Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Jennings police department

Darren Wilson's section currently states that he first worked as a police officer in Jennings, Mo and then goes on to say that the police dept. was disbanded by the city council after controversies arose from a notoriously fraught relationships between white officers and the African-Americans in that city. Is Officer Wilson specifically linked to any of those "controversies"? Is Officer Wilson specifically linked to a "notoriously fraught relationship" with anyone in that city or police force? If not, then why is it mentioned in the first sentence of his section? Seems to me it should just state that he first worked as a police officer in Jennings and had no disciplinary issues while working there. Otherwise, it seems like an attempt to imply that Wilson was associated with the bad behavior of the other officers who worked at that dept. and that his employment and/or conduct while working at that police dept. somehow contributed to the police force being disbanded. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The details about the department issues should be separated out and put as a later paragraph of his section (or perhaps elsewhere) not the opening salvo of his micro-bio. Its got real WP:WEIGHT issues the way it is, and possibly WP:BLP too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Also agree. It mischaracterizes the source to say that the police force "was disbanded by the city council after controversies arose from a notoriously fraught relationships between white officers and the African-American majority," as the source describes corruption and excessive force complaints in addition to the racial issues. The source describes the force as "so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it"; racial tensions were apparently just part of the problem in Jennings, albeit a real issue. Even if it did appropriately characterize the source, it does associate Wilson with those issues in a way that the source explicitly does not do, even with the current caveat of "no disciplinary issues recorded." Dyrnych (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you try and fix it? You are pretty good at that, so please go ahead. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The way I read it, and the way WaPo reports it, is that as a rookie, Wilson was exposed to quite a controversial way of policing, regardless if he did not do anything wrong while at Jennings. I think it is valuable context for his bio, after all that was his first job as a cop. We cannot not mention this per WP:NPOV. As there is no other section on the article on Wilson, that is for now, the best place to have it. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

After reading the sentence again, I can agree that it sounds quite damning, but OTHO these are facts. I tried finding other ways of reporting that RS but that is the best I could come up. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any RS stating that this "exposure" had anything whatsoever to do with the shooting? In fact the post article stresses we shouldn't make such connections.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The only lines that I see that could support this connection is "What he found in Jennings, however, was a mainly white department mired in controversy and notorious for its fraught relationship with residents, especially the African American majority. It was not an ideal place to learn how to police." Dyrnych (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ans also The NYT [1] Yet Officer Wilson’s formative experiences in policing came in a department that wrestled historically with issues of racial tension, mismanagement and turmoil. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The NYT article undermines the notion that the Jennings PD was disbanded due to racial concerns. Here's the relevant quote: "In 2011, in the wake of federal and state investigations into the misuse of grant money, the department closed, and the city entered into a contract to be policed by the county. The department was found to have used grant money to pay overtime for D.W.I. checkpoints that never took place."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs)

The details about this may best belong in the Jennings, Missouri article, with a mention here that Wilson was employed there before the department was dissolved (and wikilink that to the specific section in the Jennings article, once created). Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support that, providing we have here a short description of the reasons why it was disbanded. It is part of Wilson's bio and career after all. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If and only if per WP:BLP the source states that Wilson, as a specific living person, was the reason why that force was disbanded. Collect (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is more biographical info about Wilson in this St. Louis Post Dispatch article: [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My main issue is WP:WEIGHT. 58 of the 199 words we say about Wilson are about bad actions done by other people where nobody has made even a suggestion that Wilson contributed to those issues. Thats WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the relevant section. Still includes the racial tensions, but clarifies that there's no suggestion that Wilson had anything to do with them. I also added the statement from his co-worker describing him as an average officer who didn't get into trouble. :Probably the biggest change that I made was changing the reason that the department was disbanded from the racial tensions to the misuse of grant money. I think that's an accurate reading of the sources, although the WaPo article does suggest that it was an accumulation of problems and not just the investigations. I'm open to suggestions on that. Dyrnych (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Masterful, thank you. There is a small issue there the first sentence is missing something and the end. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Everyone good with the current version? Dyrnych (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks better and thanks for fixing the references as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good with me, thanks again. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

George Zimmerman Hoax

Just cutting this one off at the pass, the viral story about George Zimmerman is from a satire website. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising

I removed the sentence about fundraising. Both parties are fundraising, and it is not relevant to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you realized that there is also a sentence about fundraising for the Brown family in a section about them. Fundraising is relevant to the shooting because it is support for the Brown family and Wilson which is a result of the shooting, as is all the other support for them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The fundraising is tangential and of little importance to the article.- MrX 23:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, If we include them, it should not be in the sections bout the two protagonists, it should be somewhere in the article narrative. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Added it to the "Reactions > Third parties" section [3] after trimming for brevity. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "If we include them, it should not be in the sections bout the two protagonists" — Did you want to do anything about the remaining one in the Brown family section and its temporal ref? BTW, what was the problem with them being in the respective sections of the two protagonists? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

These are actions by third parties, so that is were I place them.- Cwobeel (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and remove the Brown temporal ref when you move the Brown fundraiser to third parties section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is there, is it not? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Fixed now. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

and temporal ref? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored the original info and citations. Try to actually read the article before making one-sided deletions or additions. -- Veggies (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Background section deleted

@Cwobeel:: You deleted the Background section (as of 00:56, 24 August 2014), with the edsum "Be Bold, revert and discuss". Several edits before this, you changed the heading from Background to Parties involved. This made the inclusion of Ferguson problematical, since Ferguson is not a party.

