donating it only for use in this article. There are two very different paths depending on the answer to this.- Mr X 20:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the narrower view as she said that they aren't willing to put up a statement on their web site that their content can be use freely. Which is all we need. She's way open to us using any picture or video they control -- and that is, of course, a lot of pictures and videos. But how many will we use? If you look at the Rodney King Article, the editors created subsections under External Links, including one for videos, and one for photographs. It seems to me that we could liberally point to pictures under the extra links subsection for photos. But there are also lots of things that would be great to get into the article visually, beyond just a neutral picture of Michael, Dorian, and officer Wilson, such as the middle-of-the-road shrine that has been established where Michael died, pictures of the burned out Quik Trip, flash grenade pictures, surveillance photos, etc. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. Read this Wikipedia:Non-free content. Then make sure the images meet these criteria: WP:FREER. Then upload them paying careful attention to this: WP:NFCCP. If you have questions, you can post them here: WP:CQ.- Mr X 21:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

unarmed

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

Saying that an unarmed person has been shot is blatantly inflammatory. If the lead is going to make hay with Brown being "unarmed," it should balance that with his height (6'3" or 6'4") and weight (297 lbs). Is there any info how big the shooter was? Disparity of force is justification for the use of deadly force in any jurisdiction. If Wikipedia is to be an impartial source of information, 6'3" and 300 lbs isn't exactly "unarmed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wufiga (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this work for you? Peace MPS (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is pertinent to have the weigh and height of the deceased person in the lede (or anywhere in this article, for that matter) . - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. No reason to include this information. Dyrnych (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Definition of being armed - "any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems." Simply being tall and having heft does not equal being armed in any conventional use of this term. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it becomes reasonable when someone brings it up in a reliable news source, but it should be clearly tied to the person or entity who brings it up so as to not give the impression that we, the editors, are excusing what happened because Michael Brown wasn't called Big Mike for nothing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel (et al), Ask yourself this: Why is his age pertinent? Peace, MPS (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Because he is dead. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Answer your question with a question, Cwobeel. Why do news reports always list a person's age? Because it's always relevant. It makes a difference in your understanding of the circumstances. 18 is different than 12 is different than 64 is different that 104. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Brown's height and weight have no bearing on whether the officer was justified in shooting him. On the other hand, the presence of a weapon WOULD have a bearing on whether the officer was justified in shooting him. If Brown physically assaulted the officer, it might be relevant that he was a big guy--but that's only true if Brown physically assaulted the officer. And even then, the most relevant piece of information for the lead would be the fact of the assault, not Brown's height and weight. Dyrnych (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's only relevant to the assault if there's an RS that states that it's relevant to the assault. Otherwise it's SYNTH to include it. Dyrnych (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The media thinks that Brown's size is salient and so do I (I thought it was already in the article). It doesn't belong in the lede though.- Mr X

Sources? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Here ya go: [1].- Mr X 21:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not in any sense an RS. Dyrnych (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I know, I was just injecting a little levity. Here is an actual source:[2].- Mr X 22:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"The media" in that context is including a description from a police report. It isn't suggesting that Brown's size is relevant in any other context beyond that he fit the description in the report. Correct? Dyrnych (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more: [3][4][5]. As I said, I think his size is relevant, and it was obviously deemed worth mentioning in several sources. That said, I'm in no way pushing hard to include it in the article at this point.- Mr X 22:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Witness account

Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

The article currently states: "Freeman Bosley, the attorney for Dorian Johnson, who was with Brown at the time, confirmed that they had in fact entered the store and cigarillos were taken, and that Johnson had informed the FBI, DOJ, and St. Louis Police of this fact." However, this is simply a statement from his lawyer (i.e., a statement that is biased in favor of his client). It is also reported that Johnson, when he first gave his account, never mentioned his and Brown's involvement in a robbery. Both sides need to be included in the narrative. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need to include a direct quote in my opinion. Ut should be sufficient to simply say that "after the release of the photos, the lawyer confirmed Johnson's involvement in the robbery", or something like that.- Mr X 19:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no harm in having a fully attributed quote. If this could be seen a self-serving statement, let it be. That is what lawyers do. Now, if there are other reports that contradict it, we can add them. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadero, I don't know what you mean by "both sides" ... I cannot comment on whether the statement is biased in favor of Johnson, but I think its significance lies in the fact that Johnson's lawyer (presumably speaking for his client) is admitting that Johnson and Brown were aware of the cigar robbery and were actually in the store. when the robbery occurred. What additional details are you suggesting that we should add to the article? Peace, MPS (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

MPS, to paraphrase, the lawyer is essentially saying "See that? My client is very credible. He fessed right up and told all of those police agencies all about the robbery. He wasn't trying to hide anything." Other sources have reported that Johnson never mentioned the fact of the robbery, when he gave his first account. In other words, he was trying to hide it. My understanding is that the robbery and the shooting occurred only a few minutes apart. Those are the "two sides" or two differing perspectives that I am referring to. The lawyer is only issuing self-serving statements and only statements that are in the best interest of his client. Meanwhile, there is another side to that story. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The police chief said that the officer that shot Brown did not know about the robbery. Read the article, it is all there. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Who is talking about the officer? I am talking about Johnson. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

MrX, I think the wording of the lawyer's words was carful not to say that johnson was involved in the robbery. To avoid possible accusations that we are reading too much into his words, I think we should use the words verbatim? Peace MPS (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. I guess we should keep the quote then. If there are sources that say that the lawyer's statement was made after Johnson was implicated in the August 15 police release, then that should be mentioned. Otherwise, we need to avoid WP:SYNTH.- Mr X 19:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My point (in my original post) is not whether (or not) to include (or exclude) verbatim quotes. Whether or not the quotes are verbatim has nothing to do with it. My point is that both sides of the narrative need to be presented. One side: His lawyer is implying that his client was forthright and not trying to hide the fact of his involvement in (or at least, his presence at) the robbery. The other side: If Johnson failed to mention this very relevant fact about Brown when first interviewed - as is reported - that is the other side of the narrative. That he was not being forthright in telling what he knows. And it goes to the credibility of the witness. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Ferguson police said he was not being charged in the convenience store incident and any credibility issues will be determined by the law-enforcement agencies conducting the interviews. We just need to follow the sources and report that. Johnson is not on trial here. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Agreed. And what does that have to do with my post? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In order to present both sides of this narrative you describe, we have to have a RS making the connection you are talking about and not OR or SYNTH this information into the article. If you have the RS reporting this narrative, then if editor's feel it's important enough to include, then it will be included. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are even talking about. I am just going to add it in myself. I actually regret coming to the Talk Page to ask for others' thoughts. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, I for one am glad you came to the talk page. Let me see if I explain... but first let me see if I understand you correctly... It seems to me like your concern is that the lawyer is claiming Johnson has been forthright the whole time, even about the robbery (POV #1 = "Johnson is a 100% reliable witness"), but it also seems like Johnson omitted discussion of the robbery in different interviews (POV #2 = "Johnson is not a completely reliable witness"). So Maybe you are thinking that the article is skewed too much towards POV #1??? So you are suggesting that we add something about how Johnson has not been completely forthright? What reliable sources do we have that indicate Johnson is unreliable? we can try to synthesize that fact from multiple sources, but that would violate wikipedia synthesization policies. Unless the investigators flat out call Johnson a liar I really don't know what sources we would use to substantiate this POV 2 claim. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Quite honestly, I don't know how I can articulate it any clearer. Source 1 (his lawyer, admittedly biased) says: "My client Johnson [eventually, when pressed] told all of those authorities about the robbery at which he was present." Source 2 says: "When Johnson was first offering his account to authorities, he neglected to mention anything about the robbery (which had occurred two minutes prior and from which Brown was fleeing)." This has nothing to do with synthesis. This has nothing do to with original research. I am simply saying: if we add the info from source 1, we also should add the info from source 2. If you add source 1, without source 2, that is biased (in one way). If you add source 2, without source 1, that is also biased (the other way). So, we include both sources. And let the reader make whatever inferences he wishes to make. This has nothing to do with making editorial comments, inferences, or conclusions about Johnson and whether or not he is credible. The reader can read both statements and come to whatever conclusion the reader wants. Please tell me how/why this is so hard to understand? And how exactly I could have articulated this any clearer in the above posts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Attention editors: free photos

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I took a few hundred photos but I cannot upload to Wikipedia or edit the article, so you can find them on Wikimedia below. The license allows for their free distribution.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Loavesofbread&ilshowall=1

Loavesofbread (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That's great.- Mr X 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you as well, much appreciated. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! I vote for this one. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ferguson,_Night_2,_Photo_1.png Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Split

Latest comment: 9 years ago23 comments22 people in discussion

No consensus is apparent at this time to split the article. --John (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parts of Shooting of Michael Brown → 2014 clashes in Ferguson

Oppose I oppose the proposed split at this time. There is no obvious need. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Support I think this article should be about the shooting itself and the investigations/cases to follow. A separate article should be made for the protests, looting, vandalism, and state involvement. This article should be the cause, the new article should be about these physical reactions. This would be similar to the Ukraine–EU Association Agreement (cause) and Euromaidan (reaction). [Soffredo] 22:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 2014 unrest in Ferguson would be a better title? [Soffredo]

00:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for now. It's impossible to know whether this situation will continue to dominate the news, civil rights discussions, and possibly legislation. Most of the protest and riot content could probably eventually be summarized in a couple of brief paragraphs. I'm not opposed to revisiting this if the situation grows in extent, but for now, we can only speculate. Who knows, the night is still young and our municipal police agencies apparently have about a ½ billion dollars of military hardware for the ultimate beatback.- Mr X 23:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for now. This is an evolving issue now with Constitutional elements (e.g. First Amendment). Retaining the context here is essential, and if a split is necessary these growing elements will determine this Wikidesloge (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Weak Support It's day 5 of these protests, isn't it, and they're still going strong tonight, ~~FINALLY~~ (please do not edit my comments on this talk page - thanks) peaceful I might add, the 92 LA riots lasted 6 days. Unless the police plan on coming forward and telling someone what happened, they are bound to continue. I think it might pass GNG. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for now, but later it might be appropriate to split the article. Let's wait it out. B14709 (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Support The events of August 13 alone, including the arrests of reporters from the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, and a city alderman, as well as the seizing of camera equipment owned by Al Jazeera after reasonably tear gassing their reporter(s) and camera crew is easily sufficient fodder for a full article -- and there has been much more underway in the last five days than just those earth shattering and chilling occurrences. Rachel Maddow did a whole hour on the significance of what happened last night in Ferguson. We haven't even scratched the surface.
Rodney King has his own Wikipedia Page. Michael Brown deserves his own as well, I believe. The editors in times past didn't have any problem creating a separate article entitled 1992 Los Angeles riots. Why would it be so outrageous to create a separate article titled "2014 Ferguson, Missouri riots"? The riots and the killing of Michael Brown are two separate things. We should acknowledge that sooner than later. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Support The shooting and the riots are 2 distinct events and should be treated as such. The scope of time for the 2 will be very different. The shooting's time frame will be much longer and page should cover the shooting, investigations, and future trial information whereas the protests page should cover the shooting as the cause, the information on the looting and riots, cite the examples of media suppression, etc and whose time frame will likely only be a few more days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndicaXSS (talk • contribs) 03:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — IndicaXSS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose. Should remain part of this article. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Mild Support , but the title should include something about Michael Brown. The shooting and rioting are not "distinct" events in the sense that they are completely related... the crowd seems to be protesting (1) the shooting of Brown, (2) the release of the officer's name who shot Brown, (3) something about racial power relations in Ferguson (as manifested by Brown's death and subsequent police actions), or (4) police brutality (as manifested by Brown's death and subsequent police actions). All of these are Brown-related so the title should be Brown related. but I agree with the idea of forking some of the current article's day-by-day unrest coverage over to a new article ... My one concern is that the original article will lose fidelity of the original civil breakdown Sunday night where there was literally smashing windows, unabashed looting, and then QuikTrip burned. I was hoping that more people would have contributed to the Timeline Article I created, but perhaps this unrest article will draw more participation by editors. Peace, MPS (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. It is too early to create such a split. Wait at least one month before moving on this. 142.254.3.38 (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for now - There does not seem to be enough information at this time to support such a split. If there is, I would be interested in having someone write up a draft on their user page to show what such an article would look like. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Support: There would obviously be an overlap, however the shooting is one incident and police brutality, arresting journalists etc. is another. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose and redirect for now At the present the two are linked but I imagine it is a topic that people will write on for a long time. I would wait until more sources are available, maybe a month or so, and then split with links between the two --80.193.191.143 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The content belongs here. Splitting is ditrimental to readers.Forbidden User (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Support They are related separate events. I think the comparison between Ukraine–EU Association Agreement and Euromaidan is warranted and I also agree with the folks who have pointed out that this has dominated the news for several days now. Zell Faze (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose If something else flares up and it becomes more significant, perhaps a split is warranted. However, at this point it seems to have been on a flare-up directly related to the shooting and its immediate aftermath. The comparisons to Euromaidan and Rodney King don't really fit. The former was a much larger scale movement over time and different locations. The King case has separate articles because after the trial, when the cops were acquitted, major protests broke out. That's not something we can predict today. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This is premature, especially because it's all part of a developing story. There may be a stronger argument once we have more details about the shooting and the protests have wound down. Dyrnych (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose For now, everything in one article is best for the situation so far. Frmorrison (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose For now, everything in one article is best for the situation, agreed with Frmorrison and with others above. How about a decision, remove the template? It seems quite a preponderance of opposition. I'd favor removing the template now. 13 oppose including two partials ("for now"); 5 full support, 2 limited support: 20 total incl. me. I like the redirect idea OK. Swliv (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Way too early to consider a split as the issue is still unfolding and there are yet to be more developments into the shooting. Secondly the protests are a short term temporary event that isn't as significant as the shooting itself which was the cause of the protests... No point of a split, its best to keep the protests in the same article. --Prabash.A (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the section header "Aftermath" it mentions that tear gass was used on the "18th" it is August 17th and I am reading this proving that it is inaccurate.

168.166.80.249 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done

Thank you- Mr X 14:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Second paragraph. Change "how bullets were fired" to "how many bullets were fired". Pslamba (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks!

Eyewitness video taken after shooting by Tiffany Mitchell, a resident of an apartment overlooking the incident

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Tiffany Mitchell's video contains the best elevated point of view footage (aka photos) I have seen of the incident area, including both the police officer's SUV apparently just as it was when he got out of it to pursue Brown and Johnson, as well as a clear view of Johnson's body. One can see the direction that the front wheels are turned in, suggesting that he did in fact drive forward on the street after speaking to the two young men, then backed up as Johnson claims, then pulled forward placing the car's front bumper at about the curb, the car diagonal against the lane furthest away from Mitchell's apartment, i.e., on the police officer's left as he would have been driving forward. Tiffany's eyewitness account given to KMOV is extremely exculpatory with respect to allegations made by police that Brown either pushed the officer into the car, assaulted him, or tried to take his gun. I post this as I retire for a time to sleep in hopes that others will pore over the report by KMOV and bring as much of Mitchell's testimony into the article as possible. And in hopes that we can find a usable still frame from that video to show to the world what the scene looked like to those who came out on hearing the gunshots on Saturday. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I had to remove some content that was referenced to the video because it was original research. We're not allowed to view the video and then add our analysis or interpretation to the article. We can directly quote Mitchell, as long as it's done with WP:DUE weight.- Mr X 12:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand. It's a shame that we can't just put up a photo from that video to allow the readers to draw their own conclusions. Clearly the placement of the SUV supports the statements made by Dorian Johnson and Tiffany Mitchell. Omitting photos and videos may be the right thing to do with respect to copyright, but it is hugely prejudicial to withhold such evidence from the public when such evidence is so patently exculpatory with respect the serious allegations that the police have raised against a young man who is not here to defend himself because they expired him. Do I sound like I have an opinion on what happened? I just want fair. All things considered, the way information is being suppressed in this article voids any claim that this article is fair in the highest sense of the word. Just sayin' -- 'cause it's true. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you Michael-Ridgway. Unfortunately, I do not have a Wikipedia account, and I am not interested in creating one, so there is nothing I can do to improve this article. But I did want to show my support, because every comment you have made on this talk page has been valid, and necessary. Thank you for that. 75.27.42.188 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have ideas for what we can do, feel free to communicate with me. I hope it's not against the rules to give out my email address. It's miketangoromeo@gmail.com. I'm a very open book guy and have no worries about spammers getting my email. They all have it already anyway. There is a correction I need to make though. The video does not show Darren Wilson's SUV. In the picture, the yellow tape is already up. He had driven away, if an eyewitness in one of the videos is to be believed. So it's all just a lot of people who came outside at different points in the course of this very noisy event. First squealing tires, then as many as 9 bullets fired at intervals. As best I can tell, there are probably no photos of that vehicle that could show how it was positioned relative to Michael Brown's body which lay there, as we know, for an extended period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

#ToDo List - Per Mike Ridgway

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

{TODO1} Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 Document the fact that at Gov. Nixon's August 16 news conference, the members 
 of the audience demanded that Officer Darren Wilson be charged with murder.

Cite (in existence as of 08/16/2014 6:04 CDT)

 "Missouri governor imposes curfew in Ferguson, declares emergency". 
 CNN. Retrieved 16 August 2014.

Relevant excerpt from the CNN article:

 But the meeting at a local church at times was tumultuous.
 People repeatedly interrupted Nixon and Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. 
 Ron Johnson, shouting, "You need to charge the police with murder!" and "We want justice!"
 Johnson, in charge of security for the town, said the investigation is speeding up. 
 He said some 40 FBI agents arrived in Ferguson on Saturday morning, going door-to-door 
 to investigate the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by officer Darren Wilson a week ago.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Tensions run high as Ferguson residents confront Missouri governor
 http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-news-conference-20140816-story.html
 ----
 EXCERPT: Then a woman who was holding a camera shouted at the governor, asking why the officer who shot Brown 
 had not been arrested and charged with murder.
 Nixon gave a long pause and didn't answer the question. Things only got rockier from there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

{TODO2} Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Report on:
 "Ron Johnson Addresses Ferguson Police Officers' Failure To Identify Themselves"
 Huffington Post
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-identities_n_5682645.html

Excerpt

 "What happened is, some people are taking their names and going on the Internet and 
 getting their identities and social security numbers, and so that's been occurring," Johnson said.
 "I can't set rules for another police department," Johnson added, telling Reilly 
 the Ferguson police chief would have to address the identification issues. Johnson 
 also noted Missouri State Highway Patrol officers have removed their name tags 
 "for their safety and security, but if you ask them their name they've been told to tell you."

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC) - - - - -

NOTE: This section will be continually modified to include up-to-date listings of things that I, Mike Ridgway, a resident of St. Louis, believe need to be done to improve this article and to catalog the still-unfolding events in Ferguson. Other contributors are free to embrace or ignore the suggested items I will be listing here. As items are completed or drop in priority, they will either deleted or moved to an archive section. Persons who do not have edit rights to this are also encouraged to connect with me and assist back channel in curating sources so that those with editing rights can quickly update the article and source the same with rapidity and accuracy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I expect to be available to communicate with others more or less continually from now through at least 11:59 PM Central Time US, (St. Louis Time). I have the advantage of being able to watch events that are being broadcast in real time by local television stations and have great familiarity with many of the sources that figure in this article to this point. Also, I would be happy to assist any of you who might need help in discrete tasks, to the extent that time and priorities allow. If you would like to collaborate with me, please contact me directly. Thanks. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed personal information, per Wikipedia policy. Also note that direct accounts are not useful for Wikipedia, as we only report what reliable sources say about a subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why am I being scolded about direct accounts in this section? Where have I brought up the idea of including direct accounts?