The original text was this:

1 Background

1.1 Ferguson

Ferguson is a city of 21,000 in the north-east quadrant of Saint Louis Country, Missouri. (The City of St. Louis is not part of St. Louis County but is an independent city, encompassed by St. Louis County.) As of the last census, Ferguson was 67.4% African American and 29.3% White, while the police force in Ferguson is now 87% white and only 5.5% black.[20]

1.2 Michael Brown Jr...

1.3 Darren Wilson...

OK. It's perfectly alright for you to be bold. But now you get to explain your deletion. I believed that some background on Ferguson was necessary to order for new readers to understand the Shooting incident section. Since the bios of Brown and Wilson could also be considered background, I combined them all into one section. I have no objections if you wish to renumber the subsections, including a Parties involved heading, like this: 1 Background > 1.1 Ferguson > 1.2 Parties involved > 1.2.1 Michael Brown Jr > 1.2.2 Darren Wilson (instead of 1 Background > 1.1 Ferguson > 1.2 Michael Brown Jr > 1.3 Darren Wilson.)

So, why did you delete the Background / Ferguson section? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ferguson section was not needed, as we have an entire article on that city and it is wikilinked in the lead. There was a section called "Context" a few days ago in which what you added abut the demographics if the city was described, so maybe we need to have a section on context but not as part of the "Parties involved" section. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it just that you object to the removal of the term "Parties involved"? I know that this term is used in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin but, IMO, a better example is the Rodney King Riots article (which has a Background section) because the initial incident involved police, like Michael Brown, whereas Trayvon Martin involved two civilians. In other words, would you object if we changed the heading from "Parties involved" to "Background" and made no other changes? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

August is misspelled as "Augsut 14"

68.13.43.2 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done -

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Opening Paragraphs.

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.

---

There has been a great deal of contention over the lede, with continual bickering over it. It would be lovely to hear some new voices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarosaurvus (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask a more specific question here, not just ask for comments in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RFC on how to use the RCF process and how to construct it. As it stands it is not useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus, that's a great idea! I support the inclusion of more voices here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is the incorrect way to encourage more comment, what would be the correct way? I feel somewhat as though we are going in circles with the opening statement, with one side believing that consensus has been achieved over a period of time, and it should thus remain, a good point, and the other stating that the lede could be better, which is almost assuredly also true. I thought, perhaps, fresh eyes could help the article improve. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to have more input. But in an RfC, you need to have something more specific for other editors to comment on. For example, a question: "Should the article's lead be modified in [insert specific way]?" I don't think that that's a great statement of the issue, since (as I see it) the argument is less about whether the lead should be modified and more about whether the lead should be scrapped and started from scratch. But it's your RfC, so go nuts. Dyrnych (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would love suggestions about what the RfC should say, as I am not certain myself. I simply firmly believed that we needed new eyes on this, and it was suggested that I could use a RfC when I went to the Wikipedia Help IRC. I may well have misunderstood the purpose of the RfC, but the hoped result is to bring in new editors to bring new insight and viewpoints into the article, and perhaps resolve some of the issues we have been having. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple of questions:

1. Is the Lede an adequate summary of the article?
2. Could the language and emphasis of the Lede be improved to a more neutral tone?
3. Does the style and wording represent an encyclopedic tone?

--Kevin Murray (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be improper for me to add all of those to one Request for Comment? Further, would it be allowable for me to edit said RfC at this point? (I am unfamiliar with the RfC process in general.) And, finally, do we agree that those are good things to request comment on? They seem to aptly summarize the matter to me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(The issue being that I would need to insert the comment near the top, I presume? Thus messing up the order of this conversation.)Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Those seem like reasonable questions. Dyrnych (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us go with those, then. I concur that they seem reasonable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Should I do something to remove this request, and create a new one with those specific questions, or simply trust that the other editors will see them when they arrive? Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest starting the RfC over with a well-crafted, neutral, specific question. Otherwise it will (most likely) be impossible to gauge consensus, and the ensuing wall of text will have been for naught.- MrX 01:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How would I close this present one, then? If someone could to that, I would welcome it. I will then start a new one with the three questions listed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:51, 29 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.

"Josie," source of "bum rushed" accusation debunked also???

SOURCE: Crooks and Liars: Media Punked By Fake 'Josie' Account Of Michael Brown Shooting If this is accurate, this would effectively wipe out any pretense for the use of the expression "charged at" in our reporting, especially in the lede.

We could, of course, add a new section about how claims favorable to the police officer have been debunked one after another. If you can't find RS sources to support that assertion, private message me. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not an RS. Has this been reported in an RS? And as to the notion that we're going to add a section that uses Wikipedia's voice to effectively cast doubt on all accounts supporting Wilson because some have been inaccurate, no, we should not do that.

Dyrnych (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please name for me all of the apparently pro-Wilson sources who have not been seriously debunked at this point, whether in quotable reliable sources or not? I don't think Josie was real. Looks suspiciously like she was reading from a fake Facebook page. Darren Wilson didn't put anything into his police report other than his name and the date. So I ask respectfully: please enumerate for us the pro-Wilson witnesses who are still standing. I'll await your response before responding to your suggestion that we hold fast to our status quo narrative, in spite of new information coming out that challenges the same. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article, which was my hope when I posted the link. I believe you'll find RSes there. When you do, you can then summarize the RS info using the not-so-rs writers as your guide. It's a devastating article if all true. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the article, and it's true that it quotes reliable sources. But "summarizing the RS info" in the way that you describe is basically the definition of WP:SYNTH. Dyrnych (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse. I wasn't suggesting WP:SYNTH. I was actually humorously hinting at plagiarism. But your point is well taken, of course. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll admit that Little Green Footballs is probably not a reliable source and so I'll retract my claim. The reference to CNN is not support, but rather an example that LGF points to as an example of an RS that got punked. I'd just ask that all keep their eyes out in case an RS for this debunking materializes or is already extant. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to note that in our article as of 7:20 PM CDT, that there are no instances of the term "charging at" or "charged at" other then the one from Dr. Baden (he is a Dr. right?) explaining that the shot to the top of the head could have occurred if Brown was charging at Wilson with his head down. I appreciate the acquiescence of the collective on this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In the CNN article referred to in the Crooks and Liars article, there was the following.

"A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN."[4]

Looks like CNN got independent confirmation that Josie's account is that of Wilson. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

[NOTE: Striking the following as I apparently misread the statement above to which I attempted a response. Yes, and The point that the CrooksAndLiars people are making is that CNN got punked. I've listened to Josie several times. The correlation between that discredited Facebook post and what she tried to say from memory while on the phone is too high to be explained by just random coincidence, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it regarding CNN's independent confirming source. Unless I missed it, I didn't see where the Crooks and Liars article explained, or even discussed, CNN's independent confirming source. Isn't that worrisome to you regarding the credibility of the Crooks and Liars article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the Crooks and Liars article, you'll see that it is making a false implication that the Josie story is based on a fake Facebook page. In the Crooks and Liars article you will see that the fake Facebook page by a purported Darren Wilson appeared two days after the Josie story. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Bob K. Looks like you're not the only one to catch it. (Perhaps after you made your comment), the author added this update:

   Update (Thanks to BeachDem)
    ----
   8/15 Jill Meadows posts a story on Josie Meadows’ facebook page at 7:29 am
   8/15 Josie goes on Dana’s show to spew
   8/17 the fake Darren Wilson post goes up
   So Josie was just recounting a different Facebook post than I originally thought. 
   Still means that the media is treating Josie’s (at best) third hand 
   account of the shooting as equal to actual witnesses.
   ----
   And notice Jill Meadows never says where she got her info. 
   Just a cryptic “I believe in my heart for it to be factually true 
   because I know someone very well who was there.”

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but the update you posted here wasn’t posted in the Crooks and Liars article, at least not yet. It would completely destroy the premise for the article’s existence. The update was posted at the very end of the Little Green Footballs article that Crooks and Liars used as a source. Also note that neither article has yet to mention that CNN got independent confirmation that the Josie story accurately reflects Darren Wlson’s account. From the CNN article,[5]

”A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be very cautious of these or any other anonymous hearsay comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not having gone straight to the source: Little Green Footballs. They are the ones who did the debunking. But if Fox doesn't report, how will we decide? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Timid suggestion: A new section titled "Judicial Proceedings"

For now, we could place the grand jury subsection underneath it. I don't think that the Grand Jury proceedings should be considered part of the investigation. It's a whole other animal, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For legal purposes, the Grand Jury is part and parcel of the "investigation". It is not a separate "judicial proceeding." See [6] Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is' separate. And to suggest that it is not a judicial proceeding would be to suggest that an arraignment before a judge is not a judicial proceeding. I can't go there.

The investigation, in my mind, refers to anything that involves the gathering of evidence.

A grand jury is a venue where those who have parsed through the evidence decide what evidence and what testimony to present a jury (a judicial, not an investigative) body after which a determination is made as to whether the matter is taken by the court or not. That a grand jury can, of its own accord, request that evidence or witnesses be brought before it does not make it, ipso facto, an investigative body. That's how I see it anyway. And I dare say that many a legal scholar, which I am not, would scoff at the notion that the operations of a grand jury do not constitute a judicial proceeding.

It just seems logical to me.

• Incident.
• Investigation.
• Judicial proceedings.

I would think most of our readers would see it that way too. -- Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If an indictment is entered, we can do this. Not until then. We can't prejudice Wilson in the slightest per BLP. Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note an "arraignment" is specifically a judicial proceeding. And arraignment is not part of the investigation process. Grand juries are part of the investigation process and are not akin in any way shape or form to an arraignment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "investigation" would appear to be much broader than mine. Is an arraignment not a venue for placing before a judge evidence gathered in an investigation so as to attempt to present probable cause in order for the court to take jurisdiction of the matter? If a judge is deciding whether the evidence warrants a trial, possible incarceration, and the possible specification of a bond amount, how are those processes matters of investigation? I know I'm dealing with very smart people here (not sarcasm), but on this I'm a little baffled to be the odd-man out. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ignore whether (or not) a pending indictment is or is not part of "judicial proceedings" for the moment. The BLP policy that living people are treated fairly says we must take all precautions not to harm a living persons by publishing material that can harm a living person unless it is scrupulously sourced. We don't have any RS saying "judicial proceedings" are taking place, do we? One might reasonably believe that if "judicial proceedings" are taking place, then a someone has been indicted already. We can make this assumption of belief, because we are now having a conversation to that affect. Per the BLP and NPOV policies, we are not going to allow even the whiff of prejudice to creep into this article. The easiest thing to do is to stick to what the best of the RS say on this matter.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Read Arraignment. It is a judicial proceeding in which the charges are read, and a plea is made (or arguments on procedure are made). Arraignments have absolutely nothing to do with "investigation" in any way, shape, manner or form. Period. No evidence is placed before a judge at an arraignment. The judge does no investigation at an arraignment. None. Period. Bail may or may not be set at an arraignment based on the charges stated, but the judge makes no "finding of fact" at all at that point. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So what is the name for the hearing that is granted in order determine whether an arrestee may continue to be held. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So what of the accusatory functions of a grand jury? Are those not to be distinguished from its investigative functions? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An "indictment" is the "result of an investigation". In fact, a grand jury has very low standards of proof required for an indictment, it is a statement that they found "probable cause" only, and, traditionally, a skilled prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" if they present the evidence needed for that as the "investigation". Grand juries can, and sometimes do, head off on their own in the investigative process. Collect (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to archive this section as one I wish I hadn't started. Procedures it is, whatever that means. It seems awkward. But I give up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC) I suggested to reorganize this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_5#Making_a_clearer_distinction_among_procedures_.3F). For the time being, the various points are disconnected. --Japarthur (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Twitter section again