Please see WP:TPG. This may be content that is best put into your sandbox or a subpage of your userpage. Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. - Mr X 23:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. In any case, I have removed your personal information. Also, it may be best to add each one of your suggestions into a separate section. BTW, the curfew and state of emergency is already in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Thank you. I've added mention of the same to the Timeline article as well. I believe that we should at some point make specific mention of the demands of local citizens that the now named police officer be charged with murder. There are now no shortage of cites, as I document above. Rather than insert the same into the article only to be reverted, I'm just putting it out to see if someone less likely to be reverted wants to add it somewhere. Personally, I think that there should be mention in the lede that the reason why this ongoing event has now lasted as long as it has (two days longer than the Rodney King riots) is that people are unsatisfied (to put it mildly) with the fact that the policeman is still at liberty facing no charges. Consider this my attempt to build consensus on this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

This page has been changed a ton to show a certain biased perspective. The robbery incident has continually been obscured. The witness accounts are placed prominently above a crucial piece of information for the prosecution. The "context" in the witness account shows a clear agenda. Talk of the KKK is prominent when it bears no relevance to the case. Sy9045 (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir/Ma'am, I believe you are asserting a biased perspective that is projecting a bias that is not within this article. There is no agenda but only a citation of facts that happen to be relevant to this article. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "facts" can be obscured and presented in a way to show a certain bias. The original "Overview" was rewritten to prominently show a bias in favor of Michael Brown supporters. The robbery incident was shown below the witness accounts, which was quickly followed up with a "Context" that shows the racial makeup of the Ferguson police force to imply a racial bias on the police. Sy9045 (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to relax a bit, and assume good faith. This is not a battleground in which "supporters" and "opponents" are fighting for their point of view. We are reporting what reliable sources say, and that is the way of Wikipedia. If you has specific issues that are actionable we can discuss in here to arrive to a consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to stop politicizing this article. You've shown blatant biases throughout the day (first you stated we should rely on primary sources, then when the primary source is show, you change your position). Please stop. Sy9045 (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The robbery incident is prominent in the article, and we are reporting what is being said in numerous sources. Please be patient as this is a rapidly evolving situation and not all the facts are yet known. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The robbery incident was hidden at the bottom of the "Witness Accounts" section. Sy9045 (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is "hidden". It is in the article in the lede and in the appropriate section. Please don't revert with major changes without discussion, as many have work hard during the day on the article, and you are undoing a lot of that work. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You're showing a blatant disregard for neutrality.Sy9045 (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am digging up facts as fast as I can about the robbery. But the thing that is at the heart of this controversy is what caused the policeman to stop Michael and Dorian. The police today admitted that the officer was not aware of the robbery when he approached him. And as we speak, the number one article on Google News is from the New York Times and it's titled: "Officer Stopped Teenager for Blocking Street, Police Say" I've listened to the pirated dispatch recordings. I believe that the police are being truthful in their claim. If it is true that the officer didn't know about the theft/robbery, then it has little bearing. It is an interesting side fact. It has to be included. But not before a discussion of the shooting itself.Back to the central question we go.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it does have bearing: If Brown had just committed a crime moments prior he would absolutely be nervous when a patrol car pulls up. If the Officer felt like something was off and decided to investigate further it might just have been enough to push Brown to make poorly judged actions. Its a very viable possibility. Also, digging up facts isn't necessary. The report was released. Video available. "News articles" are just reporters who write about the reports with their own spin. We are not investigators. Provide the official facts and let others build their opinions.-JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 07:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there still a need for the POV tag in the article? Perhaps Sy9045 could explain what about the current content is not neutral and what changes are required to make it more neutral.- Mr X 12:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree @MrX:. I've removed the tag for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

fix bad writing by continually looking at big picture

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We must continually look at the big picture, then write the wikipedia article.

In this case, the dead man has been accused (but not charged due to his being dead now) of robbery, leaving the scene, and a confrontation with a policeman (who was unaware of the crime), which ended in a shooting and protests.

We shouldn't report it as a time log. For example, a kid shot, then protests, then new information.

If we report 9/11 that way, the wikipedia article would read that a plane crashed into the World Trade Center and may be an accident. Oh, a second one crashed into the building oh. We don't know who did it.

The way we handle 9/11 is that after a very short summary, we start from the beginning.

In this case, we should start with that the shooting resulted in rioting. Then we start from the very beginning, such as the robbery.Actually, it looks like shoplifting and a confrontation, though legally it might be robbery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Bowman (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Eventually, I'm sure we'll refactor into chronological. Since this is a rapidly evolving situation, it's easiest to keep things in order of public knowledge. Once the content stabilizes, I agree we'll likely move to pure chronological. --Darmokand (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stephanie, this is incorrect: "who was unaware of the crime" As has now been reported (but buried in many news articles) when the officer first saw Brown and Johnson he did not know of the crime. As he was observing them, he heard on the police radio about the strong arm robbery (i.e., grabbing the clerks shirt and pushing him makes it an assault) and the description of the suspect, which fit that of Mr Brown. That is when he went back and confronted him. Even without this information, the robbery would be relevant because Mr Brown and Mr Johnson were certainly aware of the crime they committed minutes before the police officer confronted them. We can not speculate on how that would have made them react to the police officer approaching them, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Photos for the article

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I spoke to the webmaster for KMOV news in St Louis tonight about getting access to some photos that we can post on the website that won't violate anyone's copyrights or property rights. She was more than happy to be of assistance. Is everyone in agreement that photos would be an improvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 02:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that any such images would likely need to be verified via WP:OTRS if they have ever appeared in any media or if their is a belief that the images are of a professional nature. As a webmaster, they are likely to hold the actual rights because Wikipedia will need to have them as CC-BY-SA and not be copyrighted or have their "rights" sold. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I am a semi-professional photographer and I am probably heading to the area Saturday. If you can get permission, that's great too. Best. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned on Twitter several times that this article needs Creative Commons photography. It's just a matter of getting the word out. kencf0618 (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I just emailed Sarah at KMOV TV in St Louis in follow up to our phone call earlier today to see what kind of arrangement we can work out (committed to text so that I can post it here) for at least one or two pictures. Believe me, they have so many that they are never going to publicize that they can probably spare one or two was the sense I got from talking to her.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you can get us photos, I would definitely support adding them to the article. Zell Faze (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That's already assured. But someone with authority needs to tell me how to proceed so that it's all by the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Police account of events section

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The section is currently titled "St. Louis County Police account" and while the first paragraph is an account from St. Louis County Police, the remaining two paragraphs are cited to the Ferguson police dept. Different title name is needed for this section or create a sub-section for Ferguson police statements about the incident. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Done- Mr X 16:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Question, what happened to the earlier reports from the police that the events occurred as part of a routine patrol? The relevant material from http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-chief-worst-night-of-my-life/article_588ca269-0299-583f-b047-702a4268314b.html:

'[Police Chief] Jackson also explained more about the encounter between Michael Brown and the Ferguson officer who shot him Saturday. He said he didn't think it had anything to do with a strong-arm robbery on West Florissant Avenue earlier in that day.

Jackson said he thinks it was a "routine patrol encounter."

"It was just a clear-the-road type of incident," Jackson said.' 161.40.12.124 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

it seems pretty clear that mister jackson doesn't really know the specifics of the situation and appears to simply be guessing. Otherwise the article wouldn't have went out of its way multiple times to use the word "thinks".Whatzinaname (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree, but it appears that he made a similar statement this afternoon. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown

'The officer who stopped Brown wasn’t aware that the teenager was a suspect in the robbery, Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Friday afternoon. He initially stopped Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, because the pair was blocking traffic as they walked in the middle of the street, he said.'161.40.12.124 (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his initial attention to them had nothing to do with the burglary. And this initial attention ALSO had nothing to do with the shooting. If was when he realized they were the burglary suspects THAT is what the shooting incident stemmed from. This is in the police report and has been said by johnson, and it's even stated in the article you linked. Unfortunately MSNBC morons are a little too stupid to understand what happened, as they puzzle over why he supposedly says one thing and then says another. But i don't think it's his fault so much of the media is full of morons who lack basic logic skillsWhatzinaname (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Police account of events section

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Done- Mr X 16:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Jackson said he thinks it was a "routine patrol encounter."

"It was just a clear-the-road type of incident," Jackson said.' 161.40.12.124 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree, but it appears that he made a similar statement this afternoon. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ferguson-police-name-michael-brown

Is Darren Wilson a Murderer

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Should there be a section titled Darren Wilson is a Murderer, that briefly explains that Darren Wilson meets all the criteria for being a murderer? It seems like there should be, because his actions fit the exact definition of the word murderer: one who murders; especially: one who commits the crime of murder (which is itself defined as: the crime of deliberately killing a person). Of course, this is just a suggestion, but it seems like a good one. 75.27.42.188 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No. In the United States, suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Since Wilson has not been charged, no.- Mr X 19:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In order for Darren Wilson to be guilty of murder under Missouri law, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) he committed an act specified in MRS 565.020 or 565.021 and (2) he had no defense under Missouri law. That has not happened. Dyrnych (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

However, it might be wholly appropriate to reference any of the numerous articles which are out there now which define the standards for when killings are judicially justifiable and when they are not. The whole story is going to come down to that now --

It might also be worth looking for sources that speak to the question of whether a neutral jury pool can be found in this case, given the amazing amount of notoriety that attaches to it, and given the fact that for six day, the discharge of as many as nine bullets appeared, to any truly neutral observer (that's not me, of course) to be unjustified.

Perhaps articles which deal with both of these issues could be added to the SEE ALSO section. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While this is an interesting philosophical question, I am not sure that this article is the place to debate whether someone is a murderer. Whatever our personal opinions about the police officer in question, whatever we think about him doesn't matter as much as what opinions we can verify and attribute. Another interesting philosophical question is: "If (hypothetically speaking) Michael J. Fox calls Darren Wilson "a murderer," does that belong in this wikipedia article?" I would say it does not. Peace MPS (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Barring a conviction, it would be improper to associate with "murder" to any person for that is the realm of the courts. Wikipedia policy is clear about this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We went through this with Trayvon Martin. The incident was a homicide, under all circumstances. Any killing of one human by another is one, regardless of it was legal or justified, or not. Murder is a subset of homicide where the killing was illegal and meets a very specific set of criteria. Whetehr an incident does or does not meet that is dependent on the results of a trial (or guilty plea), however statements saying that it was a murder may be relevant but must be dealt with under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV not as statements of fact in wikipedia's voice. 23:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

To the un-identified commentator: Murder can only be attributed after the court ruling on Wikipedia. I don't care who claims it, they better be judge and jury before direct attribution of "murder" is slapped on someone. The reason is WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK Wilson hasn't even been charged, let him be, then Wikipedia can inform, not till then. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On Day 1, word on the street was that Brown was suspected in a convenience store theft

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Here's video we can use that supports the surprising claim made in the section heading. http://www.kmov.com/video/raw/Raw-video-Witness-describes-officer-involved-shooting-scene-270621691.html (Sorry to omit the link the first time. It's ready for use now.) Partially choppy unofficial transcript made by me.