My concern with the Twitter section (as with the video section discussed above) is that we are putting non-encyclopedic material into the article. The claims made in both sections will never be evidence entered into any legal proceedings. At most, they are among the hundreds if not thousands of leads investigators may followup. Just because something is reported in what we view as a reliable source, does not imply that it belongs in an article. Hypothetically, down the road, if either of these leads actually lead to something that affects the outcome of this case, then, of course they should be in the article, but not now. I am One of Many (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Twitter user differs from the other eyewitnesses in two ways. First, he is anonymous (there is no verified identity AFAIK, and if there is the section needs to be renamed and modified to reflect it). Second, aside from Johnson and Wilson, he is the only eyewitness who is known to be an eyewitness. This is known from the time of his tweets, which couldn't have been forged. For the other eyewitnesses, the world is taking their word for it. I think that elevates him beyond tabloid junk. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of casual bypassers, can we be more specific in this section about who "the Twitter user" is? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't see why not. We're talking about Twitter handle @TheePharoah. In the prior discussion, now archived, it was decided that the handle was not relevant and should be omitted. There was also a name associated with the handle but it has not been verified. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

so his twitter handle is @TheePharoah but we dont want to mention it, but we do want to mention that he tweeted, but we will call him anonymous. genius. Cant we just says twitter user @TheePharoah said blah blah? User:Mrkks — Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• It was too strong to say that Twitter person's account was tabloid junk absolutely. It is as of now because all we have is the reporting of it. We have no analysis yet of its role in this case. Let's compare this to a breaking story today. There is an audio tape purported to be of the gunfire. The FBI is currently analyzing it. If it holds up, it will be evidence in this case, so it is encyclopedic to incorporate it. Ultimately, I think that as of now, a fundamental guiding principle should be WP:COMMONSENSE. I am One of Many (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, common sense can and does vary widely between individuals, making any claim to it somewhat dubious. For example, I think what I said above was common sense, but you disagree. If the qualifying criterion is existing analysis of the role in this case, I think we're going to have to remove about half of the current content. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think everyone here is trying to use commonsense and commonsense isn't something that people necessarily agree on. Let me see if I can state the problem I'm seeing in a way that might lead to a compromise. This and the video section don't seem to me to have the same standing as the rest of the sections. As standalone section, they seem encyclopedic. They are not even pieces of potential evidence in this case. They are potential leads to witnesses, however. Why not combine the content of the sections under a sections heading Possible leads reported in the news media or something to that effect? I am One of Many (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel unqualified to say any more than I have. I think wiser people than I will be able to counter your argument, so let's wait for them to arrive, ok? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I am One of Many (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Mandruss. We're here. What do you need? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy humorous banter, but I'm aware that it's frowned upon, apparently because it lengthens already-long discussions and distracts from the issues at hand. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Opening Paragraphs.

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.

---

There has been a great deal of contention over the lede, with continual bickering over it. It would be lovely to hear some new voices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarosaurvus (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask a more specific question here, not just ask for comments in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RFC on how to use the RCF process and how to construct it. As it stands it is not useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus, that's a great idea! I support the inclusion of more voices here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is the incorrect way to encourage more comment, what would be the correct way? I feel somewhat as though we are going in circles with the opening statement, with one side believing that consensus has been achieved over a period of time, and it should thus remain, a good point, and the other stating that the lede could be better, which is almost assuredly also true. I thought, perhaps, fresh eyes could help the article improve. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to have more input. But in an RfC, you need to have something more specific for other editors to comment on. For example, a question: "Should the article's lead be modified in [insert specific way]?" I don't think that that's a great statement of the issue, since (as I see it) the argument is less about whether the lead should be modified and more about whether the lead should be scrapped and started from scratch. But it's your RfC, so go nuts. Dyrnych (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would love suggestions about what the RfC should say, as I am not certain myself. I simply firmly believed that we needed new eyes on this, and it was suggested that I could use a RfC when I went to the Wikipedia Help IRC. I may well have misunderstood the purpose of the RfC, but the hoped result is to bring in new editors to bring new insight and viewpoints into the article, and perhaps resolve some of the issues we have been having. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple of questions:

1. Is the Lede an adequate summary of the article?
2. Could the language and emphasis of the Lede be improved to a more neutral tone?
3. Does the style and wording represent an encyclopedic tone?

--Kevin Murray (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be improper for me to add all of those to one Request for Comment? Further, would it be allowable for me to edit said RfC at this point? (I am unfamiliar with the RfC process in general.) And, finally, do we agree that those are good things to request comment on? They seem to aptly summarize the matter to me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(The issue being that I would need to insert the comment near the top, I presume? Thus messing up the order of this conversation.)Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Those seem like reasonable questions. Dyrnych (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us go with those, then. I concur that they seem reasonable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Should I do something to remove this request, and create a new one with those specific questions, or simply trust that the other editors will see them when they arrive? Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest starting the RfC over with a well-crafted, neutral, specific question. Otherwise it will (most likely) be impossible to gauge consensus, and the ensuing wall of text will have been for naught.- MrX 01:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How would I close this present one, then? If someone could to that, I would welcome it. I will then start a new one with the three questions listed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:51, 29 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.