 BRITTANY: So the officer was in the car?
 WOMAN: He was in the car shooting the boy.
 He wasn't standing out.
 - - - -
 He was in the car shooting the boy!
 He was in the car shooting this boy!
 - - - -
 They say he was supposed to've took something out of Quik Trip.
 I don't care.  He didn't have no gun.

We should have a second reference that we can use presently. KMOV is working on finding it for me.

There is no rush. We shall wait for a secondary source to report on this. It will not be added to the article until that time. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And even then... not until someone fact checks it and that it is referenced properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Found another one. Anyone want to help me transcribe it? It's a self-published YouTube video of a person who claims to have seen a great deal taken from within an apartment likely in that neighborhood. He talks about suspicions that Michael stole something from the Quik Trip. A discussion ensues with people in the room not visible in the camera (apparently an Instagram video) where they clarify which store was actually the target of the shoplifting (as they viewed it at the time). http://www.mikeridgway.com/ace/vstable/start.php?id=tfy5FiqzWHI The software for transcribing is something I just happen to have been working on for a few months now for collaboratively transcribing YouTube videos. If you're not able to edit this article, you're welcome to help with this. It shouldn't take long. But he does talk fast so it will take a little effort to get it all. But we start with the automatic captions so some of it was transcribed by Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

For a reliable source, Youtube is not usually one, but especially because the person who is giving the account is unknown and not proven to be credible by any other newspaper or official. Wikipedia does not make the news or take blindly from questionable sources, please wait for this to be picked up and evaluated by the media - at minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On Day 1, word on the street was that Brown was suspected in a convenience store theft

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

 BRITTANY: So the officer was in the car?
 WOMAN: He was in the car shooting the boy.
 He wasn't standing out.
 - - - -
 He was in the car shooting the boy!
 He was in the car shooting this boy!
 - - - -
 They say he was supposed to've took something out of Quik Trip.
 I don't care.  He didn't have no gun.

We should have a second reference that we can use presently. KMOV is working on finding it for me.

There is no rush. We shall wait for a secondary source to report on this. It will not be added to the article until that time. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And even then... not until someone fact checks it and that it is referenced properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Robbery in lead?

Latest comment: 9 years ago37 comments8 people in discussion

It seems like there's a substantial WP:WEIGHT issue in mentioning the robbery in the lead. The officer who shot Brown did not know about the robbery and there's no indication that it had anything to do with the shooting (and every indication that it did not). Given that this is the case, can someone supply a rationale for including the robbery in the lead? Dyrnych (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The text in the lede reads that the robbery was unrelated, so I don't see an issue with leaving it there. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If it should be left in the lead, one of the two nearly-identical sentences that mention the robbery should be deleted. I'll go ahead and do that, although I still don't think that it warrants a mention in the lead. I see you've already done this. I've slightly rewritten the remaining sentence. Dyrnych (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the long sentence that was recently added. The other sentence already refers to it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The officer didn't know about the robbery. Brown DID know about the robbery, and more importantly, didn't know that the officer didn't know about the robbery. Being immediately involved in a crime just before interacting with police, makes it a lot more plausible that Brown acted in a way that was, or could be construed a threat by the Officer. This analysis has been made by 3rd parties, and noted in reliable sources. It may or may not be related, do we have reliable sources specifically describing it that way? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Long time no see! Been awhile since I last bumped into you! Seconding Gaijin's comment here. Anything concrete? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A reunion, I see. Here is what is in the article now: “Obviously the cop's reaction is not affected, but what could be affected is [Brown's] reaction to the cop.” [6] Isaidnoway (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the coverage in the body is fine on that point. The question is how to say it in the lede. I think saying the robbery was 10 minutes prior to the shooting is important, and we should only be saying "unrelated" if thats the description used by reliable sources. We can say the cop was not aware of it but "unrelated" is a little strongly WP:POV I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ferguson police chief said at the time the officer stopped, he didn't know about the robbery, but once the officer saw Brown, he supposedly saw cigars in his hand. I don't know how you would say that in the lead without fleshing all that out. I couldn't tell you if the term "unrelated" is supported by the RS there. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute...how can you say the robbery was irrelevant? Just because the officer did not know of the robbery, does not negate the lack of respect for authority and propensity toward violence toward authority (i.e., the store clerk), that Mr Brown demonstrated. In fact, the behavior Mr Brown displayed toward authority in that store video, corroborates the description of the incident with the police officer that was given by the police department (i.e., when Mr Brown is challenged by authority, he will resort to violence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the post above. Even if the officer was unaware of the convenience store robbery, Brown himself was certainly aware of it. Furthermore, Brown did not know that the officer was unaware of it. In fact, Brown probably assumed that the officer was indeed aware of it. Brown likely suspected that the officer was approaching him about the robbery (not about the jay-walking). This goes to Brown's state of mind in his dealing with the officer due to Brown's misperception of the situation. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, guys: unless an RS says this, it does not belong in this article. You can certainly believe this, but that doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: Is it your claim that RS's are not mentioning the robbery as a part of the whole "Michael Brown shooting" story? Really, is that your claim? If not, why exactly does the robbery topic not belong in the article? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I said initially that I didn't think that the robbery belonged in the lead, and then revised my view. Nowhere have I said that the robbery doesn't belong in the article. My point was that the speculation about how the robbery affected anyone's state of mind does not belong in the article unless an RS makes that claim. Don't argue with straw men, please. Dyrnych (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: Point out for me exactly where I (or others) stated that speculation belongs in the article. I'd like to read where I supported adding speculative comments to the article. If indeed I did so, I'd feel obliged to retract that. So, please point it out for me. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If your purported justification for including information in the article is speculation about Brown's beliefs or state of mind, that is inappropriate. That is precisely the rationale being advanced by both you and the IP editor above. Here are two examples of your speculation: (1) "Brown probably assumed that the officer was indeed aware of it"; and (2) "Brown likely suspected that the officer was approaching him about the robbery" (emphasis added). If you are advocating adding information to the article on account of either of those, you are advocating that information belongs in the article based on speculation. Dyrnych (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to split hairs and play semantic gymnastics. It is laughable to think that the robbery issue does not belong in the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Literally no one is suggesting that "the robbery issue does not belong in the article." Read the title of this section and stop arguing with straw men. Dyrnych (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I remind editors that this is not a discussion forum. That goes in particular to Joseph A. Spadaro comments, Gaijin42, and the anon 181.129.196.77 - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: My post above was not a "discussion forum". It was my response to whether or not the robbery was important and whether or not its mention belongs in the lead of the article. And, the reasoning behind my response. So, in other words, I was "talking" about the content of this article (i.e., whether or not certain material was germane to the article and why certain material was or was not germane). That, I believe, is the very purpose of this Talk Page. Am I incorrect about that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing the relevance of information, and arguments which are being discussed in reliable sources, and is currently in the article. That is not a forum. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you, Gaijin42. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Gaijin42, Isaidnoway and myself did a fair amount of weighing on "breaking news" and sources on another page and quietly dismissed and prevented the addition of bogus reports and other "dramatic" material by weighing the evidence and not running blindly with "X said Y". Such type of discussions are establishing the level of connection and cutting off yellow journalism by getting to the base details without all the fluff and speculation. While "state of mind" is rather useless, but the evidence that the officer was responding to the scene of a reported crime is relevant. Saying who was aware of what and their mindset is speculative, at best. Careful wording is always a top priority in a BLP article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys/gals, but the speculation above (for example quote: Even if the officer was unaware of the convenience store robbery, Brown himself was certainly aware of it. Furthermore, Brown did not know that the officer was unaware of it. is not for this page. Not needed. Thank you for your consideration. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: What on earth are you talking about? Regarding the following quote of mine: "Even if the officer was unaware of the convenience store robbery, Brown himself was certainly aware of it. Furthermore, Brown did not know that the officer was unaware of it." Yes, that is exactly what I stated. I never said that that quote of mine needs to be placed in the article. Nor did I state that the substance of that quote needs to be placed in the article. That quote was used as my rationale in arriving at my conclusion that the robbery is germane to the article. Whether or not the robbery is germane to the article is the exact topic of this Talk Page thread. So, stop accusing people (i.e., me) of inappropriate conduct. That's twice now. I am doing exactly what this Talk Page is intended for. Don't tell me what quotes and what topics and what content I can or cannot use in supporting my arguments. Also, stop putting words in people's (i.e., my) mouths. If it continues, I am taking further action. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To my point. Your speculation is not welcomed. Of course, you are free to continue with it, I am just stating what I see as inappropriate. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: You are calling it "speculation". I am calling it "my reasoning, rationale, and argument in support of the position that I am advocating on this Talk Page (i.e., that the robbery topic is germane to the article)". Which, again, is the exact topic of this Talk Page thread. And, again, the very purpose for which this Talk page exists. What exactly is inappropriate about taking a position and giving reasons that support the position taken? Especially, in a Talk Page thread in which I am taking a position on the very topic under consideration. Please advise. Also, please stop instigating trouble where there is none, with your inflammatory accusations. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As you have a right to assert your opinion, I have the same right too. Have a good night. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: You do have the right to your opinion. What you don't have is the right to accuse others of inappropriate conduct, simply because their opinion disagrees with your opinion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel, No one has been asking for speculation to be added to the article. This discussion started because someone suggested that Mr Brown's robbery of a convenience store be dropped due to the cop not knowing of that robbery at the time he first stopped Mr. Brown. Myself and other have only been making arguments as to why the robbery is relevant. We were not arguing that speculative information about state of mind be included, but instead pointing out why the robbery was relevant to the story (i.e., it could affect state of mind). It has now been learned that when the police officer originally approached Mr Brown and Johnson he did not know about the robbery, but while observing them, he learned of the robbery and Mr Brown fit the description of the suspect - thus the original call to remove the info about the robbery would have been speculation.