Funeral today (8/25)

I added to the article mention of the fact that the Brown family is asking that protesters suspend for a day so they can focus on Michael and his funeral and burial. (Side note: BBC is reporting that Sunday was the first time that Brown's mother had seen Michael's body since the day of the shooting. I lost a wife and a baby. I can't imagine what it would have been like to go 15 days without being able to have been with them. Add to that the trauma of the four hours the body lay on the street.) - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First time being able to see? Cite for that? It is common for funerals to be delayed until a body is released after autopsies -- the third autopsy doubtless delayed the funeral a couple of days in itself. I have heard of cases where a body was not released for months during an investigation. And the time on the street was due to investigation requirements, though it ought to have been covered sooner and more fully (the covering did not reach all the way to cover the feet of the very tall victim - 6'4"). Collect (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested cite: "She said she had seen her son's body at the morgue for the first time on Sunday since the day of the shooting."

BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28924099, same cite I used to source the information about the family's call for a day without protests and unrest. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Which does not support "been able to see", alas. She does not say she was refused the right to see,and, indeed, part of the normal identification routine is to have a family member identify the body at the morgue. The claim you wish to make is not directly supported by the source as a claim of fact. So far I have not found any source for the identification of the body or by which family member it was done, though. Collect (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in my comment supports your claim that I wished "to make a claim." Guess I better put the s-es of shame on the side note so that people won't waste any more time discussing something that was a side note, not something to be picked apart mercilessly. Seriously, Wikipedia is not for the weak of heart. And I would never suggest to a friend that they go through what I have been through for the last 16 days. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Refutation of Eye-Socket Fracture Allegations

Hoping for helpful advice. The source is Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, now with Fox.

The statement in the article is this: "Williams said handheld videos of the aftermath of the shooting show Officer Wilson with no signs of injury. He added that no attack should have necessitated Brown being shot six times."

The question is this. Is it usable as a cite or maybe even as a direct quote? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Juan Williams is a noted doctor? Ah ... Perhaps you should ask your local doctor whether a fractured eye socket would instantly be apparent to onlookers who are fifty feet away. Unless, of course, Juan Williams is an expert in that area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That "answer" was unhelpful. Anyone else? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you note Juan Williams is not qualified for any opinions about swelling etc. from cellphone videos from fifty feet away for any medical judgments. Clearer? Collect (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearer, yes. Sensible? I'm not so sure. This isn't limited to a medical assessment. It embraces as well the universal understanding that if someone just broke a bone in your face that you would feel pain and act in some way as to favor it. Michael Brady said that when those bullets went into the arm of Michael Brown, that he held it down by his stomach, probably because he was in pain. An obvious indication of injury. No such obvious indication is seen in the video of Darren Wilson. He just seems puzzled, or to use Tiffany Mitchells' term, "bewildered." -- (kind of like if he just got teleported from the Enterprise and suddenly got dropped on his feet next to a dead body) -- a view which I do not hold in isolation. I just think that it bears repeating that notable RS analysts expressed skepticism of the eye socket fracture claim based on their analysis of video clips finally released by the police that didn't seem to support in any way such a claim, in light of the fact that claim has been called into question by reliable sources -- admitting, of course, that the resolution of the video in all cases is insufficient to refute a claim of a bone fracture or tear. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with "User Collect". Everyone has an opinion about this stuff; the opinion of Juan Williams (who is he?) holds no weight. He is just a TV pundit. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What you all seem to be missing is that my question was a yes or no question. Can Juan Williams be used as a source of commentary. RS. Yes or no. I wasn't asking for advice on how to disqualify him, which, personally, I see no reason to do as his views are hardly minority views among those who are skeptical of the police's forthrightness in this matter. WP:WEIGHT Implicit in your too helpful-by-half-answers, I read a yes. So thank you after all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Citing the opinion of a person who is clearly unqualified to hold such an opinion of fact is against Wikipedia policies, and against WP:BLP as the claim involved a living person. Juan Williams is a political commentator, and his political opinions, as a notable political commentator, can be used properly described and cited as opinion. If you wish to change the policies, go to the policy pages and edit them. Collect (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, there's also this source from Julian Cummings of CNN discrediting the eye socket fracture: link. Unfortunatly it's from an anonymous source "close to the investigation". It looks like we're not using anonymous sources here so, I'll just put this out there FYI and we'll wait for further confirmation? Saeranv (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention, his (Juan Williams's) opinion is biased. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That actually doesn't matter if we're citing him for his opinion (not that we should in this case). Dyrnych (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Just wanted to throw that in. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, how many white players in this story have we accused of being biased so far, collectively? If I'm not mistaken, the number of black players who have been so tagged is at least six now, Juan Williams just being the most recent example. I would hope that we would be a little more fair and balanced in slapping people around with accusations of bias. (Oh wait. I'm white. And I got slapped with that too. Well, at least you're trying.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No evidence that gun went off in the police car

Delete: There has been no confirmed evidence that gun went off in the police car. Article makes it seem like the police officer pursed Michael Brown because his gun was discharged. Gidoreal

We use what the sources state - nothing more. We do not know what evidence does not exist for sure. Collect (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Things I've collected in my head in the last two weeks.

Chief of Police Jon Belmar says that the gun went off in the car.

Dorian Johnson said that Darren Wilson fired a shot from inside the car at Mike Brown when he was in the scuffle with Brown.

Police have never said how many casings were in the proximity of the car, either inside or outside.

Some witnesses have no recollection of hearing a gun shot while the altercation through the window (or inside the car, is how some people interpret Belmar's very vague description of that part of the incident.

Early accounts said that Brown's mother had been told by someone (apparently the day of the shooting) that her son had been shot 8 times.