By my reading of this wiki page it is absolutely full of speculation on the part of people who have already tried and convicted this cop. Mr. Brown has been portrayed as some innocent gentle kid. The convenience store video points to him being something different than that speculative portrayal. And while Mr Johnson's statement of what occurred during the confrontation with the police officer is his actual statement, this wiki source should make clear, in the same or next sentence, that Mr. Johnson was at Mr Brown side while he committed the strong armed robbery. While the article should not speculate about Mr Johnson's statement, it should provide the full information so that readers can realize that in fact Mr Johnson's statement came from someone that had more skin in the game than just being a casual observer. Withholding information such as the robbery and the fact that the key witness making accusations about the police was involved in that robbery comes across as nothing more than a nefarious attempt to sway opinion. A lie of omission is still a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To IP User 181.129.196.77: you are 100% correct. I agree with your above post. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? The robbery is mentioned in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by asking: "What is he talking about? The robbery is in the lead" ... ? That was the exact item up for debate, whether or not the robbery is pertinent to the article (and, where it belongs). Yes, it may be in the lead now. Yes. But, it was proposed to be removed from the article altogether (at the onset of this thread); or, at least, to be removed from the lead. That is what he is talking about. He was responding to that proposal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No. No one has ever suggested that the robbery be "removed from the article altogether," as you'd know if you read the title of this section and the words that people are actually using. Dyrnych (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych:How does that address the issue at hand? IP User 181.129.196.77 was responding to a proposal about whether or not the robbery should be mentioned in the lead. And he gave his reasoning to support his opinion. That was the topic of this entire thread. No? And then Cwobeel asks him what he is talking about. So, I told Cwobeel was he was talking about. That is the gist of the conversation. So, again, how does your post address this issue at hand? You also opine that I should read the thread and pay attention to the words that people are actually saying. (Implying that I have not done so.) If you would take your own advice, you can re-read my above post. It very clearly states: "It was proposed to be removed from the article altogether (at the onset of this thread); or, at least, to be removed from the lead." Do you know what the bold clause means? Do you know what the word "or" means? Those are exactly "the words that people (that is, me) are actually using". Therefore, is not your advice to me somewhat hypocritical? Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'd like to request the help of an administrator. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here. I responded to the tag placed by JAS. I read the article, and this section, went out and took a walk, came back and read both again. Here's my read.

I don't see the NOTAFORUM problems being alleged, I do see the relevance of the discussion above to questions of what should be in the article.

There is a serious question asked at the start of this section. It is "Should the robbery be mentioned, and if so, how?" That is an important question to get right, and I'm sure there are divergent views on it, and feelings are running understandably high--a fact I'm sympathetic to.

My recommendation is to abandon the threads above, and, if you are unhappy with the current text, start a new subsection asking a concrete question with some oppose and support columns. That may help. And please, everyone, try and exercise just a little more AGF and patience with each other duringg such a contentious news event.

That is all. I am closing this request. You are welcome to reopen if it if you want the opinion of another admin, or, consider dispute resolution. Cheers, --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the following sentence:

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States. Brown was an 18-year-old African-American male who died after being shot multiple times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Brown was unarmed[1][2] and had no criminal record.[3]

The fact that he had "no criminal record" is irrelevant in light of the convenience store video which clearly shows Michael Brown (who was accompanied by his friend Johnson) committing a robbery and a violent assault. The fact that Michael Brown had not been caught committing a violent crime to date and therefore did not have a "record", is a bit disingenuous in light of the fact that only 10 minutes before his confrontation with the police he was involved in a violent robbery at the convenience store. In fact, the early description that the police gave for how the confrontation with Mr. Brown went down, seems very similar to Mr. Brown's behavior towards the convenience store clerk (i.e., Mr Brown would not accept authority and demonstrated an absolute desire to use violence to challenge authority). The fact that he had "no criminal record" must be qualified with a note that he was caught on video committing a violent crime, and demonstrated a disdain for authority.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Not donePersonally, I agree, however are you aware of a source directly comparing the two facts? If not it is WP:SYNTH and we cannot include it. Currently we have the two facts in adjacent sentences in the lede, which is the best we can do, unless a WP:RS is making this argument (not a blog etc). Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he had no criminal record is highly relevant, because criminal records are established by the courts, rather than by you, personally, watching a video clip and drawing conclusions (about his "disdain for authority", sheesh) from it. For purposes of the article, he has been accused (in a self-published statement by the the police department, which is not a reliable source) of being involved in a robbery. Yeah, maybe if he'd had a trial he would have been convicted. Or maybe he would have been hit by a meteor, but we're not going to put him on List of people hit by meteors.

lolMichael-Ridgway (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a problem with saying "no arrests or criminal record." The citation is to a statement from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney. However, their records include only ADULT arrests or criminal record, not juvenile arrest or criminal records that have been sealed. There is no way to know if arrests or convictions were made if they were sealed. Thus, it is true there is no record, but false to claim that the absence of a record shows he was never arrested. Several persons have posted elsewhere that Michael Brown was arrested in nearby St. Ann at age 17. There is no way to confirm this or refute it. The problem is compounded by the fact that Mr Brown just turned 18, making it unlikely there would be an adult record anyway. I suggest just eliminate the "arrest or criminal record" claim. It appears only to provoke sympathy for this person not objective fact.

I see the "no arrest or criminal record" has been changed to just "no criminal record." That is still misleading, unless you include somewhere an explanation of what that means. The St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney's office did say "no arrest or criminal record." But as I assert above, that is only the ADULT record and not any juvenile or sealed record, while Mr Brown just turned 18 and so would be highly unlikely to have an adult record. Therefore it would be a simple logical fallacy to claim the absence of a record for this person implies anything about his past criminal history, his character or any future actions, especially because he is dead! Since it is not an objective fact that can be proved nor disproved, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is an editorial addition that is clearly biased to win sympathy for an alleged victim. We have seen this before in the Treyvon Martin shooting. Lawyer Crump was able to shape the picture of the victim as pure of criminal history, and it took a long time before the truth about his juvenile school activities was revealed. This can be an embarrassment. I see no reason to include any information about arrest or criminal history. As the chief said, "watch the video yourself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.83.51 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is still under WP:BLP and this article must be more careful then whatever the general media is running with. I don't care if this article is not "up to the minute", but there is absolutely no need to try and BE the news. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

8/16: A new insight into potential motive for the officer backing up and confronting after he seemed to be driving away

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

From the New York Times article of 8/15, titled

 Any suggestion that Officer Wilson sought out Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson because they were robbery suspects, 
 however, was dispelled by the police chief at the afternoon news conference. Adding to the day’s confusion, 
 Chief Jackson told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch later on Friday that while Officer Wilson did not originally 
 approach the two youths as suspects, he was aware of the nearby store robbery.
 THE OFFICER HAS SAID THAT ONCE HE SAW CIGARS IN MR. BROWN’S HAND, HE “REALIZED THAT HE MIGHT BE THE ROBBER,” 
 CHIEF JACKSON SAID. (Emphasis added.)

Sounds plausible to me.

But boy did they bury that one deep down in the article! Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, I agree with you. Some people editing this page have a clear agenda. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I better clarify. BOY DID THE NEW YORK TIMES WRITERS BURY THIS WAY DOWN IN THEIR ARTICLE. I'm not giving anyone here grief for how we're doing what we're doing. It's Madison theory of factions. Strong opinions on both sides will keep this fair in the end. Me, I admit to believing that the police aren't being as forthcoming as they could or should be. But this piece of information makes sense to me and might just explain what has seemed so inexplicable for all of these days of double shift editing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The editors that have repeatedly obscured impartial facts like these are embarrassing to the Wikipedia community. This is such a shame. Sy9045 (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors like Cwobeel who have repeatedly shown a complete disregard for impartiality should be suspended from further editing. It is an absolute outrage that this is allowed to continue. Sy9045 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw the press availability where the Ferguson Police Chief made those comments. What he said was maybe that's what happened. He didn't say that is what happened. Earlier he gave a definitive statement that the officer did not know at the time of the encounter. I could look it up if it's important. ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is mentioning the racial makeup of the police force fine, but mentioning the racial makeup of the three witnesses out of bounds?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's already a racially charged section in itself. Either we remove it or we mention the races of the witnesses to provide impartiality to the article. Sy9045 (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Once we work out an agreement with KMOV on the use of their photos, this won't be a problem. Photos will say. We won't have to. Of course, we may never get a photo of the white policeman. See how life isn't fair, Sy9045. My desire to make it more so is why I'm doing this instead of earning income this week. But it goes both ways. It really does. Be patient. This is a work in progress and I've been impressed at how much we have gotten right -- in time. [Takes arm from behind back -- back to typing.] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not complicated. Just follow our best sources. If they mention the race of those involved, then so should be. Of course, photos would be helpful too.- Mr X 12:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is mentioning the racial makeup of the police force fine, but mentioning the racial makeup of the three witnesses out of bounds?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is not complicated. Just follow our best sources. If they mention the race of those involved, then so should be. Of course, photos would be helpful too.- Mr X 12:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

New (for me, anyway) information from another alleged witness to the shooting who isn't afraid to go on camera.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

YouTube Title Eyewitness speaks on the murder of Mike Brown URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfy5FiqzWHI Upload date: August 10 Quarter of a million views and climbing on this version of the YouTube video which the person uploading admits is not his. This video and other copies of it appear to be going viral in the hip hop community nationwide. Would hope that we can get a reliable source that runs with it, gives us this man's name, etc., because it includes allegations which are clearly plausible and should be weighed with the statements of the other witnesses, I believe. Coarse language may dissuade some news organs from making this one available if they have seen it at all. Of interest is a deep discussion that takes place as to which convenience store Michael Brown was accused of shoplifting from. Note that this video was posted on YouTube on August 10 and so it was either recorded on Saturday or Sunday, five or six days before police released information to support a claim of strong arm robbery (with shoplifting) against Michael Brown. That being the case, I hardly think this video is a fake. Further, the witness claims to have seen the officer use the door as a weapon against Michael, in the same way that we sometimes see in action films involving police and criminals. He gives no support to the claim that Michael was in the car at any time. Refers to him as the meekest of meek souls -- someone who was so quiet and deferential that if he knocked on your door, you couldn't hear him. He clearly knew Michael personally. If any of you run across this video on a reliable source site, please post the reference in response to this post. Thanks. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"other forms of social unrest"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the second paragraph the article states:

"The incident sparked reactions within the St. Louis suburb and at the national level, including peaceful demonstrations[8] and protests, acts of vandalism and other forms of social unrest,[9] as well as national calls for an investigation.[10]"

"other forms of social unrest" is an obscure description for looting and burning. ^[1]

References

^ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/us/looting-and-unrest-follows-vigil-for-st-louis-teenager.html?_r=0

I am going to replace it with "looting and burning".