A mysterious video uploaded to Facebook the day of the shooting has several individuals in a kitchen discussing details such as the theft of the cigarillos from the Ferguson Market, putting down rumors that the theft might have been from the Family Dollar Store, the Quik Trip, or Sam's Meat Market. When the number of bullets is discussed, the speaker says that the officer shot him four times, paused, then shot him four more times, [paraphrasing] no one in the room challenges that particular.

I am thinking of putting up a subpage where all of these details are listed in tabular format by witness to make it easier for all of us to keep track of what each has said and how the claims do or do not appear to correlate. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

except to the degree that reliable sources have made those comparisons, creation of that tabular format is likely to fall afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You are deciding what the categories are, and how each statement falls into those categories, and which do or do not agree with the others. Thats all WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Meant to say "personal" sub page. You guys don't miss anything.  :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Somoene might even complain about that. It might be less hassle to post it on a personal blog, where you can do whatever you want and answer to no one,Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Can I ask you this: why is it necessary or useful for us as Wikipedia editors to track which accounts do or do not appear to correlate? Dyrnych (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that for about 14 days or so now, we have been in the business of telling people which accounts do correlate and which do not? Exhibit A: The lede as is stood for several days until about two days ago. And no, I haven't checked it lately. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not telling anyone what to do. Rules are rules and must be followed (by some people). But I will say this. Absent any analysis in this article of which facts do and do not align, in the near term, at least, it is going to be of little value to anyone. It's those on the cutting edge who are sifting this through logically who are making the greatest contribution to the public's understanding of this issue. And I know. Wikipedia Talk is NOTAFORUMFORDISCUSSINGWIKIPEDIA'SVALUE. There. I said it for you so that you don't have to. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reason: Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype.

SOURCE: Reason: PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson

Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/25/pcp-hallucinations-in-ferguson

Think of this as a variant of the "witnesses are notoriously unreliable" analysis that perhaps should be in the article because of the enlightenment it brings to those who think that five witness saying the same thing ends the matter. Of course, me, I have no wishes or fishes in the matter. It is a really well written article though. MyPOV Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that website is a WP:RS, and what is said there is quite dubious speculation. Why bother? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No doubt there are plenty of op-eds that suggest as much. I'd give this just slightly less weight than the militarization of local police reaction. But first you need to find these opinions. The Washington post had one in the last few days IIRC.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that Reason is at least as reliable and acceptable a source as The Daily Caller. Reason is a long-published dead-tree and online magazine, and while it has a clearly-libertarian editorial slant, it's generally considered editorially-sound. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is slightly off topic, but bear with me. I was going to comment that we're not citing the Daily Caller for factual claims, but I realized when looking over the article that a user has repeatedly restored an version of the bystander account that explicitly relies on the Daily Caller for the notion that the bystander supports police claims. I've restored the consensus version, which is appropriately hedged. Agreed that the Daily Caller is not an RS, in any event. Dyrnych (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe someone restored the Daily Caller section again. At least, at the time of this post, it had been restored. Is there any way we can prevent this? Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored it. It's the version that in-text cites the Daily Caller as the source of the claim, rather than just stating that the bystander account supports the police. It's not great, but I think it's the consensus version. Dyrnych (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your statement. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Going back to the section title: If tests show a drug, we report the finding of the tests. Wikipedia should not in any way affirm anything other than facts in such matters. Anything ascribed by reliable sources to witness statements gets ascribed to those sources and witnesses, and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. PCP, to the best of my knowledge, would be part of a "contentious claim" covered by WP:BLP and would need strong sources and not an off-hand comment by someone. That noted, the "ugly stereotype" term used above is not called for. Collect (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that this section's title is the subtitle of the referenced article: "PCP Hallucinations in Ferguson: Blaming drugs for Michael Brown's death revives an ugly stereotype." Not editorializing. Dyrnych (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not usual to use such an inapt Wikipedia section title for a section on the basis of "the source uses those words" in any event.Collect (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You may attribute the unusualness of my section heading to a desire to head off any inclination to run with the PCP theories that I'm seeing among my cop friendly social media acquaintances (which number about 95% of those posting on the issue). Police initially said that the toxicology analysis would take many weeks, then released their claim/announcement that Brown had marijuana in his system. If it really takes many weeks to do PCP analysis, for example, then we could well see another surprise and delayed announcement from the police which has the effect of shifting more suspicion from Wilson to Brown whether deserved or not. My objective having been accomplished, I like to think, this section may be archived, or at a minimum a more "apt" section title may be applied. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why Black and White?

I believe African-American and Caucasian should be used instead of black and white. Other articles, like the shooting of Trayvon Martin, refer to my terms instead of those. Why do the edits keep getting reverted? CitiV (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources we have refer to Brown and Wilson as black and white, respectively. There's no appreciable difference in the terms, in my view. Dyrnych (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No difference in my view also. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe we should match the sources, if possible. The terms are similar, anyway. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I could have sworn we went through this already. But since you bring it up again, I'll abandon my previous stance in favor of calling Wilson IndoEuropean, or Indie, for short. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's just stupid. The media nowadays just uses the words 'black' and 'white' to further the whole race card thing! And we're trying to be neutral, aren't we? African American and Caucasian sound MUCH MORE NEUTRAL. CitiV (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am relatively new, but I believe what we are trying to achieve here is consensus and impartiality, with a framework of reliable sources. It would seem, however, that not many support your proposition, Citiv, and, while you believe it to be neutral sounding, it's not the wording used in our reliable sources. That's at least two strikes against it. For now, I believe we should keep the wording black and white, even though you seem to believe that the media is "further[ing] the whole race card thing", and it would seem that several others think we should keep the wording, as well. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what's the value of that argument, CitiV. Black/White, or African-American/Caucasian, the race issue remains, and both usages are neutral. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You guys aren't seriously responding to my facetious comment, are you? Your indents suggest that you are. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me, CitiV, this is the same situation as the comma-before-Jr thing. You're letting your own personal preferences and biases (we all have them) guide your thinking, rather than looking to policy and guidelines. In this case, policy says we reflect what RS says. There are good arguments out there for both ways, but I'm not going to present the argument for black-and-white here. I simply don't allow my mind to go there. If you have a generally negative opinion of the motives of mainstream media, editing articles like this one is going to be a continual and endless struggle (there are many other kinds of articles where media is of less importance). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with the claim that African-American and Caucasian are more neutral. Both of those terms are value laden. Black and white are more accurate, and frome what I've seen, the most common terms of reference in relation to this article. 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Makeup of Ferguson MO Grand Jury