Tomtul2 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the following sentence to more accurately reflect Michael Brown's character: "Brown recently graduated from high school and was about to begin college studies. He had no history of arrests or criminal convictions.[3]" by adding the following: "...however, a convenience store video, taken 10 minutes earlier, caught Michael Brown committing violent felongy strong arm robbery of a local convenience store"

The way this currently reads makes Michael Brown seem like an innocent kid. The video shows he was a thug and a bully, who had no inhibitions about using his size and weight to bully people. While the police officer may not have known that Michael Brown had just committed a strong armed robbery, Michael Brown and his accomplice Johnson did know they committed a strong armed robbery. That is the only relevant point that matters here because Brown had reason to believe the cop was stopping him for the crime he committed only moments earlier. Thus BROWN HAD A MOTIVE TO ATTACK the cop, whereas the cop had no motive to just shoot an innocent Mr Brown UNLESS MR BROWN HAD ATTACKED HIM.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Partly done - All of that content already exists in the first paragraph, but it does look like a copy edit is in order. Connecting two unrelated facts together with the word "however" would tend to breach WP:SYNTH, so it would be best to avoid it.- Mr X 13:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mr X, are they really unrelated facts? They both speak to Mr Brown's character (i.e., never arrested, seen on video committing robbery). However, the never arrested is irrelevant (as the following will explain) while the robbery is factual and relevant.

Here is my reasoning: I have many friends who, in their early 20s, sold things that they should not have been selling. Some of them got caught, were arrested and convicted, however many never were caught. Those who did not get caught are no more innocent than those that did....they just did not get caught. For me, the sentence..."He had no history of arrests or criminal convictions" is irrelevant and a red herring because it does not speak to Mr Brown's actual character, it only reflects that he had not been caught committing a crime (maybe because he had never before committed a crime, but that is speculative, or maybe because he had just been lucky, which is also speculative). And that is the problem I have with the "arrest and convictions" statement....it is meaningless in defining Mr Brown's character. The video on the other hand provides a pretty clear picture of his character (at least on that particular day at that particular time). Maybe that was the first time he committed a strong armed robbery, maybe it is something he did daily, but it is certainly more relevant than the fact he never got caught.

What cannot be denied is that only minutes earlier he instigated a violent confrontation with the store clerk. I am not a human physiologist, but I am a doctoral level biologist, and it is hard for me believe, 10 minutes after his violent confrontation with the store clerk, that Mr Brown was not still pumped up on adrenaline. I am not speculating about state of mind here, rather I am speaking of true physiological response. Even a Zen master would not be able attenuate the adrenaline surging through his veins that soon after the confrontation with the store clerk. By far the store robbery is far more relevant to the events that happened 10 minutes later than that fact that Mr Brown had never been arrested. And not qualifying the "never arrested or convicted" statement with the "however" statement is misleading in that it obfuscates and diminishes a relevant character trait that Mr. Brown displayed only minutes earlier.

By the way, does the "arrest and conviction" statement include juvenile records? Or only things that may have occurred since he turned 18 (which was less than a year earlier)? Has anyone request an FOI for Mr Brown's school records? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing "Brown had no history of arrests or criminal convictions" and "Wilson has served four years with the Ferguson Police Department, two years with another local police department, and has no disciplinary history" from the lede, although I do think they are relevant parts of the story for the body of the article. Not to sound like a parrot, but we do not used original research or editor's analysis of facts in articles. We do not allow ORIGINALRESEARCH←Please read this carefully If it is not in a published, reliable source it can't go in the article.- Mr X 17:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

this article is so laced with biased leftist invective it's a virtual propaganda piece

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

it's quite clear this article is atrociously biased and uses tons of political talking points and manipulation of quotes and context of those quotes. Almost everything in the lede needs to be purged back to the most basic details of the actual shootings instead of this blatant attempt to politicize everything. Unfortunately the media's liar lefties learned little in the Trayvon martin incident are back to their old game of racist yellow journalism and shoddy journalistic standards in general, such as seizing on the fact that the "initial stop" was the perp was blocking the highway, but not when that was the same time he realized it was the robbery suspect. when does the "initial stop" begin and when does it end? And why is it even being made an issue? The media just makes it up as it goes along. Whatever is best to manipulate the teaming morons reading their headlines seems to to be their modus operandi, apparently.Whatzinaname (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about the media don't belong here.

Could you be more specific about how you believe the article is biased? I just revised the lede to make it as factual and straightforward as possible. What would you like to see changed? - Mr X 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually gave a very specific and detailed example. and it's pretty much par for the course. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so your talking about "..., although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery." This is almost exactly what the police chief said in his original interview yesterday. Isn't this also what most of the sources are reporting? - Mr X 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX the "although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery." is misleading. Initially the cop had words with them for walking in the middle of the road. He drove away slowly and was observing them. Then, he got word on his radio of the robbery and a description of Mr Brown. It was at that point he went back and confronted Brown, and Brown allegedly attacked him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please convince me with sources.- Mr X 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your own statement reinforces that the text we have is correct. initially the cop had words with him for walking in the middle of the road, then he got word - that directly supports the statement that "initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it may be technically true, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the initial stop. At the initial contact between Wilson and Brown, the officer was unaware these were the suspects in the alleged strongarm robbery, but while he was still at that location, he did become aware they matched the description of the alleged robbery. The article should reflect that reality and say that at 11:51 am, Brown was observed at c-store allegedly commiting a strongarm robbery, at 12:01 pm Officer Wilson is on his way in response to the 911 call of strongarm robbery, sees Brown and Johnson in the roadway and stops to tell them to move out of the roadway and onto a sidewalk, unaware these are the suspects in the robbery. While still at that location, hears description over radio, it matches Brown, officer wilson sees cigars in Brown's hands and goes back and re-engages and a confrontation occurs. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Another issue is that in the "Shooting incident" section, the first paragraph implies that the reason for the physical encounter and subsequent shooting is because of Wilson telling them to get off the street and onto the sidewalk. It says that Brown and Johnson were walking to grandma's house. Wilson drove up and ordered them off street and onto sidewalk. An altercation ensued which ended with a shot being fired in police car and wilson pursuing them and shooting brown. That paragraph implies that the altercation and shooting arose out of wilson telling them to get off the street, it completely leaves out the fact that after he told them to move out of the street, he became aware that they were suspects in an alleged robbery and he re-engaged with them. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX, the source is under the headline above: 8/16: A new insight into potential motive for the officer backing up and confronting after he seemed to be driving away (NY Times).

My issue with the "although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery. is that it is inflammatory. It makes it appear that the cop had no reason to have contact, and Mr Brown was the sweet angle that they media has portrayed him. What we have since learned is that initial contact was nothing more than the cop telling them to get out of the road. After that, the cop got a description of the person who committed the crime and realized it was Brown. And Brown was not a sweet angel but a man with a propensity to violence.

I don't agree with Whatzinaname politics, but it is pretty clear that the media and many on this wiki page have been hijacked by the far left, and they are more interested in crucifying this cop than getting at the facts and presenting the truth. The convenience store video unequivocally demonstrates that the initial picture of Mr Brown portrayed by the media, as a sweet innocent boy, was nothing more than a fabrication. He had clearly demonstrated a violent tendency only moments before his run in with the police. Portraying this accurately is important because the life of a cop, who likely was doing nothing more than protecting his own life from an attack by a demonstrated violent person, is on the line. It is a shame that the officer had to use lethal force to protect himself from someone who only moments earlier committed a violent assault (we have the video to prove it). A much bigger shame, is the continued crucifixion, here and in the media, of that cop for taking the action he needed to, to protect his life from that of a violent thug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to take you seriously when you write things like "...it is pretty clear that the media and many on this wiki page have been hijacked by the far left". Also, did you read The policy that prohibits original research as I suggested above? I'm guessing no based on comments like:

"It is a shame that the officer had to use lethal force to protect himself from someone who only moments earlier committed a violent assault" (How could you possibly know this unless you are the officer. If you are, you should declare your WP:COI)
"He had clearly demonstrated a violent tendency only moments before his run in with the police" (no, he demonstrated violence, not necessarily a "tendency")
"...that cop for taking the action he needed to, to protect his life from that of a violent thug." (Just wow.)

- Mr X 18:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX..."Just wow". So you mean, grabbing a man 1/3rd his size, and pushing him into a store rack, and then facing off toward him until he back off is not a violent thug? Sorry, he displayed the actions of a violent thug. Certainly not the "gentle giant" that he has been portrayed to be. And his family's lawyer has suggested that there are other things that "happened in the 18 years before [the shooting]", which he feels do not matter. So while he displayed violence, his lawyer has tangentially suggested that there are other things that "happened in the 18 years before the shooting", which is suggestive of a tendency.

Time Article quote from Brown family lawyer: At a press conference late Friday afternoon, lawyers for the family admitted that it appeared to be Brown on the surveillance tape of the robbery released by the police, and said that Brown was not a perfect kid. The lawyers said the effort was a “strategic” move by the police to distract attention from the shooting. “What happened in the 18 years before [the shooting] does not matter,” one of the attorneys, Anthony Gray said.

http://time.com/3118559/ferguson-cops-tell-their-side-of-the-story/

This is YOUR ANALYSIS, and you are free to believe it. We don't rely on your (or any other editor's) analysis, though; we edit to reflect what reliable sources say. Dyrnych (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Organization

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I think there's a problem with the section organization. Under 'Witness accounts', we have each witness accounts, but we have 'Context', 'Investigations', 'Robbery Incident Report' and its child, 'Reactions'.

2 Witness accounts
   2.1 Dorian Johnson's account
   2.2 Piaget Crenshaw's account
   2.3 Police account
   2.4 Tiffany Mitchell's account
   2.5 Context
   2.6 Investigations
   2.7 Robbery incident report
       2.7.1 Reactions

Some of these things are not like the others. Some of these things just don't belong.- Mr X 01:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Robbery incident report" can go into its own section. It was like that early in the day - Cwobeel (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's better, but I think maybe Context should be a subsection of something else. I'm going to try something and I'm sure I will be reverted if someone disagrees.- Mr X 01:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Go for it - Cwobeel (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I'm concerned that the lede is being used for breaking news, which is not really its purpose. It's a broadly accepted principle that information should not be in the lede unless its already in the body of the article. Does anyone else share this concern, or have any comments about it?- Mr X 01:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I thought that the curfew was already in the article. I will add it, but it is a significant aspect for the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The lede is not for breaking news. I agree that this particular aspect is probably pretty significant, but since it hasn't even happened yet it is premature to even be in the article. He may very well decide against the curfew before it even goes into effect. Remember, WP is a historical record, not a venue for reporting breaking news. Arzel (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The curfew absolutely SHOULD be in the article. It has been declared by the governor. Local news media is reporting on the police amassing to enforce it now. They also indicate that a hash tag has been created #resistthecurfew and that protesters plan to cross city lines and congregate in a neighboring city as of midnight tonight. Or not. Bracing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Channel 5 (KDSK) reports as of 22:18 "Protesters announce their intent to defy the curfew." Also the curfew has been the number 1 story on Google News every time I've checked in the last 12 hours and still is at present.