Relevant? http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/blacks-12-grand-jurors-ferguson-case-25088526 Morpheus ad (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That is already in the article at Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Grand_jury - Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the article mention that the three blacks are comprised of two women and a man? Morpheus ad (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The gender and race should be mentioned for all jurors. It is germane. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if gender sex is relevent but the race breakup is definitely relevent (as it is there). - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikiwand

Great new tool to read WP articles with great typography and layout:

• The Ferguson unrest article http://www.wikiwand.com/en/2014_Ferguson_unrest
• This article: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. How do I get that to work on an article, any article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's an app, there's an option to download it for your browser on the top menu bar. It is much, much nicer. Saeranv (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Or it appears you can just take the title part of the WP URL and precede it with the string http://www.wikiwand.com/en/. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and if I were just a "reader" I might use it exclusively. Problem is, I'm often "just reading" and see some bad spelling/grammar that I can't resist fixing. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I know the feeling ... The Wikiwand dropdown menu has an "edit article" menu item. :) - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bystander heard on video

This is not adequately sourced. This does not come from reporting on any law enforcement investigation. I also listened to the video several times and it far from clear whether the person speaking in the background was speculating. Unless there is professional analysis performed on the tape and they reported in reliable secondary sources, it has no business in Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. I am One of Many (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is whether the sources are reliable for the claim made. Unless you qualify as a reliable source, I fear the fact you can not hear something is not actually usable on Wikipedia, alas. The claim is that the reporters listening to the recording hear the bystander. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that both sources have a right-wing WP:NPOV and there are no other sources, which isn't surprising because it is fairly clear listening to the tape that there is nothing substantive there. There is no analysis provided in either source and part of what they report is a link to the YouTube video, which the reader is suppose to listen I guess. This kind of biased tabloid material has no business in a Wikipedia article. BTW, the only interesting conversation on the tape is one witness reporting hearing two sets of multiples shots, which the FBI now has a recording of and is investigating per CNN. I am One of Many (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that the interpretation of the video is specifically attributed to those sources rather than being stated as fact. That's what we do with biased sources. Dyrnych (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The inherent reliability of this witness is no greater, and no lesser than that of any of the other purported witnesses. We all only have what they say - we have no proof for any of them that they actually saw what they say they saw. It has been covered by other sources (although I freely admit these are not tier 1 sources). [7][8] [9]Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source mentioning the ambiguity of the video could be found, perhaps that could be included? Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There won't be though because it is pretty clear from listening to the tape that the guy didn't really see what happened. I suggest everyone listen it--it was part of the reporting, so it is up to us to listen to it just like we do written text. I am One of Many (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you listening to the right conversation? Its not the "loud" voice its the quieter one at 6:00 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Listen starting at about 6 minutes in for about a minute. The guy says something about going back into his house and then comes back out and says he sees the truck "right there" and says "I don't know what happened". Then another bystander says "What happened?" The guy says "He ran the police were still in the truck." Then he says "I don't know." Then he says the "He was in the truck fighting them. Jumps over the truck and then he ran. The police got out and ran after him. The next thing I know he jump back towards the truck and the police have their guns drawn." The bystander then asks "The police shot him?" And he says (hard to make out): "The police shot him." Next thing he says that I can make out is "I'm thinking they missed." Hard to make out anything else. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper, this does belong in here without professional analysis. It simply isn't clear how much is actual observation and how much is speculation. I am One of Many (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So what we're all saying, right, is that fairness is going to get no help from the Wikipedia Protocols this time either? Yes, my question is rhetorical. No need to answer it. My mother warned me there would be days like this. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH first and foremost and then spend some time reading WP:RS. Ravensfire (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The video is part of both sources. The video is like a quote in an article. We have to read or listen to them. A relevant read is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, item 4. The "Twitter" section above it also is tabloid junk. I am One of Many (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Twitter guy was thoroughly discussed in this archived section and consensus was reached. No need to restart that discussion here. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we have reason to doubt the transcripts from the sources? Collect (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the video we do. Since the video is included in both sources, we have an obligation to listen to it and compare it to the transcripts. They don't exactly match up.I am One of Many (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the larger points of the video and twitter sections. These simply don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Neither are evidence that would be entered in any legal proceedings. They are vague and not even clearly consistent with each other or with established evidence such as the autopsy report. These sections are just not encyclopedic. I am One of Many (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to re-discuss the Twitter, would you please start a new section so as not to combine issues here? I'd be happy to contribute to such a rediscussion, as there's something that wasn't brought up inthe other one. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I listened to the video, and it really does not seem to match up, from what I can hear. Of course, my hearing is not perfect, but all I heard was something about running, and something about a truck. The words in between were... Iffy, at best. I would be all for excluding it, as if the video does not match up with the claims, I believe that would mean the source was unreliable, wouldn't it? Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that any listening to the video is OR. IMO, all that matters is RS, so the question is whether one source, The Daily Caller, is enough to pass the RS test. My opinion is no. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that it would be OR if we took it off of YouTube and listened to it, but in this case it is provided by the sources, so I view it as something we have to assess in deciding the reliability of the information we are including. If say, we had two transcriptions that didn't match, we would at least have to say what was said on the video was unclear. That is one of the issues we have here. I am One of Many (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that kind of assessment going on with other content, although I haven't considered every piece of it. But, for example, what is the assessed reliability of an eyewitness statement from a person who can't prove they were there? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to agree that the source is not reliable. Therefore, should we not remove it, even if the path we took to arrive at that conclusion differs somewhat? Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Only those currently present agree on that. Several senior editors spoke against removal, so we would need more than the three of us. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How would we go about getting their opinions on the points presented here? Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume that it's an important enough question that they'll post when they have the time. If they don't, I think it's an important enough question to ping all of them that spoke against removal. If they still ignore, then status quo wins for lack of consensus to change. I don't know of any way to force someone to respond to an argument. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you perhaps be more specific about what the question is? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the question is: Should the "Bystander heard on video" subsection be removed? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not be removed. Its WP:SECONDARY sources discussing directly relevant WP:PRIMARY material at the scene of the crime, by someone claiming to be an eyewitness so is highly relevant. Regarding reliability, certainly some sources (Conservative Treehouse in particular) are not reliable. Others that have covered the video itself are very reliable (CNN has run the video, but not commented on the bystander). The Daily caller while certainly an outlet with a POV, per WP:BIASED (part of WP:RS) "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." We have plenty of content sourced to HuffPost, Buzzfeed, Slate, and Vox (Run by Daily Kos), etc. Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Add to that the other sources mentioned in this thread [10][11] [12], and we have sufficient sourcing for inclusion. That being said, we must be careful to follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that the transcript particular words heard, and what they mean are coming through the filter of the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Audio of shooting incident

This could evolve to be quite crucial, if confirmed: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown shot : [13], [14] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dunno about "crucial" as all accounts suggest a pause -- either after the shot from the car (posited) followed after a pause by shots at a fleeing person (one set) or from warning shots fired at a fleeing person followed by shots aimed at an advancing person (another possibility) or almost anything in between (including shots at Brown's arms being separated in time from the final shots to the head). Collect (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC) .

Yeah, the pause was always known. 10/11 shots is new, but would have come out in any case during a trial without the audio. Since only 6 shots hit, that does give more plausibility to the possibility that there were "back" shots that just missed. It can also swing the other way though since there was not a delay for the final shot which hurts the "execution style" narrative. While 10/11 is a bit high (One would normally expect bursts of 2-4) its not ridiculously so. Slightly better than 50% hit rate, with a decent number of the hits being way to the edge - another example of cops with poor marksmanship unfortunately. In any case, I think we should certainly cover that the audio exists, its been covered by multiple reliable sources now. However, we should be careful not to say in wikipedias voice that it IS audio of the event, or that it details any particular facts - everything must follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as what the audio means is obviously subject to interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact one might suggest that either a second officer fired at least two shots (depending on the timing of the shots), or that the first shots were deliberately wide of the mark. As a rule of thumb, folks tend to cluster shots when firing in rapid succession, rather than aim each shot individually (ok -- one guy on a TV show was almost superhuman in aiming time.) Additionally, the question of echo occurs - which means some audio expert will have to try duplicating the sound patterns. In short -- it does not appear to settle much of anything now, but once audio experts work on reproducing the sounds, the material may be important. Time will tell, and there is no Wikipedia "deadline". Collect (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Time will tell, but I read this quite differently, per WP:NOTFORUM, I will keep this to myself. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Another plausible scenario, if we were to believe Wilson and his assertion that Brown knocked the shit out of him, is that his vision could have been affected by the blow to the side of his face, which would account for his "poor marksmanship" and "wide of the mark" shots. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome forum discussion guys. Sad to see that it has ground to a halt. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So what if we talk about the article? Google News now has the audio article on the top fold of its home page. Who wants to be the bold person who tells the world that we at Wikipedia are actually aware of this development? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Interantional Business Times: Mike Brown Shooting: Audio Clip With Gunshot Sounds Could Provide Insight On Ferguson Teen's Death

http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-audio-clip-gunshot-sounds-could-provide-insight-ferguson-teens-death-1670588 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone sees any RS articles that happen to mention the mathematical fact that 6 bullets (per the autopsy) is 2 bullets more than 4 bullets (the number of shots we hear presumably after Mike Brown turns around), suggesting that at least one and perhaps two bullets had to have hit Michael while he was facing forward and away from Officer Wilson (for instance when he was running away), if you could please paste the link and a note on my personal talk page, I'd be most obliged. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No articles say anything remotely like what you are hoping for. The probability is that the additional bullets actually missed Brown completely. Baden was clear on this. Collect (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Under (one of?) Wilson's accounts, as well as Piaget Crenshaw's account the initial shots happened in (or slightly outside) the car, while Brown was assaulting (or otherwise engaged with) him. There are many ways to interpret the sequence of shots, its goign to be very difficult to prove any of them absolutely correct or incorrect. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

More on the audio recording [15], [16] - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure what your edit summary meant -- are you implying that the gun Wilson had contained ten or more bullets? So far I did not think even the make of gun has been published, has it? At this point, the audio seems to be the very epitome of "inconclusiveness". Cheer. Collect (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not sourced anywhere reliable that I can find, but the conservative blogs claim Wilson's gun was a Sig 226 (possibly a 229 model) .40, which is a 12+1 gun. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)