Reuters U.S. News ‏@ReutersUS 14 minutes ago on Twitter

We have LIVE coverage out of #Ferguson as tensions rise ahead of a midnight curfew: Bitly link omitted. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Changed "male"

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've gone ahead and changed "African American male" to "young man of African American background." The wording "African American male" strikes me as not so appropriate here. The use of the word "male" as a noun here has more the ring of a police description of a suspect - not the way Wikipedia typically describes a person. So I changed that to "young man," which is a more normal way of describing a person of that age. I also placed the "young man" before the "African American" because, while race is certainly an important issue in the shooting, I feel we should first identify the victim as a person before describing his racial background. -Helvetica (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Did a simple copyedit for clarity. Hope it works for you. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to add "young" as we are stating he was 18-years old when he was killed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, while we fine tune and fine tune and fine tune and fine tune the lead paragraph, significant facts that have transpired recently remain completely absent from this article. I do hope we can get past this as some point. We have enough sources in this article to help people know that the officer is white, the two young men he confronted are black, and that one of them didn't survive encounter, even if we don't say all of that just perfectly at all times. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Did Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson rob QuikTrip?

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Did Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson rob a QuikTrip store, shortly before the confrontation with the police officer? If no, what was the name of the convenience store? If yes, was it the same QuikTrip that was burned down during the protests / riots? 71.217.116.182 (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure, but this is what I read. The convenience store at which the cigars were stolen is Ferguson Market and Liquor Store on West Florissant Avenue. When the riots and such occurred, some residents were angry at the convenience store for "snitching" on Brown; and they wanted to "retaliate" against the store. However, they mistakenly thought that the store in question was the QuikTrip (when, in fact, it was the Ferguson Market and Liquor Store on West Florissant Avenue). So, the QuikTrip was burned down in a case of "mistaken identity". If I recall correctly, some later retaliation was indeed brought against the "correct" store, the Ferguson Market. Some of this info was in this article, but I can't seem to find it now. I will have to double check on the facts and reliable sources before I put it back into the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll help you on this one. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The information about the store was redacted from the police report. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

“Snitches Get Stitches” message spray painted on burned-out QuikTrip

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/11/quiktrip-sprayed-with-graffiti-set-on-fire-during-overnight-looting-near-ferguson/

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This video is heartbreaking:

 Ferguson Market asks not to become a target
 Employees didn't call police, didn't release surveillance video, lawyer says
 http://www.click2houston.com/news/ferguson-market-asks-not-to-become-a-target/27525080
 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  Police found evidence of the stolen merchandise on Brown's body. 
  Authorities determined that Johnson was not involved in the robbery 
  and will not seek charges against him, Jackson said.
  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/2537611-181/ferguson-officer-in-fatal-shooting
  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that is the info to which I was referring. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"According to Ferguson police, Brown was a suspect in a robbery minutes before the shooting, although the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery" is incorrect.

Brown was a strong arm robber minutes before the shooting. This is evidenced by video of the robbery which plainly shows Brown and Dorian Johnson in the store robbing the clerk. In addition Dorian Johnson admitted that they robbed the store.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/video-timeline-of-surveillance-video-purportedly-showing-michael-brown-robbing-convenience-store/

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/15/attorney-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-robbery/14118769/

76.97.113.235 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC) andytotenkopf

Not done - There is little dispute that the person in the video is Michael Brown, but that is not evidence that the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was related to the robbery. If I misunderstood your request, please post the exact wording that you propose.- Mr X 14:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're suggesting that we change "was a suspect in a robbery" to "committed a robbery" or something like that, correct? If so, do you have a reliable source that states this? Both sources you cited support the current wording. Citing our own observations of the video in support of this change would be original research, so unless you have a source that states that Brown committed the robbery (without qualification) this should not be done. Dyrnych (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the Brown family lawyer, it was Michael Brown committing the robbery and Dorian Johnson reported that they were involved. Mincing words here just suggests an anti-police/anti-truth bias on the part of wiki.

Here is the lawyer quote from Time Magazine:

At a press conference late Friday afternoon, lawyers for the family admitted that it appeared to be Brown on the surveillance tape of the robbery released by the police, and said that Brown was not a perfect kid. The lawyers said the effort was a “strategic” move by the police to distract attention from the shooting. “What happened in the 18 years before [the shooting] does not matter,” one of the attorneys, Anthony Gray said.

http://time.com/3118559/ferguson-cops-tell-their-side-of-the-story/

"It appeared to be Brown" is just as consistent with "Brown is a suspect" as it is with "Brown committed the robbery." We're not in the business of analyzing what the family's lawyer said (or any other purported evidence). You need a source that states that Brown actually committed the robbery, not a source that can be synthesized to infer that Brown committed the robbery. Please read my comments above as to "truth," verifiability, and original research. Dyrnych (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

No Original Research- Mr X 16:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am again requesting that the information about Michael Brown never having been arrested or convicted be removed from the first paragraph due to irrelevance. Below is a quote from Time Magazine where the Brown family attorney, in response to the video footage of Michael Brown robbing and assaulting a store clerk saying: "Brown was not a perfect kid" and “What happened in the 18 years before [the shooting] does not matter,” (see below). By the admission of the Brown family lawyer, nothing that happened prior to the shooting is relevant. That should include the fact that Michael had never been arrested or convicted. It also, however, brings up a much bigger issue. What is Brown's juvenile record, which so far seems to have been hidden.

From Time Magazine:

http://time.com/3118559/ferguson-cops-tell-their-side-of-the-story/

181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)MrB 181.129.196.77 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done Do you have a source that states that he had been arrested or convicted prior to the incident? Until a reliable source states this, the well-sourced claim that he had no criminal record should remain. Dyrnych (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking for anything to be added saying that he had been previously arrested or convicted. I am asking that the info about him not being arrested or convicted be removed, because based on his lawyer's quote (sourced above) anything that happened in the 18 years prior is irrelevant. Mr Brown was only 18. Crimes committed by juveniles are not adjudicated as criminal, but instead as delinquent, so lack of criminal conviction is certainly irrelevant to his first 17 years of life, but it does not mean that he was not delinquent.

The statement is verifiable. That is what is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. The family's lawyer does not determine what goes in the article, which is fairly obvious when you think about what else he might consider irrelevant or worthy of removal. Dyrnych (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is info from the NY Times that supports my call to remove the quote about no arrests or convictions:

NY Times quote: The family insisted that Mr. Brown had no history of violence or aggression. He had no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/ferguson-mo-michael-brown-and-darren-wilson-2-paths-to-a-fatal-encounter.html?_r=0

Please see that part where police said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile. At the very least, the criminal record part needs to be changed to say that he had no "adult arrest record", and it should point out that he was only 18. How many months ago did he become an adult?

181.129.196.77 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)MrB

You are still engaging in synthesis and analysis. We have a source that states that he had no criminal or arrest record. You've offered some sources that can be interpreted to suggest that it is POSSIBLE that Brown had a juvenile arrest record, but that are not inconsistent with the source that we have. But we don't interpret or analyze or combine sources to reach conclusions not stated by those sources. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Also (on an unrelated note) you may want to check out this section on indentation on talk pages to keep your responses more readable. Dyrnych (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych...I would appreciate a quick correction to the wiki page since I have now presented a verifiable statement (NY Times) that the criminal record comment does not include juvenile records. As currently presented in the wiki page, the arrest and criminal record quote is misleading and inflammatory.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)MrB

You've presented a statement that the police officer quoted in the NY Times piece could not speak to whether Brown had been arrested as a juvenile. That doesn't conflict with the statement that we have. It may come to light that Brown has a juvenile arrest record, but until it does it is "misleading and inflammatory" to imply that he may have a juvenile arrest record solely because an officer neither confirmed nor denied that Brown has a juvenile arrest record, especially when the lack of a criminal/arrest record is separately sourced. Dyrnych (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More details about the shooting

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article in the WAPO contains more details about the shooting [7]. See the section "Final minutes" - Cwobeel (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already started to incorporate aspects into the article. Dyrnych (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being included? It is a redundant secondary source and doesn't relate anything not already claimed from witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.255.119 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's got some new information. Also, to the extent that it might be able to replace material cited to primary sources, that's the appropriate thing to do with this source. Dyrnych (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

why

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

why dont we see this in the main page in the ongoing events section? 95.10.158.56 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It was nominated here but failed to gain consensus for inclusion on the home page.- Mr X 19:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Too much of a newby I was to catch that. I'd say do it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Al Sharpton, Congressman Clay speaking at a rally being broadcast live in St. Louis right now

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Already rich with quotable comments.

Web livestream here: http://fox2now.com/on-air/live-streaming-2/

Sharpton speaks of a class action civil rights lawsuit being filed on behalf of victims of abuses during the first three days of protests. Asks those who have been harmed to come forward with information, to possibly serve as plaintiffs.

Jesse Jackson just introduced but won't be speaking apparently.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition of race

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"The shooting death of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, a suburb of St. Louis. Brown, an 18-year-old African-American man, died after being shot multiple times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, 28, who is white."

I question whether this is a fair way to write it. Sure, it is true, but why is race included? This would never have been written on Wikipedia if this wasn't the exact race mix. I think people jump too quickly to the conclusion of racism, and this isn't something Wikipedia should do. Instead, race should be mentioned as the spark of the protests.

DarkLightA (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's included because numerous reliable sources include it. Dyrnych (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's included because it's completely relevant to those who are protesting and worse, as numerous reliable sources have reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Difference between "Shooting incident" and "Witness accounts"

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In my opinion, the Shooting incident section should relate information upon which there is no substantial disagreement. Differences should be left to the various Witness accounts sections below.

The Shooting incident section says "and Wilson fired his gun from within his police vehicle". But the Police account says "the officer's gun, which was fired at least once". Therefore the Shooting incident section should be changed to "and Wilson's gun was fired from within his police vehicle".

I'm posting this to the talk page because, even though the change is only a few words, this discussion is too long to fit in an Edit Summary. I have not made the change as yet. I believe that who made the first shot (in the car), Wilson or Brown or a struggle in which both men grappled for the gun, will be important to the investigation. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. Go for it - Cwobeel (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made this correction. Dyrnych (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

@Sy9045: - I'm quoting WP:NPOVD here: "Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the [NPOV] tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." You have not done this, and I'm asking that you do so here. Dyrnych (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately removing details of the robbery incident that cites the official police report of that incident is not neutral. The police report describes a felony strong arm robbery, which is key evidence for this case.Sy9045 (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Place that within the ambit of WP:NPOV. Also, the "official police report" is a primary source. Use of primary sources is discouraged in Wikipedia under most circumstances. Dyrnych (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So do you want me to cite USA Today, New York Times, ABC News, NBC News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN etc. that also cite the robbery incident in detail? It's absurd that some of you editors are trying to silence reports on the robbery incident. Sy9045 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I want you to do what you're required to do when placing an NPOV tag on an article. And yes, citing secondary sources that cite the police report is unquestionably preferable to citing the police report. And no, no one's trying to "silence" anything. Be civil and stop making unfounded assumptions about editors' motives. Dyrnych (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So if I cite USA Today or CNN (or any other secondary source), I can add the robbery incident back in? Can I get a confirmation on that? It won't be removed again correct?Sy9045 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a tangent to what I am asking that you do (and what you are required to do). I'm pointing out that the police report is not a sacred document, as you seem to believe. However, that has nothing to do with your obligations under WP:NPOVD, which you have as yet failed to do. So let's not discuss secondary vs. primary sources for the moment; I'm truly sorry that I brought it up. Dyrnych (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I added the NPOV section below.Sy9045 (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am putting Cwobeel on notice

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please monitor that Cwobeel does not remove neutral sources or citations. I have seen him/her doing so previously. If he or she wants to remove a neutral source or citation, please use the talk page first and justify your reasons for removing the aforementioned content.Sy9045 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks and please use consensus before adding to this topic in the first place. Timeraner (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, relax. There are enough eyeballs on this article, that even if you and I stop editing it will continue evolving and become a good article at the end. There is no need to rush and there is no need to get so worked up. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Breaking: Curfew Lifted

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

SOURCE: USA Today: Curfew dropped in Ferguson as National Guard rolls in Monday, 18 August — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have been added already. "Nixon also announced that there would be no curfew on the night of August 18." [8] -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You guys are fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Add photo file to article

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. per below

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Note: Graphic depiction of the deceased!

Extended content
File:Michael Brown Dead on Street.jpg Can the above file be added to the article?

[[File:Michael Brown Dead on Street.jpg]]

In short no. Long reason: It is shocking, of debatable origin, and is more likely to provoke the situation further. Restraint is needed in this delicate matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And "of debatable origin" here means "a likely copyright violation uploaded to the Commons under a fake claim of copyright". I'll nominate the image for deletion over at the Commons. Huon (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is highly irregular, Wikipedia isn't supposed to show restraint, it is an encyclopaedia, if there is a copyright problem, it will be deleted at Commons. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with @Yogesh Khandke:, Wikipedia is not censored. I think a picture would likely be useful to the article. If there is an issue with the image over on Commons, they will sort it out. I would support adding this image to the article. Zell Faze (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While a picture would be a good addition, this photo of Brown shot on the ground is not the appropriate content. A normal picture of Brown is acceptable, such as this Brown picture. Frmorrison (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is funny, this article is about the shooting of Brown, and if we are lucky to have a picture of the immediate effect of the shooting, Brown's corpse lying on the road, the picture should be there in the article. I'll wait for a while and be bold. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevance of victim's ethnicity

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do not see how the fact that Michael Brown was African-American is relevant to the case and should be included in the lede. The protests that followed the shooting were against police brutality, and racism was not a major theme of the conflict and the shooting. 98.15.254.104 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Day 9 Curfew (17 August)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Curfew was enforced using military tactics. No shortage of sources. Dispute as to whether the smoke bombs were tear gas or otherwise. Police officers put on gas masks before deploying them. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Prediction(s) that the curfew will backfire: LA Times | Some warn that Gov. Jay Nixon's curfew for Ferguson, Mo., may backfire http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-protests-020140816-story.html#page=1 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

New Sourced Info: Darren Wilson is 28 and white

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Paragraph 3

Ferguson officer in fatal shooting identified, unarmed teen suspected of robbery (w/video) http://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/2537611-181/ferguson-officer-in-fatal-shooting Associated Press BY DAVID A. LIEB & ALAN SCHER ZAGIER

Lieb David

Zagier Alan Scher August 15, 2014, 9:55AM Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourced Picture: Darren Wilson

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Available here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chaos-erupts-ferguson-day-relative-calm-article-1.1905633

The picture/graphic supports the claim that Wilson received a commendation from an unnamed police department.

FWIW, this artricle also includes a picture of emergency personnel next to Michael Brown's body taken on August 9.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That is already in the article, the photo was found and reported by Yahoo News - Cwobeel (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support for officer

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This is relevant and should be included in the article: Group Rallies In Support Of Darren Wilson, Police Officer Who Shot Michael Brown. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that there were , per the source "a few dozen people showed up in downtown St. Louis on Sunday afternoon to show solidarity with the officer who killed the 18-year-old.", it could be included if properly qualified as per the source. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I found a better ref and added this in the Reactions section, since it occurred in St. Louis and is not part of the Ferguson protests. Dyrnych (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur... "sympathetic protests" that do not occur in close geographic proximity to Ferguson should be placed in the reactions section. IMHO, good decision! Peace, MPS (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Done

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

this article is so laced with biased leftist invective it's a virtual propaganda piece

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Complaints about the media don't belong here.

I actually gave a very specific and detailed example. and it's pretty much par for the course. Whatzinaname (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please convince me with sources.- Mr X 16:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@MrX, the source is under the headline above: 8/16: A new insight into potential motive for the officer backing up and confronting after he seemed to be driving away (NY Times).

"It is a shame that the officer had to use lethal force to protect himself from someone who only moments earlier committed a violent assault" (How could you possibly know this unless you are the officer. If you are, you should declare your WP:COI)
"He had clearly demonstrated a violent tendency only moments before his run in with the police" (no, he demonstrated violence, not necessarily a "tendency")
"...that cop for taking the action he needed to, to protect his life from that of a violent thug." (Just wow.)

- Mr X 18:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

http://time.com/3118559/ferguson-cops-tell-their-side-of-the-story/

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is little information on this page on the police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown. As a citizen-journalist, I have found information from reputable Web sites on the Internet. The section on Darren Wilson should be flushed out ASAP; if not, it appears the writers/editors of this page are biased.

Thank you.

Plsmitha (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Be specific and note the template above. You should phrase your request in the form of "Change X to Y." What are you asking us to do and what "information from reputable Web sites on the Internet" are you referring to? What do you mean by "flushed out?" Also, I would refer you to Wikipedia's policy on civility, and specifically to WP:GF. You should assume good faith on the part of other editors; this means that you probably shouldn't level unjustified, blanket accusations of bias or tendentiousness. Thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This user may be referring to stuff being published about Wilson, such as this from tabloid press in the UK [9], which IMO is not suitable for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is incredibly irrelevant. Dyrnych (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OTOH, there is good information about Wilson, a compilation is available at the WAPO [10], which can be used to expand the section on Wilson. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Beyond his reputation as a police officer, I don't think that much of this is notable (especially the personal assessments of his fear for his life). Dyrnych (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As a central actor in this incident, well sourced information about Wilson is needed in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need information about Wilson and I imagine that more will eventually come out. But not all information is created equal, and most of this stuff is not relevant despite being well-sourced. A lot of it is more along the lines of trivia (divorce, living situation, honor roll student in 9th and 10th grade). Dyrnych (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given this incident, sources see these personal aspects as notable enough to report on them, so we follow their lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that we both know that some of these aspects are not important to the subject at hand, despite their brief inclusion in reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to mention Wilson's family in this shooting article, nor do we need to mention trivia. It's beneath our purpose of being an encyclopedia.- Mr X 19:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially because we've declined to include information about Brown being a high school graduate about to start college, facts which are much more widely reported and are equally trivial in context. Dyrnych (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And this trivial info about Brown in the lead should be removed as well, had no history of arrests or criminal convictions. It's not mentioned in the body of the article and there is no explanation as to how this is relevant to the shooting. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have a pretty tough time arguing that the criminal record of a man shot to death by a police officer is trivial, especially when the officer's disciplinary history is also included in the article. Both aspects are relevant and nontrivial. On the other hand, the officer's divorce and Brown's status as a high school graduate provide negligible context to the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no criminal record, that's my point. How is that relevant? If he did have a criminal record, would that justify the shooting? No. There is also the issue of their ages, Wilson is 28 and has had an opportunity to establish a history, whereas someone who is 18 years old, is more than likely not going to have an adult criminal record due to their age. And additionally, I wouldn't object to the officers disciplinary record being removed as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant enough to be reported widely and prominently in reliable secondary sources. I'm not going to substitute my judgment for the judgment of those sources with respect either to Brown's criminal history or Wilson's disciplinary record. This isn't even remotely comparable to the officer's 9th and 10th grade school records or his family status, so this probably isn't the right place to have this discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering that these two are the major participants in this incident, then another section should be created for Brown as well. Basic bio info can be included there and this sort of info under discussion here would be better suited there in their own sections. These two sections would lead and all other sections would be under them, this is pretty standard for articles of this nature, provide the readers this basic bio info about the major participants. And if and when any images of these two become available, they would be used here. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No objection at all to basic biographical information about both participants. I assume you're suggesting something like the "Parties involved" section in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article? Dyrnych (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think it was a mistake to include the number of participants that we did in that article. I wish now we had limited it to the "two" major participants. But I would defer to consensus on this article as to who should be included, if there is a consensus at all to include the participants here. I personally think the two major participants is enough. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on number of participants. Want to move this discussion to the topic below? Dyrnych (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the fact to Officer Wilson's portion that he suffered from a “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack"

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

76.97.113.235 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

andytotenkopf

Not done - We are discussing this above and, I believe, are declining to do so unless and until an RS reports it. The source you've provided is not an RS. Dyrnych (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)